Jerry_Atrick

RIP - very sad.. I wasn't aware gliders had fold-away turbines... (haven't been keeping up with things in the gliding fraternity). Last I saw gliders with jets was at Tocumwal where they had, what I recall a Blanik (but could be wrong) rigged with a soli A-frame to the rear of the canopy with some turbine. Last I heard, it had some problems and didn't get past taxying.. that was too many years ago to think about.

I lived in Bendigo for the second half of 2003 - loved it.. the airfield is bloomin' fine... Though, there were no RAA clubs there that I recall at the time... Unf, the UK hailed SWMBO did not take to it like I did (she doesn't like flying, nor as it turned out, 4x4'ing) Funny story I have about being at the Irish pub, of which the name I can't recall.. But he late (and great) Jim Steynes' brother and sister worked there.. and that is where I almost came a cropper...

Whoa @spacesailor.! No one is suggesting that pilots on a RAA Cert are to suddenly extend to the realms of commercial flying, flying complex machines, etc. However, to deny an RAA cert pilot access to airpspace where the RAA pilot that can meet the procedural (rather than arbitrary bureaucratic) requirenments, particularly when artificially denying such access is, well criminal in my mind. Given that the rules are there because of the perceived (and possibly historical) unreliability of engines and lower level of training (in real terms, de minimis - who needs all that PPL theory as a PPL, anyway, so its the pract differencess only), then it seems an anomaly to me to send them over tiger country where if the poop stops the fan, then it's most likely curtains rather than allowing them to route over open pasture where they stand a better chance. By procedural, I mean they know how to use the radio, the radio has range, they should have a transponder (mode C as a minimum - are you guys requierd to use mode-s, yet?), they can naviate and the comply with ATC requirements. I name a few GA pilots that wouldn't meet all of the above criteria... As an FYI, PPLs here can take paying passengers on joyflights - or officially termed, "familiarisation" flights. They can't themselves be remunerated, but can operate under the auspices of a club of flying school... I think there is a max time limit and there has to be various declarations to the passengers.. Why PPLs can even be remunerated instructors here (to PPL level if they have CPL theory, otherwise to the equivalent to a RAA Pilto Cert)..

The idea the everytime a department puts in a rule and are stubborn about fixing it, give up and work around it or incur an unecessary expensive burden, especially when lives are at stake, is not the workings of democracy. Maybe RAAAus should enlist the assistance of AOPA, other GA representatives and even ATC representative bodies to help educate CASA that RAAus a/c and GA aircraft can mix comfortably and there are no turf wars (there may be a requirement to teh RAA Pilot Certificant to have a controlled airpace endorsement or just a flight radio telephony licence...) I am sure the RAAus boffins have thought about all of this...

Not allowing RAAus a/c into class D is completely nuts! I can understand not over major conurbations, or lose to the airport or normal routing in (ATC would give a clearance to avoid these areas within Class D). But within all of a class D zone or area is nuts - CASA probably has blood on their hands with that rule. AIUI, permit, ultralights and microlights are permitted in Class D with ATC approval. In fact gliders operate in Class D here... Suitably equipped permit a/c are allowed to fly IFR and night (each a/c has to be individually approved). Are RAAus a/c falling out of the sky? Isn't there a couple of MPs with RAAUs or PPL (or other) tickets who can exert parliamentary pressure on this guy and his board cronies: Key Appointments to the Civil Aviation Safety Authority

