Jabiru Fire at Bundaberg

[ahlocks]

Spot on Turbz! :thumb_up:

 

 

[Guest watto]

No that is for sure, Barry was my instructor and he has nerves of steel the old boy!!

 

Watto

 

 

[Guest Cloudsuck]

Funny you should say that Cloudsuck, I've tried every story known to man, but maybe about to give birth will do it, particularly if I ask the Officer to wait with me just in case.

Hey Turbo, true story, the names will remain out of the story of course. This is a recent conversation;

 

Police Officer - Do you have any emergent reason to be driving unlicensed today?

 

Driver - Yep, I have been a little stressed lately so I just went down to the pub for a couple of hours to have some beers.

 

Police Officer - Oh... well that's not an emergent reason, however .... I now require you to provide a specimen of breath for analysis Blah Blah Blah.

 

 

[Guest Cloudsuck]

While it's true about the off-thread discussion, it's very informing.Doesn't take anything away from the presence of mind of the guys and successful outcome of the flight which would have taken some courage to complete. Bet they don't turn on the Jab's "in-flight entertainment in 3D" again in a hurry

These glass cockpits are getting out of hand, I bet they had a 46 inch plasma plumbed into the pannel. ;)

 

Seriously though, I would be buying that instructor a big drink. Good on him.

 

 

[Guest watto]

As for the good samaritan stuff, I can only relay to you What the QLD Ambulance trainor told the entire class, but if he is wrong or he is quoting the wrong legislation well he needs to be informed as he is misinforming students!

 

Thanks guys

 

Watto

 

 

[Guest Cloudsuck]

As for the good samaritan stuff, I can only relay to you What the QLD Ambulance trainor told the entire class, but if he is wrong or he is quoting the wrong legislation well he needs to be informed as he is misinforming students!Thanks guys

 

Watto

G'day Watto, I remember doing a first aid course once and they quoted the good samaritan act as well (St Johns). What they are getting at in essence is correct, however, there is no separate act. It may be in Civil Liabilities as ahlocks says, but I haven't read it. I have the greatest respect for QAS officers but they are no all that up to date with legislation.

 

On another note, I just had a look at your pics Watto, that is a seriously nice Jab, you've got to be happy with that.

 

I flew my 6cyl Jab SP taildragger today for the first time in a long time and I got to admit that I did give more that a fleeting glance at the wires under the dash during preflight. Unlike my thighs, there was no chafing :ah_oh:

 

 

[Guest watto]

Yeh I do love it, I have flown to brisbane for the weekend to take care of my grand daughter and left miriam vale at day break, what a great time to to fly,

 

 

[Guest watto]

I think you are correct that the message is correct and I was a correctional Officer and Supervisor and much of that type of thing was covered in duty of care for us which really compelled us to act in situations.

 

I was not far from you I was at Borallon Corectional centre and actually an old mate Trevor Smith lived at Boonah.

 

Watto

 

 

[Guest Cloudsuck]

I think you are correct that the message is correct and I was a correctional Officer and Supervisor and much of that type of thing was covered in duty of care for us which really compelled us to act in situations.I was not far from you I was at Borallon Corectional centre and actually an old mate Trevor Smith lived at Boonah.

Watto

Interesting! I sent you a PM...

 

 

[Guest Maj Millard]

Getting back to the matter of the onboard fire in flight, I would be interested in knowing from Barry the PIC if he thinks an onboard portable fire-extingusher could have been used successfully in this case....would there have been time ??.........

 

 

[Gibbo]

The concept and precedence for a 'good Samaritan' act is covered by 'common law' and as such has no accompanying set of legislation (hence you cant find it). The first recorded use of this defence occurred back in the early 1700's and it has been accepted as a defence since by the high courts of most commonwealth countries.

 

Most people confuse the term 'act' between a piece of legislation and performing the physical 'act' .

 

Common law is based on precedence and acceptance as a common 'behaviour'.

