raaus getting serious about acr's

[Deano747]

47 minutes ago, skippydiesel said:

Maaaate! RAA (with annual rego renewal )covers my aircraft hull. Comprehensive addresses most other eventualities - about as well covered as I can be.

 

Sorry, where does the hull coverage come in?

Your RAAus membership gives a basic level of comprehensive insurance (but should be topped up to a realistic amount), but I don't see where the rego cost covers the hull.

Very happy to be proved wrong as I have been quoted between 2% and 2.5% of the hull value for that insurance.

[BrendAn]

Raaus is third party liability. No cover for plane or pilot.

[Deano747]

Sorry - meant liability & not comprehensive. Doing my house & contents ins renewal at the same time - should not try and multitask .....

 

And the payout is limited to $1,000,000 where the aircraft insurance brokers are recommending $10M as a minimum with $20M as a realistic figure..

Edited February 28 by Deano747

[BrendAn]

1 hour ago, Deano747 said:

Sorry - meant liability & not comprehensive. Doing my house & contents ins renewal at the same time - should not try and multitask .....

 

And the payout is limited to $1,000,000 where the aircraft insurance brokers are recommending $10M as a minimum with $20M as a realistic figure..

Raaus policy is 20 mil and up to 250k for passenger. Asra has a 1 mil limit on third party but now are offering an optional 20 mil cover for pilots flying gyros that feel they need it. Adds $850 per year to the membership fee .

[BrendAn]

Skippy may have the hull insurance which is available through raaus from the same broker.

[Deano747]

OK - my bad - read the fine print and the $1M is coverage for the building. 

 

The $250K for a passenger seems light considering they could conceivably require medical assistance for a very long time. Going to have to get mine to sign a waiver ....

 

Talked to the broker and he was very helpful explaining it.

[turboplanner]

6 hours ago, skippydiesel said:

So what third party is assessing the safety of the next vehicle you purchase?????? or for your currency as a driver???? in other words  there is nothing diffrent these days.

 

RAA should confine its activities to promoting recreational aircraft/activities, registering the same, lobbying on members behalf and overseeing pilot competence. Anything more will be overreach that will cost you and I for no discernible benefit.

Third Party as in "Third Party Insurance" is a system where the taxpayer picks up the tab for someone's negligence.

 

That's not done in sports like recreational aviation where the person who is negligent is sued, and if you are managing a group of people in a sport and you don't mitigate risks, you the administrator can also be sued, hence administrators can and will find ways to encourage participants to eliminate risky equipment.

[turboplanner]

5 hours ago, skippydiesel said:

Maaaate! RAA (with annual rego renewal )covers my aircraft hull. Comprehensive addresses most other eventualities - about as well covered as I can be.

I wasn't talking about insurance.

5 hours ago, skippydiesel said:

You seem to think I am advocating for unsafe aircraft - I AM NOT! I just dont think RAA should be acting as big brother in aircraft sale/purchase transaction - this is an added administrative cost and likely insurance cover for RAA, that we, the members,  ill have the wear and what practical benefit will you and I get???? .

I'm not thinking anything of the sort; I', trying to help people understand why RAA is doing what it does.

5 hours ago, skippydiesel said:

Anyone, with two brain cells to rub together, can access professional aircraft inspection/engineering report, ask for fellow experienced pilots (preferably in type) to help. IF the purchaser  chooses not to seek third party advice/opinions, the responsibility for the purchase lies with them alone, as it should do.

No one's stopping you from seeking additional self reasurance, but there's an RAA process that has to be followed for their protection and that's a condition under which they will allow you to operate; if they go broke you don't fly.

5 hours ago, skippydiesel said:

In your scenario above - the injured or relatives, of the pilot/passenger have the option to have the cause of the aircraft crash  investigated - if the vendor has been negligent (as you describe) there may be grounds for a compensation claim against his/her estate and even the possibility criminal proceedings - this is surely enough, without RAA getting involved in token QA of an aircraft to be sold/purchased.

You're misunderstanding what this is all about; talk to RAA.

[T510]

16 minutes ago, turboplanner said:

Third Party as in "Third Party Insurance" is a system where the taxpayer picks up the tab for someone's negligence.

 

 

Third party insurance is available from most insurers, it has nothing to do with the taxpayer.

 

Third party liability covers aircraft owners for damage that their aircraft does to third party property, such as houses, cars, crops, airport facilities and other aircraft struck in a collision. It does not cover the owner of the insurance policy

 

For instance the TAC provides third party insurance as part of your car rego in Victoria

Edited February 28 by T510

[turboplanner]

4 hours ago, BrendAn said:

Well if the buyer has half an idea about aircraft he would double check everything like most of us do before every flight.  And the fact that the wing bolts would be missing safety clips is  a give away that it's not finished.

I gave you an example and you've just rewritten it to an example which makes the faults disappear.........

