Engine Failure Does Not Cause A Fatal Accident In An Ultralight Aircraft!

[farri]

Where that is proven, its the book that needs to be changed.

I think that statement needs further discussion...My original use of the term "Book" was a figure of speech so I`ll now point out that it`s the regimented, by the rules way of doing things that I`m talking about and in this case, flying! in my case, flying High-drag, low-momentum Ultralights.

 

Q: How does anyone prove anything that goes against the conventional thinking of what`s considered to be the tried and proven methods and the rules made to uphold these methods, when doing anything outside of that, is considered to be dangerous and illegal?

 

Frank.

 

 

[turboplanner]

I think that statement needs further discussion...My original use of the term "Book" was a figure of speech so I`ll now point out that it`s the regimented, by the rules way of doing things that I`m talking about and in this case, flying! in my case, flying High-drag, low-momentum Ultralights.Q: How does anyone prove anything that goes against the conventional thinking of what`s considered to be the tried and proven methods and the rules made to uphold these methods, when doing anything outside of that, is considered to be dangerous and illegal?

Frank.

We are required, not requested to fly to a set of published regulations; for most people that's not hard to understand.

 

If any of those are unsafe, or are causing accidents, they need to be amended.

 

Very easy to prove with a body lying on the ground.

 

If your words "conventionally thinking of what's considered to be the tried and proven methods and the rules made to uphold these methods mean compliance with the regulations, then that effectively means "the Book" and there is no problem.

 

If your words mean "something I made up for myself" but it doesn't comply with those regulations, you're out in no man's land. While nothing happens, nothing happens, but when there's an accident there's no protection from prosecution.

 

If you did make something up from your own experience and that's better than the existing regulations, then you should advocate and seek support for the particular regulation to be amended.

 

 

[farri]

Turbo, In your words, "Where that is proven, its the book that needs to be changed."

 

I thought your statement was worthy of further discussion and that I`d made myself very clear about what needed discussing by posing it as a question!

 

To me, your reply above appears to be more of a lecture than an attempt at sensible discussion and as I`ve been flying for half of my life and know the system well enough, a lecture is exactly what I don`t need or want.

 

Frank.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Turbo, In your words, "Where that is proven, its the book that needs to be changed."I thought your statement was worthy of further discussion and that I`d made myself very clear about what needed discussing by posing it as a question!

To me, your reply above appears to be more of a lecture than an attempt at sensible discussion and as I`ve been flying for half of my life and know the system well enough, a lecture is exactly what I don`t need or want.

 

Frank.

Maybe someone else might understand what you're saying.

 

 

[Mick]

Regular audits to underpin instructor standards.

That's a joke. RAAus allow, er, sorry, require many Instructors / schools to self audit.

 

I posted about that some time ago & based on the lack of response not too many people were bothered by that fact. Personally I believe it is just plain wrong.

 

 

[turboplanner]

That's a joke. RAAus allow, er, sorry, require many Instructors / schools to self audit.I posted about that some time ago & based on the lack of response not too many people were bothered by that fact. Personally I believe it is just plain wrong.

I’d love to hear the reaction if you tell that to someone from Industry. Bit of a conflict of interest there.

 

 

[M61A1]

What is the worth of a system that requires you to die to demonstrate that it needs to change?

 

The idea that you can make a rigid set of rules to cover every eventuality is just plain stupid, but our regulators seem to believe you can and that anyone who believes otherwise should be prosecuted.

 

Law does not mould reality.

 

 

[turboplanner]

What is the worth of a system that requires you to die to demonstrate that it needs to change?The idea that you can make a rigid set of rules to cover every eventuality is just plain stupid, but our regulators seem to believe you can and that anyone who believes otherwise should be prosecuted.

Law does not mould reality.

Let’s say you could start again from scratch; would you do it?

Bear in mind PL is still hovering over you as the organiser.

 

 

[Jerry_Atrick]

Maybe that's the diiference between Aus and here. The CAA here will use prosecution only as a last resort and prefer compelling errant pilots to further education (sometimes futile) to remediate the problem. Only in flagrant, persistent or fundamentally bad beraches will they bring the clipboard out.

 

 

[M61A1]

Let’s say you could start again from scratch; would you do it?Bear in mind PL is still hovering over you as the organiser.