Unintended negligence isn't in the vernacular of DvS, but I guess this is an Aussie reference if legal speak doesn't include recklessness, etc. I looked for the [edit after fixing quotes] Barooga case name in the thread but couldn't find it.. But for argument's sake, I don't think it matters as there are other cases in this thread (e.g. fellow falling off a precipice). In DvS, two reasons were cited as the ratio for being able to find (unintended) negligence; a duty of care and the neighbour (proximity) principle. a) the presence of a snail in the drink could be attributed to negligence in the manufacturing process to ensure there were no obvious contaminants; and b) the glass was opaque - not allowing the consumer - whoever they were - to inspect the contents before drinking them. This, IMHO, is sound reasoning.. Something totally within the control of the manufacturer while they are producing their product coupled with the inability for a reasonable consumer to be able to identify and avoid the tortfeasannce (apologies for misfeasance, earlier). In 1932,the threshold is set - it has to be within the reasonable control of the defendant and it also has to be that the plaintiff (in the UK now, complainant) could not have reasonably discovered and avoided the tortfeasance beforehand (which is effectively contributory negligence ). However, from the cases above and the very quick skim of the Barooga case (1@turboplanner[/uSER] - can you pls let me know the case name again - couldn't find it), there seems to have been, what would have been considered in 1932 reasonable efforts by the defendant to educate the plaintiff of the dangers (and the man on the Clapham omnubus would have known anyway), but somehow, negligence was found. In the case of the person who did not see the signs or realise that a fence was there to put a barrier between them and the precipice - and where theyintentionally climbed over it and suffered injury or death as a result of falling of the precipice or land giving way beyond the fence... if we apply the two test from DvS - was it within the control of the controlling authority? No. Was it reasonably foreseeable that to go beyind the signs and climb a bondary fence may put you in danger - yes.. If this was the case that went to the house of lords in 1932, then it may have failed on the criteria set by D&S. The fact that the plaintiff missed the signs and climbed over a barrier fence would have indicated they were of the Darwin theory gene and, well, let the loss lie where it falls. Although, there are exceptions, of course.. A toddler or young-ish child (say, less than 12 years old) may be different. And what about the autistic or otherwise mentally incapacitated adult? Would not some of the blame lay in their carers/parents who should be keeping an eye on them? From the Barooga case, I am guessing some kid sadly hit their head on snag or submersed log. We were always taught to check rivers, gorges and indeed some sea areas (rocky areas) before diving in. Unlike a manufacturer, does an authority have an obligation to clear a snag in a popular swimming area of a river the second it falls or gets blocked there? If it was there for weeks, especially after being notified, then I would say yes.. But if it appeared after a regular inspection, it is bad luck of the plaintiff, but, really, they can swim about before diving in to check there is no debris that will connect with the flour-filled scone.. (again, I only skimmed this case so I may be totally off).. DvS set the concept of negligence to the neighbour - but it limited negligence to what was in control of the manufacturer and to where the neighbour couldn't reasonably be expected to identify the mischief and even if they could, they could not reasonably avoid it. Since then, it appears the law is willing to find negligence beyond those simple concepts and this is what I mean by the threshold of negligence has changed - it is easier to find it today than what it was.. And thee are many commonwealth countries where negligence is cited as obiter that helps that. BTW - I am no lawyer - though so don't think anything I have said is an anyway qualified.

Unintended negligence isn't in the vernacular of DvS, but I guess this is an Aussie reference if legal speak doesn't include recklessness, etc. I looked for the [edit after fixing quotes] Barooga case name in the thread but couldn't find it.. But for argument's sake, I don't think it matters as there are other cases in this thread (e.g. fellow falling off a precipice). In DvS, two reasons were cited as the ratio for being able to find (unintended) negligence; a duty of care and the neighbour (proximity) principle. a) the presence of a snail in the drink could be attributed to negligence in the manufacturing process to ensure there were no obvious contaminants; and b) the glass was opaque - not allowing the consumer - whoever they were - to inspect the contents before drinking them. This, IMHO, is sound reasoning.. Something totally within the control of the manufacturer while they are producing their product coupled with the inability for a reasonable consumer to be able to identify and avoid the tortfeasannce (apologies for misfeasance, earlier). In 1932,the threshold is set - it has to be within the reasonable control of the defendant and it also has to be that the plaintiff (in the UK now, complainant) could not have reasonably discovered and avoided the tortfeasance beforehand (which is effectively contributory negligence ). However, from the cases above and the very quick skim of the Barooga case (@turboplanner - can you pls let me know the case name again - couldn't find it), there seems to have been, what would have been considered in 1932 reasonable efforts by the defendant to educate the plaintiff of the dangers (and the man on the Clapham omnubus would have known anyway), but somehow, negligence was found. In the case of the person who did not see the signs or realise that a fence was there to put a barrier between them and the precipice - and where theyintentionally climbed over it and suffered injury or death as a result of falling of the precipice or land giving way beyond the fence... if we apply the two test from DvS - was it within the control of the controlling authority? No. Was it reasonably foreseeable that to go beyind the signs and climb a bondary fence may put you in danger - yes.. If this was the case that went to the house of lords in 1932, then it may have failed on the criteria set by D&S. The fact that the plaintiff missed the signs and climbed over a barrier fence would have indicated they were of the Darwin theory gene and, well, let the loss lie where it falls. Although, there are exceptions, of course.. A toddler or young-ish child (say, less than 12 years old) may be different. And what about the autistic or otherwise mentally incapacitated adult? Would not some of the blame lay in their carers/parents who should be keeping an eye on them? From the Barooga case, I am guessing some kid sadly hit their head on snag or submersed log. We were always taught to check rivers, gorges and indeed some sea areas (rocky areas) before diving in. Unlike a manufacturer, does an authority have an obligation to clear a snag in a popular swimming area of a river the second it falls or gets blocked there? If it was there for weeks, especially after being notified, then I would say yes.. But if it appeared after a regular inspection, it is bad luck of the plaintiff, but, really, they can swim about before diving in to check there is no debris that will connect with the flour-filled scone.. (again, I only skimmed this case so I may be totally off).. DvS set the concept of negligence to the neighbour - but it limited negligence to what was in control of the manufacturer and to where the neighbour couldn't reasonably be expected to identify the mischief and even if they could, they could not reasonably avoid it. Since then, it appears the law is willing to find negligence beyond those simple concepts and this is what I mean by the threshold of negligence has changed - it is easier to find it today than what it was.. And thee are many commonwealth countries where negligence is cited as obiter that helps that. BTW - I am no lawyer - though so don't think anything I have said is an anyway qualified.

