Arion Lightning EFATO at Shepparton Airport 6/2/22

[turboplanner]

23 minutes ago, Garfly said:

I don't see that there's a connection with the Old Bar accident and normal ops at an uncontrolled field.

If there was no fair and no ferris wheel but an accident in the same place happened would the same kind of judgement be applied?  That is, would the council be liable for simply having an airstrip? How could that be?

 

Have a look in the thread Public Liability; Ballerini v Shire of Berrigan. They just advertised the Murray River.

[Thexder]

1 hour ago, turboplanner said:

 

With the information available so far, I wouldn't be ready to heap all the blame on the pilot.

We don't have an official wind direction at the time he took off; as you say other aircraft were landing downwind earlier, and if there was a pattern to the circuit formatted on the downwind runway, the pilot could have been pressured into not upsetting the apple cart and calling for a circit change or a takeoff on 36.

 

I would say the decision to take off downwind was significant because there was a reasonably forseeable risk in doing so.

 

If he was coerced into making that decision, then the people involved in that may share some of the blame.

 

If no one was in charge of the airport, that's a concern too given  more than one aircraft was taking off downwind.

 

This accident is similar in some ways to the Ferris wheel accident in NSW where a judge decided who was at fault

 

Briefly

A pilot landed on a downwind runway, attempted a go round but couldn’t achieve altitude and crashed into a Ferris Wheel which had been erected in the Runway splay.

 

The Plaintiff sued to Council and Pilot.

The Pilot sued the Council

 

The Judge awarded $1.5 million to the Plaintiff, deciding that the Pilot’s share was 35%

The Pilot’s claim against the Council was unsuccessful.

 

The Court held that the harm suffered was the materialisation of an obvious risk of a dangerous recreational activity as found in Section 5L of the Civil Liability Act (a NSW Act).

 

Law Firm Chamberlains write a summary of the case:

In this link take particular note that there was a reasonably foreseeable risk, and who had the Duty of Care to eliminate that risk.

https://chamberlains.com.au/local-council-sued-following-aircraft-collision-with-ferris-wheel/

 

This case is not likely to attract similar claims since no one was hurt, but it does show that Club Members and Council are at risk if things go wrong.

 

 

You know what, I've just realised that you are right and I get the feeling you always have been right and always will be right. 

 

You know more about the crash and culpability than I ever could... Heck I only witnessed it with 10 other pilots and spoke to the actual pilot of the crash. What the hero would I know. 

 

Lord turboplanner, I submit to your superior intellect and judgement. Case closed. 

[Thexder]

1 hour ago, turboplanner said:

 

With the information available so far, I wouldn't be ready to heap all the blame on the pilot.

We don't have an official wind direction at the time he took off; as you say other aircraft were landing downwind earlier, and if there was a pattern to the circuit formatted on the downwind runway, the pilot could have been pressured into not upsetting the apple cart and calling for a circit change or a takeoff on 36.

 

I would say the decision to take off downwind was significant because there was a reasonably forseeable risk in doing so.

 

If he was coerced into making that decision, then the people involved in that may share some of the blame.

 

If no one was in charge of the airport, that's a concern too given  more than one aircraft was taking off downwind.

 

This accident is similar in some ways to the Ferris wheel accident in NSW where a judge decided who was at fault

 

Briefly

A pilot landed on a downwind runway, attempted a go round but couldn’t achieve altitude and crashed into a Ferris Wheel which had been erected in the Runway splay.

 

The Plaintiff sued to Council and Pilot.

The Pilot sued the Council

 

The Judge awarded $1.5 million to the Plaintiff, deciding that the Pilot’s share was 35%

The Pilot’s claim against the Council was unsuccessful.

 

The Court held that the harm suffered was the materialisation of an obvious risk of a dangerous recreational activity as found in Section 5L of the Civil Liability Act (a NSW Act).

 

Law Firm Chamberlains write a summary of the case:

In this link take particular note that there was a reasonably foreseeable risk, and who had the Duty of Care to eliminate that risk.

https://chamberlains.com.au/local-council-sued-following-aircraft-collision-with-ferris-wheel/

 

This case is not likely to attract similar claims since no one was hurt, but it does show that Club Members and Council are at risk if things go wrong.

 

 

You know what, I've just realised that you are right and I get the feeling you always have been right and always will be right. 

 

You know more about the crash and culpability than I ever could... Heck I only witnessed it with 10 other pilots and spoke to the actual pilot of the crash. What the hero would I know. 

 

Lord turboplanner, I submit to your superior intellect and judgement. Case closed. 

