CHANGES TO RAAUS MEMBERSHIP TERMS & CONDITIONS

[Moneybox]

Duty of care can be stretched way out of proportion and if the legal system used a little common sense in judgement we’d all be much better off.

 

Let me give you an example. Earlier this year some irresponsible people broke into our shed. They first attempted to break the heavy duty padlock on the entry door but failed after doing considerable damage. After failing there they cut two holes in the corrugated iron side walls using what appeared to be tinsnips. Not only kids by the look of the strength that would have been needed.

 

After gaining entry they proceeded to smash expensive glass display cabinets. Then they broke the ignition lock out of my Honda quad and attempted to hotwire it failing because the battery was flat so then they smashed the instrument panel. They stole a stamp collection, a coin collection, an antique clock and more heritage items. They smashed a locked steel tool box until they gained entry to some old china. We still don’t know the extent of what was taken.

 

When the police arrived they tried to contact me but got Sandra in the end. They said they had a fair idea who the perpetrators were but there was nothing they could do without proof. Their only interest was in seeing that she had the holes in the wall repaired asap in case they returned. 
 

Their reason was so that they wouldn’t injure themselves going through the hole. Apparently my duty of care to the thieves was to give them a safe working environment. Sandra called the shire workshop and had it repaired within a couple of hours. If I’d have been home I’d of taken a file to the edge of the iron and sharpened it. That’s my level of duty of care.

[BrendAn]

signing a few new ts and cs does not bother me at all.

won't affect me flying around on the weekends.

[coljones]

2 hours ago, Moneybox said:

Duty of care can be stretched way out of proportion and if the legal system used a little common sense in judgement we’d all be much better off.

 

Let me give you an example. Earlier this year some irresponsible people broke into our shed. They first attempted to break the heavy duty padlock on the entry door but failed after doing considerable damage. After failing there they cut two holes in the corrugated iron side walls using what appeared to be tinsnips. Not only kids by the look of the strength that would have been needed.

 

After gaining entry they proceeded to smash expensive glass display cabinets. Then they broke the ignition lock out of my Honda quad and attempted to hotwire it failing because the battery was flat so then they smashed the instrument panel. They stole a stamp collection, a coin collection, an antique clock and more heritage items. They smashed a locked steel tool box until they gained entry to some old china. We still don’t know the extent of what was taken.

 

When the police arrived they tried to contact me but got Sandra in the end. They said they had a fair idea who the perpetrators were but there was nothing they could do without proof. Their only interest was in seeing that she had the holes in the wall repaired asap in case they returned. 
 

Their reason was so that they wouldn’t injure themselves going through the hole. Apparently my duty of care to the thieves was to give them a safe working environment. Sandra called the shire workshop and had it repaired within a couple of hours. If I’d have been home I’d of taken a file to the edge of the iron and sharpened it. That’s my level of duty of care.

But the next person through your guillotine might be a cop or some other innocent trying to help you out.  I do, in fact, feel for your loss.

Edited Friday at 12:09 PM by coljones
Spell

[facthunter]

Bloody rotten thing to Have Happen. You Lose your faith in Human Beings. Nev

[skippydiesel]

It is we, the Australian proletariat, who have accepted this adversarial system, without much more than a whinge now & again.

 

In most instances, assistance/compensation for an injury, the injured party must demonstrate, in a court of law, that someone is guilty of failing to ensure their safety. There is virtually nil no fault compensation awards made in Australia.

 

This system rewards/serves the ambulance chasing legal profession & insurance companies - not us.

 

Its a legal rort that should have been changed decades ago but we don't make sufficient fuss to attract the attention of the law makers/politicians, so nothing changes.

 

Sure the USA may excel at this sort of justice for $$$ but its our system thats being manipulated to enrich the insurance companies & legal vulture's.😈

[jackc]

Well, now we have everyone thinking? We just wait and see the final Terms and Conditions that RAAus publish, for us to abide by. 
Like everything these days, the membership have not been consulted for ideas to contribute.  Never give people a chance for input, as the organisation may get to hear, what they don’t like. 
Insurance policies these days are full of escape clauses etc.  With the new  T’s and C’s don’t expect protection from anything as a member, because it will be only to protect RAAus and its hierarchy, which is logical in this day and age. 
It will be interesting to see what’s in it for members, OR what’s out of it? 
Just think, IF RAAus was still Incorporated, the new T’s and C’s may not have had any potential, to be a problem? 

[facthunter]

IF they go broke they cannot function.   Nev

[jackc]

20 minutes ago, facthunter said:

IF they go broke they cannot function.   Nev

It would take a serious legal action to be lost, for that to happen, and what I see on the table from Mt Beauty, I don’t see it causing big problem, but then what would I know? 

