RAA into CTA

[skippydiesel]

27 minutes ago, onetrack said:

Virtually everything advertised for sale, that is used, contains "errors of omission". That is, the seller is carefully avoiding mentioning anything that may detract from the sale.

 

As Yenn says, "Caveat Emptor" is the ruling principle, anytime you want to purchase a used item - and the term is actually enshrined in the law of commercial transactions.

 

Try buying something from an auction - they will tell you virtually nothing about it, apart from what they have seen on a cursory inspection - and for good reason. Most auction sale items come with major faults.

 

Auction houses make it clear in all their T's & C's, that they expect the buyer to be fully conversant with the item, and the buyer accepts the item "as seen", with all faults and misdescriptions.

 

False ! Caveat Emptor(CE) is no protection for the vendor, if he/she makes misleading or fraudulent claims or falsify something like distance traveled/ hours operated, about the item for sale, new or used .

Example You purchase an aircraft that the vendor claims has been serviced according to the airframe/engine manufactures schedules - shortly thereafter you have a serious/costly engine problem and discover that items that should have been replaced at XX hrs were not- the  past their service hours items directly related to the engine problem. The vendor and or his service provider, have made a fraudulent statement in support of the aircraft quality/condition - you have grounds for a claim (not saying it will be easy to follow through)

 

True !To avoid claims general (as apposed to specialists, like art auctions) auctioneers will avoid making any statement about the "quality/condition " of the item for sale that may state or imply a known condition or quality - As Is Where Is/ CE is very much the order of the day.

 

"Most auction sale items come with major faults." - Wow! this is one sweeping statement - I have bought vehicles, machinery, furniture, tools, livestock, even work clothing, from auctions - yet to be disappointed.  You do need to know what you are purchasing and bid accordingly - if in doubt dont bid and never ever "fall in love" with an item for auction before you bid.

 

"misdescriptions" - a vendor is allowed to promote the item for sale, "even gild the lilly a little", present it in a favorable context/light however it is against the law to make false claims to enhance the saleability or value of the item you are selling .

[skippydiesel]

4 hours ago, Ando said:

 

 

4 hours ago, Ando said:

Good topic Skippy and see the point your making. As we are all educated in the rules and regulations of air law and Everyone is responsible for the air they fly in. The prospective buyer is aware of what he and she can do. I feel not misleading. 

Thanks Ando - I try for a good debate. Keeps the Forum interesting.

Edited February 15, 2021 by skippydiesel

[onetrack]

Ahhh, but there's a big difference between making false claims - and conveniently forgetting to draw attention to known faults, that the buyer may not be aware of - because of enthusiasm to purchase, lack of knowledge of the item or its use, or just plain and simple, total ignorance.

Yes, I may have been a little wide-ranging in my opinion of most auction items possessing major faults - but there certainly is a very large percentage of used items, that do have major faults - which are very rarely pointed out by the auction house.

In fact, I find in this era of online auctions, the auction house descriptions are getting worse, they're becoming briefer, they're becoming just plain outright wrong - but you will  find, the auction house legal terms and conditions and definitions, are increasing at an amazing rate.

 

I had a used machinery dealer friend - formerly a manager of a dealership of a large, well-known Japanese equipment manufacturer - who purchased a very large, used motor grader, ex a mining company, from an auction house, quite a number of years ago.

He inspected the machine, started it, but failed to drive it (although driving machines in auction yards is frowned on, anyway) - and he accordingly bid on it, and won it.

 

He organised to have it picked up - but the truckie called him and said, "We can't get this machine to drive onto the truck! The engine runs, it goes into gear - but nothing happens by way of driving motion!"

My friend raced up to the yard and did some rapid checking (he was a trained equipment serviceman) - whereupon he found the machine was missing its main bevel gear in the drive to the rear wheels!!

 

To say he wasn't a happy chappy is an understatement. He tore strips off the auction house management, and called the previous owners management, and ripped strips off their manager as well!

