Jerry_Atrick

Ouch! That's gotta hurt! I agree with Butch in the sense that there is way too much paperwork for what it achieves (over here, anyway) - a bit like CASA and general aviation - way over the top. And I agree about ambulance chasign lawyers - they work on the fact it is cheaper for insurance companies to pay the claim than defend it. But I do think an employer has to take reasonable care to mitigate against the risk and unfortunately, some farming pursuits are high risk. If a farmer has taken resonable precautions, there should be notning to worry about. Of course then, the bill will fall to the state workcover authority and they will charge a premium by business type/category - the higher the claims in the catgory of business - the higher the premium. I can't comment on specifics of how the premiums were formulated, but it bassically boils down to not pinging other business categories and also trying to provide some incentive for a type of industry to clean its act up a bit. I am not making a judgement on whether or not farming or any other high-claim industry category is generally negligent, but they do focus on trying to innovate with safety. At the time I was at the workcover authority, butchers had the highest number and value of claims, not farmers.

In Devon, my partner lost a friend to an agricultural quad bike accident in her early 50s. I will only go with ATVs

@farri, that's how many a farm were started. You should see our tractor - an old David Brown 780 - hydraulics need help, brakes need help, had the slasher suspended on the back and was wondering why I had no steering control as I was going up one of my hills until I noticed I was only travelling on my two back wheels!! . Actually, I thought it was fun except I have no roll cage (nor harness to keep me in!!!). So I dropped the slasher a bit and it was like the nose wheel coming down gently on the one greaser landing I have ever done... @M61A1, I haven't read the court report on the quad bike incident, but I sort of hear what you say.. But, and there's always a but, it is an employers duty to ensure that they mitigate against foreseeable risks to their employees. If they choose to employ d!pships, then they have to wear the consequences unless they up their game for them. Simples. The "it isn't required by law to wear a helmet" argument is a furphy. There is no legal requirement to wear a motorcycle helmet on private land and there is no requirement to wear a helmet when horseriding in public if you are 18 or over. I did my motorcycle L plates with Stayupright (great company - highly recommend them if they are still around) on the disused RAAF airfield in Laverton. Private property - but do you think they would let us ride without a helmet - not on your nelly. Learners and possibility of coming off is too much of a risk and they would have been held liable for it. And show me a horseriding school that will allow students on without a helmet (or even experienced riders) - public or private roads. No hope in hell. No law requires it... but they will be liable under tort law for not mitigating obvious risk because they have a duty of care. @turboplanner - I know at least one of those cases as I worked at the Vic Workcover Authority for a very short period of time.. I also read the Barooga case court reports (well, excerpts).. and when one sees the facts, you're quite right - liability did sit with Berrigan shire, however, they did find contributory negligence, and reduce the damages.. which at law is the correct technical approach. We can argue whether the extend of contributory negligence was set at the correct level, but that is a judgement call which will be based on many factors, not least that of public policy. @Bruce Tuncks - not a bad idea - though I would include the words what would be reasonably judged by the man on the Clapham omnibus (or the Aussie version of that, which I can't recall Turbo's rendition) a being dangerous.. And it is sad in the case of the farmer you mentioned - it shows that the farmer was probably already under significant stress of some sort to be honest, but it is inexcusable that lawyers start off with aggressive communication. In criminal law, there is the concept of the egghell principle.. If you hit (and intend to hit) someone on the head with a soft blow and because their skull is thin as an egshell, it crumples and they die or a blood vessel bursts, then you are liable to manslaughter/murder or grevious bodily harm (has the same maximum sentence as murder believe it or not - in the UK) and the fact that they were weaker than the average person is no defence. I know that is the same principle in Victoria. [edit] lawyers, debt collectors, etc should be under the same principle IMHO

