turboplanner Posted January 16 Posted January 16 30 minutes ago, jackc said: Does this incident bring to light the deficiencies of RAA Insurance? Seems to me this needs to be investigated otherwise members could be compromised on what is deemed a legitimate claim? No, someone just has the bull by the horns. There has been no suggestion whatsoever that either of these people were negligent. Some good legal answers were given to the questions but Public Liability centres around duty of care and negligence, it is not third party insurance.
BrendAn Posted January 16 Posted January 16 13 hours ago, Roundsounds said: If any type of stall scares the hell out of you, you need to find a competent instructor to help you get over the fear. Takeoff and landing are far more risky manoeuvres than stalls at a safe height. I reckon the fear of stalling rubs off from instructors who also have a fear of stalling / spinning. i disagree. if you don't have a fear of stalls and spins you are probably over confident. my instructor was not as you say at all. i said the p92 full flap stalls scare me because of how sudden the wing drop is. done lots of stall training and that is the only one that i don't like. so please don't insult the instructor. he is a high hr commercial pilot as well as raaus. 2 1 1
BrendAn Posted January 16 Posted January 16 5 hours ago, RocketShip said: I have found the trim on the Tecnam came sometimes get mistaken for the push to talk button. If you have flown another aircraft with the PTT button in the same place as the Trim button on the Tecnam you can mistakenly press the Trim button thinking you are pressing the PTT button when making a radio call. Especially when new to this type of Trim control, or haven't flown for awhile.When it happens it takes you by suprise and there is the delay for your brain to work it out. By then you have a very nose down attitude and you are fighting with the control column to keep the nose up. Someone with less experience could get into trouble. It is something you will only do once. It gives you a bit of a fright. Have never been a fan of Trim buttons on top of the control column. i find when training the electric trim is that slow i end up leaving it neutral and not bothering with it unless i get told to. i like the jabiru manual trim better. 1 2 1
BrendAn Posted January 16 Posted January 16 4 hours ago, danny_galaga said: Dave was flying tecnams every day. But I don't know about the other pilot. a google search said the other pilot was very experienced too. 1
Blueadventures Posted January 16 Posted January 16 Was the instructor instructing or just along for a ride in the new aircraft? Who was left seat / PIC? 1
facthunter Posted January 16 Posted January 16 Electric trim and wires through a metal pipe? Just the thing to finish you off in an older plane. Applying the other direction should trip it OFF or at least arrest it. Nev 2 1
facthunter Posted January 16 Posted January 16 You can be PIC from any seat. The rule is be sure you both know who itis at all times, I'm in NO way suggesting this is the problem here. Nev 2 1
BrendAn Posted January 16 Posted January 16 2 hours ago, Markdun said: Bill, while I’m not aware of the details of the RAA insurance policy and you may be correct in that, it is worthwhile to point out though that a passenger’s estate has no legal jurisdiction to sue for the tort of negligence, or even a deliberate action for that matter. A person can only sue for civil damages if they have suffered damage, and according to law the death of of a wife or child is not damage unless it causes you nervous shock. More importantly in most jurisdictions in Australia (we are a federation), except the A.C.T., tort law reform about a decade ago means that families of a passenger killed in an RAA aircraft even if they did suffer damage/injury (like nervous shock, loss of income, loss of ‘consortium’) would not be eligible as flying light aircraft is an inherently dangerous recreational activity that is obvious. Further the little yellow cockpit warning signs makes it additionally apparent that the passenger knew of the risks and assumes the consequences of them materialising. So in this respect I agree with you; the RAA insurance is pretty much useless for a passenger, and I think that is way it should be (though for children I’m not so sure). The thing is we should tell passengers truthfully about the risks; I do. But it is not useless to a spectator injured on the ground or property damaged on the ground, or ppl in injured in say a GA