They all denied any knowledge of the missing major component - but that's a bit hard to believe when you consider the machine had to be loaded at the owners premises, and unloaded at the auction house.

 

The mining company refused to acknowledge any wrongdoing - and insisted my friend, being a serviceman by trade, should have inspected the machine thoroughly, prior to purchase.

As far as the auction house was concerned, he bought the machine "with all faults, known and unknown" - in line with their auction policies.

My friend had to wear the loss of substantial repairs to the machine to make it saleable - and I can tell you now, his opinion of that auction house, and that mining company, was pretty low after that episode.

[jackc]

5 hours ago, onetrack said:

Ahhh, but there's a big difference between making false claims - and conveniently forgetting to draw attention to known faults, that the buyer may not be aware of - because of enthusiasm to purchase, lack of knowledge of the item or its use, or just plain and simple, total ignorance.

Yes, I may have been a little wide-ranging in my opinion of most auction items possessing major faults - but there certainly is a very large percentage of used items, that do have major faults - which are very rarely pointed out by the auction house.

In fact, I find in this era of online auctions, the auction house descriptions are getting worse, they're becoming briefer, they're becoming just plain outright wrong - but you will  find, the auction house legal terms and conditions and definitions, are increasing at an amazing rate.

 

I had a used machinery dealer friend - formerly a manager of a dealership of a large, well-known Japanese equipment manufacturer - who purchased a very large, used motor grader, ex a mining company, from an auction house, quite a number of years ago.

He inspected the machine, started it, but failed to drive it (although driving machines in auction yards is frowned on, anyway) - and he accordingly bid on it, and won it.

 

He organised to have it picked up - but the truckie called him and said, "We can't get this machine to drive onto the truck! The engine runs, it goes into gear - but nothing happens by way of driving motion!"

My friend raced up to the yard and did some rapid checking (he was a trained equipment serviceman) - whereupon he found the machine was missing its main bevel gear in the drive to the rear wheels!!

 

To say he wasn't a happy chappy is an understatement. He tore strips off the auction house management, and called the previous owners management, and ripped strips off their manager as well!

They all denied any knowledge of the missing major component - but that's a bit hard to believe when you consider the machine had to be loaded at the owners premises, and unloaded at the auction house.

 

The mining company refused to acknowledge any wrongdoing - and insisted my friend, being a serviceman by trade, should have inspected the machine thoroughly, prior to purchase.

As far as the auction house was concerned, he bought the machine "with all faults, known and unknown" - in line with their auction policies.

My friend had to wear the loss of substantial repairs to the machine to make it saleable - and I can tell you now, his opinion of that auction house, and that mining company, was pretty low after that episode.

Generally, buying anything used from human beings these days is fraught with danger. Most items for sale have minimal descriptions,  particularly on Facebook.  Many are scams,  just look at how many people get scammed with dodgy Bose Headset sales.  People private sell from the back doors of businesses to avoid consumer law.  I suspect this happens a lot with used Avionics.  I have to know who I am dealing with personally if  possible.

[440032]

and I thought this topic was about RAAus into CTA. Silly me

 

7 5 0 0 and ident.

[jackc]

7 minutes ago, 440032 said:

and I thought this topic was about RAAus into CTA. Silly me

 

7 5 0 0 and ident.

Sorry, forgot to calculate correction for wind......drifted off course!

[APenNameAndThatA]

My car is registered and therefore can be driven on the road. I don't need to specify that the driver has to be licenced. Others here have pointed out that aircraft need to be fitted with a transponder before they can fly in controlled airspace. So, it is relevant to the ad. Also, I met a flying instructor once who told me that an aircraft is not permitted to fly over a built up area unless it has a certified engine. In short, saying that the aircraft can fly over controlled airspace is both true and informative. The idea that the pilot needs to be appropriately licenced is obvious and outside the scope of an ad. WAY outside the scope of an ad. 

[facthunter]

Say you sell a truck over a certain GVM, are you required to state you need a special licence.? NO. 