I ageed with both Ron and Turbs posts. IMHE, there is elements of truth in both of them. Although, I am happy to say these guys are still going strong: No Licence Fishing Boat Hire Melbourne | Bluey's Boathouse As a 16 year old, I used to take the train from Ormond to Mordialloc and hire from these fellas (there were a couple of others I used to hire from as well, but alas, no web sites) for fishing - snapper mainly. I can't recall the hp on the engines and to be honest, I know some were inboard and some were outboard - oddly, although I have a pretty good memory despite poisoning my brain, the only boats I can recall starting (using a button to an electric starter motor) were from a crowd that rented out orangey/beigy boat. I think it was Mordialloc Boat Hire - who I preferred as they were inboard motors and properly enclosed cabin. Can't recall the motors in the boats of Bluey'sbut they look outboard now (and I think they were, then - I have vague memories of squeezing a plunger on something - but there was another boat hire comany that had red and white livery - so may have been them). I agree with Turbs in that negligence has to be proved. I can only go on English and Welsh law, of which when I studied it, it drew from Aussie, Canadian, US and NZ cases as well, and I am guessing the same went for all other ex colonies. The concern I have is that the threshold of negligence has changed as society has evolved and there is an increasing expectation that insurance will pick up the tab anyway. I am not familiar with different Aussie state's civil legal procedure, but in the US, where juries decide, the plaintiffs' counsel will always play the poor victim against the business who is insured.. generally speaking, there seems to be a move to the insurance company footing the bill. I think this is wrong. And this is why I agree with Ron. I don't agree with the strict liability of the pilot/operator in an accident. The ATSB//AAIB/NTSB and other countries reports are littered with reports where an accident has been the result of some oversight (or fraudulent practice) of the maintenance shop, where whatever the problem was, was not easily identifiable, if at all, by the pilot in their daily check. Shouldn't the maintenance shop be liable in that case? However, for most other things, maybe the pilot is responsible.. For example, an engine failure that could not be foreseen occurring over tiger country - should the pilot not fly a route where they have a field suitable for emergency landings dotte along their route, even if it means a detour and added cost? But then, if you're flying from YMMB to King Island, does the px not accept a degree of risk should the engine fail over Bass Strait (for flying across the Channel here)? Always tough questions. UK has seen fit to remove doubt as to who's liable. A procedural expediency, but not always fair.

