Jim McDowall

Ethics and Government, you must be kidding.

The idea that there has to be public liability (and thus insurance) is a legal construct. Governments are free to make laws for "peace, order and good government". For example, the Commonwealth and CASA are not liable "in negligence or otherwise for any loss or damage incurred by anyone because of, or arising out of, the design, construction, restoration, repair, maintenance or operation of a limited category aircraft or an experimental aircraft, or any act or omission of CASA done or made in good faith in relation to any of those things." -CASR 201.003

Similarly, they could make a law that no-one is liable in the operation such aircraft or limit the circumstances in which liability existed eg to protect people on the ground not at an aerodrome. After all they are signatories to a treaty which limits the liability of international passenger carriers.

We talk as if there are only 2 outcomes you get it and its mild, you recover and all is well or you die. From personal perspective I am less concerned with catching it and being amongst the around 1% who die and much more concerned with the suffering whilst recovering and the long term effects. It is known that covid can have long consequences for most organs including the brain. I have less problem with having my life being cut short than surviving but with disablement.

 

You are right that we need to consider all the psychological problems associated with the pandemic. This includes the effects of the measures taken AND the effects of loved ones dying or being seriously ill. I haven't checked but I would bet that there are plenty of studies done in recent weeks. I would also suggest that these negative consequences are considered when enacting restrictions. More rigid restrictions could beat this quicker if the community is willing cooperate.

 

 

Jim I would like to know what you think the response to covid should be and what examples of successful responses from other countries or perhaps the differing responses from different states in the US you would approve of. Personality I would suggest New Zealand.

For a start get rid of the endless stream of press conferences. By all means have them when there is some change in regulation but people have tuned out.

Whether we like it or not the current generations are saddling future generations with mountains of debt in order to save today's politicians from answering difficult questions about deaths. The real work is being done by the legions of people who are seeking to develop a vaccine because the load of responsibility for overcoming the effects of the disease is on their shoulders.

Anybody who had parents who were children in the 1930's depression may probably have observed the long lasting effects of that event.

Do I think that there is somewhere on the planet that has done it better - try South Dakota:

As John Hinderaker wrote in the "Powerline" on June 23:

"In today’s authoritarian environment, with governors issuing diktats purporting to organize every facet of our lives, she has stood tall as a voice for freedom. Early in the COVID epidemic, Governor Noem gave a press conference in which she said that South Dakotans are free Americans, not subject to arbitrary orders from politicians. They are also smart: South Dakotans can look after their own health better than any government can. So her administration has put out a steady stream of data and advice, but she has refused to order anyone to do anything. And guess what: South Dakota has a very low level of COVID fatality and, last time I checked, the lowest unemployment rate in the country."

As Bill Clinton so eloquently put "It's the economy stupid"

Two Aged Care facilities in South Australia are reported infected in South Australia this morning

No confirmed cases in nursing homes as a result of a man returning to Adelaide from Melbourne on 28 July testing positive. He lives with his mother and aunt who are both health care workers. (news.com.au 9:38 today)

See how misinformation can spread fear and panic?

The DHHS has all those professionals in Victoria. IF you check SAHealth, I think you'll find the same professionals in action over there.

I think that there is way too much GROUPTHINK. Groupthink is a term first used in 1972 by social psychologist Irving L. Janis that refers to a psychological phenomenon in which people strive for consensus within a group. Janis identified eight different "symptoms" that indicate groupthink.

1. Illusions of invulnerability lead members of the group to be overly optimistic and engage in risk-taking. (It can be a risk not to take an action that is perceived to be a risk because of the beliefs inherent in the group)
   
2. Unquestioned beliefs lead members to ignore possible problems and ignore the consequences of individual and group actions.
   
3. Rationalizing prevents members from reconsidering their beliefs and causes them to ignore warning signs.
   
4. Stereotyping leads members of the in-group to ignore or even demonize out-group members who may oppose or challenge the group's ideas.
   
5. Self-censorship causes people who might have doubts to hide their fears or misgivings.
   
6. "Mindguards" act as self-appointed censors to hide problematic information from the group.
   
7. Illusions of unanimity lead members to believe that everyone is in agreement and feels the same way.
   
8. Direct pressure to conform is often placed on members who pose questions, and those who question the group are often seen as disloyal or traitorous.
   

Draw your own conclusions

And with that dumb statement, you've displayed your faulty logic and erroneous thought processes - whereby you're comparing mankind-initiated War, to a stealthy and deadly virus, which attacks and kills in ways that not even the scientists can yet understand.

There is NO logical comparison between a pandemic and a War. I don't know how you can draw parallels, there are none.

 

In War, the enemy is identifiable by all, they have stated aims of destruction, they attack with known and understood methods, and those attacked develop strategies that are understood and which work, to defeat the attackers.

 

In a pandemic, the attacker is poorly or little understood, it attacks randomly, and enters the individuals body unseen, and many stupid people think they are immune to this enemy, or they believe this enemy doesn't exist ("it's a hoax!").

