Jerry_Atrick

Reading the article I got the sense security screening was there because the the risk that a pax commencing their route from a regional airport (e.g. Mildura) to some destination (e.g. London) requiring them to transit through a major airport (.e.g Tullamarine) and that for some reason where there is no security at the origination airport, the bags and pax can embark without thorough screening a the major airport onto their longer flight. It seems eminently sensible to have security screening for these flights.. the alternative is to do it at the major airport, but the argument may be that a bomb could go off at any time. Though, if I attempt to bring a bomb with me when the flight originates from the major, I guess it could go off in the car/taxi/bus/train, in the terminal or anywhere in between. Also, the chances of someone packinga bomb in rural Aus??? Potential problem - yes.. Right answer to address it? Not really.

[edit - Turboplanner got his post in while I was composing this...] 1@turboplanner[/uSER], an established doctrine of English civil law is "the loss should lie where it falls" and the law of contract, tort and other branches seeks to transfer the loss where the loss was imposed by a third party through negligence, recklessness, etc (which have different legal meanings). In your example above, you are implying the man in the Clapham Omnibus (i,e, the reasonable man) would not have been able to reasonably differentiate the level of risk posed between an airliner and the flat expanses of major airports and an ultralight and a small grass strip? It would be very sad if this is what has become of society for two reasons: 1) man's power of deduction and reasoning as been so diminished that he cannot make a reasonable assessment of risk of anything (say the difference between jumping into the sea at Bells Beach and a local swimming pool) and b) an advanced society such as ours cannot educate man enough to be able to make these decisions based on the information presented to them. Of course, if there was neglect or recklessness in the accident, it would be a different kettle of fish and I accept in these circumstances, there would be evidential difficulty, in which case a country may be at liberty - such a the UK - to presume fault of the pilot and therefore ensure the risk is always borne by a specific party and that the party is aware it is they their responsibility to insure for the risk regardless of the actual circumstances. However, in the absence of such specific direction/law from the state, then, as sad as the outcome of the hypothetical case would be and on the assumption there were no neglect, recklessness or legal compliance issue (e.g. to ensure adequate stopway was mowed through the trees), why should someone else be held responsible for what is, to a reasonable man, an obvious risk that on this case materialised? Or has our own obligation to assess general risks to ourselves and insure against them been dispensed with?

[edit - Turboplanner got his post in while I was composing this...] @turboplanner, an established doctrine of English civil law is "the loss should lie where it falls" and the law of contract, tort and other branches seeks to transfer the loss where the loss was imposed by a third party through negligence, recklessness, etc (which have different legal meanings). In your example above, you are implying the man in the Clapham Omnibus (i,e, the reasonable man) would not have been able to reasonably differentiate the level of risk posed between an airliner and the flat expanses of major airports and an ultralight and a small grass strip? It would be very sad if this is what has become of society for two reasons: 1) man's power of deduction and reasoning as been so diminished that he cannot make a reasonable assessment of risk of anything (say the difference between jumping into the sea at Bells Beach and a local swimming pool) and b) an advanced society such as ours cannot educate man enough to be able to make these decisions based on the information presented to them. Of course, if there was neglect or recklessness in the accident, it would be a different kettle of fish and I accept in these circumstances, there would be evidential difficulty, in which case a country may be at liberty - such a the UK - to presume fault of the pilot and therefore ensure the risk is always borne by a specific party and that the party is aware it is they their responsibility to insure for the risk regardless of the actual circumstances. However, in the absence of such specific direction/law from the state, then, as sad as the outcome of the hypothetical case would be and on the assumption there were no neglect, recklessness or legal compliance issue (e.g. to ensure adequate stopway was mowed through the trees), why should someone else be held responsible for what is, to a reasonable man, an obvious risk that on this case materialised? Or has our own obligation to assess general risks to ourselves and insure against them been dispensed with?

certainly looked that way from the aerial photograph, above

Melbourne being the most liveable city is a furphy. It is a title dreamed up my the Economist magazine for liveability by expat snr mgt/executive employees where at the very least, they are paid a premium to adjust for the cost of living or more usually have most of their living expenses directly paid for and then some for FBT/tax equalisation, etc. I can tell you from experience, London is more liveable the Melbourne for the average punter like me. But it depends on your interpretation of living. For some people rural is living and city life is existing, for others, it is the opposite. And it would appear from the expression on random strangers faces that it is im about equal proprotion that they feel they are existing. Drug and crime problems are rife in both sets of civilisation (to use that as a possible measure of existence v living); the proportion may be different and the nature slightly different as well (e.g. rural locations generally are not places of terrorism because the impact is lower).

