More FAA Part 103 Saga…..

[turboplanner]

2 hours ago, facthunter said:

You don't really get it Turbs. America is the birthplace of flying. and it's a goer there and WAS here.

What don't I get? I know2 America is the birtplace of flying; I've flown there, and flown beside a guy sitting in a plastic chair attached to a pipe boom back in the early days; I don't doubt FAR 103 was a goer there becuae there's plenty of documentary evidence to read.

2 hours ago, facthunter said:

 

All you talk about is it Can't happen unless it's like trucks or racing. things you know about. 

I've likened what JackC wanted to start as like hang gliding; It's also like powered parachutes and I supported someone having a go and I laid out a suggested pathway of specification and draft regulations to start setting up. I wouldn't think it was like trucks and I wouldn't think it was like racing, so you've drifted off into a dream there.

 

2 hours ago, facthunter said:

Paper restrictions and negativity

We all know you hate CASA because you tell us over and over and over again, but nothing's been presented to CASA so there's no point talking about restrictions and negativity. The current problem is the advice on how to draft a specification and regulation has been given but the starting gate stays shut.

2 hours ago, facthunter said:

,  People do DUMB things in fully certified  complex expensive planes  and kill OTHERS. with them.. 

Something we already know.

 

2 hours ago, facthunter said:

When they build things they see how it goes together. and can make it stronger. It's STILL ok to design and build all of a plane in SAAA and  the RAAus but not much of that sort of activity is going on now .

Is this based on registration numbers published?

 

2 hours ago, facthunter said:

It's discouraged, because it's NOT part of what the CONTROLLERS want.

I'll say again patiently; there     is    no   specification or draft regs for Australian jurisdiction to look at so how can the proposal be discouraged and who are the CONTROLLERS?

2 hours ago, facthunter said:

Have you ever Instructed or flown a thruster or Drifter Turbo?  THAT would make you more qualified to have such firm positions on the things that YOU have  been so strongly negative about.

No, I haven't instructed or flown a thruster or Drifter; why would I need to fly those two aircraft to come up with the pathway to set up a specification and draft set of regulations for the Australian equivalent of FAR 103. (and I would have said that was a positive action, not a negative one.

2 hours ago, facthunter said:

If you had a death wish there'd, be simpler and more spectacular ways than building a Part 103 plane to do it.in . Nev

I can't see the relevence of this particular piece of advice.

[aro]

7 hours ago, old man emu said:

I think if you ask anyone here who has built their own aircraft that in order to get it approved for flight by either organisation, you have to show pretty convincingly that it has been built to acceptable standards.

I have in fact built and flown an aircraft and been a member of SAAA for 20 odd years. Builders will generally tell you their aircraft are built to higher standards than commercial aircraft - that may or may not be true.

 

The regulations say that if you provide the required documentation, CASA or an AP must issue an experimental certificate. Documentation includes enough information to allow restrictions to be applied if required for safety of others, but not an assessment of acceptable standards by CASA or the AP. In reality it is very difficult to assess many of the critical parts of a build anyway.

 

If e.g. SAAA had the power to assess a build and deny a certificate, someone they approved could come back after an accident and say that the SAAA are partly responsible because they should have performed a better assessment and denied the certificate.

 

If the regulations say they must issue the certificate, they can't be blamed for following the regulation and issuing the certificate. All responsibility rests on the builder, as is intended.

[jackc]

A Kelpie sold at the Ray White dog auction, top price paid was $33,000 last week, here.

A couple of Part 103 Aerolite 103s for that money 🙂  

[spacesailor]

BUT ! 

Why must a property owner " own " the aircraft flying on his land ? .

I have been offered a NT property  ( north of " Gemtree " ) to look after the house-property.  

AND fly too my hearts content .

spacesailor

[jackc]

I have realised I need to start at the start, to establish credibility.

To me, that means a meeting with the FAA itself.

I think I have enough contacts, to achieve that……

[BrendAn]

4 hours ago, old man emu said:

Me thinks that there is a great deal of that going on. 

 

Whatever happened to the gyrocopter craze of a few years ago when property owners were using basic gyrocopters when doing the basc stock, fences, water inspections over bit acreages?

plenty of gyro activity going on. these days most are production machines costing $100k plus. i have stopped pursuing a gyro licence because i can't get insurance .

[BrendAn]

26 minutes ago, jackc said:

I have realised I need to start at the start, to establish credibility.

To me, that means a meeting with the FAA itself.

I think I have enough contacts, to achieve that……

i will see if i can put you in touch with one of the group who has already approached casa about part 103.  

[BrendAn]

stockton rush . the owner of the submarine titan who died when it imploded the other day was also a pilot and designer/builder of experimental aircraft.

he said safety is a relative thing. if you don't want to achieve anything stay in bed and be completely safe.  i don't think his company would even be allowed to operate in australia with the nanny state attitude here. 