aircraft you collide with etc. Bt the way those same tort law reforms also severely restrict patient’s rights to sue doctors for negligence. The objective of the reforms was to reduce insurance premiums and was championed by active lobbying of our governments by big insurance companies who have a voice, unlike us citizens. Of-course no one has gone back and assessed whether insurance companies did reduce their premiums or whether they just increased executives’ salaries and returns to shareholders. i am confused with this post mark. this stuff is all a bit over my head, but when i was looking for insurance raaus put me onto their broker. he told me raaus passengers were covered up to 200k i think by the raaus policy. so are you saying the clause is there but due to the placards on the panel it would never get paid out anyway. i know the public liability works because when that jabiru at gawler had an off runway excursion and hit the hangar all the building repairs were paid promptly by the policy. 1 3
derekliston Posted January 16 Posted January 16 3 hours ago, Lightwing Bill said: The accident is a very sad event. Sad for the two individuals and also sad for the families and friends. Once again, the coroner will take over the evidence and the police will be instructed to determine who died, where and when they died, and the cause of death. The coroner is not required to, nor does it have the resources to determine the cause of the accident. The ATSB says it will "help", but that may be no more than looking out the window at the weather or seeing if there is a media opportunity for the ATSB. The coroner is not required to release its report to RA-Aus or the general, public. As a result, the cause of this accident like all RA-Aus registered aircraft accidents, is unlikely to ever be determined. That puts us all at risk. There could be a latent defect in the aircraft, checklists or maintenance procedures and we will never know until the "holes line up". CASA has failed to comply with its own policy of achieving an acceptable level of safety and making our skies as safe as reasonably practicable. The CASA CEO and Chairman of the Board have been alerted to the situation (as if they didn't know) and appear to have done nothing to rectify the situation. The passenger's estate is unlikely to get any benefit from the RA-Aus Member's Liability Insurance Policy (MLIP) due to the lack of an official investigation into the cause of the accident. The RA-Aus Board has refused to even put the process for making a claim on the RA-Aus website. The process for the passenger's estate to make a claim involves issuing a letter of demand to the pilot or pilot's estate. That letter of demand has to include evidence that the pilot was negligent. Evidence would be from an ATSB report if it existed. The pilot then makes a claim against the MLIP to cover the letter of demand, up to the passenger limit of $250,000. There is no evidence that that amount has never been paid by the insurer. If that is the situation, it would appear that; No ATSB report = no evidence = no payout from the MLIP. I It's a great policy for the insurer. How many other unfortunate families of people who die or who are injured in RA-Aus registered aircraft accidents have found themselves unable to get some compensation from the MLIP? Why doesn't RA-Aus reach out to these people and try to help them get some support from the MLIP? The RA-Aus Board has refused to tell members what claims have been made in the past. Does it bother you that the $600,000 pa RA-Aus insurance policy is not performing the way we are led to believe it does? Does it bother you that we are flying in aircraft whose safety is compromised because RA-Aus aircraft accidents are not being investigated? You will be with the "mob" if you don't care. CASA also doesn't care as it appears to be only interested in the "big end of town". The ATSB says it doesn't do sport and recreation aircraft accidents reports due to lack of resources, however it appears that the real reason is that sport and recreation aircraft accidents don't generate enough publicity for the Bureau. It's over for the two blokes who died, but it is a long haul for the relatives and friends. It is a pity that the organizations that we pay are not doing what can be reasonably be expected of them to prevent tragic accidents like this one. What will you do to make the changes that are needed to make it safer for all and more supportive for those who are affected? I understood this to be a VH registered aircraft???
