Recreational airfield Safety Operations.

[Yenn]

Airfield operators cannot tell pilots what they must do, they can tell them what they must not do at their airport and the pilot can go elsewhere. That applies to GA and RAAus.

 

In my old edition of RAAus Ops manual Section 4.01.It says that if more than 1 aircraft is operating at any one time, then a duty pilot shall be selected. His duties will be to control and direct ultralight operations IAW the CAOs

 

 

[SDQDI]

Today we are held totally responsible for what we do, and there's no prescribed list, so we have to address all foreseeable risk, and that's a wider field than we previously had.

I know I may be misquoting you turbs but I think today no one is held responsible for themselves unless they have assets and are worth suing, if your lawyer is good enough someone else will always be responsible for your/my stuff ups.

 

I think the main trouble today is no one wants to take responsibility for their own actions and that has bred this over litigious society which is always out to find someone else to blame.

 

Yes I understand negligence but it seems today that even honest, small mistakes are counted as negligence I mean after all we are only human.

 

 

[turboplanner]

be negligence

 

I know I may be misquoting you turbs but I think today no one is held responsible for themselves unless they have assets and are worth suing, if your lawyer is good enough someone else will always be responsible for your/my stuff ups.I think the main trouble today is no one wants to take responsibility for their own actions and that has bred this over litigious society which is always out to find someone else to blame.

 

Yes I understand negligence but it seems today that even honest, small mistakes are counted as negligence I mean after all we are only human.

The lawyers will naturally look for big money, the plaintiff has to prove you were negligent, and if you were negligent, your lawyer will have a tough time pinning it on someone else.

 

If you have insurance your insurer handles all that, but don't kid yourself that you can minimise your assets and get away with it. Two young guys with a very old panel van towing a very old car with a rope which was under specification for breaking strain are currently in the process of doing 6 1/2 years, and as far as I can find that was Australia's first mechanical specification case. I looked for it a couple of weeks ago and couldn't find it, but if I do I'll post it.

 

The people who like to do what they like to do without any restraint often quote that line about "responsibility for their own actions", "over litigious society" and often "nanny state", and "finding someone else to blame", but the law about negligence has been around for a very long time. The only real change I have found is government departments putting responsibility into the hands of the people participating.

 

Correct, if someone is hurt, even though you didn't intend to hurt them, forgot to put the lid on the gully trap etc, that could be negligence. One of the key points of Dononghue v Stevenson was that the injury wasn't intended.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Andy if you want to be a smart alec you can get lost and take your own chances. For the others I'll have a look at 4.01 in more detail.

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

Thank you oh benevolent one, I tremble in almost supressed gratitude......as I wait your answer

 

If it comes down to assigning a label of "Smart Alec" then I suggest I'll be called Kettle and you should call yourself Pot!

 

So....over to you P....

 

Andy

 

P.S In all seriousness, at the end of the day my scenario was asked because its all well and good to say "surely its being applied"....but at the end of the day I cant see how as its written........I can see that you might possibly be able to apply the intent if not as written just as you inferred by saying a real election may not take place..... which I think basically proved my point......, but how that application of intent would work in an environment that is RAAus members and a bunch of others, I have no practical idea unless you all get together and thrash it out, and the moment you bother to do that then low and behold you're an airfield committee rather than just a concerned and rule abiding RAAus member IMHO

 

Please don't take it personally I'm not having a go at you, just the concept, In general, if not forced into a corner I generally agree with your points about liability reduction, We all should reduce as much as we can, where we don't we are in effect potentially punishing our non participant other family members cause If I loose everything then it goes that so does my wife and my kids and they personally had nothing to do with it.......

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

Around 1984 to 1986. following a fatality in a South Australian kindergarten, governments realised they they were the ones with the deepest pockets, and started to panic. The State Ministers for Sport had and probably still do, a meeting or two every year where they compared notes and legislation, and decided to get out of risky sports. I assume other Departments also had these meetings because in Victoria the Department of Labour and Industry, where nice inspectors would turn up at your factory and certify the weight carrying capacity of your cranes, chains and all sorts of safety equipment, and sign off a ticket for each one, was closed down virtually overnight and the old prescriptive standards disappeared. DLI used to inspect all speedways, and when I went asking the replacement Department for the specifications they had totally disappeared, and we had to start from scratch establishing crowd distance from the safety fence, safety fence performance and height, catch fence performance and height.Unconscionably, in my opinion, some state governments just didn't tell anyone they were now responsible for their own conduct.