[onetrack]

But Stockton Rush is dead, and all his innovative ideas and his brain is dead with him - all because he refused to take anyones advice re his submersible - and when it was suggested he acquire some third party independent oversight on his radical submersible ideas, he got angry and abusive and told his "detractors" (who were all experts in their underwater fields) they were just stuffing him around with bureaucratic demands that would put his program back for years.

 

If he'd taken their advice, he might have taken a bit longer to get his submersible fully approved, and he could've lived a long and useful life. But there's always "adventurers" who know better than anyone else.

It might've been O.K. if Stockton Rush killed himself only - but he took 4 other people with him - all of whom based their decisions on his assurances his submersible was completely safe. 

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-65998914

 

Edited June 25, 2023 by onetrack

[BrendAn]

23 minutes ago, onetrack said:

But Stockton Rush is dead, and all his innovative ideas and his brain is dead with him - all because he refused to take anyones advice re his submersible - and when it was suggested he acquire some third party independent oversight on his radical submersible ideas, he got angry and abusive and told his "detractors" (who were all experts in their underwater fields) they were just stuffing him around with bureaucratic demands that would put his program back for years.

 

If he'd taken their advice, he might have taken a bit longer to get his submersible fully approved, and he could've lived a long and useful life. But there's always "adventurers" who know better than anyone else.

It might've been O.K. if Stockton Rush killed himself only - but he took 4 other people with him - all of whom based their decisions on his assurances his submersible was completely safe. 

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-65998914

 

yes , probably could chosen a better example.  i think the people with him would pretty silly to think they were safe after all the waivers they signed. i think old stockton was probably a bit smug because of the 10 previous successful dives which weakened the structure a bit more each time until it let go. it was actually his quote about safety which i liked. he was prepared to suffer the consequences of his own actions .   basically that is what part 103 is.  pilot takes full  responsibility  for his safety and his aircrafts integrity.

[turboplanner]

6 hours ago, BrendAn said:

stockton rush . the owner of the submarine titan who died when it imploded the other day was also a pilot and designer/builder of experimental aircraft.

he said safety is a relative thing. if you don't want to achieve anything stay in bed and be completely safe.  i don't think his company would even be allowed to operate in australia with the nanny state attitude here. 

Probably not in the US either, since the company failed to comply with some safety regulations there.

The first lawsuit has been announced on the company and the lawyers are claiming the extensive waivers which were signed by the passengers aren't going to save the company, so that will be a good US example to compare with your nanny state, Australia where much the same would be being reported here.

 

The NTSB has announced it will be investigating the accident and has formally arranged to retrieve the parts.

 

There has already been a report that the combined use of Carbon Fibre and Titanium construction may have been the cause, and if they were bonded together, the coefficients of expansion may come into play.

 

This will be an important case to watch for readers of this forum who believe the US gives a lot more freedom from responsibility than Australia does, and importantly will show how people other than Stockton Rush will become involved directly.

 

[turboplanner]

5 hours ago, BrendAn said:

yes , probably could chosen a better example.  i think the people with him would pretty silly to think they were safe after all the waivers they signed. i think old stockton was probably a bit smug because of the 10 previous successful dives which weakened the structure a bit more each time until it let go. it was actually his quote about safety which i liked. he was prepared to suffer the consequences of his own actions .   basically that is what part 103 is.  pilot takes full  responsibility  for his safety and his aircrafts integrity.

In Australia, and it looks from early comment that the US is now matching us, the full responsibility means full liability for anything where he/she has a duty of care.

That applies whether you operate with a licence and a certified aircraft, or whether you operate without a licence or certified aircraft.

If the pilot screws up or the aircraft fails, yes he does have full responsibility for his actions and if a duty of care was owed to some person or people who are injured or killed by his actions, he will be sued for breaching his duty of care. There are plenty of examples in the Public Liability thread.

[old man emu]

10 hours ago, BrendAn said:

australia with the nanny state attitude here

The crux of the argument going on here is "where does Nanny step in?". Those seeking the introduction of something similar to Part 103 say that a person has the right to self-determination in all aspects. Those who oppose that view say that a person has a duty of care to others, so Nanny should step in.

 

I think both are equally correct, and Part 103 shows this. Part 103 basically says that a person can get themself into the air in any sort of powered, heavier than air machine. That takes care of self-determination. Part 103 then becomes Nanny and sets some limits which go towards protecting other people nearby, but which don't prohibit the person from getting into the air. Those limits also have the advantage of offering a modicum of protection to the person engaging in the activity.

 

It's like Nanny saying, 'You can climb the apple tree to pick some fruit, but don't drop any on the kids below, and don't climb too far out on a limb."

 

It it unfortunate that in this country we have a Nanny who has never experienced climbing an apple tree and refuses to listen to those who have.