 

Very importantly the Buyer is not responsible for the seller failing to disclose any faults, the seller is.

 

 

 

[turboplanner]

16 minutes ago, T510 said:

Third party insurance is available from most insurers, it has nothing to do with the taxpayer.

 

Third party liability covers aircraft owners for damage that their aircraft does to third party property, such as houses, cars, crops, airport facilities and other aircraft struck in a collision. It does not cover the owner of the insurance policy

 

For instance the TAC provides third party insurance as part of your rego in Victoria

Third Party Insurance which you the taxpayer pay to the government through your CTP annual motor vehicle registration process funds the costs to people injured in motor vehicle accidents. The Third Party fund applies only to the Motor Vehicle Industry.

 

If you are flying an aircraft and through negligance you injure someone, they have the right to sue you in a civil Court. You can protect yourself by paying for Public Liability Insurance.

 

RAA Ltd administers the people flying RA aircraft so they also have a duty of care to mitigate a reasonably forseeable risk and if they breach that duty of care they can also be sued in a Civil Court.  It's RAA Ltd taking action to mitigate risks that people are bitching about.  They are just getting off the subject.

 

 

Edited February 28 by turboplanner

[BrendAn]

23 minutes ago, turboplanner said:

I gave you an example and you've just rewritten it to an example which makes the faults disappear.........

 

Very importantly the Buyer is not responsible for the seller failing to disclose any faults, the seller is.

 

 

 

I disagree. An aircraft is not a car. Any buyer of an aircraft should be double and triple checking everything before that aircraft takes flight. The turbo world where you just blame the other person is not for me. No good sueing if your dead. It is 100 percent the buyers responsibility to make sure it is airworthy.

[T510]

36 minutes ago, turboplanner said:

Third Party Insurance which you the taxpayer pay to the government through your CTP annual motor vehicle registration process funds the costs to people injured in motor vehicle accidents. The Third Party fund applies only to the Motor Vehicle Industry.

 

If you are flying an aircraft and through negligance you injure someone, they have the right to sue you in a civil Court. You can protect yourself by paying for Public Liability Insurance.

 

RAA Ltd administers the people flying RA aircraft so they also have a duty of care to mitigate a reasonably forseeable risk and if they breach that duty of care they can also be sued in a Civil Court.  It's RAA Ltd taking action to mitigate risks that people are bitching about.  They are just getting off the subject.

 

 

You are wrong there, Aviation insurance Australia offer Third Party Liability Insurance. It has nothing to with the taxpayer.

 

In Victoria the TAC charge component of your registration is the compulsory third party insurance

 

CTP (Compulsory Third Party Insurance) in NSW is your Green slip and provided by insurers such as AAMI, NRMA and QBE. it has nothing to do with taxpayers, it only applies to Vehicle owners.

https://www.sira.nsw.gov.au/insurance-coverage/CTP-insurance-Green-Slips/what-is-a-green-slip

 

 

Edited February 28 by T510

[spacesailor]

ctp , When it 'started ' it was for " accident victims " , now the rest of the sick but none accident people are getting new , expensive equipment,   & house modifications. 

All from that " CTP ", that only the motorists pays .

Seems like we're being taken to the cleaners .

spacesailor

[facthunter]

Why would Insurance companies cough up for that? It wouldn't happen. Nev

[jackc]

RAAus can make new rules to suit themselves where they believe deficiencies need to be addressed, but there is a major problem.  A lack of trained people to do inspections, work and sign offs etc.  Because, there is is no plan for training people by RAAus.

Sure, you can do an L1, IF someone decides to run them.  I did one in early days run by Darren Barnfield and it was hosted by Dan Compton at Wings Out West.

Good, informative and well run course, too. After that, I thought…….whats next?

NOTHING?  Cant do an L2, can’t work on someone else’s plane?  It’s a dead end for training and upgrading qualifications?  Soon there will be no one left to work on aircraft, many retiring.  Many aircraft owners will not have access to an L2 within a reasonable distance. 
So RAAus can make all the rules they like and……….there will be no one to do the work, so what then?   Maybe RAAus need to do cooperative training with SAAA?  but I doubt that will ever happen. 
People will have no choice but to break rules and work on their own aircraft, I was told a horror story last week, by someone who did just that, said person was that useless they could burn toast……yet own an aircraft, their aircraft?  Was well how should I says it……maybe a death trap, due to poor work. 
So, where to now?   Backwards, unless something is done quickly.   

[BrendAn]

24 minutes ago, jackc said:

RAAus can make new rules to suit themselves where they believe deficiencies need to be addressed, but there is a major problem.  A lack of trained people to do inspections, work and sign offs etc.  Because, there is is no plan for training people by RAAus.

Sure, you can do an L1, IF someone decides to run them.  I did one in early days run by Darren Barnfield and it was hosted by Dan Compton at Wings Out West.