 

Hint : Don't help anyone in the USA! It will come back to bite you many times over as they don't have the concept of common law and the added goodies that come with it. I could start bashing the American legal system but we all know which is the better place to live. ;)

 

Most of the good Samaritan acts also contain some form of 'duty of care' such as in the case of first aid or providing assistance to a person who is unable to verbally agree to it.

 

You can still be sued for exceeding your duty of care. EG performing surgery when you only have a first aid certificate, unless you can demostrate it was a matter of life and death and you have the 'evidence' to support your claim. Common Assault could also be applicable if it wasn't required at the time.

 

There are many grey areas to this such as providing food in a emergency. ie donating food to a homeless person as a untrained person (hence an 'act of a good Samaritan') and the 'act' and supplying that food as a organised group which has a implied higher duty of care.

 

It would be interesting to see what 'information' in regards to the emergency that the firey's received and their choice of actions.. Fireys and Ambos will both act to save life and will accept whatever 'property damage' is the caused in the pursuit of those actions (as long as it to make a situation safe). OHS laws are based on the same concepts.

 

Gibbo

 

 

[ahlocks]

The concept and precedence for a 'good Samaritan' act is covered by 'common law' and as such has no accompanying set of legislation (hence you cant find it). Gibbo

There is specific legislation relating to the issue an example being;

 

(NSW) CIVIL LIABILITY ACT 2002 - SECT 57 Protection of good samaritans

 

 

 

 

...It would be interesting to see what 'information' in regards to the emergency that the firey's received and their choice of actions..

My personal opinion only, The OIC was having a spray about how much of a pain in the a:censored:e it was to gain access to the incident because of the security fence and the media (and we aviators) seized upon it.

 

Cheers!

 

 

[Guest watto]

Thanks Gibbo that explains my misunderstanding of the information on the day>

 

Watto

 

 

[Yenn]

You must have got back OK on Sunday.

 

See you sometime.

 

 

[Guest watto]

Yes thanks Ian, it was a bit bumpy but we kept the coast in sight and maintained a descent altitude with a screaming tail wind we were actually doing a ground speed of 152 knots at one stage but averaged 130 all the way from the gold coast.

 

Watto

 

 

[Gibbo]

Heres a little inside information into the behaivor that was present..

 

I was presenting at a field day outside of Roma yesterday and we had a fire saftey presention by the RFS (QLD). The topic of rights of entry came up and was interested to hear the following.

 

If somebody calls the RFS about a fire on private property that does not belong to them the RFS are not allowed to enter a locked gate unless there is danger to life or they have resonsable belief that life may be at risk.

 

In the above situation the aircraft was burning (and was obvious that everyone was clear) but as the gate was locked and the actual owner of the airport (privately owned) did not request the RFS and they had a locked gate the 'law' does not allow entry.

 

Common law allows any person to attend to the front door of a house as long as the gates etc are unlocked as there is then a implied permission of entry. Locked gates = no permission.

 

It may be interesting to talk to a lawyer as the security layer at the airport 'may have' contributed to the loss from fire as the RFS could not get permission to enter the airport to fight the fire in a timely manner as the airport refused permission to the RFS to enter by implied consent. :yuk:

 

Gibbo

 

 

[Yenn]

Latest I have heard about the Bundy fire.

 

2 possible causes.

 

Rod Stiff is quoted as saying the starter motor may have stayed engaged and caused an electrical fault. By which i assume he means it acted as a generator and overloaded the battery.

 

It was noticed that the battery in place was not the same as the original one fitted, but bigger. It may have moved slightly and the terminal touched the engine mount, causing a dead short.

 

I am told that the fire went right through the firewall, but the fuel tanks were sitting among the burnt remaind, with fuel still in them. That says a lot for the integrity of the tanks.

 

 

[rick-p]

I love bush lawyers they make my job worthwhile and financially rewarding.

 

 

[ahlocks]

Q: What is the difference between a lawyer and a european carp?

 

A: One is a scum sucking bottom dweller and the other's a fish

 

.................

