turboplanner

.................con the Australians with his research, but he made the mistake of outlining it to Bull (not bull) Two Tracks who was a shift little prick and quickly started advertising "Moa" feathers, which were really Kiwi feathers and necessitated killing millions of these gentle bird, prompting David Attenborough Turbine to campaign against it in a most convinciing way, and BTT Fluff (NZ) Pty Ltd was out of business until .........

Members 23.5k Aircraft: PA28 LSA55, J160, J170, V115, AA5B, C210 Location: Moorabbin Country: Australia Posted just now I actually posted a photo of the documents and briefly explained things. I'm not going to publish any details.

.

.......long or short depending on the tide, and where 87 years ago old Donald...... [Turbo has been there and asked them whether he did; but he didn't.]

and who also looked like the legendary Howard Hughes. Not many people know that Howard started his legendary aircraft design career when he was paid two bucks to clean out his uncle's backyard. He kept a length of pipe and some steel scraps, a heap of woven plastic and an old Monarch mower motor and designed the modern bra we know so well and which has supported women better than many husbands. Becoming bored, he grabbed one of the canteen's plastic chairs, bolted it to the pipe and by the following lunchtime had produced the Hughes MK1, which broke the record from Hokitika to ...............

Regulate is to prescribe or control. In the prescription age pre the mid 1980s we used to have prescriptive control and there were Controlling Bodies, one example being CAMS. After the State and Federal Governments decided to offload liability on to the recreational and sporting activities, we had to completely rethink our way of managing Associations to avoid negligent actions by participants sucking us into losing our homes etc. so mostly we set benchmarks based in industry best practice, Australian Standards, International Standards etc. and the participants worked to those benchmarks. T Initially the water park people were pretty much out of business with collisions down waterslides producing Quadriplegics who needed house remodelling and 24 hour shift nursing for the rest of their lives - around $10 million at the time. The industry moved to a two person management. The one at the top raised a red flag when he released the kid, matched by the one at the bottom who'd cleared out the kids in the end pool. when the kid arrived and got out of the pool the bottom guy dropped the flag and the top guy let the next kid go. Injuries ceased, but the wages were costly. Today there are two electronic gates. The top one only opens when the bottom pool has been cleared. So we've been coming up with new systems for around 40 years now.

No Regulators involved. In Australia RA is self-administering.

Not medical injuries; hurt by finding their aircraft could not be made compliant with current regulations, hurt by not being able to afford costs required etc.

Today I gave an answer on what has happened to RA owners back in 2013 when someone did that. A lot of people got hurt.

Lower level circuits where?

Well, you'll just have to have a good cry then, because we're not all going to turn around and come back. Why not watch what happens step by step in the current case.

If you're driving an unregistered car with no licence, the police will fine you and the car is off the road until its registered. The police don't say "nothing to do with us"

An unregistered pilot in an unregistered RA aircraft found it necessary to do a beat up over some people and crashed without injury. There was a lot of talk about it, and RAA Inc took the position that it wasn't a registered pilot, wasn't a registered RA aircraft, had on number so it wasn't RAA's problem. CASA told RAA to do an audit of all RAA aircraft. A lot had to clean up their act; I suspect a lot with non complying aircraft never flew again.

The discussion in some places here mixes up routine internal financial issues with external Public Liability claims. You've been talking about looking at the Constitution etc. What has happened so far has just been a Coronial Inquest where RAA Ltd has been represented by lawyers, and that's expensive where multiple days are involved. The Coroner has referred some of the evidence to the DPP for possible prosecution, and that could be very expensive to be involved in too. Someone on this site is inferring there may be two more investigations; who knows what that means. It could be RAA doing an Audit, it could be CASA doing an audit into one of its SAAOs, just the same as the audit back in 2013 which permanently ended flying for a lot of people with non-compliant aircraft. Who knows. Matters have been referred to the DPP by the Coroner. If they decide to investigate, that could be called an investigation. After that is all over, there could be a civil suit relating to public liability if anyone is found to have had a duty of care and breached it, where your "real issue" comes into play. A judge decides that case, not CASA, not RAA. We can't predict where that would go whether any payment would be awarded or how much or to whom. You may not like the idea of paying out a partner's income for life because you made a mistake, but, say $100,000 per year x 35 years = $3.5 million. $40,000 x 35 years = $1.4 million (neither related to this case) is where the big dollar settlements come from. That's just the way it has been from the mid 1980's.