  With houses  etc I think you are required to make known any issues that might damage the value. It's some sort of declaration someone here may know more about.  Nev

[skippydiesel]

2 hours ago, APenNameAndThatA said:

My car is registered and therefore can be driven on the road. I don't need to specify that the driver has to be licenced. Others here have pointed out that aircraft need to be fitted with a transponder before they can fly in controlled airspace. So, it is relevant to the ad. Also, I met a flying instructor once who told me that an aircraft is not permitted to fly over a built up area unless it has a certified engine. In short, saying that the aircraft can fly over controlled airspace is both true and informative. The idea that the pilot needs to be appropriately licenced is obvious and outside the scope of an ad. WAY outside the scope of an ad. 

 

2 hours ago, facthunter said:

Say you sell a truck over a certain GVM, are you required to state you need a special licence.? NO. 

  With houses  etc I think you are required to make known any issues that might damage the value. It's some sort of declaration someone here may know more about.  Nev

Fair comments both - but what of the vehicle being sold, that the vendor claims can be driven on a car licence (there a quite a few micro commercials ,that are in a licence grey area where a certain fit out changes the license required) and the car driver then gets booked, as he drives out of the car yard, for not having the requisite license ??

 

I stand by my statement - if the vendor makes a statement that in false or designed to mislead he/she is culpable

[aro]

19 minutes ago, skippydiesel said:

what of the vehicle being sold, that the vendor claims can be driven on a car licence (there a quite a few micro commercials ,that are in a licence grey area where a certain fit out changes the license required) and the car driver then gets booked, as he drives out of the car yard, for not having the requisite license ??

I'm pretty sure the responsibility is 100% on the car driver to make sure they have the appropriate license for what they are driving. But I don't see any claim like that in the ad anyway.

 

What if a vendor claimed a 28 knot stall speed and it turned out that was IAS and the real stall speed was higher, also the claimed stall speed was at 450kg not the higher MTOW allowed in Australia?

[skippydiesel]

13 hours ago, onetrack said:

Ahhh, but there's a big difference between making false claims - and conveniently forgetting to draw attention to known faults, that the buyer may not be aware of - because of enthusiasm to purchase, lack of knowledge of the item or its use, or just plain and simple, total ignorance.

Yes, I may have been a little wide-ranging in my opinion of most auction items possessing major faults - but there certainly is a very large percentage of used items, that do have major faults - which are very rarely pointed out by the auction house.

In fact, I find in this era of online auctions, the auction house descriptions are getting worse, they're becoming briefer, they're becoming just plain outright wrong - but you will  find, the auction house legal terms and conditions and definitions, are increasing at an amazing rate.

 

I had a used machinery dealer friend - formerly a manager of a dealership of a large, well-known Japanese equipment manufacturer - who purchased a very large, used motor grader, ex a mining company, from an auction house, quite a number of years ago.

He inspected the machine, started it, but failed to drive it (although driving machines in auction yards is frowned on, anyway) - and he accordingly bid on it, and won it.

 

He organised to have it picked up - but the truckie called him and said, "We can't get this machine to drive onto the truck! The engine runs, it goes into gear - but nothing happens by way of driving motion!"

My friend raced up to the yard and did some rapid checking (he was a trained equipment serviceman) - whereupon he found the machine was missing its main bevel gear in the drive to the rear wheels!!

 

To say he wasn't a happy chappy is an understatement. He tore strips off the auction house management, and called the previous owners management, and ripped strips off their manager as well!

They all denied any knowledge of the missing major component - but that's a bit hard to believe when you consider the machine had to be loaded at the owners premises, and unloaded at the auction house.

 

The mining company refused to acknowledge any wrongdoing - and insisted my friend, being a serviceman by trade, should have inspected the machine thoroughly, prior to purchase.

As far as the auction house was concerned, he bought the machine "with all faults, known and unknown" - in line with their auction policies.

My friend had to wear the loss of substantial repairs to the machine to make it saleable - and I can tell you now, his opinion of that auction house, and that mining company, was pretty low after that episode.