Cost less in the country? You are kidding? One earns less and the property rental is less (unless one wants something close to civilised). Despite being in an agri-belt, food was more expensive, petrol is more expensive and everything else costs much the same. That was my experience, anyway. After 6 months, moved to Melbourne and despite renting a house in South Yarra (long before the rental boom - we got the house $200/wk less than he wanted), we were much better off because cost of living was ever so slightly cheaper, but incomes were much better. Having said that, I preferred the rural location, though the missus wasn't quite so keen on it. (I take the point, rents/cost of housing in Melb or other major cities these days much higher than rural). You're right about finding people whom share the same interests though... I don't consider myself much of a ladies man (nor do the ladies), but one young-ish lass in the country town did ask if I was spoken for when she found out I was a private flyer - as she was also a pilot and couldn't find a lad that shared the same passion who was available. I was (and still am by the same person) spoken for.

These are great, honest appraisals of real-life flight situations where anyone of us can come a cropper. Thank's for posting. I will try and dig another out where a pilot succumbed under marginal weather to a runway overshoot/slide off the rwy at Scilly Island (St. Mary's?) and totalled a piper twin (though can't recall the model). He posted a forthright and seemingly honest assessment of the event and we all learned from it. I had a situation where I was flapping about with unexpected ATC and weather leading me to less than legal VMC flight conditions. Started pressing ahead and eventually logic and training kicked in and I turned around while I could still make out a horizon of sorts. Almost breached French airspace without a flight plan as a result. When I thought about the flight, the signs were there early on and I should have simply found a place comfy to orbit and assess the situation. Detailed info in the above goes a long way, where the ATSB/AAIB/NTSB and their ilk can't go once the crew/pax end up as statistics.

A mate of mine moved back to Brissie from here and labelled Aus, "Ausmerica"... When I arrived in Melb a couple of weeks ago after a 8 years since my last visit, I understood what he meant. I cal it America without the guns (unless, I guess one goes to Keilor, apparently). Having said that, have applied for a job down there.

There's quite a bit of discussion about it here: Personal injury - FLYER Forums (@:mods - feel free to delete if you feel that forum competes with this one - I don't think it does). The shareoplane I was involved with included third party liability to about £10m from memory (for each 3rd party - there was a max and restrictions, buit would have covered this). Aviation insurance companies here will generally pay out, even if there is some minor breach of the policy - the market is tight and as soon as word gets out that an insurer is unreasonable in handling claims, it is sunk. What interested me was that, although for normal claims of tort, this would probably fail (someone claimed unfair contract terms act can't remove liability for personal injury - may be true - but if so, is a relatively recent change as when I studied law here, UCTA only protected liability for death), some posts claim that an accident is strict liability (i.e. it only has to have happened (unless various conditions apply) and one is liable). [snipped my interpretation, which after looking up strict liability, was not quite right - though I don't recall it in Tort (yet I still passed it)] It would appear from the above, that in Aus, it would fall under the law of general tort or similar, in which case, it would come down to whether or not the pilot was negligent in their flying or emergency handling under the circumstances.

There's quite a bit of discussion about it here: Personal injury - FLYER Forums (@:mods - feel free to delete if you feel that forum competes with this one - I don't think it does). The shareoplane I was involved with included third party liability to about £10m from memory (for each 3rd party - there was a max and restrictions, buit would have covered this). Aviation insurance companies here will generally pay out, even if there is some minor breach of the policy - the market is tight and as soon as word gets out that an insurer is unreasonable in handling claims, it is sunk. What interested me was that, although for normal claims of tort, this would probably fail (someone claimed unfair contract terms act can't remove liability for personal injury - may be true - but if so, is a relatively recent change as when I studied law here, UCTA only protected liability for death), some posts claim that an accident is strict liability (i.e. it only has to have happened (unless various conditions apply) and one is liable). [snipped my interpretation, which after looking up strict liability, was not quite right - though I don't recall it in Tort (yet I still passed it)] It would appear from the above, that in Aus, it would fall under the law of general tort or similar, in which case, it would come down to whether or not the pilot was negligent in their flying or emergency handling under the circumstances.

Ideleted...mod

Back to the more inventive banter... Isn't the Australian parlance for snitch, "dob"? Why on earth would an Aussie use American parlance on an Aussie forum? Anyhoot, as I recall during the first 30 years of my life, Aussies never dobbed... ever... You weren't Australian if you did..

@alf jessup - it's a very poignant point.. Though, I personally am not in favour of using such public atrocities to further my agenda, but it (and the Bourke Street event) highlight what we have been saying all along - far easier, cheaper and more effective to use road vehicles to carry out these atrocities than aircraft. And, it highlights anyone can get a road vehicle (does one even need to provide a license to buy a cheap banger?). Of course, those same dumb arxe pollies may say, "Hey - notice how they haven't used aircraft - it's because of the ASIC and long may it remain in existence".