[facthunter]

No one's going to make lots of money carrying people to the limit's of anything with a part 103. .Nev

Edited June 25, 2023 by facthunter

[aro]

The submarine is an interesting example - freedom, sure, but should the freedom to build your own submarine extend to the freedom to charge passengers 250K and carry a 17 year old? I think commercial operations do need more regulation, less freedom because paying passengers do not generally have the knowledge they need for an informed decision.

 

This is basically the equivalent of Experimental vs. commercial operations - with some interesting grey areas, e.g. where do adventure flights fit in the freedom vs regulation range?

[turboplanner]

1 hour ago, aro said:

The submarine is an interesting example - freedom, sure, but should the freedom to build your own submarine extend to the freedom to charge passengers 250K and carry a 17 year old? I think commercial operations do need more regulation, less freedom because paying passengers do not generally have the knowledge they need for an informed decision.

 

This is basically the equivalent of Experimental vs. commercial operations - with some interesting grey areas, e.g. where do adventure flights fit in the freedom vs regulation range?

Not correct; public liability is very simple which is why it's been basically unchanged since the 1920s Donoghue v Stevenson case.

 

There's no distinction between experimental, commercial, adventure or private or where you do something.

 

The process is still

Is there a perceived risk in what I'm doing?

If "yes" you have a duty of care to prevent the risk.

If you breach that risk and someone is injured they can sue you.

 

An example is:

You dig a trench in your own garden/back yard.

There is a forseeable risk someone could come along in the dark and fall in.

(a) You put raiings around the trench or board it over = reasonably forseeable risk prevented

(b) You don't, someone falls in an breaks their leg, you'll likely pay tens of thousands for breach; if they die, you'll likely pay around $3 million, If they become a quadriplegic you'll likely pay around $10m-$15m to support them for the rest of their life.

 

There are plenty of cases around to study including those where the plaintiff signed an indemnity but is still compensated.

 

[jackc]

And if you kill yourself on your own property,  by your own behaviour  posing no risk to anyone else.  Its death by misadventure?

[old man emu]

2 hours ago, aro said:

where do adventure flights fit in the freedom vs regulation range?

One could say that the ultimate adventure flight is a parachute jump.  One would expect, given the inherent danger that the adventurist is facing that the regulations relating to commercial tandem jumps would be pretty complex.  However, do those regulations prevent a person doing a solo jump? Look at the numbers who jump from cliffs with the intention of conducting a parachute-assisted flight. I dare say that no pilot associated with parachuting would countenance taking up someone who could not show proof of training. That's the pilot's bit of the Duty of Care saga.

 

I know that Air Combat which does jet flights in L38s conducts a thorough pre-flight briefing before putting a customer in the plane.

[facthunter]

In some' delightful"  places suicide is illegal. Perhaps they could make it a capital offence?  Nev

[old man emu]

2 minutes ago, jackc said:

And if you kill yourself on your own property,  by your own behaviour  posing no risk to anyone else.  Its death by misadventure?

Assuming that we are talking about a happy chappy who dies a result of an impact, and investigations fail to indicate suicidal tendencies, then yes, the Coroner will mark it as "Death by Misadventure".

 

The problem is determining a person's state of mind at any time. I was involved in a fatal involving an ultralight (something like a Thruster of a Drifter (doesn't matter). Background investigations into the deceased raised the question of whether the reason for the flight was suicide. That question could not be given a firm answer, so the Death by Misadventure was probably the Coroner's conclusion. (Not to be confused with coronary occlusion, which is often a Coroner's conclusion.)

[old man emu]

7 minutes ago, facthunter said:

In some' delightful"  places suicide is illegal. Perhaps they could make it a capital offence?  Nev

It used to be an offence, making attempts at suicide an offence as well.

[facthunter]

Who should preside over your RIGHT to continue living more than YOU"? Dog Albitey?  Nev

[turboplanner]

33 minutes ago, jackc said:

And if you kill yourself on your own property,  by your own behaviour  posing no risk to anyone else.  Its death by misadventure?

The Coroner will make that decision.

We've been through this before; if in that process you injure or kill someone else, even though you didn't mean to, or in some way breached your duty of care and someone is disadvantaged as a result, the person can just sue the estate.

[old man emu]

4 minutes ago, turboplanner said:

We've been through this before; if in that process you injure or kill someone else

So we have, but jackc is referring to the pilot of a single-seater becoming a lawn dart without injury to any other person.

[jackc]

3 minutes ago, turboplanner said:

The Coroner will make that decision.

We've been through this before; if in that process you injure or kill someone else, even though you didn't mean to, or in some way breached your duty of care and someone is disadvantaged as a result, the person can just sue the estate.

Yes I agree IF someone else is affected in any way.  
Since pilot is unlicensed and aircraft is unregistered and is not certified and flown on own private property.

Aircraft was not illegal to purchase etc.  Then all risk is accepted by the pilot undertaking the activity.  Looking at an Insurance PDS, there will be no valid claim against any policy.  I have recently been certified of sound mind by Phycological Examination prior to updating my Will.  So, all my marbles are present and correct 🙂