I ageed with both Ron and Turbs posts. IMHE, there is elements of truth in both of them. Although, I am happy to say these guys are still going strong: No Licence Fishing Boat Hire Melbourne | Bluey's Boathouse As a 16 year old, I used to take the train from Ormond to Mordialloc and hire from these fellas (there were a couple of others I used to hire from as well, but alas, no web sites) for fishing - snapper mainly. I can't recall the hp on the engines and to be honest, I know some were inboard and some were outboard - oddly, although I have a pretty good memory despite poisoning my brain, the only boats I can recall starting (using a button to an electric starter motor) were from a crowd that rented out orangey/beigy boat. I think it was Mordialloc Boat Hire - who I preferred as they were inboard motors and properly enclosed cabin. Can't recall the motors in the boats of Bluey'sbut they look outboard now (and I think they were, then - I have vague memories of squeezing a plunger on something - but there was another boat hire comany that had red and white livery - so may have been them). I agree with Turbs in that negligence has to be proved. I can only go on English and Welsh law, of which when I studied it, it drew from Aussie, Canadian, US and NZ cases as well, and I am guessing the same went for all other ex colonies. The concern I have is that the threshold of negligence has changed as society has evolved and there is an increasing expectation that insurance will pick up the tab anyway. I am not familiar with different Aussie state's civil legal procedure, but in the US, where juries decide, the plaintiffs' counsel will always play the poor victim against the business who is insured.. generally speaking, there seems to be a move to the insurance company footing the bill. I think this is wrong. And this is why I agree with Ron. I don't agree with the strict liability of the pilot/operator in an accident. The ATSB//AAIB/NTSB and other countries reports are littered with reports where an accident has been the result of some oversight (or fraudulent practice) of the maintenance shop, where whatever the problem was, was not easily identifiable, if at all, by the pilot in their daily check. Shouldn't the maintenance shop be liable in that case? However, for most other things, maybe the pilot is responsible.. For example, an engine failure that could not be foreseen occurring over tiger country - should the pilot not fly a route where they have a field suitable for emergency landings dotte along their route, even if it means a detour and added cost? But then, if you're flying from YMMB to King Island, does the px not accept a degree of risk should the engine fail over Bass Strait (for flying across the Channel here)? Always tough questions. UK has seen fit to remove doubt as to who's liable. A procedural expediency, but not always fair.

Sir, I hope you have notified the press. That would be fantastic! We may not be at the same property by the time you arrive - I love the small holding, but my partner is not for the good life (more like Margo, she says). However, whatever proeprty we go for next, it will have a separate annexe, granny flat, or as they call them in Aus, bungalow (bungalow here, is a single storey house). Just drop me a PM.. Reminds be of the old bloke on love thy neighbour: (er, pardon the non-PC script)

Stated like a true statesman - far better than I could say... Of course, Dunkeswell is a fine mixed airfield (GA, LAA, Microlights and parachuting just to add to the mix). If you are in town and want an overnighter not too far from Dunks (EGTU), let me know and I will book the annexe out for you (FoC). If I can, I will pick you up as well (of course, goes for anyone on this forum - but no other).

'Allo Job.. Welcome to the site - a few UK based people are members... I am in soomahsait.... Mainly CoA to be honest, but a member of Devon Strut... But, this is a great site.

Well, one of the conflicts of interest is a solicitor's advice re litigation - the more you do it, the more they get.... Feel for you and can say I have had a few tough lessons learned over the years (and no duobt, more to come).

Well, one of the conflicts of interest is a solicitor's advice re litigation - the more you do it, the more they get.... Feel for you and can say I have had a few tough lessons learned over the years (and no duobt, more to come).