I was not making a comparison between a pandemic and a war - I was seeking to illustrate the view that as a population we have become over-sensitised to risk and death. Silent, relatively (compared to this virus) unreported deaths from influenza (about 1000 last year) and car accidents (about 1200 last year) will probably kill a similar number of people this year but in comparative terms and each is unpredictable.

Our military planners know that we will struggle to raise an army in wartime. Our canon fodder is apathetic, overweight and risk averse.

In War, the enemy is identifiable by all, they have stated aims of destruction, they attack with known and understood methods, and those attacked develop strategies that are understood and which work, to defeat the attackers.

This may be the case in a traditional scenario but war is increasingly assymetric and may not be fought between states. Afghanistan is a good example where, as Tony Abbot once said of the Syrian conflict, it could come down to a choice between two baddies.

And who knows what will happen if the US descends into a civil war after the coming election? Do we stand back and watch? Or choose a side as our long term security may be at risk?

He and the Premier, Daniel Andrews have attended an extended press conference every day since March

Yesterday Andrews looked absolutely hammered. Is he on top of things or is this mess getting the better of him?

how his government is reacting to the decisions made by Professor Sutton and his DHHS colleages.

While I appreciate the message of the health professionals, I feel it is time to inject some input from social scientists and psychiatrists on the potential longer term outcomes of the style and volume of the messaging because there will come a time when the population at large turns off - and the evidence is that some already have.

We all know the virus can kill, as do other aspects of human endeavour such as flying or driving a car or base jumping. Most of the population know the virus will in most cases be something they recover from (longer term risks are often ignored eg drinking, smoking, drugs). I suppose the real question is "Is a human life really valued, or is it only valued when it is no more?"

One quick fix would simply be to close down SAOs as a failure

South Africa saw the light and closed down their equivalent of RAAus earlier this year and South Africa could hardly be described as a shining light of public administration.

form of democratic voters resupporting the organisation every election.

If voting was compulsory you may get a different outcome. Also members of Part 149 organisations are effectively compelled to join the organisations to buy a licence to fly. It is within the scope of CASA to regulate to provide the same framework as existing today without the SAAO intermediaries. When all said and done, PPL pilots rarely have any direct contact with CASA by virtue of the delegation system.

We just have to fiond a way of motivating that last 5% who are delaying a financial recovery.

Economist Anne Case and Nobel Prize winner Angus Deaton documented a rise in the mortality and morbidity of middle-aged White non-Hispanic men in the United States after 1998. They found that the increase in mortality was largely related to suicide, accidental poisonings (including opioids), and chronic liver disease or cirrhosis, and was associated with a substantial increase in psychological distress among this population group. Moreover, this increase in cause-specific mortality drove the all-cause mortality for middle-aged White non-Hispanic men up.

This phenomenon was characterised as "Deaths of Despair".

Perhaps these 5% are exhibiting the characteristics that are driving the US statistics. The relentless media onslaught, with fearful messages from the likes of Dan Andrews in Sicktoria coupled with financial necessity have probably induced a "what the f*ck" attitude.

As demonstrated in the US there will come a time when all the exhortations will be worth little as the populace says we have had enough and we want to get on with life.

I often wonder how Australians would cope with a real war where 1000's die every day.

I am not because I cannot be bothered. Just pay up and fly, don't make waves and don't spend precious time on what someone else can do.

Just like every other RAAus member.

And therein lies the essence of the problem with self administration. The risk is those who do get involved may take the "industry" sector they administer down the wrong path. One only has to look over at the GFA who have managed to shrink the gliding movement is Oz by two thirds in about 3 decades.

Many other jurisdictions manage their recreation/private ops just fine without Part 149 type regulation.

My point is just because you test negative today, doesn't mean that you wont test positive tomorrow. Testing finds asymptomatic carriers and those who may have had the virus, or those who disregard their symptoms as they are minor. The real problem with the statistics is the REAL cause of death may not be COVID but because people died with the disease and are consequently recorded as a COVID death when in fact an underlying co-morbidity is the real cause of death eg obesity, diabetes, cardio-vascular disease or mis-management in aged care. This is supported by Heath Department statistics.

After six months of this calamity I wonder about some of the central figures mental well being and consequently their capacity to make decisions out of fear and panic.

What concerns me is the way pollies trumpet how many tests have been conducted. There is no value in that statistic as it only will tell you that you were negative at that point in time. You could walk out the door and contract the virus - and then there is the matter of false negatives (or positive) test results but nobody talks about that.

I still get a full medical with a full blood work up even though I no longer need it. It's not about being legal for me it's about being fit to fly and I wanna know what's going on inside my body before something ugly happens, if possible. The cost is peanuts compared to not catching something ugly early!

The downside of this approach is that once you become aware of an issue you should inform RAAus or CASA even though it may not actually affect your performance as a pilot in the immediate term- eg skin cancer or prostate cancer. Then what happens if there is a mis-diagnosis or an overly cautious GP who has one eye on his insurance.