In general OMISSION is not a crime - there are exceptions where, in certain environment/goods/services law and safety regulation require disclosures.

 

I sympathise with your friend - I hope he got the equipment at a price that still made it a good buy even after repairs (I always try and calculate the unknown " fudge factor" when deciding how much to bid).

 

As for the shonky auction house - if they knew by way of experience (trouble loading/unloading)  or by notice from the mining company, they had an moral (probably not legal) duty to say the equipment was not mobile. That they did not do so is appalling and unethical.  Hopefully the auction house will loose more, than their commission, by your friend resorting to the FaceBook option. Be very carful to stick to the personal story/factual points

 

The mining company's role - well  they lost almost all control/culpability, when they handed the equipment over to the auction house, UNLESS they gave notice of its defects in writing  FOR THE AUCTIONER TO DECLAIR prior to bidding. The auction house would have been legally bound to pass on the information. I am sure the mining company would have referred to such a communication if it existed. Again this is an ethical rather than legal situation - very much a Caveat Emptor.

[skippydiesel]

3 minutes ago, aro said:

I'm pretty sure the responsibility is 100% on the car driver to make sure they have the appropriate license for what they are driving. But I don't see any claim like that in the ad anyway.

 

What if a vendor claimed a 28 knot stall speed and it turned out that was IAS and the real stall speed was higher, also the claimed stall speed was at 450kg not the higher MTOW allowed in Australia?

The cop would see it that way however the court would likely see that the driver would have had a reasonable expectation, that the salesperson would know the the vehicle required a truck license to operate.  The micro truck being in that "grey area" I referred to,  may have been car license  legal by just a change of body (unladen weight). In the, admittedly unlikely, event that the driver had a written/witnessed statement from the salesperson/car yard , backing his claim that he had been miss informed, he would probably get off with a caution and the sales persons/yard referred to Fair Trading (or similar) for investigation & possible prosecution.

 

I say again the vendor that makes misleading and or false claims, about the good/services they are selling, is (if it can be proven) culpable. In the event of these false/misleading claims leading to a greater crime/incident they may continue to be culpable.

 

For sure the customer/purchaser must also bear some responsibility - the degree will be determined by the court.

 

Back to aviation - 28 knot stall - if true, a fair claim. That it is indicated, rather than true, is neither here nor there (the purchaser/pilot is obliged/responsible to read & understand the POH befor flight). That the stall was established at the aircrafts Max take off weight of 450 kg (as determined by the manufacturer/EU regulations) rather than the Australian Max permissibly weight of 600 kg is also irrelevant, as long as the vendor does not claim the Au 600 kg. Again the POH will specify the Max TO weight and the pilot should fly accordingly.

 

It is well known/understood in the flying community, that aircraft coming from another aviation jurisdiction, may have been subject to different testing and fit out standards (in the US, LSA can not have CS props, retractable undercarriage and must not exceed 120 knots not absolutely sure of my facts here)

[facthunter]

The Short Sandringhams? sold to TEAL wouldn't fly on  3 engines at the weight they "Claimed" they would.  Today the best Simulators are so good that they re  run crashes in them to check IF it's feasible or not for it to have done what it should have. Nev

[APenNameAndThatA]

7 hours ago, skippydiesel said:

 

Fair comments both - but what of the vehicle being sold, that the vendor claims can be driven on a car licence (there a quite a few micro commercials ,that are in a licence grey area where a certain fit out changes the license required) and the car driver then gets booked, as he drives out of the car yard, for not having the requisite license ??

 

I stand by my statement - if the vendor makes a statement that in false or designed to mislead he/she is culpable

So, was there somewhere in the advert where the vendor said that a particular licence could be used??? 
 

Furthermore, you can fly an RA-Aus plane in controlled airspace without an RA-Aus certificate; you just need to be learning to fly and have a Class 2 medical. Also, you don’t need a PPL, you just need an RPL. And you can only do it during daylight hours, where daylight is defined as...

