Crash after 3D printed air intake collapses. Good heads up for us kit builders

[onetrack]

You may think you can do what you like, any time you please - but you can't. Rules and regulations for the preservation of a safe and civil society, govern almost every move we make - from speed limits, to noise limits, to unacceptable social behaviour, to laws that jail us for serious crimes.

You may think you can tear off and kill yourself in a high-risk exercise, if you decide to do so. The problem is, your death from that high-risk adventure comes with an impact that affects a lot of other people - even though you try to make out it doesn't.

 

Emergency service providers, Police, Medics, and any number of other seemingly unassociated people, all have to clean up your crash mess - from extracting your mangled carcass from the wreckage, to trying to save you taking your last breath, to dealing with the impact of death on your estate, your family and friends, and even to making a lot of work and paperwork for others - from holding investigations, right through to inquests, and settling problems caused by your crash.

 

It's not possible to organise a "clean and simple" exit from this life in an air crash. You damage property on the ground that belongs to others, you may damage essential services in some manner - and above all, to adopt the attitude that "I can do what I like, no-one can tell me what to do" is selfish, and enters into the "Sovereign Citizen" stupidity, and lack of logic. We are governed by rules and regulations, and we have a safe and civil society, because of them. 

 

A "Duty of Care" is not rubbish, it is a proven and enforceable legal principle, and it can cost you everything if you choose to ignore your Duty of Care.

 

Edited Saturday at 03:20 AM by onetrack

[BrendAn]

18 minutes ago, onetrack said:

You may think you can do what you like, any time you please - but you can't. Rules and regulations for the preservation of a safe and civil society, govern almost every move we make - from speed limits, to noise limits, to unacceptable social behaviour, to laws that jail us for serious crimes.

You may think you can tear off and kill yourself in a high-risk exercise, if you decide to do so. The problem is, your death from that high-risk adventure comes with an impact that affects a lot of other people - even though you try to make out it doesn't.

 

Emergency service providers, Police, Medics, and any number of other seemingly unassociated people, all have to clean up your crash mess - from extracting your mangled carcass from the wreckage, to trying to save you taking your last breath, to dealing with the impact of death on your estate, your family and friends, and even to making a lot of work and paperwork for others - from holding investigations, right through to inquests, and settling problems caused by your crash.

 

It's not possible to organise a "clean and simple" exit from this life in an air crash. You damage property on the ground that belongs to others, you may damage essential services in some manner - and above all, to adopt the attitude that "I can do what I like, no-one can tell me what to do" is selfish, and enters into the "Sovereign Citizen" stupidity, and lack of logic. We are governed by rules and regulations, and we have a safe and civil society, because of them. 

 

A "Duty of Care" is not rubbish, it is a proven and enforceable legal principle, and it can cost you everything if you choose to ignore your Duty of Care.

 

You can interpret what I and skip have said  how you want 

We are saying we want to do our thing within reason. Don't try to make out we want to just do whatever we want.

Your comments are pretty condescending really. 

 

And a lot of duty of care is rubbish ,not all of it obviously. It gave rise to the safety industry, now we have dickheads thinking up new rules every week in my job. It's hard to keep up .

[turboplanner]

4 hours ago, rodgerc said:

I’m trying to determine how “RAA” (RA-Aus) became implicated in this post, given the accident occurred in the UK as a likely result of a component made and purchased in the USA 🤔….

Thread drift?

4 hours ago, rodgerc said:

 

In any event, I was informed by my CASA Authorised Person that it was not their job to determine the airworthiness of any experimental aircraft, nor could they deny a Special CoA, even if the aircraft was built out of Clag, paddle pop sticks and Bunnings bolts. 

CASA have a well ordered structure ranging from where they have direct responsibility through to the Sport Aviation self-administering organisations where the duty of care and responsibility moves to the Administrations, and that also ties in neatly with the Incorporated Associations that state and territory governments set up. So no secrets there. They don't have to worry about the Clag, paddle pop sticks and Bunnings bolts because the administrations carry the duty of care.