[Thexder]

1 hour ago, turboplanner said:

 

With the information available so far, I wouldn't be ready to heap all the blame on the pilot.

We don't have an official wind direction at the time he took off; as you say other aircraft were landing downwind earlier, and if there was a pattern to the circuit formatted on the downwind runway, the pilot could have been pressured into not upsetting the apple cart and calling for a circit change or a takeoff on 36.

 

I would say the decision to take off downwind was significant because there was a reasonably forseeable risk in doing so.

 

If he was coerced into making that decision, then the people involved in that may share some of the blame.

 

If no one was in charge of the airport, that's a concern too given  more than one aircraft was taking off downwind.

 

This accident is similar in some ways to the Ferris wheel accident in NSW where a judge decided who was at fault

 

Briefly

A pilot landed on a downwind runway, attempted a go round but couldn’t achieve altitude and crashed into a Ferris Wheel which had been erected in the Runway splay.

 

The Plaintiff sued to Council and Pilot.

The Pilot sued the Council

 

The Judge awarded $1.5 million to the Plaintiff, deciding that the Pilot’s share was 35%

The Pilot’s claim against the Council was unsuccessful.

 

The Court held that the harm suffered was the materialisation of an obvious risk of a dangerous recreational activity as found in Section 5L of the Civil Liability Act (a NSW Act).

 

Law Firm Chamberlains write a summary of the case:

In this link take particular note that there was a reasonably foreseeable risk, and who had the Duty of Care to eliminate that risk.

https://chamberlains.com.au/local-council-sued-following-aircraft-collision-with-ferris-wheel/

 

This case is not likely to attract similar claims since no one was hurt, but it does show that Club Members and Council are at risk if things go wrong.

 

 

You know what, I've just realised that you are right and I get the feeling you always have been right and always will be right. 

 

You know more about the crash and culpability than I ever could... Heck I only witnessed it with 10 other pilots and spoke to the actual pilot of the crash. What the hero would I know. 

 

Lord turboplanner, I submit to your superior intellect and judgement. Case closed. 

[kgwilson]

At an uncontrolled aerodrome the rules regarding right of way, taxiing, runway in use etc apply but it is up to individual pilots to make decisions on whether they follow any specific rule. The runway in use can change in an instant if there is a sudden wind change. At South Grafton this happens in Summer at 2-3pm when the sea breeze hits with a solid Easterly & prior to this the RIU could be 26 but after the sea breeze coming in at 15-20knots that changes instantly to 08. Whose fault is it if the pilot decides to land at the instant of the change and crashes into the fence at the end of the runway.

 

It is a known phenomenon so the pilot must take the blame. How could he sue the Aerodrome for his poor decision making. Even if he flew in from somewhere unknown and didn't know about the sea breeze and just heard others on the radio calling 26 as the runway. None of this matters, it is up to the pilot to decide which runway he is going to use. Sea Breeze information is not in ERSA and as far as I am aware ignorance is no excuse.

[Garfly]

 

1 hour ago, turboplanner said:

Have a look in the thread Public Liability; Ballerini v Shire of Berrigan. They just advertised the Murray River.

 

Before embarking on deep legal research that I'm ill-suited to interpret I'd prefer to find an answer to my simple layman's  question.  A supplementary one is this: what does it mean to be a person "in charge" of a publicly available, council owned non-controlled airport?  And why is that person liable for anything a pilot does?

 

Edited February 8, 2022 by Garfly

[turboplanner]

54 minutes ago, kgwilson said:

At an uncontrolled aerodrome the rules regarding right of way, taxiing, runway in use etc apply but it is up to individual pilots to make decisions on whether they follow any specific rule.

Yes but the pilots are also required to comply with State law. The Judge spells it out in the link I provided.

 

It's the same as you are allowed to pass another car on a highway whenever you choose, but you are also bound not to exceed the speed limit.

 

[turboplanner]

1 hour ago, Garfly said:

 

 

Before embarking on deep legal research that I'm ill-suited to interpret I'd prefer to find an answer to my simple layman's  question.  A supplementary one is this: what does it mean to be a person "in charge" of a publicly available, council owned non-controlled airport?  And why is that person liable for anything a pilot does?

 

If a Council puts a sign up on a paddock saying XXXXX Airport and invites the public in, if there's a reasonably forseeable risk the Council has a duty of care to eliminate that risk. They could do that through a Club which appoints an Airport Manager or Airport Safety Manager who then assess the potential risks during the operating period. The Council could then Audit the Club on a regular basis.

If, for example they found someone had put a Ferris wheel on the runway, they would have a duty of care to put a white cross on thr runway to close it, or advise inbound aircraft. The incoming pilot is still making his own decisions but is in a better position to make safer decisions.