BrendAn Posted January 16 Posted January 16 4 minutes ago, derekliston said: I understood this to be a VH registered aircraft??? i think this one is 24 reg and the jab that landed on the beach was vh reg. i got confused too. 2
bushcaddy105 Posted January 16 Posted January 16 Very sad to read that Dave Briffa was one of the deceased. While having never personally met, Dave and I shared a common interest in that we both have rare GRAY cars from the early 1920's and Dave was very generous with information and literature when I restored mine in 2010/11. My condolences to both families who I sincerely hope will eventually be advised of the cause of this event. 2 1
danny_galaga Posted January 16 Posted January 16 Again, take this with a grain of salt, but I believe Armin had purchased the plane, and was going to lease it to the flying school. I was to be flying it to get back up.to speed with TD. Seems to me that Dave was giving him a 'type' rating for that plane. In any case getting him familiar with it. I feel that's the general situation. But I don't know who ferried the plane from NSW. So the reverse could have been the case too if Armin was the seller and had ferried it , and then doing a few circuits with Dave to familiarise. 1 2
turboplanner Posted January 16 Posted January 16 3 hours ago, BrendAn said: i know the public liability works because when that jabiru at gawler had an off runway excursion and hit the hangar all the building repairs were paid promptly by the policy. Are you sure that wasn't Third Party Property Insurance? PL relates to people/injury/death
BrendAn Posted January 16 Posted January 16 4 minutes ago, turboplanner said: Are you sure that wasn't Third Party Property Insurance? PL relates to people/injury/death our member policy covers damage to other peoples property as well. raaus-limited-members-liability-insurance-policy.pdf
Flying_higher Posted January 16 Posted January 16 27 minutes ago, BrendAn said: our member policy covers damage to other peoples property as well. raaus-limited-members-liability-insurance-policy.pdf 1.08 MB · 1 download There is $20 mill third party property and a $250k passenger insurance IF the pilot is proven to be negligent, as I understand it. 1
Markdun Posted January 16 Posted January 16 4 hours ago, BrendAn said: i am confused with this post mark. this stuff is all a bit over my head, but when i was looking for insurance raaus put me onto their broker. he told me raaus passengers were covered up to 200k i think by the raaus policy. so are you saying the clause is there but due to the placards on the panel it would never get paid out anyway. What I was saying related to whether the pilot or aircraft owner would be liable to pay financial compensation in respect of injuries, death of a passenger under the tort of negligence in the absence or presence of the RAA insurance. I say they would not. What the insurance contract says regarding payouts would depend on the contract terms between the RAA and insurance company. It may well provide for a payout, and that payout may require proof of negligence. This may be important to some people. For example Bucket’s wife may be happy for Bucket to go fly with Brendan in his RAA listed aircraft, but says, ‘Don’t you go fly with Jimbo in his unregistered aircraft because if you get killed or injured I’d get nothing’. It would be a very different thing if the injury/death was caused by an intentional act, for example, doing unapproved modifications to dual parachutes causing the death of two instructors and one student (as was alleged in NSW). No negligence, as it was deliberate. But in such a case many insurance policies would be voided because the act is also likely to be criminal. In short, the RAA policy does not provide the pilot with any significant protection against being sued by a passenger or their estate for injury or death due to negligence. It does in relation to other third parties. It may provide some additional benefit for passengers, but this is unrelated to any liability of the pilot. 1
Lightwing Bill Posted January 16 Posted January 16 Insurance is hazy on a good day. it's not the big issue. Put the insurance issue aside for now. The big issue is the lack of accident investigation. A group of us who lost 2 good mates in an accident 4 years ago have been fighting with the coroner, RA-Aus, the insurer, the ATSB and CASA to try and get information on the cause of the accident to help the passenger's family make a claim for compensation and to determine if there were issues with the airfield, engine, propeller, lithium battery or airframe that might be relevant to the safety of our aircraft. We asked the ATSB to investigate the accident as there were witnesses, a video and an informal investigation done that strongly indicated that there was an equipment failure in the aircraft. The ATSB refused. CASA dodged the questions, and the RA-Aus Board says it is trying to get more money for the ATSB. The passenger's family were told that they needed an ATSB report to justify a claim of negligence. How likely is it that the Government will give the ATSB more money? Will a government with a maxed-out credit card and struggling to help people pay for the basics in life want to divert scarce money to the lucky members of the community who can afford to fly or own aircraft for a hobby? Even if the ATSB gets more money, it still has the choice of what accidents it is willing to investigate and there is no guarantee that more money will result in investigating sport and recreation aircraft accidents. The extra money is more likely top end up in the form of bigger bonuses for the ATSB Commissioners. Meanwhile sport and recreation aircraft have been falling out of the sky like flies fueled with Mortein recently and we don't know why. It doesn't seem to bother CASA, the ATSB, the coroner, the RA-Aus Board or 99% of the members of RA-Aus. Does it bother you? If so, what are you going to do about it? Mark, you clearly have some knowledge of the insurance industry. It is people like your good self that need to work on getting the issue of lack of accident investigation resolved. Do it for yourself. Do it for your mates. Do it for your family. Do it for all those who have died so far and all those that will die unless we improve the management of safety at the lighter end of aviation. May the force be with you! Bill 1 1