I don't think fault (rather than guilt) is cut and dried and it will depend on the circumstances of each case. For example, say your homebuild, built by yourself, was subject to all requisite RAA inspections during build and approriately signed off, had its maintenance performed rigorously to pubished standards, maybe an annual insepction from an RAA designated inspector, all signed off and you took someone flying with the placards in the a/c and you briefed the pax that the element of risk is higher in RAAus a/c than, say RPT, you have slown the a/c properly and on landing, a wing folds due to some undetectable fatigue, the a/c tumbles to the ground form say 30'; you both survive but are para or quadraplegic. It's not the fault of the pilot nor the pax. As the pax knew the risk was higher of something going wrong and they acquiesced to that risk, this can be argued to be a case where let the loss lay where it falls. It's very tempting and it is a valid argument. However, the difference is the pilot is likely to fly in this high risk situation often and the pax likely not. It may be the first time the pax has flown and the only time the pax ever intends to fly. Or maybe you are both good buddies and he comes up occasionally for that weekend fishing trip away. Maybe, unlike us, the pax really has no clue in terms of how to contextualise the magnitiude of the difference in risk between RPT and RAA as they have no idea about aviation other than what aircraft are. Where I am going is that when one partakes in a risky activity, they have the option (and should) insure to mitigate the consequences should the risks materialise. In other words, a pilot will likely have requisite insurance to cover these events or have decided not to. But for the occasional pax, would they likely have insurance? In theory, the pilot should not be at fault, but do we want to have a situation where someone who is really ignroant to the real risks and probability of those risks and as they do it so infrequenty and therefore do not (or cannot) have insurance be left out on a limb, so to speak? Also, consider the innocent bystander. Life is a risk; a tree limb may fall down on your head (Anyone been to Steavenson's falls in Victoria, near Marysville?) It would be hard to argue the council should be liable to a limb falling off a tree and int his case sadly killing at least one youngster (may have been more). If the pilot did everything right, is he at fault because when his wing fell off at altitude, it donked some innocent bystander on the head and killd him, after all we are always at some risk wherever we are? I think making it a strict liability tort, as in the UK, takes into account a balance of theory and practicality and says, well, pilots, you know much more about this that you lay pax, and the means to mitigate the effects of something going wrong, in reality, is not generally available to the pax. Rather than have Turbo's scenarios develop, you guys have to make sure you have in place mitigation for your pax and bystanders or they'll take it from you. Sort of works, I think.

Maybe that's the diiference between Aus and here. The CAA here will use prosecution only as a last resort and prefer compelling errant pilots to further education (sometimes futile) to remediate the problem. Only in flagrant, persistent or fundamentally bad beraches will they bring the clipboard out.

Hence my recommendation about encouraging chatting to an instructor... However, I have had a couple of instructors who have ballsed up big time.. Including one, who at the end of the lesson said, "Well, that's how not to do it!". Another had flagrant disregard to the rules of the air. So, regardless of our own experience levels, we have to try to evaluate what we are told anyway. [edit] Oh, and one I taught how to spin and recover in a C152! And it still cost me for the lesson.

I can't be 100% sure without looking it up, but I think so. The same person who floew their dual seat QuickR to Le Touquet in 2010 on a work flyout also went to Italy a cuople of years later in it and never complained about any height restrictions. At least suggest we chat to our instructors about anything you are proposing that is not by the book. There are many tips and tricks that can save one's life which aren't by the book, but if we followed the book, would make it that bit more difficult to survive. Its loss has been also lamented elsewhere. Apparently it was known as the Oshkosh of Europe.

Agree, but I think that was the purpose behind the "know you aircraft" message

When I was based at Fairoaks, there were several points where I used to hop over the 20nm leg... But being based at Dunkeswell, the closest way over the Channel to France is, as I recall, due south, abuot 85nm over the water and not too many watercraft about. Plus there are a lot of MIL restricted areas.. Beats my risk aversion tolerance so I head east, stop at Lydd for a refuel (able to claim back the VAT/Sales Tax in Aussie terms) and coast out to Calais (as it is a lot cheaper and a short ride from the airfield has some rather delicious local fare at very good prices - also instrument approaches are free). This year, I am going to be a pax/navigator to Aero Freidrichshafen (AERO | April 18 – 21, 2018) and am taking a pax to somwhere in Italy (Raduno 2018 - FLYER Forums). And if all goes well, I will make Birdsville this year...