There are defiitely cases that go to court where the outcome is repugnant to the facts. Feel for you 1@boleropilot[/uSER] - though I am guessing this awas a damages claim for pain/suffering rather than the cost recovery for repairs of your car (unless you weren't insured comprehensively at the time). To go off on a tangent, there is a bit more to this than meets the eye though. The (proven) failure to give way would by itslef give rise to the fault of the accident laying with the other driver, regardless of whether you skidded or not, whether you were on the other side of the road or not, or in fact whethe you were drunk or not. There is a seminal 19th century case (can't recall the name) of it where a drunk driver (of a horse and carriage) knocked over and killed a child who had run out onto the road between two parked carriages (true story). At the time, there were laws against being in command of a horse and carriage while intoxicated and one of the charges the driver was brought up on was the then equivalent of death caused by dangerous driving. He was found guilty of his drunk driving charge, but aqitted of the death by dangerous driving based on the fact that it did not matter what his state of intoxication was, but if the accident would have happened with a sober driver at the reins; i.e. it was unavoidable, the fact he was drunk did not contibute to the death of the boy. No driver would have been able to avoid him and therefore, while definitely guilty of drink driving, was not guilty of dangerous driving. It still applies, AFAIK to most road law today - although I would not have a clue wha QLD law is. In the case of a failure to give way, there can be no contributory fault unless you were deliberately avoiding being seen or maybe you were driving so fast that it is reasonable he misjudged how quickly you would be arriving at the intersection - and neither of these seem plausible. Contributory negligence can be a factor in a damages claim for personal injury, pain and or suffering, but even then, from the above, the lack of skid marks may imply contributory negligence but the side of the road you were one means naught if he failed to give way. Sounds like ths was probably in a magistrates or a specialist court rather than a crown court. Magistrartes have a bad reputation as hanging judges and if they don't like the look of your face, it can be a tough ride you are in for. This is of course not true for many, if not most magistrates, but you may have got an unlucky one. Sounds like, however, you could have been awarded $1m and you would have got nought as he would have just delcared bankruptcy - something your solicitor should have advised you before proceedings. Back to topic - the benefit of strict liability for the aviation accidents is that it leaves in no doubt who is going to pick up the tab when it all goes pear-shaped. The only question is how much and it is up to us pilots to determine an adequate level of insurance cover (in the UK).

There are defiitely cases that go to court where the outcome is repugnant to the facts. Feel for you @boleropilot - though I am guessing this awas a damages claim for pain/suffering rather than the cost recovery for repairs of your car (unless you weren't insured comprehensively at the time). To go off on a tangent, there is a bit more to this than meets the eye though. The (proven) failure to give way would by itslef give rise to the fault of the accident laying with the other driver, regardless of whether you skidded or not, whether you were on the other side of the road or not, or in fact whethe you were drunk or not. There is a seminal 19th century case (can't recall the name) of it where a drunk driver (of a horse and carriage) knocked over and killed a child who had run out onto the road between two parked carriages (true story). At the time, there were laws against being in command of a horse and carriage while intoxicated and one of the charges the driver was brought up on was the then equivalent of death caused by dangerous driving. He was found guilty of his drunk driving charge, but aqitted of the death by dangerous driving based on the fact that it did not matter what his state of intoxication was, but if the accident would have happened with a sober driver at the reins; i.e. it was unavoidable, the fact he was drunk did not contibute to the death of the boy. No driver would have been able to avoid him and therefore, while definitely guilty of drink driving, was not guilty of dangerous driving. It still applies, AFAIK to most road law today - although I would not have a clue wha QLD law is. In the case of a failure to give way, there can be no contributory fault unless you were deliberately avoiding being seen or maybe you were driving so fast that it is reasonable he misjudged how quickly you would be arriving at the intersection - and neither of these seem plausible. Contributory negligence can be a factor in a damages claim for personal injury, pain and or suffering, but even then, from the above, the lack of skid marks may imply contributory negligence but the side of the road you were one means naught if he failed to give way. Sounds like ths was probably in a magistrates or a specialist court rather than a crown court. Magistrartes have a bad reputation as hanging judges and if they don't like the look of your face, it can be a tough ride you are in for. This is of course not true for many, if not most magistrates, but you may have got an unlucky one. Sounds like, however, you could have been awarded $1m and you would have got nought as he would have just delcared bankruptcy - something your solicitor should have advised you before proceedings. Back to topic - the benefit of strict liability for the aviation accidents is that it leaves in no doubt who is going to pick up the tab when it all goes pear-shaped. The only question is how much and it is up to us pilots to determine an adequate level of insurance cover (in the UK).