If I was starting from scratch, our current PL state wouldn't exist. It is essentially the root of the problems we have as a nation.

 

 

[turboplanner]

If I was starting from scratch, our current PL state wouldn't exist. It is essentially the root of the problems we have as a nation.

So how would the injured and the families of deceased manage to pay the cost of living out their lives?

 

 

[M61A1]

That's their problem, and the whole idea of this type of aviation. You accept the risk involved. When you accept that risk, you accept it on behalf of your family also.

 

why should anyone else be responsible for looking after my family or me if I hurt myself while participating in my hobby.

 

I do accept that there would be liability if someone actually does something stupid and hurts an innocent bystander, but the current standard of PL based on the cases you post, is unreasonable to say the least.

 

 

[turboplanner]

That's their problem, and the whole idea of this type of aviation. You accept the risk involved. When you accept that risk, you accept it on behalf of your family also.why should anyone else be responsible for looking after my family or me if I hurt myself while participating in my hobby.

I do accept that there would be liability if someone actually does something stupid and hurts an innocent bystander, but the current standard of PL based on the cases you post, is unreasonable to say the least.

I’m only posting the unusual ones; the ones likely to catch you out. However we are looking at a hypothetical start from scratch. So I make a mistake which I was trained not to make and my passenger becomes a quadriplegic. Home modifications, full time 24 hour nursing staff for an expected 35 more years of life will cost him $10 million. Who should pay.?

 

 

[M61A1]

Your passenger got in with you willingly, it's all on him. If you want cover for your pilot's mistakes as a passenger go RPT. The warning sign in the cockpit needs to be legally binding REGARDLESS.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Your passenger got in with you willingly, it's all on him. If you want cover for your pilot's mistakes as a passenger go RPT. The warning sign in the cockpit needs to be legally binding REGARDLESS.

His savings are gone within a couple of months. He sells his house, and that covers a couple of years, his wife takes a second job, can’t hadle it, buys a 357 magnum and shoots me. She’s sent to prison, and the State pays from him to spend his life in a flophouse with ice addicts and mental cases.

Not such a good system. The person who screwed up got away.... until he was shot.

 

 

[M61A1]

His savings are gone within a couple of months. He sells his house, and that covers a couple of years, his wife takes a second job, can’t hadle it, buys a 357 magnum and shoots me. She’s sent to prison, and the State pays from him to spend his life in a flophouse with ice addicts and mental cases.Not such a good system. The person who screwed up got away.... until he was shot.

Sounds like a bit of a fantasy.. they both screwed up. A system that finds blame just so someone else can pay for your decisions is worse. One could easily argue that in your case the defendant , faced with losing everything may go and shoot not only the claimants, but their lawyer also. I have to say, I'm surprised it hasn't happened here yet.

But starting from scratch....

 

For all rec flying, there would be no design limits or weight limits, just limits on where they could be operated, depending on the standard they were built to.

 

There would be the option of self teaching, but with assessments required for endorsements. You would be allowed to prove competency without flying a set amount of hours. ( how competency based training should be)

 

Anyone operating for hire or reward (including training for reward) is regarded as "commercial" and held to a "commercial" standard.

 

The regs would look a lot like FARs especially in regard to low flying aeros and such.

 

Strict liability would not exist with a few exceptions such as airspace incursions. ( which would also mean being anywhere you shouldn't for your type and qualification)

 

That's just for starters.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Sounds like a bit of a fantasy.. they both screwed up. A system that finds blame just so someone else can pay for your decisions is worse. One could easily argue that in your case the defendant , faced with losing everything may go and shoot not only the claimants, but their lawyer also. I have to say, I'm surprised it hasn't happened here yet.But starting from scratch....

For all rec flying, there would be no design limits or weight limits, just limits on where they could be operated, depending on the standard they were built to.

 

There would be the option of self teaching, but with assessments required for endorsements. You would be allowed to prove competency without flying a set amount of hours. ( how competency based training should be)

 

Anyone operating for hire or reward (including training for reward) is regarded as "commercial" and held to a "commercial" standard.

 

The regs would look a lot like FARs especially in regard to low flying aeros and such.

 

Strict liability would not exist with a few exceptions such as airspace incursions. ( which would also mean being anywhere you shouldn't for your type and qualification)

 

That's just for starters.