@kasper - wasn't agreeing withyour self-critique, but the sentiment of your post... One of the things that struck me in the video of the impossible turn was the controlled conditions. And the bloke who did most of the talking said that although he could do it with, was it 150' or 200' of altitude, we personally wouldn't do ti with less than 300'. That should give him some margin for other fctors such as atmospheric conditions. But I liked their general message - don't stop learning at the pass of the flight test - get to know your plane and practice various scenarios. If you pratrice them enough, you will encounter many of the variable factors @farri mentions. Also important dead stick on a dead prop.

In some respects, yes, but a hell of a lot easier to get out of I would imagine than an inverted PA28.

I can honestly say, I don't know if it was an instructor, reading it in a magazine/book or that I just worked it out, but I have always flown where possible withing gliding distance of an airfield/strip or if not, always had at least one identified field within gliding distance identified when enroute. There are times when you can't avoid tiger country - in my case crossing the channel - in which case I have the life vests on and the inflatable raft ready to go. Some won't do it without a full immersion suit - given I am always planning a ditching near one of the plethora of commercial ships when I fly across the channel so my risk assessment is the gear I carry is enough. However, if I were flying across Bass Strait, I may take a different approach. FYI - 6 microlights flying across the channel from France to England. They may have a LAPL (Euro wide sub ICAO licence), but my guess is they are mainly NPPL...

I was in Hyderabad, which has a large muslim population and is the home of Biryani, apparently. The local team took me out for dinner one day and got me their hottest dish.. It was lovely - a little heat to start but immediately gave way to a delicious spice blend. They could not believe I could eat it in total comfort. I thought I worked it out... The Indian food in the UK is full of ghee, but over there, it is used sparingly, if at all.

Supposed to be? I would say it is given the extent they went to get some to expat UK people in France and the fact people from here flew into it

In a BBC radio interview, the commissioner of one of the police forces (think it was the Met, but not sure) responded to an answer asking why no more money is made available to get more Bobbies on the beat by sayung they were increasing their funding to combat cybercrime as this is growing at an exponential rate and can cause society wider and greater harm than the relatively odd lunatic (not comforting for the past, present and future victims of crimes perpetrated by these oddballs). I suppose it's down to priorities and understanding - the only crime in 1@Oscar[/uSER]'s case I think that was committed as attempted obtaining money by deception (which is a specific form of theft here). As it was attempted, even if the ol' Bill nicked him, they would have had a moutnain of paperwrok, got them to the magistrates court (too small I think for the crown court) and the maj would have given him a good behaviour bond (or even congratulated him on attempting to stick it to rich (because they are flyers) Aussies as Australia keeps whipping them at cricket (mostly, anyway).. Seriously, out here, when the police turn up for a minor crime, the are simplyclerks filling out one of the bits of paper needed to claim on the insurance.. It's un unfortunate fact of life when there are a lot of people and they haven't increased the police budget to deal with it all.

Even honest folk embelish stuff a bit on Linkedin. I recently had a colleague say he was shocked at how accurate my profile was... It is thhe only social network I am a member of. When I am looking for work (as per now), I open it up, otherwise it is taken private. Back to topic, sorry to hear you got scammed 1@nunans[/uSER]; with many high-value items, it doesn't matter where in the word they are sold from, the price doesn't change too much. With all the know your client and anti-money laundering regs that most countries sign up to, the scum still manage to get through...

Oh no! Does that mean there is one less option in Aussie towns, these days? Or have they been replaced by curry houses?