 

Dunno where they get the inspiration for these jokes......

 

 

[motzartmerv]

oooohhhh...theres a kick in the teeth for ya rick....ouch!!!!

 

 

[Thruster87]

There is specific legislation relating to the issue an example being;(NSW) CIVIL LIABILITY ACT 2002 - SECT 57 Protection of good samaritans

 

 

 

 

My personal opinion only, The OIC was having a spray about how much of a pain in the a:censored:e it was to gain access to the incident because of the security fence and the media (and we aviators) seized upon it.

 

Cheers!

CIVIL LIABILITY ACT 2002 - SECT 57

Protection of good Samaritans

 

57 Protection of good Samaritans

 

(1) A Good Samaritan does not incur any personal civil liability in respect of any act or omission done or made by the Good Samaritan in an emergency when assisting a person who is apparently injured or at risk of being injured.

 

(2) This section does not affect the vicarious liability of any other person for the acts or omissions of the Good Samaritan.

 

CIVIL LIABILITY ACT 2002 - SECT 35A

 

Duty of defendant to inform plaintiff about concurrent wrongdoers

 

35A Duty of defendant to inform plaintiff about concurrent wrongdoers

 

(1) If:

 

(a) a defendant in proceedings involving an apportionable claim has reasonable grounds to believe that a particular person (the "other person") may be a concurrent wrongdoer in relation to the claim, and

 

(b) the defendant fails to give the plaintiff, as soon as practicable, written notice of the information that the defendant has about:

 

(i) the identity of the other person, and

 

(ii) the circumstances that may make the other person a concurrent wrongdoer in relation to the claim, and

 

© the plaintiff unnecessarily incurs costs in the proceedings because the plaintiff was not aware that the other person may be a concurrent wrongdoer in relation to the claim,

 

the court hearing the proceedings may order that the defendant pay all or any of those costs of the plaintiff.

 

(2) The court may order that the costs to be paid by the defendant be assessed on an indemnity basis or otherwise. :hittinghead:

 

 

[turboplanner]

Well I wouldn't want to be a concurrent wrongdoer - this was certainly written for the $380.00 per hour plus luncheon brigade.

 

 

[Bruce Tuncks]

I sure missed all this thread years ago! Very interesting stuff.

 

Here's my understanding of the Good Samaritan act:

 

There was a surf-lifesaving club south of Adelaide that had a lawyer on the board. The lawyer told the rest of the board that they were all risking everything they owned if there was successful litigation after a rescue attempt. The plaintiff could be awarded millions and the property of senior officials in the club could be seized to help pay.

 

The board then announced they were terminating the club, and faced with the possibility of a major beach being without lifesavers,  the SA government responded with the good Samaritan act. This caused the club to keep going.

 

I have never heard of a case where the act saved anybody, but it must have happened by now, and I don't know about other states, but the need for such an act is so obvious that they must have done something.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Was that in 1936 Bruce?

 

https://emergencylaw.wordpress.com/2017/02/22/good-samaritan-legislation-a-comparison/

 

 

[Bruce Tuncks]

I think it was about 1980 turbs.  But I see from your reference stuff that the area had been considered long before this.

 

There was a story ( Probably not true, but presented to me as true) about a road accident victim lying on the rails at a level crossing, with all the bystanders afraid to move the victim because of fear of litigation. In the story, a passing train settled the matter.

 

But here's something that actually happened to me: It was noon on a very hot day and just short of the gliding club there was a motorbike accident. The young bloke was nursing what looked like a broken arm and his girlfriend had abrasions.  Somebody had gone to the nearest house to call an ambulance.

 

Then the ambulance caller finally came back to say nobody was home there, I said bugger it, hop in the car and I'll drive you up to the hospital.

 

At the hospital, the girlfriend asked me to collect her purse from the motorbike. When I returned to do this, the other bystanders told me that I was going to lose everything for sure when I got sued.

 

All that actually happened is that the bike guy and his girlfriend were very grateful.