facthunter Posted January 16 Posted January 16 The main purpose/justification for Investigating the Causes of Accidents is SAFETY. The rest is a consequence of that. It's been like that since the early days of flying. PUNISHMENT seems to be the priority of CASA. The safest Pilot is a grounded one. That would no doubt be true but it's NOT the best way to progress things. The Legislation is at fault here compared to that in the USA which is a BIG player in Aviation and is not perfect either... Nev 1 1
turboplanner Posted January 16 Posted January 16 5 minutes ago, Lightwing Bill said: Insurance is hazy on a good day. it's not the big issue. Put the insurance issue aside for now. The big issue is the lack of accident investigation. A group of us who lost 2 good mates in an accident 4 years ago have been fighting with the coroner, RA-Aus, the insurer, the ATSB and CASA to try and get information on the cause of the accident to help the passenger's family make a claim for compensation and to determine if there were issues with the airfield, engine, propeller, lithium battery or airframe that might be relevant to the safety of our aircraft. We asked the ATSB to investigate the accident as there were witnesses, a video and an informal investigation done that strongly indicated that there was an equipment failure in the aircraft. The ATSB refused. CASA dodged the questions, and the RA-Aus Board says it is trying to get more money for the ATSB. The passenger's family were told that they needed an ATSB report to justify a claim of negligence. How likely is it that the Government will give the ATSB more money? Will a government with a maxed-out credit card and struggling to help people pay for the basics in life want to divert scarce money to the lucky members of the community who can afford to fly or own aircraft for a hobby? Even if the ATSB gets more money, it still has the choice of what accidents it is willing to investigate and there is no guarantee that more money will result in investigating sport and recreation aircraft accidents. The extra money is more likely top end up in the form of bigger bonuses for the ATSB Commissioners. Meanwhile sport and recreation aircraft have been falling out of the sky like flies fueled with Mortein recently and we don't know why. It doesn't seem to bother CASA, the ATSB, the coroner, the RA-Aus Board or 99% of the members of RA-Aus. Does it bother you? If so, what are you going to do about it? Mark, you clearly have some knowledge of the insurance industry. It is people like your good self that need to work on getting the issue of lack of accident investigation resolved. Do it for yourself. Do it for your mates. Do it for your family. Do it for all those who have died so far and all those that will die unless we improve the management of safety at the lighter end of aviation. May the force be with you! Bill The principle of public liability is that there was a reasonably forseeable risk, that someone had a duty of care to eliminate that risk, but didn't, even if it was an accidental omission. If you were injured etc as a result of someone breaching that duty of care, you can sue them, but the onus is on you to prove they were negligent, i.e. breached their duty of care. If CASA, ATSB, RAA, and anyone else on your list didn't have a duty of care in that accident, it follows that you aren't going to be wasting your money suing them. The Plaintiff is the one who needs to go out and get evidence which will stand up in Court proving that the Defendant breached his duty of care. It's not mandatory to have an ATSB report (ATSB generally doesn't investigate RAA aircraft), you just have to do the job of obtaining evidence from wherever you can get it, just like ATSB does. The best way to do this is to hire a Public Liability lawyer; I know there are some exceptionally good ones out there because I was part of losing many millions of dollars as a result of their work before we cleaned up our methods and the claims fell away. Your solution is looking inwards. 1 1
turboplanner Posted January 16 Posted January 16 1 hour ago, BrendAn said: our member policy covers damage to other peoples property as well. raaus-limited-members-liability-insurance-policy.pdf 1.08 MB · 2 downloads Well that has both Public Liability and Property Liabilty in the QBE policy package. Not the limits of liability, the no cover clauses, the conditions such as a requirement for compliance with the Air Navigation Act 1920. So you would need to cover all the likely structures you fly over within that property; if you get keen on flying in to City Airports that would include burning out a Costco etc. The Public Liability would need to be around $3 to $4 million per person killed, $12 to $15 for a quadriplegic, and an RPT if you fly with them, so you might need a privaye top up from QBE.