That is a simple hypothetican answer, not legal advice. If you're interested or unsure you have to do the reading.

[Flightrite]

Gee I don’t think I’ll ever drive a plane again at this rate, just too risky😂😉

[RFguy]

As the pilot trundled down the runway, did the pilot go through the ritual :

 

1) "If I have an engine failure on the ground, I will close the throttle and apply the brakes"

2) "If I have an engine failure airborne with runway remaining, I will land, close the throttle and apply the brakes"

3) "If I have an engine failure airborne with no runway remaining, I will lower the nose, I will not turn back, I will look for a place to land within the confines of the windscreen, adopt best glide speed of xx knots, and use flaps as appropriate"

Regardless of the engine problems..... Trying to pull the nose up in a panic... I dunno what can ya say. That's a training issue.

 

The aircraft  will not stop flying is the nose is pointed down (or just let go of the stick . trim dependent) 

 

[Thruster88]

7 hours ago, turboplanner said:

If a Council puts a sign up on a paddock saying XXXXX Airport and invites the public in, if there's a reasonably forseeable risk the Council has a duty of care to eliminate that risk. They could do that through a Club which appoints an Airport Manager or Airport Safety Manager who then assess the potential risks during the operating period. The Council could then Audit the Club on a regular basis.

If, for example they found someone had put a Ferris wheel on the runway, they would have a duty of care to put a white cross on thr runway to close it, or advise inbound aircraft. The incoming pilot is still making his own decisions but is in a better position to make safer decisions.

That is a simple hypothetican answer, not legal advice. If you're interested or unsure you have to do the reading.

I think we can all agree the airport is not a factor in this incident. 

 

RAAus pilots, are you being taught takeoff safety speed or "run along with the nosewheel in the air and the aircraft will lift off when it is ready"

[Old Koreelah]

11 hours ago, kgwilson said:

…Sea Breeze information is not in ERSA and as far as I am aware ignorance is no excuse.

I believe anyone can add a Public Notice to an airport entry in OzRunways.

Might be worth adding a Sea Breeze warning.

[RFguy]

but but but surely people do their research.

I guess that might be useful if you are looking for an alternate and dont have time to do your research.  and you use oz runways. Ha. I dont use oz runways.

 

the other thing

 

ALWAYS keep an eye on the windsock ! whether in circuit, or taxiing !

At Cowra in summer the wind goes ABRUPTLY  around from SE in the morning to NW about 9-10am.

You can take off into the wind on 15 and by the time you are abeam downwind, the wind has gone around 180 deg , requiring a little legerdemain to get yourself onto 33 downwind. 

 

 

Edited February 8, 2022 by RFguy

[turboplanner]

1 hour ago, Old Koreelah said:

I believe anyone can add a Public Notice to an airport entry in OzRunways.

Might be worth adding a Sea Breeze warning.

Yes, that's a reasonably forseeable risk.

[turboplanner]

12 hours ago, Garfly said:

Before embarking on deep legal research that I'm ill-suited to interpret I'd prefer to find an answer to my simple layman's  question.  A supplementary one is this: what does it mean to be a person "in charge" of a publicly available, council owned non-controlled airport?  And why is that person liable for anything a pilot does?

 

I’ll give you a simple but historiallly factual one.

In the mid-1980s Waterslides became popular at Council owned pools and people built Waterslide Parks.  People were allowed to jump on whenever they wanted to (the equivalent of a pilot making his own decisions), and a rash of back injuries started to occur. Given that paraplegics are awarded multi millions to pay for their ongoing needs and quadriplegic payouts currently are around $13 million, within a very short time these places were virtually uninsurable, some authorities banned them and others just locked them out of bounds. Many of them were dismantled for scrap.

 

Virtually all the injuries occurred when a person had come to a stop in the pool at the bottom and was hit by a following slider. That was a reasonably foreseeable risk, so the Councils etc had had a duty of care to ensure it didn’t happen, hence the big insurance losses.

 

Someone came up with the idea of putting one person up on the tower and another at the pool. When the slider had vacated the pool he waved a flag and the top person allowed the next slider down. The injuries disappeared, and the waterslides became popular again. Today it’s electronic with barriers preventing the top slider from starting until the pool is vacated.

 

The person in charge of a publicly available Council owned airport does the same job in principle as the flag men; identifies reasonably foreseeable risks and eliminates them.  The term "non-controlled" is a CASA term denoting the CASA level of the airfield in a number of areas. The two functions are different but occurring throughout the day’s flying from the airfield.

[RossK]

49 minutes ago, turboplanner said:

I’ll give you a simple but historiallly factual one.