From an ATCO at Gloucestershire, posted on "Light aircraft crash in Worcestershire" 08/01/2018 - FLYER Forums Gloucester ATC lost contact with the inbound aircraft at around 1240 today. The alarm was raised and, as you will have seen, the outcome was tragically fatal. EGBJ 081150Z 05002KT 8000 FEW008 BKN014 02/01 Q1022= EGBJ 081220Z 05004KT 8000 -DZ BKN008 OVC011 02/01 Q1021= EGBJ 081250Z 05003KT 3500 -DZ BR BKN006 OVC010 02/02 Q1021= TAF EGBJ 081102Z 0812/0821 04008KT 9999 BKN016 BECMG 0812/0815 BKN012 PROB30 TEMPO 0815/0821 4000 -DZ BKN007 Revised around the time of the accident.... TAF AMD EGBJ 081240Z 0812/0821 04008KT 9999 BKN010 TEMPO 0812/0821 8000 -DZ BKN007 PROB30 TEMPO 0812/0821 4500 BR

Or graveyard spiral... Either way, really feel for those onboard and all affected. My examiner here laboured the point how quickly the weather can turn in the UK... I have experienced it first hand, but thankfuly was able to maintain a horizon of sorts and fly into the Channel to the FIR without life vests on to maintain VMC andthat horizon. I am a bit fiurther south west, but the day started slighlty foggy, cleared to the point I was going to head to the local airfield and then clagged in. I still havent done my IMCr (sub-ICAO instrument rating to keep us out of trouble). Since being laid off, I am doing the theory. and will be doing the prac as soon as I get a new role.

R.I.P. Apparently took off in flying conditions, but he Severn valley is apparently notorious for turning sour very quickly when dew point is close to temp. Condolensces to family, friends and those affected.

1@Jaba-who[/uSER], not meaning to be pedantic, but when I referred to (bolded in the quote only and not original post): , I was referring to the law of negligence (tort) with respect to aircraft accidents and not aviation law in general (ANO, etc).Looks like the UK is somewhat different to Aus in that a breach of an aviation law is not necesarily a strict liability offence, although one's licence may be suspended pending an investigation, whereas all that is needed is an accident to happen and a pax (or third party) to incur a loss, pain or suffering for the pilot/operator to be liable under tort/law of negligence. (note, there may be certain provisions a breach of the ANO or Civil Aviation Act is a strict liability offence, but it is not in general)

@Jaba-who, not meaning to be pedantic, but when I referred to (bolded in the quote only and not original post): , I was referring to the law of negligence (tort) with respect to aircraft accidents and not aviation law in general (ANO, etc). Looks like the UK is somewhat different to Aus in that a breach of an aviation law is not necesarily a strict liability offence, although one's licence may be suspended pending an investigation, whereas all that is needed is an accident to happen and a pax (or third party) to incur a loss, pain or suffering for the pilot/operator to be liable under tort/law of negligence. (note, there may be certain provisions a breach of the ANO or Civil Aviation Act is a strict liability offence, but it is not in general)

As mentioned above, it appears the UK have imported tortious liability as one of strict liability against the pilot/operator in the case of aircraft accidents. This means there is no requirement to prove negligence, recklessness or other misfeasance on behalf of the pilot/operator to hold them liable. Aus is different in that it appears the general law of tort applies.

As mentioned above, it appears the UK have imported tortious liability as one of strict liability against the pilot/operator in the case of aircraft accidents. This means there is no requirement to prove negligence, recklessness or other misfeasance on behalf of the pilot/operator to hold them liable. Aus is different in that it appears the general law of tort applies.

I did think it was strange that checking from regional flights would carry through to larger domestic or international flights and on re-reading the article, maybe I read too far in between the lines. That said, the reason espoused by @jetjr seems to be more probable.. It feels surreal that I would be thinking that GA is heading the way it is here in the UK for no plausible reason at all other than corruption... Pollies and corporates looting public services of a more niche nature than others for their benefit seems to be the only plausible reason. [edit]Would 4 corners care enough to do an expose(ay) [/edit]

I agree - it's the implementation that is the issue. Over 'ere, the regulators (even EASA for private GA) are now talking about proportionality - is the requirement proportional to the risk? They till err on the side of caution in many instances, but things are moving in the right direction. ASIC/AVID is an example of where there is a risk someone will use light aircraft to perpetrate a terrorist act but the response is both disproportionate and ineffective, especially when considering one is allowed to fly by merely applying for either card. The response has to be more like here - intelligence and surveillance - not security cards. Also, even if security challenged a terrorist fir the ASIC, they would probably meet their end fairly quickly. But that is my point with the security measures at regional airports - disproportionate requirement to meet the risk,