 

Unless the ad referred to licencing requirements (which it seems it did not) it is silly to criticise the ad when we can’t get straight the rules. A correct statement about the rules would take up more space than the ad. And to be thorough, would have to include the entire legislation and regs. On the other hand, saying you needed to have the correct credentials would just be stating the obvious. 
 

 

Edited February 16, 2021 by APenNameAndThatA

[skippydiesel]

39 minutes ago, APenNameAndThatA said:

.............................................
 

Furthermore, you can fly an RA-Aus plane in controlled airspace without an RA-Aus certificate; you just need to be learning to fly and have a Class 2 medical. Also, you don’t need a PPL, you just need an RPL. And you can only do it during daylight hours, where daylight is defined as...

 

..................................................................
 

 

APNATA - I have already acknowledged the exception of, RAA of training schools based within CTA, which makes absolutely no sense to me if the rest of the RAA pilots can not seek similar privileges. I understand that to further confuse the matter, once qualified the RAA pilot can no longer fly from that location - is this true??

 

On the PPL/RPL matter; to be honest I still cant quit get my head around this.As a PPL currently undergoing a tail wheel endorsement training, at a controlled airfield, I briefly looked at down grading my medical to a "Class 2 Basic" (sufficient for an RPL). I didn't get far, as vague suggestions (from CASA) that my variose endorsements  (described as privileges)  may be withdrawn - so I have opted to down grade to a regular Class 2 and retain my "privilege's" whatever they may be.

 

I will repeat an erlier point - a pilot in command of an RAA registered aircraft must have an RAA Certificate - at least this is clear. If the same pilot has a GA License WITH endorsements that allow entry to  CTA he/she may do so, subject to the aircraft meeting the standards required for entry - this bit seems a bit muddy -  see Aro's contribution erlier in the conversation.

 

Back to the advertisement: I will  quote a little more "Can be converted to VH registration and can also be flown in controlled airspace on its current RAAus registration" - seems to me the vendor is trying to make this aircraft all things to all pilots Fair Enough however the last part "can also be flown in controlled airspace on its current RAAus registration" I believe to be misleading best - that's how I started this conversation and where I still stand. There is no attempt to qualify or contextualise this statement - it is designed to mislead.

Edited February 16, 2021 by skippydiesel

[aro]

2 minutes ago, skippydiesel said:

can also be flown in controlled airspace on its current RAAus registration

That's a pretty black and white statement. It's either true or it's not. If the pilot doesn't have the qualifications it's nothing to do with the aircraft.

[APenNameAndThatA]

On 13/02/2021 at 4:24 PM, skippydiesel said:

• I am not advocating RAA into CTA, although I dont see why not, subject to the appropriate training/endorsements and suitably equipped  aircraft

• No comment on the Aviation Classifieds advertisement itself ????

The situation at the moment is the exact opposite: to fly in controlled airspace, you do not need any licence (you are training) but need a Class 2 medical.

[APenNameAndThatA]

18 minutes ago, skippydiesel said:

APNATA - I have already acknowledged the exception of, RAA of training schools based within CTA, which makes absolutely no sense to me if the rest of the RAA pilots can not seek similar privileges. I understand that to further confuse the matter, once qualified the RAA pilot can no longer fly from that location - is this true??

 

On the PPL/RPL matter; to be honest I still cant quit get my head around this.As a PPL currently undergoing a tail wheel endorsement training, at a controlled airfield, I briefly looked at down grading my medical to a "Class 2 Basic" (sufficient for an RPL). I didn't get far, as vague suggestions (from CASA) that my variose endorsements  (described as privileges)  may be withdrawn - so I have opted to down grade to a regular Class 2 and retain my "privilege's" whatever they may be.

 

I will repeat an erlier point - a pilot in command of an RAA registered aircraft must have an RAA Certificate - at least this is clear. If the same pilot has a GA License WITH endorsements that allow entry to  CTA he/she may do so, subject to the aircraft meeting the standards required for entry - this bit seems a bit muddy -  see Aro's contribution erlier in the conversation.