I have been searching around for constant speed propeller options for a Jabiru 3300. Are there any other options beside Airmaster?

try GT Propellers [email protected]

also FP propeller - Aircraft and Uav propellers

And if the cloud storage provider goes broke what happens - will the receiver/liquidator sell your data to ????. And will the new owner jack up the storage fees which gets passed on to the end-user? If the aircraft is sold does the cloud account go with the aircraft? Data backups and cross platform data transfer issues can be problematic. It is only a matter of time before a ransomware attack on a cloud provider is successful - then what?

Morrison said each state CHO had the Power a few short weeks ago

That was a statement of fact. ScoMo was right because he has no constitutional health powers (or probably powers to control the movement of people within States). Each of the States have a form of Emergency Management Act that provides the powers under which (effectively) martial law is proclaimed. Added to that powers within the various Public Health Act provide similar powers to the State's CMO.

A state border is just a convenient delineation.

The existence of the States is confirmed by the Constitution which divides the powers between the Commonwealth and the States (amongst other things). In a DEMOCRACY the only thing that stands between a popularly (?) elected government and a tyranny is the Constitution. The problem in Australia is that we have never had to rescue the nation from a Government acting unconstitutionally by force and as such regard the Constitution of some sort of mildly relevant quaint document.

If serious efforts were made to teach civics from an early age we may have a nation with a population that respects the Constitution and all that flows from it.

Very draconian and dictorial, very! Keeping various borders closed shows the stupidity of how divided we are as a nation!

Australia is actually a federation of sovereign states - and ScoMo set up the "National Cabinet" thus diluting his leadership and diffusing responsibility.

I hope that one of the High Court challenges to the closure of state borders gets up as free movement of within a nation is an essential liberty. What this period in our history has shown is how easily we could find ourselves in a state of tyranny. On the theme of "never let a crisis go to waste", it is worth remembering that some of the greatest tyrants of modern history have come to power with public support only to institute regimes that could not be imagined, mainly by setting up false enemies or crises.

As the saying goes "The price of liberty is eternal vigilance". However laudable an action of Government maybe it is incumbent on society at large to be aware of the longer run consequences of that action, including the potential for the things Governments learnt about manipulating (controlling?) population behavior that can be used to entrench that control.

If you think that the Deep State only exists in the US, it is time you took a reality check. You just have to look at CASA to see this in action, beyond the effective control of parliament.

Thanks Turbs, a great watch. Hope your grandson learnt something.

We can quickly lose it if we are stupid

The only stupid thing that can be done from now on is to open the country's borders. It is to all intensive purposes contained in Oz.

or have we suddenly lost our sense of humanity.

Unfortunately there are times when "our sense of humanity" cannot be allowed to over-ride the greater responsibilities that leadership in government should (and must) also be taken into account when reacting to various circumstances. For example, most governments have policies that prevent the payment of ransoms to secure the freedom of hostages or in the most extreme case, to go to war when history shows us that it is civilians who overwhelmingly bear the brunt of warfare. Even urban planning decisions disregard "our sense of humanity" on occasions.

When governments make emotionally based decisions, the unforeseen consequences will almost certainly outweigh the perceived advantages of the adopted course of action. (remember the "pink batts affair"?)

The cleaning out of hospitals to prepare for the onslaught of the virus will have ongoing consequences for the health of many Australians. Less than 1,000 virus victims were admitted to Australian hospitals whilst many operations essential to better health outcomes for many were deferred. On top of that many casually employed health workers were cast onto welfare without access to the support schemes the Government trumpeted.

It made sense to close Australia's borders in contrast to Britain who maintain open borders to this day with no health checks for those entering the country. On the day Italy locked down Lombardy, 17 flights from Milan (in the locked down region) arrived in Britain. Clearly the virus was going to spread.

However the tyrannical, often illogical panic ridden decisions of Australia's political leaders who were obviously captive of the medical "experts" to the exclusion of harder heads with a view to the longer game. And what of the role of police? There was no public order issue in the main, especially if Bunnings and the major supermarkets experiences were anything to go by (buy?).

I assume that an RAAus aircraft is an Australian aircraft

Australian aircraft are defined as those on the Australian Civil Aircraft Register - CASR 47.025 (ie with a VH prefix). The CASR's do not apply to RAAus aircraft (CASR 200.014) so RAAus aircraft are not by definition Australian aircraft.

Shades of the scene in the movie "Those Magnificent Men in their flying machines" where the German commander decided he was going to be the pilot.

The story goes that Australia was going to buy the TSR-2 until Mountbatten visited Canberra and convinced the Cabinet that it was a non starter. We ended up buying the F-111 and the TSR-2 project crumbled away without support from the dominions. Mountbatten's true motivation may never be known.

CAO 95.55 does not expire for some time yet:

" This Order:

(a) commences on 1 February 2018; and

(b) is repealed at the end of 31 January 2021."

This is what happens when member based organisations seek income sources beyond membership fees. Over time members just become milch cows as the real reason for the organisation (and hence the existence of a membership base) is lost over time and its own corporate interests overide those of members.