In the mid-1980s Waterslides became popular at Council owned pools and people built Waterslide Parks.  People were allowed to jump on whenever they wanted to (the equivalent of a pilot making his own decisions), and a rash of back injuries started to occur. Given that paraplegics are awarded multi millions to pay for their ongoing needs and quadriplegic payouts currently are around $13 million, within a very short time these places were virtually uninsurable, some authorities banned them and others just locked them out of bounds. Many of them were dismantled for scrap.

 

Virtually all the injuries occurred when a person had come to a stop in the pool at the bottom and was hit by a following slider. That was a reasonably foreseeable risk, so the Councils etc had had a duty of care to ensure it didn’t happen, hence the big insurance losses.

 

Someone came up with the idea of putting one person up on the tower and another at the pool. When the slider had vacated the pool he waved a flag and the top person allowed the next slider down. The injuries disappeared, and the waterslides became popular again. Today it’s electronic with barriers preventing the top slider from starting until the pool is vacated.

 

The person in charge of a publicly available Council owned airport does the same job in principle as the flag men; identifies reasonably foreseeable risks and eliminates them.  The term "non-controlled" is a CASA term denoting the CASA level of the airfield in a number of areas. The two functions are different but occurring throughout the day’s flying from the airfield.

Your posts in this thread begs the question;

"have you ever flown at local CTAF airfield?"

[Garfly]

24 minutes ago, turboplanner said:

I’ll give you a simple but historiallly factual one.

In the mid-1980s Waterslides became popular at Council owned pools and people built Waterslide Parks.  People were allowed to jump on whenever they wanted to (the equivalent of a pilot making his own decisions), and a rash of back injuries started to occur. Given that paraplegics are awarded multi millions to pay for their ongoing needs and quadriplegic payouts currently are around $13 million, within a very short time these places were virtually uninsurable, some authorities banned them and others just locked them out of bounds. Many of them were dismantled for scrap.

 

Virtually all the injuries occurred when a person had come to a stop in the pool at the bottom and was hit by a following slider. That was a reasonably foreseeable risk, so the Councils etc had had a duty of care to ensure it didn’t happen, hence the big insurance losses.

 

Someone came up with the idea of putting one person up on the tower and another at the pool. When the slider had vacated the pool he waved a flag and the top person allowed the next slider down. The injuries disappeared, and the waterslides became popular again. Today it’s electronic with barriers preventing the top slider from starting until the pool is vacated.

 

The person in charge of a publicly available Council owned airport does the same job in principle as the flag men; identifies reasonably foreseeable risks and eliminates them.  The term "non-controlled" is a CASA term denoting the CASA level of the airfield in a number of areas. The two functions are different but occurring throughout the day’s flying from the airfield.

 

Okay, fair enough ... but I have never heard of a person being "in charge" of operations at an uncontrolled airport in Australia; whose job includes checking pilots for runway choice against W/V and the like.  It would be a practical and legal nonsense. To be 'responsible' is not necessarily to be 'in charge'. I'd hazard a guess that a council's runways had a comparable legal status to its public roads. No flag folks (or white crosses) needed until or unless a particular hazard exists.

 

The Old Bar ferris-wheel accident - 10 years ago already - was a very special case (and not only legally). The report - attached -  is a fascinating read.  By the way, it was mentioned above as involving a 'downwind landing'; the tailwind component at the time of that accident was no more than 3Kt and was not noted as a contributing factor by the ATSB.

Old Bar Ferris Wheel.pdf

[turboplanner]

5 minutes ago, RossK said:

Your posts in this thread begs the question;

"have you ever flown at local CTAF airfield?"

Well it doesn't beg the question, because unlike the old prescription era when there had to be a law for everything or it was every man for himself, Public Liability applies everywhere, even if you give a glass of water to a thirsty friend, but yes I've flow into many CTAFs, and in particular did my training on RAA airctaft at one where the CFI controls the circuit. I must have been lucky because he was anal about not taking off or landing downwind. We usually had no more than three in the circuit and he could sense the sightest change, on one occasion getting all three of us to do the 180 direction change.

 

 

[turboplanner]

48 minutes ago, Garfly said:

 

Okay, fair enough ... but I have never heard of a person being "in charge" of operations at an uncontrolled airport in Australia; whose job includes checking pilots for runway choice against W/V and the like.  It would be a practical and legal nonsense. To be 'responsible' is not necessarily to be 'in charge'. I'd hazard a guess that a council's runways had a comparable legal status to its public roads. No flag folks (or white crosses) needed until or unless a particular hazard exists.

"Responsible person" is probably a better word.