 

So what you are referring to is probably a result of this change in direction, and you could expect less and less procedures provided from government.

 

I agree that following procedures which are there is a must, but I think you need a lawyers insight into duty of care; keeping your eyes open yes, but go over and over Donoghue v Stevenson looking at unintended, foreseeable etc. Today we are held totally responsible for what we do, and there's no prescribed list, so we have to address all foreseeable risk, and that's a wider field than we previously had.

 

Culpable negligence is not something a conscientious person needs to worry too much about, because as Kaz said you would need to be reckless or know that what you were doing was wrong and you can insure against the rest.

 

I agree with you on this; I believe we should be able to design to a known standard hammered out by governments based on safety results over a period of time, however this is part of the trend I outlawed before, and we are now becoming legally liable for our designs.

 

Some people would argue that's fair, but in greenfield design no one gets it right, and the road transport industry is rushing down that path with Performance Based Standards (PBS)

 

So we still have the prescriptive weight and dimensional limits, but you can design a truck or trailer to carry more weight and for about $15,000.00 have it approved by authorised signatories (who carry the public liability), and the operator can carry maybe 5% more weight or volume, and that government will not penalise them.

 

So in spite of some vocal opposition by a few of us over the years we aren't winning the battle.

 

Again, you can insure against liability for this trend (your design).

 

The effect in the transport industry has been an improvement in safety probably because we are much more careful with what we put on the road.

 

With suitable insurance, and not deliberately breaching duty of care this should not see an end, albeit charges have to increase to cover the insurance, and a few people who have great knowledge by are short on academic qualifications may be squeezed out.

 

Unbounded Duty of Care is what we've got. I designed a fibreglass biscuit van on a bus chassis before all this, and with the help of a pattern maker an engineer and some laminators we delivered it 6 weeks later at a competitive price. About eight years ago I looked at building an ambulance using collateral from our system. It was easily doable, and better than what we have now, but the development cost would have been several million dollars. Time moves on.

 

When you take a closer look at the more relaxed laws in NZ and their results the grass is not so green; sure we can't do what we'd like to do, but I'm very happy with the lives I've saved over the years.

Professional liability insurance stopped being available for aeronautical engineers around 2001.

 

 

[dazza 38]

It's all too hard, I'm going to transfer everything I own, the house, my motorbike and plane over to my dog.

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

Did that 25 years ago.

 

 

[David Isaac]

Professional liability insurance stopped being available for aeronautical engineers around 2001.

Was that as a result of actual claims Dafydd or perceived risk.

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

Neither. QLD has a Professional Engineers Act, and it required one to carry insurance. Out of the blue, all the aeronautical engineers registered in QLD were notified that their cover would not be renewed; I think the underwriters perceived too great a risk. The QLD Act had to be revised. I've never had a claim in my 35 years as a CASA design signatory, or my almost 50 years as a professional engineer.

 

Same thing affects suppliers; there are many products that people will not sell if they know it's for use on an aircraft. G. James aluminium used to make the extrusions for lift struts for Australian aircraft manufacturers; they stopped on the instructions of their underwriters. Now Jabiru get their extrusions from India, I think. The fact that lift-struts are 100% proof-tested made no difference to the underwriters.

 

The simple fact is that carrying insurance makes you a target - and you do not get your day in court, the insurer decides. One of my CAR 35 acquaintances had professional indemnity insurance; he was asked to approve the design of the seat that had been built for the Bandierante, by the Australian importers. He performed the structural tests required by FAR 23.561 - which was the applicable design standard; and it passed, so under CAR 35 he had to approve it.