Good, informative and well run course, too. After that, I thought…….whats next?

NOTHING?  Cant do an L2, can’t work on someone else’s plane?  It’s a dead end for training and upgrading qualifications?  Soon there will be no one left to work on aircraft, many retiring.  Many aircraft owners will not have access to an L2 within a reasonable distance. 
So RAAus can make all the rules they like and……….there will be no one to do the work, so what then?   Maybe RAAus need to do cooperative training with SAAA?  but I doubt that will ever happen. 
People will have no choice but to break rules and work on their own aircraft, I was told a horror story last week, by someone who did just that, said person was that useless they could burn toast……yet own an aircraft, their aircraft?  Was well how should I says it……maybe a death trap, due to poor work. 
So, where to now?   Backwards, unless something is done quickly.   

 I did my L1 online. There is not much too it. Raaus know they are running out of L2 people but either don't care or can't do anything about it.  An L2 can't sign off his own plane so he needs access to another L2 anyway.  All the expensive certified aircraft go to GA workshops and L4,s 

[facthunter]

Originally your building of 51% of the aircraft gave you a lot of non Transferable rights. This whole show grew  in a fairly Haphazard way rather than systematically. You still largely make your own luck with how you go about it.. but the logic of a lot of it would take some tolerance. on your Part.  Nev

[jackc]

44 minutes ago, BrendAn said:

 I did my L1 online. There is not much too it. Raaus know they are running out of L2 people but either don't care or can't do anything about it.  An L2 can't sign off his own plane so he needs access to another L2 anyway.  All the expensive certified aircraft go to GA workshops and L4,s 

So, it looks like my last line says it all?

’So, where to now?   Backwards, unless something is done quickly.’

 

So there will end up no one available to service rural areas?  
Well, maybe it’s time for Members to ask RAAus what their plan is for a solution to what is a looming problem?  Maybe there needs to be a change in rules as well.

Turn clocks back 20 years or more  would be a good start, take us back to the Ultralight days instead of fast forwarding to GA? 
 

 

[turboplanner]

2 hours ago, BrendAn said:

I disagree. An aircraft is not a car. Any buyer of an aircraft should be double and triple checking everything before that aircraft takes flight. The turbo world where you just blame the other person is not for me. No good sueing if your dead. It is 100 percent the buyers responsibility to make sure it is airworthy.

If a car example is confusing we'll stick to the aircraft  about to be sold sold. Yes everything SHOULD be double and triple checked, but the ATSB and RAA reports show many serious accidents where someone accidentally forgot to fasten a hatch, wheel nut,  or tightened something too much when he didn't look up the correct torque for the friction etc. That negligence fits into the Human Factors classification which is of serious concer, correctly, by CASA and RAA Ltd.

 

I'll give you a very specific aircraft example where the builder of an aircraft didn't fit a castellated, pinned nut to an elevator Morse control, didn't even fit a nyloc nut, just fitted a coarse thread nut and bolt. There was a reasonablly forseeable risk that the nut would come off, the bolt slide out and the Morse control disconnect from the elevator.

 

Therefore the aircraft was not fit for sale.

 

Quite a few hirers clearly didn't follow your "should be double and triple checked."

 

An instructor and student died when the Morse control disconnected from the elevator and tha aircraft crashed.

 

As I mentioned Caveat Emptor doesn't apply these days; if you sell a faulty produuct it will blow back on you.

 

[facthunter]

Unfortunately "the NEW GA " concept might win the day. Bigger isn't always better, because it gets more expensive. The minority get "serviced" in the wrong way. After Many many years I'm thinking IF you want to do what GA gives you, do GA. EXP. and have both worlds. Nev

[facthunter]

Boeing specialise in leaving bolts out. Nev

[turboplanner]

7 minutes ago, jackc said:

Turn clocks back 20 years or more  would be a good start, take us back to the Ultralight days instead of fast forwarding to GA? 
 

Good point, but it was RAA members and officials that took us up to the weight levels and speeds etc of GA and shortly you will see RA and GA pilots both flying Cessna 150s in much the same areas, so it would be very hard to turn back.

 

[turboplanner]

2 hours ago, T510 said:

OK you found the words Third Party Liability, but if you read further you'll find that the insurance you need is  Combined Single Liability.

However that relates to insurance.

The subject we are discussing relates to cost of Operations. and that's what people are trying to come to grips with.

[facthunter]

You become a "Disadvantaged Minority". It's democratic. The majority want it but if you want to maintain some concept of fairness a more accommodating set up would do it.. Who in "head Office" Knows or cares. Everyone wants to be on the cutting edge where the ACTION supposedly is. THAT happens in ALL organisations.. it's a sort of "elitism" or SNOB aspect. Chooks Cows Schoolkids and Gangs have a pecking order. EVEN GOLF Clubs.(the people). and the RSL.  The Meek shall inherit the leftovers. Nev