 

Back to the advertisement: I will  quote a little more "Can be converted to VH registration and can also be flown in controlled airspace on its current RAAus registration" - seems to me the vendor is trying to make this aircraft all things to all pilots Fair Enough however the last part "can also be flown in controlled airspace on its current RAAus registration" I believe to be misleading best - that's how I started this conversation and where I still stand. There is no attempt to qualify or contextualise this statement - it is designed to mislead.

Commenting about the vendor’s *motives* is going way beyond the data. And the statement “can also be flown in controlled airspace on its current TAAus registration” is probably totally true. Here, you need to distinguish between what the vendor actually said and what happened in your imagination when you read it. 

[skippydiesel]

23 minutes ago, APenNameAndThatA said:

Commenting about the vendor’s *motives* is going way beyond the data. And the statement “can also be flown in controlled airspace on its current TAAus registration” is probably totally true. Here, you need to distinguish between what the vendor actually said and what happened in your imagination when you read it. 

Is not "motive"  and suggestion at the core of this conversation ?

 

Training has always been viewed as under the control of the instructor - doesnt matter where you are or how far - the instructor is responsible.

 

For my information perhaps you could expand on "........need a Class 2 medical. "  eg why not a Class 2 Basic?

[Jerry_Atrick]

@skippydiesel - are you not secretly a law lecturer and hoping to tease out legal knowledge? Although the subject of the question involves an aircraft, your question is actually of general legal principles. IANAL, but I have studied law in the UK (the law of England and Wales - Scotts and NI have separate laws and legal systems) and a bit in Aus/NSW. So, what I am about to carp on about is UK based... but should be roughly equivalent to in concept if not precision, to Australian law.

 

There will be two areas of law that are involved in advertisements... Advertising standards (or equivalent in Australia). As this is a relatively modern branch of the law, it is likely to be codified and covers things like false and misleading advertising, etc. I don't know too much about the E&W law and nothing about the equivalent in Australia (which I am guessing is different per state). This law wouldn;t provide redress to the purchase of the plane, but it could cost the seller in terms of fines and/or jail, and maybe a criminal offence. I have no idea whether the ad would break those laws.

 

Now, lets assume some hapless purchaser bought the aircraft on good faith and learned, because, say it was homebuilt, they can never enter controlled airplace with it (assuming that also means class D). What  redress does the purchase have. It comes down to the law of contract (or I think commercial transactions, as OT described). Under contract law, which has been evolving since about the 1500's, the law is more codified in Aus than the UK, although there is still a heavy reliance on the common law. It is one branch of the law where casees in the US, Canada, Aus, and NZ are cited in cases in each other's jurisdictions. Contract law deviates a bit between the UK and Australia, with Australia preferring more American concepts (such as punitive damages, something never developed in the UK, which allows restitutional damages).

 

There are two doctrines of contract law that apply: Offer and Acceptance, and misrepresentation (the latter, auctioneers work very hard to not violate). No representation can = misrepresentation, but only in very limited circumstances. Maybe, under UK law, the auctioneer and/or vendor of the dud earthmoving equipment could be sued for misrep through their silence if the fault was that obvious and there is an expectaton or industry practice that obvious faults are disclosed.

 

OK.. First, to offer and acceptance.. Under the doctrine, a contract is only concluded when there is a definiite offer, a definite acceptance, there is consideration, and there is an intenton to enter a legal relationship. Let's dispose of the latter two, because the exchange of money for the plane is consideration, and a contract of such is an intention to enter a legal telationship in the context of the transaction. Let's even forget about acceptance - if the buyer has stumped up the cash and the seller handed over the plane, acceptance will be one of those two item. So we are left with... what was the offer.