 

However, a fat fool getting into the aircraft caught his foot on the leg of the seat in front, and came down heavily on the centre seat-belt attachment, injuring his coccxyx. Being a smart fool and an insurance agent, he sued my friend for $25,000. The insurer naturally decided to settle, so my friend had to pay the $15,000 excess, despite having an unassailable defence in the wording of CAR 35. AND his premium was doubled - so he retired. He was a considerable loss to Australian aviation - one of the best engineers I've ever known.

 

As it stands, the lawyers use contingency fee billing and the underwriters simply add what their actuarial calculations show is necessary to the premiums, and between the two, it's an unholy racket - tho I very much doubt anybody would get anywhere trying to prove any collusion; after all, what lawyer would represent you?

 

 

[David Isaac]

This PI insurance is ironically a liability for me as well. I agree having it makes you a claim target for the reasons you detailed. Sometimes I think I would be better off having no assets and carrying no insurance. Anyone wanting to claim would discover I had nothing and drop the claim. The trouble is all my clients require that I carry it, so I am insured and a potential target if something happens that on opportunist thinks he can claim on whether I have cocked up or not.

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

David, you're 100% right. I've operated that way all my life, except between 1991 and 2001, when I was trapped by the QLD Act. The premiums I paid during that time were a dead loss. However, to be a "man of straw" and make it stick, you have to have been in that situation for quite a few years.

 

Bill Whitney made no bones about it - he had a placard on his wall, stating that he did not carry insurance. Didn't stop any of his clients.

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

If you have insurance your insurer handles all that, but don't kid yourself that you can minimise your assets and get away with it. Two young guys with a very old panel van towing a very old car with a rope which was under specification for breaking strain are currently in the process of doing 6 1/2 years, and as far as I can find that was Australia's first mechanical specification case. I looked for it a couple of weeks ago and couldn't find it, but if I do I'll post it.

 

That has to be a criminal penalty, not a civil one, n'est-ce pas?

 

 

[David Isaac]

If you have insurance your insurer handles all that, but don't kid yourself that you can minimise your assets and get away with it. Two young guys with a very old panel van towing a very old car with a rope which was under specification for breaking strain are currently in the process of doing 6 1/2 years, and as far as I can find that was Australia's first mechanical specification case. I looked for it a couple of weeks ago and couldn't find it, but if I do I'll post it.That has to be a criminal penalty, not a civil one, n'est-ce pas?

Did they inadvertently kill someone as a result? Yes it would have to be a criminal case not civil to be a guest of the taxpayer.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Professional liability insurance stopped being available for aeronautical engineers around 2001.

What about Public Liability Insurance?

 

 

[turboplanner]

If you have insurance your insurer handles all that, but don't kid yourself that you can minimise your assets and get away with it. Two young guys with a very old panel van towing a very old car with a rope which was under specification for breaking strain are currently in the process of doing 6 1/2 years, and as far as I can find that was Australia's first mechanical specification case. I looked for it a couple of weeks ago and couldn't find it, but if I do I'll post it.That has to be a criminal penalty, not a civil one, n'est-ce pas?

Yes it was culpable negligence, they stopped on a sloping street, which brought the car's mass into play vs the rope's capacity, they both got out to have a talk, and the car driver didn't leave it in gear or apply the hand brake.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Here is my take on 4.01-1

 

RA-Aus Operations Manual Section 4.01-1, Issue 6 – July 2007

 

Paragraph 1 Extracts (where more than one RA Pilot is operating):

 

• “A duty pilot shall be elected from those Pilot Certificate holders present”
   
   
  
• “The Duty Pilot will have the authority to control and direct operations of recreational aircraft that are conducted in accordance with CAOs, CARs, CASRs, or any other relevant legislation as amended from time to time, this manual, and in accordance with the conditions set down by the owner of the field.”
   
   
  

 

 

 

Paragraph 2

 

If it is a training field the Paragraph 1 Extracts do not apply:

 

• The CFI or the agreed CFI is in charge
   
   
  
• The paragraph makes no distinction between RA and GA CFIs
   
   
  

 

 

 

 

Paragraph 17

 

When operating at a flying field which is not their home field Paragraph 1 Extracts do not apply if the CFI is in charge:

 

• Pilots must report to the CFI or Duty Pilot prior to undertaking any operations.
   