Maybe getting hypersonic drones adapted for takeaway delivery will mean we can order truly authentic food from the country of origin (well there are some other practicalities to overcome - customs, hygiene laws, etc) Foreign food is almost always adapted to local tastes, however, there are some countries that seem to keep authenticity better than others. In the UK, as @kgwilson points out, they have actually originated some Indian dishes - the Bhalti being one - which was on offer in a restaurant in Hyderabad when I was there. UK Indian food is generally quite good, especially at Brick Lane market.. There is so much competition, that poor curry houses fast disappear. Oriental food here, by contrast, is very ordinary, although not as bad as the Czech Republic where it is basically noodle soup of the local cuisine. By contrast, Australia (well, the cities, anyway) has great Oriental food; I couldn't tell the difference between what I could get at Stanley Market in HK and sme restaurants in China Town in Melbourne.. there were some dishes I dared not try in both places, too. As for Thai, I prefer it in Aus to Thailand... Aus keeps it authentic, but tweaked to western tastes, which is probably why I love it. Over here, it is basically the local bland Chinese with a bit of lemongrass thrown in. We make Thai dishes at home - never eat out. I used to go up and down the Newell Hwy a lot. Most towns had at least one pub (usually two - frequently the Commercial and the Union). a KFC (pre Maccas grip on fast food everywhere), a Chinese and a F&C/takeaway. I am sure it is better these days. The Chinese food was virtually the same in each town and much like here.. The pubs served steaks, Wiener Schntizels, Chicken Kievs, Snags, sometimes a fish of some sort. I am sure there were a couple of other staples, but whatever they were, the menus at each pub was virtually identical. I honestly can't recall any other cuisine, except in the bigger towns like Dubbo, where some motels had restaurants, too. I'm sure it has changed since the late 90s where, after I drove my gf to Lightening Ridge from Melbourne (and back), we hve not had another chicken kiev or scnitzel since. However, the F&Cs are much, much better than you can get here.

'bout the same time I was getting my takeaway from Prahran, then ;-) Was he snagged by CASA? I'll get me 'at and coat; and glass of Penfolds Koonunga (makes a change from Wolfie)...

Takeaway curry flown 500 miles to France Now, I am going to lend support to Phil's view that BBC is fake news.. The story tells it as if this was just a bunch of expats. Nope! It started with the idea of an expat who lives in Bordeaux to get a curry from his favourite curry house to Saucats in the TBM because he missed them so much. As he is a forumite on the uk flyer forums, he stuck it in the fly ins and social events topic and there were quite a few who decided they would be in. Although Fracne is famed for food, it is only famed for French food, I guess. Having said that, the best country to get an Indian takeway outside of India is Britain (well, in the countries I have had an Indian takeaway - which are Australia, India, Britain and South Africa). As per the video, the cost was £32/head and I thought, given it was to be held in January (winter) and I am not IFR qualified, chancing the weather within my personal tolerances was a step too far, given I could have had the same meal for about £10 - £12/head (not including alcohol) by nipping down the road to them (sort of). I have eaten at Akash and it is one of the better non-Indian Indian meals I have had.. There was a poncy Indian restaurant in Melbourne in the '90s called Gaylords (from memory). Bludday expensive and not as good. My last Indian in Australia was in Prahran in 2005.. The sag aloo was made from tinned spinach! As the owner says, he'll deliver to Australia (if the money is right).. Snap yourself up a decent Indian meal...

Substitute CAO with the correct section of the ANO and RAA with LAA and you basically have the same for the NPPL(A) here in the UK. I think the stall speed is lower (but maybe thing VLA and ULA). I think the UK allow an extra few kilos for a/c fitted with a BRS system. The problem here is licensing (or certification) is a dogs breakfast thatnks to the CAA's preoccupation with bureaucracy and useless rules - CASA certainly doesn't have a monopoly on that. The BGAA operate the glider pilot certificate regime, the BMAA operate the microlighting licence regime (I think its NPPL(M), etc. It is called a National Private Pilots Licence for political reasons - it is sub ICAO and you cannot fly CoA aircraft in it - for the NPPL(A) only those that are permit (permit to fly) aircraft all operated under the LAA (although I think some a/c can be registered under either category and they allow one to fly a CoA version of those a/c - but don't quote me on that one). I recently went to a microlight school and asked what a PPL has to do to be able to fly microlights. His response was even the CAA couldn't tell him so he does differences training and puts them through the flight test and if they pass, they are issued a NPPL(M). The NPPL is as equally useless in other countries as is the pilot cert... However, in Europe, the UK, France, Germany, Spain,, Austria and I think Italy have reciprocal agreements to allow each other's country national rated (rather than PPL) in permit aircraft, ULA, VLA and I think ML. In all countries, they can transit at least class D. I believe other countries provide the ability for one to request permission to fly through their airspace on such licenses/certificates and such a/c.. at a cost (Belgium, from memory, is about EUR60 per application and each entry into their airspace requires a separate permit. The reality is that their is an overlap between the higher end of the permit category at least (and some microlights - I understand the Ikarus C42 is quite a little beast in terms of range and speed, for a microlight) and the lower end of the GA spectrum - but if one wants to be able to operate in controlled airspace, they can (class D at least) subject to conducting necessary additional training. As I mentioned above, certain permit types with the necessary equipment can individually be approved for IFR (using the IMC rating - a sub ICAO instrument endorsement available for many years to PPLs here because of the wx variability - it has higher minima and I think can't be used in class A airspace). One doesn't have to kit their permit steed out with the gear, nor do they have to do the IMCr, but they now have the option to. Its permission is not extended to other countries.