 

For a statement to be an offer, it must be able to be accepted without further clarification (i.e. it is precise and unambiguous), and convey to a reasonable person that the maker of the proposal (ie the offeror) intended to be immediately bound by the proposal if the offeror accepted it. It also must be directed to a person or class of persons (legal or living) that are identifiable. On that basis, most advertisements are not offers, but what are termed invitations to treat; i.e to encourage the buyer to make an offer. This goes for TV or even Facebook/Google ads, with or without news feeds.. This is a presumption, that can be rebutted and has been - the famous and seminal case of Carlisle v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company in the 1800s (can't remember the year, 1876 or 1856 pop into my head). Where the ad is sufficiently clear, contains wording that indicates it intends to enter into a legal relationship with an identifiable people (in that case the purchasers of the smoke ball), then it can be an offer, and the purchaser's cash is acceptance.

 

However, normally, it will be the purchaser who is deemed to make the offer and the seller accepting it in the case of advertisied goods - this includes those items in a shop with a price tag on them. Given the wording of the ad, it would appear to be an invitiation to treat... So you would have to look at how the actual contract was formed and what representations were made during the formation of the contract.  On that basis, there is nothing wrong with the ad...

 

Which leads in nicely to a following doctrine of contract law - misrepresentation.. For a misrepresentation to be made, it has to directly relate to the subject of the contract and not be ancillary, it has to be directed or reasonably be deemed to be a factor in the decision of the purchaser to buy, and it has to be an expression of fact, not opinion. So, say, during the contract negotiation (or haggling), they hapless buyer asks, "Are you sure this aircraft is suitable to be flown into CTA?" and the seller responds with, "Yes, I believe it to be able to"... is he making a misrepresentation? Under English law, anyway, the answer is quite clearly no! The words, "I believe it to be" are a clear indication of an opinion and not a statement of fact.

 

Now, the law in Aus may be different on this.. And there may be some codification that overrides the common law doctrine in specific circumstances where the buyer can only rely on opinion.. but the ad is perfectly legal.. it only expresses an opinion.. The advertisement could be for a 3-tonne lump of granite that the advertiser believes can be flown under its own power into CTA.. as long as it is opinion, it is fine.

[Mike Gearon]

43 minutes ago, Jerry_Atrick said:

@skippydiesel - are you not secretly a law lecturer and hoping to tease out legal knowledge? 

 

That's interesting...

 

I read the whole deal above JA. It both makes sense and I'll suggest can be summarised with a word. Yes. Or to expand more fully, yes, the advert is okay and it'd be even more okay with a qualifier such as " I believe". 

 

Interesting question asked above about home built in CTA. I did a brief Google and haven't found answer yet.

 

[skippydiesel]

Jerry_Atrick - LOVE IT !! MORE

[skippydiesel]

2 minutes ago, Mike Gearon said:

.......................

 

Interesting question asked above about home built in CTA. I did a brief Google and haven't found answer yet.

 

Hi Mike -

 

I believe this idea that home builds can not enter CTA (at all) to be one of  the famous Urban Myth's.

 

For sure they will face greater scrutiny than a Certified Aircraft, with much reflection on aircraft/engine model/make history but to say no homebuilt can enter CTA seems to be a tad irrational.

[Jerry_Atrick]

10 minutes ago, Mike Gearon said:

That's interesting...

 

I read the whole deal above JA. It both makes sense and I'll suggest can be summarised with a word. Yes. Or to expand more fully, yes, the advert is okay and it'd be even more okay with a qualifier such as " I believe". 

 

Interesting question asked above about home built in CTA. I did a brief Google and haven't found answer yet.

 

I think, even if it said it can be flown into CTA, as the ad would not constitute and offer, it is still OK from a contract perspective. From a false/misleading ad perspective, it would probably cross the line.

 

On rules around RAA, from reading this forum, it seems a little too restrictive in Aus... and when I finally get back, I may be tempted to stay with GA.

 

8 minutes ago, skippydiesel said:

Jerry_Atrick - LOVE IT !! MORE

You sir, are a sad man 😁

[pmccarthy]

What is true of flying in England is equally true, mutatis mutandis, of flying in Australia. (Had to get some legal Latin mumbo jumbo in here)