A couple of weeks ago, I had the fortune to make a quick visit to Melb, albeit in less than fortunate circumstances. Though about packing both the Aus and EASA PPL docs and then thought "stuff it... not worth the hassle". Result - no flying school got my revenue (what should have been a check flight and then a rental for about 5 hours I would have guessed - YMMB - YTOC - YBLT - YMMB was the thought). Ended up taking my bruv out for lunch instead - fraction of the price and my £ came home with me

I also had a long hiatus from flying - not quite that long - 15 years (with the odd, sporadic flight in between). Great feeling to get back into the saddle. Well done, ol' chap!

Sincerest condolences to all affected. Until moving down here, I often flew through there when heading oop north from Fairoaks; I have also flown form Wycombe Air Park for a short while and my son's forst lesson (aged 8 with three pillows under him and two behind him) were conducted from there For some reason, when there's a connection, they seem closer to home. RIP.

A mate of mine who got his PPL and Aus is heading with the family to Aus in 2018... Instead of renting a plane and taking them places, he is going to take an hour bimble with an instructor and hire a car to do his travelling because of the ASIC/AVID requirement. I met with my examiner to sign off some docs so I could convert from JAA to EASA. He was in Aus a few months ago and in the end gave up on the bureaucracy (and that is coming from the UK and EASA land) and did an hours bimble rather than scenic flying. If these are the terrorists they want to deny access to GA in Aus, then they are doing a sterling job.

An interesting fly-in: Curry By Air 2018 - FLYER Forums (Ian - I am sure these forums aren't competitors to yours - if they are, pls feel free to remove the post). One that is usually organised every four years: Raduno 2016: 22 June - 26/27 June - FLYER Forums We also have some pretty strict requirements when organizing events, but these are just friendly get togethers. and dispense with the idea of a formal event. Some remaining photos of the 2014 flyin: RADUNO 2014 - Page 2 - FLYER Forums Even something a little bigger would not fall foul of the rules if it was kept in the spirit of people simply gathering at an airfield.

If it is to be a fully fledged event, makes sense; otherwise, I would suggest if you want it an informal fly in, then it would attract unwanted risk mitigation.

Isn't the ASIC thing to protect inside the fence, not the general public? *ducks for cover*

@turboplanner is right in that one owes a duty of care to those around them for reasonably foreseeable risk - though there are some caveats to that too (proximity in terms of are you their keeper is one of those). So for example, your look around and clear-prop call should be good enough to alleviate you of liability of someone walking into the prop as you/after you start the engine, unless you mechanically did the actions without taking notice of the easily seen bystander admiring your prop in plain view in front of you... The key is it has to be a) a reasonably foreseeable risk and b) a reasonable duty of care - and the terms reasonable are interpreted by the court given the circumstances of the case. The fact that a foreseeable risk has yet to materialise and there is no history of it having materialised in the past is of no concern to the law - I guess the word foreseeable rather than historical is the pertinent word (historical is used by insurance companies to beef up premiums).. Also, the sad fact is that there is a tiny minority of people in any facet of life are usually irresponsible or negligent and unfortunately society has developed to take the easy way out by restricting everyone because of the actions of a few, rather than working out a way to identify and prove the bad actions of a few and dealing with them. @Nobody is right - just have an informal gathering at an airfield - I hadn't read all of the above posted CAP, but I don't think it will be caught by it. Otherwise anytime your local aero club did a fly away, technically it would be a fly in to wherever they were going and it would have to come under the same rules. (p.s. I am not a lawyer!)

OK - maybe I have a simple mind, bit most airfields have done their risk assessment and put in lace what is required to cater for the public visiting as well. A fly-in of this nature is merely a bunch of pilots agreeing to meet at an airfield for a social occasion, have a BBQ or meal, maybe a camping sleepover at an airfield that normally allows it anyway, and therefore apart from what @bull has done to reinforce those rules and requirements, what else should be required? After all, the only difference is that a hangar may be opened up (and aircraft relocated??) to cater for dinner and some members of the public may attend... No need to overcomplicate - or put in this forum - only members of the forum or pilots who actually fly in (or pre-notify arriving by some other means) will be allowed.

Of course, they would be known as Aerodrome Public Safety Barriers

Over 'ere, organising a fly in is quite simple. People get on a forum similar to this one; propose a destination (either UK or somewhere continental Europe), there's a bit of a squabble on dates and once sorted, someone makes a call to the destination to ensure enough food is ordered at the on-site restaurant and we all descend using SOPs .. Only at organised events rather than these casually organised fly-ins are there w-anchors and hooligans...

@GyPy&Susi - if you go here and search for IPEC, it has some info AWA ARGOSY.. BTW - like your dog - looks almost exactly the same a mine!