Not sure IF the Bristell incident will cause something, but that maybe water under the bridge? 

[turboplanner]

1 hour ago, skippydiesel said:

It is we, the Australian proletariat, who have accepted this adversarial system, without much more than a whinge now & again.

 

In most instances, assistance/compensation for an injury, the injured party must demonstrate, in a court of law, that someone is guilty of failing to ensure their safety. There is virtually nil no fault compensation awards made in Australia.

 

This system rewards/serves the ambulance chasing legal profession & insurance companies - not us.

 

Its a legal rort that should have been changed decades ago but we don't make sufficient fuss to attract the attention of the law makers/politicians, so nothing changes.

 

Sure the USA may excel at this sort of justice for $$$ but its our system thats being manipulated to enrich the insurance companies & legal vulture's.😈

I would suggest you do some very serious research; we have one system where the Government pays for injury reserved for motor vehicle actions and another where we have to pay for harming someone if we breach our duty of care. The second one has been in force for one amd a half generations, is based on a Scottish precedent and has nothing to do with the USA. 

[skippydiesel]

"..........is based on a Scottish precedent and has nothing to do with the USA. "

 

Here is me thinking British -  Scottish  ?? okay if you say so / bit of a divided hair - I never suggested it was the US - read !

 

"Government pays for injury reserved for motor vehicle actions" - News to me! So nothing to do with insurance companies/policies, compulsory third party insurance ?? 

 

"...another where we have to pay for harming someone if we breach our duty of care. "  - how is this even vaguely relevant?.

 

Those that deliberatly breach their duty of care, a death/injury results,  should be subject to criminal proceeding, another matter entirely.

 

My argument is, where claims of injury/loss are being heard, the system of adversarial law (inherited from the British) is fundamentally flawed. It favours the rich and powerful, by so doing, disadvantages those without deep pockets & influence. Further it requires that there be a person/organisation at fault  - if no fault is found, the claimant gets nothing, no matter the severity of the injury. The Government won't change this system, to something more equitable/just, without pressure from us.

 

 Personal injury/public liability lawyers, that operate in this septic pit of greed are , with good reason, commonly referred to as "ambulance chasers" . It is they and their linked insurance industry, that promotes (fear mongering) the need for all levels of society / organisations to take out ever higher public liability insurance premiums. It's Governments failure that they flourish.😈

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[turboplanner]

8 hours ago, skippydiesel said:

"..........is based on a Scottish precedent and has nothing to do with the USA. "

 

Here is me thinking British -  Scottish  ?? okay if you say so / bit of a divided hair - I never suggested it was the US - read !

 

"Government pays for injury reserved for motor vehicle actions" - News to me! So nothing to do with insurance companies/policies, compulsory third party insurance ?? 

 

...another where we have to pay for harming someone if we breach our duty of care. "  - how is this even vaguely relevant?.

 

Those that deliberatly breach their duty of care, a death/injury results,  should be subject to criminal proceeding, another matter entirely.

 

My argument is, where claims of injury/loss are being heard, the system of adversarial law (inherited from the British) is fundamentally flawed. It favours the rich and powerful, by so doing, disadvantages those without deep pockets & influence. Further it requires that there be a person/organisation at fault  - if no fault is found, the claimant gets nothing, no matter the severity of the injury. The Government won't change this system, to something more equitable/just, without pressure from us.

 

 Personal injury/public liability lawyers, that operate in this septic pit of greed are , with good reason, commonly referred to as "ambulance chasers" . It is they and their linked insurance industry, that promotes (fear mongering) the need for all levels of society / organisations to take out ever higher public liability insurance premiums. It's Governments failure that they flourish.😈

Here is the precedent case for our Public Liability: Precedent, Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC562

https://www.scottishlawreports.org.uk/resources/donoghue-v-stevenson/case-report/

 

Here are some basics of State Third Party Schemes for NSW, Vic, Queensland

 

NSW

Compulsory Third Party

 

Vic TAC (Traffic Accident Commission)

Transport Accident Charge

This covers the owners of Victorian Motor Vehicles for the injury or death caused by their vehicle to another person.

 

Qld

MAC

CTP Scheme introduced 1936

Underwritten by private licensed insurers.

 

We are not covered by these schemes when we fly; that's how the motor vehicle works; not us.

 

Those that deliberately breach their duty of care are in a different category, they may be charged with a crime like assault, manslaughter.

 

If you read the Donoghue v Stevenson precedent carefully, you'll find its based an an unintended (accidental breach).

 

 

 

 

 

[skippydiesel]

Dear Turbo,

 

I do not follow your, I think its supposed to be a , rebuttal of my argument  - That the Australian (British) adversarial system of addressing claims for injury/death is fundamentally flawed.