There's no job description and no relation to legality of roads etc. 

If you're the responsible person you have to identify any risks and remove them. You have to decide whether to set out the white crosses or call a Duty Runway or change - Prescriptive legislation is gone permanently.  It might sound daunting if you missed the changes in the 1980s but the starting point is an assessment of the reasonably forseeable risks.

48 minutes ago, Garfly said:

 

The Old Bar ferris-wheel accident - 10 years ago already - was a very special case (and not only legally). The report - attached -  is a fascinating read.  By the way, it was mentioned above as involving a 'downwind landing'; the tailwind component at the time of that accident was no more than 3Kt and was not noted as a contributing factor by the ATSB.

A downwind landing is a downwind landing even if it's only 3 kts. On this occasion the Duty Runway at which other aircraft were landing into wind was a different runway, so there was an obvious choice.

 

I only mentioned this case because it involved a similar landing, and someone other than the Pilot was found to be 65% responsible. 

 

My point is that the choice of runway is relevant to the Shepparton case, so we should not be condemning the pilot just yet.

 

The 51 page assessment by the ATSB was based on the reasons ATSB investigate and I don't disagree with any of it.

 

The link I posted is Chamberlains Lawyers  summation of the case where a Judge decided who was responsible and awarded $1.5 million to a Plaintiff splitting the responsibility 65% to the Council in relation to their duty of care and 35% ($525,000) in relation to his duty of care.

 

ATSB and the Court were looking at different aspects of what happened for different reasons.

 

https://chamberlains.com.au/local-council-sued-following-aircraft-collision-with-ferris-wheel/

 

 

48 minutes ago, Garfly said:

Old Bar Ferris Wheel.pdf 4.59 MB · 2 downloads

 

[Flightrite]

Talk about an over complicated long winded story! Christ I’d hate to be that effected with that much worry!

[peterg]

7 hours ago, turboplanner said:

on one occasion getting all three of us to do the 180 direction change.

Sounds dangerous to me 

 

7 minutes ago, Flightrite said:

I’d hate to be that effected with that much worry!

No need to - a lot of the earlier scribblings are just that.

 

Yet another example of offering ill-informed comment resulting in a good thread hijacked and an eye witness retreating from further comment - I presume because he was fed up.

 

I know there are a few lawyers (not the bush variety) who visit this site and offer no comment even to refute bizarre scribblings - it doesn't take much thought to understand why.

 

[turboplanner]

41 minutes ago, peterg said:

 

I know there are a few lawyers (not the bush variety) who visit this site and offer no comment even to refute bizarre scribblings - it doesn't take much thought to understand why.

 

You should have read more carefully. Chamberlains, who wrote the report are lawyers.

[aro]

23 hours ago, turboplanner said:

I've flow into many CTAFs, and in particular did my training on RAA airctaft at one where the CFI controls the circuit. I must have been lucky because he was anal about not taking off or landing downwind. We usually had no more than three in the circuit and he could sense the sightest change, on one occasion getting all three of us to do the 180 direction change.

This isn't how CTAFs work.

 

If the traffic is students under the supervision of the CFI, this sounds OK. Otherwise it's basically unauthorised air traffic control.

Edited February 10, 2022 by aro

[RossK]

Chamberlains said;

The Pilot’s claim against the council, however, was unsuccessful, and the court held that the harm suffered was the materialisation of an obvious risk of a dangerous recreational activity, as found in s 5L of the Civil Liability Act.

This is despite the council putting a Ferris wheel in the obstacle clearance splay of the runway!

Your use of the Old Bar incident is just a distraction and despite how much you argue it, is irrelevant here.

If a pilot chooses a runway with a 15kt tailwind and ploughs into the fence at the end, it's not the councils fault, duty managers fault, responsibe persons fault or anyone else you want to lay the blame on.

Runway choice, decision to land/take off is always going to be pilots responsibity, not some person on the ground.

[Thruster88]

From the RAAus accident and incident section

6/2/2022	Shepparton Airfield	VIC	Arion	Lightning	Jabiru	3300A	STATUS: Under review EXTRACT FROM REPORT SUBMISSION: At take-off, partial power loss was experie...
STATUS: Under review EXTRACT FROM REPORT SUBMISSION: At take-off, partial power loss was experienced and resulting in a loss of control with a left wing drop/stall. The aircraft left wing tip and nose collided with ground

 

My observations,

 

Pilot error almost never happens to RAAus pilots. It is the good old "gust of wind" or some mechanical issue that causes the broken aircraft. 

 

The report writer in head office suger coats everything. I guess they don't want to alarm the member$. I don't think this helps anyone.