I guess like most conversations, this has started on one subject and meandered onto others before it will close. I had a quick look through ICAO annexes 1, 2 and 11; there was no mention that only ICAO standard licensed pilots were to access airspace.. There was mention of the rules under which flight is permitted and the level of ATS provided.. Of course, there may something buried in another annex or docs... but as @kgwilson mentioned, it would mean most European and a good deal number of other countries would fall foul of ICAO. Non ICAO pilots can even cross international flight boundaries where there are agreements in place. As mentioned, I see many RAAus pilots navigating throughout Australia - navigating remote outback regions is not as easy as more populated areas. And with GPS, which admittedly is not infallible, but for me, anyway, has been pretty reliable, it is easier to navigate. I have seen a/c without a transponder get a clearance - they make an orbit or two so the controller can identify their primary return and they are allowed in. If the controller is given reason to believe the pilot or a/c is not capable or there is concern of a conflict, they simply refuse permission. to enter. In the UK, the NPPL (and in EASA land, the LAPL) training requirements are lower than PPL. If you have a single engine piston rating (rather than balloon, etc), you now largely have the same privileges as a PPL holder. I think there is additional training (cut down version of RTF and actual exposure to controlled airspace), but it is optional. I was based at Fairoaks which is in Heathrow's control zone - then class A. There were a handful of LAA machines based there operated by NPPLs that never had a PPL and they seemed to manage pretty well. They happily flew to France, Germany, Italy and Austria; the did other European countries as well.. As an aside, this may or may not be good news: CASA Restructure confirms GA Branch - Australian Flying

Well he does exhale a disproptionate;y large amount of hot air; and he exretes methan producing substances originating from bulls...

We are talking different train tracks... I agree - there needs to be more training on low level flying an preseving one's life. As an example, I had not had 1 minute of low/slow training nor short field take offs/landings, yet in the GA world, I passed my PPL (twice)! It is forums like this where I have learned a lot (as well as my test flights - one in Aus and 1 here). But the track we are talking is denying access of RAAus pilots access to class D airspaces, especially when it would route them low over tiger country. The radiotelephony is simple, navigation is not that difficult.. If ATC can accommodate, they will give a clearance and any conditions; if not, one may orbit unitll they can get a clearance or re-route. There are many GA pilots that may struggle if they don't get an immediate clearance...

@turboplanner - many RAAus a/c are higher peformance or similar to GA.. a tired C150 would find it hard to keep up with a Jab and in a Warrior, I followed an RV7A to Italy - well he got there quite a few hours ahead of me. In the UK (well, all of Europe - not sure about the USA), LAA and European equivalents enjoy access to airspace and as I mentioned (at least in the UK) they can fly IFR and night if a) suitably equipped, b) the individual a/c is approved by the LAA and c) the pilot is certified IMCr (IR®) or night (for NVFR). Times move on and so does the tech. I recall in about the mid 90's taking a look at a Jab at Tocumwal, had about the same performance as a C150 (but one had to be a little more on the ball in a stall). My point is that if the a/c is capable and the pilot has sufficient training (not necessarily PPL - I watch youtube videos of RAAus people navigating fine over vast expanses of Aus - see @cscotthendry's - they're the bee's knees ).. No reason why those a/c couldn't do a class D transit, ATC and RPT/Bizjets/charters movements allowing... There are many instances where a class of regulation is set and then progresses as tech progresses. In Europe, the lower end of the GA market has had the posterior fall out of it because of the advances in LAA.. All that expense is no longer worth it. Even I (who loves my PA28s and TB10s) am looking to move into the 21st century. [edit]Corrected a plethora of typos[/edit]