The cost when things go wrong have to be paid from somewhere, unless the medical industry does it for free, the rent is free, kids are educated free etc. The alternatives are not so easy to come up with but there’s nothing to say there can’t be a breakthrough.

 

 

[M61A1]

The cost when things go wrong have to be paid from somewhere

Yes, but you're only "robbing Peter to pay Paul".

The guy flying, probably has no more resources than the guy dumb enough to sit next to him, so what is the point of assigning guilt to one and not the other based on "someone has to pay"?

 

Realistically in rec flying, you ( should) take on full responsibility the moment you make the decision to strap on that aircraft, if you expect someone else to pay for ANYTHING that goes wrong, get out, and go and buy a Virgin or Qantas ticket. End of story.

 

 

[Jerry_Atrick]

I don't think fault (rather than guilt) is cut and dried and it will depend on the circumstances of each case. For example, say your homebuild, built by yourself, was subject to all requisite RAA inspections during build and approriately signed off, had its maintenance performed rigorously to pubished standards, maybe an annual insepction from an RAA designated inspector, all signed off and you took someone flying with the placards in the a/c and you briefed the pax that the element of risk is higher in RAAus a/c than, say RPT, you have slown the a/c properly and on landing, a wing folds due to some undetectable fatigue, the a/c tumbles to the ground form say 30'; you both survive but are para or quadraplegic. It's not the fault of the pilot nor the pax. As the pax knew the risk was higher of something going wrong and they acquiesced to that risk, this can be argued to be a case where let the loss lay where it falls. It's very tempting and it is a valid argument.

 

However, the difference is the pilot is likely to fly in this high risk situation often and the pax likely not. It may be the first time the pax has flown and the only time the pax ever intends to fly. Or maybe you are both good buddies and he comes up occasionally for that weekend fishing trip away. Maybe, unlike us, the pax really has no clue in terms of how to contextualise the magnitiude of the difference in risk between RPT and RAA as they have no idea about aviation other than what aircraft are. Where I am going is that when one partakes in a risky activity, they have the option (and should) insure to mitigate the consequences should the risks materialise. In other words, a pilot will likely have requisite insurance to cover these events or have decided not to. But for the occasional pax, would they likely have insurance? In theory, the pilot should not be at fault, but do we want to have a situation where someone who is really ignroant to the real risks and probability of those risks and as they do it so infrequenty and therefore do not (or cannot) have insurance be left out on a limb, so to speak?

 

Also, consider the innocent bystander. Life is a risk; a tree limb may fall down on your head (Anyone been to Steavenson's falls in Victoria, near Marysville?) It would be hard to argue the council should be liable to a limb falling off a tree and int his case sadly killing at least one youngster (may have been more). If the pilot did everything right, is he at fault because when his wing fell off at altitude, it donked some innocent bystander on the head and killd him, after all we are always at some risk wherever we are?

 

I think making it a strict liability tort, as in the UK, takes into account a balance of theory and practicality and says, well, pilots, you know much more about this that you lay pax, and the means to mitigate the effects of something going wrong, in reality, is not generally available to the pax. Rather than have Turbo's scenarios develop, you guys have to make sure you have in place mitigation for your pax and bystanders or they'll take it from you.

 

Sort of works, I think.

 

 

[Bruce Tuncks]

The breakthrough would be to enable people to do things at their own risk, and that includes financial risk from litigation.

 

For myself, I want to do things at my own risk and if I am so silly as to hurt somebody then I am prepared to pay.

 

Since I have never seen this happen, I regard it as a small risk, (albeit with a big outcome), that I am prepared to take.

 

Gosh if you live your life in fearfulness, you need to stay in bed.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Ah the dreams..........

 

 

[facthunter]

They do what's required on the day and revert to form afterwards. Nev

 

 

[turboplanner]

Eh?

 

 

[coljones]

If I was starting from scratch, our current PL state wouldn't exist. It is essentially the root of the problems we have as a nation.

It would be a sorry world if people could not be compelled to take charge of their actions and responsibilities.we might go back to vigilante states and anarchy. There are problems with limited liability as people use them to avoid responsibility.

 

 

[M61A1]

What you describe appears to be what we currently have. It is a sorry world.

 

Turbo’s Tasmanian quad bike girl for instance.....behaves like a git, gets hurt, parent sue farmer for millions, and WINS...how is that taking responsibility for your actions?