 

No matter the origin, good intention, of this system, it has come to serve the legal/insurance industry, not we the people😈

[turboplanner]

2 minutes ago, skippydiesel said:

Dear Turbo,

 

I do not follow your, I think its supposed to be a , rebuttal of my argument  - That the Australian (British) adversarial system of addressing claims for injury/death is fundamentally flawed.

 

No matter the origin, good intention, of this system, it has come to serve the legal/insurance industry, not we the people😈

Then you will find out what happens if something goes wrong.

[facthunter]

I would NOT Brush off the Mt Beauty Event. I believe the RAAus had little control of it, in Reality. THAT person was always going to fly, almost No matter what. The flying conditions were the cause of death. Nev

[turboplanner]

Just now, facthunter said:

I would NOT Brush off the Mt Beauty Event. I believe the RAAus had little control of it, in Reality. THAT person was always going to fly, almost No matter what. The flying conditions were the cause of death. Nev

It's decided on duty of care these days. We lost several cases until we realised WE had to control the behaviour of the obvious risk-heads.

[facthunter]

Racing cars don't FLY and you can call of an event if the weather is bad.. NO comparison at all. When a little Plane takes off from somewhere  non controlled there's no way to stop them or KNOW where they are going. Nev

[turboplanner]

5 minutes ago, facthunter said:

Racing cars don't FLY and you can call of an event if the weather is bad.. NO comparison at all. When a little Plane takes off from somewhere  non controlled there's no way to stop them or KNOW where they are going. Nev

We said that too; the courts just kept awarding damages against us. As far as flying is concerned weather is part of the training so part of flying.

[BurnieM]

1 hour ago, facthunter said:

I would NOT Brush off the Mt Beauty Event. I believe the RAAus had little control of it, in Reality. THAT person was always going to fly, almost No matter what. The flying conditions were the cause of death. Nev

I agree that poor judgement from the pilot was the major cause of this incident.

 

A reasonable person attributing blame may say that the fault lies 80% with the pilot, 15% instructor and 5% RAAus.

Both the instructor and RAAus knew there were questions about this pilot but proceeded with his licencing anyway.

 

However, the pilot is dead and the instructor has since died. So RAAus is the only party left.

I suspect that a civil action will significantly reduce the payout because of the pilots cupability but the legal costs to RAAus could still be significant.

 

Edited Sunday at 01:01 AM by BurnieM

[onetrack]

I think the major thrust of any action against the RAA and its officials is that they lied and obfuscated to the coroner, as regards the pilot training information.

 

Those actions implies a certain degree of guilt feeling within RAA as regards the inadequacy of the pilots training, but I think BurnieM has nailed the percentages of culpability pretty well.

[facthunter]

IT would NOT have made any difference. He inferred he was  good enough. I've been involved with People like that But not as Bad. IF it wasn't THAT day it would be another. Nev

[jackc]

1 hour ago, facthunter said:

I would NOT Brush off the Mt Beauty Event. I believe the RAAus had little control of it, in Reality. THAT person was always going to fly, almost No matter what. The flying conditions were the cause of death. Nev

Yes you are 100% right, the pilot was his own worst enemy. However, I would  allege RAAus tried a coverup on their part, which in essence was not a smart thing to do in a Coroner’s  Court.

If RAAus left it all as it was, they MAY have got a smack on the hand?  My comment is not really qualified, as I was not party to the intimate details of the whole incident.  The facts of the outcome of this crash are sad everywhere, but what is done…..is done 

[turboplanner]

10 minutes ago, facthunter said:

IT would NOT have made any difference. He inferred he was  good enough. I've been involved with People like that But not as Bad. IF it wasn't THAT day it would be another. Nev

So you would have been aware of the potential risk.

[facthunter]

That is irrelevant.  I think a few on this site commented at the time, probably including ME.  Please state How it could have been stopped effectively by anyone. Nev

[jackc]

5 minutes ago, facthunter said:

That is irrelevant.  I think a few on this site commented at the time, probably including ME.  Please state How it could have been stopped effectively by anyone. Nev

Simply reach into his Aircraft, pull out the key and tell him, he is going nowhere.  But who is game to stand the personal ramifications of doing that?  Someone close by will create a major scene questioning the action taken, by someone who cared, regardless?

 You are dealing with human beings, some who are not real bright, and that started with the Pilot 😕

[turboplanner]

1 hour ago, jackc said:

Simply reach into his Aircraft, pull out the key and tell him, he is going nowhere.  But who is game to stand the personal ramifications of doing that?  Someone close by will create a major scene questioning the action taken, by someone who cared, regardless?

 You are dealing with human beings, some who are not real bright, and that started with the Pilot 😕

Yet, if you have trained that pilot or are in charge of the facility at the time, you are responsible.