 

That has allowed many thousands of people to fly at low cost with specifications never before allowed. At the same time it has allowed the builders of non traditional aircraft like trikes, powered parachutes etc to be administered by people who know the requirements of these sub-groups, and make their own decisions on safety rules , construction etc.

 

Some confusion still exists because at the upper end of these groups, people have been flying into active CASA airspace and where that happens there is a need to learn and comply with CASA regulations.

 

But generally as you say, the SAOs are on there own.

 

Some just want freedom, not the responsibility, but there's no safety net; SAO means SAO.

 

4 hours ago, rodgerc said:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited Saturday at 05:48 AM by turboplanner

[skippydiesel]

2 hours ago, onetrack said:

 

 

No one is advocating ".....do what you like, any time you please" - this hysterical reading of my opinion is wrong.

 

"Rules and regulations for the preservation of a safe and civil society, govern almost every move we make - from speed limits, to noise limits, to unacceptable social behaviour, to laws that jail us for serious crimes."

I agree with the above , subject to the laws being applied with common-sense/ logic, which unfortunately is often not the case.

 

"You may think you can tear off and kill yourself in a high-risk exercise, if you decide to do so"

Anyone can do this anytime, subject to not being physical restrained from doing so. Its impractical to assume/think otherwise. The best that any of us can hope for is that there is a culture in place that may guide the so motivated person to manage the risk , such that they have a higher chance of living trough it without injury/dying.

 

"The problem is, your death from that high-risk adventure comes with an impact that affects a lot of other people - even though you try to make out it doesn't."

Where on earth did you get this idea from?? Of course there is a cost to injury/death (as stated earlier). Those adults who wish to indulge/pursue high risk activities, are fully aware of the possible outcome and flow on effects - would you prevent people from skying, horse riding, skindiving, skydiving, cave diving, etc etc, etc. This is one of the costs we should accept, when living in a supposedly free society.

 

"Emergency service providers................"

Its their job, they knowingly sign up to deal with  emergencies, which may involve injury/death.  There are many occupations, out there , that have a not so pleasant aspect, whats so special about emergency service providers?? . 

 

"A "Duty of Care"

Invoking DofC is a long bow ie out of context to this debate. If if you don't agree, consider this - the dead are very hard to penalise.😈

 

Edited Saturday at 06:02 AM by skippydiesel

[turboplanner]

4 hours ago, BrendAn said:

He is saying we should be able to enjoy our hobby and have freedom to do it within reason.

No need to be wrapped in cotton wool all the time. 

If I do something to my AC and stuff up .it will be my problem. I don't fly near people or cart passengers.

ii don't see how raaus have a duty of care really when the panel has placards saying fly this aircraft at your own risk. And this is not a a certified aircraft.

There are many rules in life designed to protect us from ourselves. People should be accountable for their actions not fall back on duty of care rubbish.

Just because someone makes up a fairyland story doesn't mean he's correct. In most cases it means a person hasn't done his research.

 

Prior to Self Administering Organizations, government departments prescribed rules you had to obey and there were consequences if you didn't. Today we have a big improvement in that we can make our own rules. If something goes wrong and we injure or kill someone, we have to pay, not the government. Characterising that is a waste of time and out of the 10,000 RAA members, most just walk away from the Sovereign Citizens.

 

If you had read the information readily available you would know that you will be paying out if you don't inform your passenger the aircraft is not as safe as a 747 RPT flight and that its home built with some dodgy parts etc. Many advisers have reduced that down to "the warning is not worth the paper its written on." That's not quite true but close enough. A poster like you should have been up with the court cases where decisions were made on the placard. In my past we paid out about 5.6 million on points which included, we had "motor racing is dangerous" signs up but we didn't tell the victim he could make a claim. In another case a Club held a "Family night". One of the family was injured and we paid out because we hadn't said the night would be dangerous. Not addressing all the complexities of flying, is not being ready or covered, if one day you are the one the engine quit on, or you are the one the wing folded on.