Firstly it's good to be able to find it, and correct the out of date line you were shooting. Secondly, from the mid 1980s that's how virtually every sporting or recreational activity now works; you can sponge off taxpayers any more; there are direct consequences for negligence.

Because they are separate bodies they're disposable if the worst come to the worst and CASA doesn't want one. We've had RAA Inc close down and Raa Ltd open up without the SAAO operations blinking. We've had HGFA replaced by SAFA.

Well the Coroner's Report says: "4. The registration of the aeroplane and Mr Farrell's licence to fly were regulated, in the first instance, by Recreational Aviation Australia (RAAus) 5. RAAus is an approved Self-Administered .......as written above. If we then start with the SAAO Deeds of Agreement, the first one I found was with GFA 2015/16 which spells out on Page 10, Para 9 "9. Indemnity 9.1 The GFA indemnifies CASA, its officers, employees and contractors against any liability, loss, damage, cost (including the cost of any settlement and legal costs and expenses on a solicitor and own client basis), compensation or expense arising out of or in any way in connection with: (a) a default or any unlawful, willful or negligent act or omission on the part of the GFA, its officers, employees, agents or subcontractors in connection with this Deed; or (b) any action, claim, dispute, suit or proceeding brought by any third party in respect of any use, infringement or alleged infringement of that third party's Intellectual Property Rights or Moral Rights in connection with this Deed. 9.2 The GFA's liability to indemnify CASA under clause 9.1 will be reduced proportionally to the extent that any act or omission of CASA or its employees or Agents contributed to the loss or liability." These Deeds of Agreement haove now been replaced by Part 103 and Part 149 of the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 (CASR 199) so anyone interested will be able to see exactly what the current wording is by going onto the CASA Website.

I'm not running any line. You can't keep living in the past. The CASA - RAA Inc. Agreements prior to the RAA Ltd change are posted on the site. They make it very clear who is responsible for what during the Agreement period. I'd suggest you go and have a look at a few of them and bring yourself up to date. I couldn't see any reason an RAA Ltd member couldn't get a copy of the current agreement either, although their Ltd status may let them keep it secret. However even looking at them in the 2010-2013 period tells you what got done and what didn't.

What's CASA got to do with it? RAA Ltd is a self administering organisation at arm's length from CASA. Since the members closed down RAA Inc (btw with its PL protection to suite the changes around 1985), we haven't been seeing the Annual agreements from CASA to RAA and the responsibilities spelled out but there are old ones on this site. It's way too early ($400,000 lawyers' fees divided by 10,000 members is $40.00/member so far) to predict the end, but there's nothing to stop the members making a decision to form a new administering body.

There are two potential stages here; what you are talking about is the Coronial Hearing outcome and from news media I understand this has been referred to the DPP for handling and possible prosecution in which case there will be more legal costs. The potential second stage is whether there will be a legal claim by the PL Law Firm previously mentioned. That may involve a lot more legal costs and possible payout, or a Settlement; you are correct.

.......Fred from IGA. "Uf you luft the nose wheel sux or suvn unchs the mine wull always hut." and the posts started again, quite a few saying "Been rubbing noses again?" Thus started a ...........

......rivetting the hoses on instead of using hose clamps. The argument lasted through 1500 posts, with some arguing that the water leaks out and others arguing who needs it and yet others wanting to know who was going to Old Station again this year and a few quietly asking how to straighten a nose wheel when it .........

........Kim, to stop whining (anothert term describing the envronmental noise of a Rotax), and get on with it. Kim introduced ground-breaking anti-whining laws and the population.......

No they don't.

Maurice Blackburn are Public Liability lawyers, so I would expect a PL civil case to follow the Coroner's finding. That's the usual process.