More FAA Part 103 Saga…..

[facthunter]

Operating a single engine warbird over any populous area would seem to be more risky.  I've had offers and didn't do it for that reason.. In the minds of the general population anyone who flies a home built is MAD.. Don't forget the Lawyers of the US Nearly got rid of the 3 biggest producers of certified Light  Aircraft. Is THAT the sort of outcome that's really wanted?  Nev

[BrendAn]

12 minutes ago, facthunter said:

Operating a single engine warbird over any populous area would seem to be more risky.  I've had offers and didn't do it for that reason.. In the minds of the general population anyone who flies a home built is MAD.. Don't forget the Lawyers of the US Nearly got rid of the 3 biggest producers of certified Light  Aircraft. Is THAT the sort of outcome that's really wanted?  Nev

didn't cessna have to include a $100k ins premium in the sale of new cessnas before they were allowed to resume production after they shut down in the 80's.

[turboplanner]

1 hour ago, jackc said:

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 🙂   

 

Is there a wife involved?

[jackc]

Yep

 

[turboplanner]

Well there are quite a few cases where the wife or other dependants has had to sue the estate for pain and suffering and financial support.

 

Some of the cases I've seen extended to  supporting several children aged around 2,3,5 etc through school and the complete education, including tertiary education, clothing and living costs until they come of age, so a million dollars is easily reached for a wife and four young children.

 

 

 

 

[jackc]

No problem for me, wife gets my whole will and I have no blood children……youngest of them is 50, so do they sue my estate left to their mother? 

[turboplanner]

24 minutes ago, jackc said:

No problem for me, wife gets my whole will and I have no blood children……youngest of them is 50, so do they sue my estate left to their mother? 

Best look at the Austlii cases lists if you want actual details; we're only talking generally here.

[spacesailor]

The END of !.

LITiGATION .

Do like NZ , were they made it illegal to SUE .

Simple ! , even thro I lost out . By their gross incompitance .

They refused to put a lock on a door , containing ' boiling salt ' .

Or to put said door at a differant place , to leave an escape for the worker .

NO compensation at ALL .

spacesailor

 

[BrendAn]

failed link

Edited June 26, 2023 by BrendAn

[BrendAn]

4 minutes ago, BrendAn said:

failed link

https://www.instagram.com/reel/Ctn9hWbs6lx/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link

 

[BrendAn]

Just now, BrendAn said:

https://www.instagram.com/reel/Ctn9hWbs6lx/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link

 

mechanical mustering is alive and well from what i can see.

[turboplanner]

10 minutes ago, BrendAn said:

mechanical mustering is alive and well from what i can see.

Two people losing one bull?

[BrendAn]

18 minutes ago, turboplanner said:

Two people losing one bull?

2 out of the whole crew.  most stations are bike and chopper mustering still. i have friends with stations and thats how they do it.  

[BrendAn]

part 103 is on the chart in this video with a cross through it .

Edited June 26, 2023 by BrendAn

[facthunter]

You asked ME who the Controllers were Turbs.  Nev

[aro]

7 hours ago, turboplanner said:

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.

That's not true - you still have the reasonable person test. If a reasonable person would expect a higher level of safety from commercial operations where you roll up and buy a ticket than from a private pilot with EXPERIMENTAL on the side of the aircraft, the standards are different.

 

But public liability is common law, i.e. the law that exists when government hasn't legislated to cover it. Governments recognize that public liability is inefficient, and you can't just let people do what they want and sort it out by suing each other. Public liability doesn't help the 17 year old on the submarine, and can't meaningfully penalize Stockton Rush either. So governments pass legislation to try to prevent things from happening.

 

Lo and behold, we DO have different standards in the legislation for experimental, commercial, adventure flights etc...

[facthunter]

Has an "Adventure " flight been defined?  Lately Normal flights seem to have a large element of adventure in them.   It's ABOUT making a profit and carrying things. A service to the public with regular scheduling RPT it's called. Charter for instance has much lower requirements imposed and is generally more risky.  Nev

[aro]

I'm not sure about the exact regulations, but my understanding is that the warbird joy flights are classed as adventure flights, and are basically commercial operations in aircraft that are not certified to civilian/commercial standards.

 

Edit:

https://www.casa.gov.au/operations-safety-and-travel/travel-and-passengers/adventure-flight-safety

Edited June 26, 2023 by aro

[turboplanner]

37 minutes ago, aro said:

That's not true - you still have the reasonable person test. If a reasonable person would expect a higher level of safety from commercial operations where you roll up and buy a ticket than from a private pilot with EXPERIMENTAL on the side of the aircraft, the standards are different.

 

But public liability is common law, i.e. the law that exists when government hasn't legislated to cover it. Governments recognize that public liability is inefficient, and you can't just let people do what they want and sort it out by suing each other. Public liability doesn't help the 17 year old on the submarine, and can't meaningfully penalize Stockton Rush either. So governments pass legislation to try to prevent things from happening.

 

Lo and behold, we DO have different standards in the legislation for experimental, commercial, adventure flights etc...

There's a lot posted on this site with cases to back it up and a lot of cases on Austlii rather than trying to connect dots in the air.

[jackc]

You know what?  Just get an FAA FAR Part 103 compliant aircraft and just fly.

Fcuk the rules, CASA could not catch  a cold, let alone an unregistered, unlicenced pilot flying around outback Qld, no matter where it was. 

[aro]

46 minutes ago, turboplanner said:

There's a lot posted on this site

Most of it rubbish. For all you post on public liability you don't seem to understand it, or its relationship with legislation.

 

Have you actually studied any legal subjects at Uni, or even high school level?

[spacesailor]

Well !.

One microlite flew into an ' airshow/flyin ' i attended , ( Rylsone )

Looked good , but a little small for standardAustralian heavier bodies. 

spacesailor

[BrendAn]

from 1988.   bit hard to read, apologies for that.

Edited July 4, 2023 by BrendAn

[facthunter]

Some people taught themselves to fly on the Plane they built and there was no FAA to check anything out for them. A coiuple of Brothers named WRIGHT. and others.  We've gone a bit from that and all fighter pilots etc were trained by "INSTRUCTORs' who hopefully Knew what they were doing. This  process stops people finding out a lot of things the HARD way. With Aviation you can learn by your mistakes but chances are you won't live long enough to  make them all. You also don't have to work out what makes a plane fly and be able to  be controlled. There's NOW plenty of information readily available. All that's left is the basic structure and testing sample and sand bags will do that.. A slow plane is not likely to suffer flutter either and lands at a speed you could almost run at.   Nev

[Garfly]

Another video about the Badland Ultralight (Part 103 compliant) now sporting the new Thumpair 40 Horse 4-stroke.

 

 

 

 

Badland Aircraft – 100% Part 103 – 100% Airplane

WWW.BADLANDAIRCRAFT.COM

 

Thumpair – Badland Aircraft

WWW.BADLANDAIRCRAFT.COM