Markdun Posted January 16 Posted January 16 Turbo, I’d suggest you go read some texts on negligence. ‘Duty of care’ is just one element out of four (duty, breach of standard, damage but for breach, proximity) to prove the tort of negligence, and it’s probably the easiest to prove. It’sa side issue as is the insurance payout and pilot’s liability. As Bill and Nev said it’s learning and safety that we should focus on, acknowledging that flying in light planes is inherently dangerous and risky and every flight when we successfully land we should celebrate the fact we have cheated death. The question I see is who reads the RAA incident reports and do they give you insights into how to deal with the inherent risks of flying? I read them, but they give almost zero useful information. Who reads corners reports, and what useful information do they give? I don’t, & from experience Coroner reports only respond to evidence presented to them (they aren’t investigative) and more frequently tailor their reports to give comfort to surviving family (as you would expect as coroners are generally compassionate ppl). I also read ATSB reports,,, but they are very limited. I spend far more time watching Utube reports from channels such as Blancorilio on accident analysis, who occasionally includes Australian accidents. In my view that is a sad state of affairs: we really need better accident analysis and reporting. 2 1
Recpilot Posted January 16 Posted January 16 (edited) 5 hours ago, danny_galaga said: Again, take this with a grain of salt, but I believe Armin had purchased the plane, and was going to lease it to the flying school. I was to be flying it to get back up.to speed with TD. Seems to me that Dave was giving him a 'type' rating for that plane. In any case getting him familiar with it. I feel that's the general situation. But I don't know who ferried the plane from NSW. So the reverse could have been the case too if Armin was the seller and had ferried it , and then doing a few circuits with Dave to familiarise. The former is my understanding. Nigel ferried it from NSW not Dave or Armin. Likely Dave was giving him a type rating for it (of course owner would have first go once it hit the hangar) and would not have been in command. Dave drove Tecnams all day but not the tail dragger. It was new and about to become an option for Aerosport. Tail dragger has a much bigger rudder and more pronounced effect. A bit slow, maybe turb or shear knocked them around, given time of day, maybe Armin thought they were overshooting finals and then a bit too much rudder (maybe ok for the nose wheel Tecnam Dave drove all the time), or maybe it before Dave can correct him, or maybe at 80 years he might not have listened, a stall might have been recoverable but not a spin, all over. 9000 hours of experience just like that. Edited January 16 by Recpilot 3
Blueadventures Posted January 16 Posted January 16 10 minutes ago, Recpilot said: The former is my understanding. Nigel ferried it from NSW not Dave or Armin. Likely Dave was giving him a type rating for it (of course owner would have first go once it hit the hangar) and would not have been in command. Dave drove Tecnams all day but not the tail dragger. It was new and about to become an option for Aerosport. Tail dragger has a much bigger rudder and more pronounced effect. A bit slow, a bit seemingly overshooting finals and then a bit too much rudder (maybe ok for the nose wheel Tecnam he drove all the time) and it's all over. Thanks for info. I had been leaning to maybe a tightening of the turn; however was not there and should never guess. Appreciate the info. Best Regards and condolences to families and all involved. 1
danny_galaga Posted January 16 Posted January 16 Thanks recpilot, I thought that was the case. It should be noted that Dave regularly flew a number of different aircraft at the same airfield other than the Tecnam Golf. In the school itself an Aeroprakt Foxbat. But also a Tiger Moth, Gypsy Moth and when the flying school had it, an Aeronca Champ. My first taste of a TD was with Dave in the Champ. I'm sure he was flying other aircraft too, but these I know for sure. I guess I feel it's worth mentioning so people know he was in constant familiarity with a number of aircraft with different 'personalities' , not just the Golf. 1
Taraz Posted January 16 Posted January 16 Dave was a fantastic friend, a brilliant aviator, an amazing instructor, a true gentleman and a beautiful human being who shared his flying knowledge and wisdom with so many of us. We will miss you greatly Dave and our sincere condolences to your beloved family and friends. As you taught us to fly in this world, may your soul soar with happiness and joy in the realm above forever. RIP mate 🖤😭 5
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now