   
  
• Visiting Pilots MUST ensure they are properly briefed on local requirements and conditions.
   
   
  

 

 

 

So based on Section 4.01-1 the Paragraph 1 extracts apply:

 

• At your home field, provided it is not a training field
   
   
  
• At another field which is not a training field and where the CFI has said he will not be available
   
   
  

 

 

 

In the first dot point

 

Definition of “elect” (Pocket Oxford Dictionary) – “choose by vote”

 

The Manual doesn’t specify a formal vote so it could be as simple as asking “do you want to be Duty Pilot?” and this can be done in person or by radio.

 

If you can’t agree you don’t fly because RAA has not put the Paragraph 1 authority requirements there for fun. Someone has to be the Responsible Person.

 

In the second dot point

 

It is mandatory for you to call your destination airfields for briefing, and at that time you can establish whether the CFI will be in charge, or whether you will need to elect someone. It would pay to have a scanned copy of RAA Operations Manual Clause 4.01 to email to an RA CFI if he seems vague, and to a GA CFI, who is likely to be impressed at the professional responsibility.

 

I’ve never been at a field where there has been a GA/RA conflict, or even nasty attitude, but human nature being what it is, you may be in an area where there are some bigots, and there may be conflict or resistance, or sarcasm at times. If it is already coming from some RAA members, then it’s likely to come from some GA members too.

 

SUMMARY

 

You have little hope of demonstrating duty of care if you don’t follow a safety regulation, particularly your own.

 

You also have little hope if you delete a safety regulation because you don’t like it.

 

I’ve previously mentioned the lack for volunteer supervisors compared to other risk sports, and RAA has actually done quite a good job to ensure there is a framework to ensure supervision at airfields, given the geographical scatter.

 

By comparison, a shooting event requires several volunteer officials, and a car race meeting requires a Chief Steward and a team of stewards around the track, a Machine Examiner/Scrutineer to check all vehicles, and so on.

 

There’s no doubt that the airfield will be safer with a Responsible Person to carry out the authority duties and ensure duty of care is being carried out.

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

What about Public Liability Insurance?

Thanks, Turbs. Well worth spelling that out for RAA members on this website.

 

Don't know about the availability of public liability insurance for professional aeronautical engineers; it was hardly relevant under the QLD Professional Engineers Act. The public didn't beat a physical path to my door; it was all done by email and/or FAX. If there was physical presence needed, I went to the client, not vice-versa. I live on a very out-of-the-way rural property.

 

For any aircraft, one needs insurance against the strict liability of the Damage by Aircraft Act (federal) which covers public liability to persons on the ground; and, I think, a public liability cover for other airspace users.

 

Re 4.01, the RAA manuals have effect solely as a condition for the exemptions granted to RAA registered aircraft, in CAO 95.55 - so there is no way they can extend to non-RAA aircraft. That said, the normal regulatory requirement to get prior permission to use a private airfield, should bring to light any operations manager's existence, and simple courtesy should apply, if no more serious consideration does.

 

Our "home field" is our own private strip, and it's definitely not a training field. We may fly-in to other fields, which will normally be gliding fields; but mostly we plan to go on safari with the aircraft on its trailer, simply for the convenience of having wheels, so we'd get whatever briefing there may be before we commit aviation at any site.

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

David, you're 100% right. I've operated that way all my life, except between 1991 and 2001, when I was trapped by the QLD Act. The premiums I paid during that time were a dead loss. However, to be a "man of straw" and make it stick, you have to have been in that situation for quite a few years. Bill Whitney made no bones about it - he had a placard on his wall, stating that he did not carry insurance. Didn't stop any of his clients.

East-West Airlines management's lawyer tried to apply their notion of what a contractor should carry by indemnity to me, in regard to the design contracting I did for them over the modifications to the Laser Airborne Depth Sounder F-27, VH-EWP; I simply pointed out that they needed me more than I needed them, and that topic was dropped. The aircraft reached honourable retirement a couple of years ago. The scarcity of aeronautical engineers had its uses, as far as I was concerned.