 

I would have thought from your past you would know just how many people don't bother being accountable for their actions and even abuse you when you point out the consequences. In flying the governments walked away from that crap and made us responsible. The clock is ticking.

 

[BrendAn]

17 minutes ago, turboplanner said:

Just because someone makes up a fairyland story doesn't mean he's correct. In most cases it means a person hasn't done his research.

 

Prior to Self Administering Organizations, government departments prescribed rules you had to obey and there were consequences if you didn't. Today we have a big improvement in that we can make our own rules. If something goes wrong and we injure or kill someone, we have to pay, not the government. Characterising that is a waste of time and out of the 10,000 RAA members, most just walk away from the Sovereign Citizens.

 

If you had read the information readily available you would know that you will be paying out if you don't inform your passenger the aircraft is not as safe as a 747 RPT flight and that its home built with some dodgy parts etc. Many advisers have reduced that down to "the warning is not worth the paper its written on." That's not quite true but close enough. A poster like you should have been up with the court cases where decisions were made on the placard. In my past we paid out about 5.6 million on points which included, we had "motor racing is dangerous" signs up but we didn't tell the victim he could make a claim. In another case a Club held a "Family night". One of the family was injured and we paid out because we hadn't said the night would be dangerous. Not addressing all the complexities of flying, is not being ready or covered, if one day you are the one the engine quit on, or you are the one the wing folded on.

 

I would have thought from your past you would know just how many people don't bother being accountable for their actions and even abuse you when you point out the consequences. In flying the governments walked away from that crap and made us responsible. The clock is ticking.

 

If you actually read my posts you would not be accusing me of the thing's you just did. 

For a start I said we should have freedom to do our own thing within reason if we are not carrying passengers or flying near people. Which is what I do.

Look up part 103 in America. It works well.

You and one-track are making out I am flying a 6 seater full of passengers around the city.

[skippydiesel]

Turbo

You are extending the basic argument to a ridiculous/illogical extent.

 

I will try & simplify it for you;

 

John builds an aircraft .

John, without any third-party inspection/authorization, takes off.

The aircraft is uncontrollable & crashes - John is dead.

John leaves a widow & 12 kids

The fire that ensued from the crash burnt 10Ha of bush, owned by National Parks (us) and various emergency services were involved in recovering his body/putting out the fire, cleaning up the mess.

Family devastated & destitute.

Tax payer down a few $k for emergency service costs.

Its likly John has broken several laws.

• What to do?
• Who to blame?
• Who to sue?

We are not talking about wilfully risking third parties (passengers, etc). We are talking about the inalienable right (however ill advised) for an adult human, in a free society, to take whatever risk to themselves alone that they wish. 

 

Whats next - horse riding will be illegal, skydivers jailed, etc etc????

 

Closely allied to this argument is suicide; While I may lament the desperate act of suicide & wish to prevent it, the authorities have come to the conclusion that this is not an illegal act ie a survivor is no longer penalised. ergo he/she has a right to risk their life should they so choose.😈

 

 

Edited Saturday at 07:21 AM by skippydiesel

[tillmanr]

Skippy I think you need apologies for your inference that emergency service providers are all paid for their duty. As one of the many hundreds of volunteer emergency service workers for 15 years I just hope that your life is one big rainbow and you don’t need help away from the major cities. 

[Moneybox]

I agree with Duty of Care in the context that we should not intentionally injure others however I believe our lawyers and law as it’s interpreted use it as a big money spinner. 
 

SAFETY in this country costs industry and individuals a fortune in implementing THE RULES that are put in place by a few without due consideration for the community as a whole.

 

Many of the RULES regarding SAFETY are ridiculously expensive to implement with very little gain in risk management. 

[skippydiesel]

51 minutes ago, tillmanr said:

Skippy I think you need apologies for your inference that emergency service providers are all paid for their duty. As one of the many hundreds of volunteer emergency service workers for 15 years I just hope that your life is one big rainbow and you don’t need help away from the major cities. 

Do you have an English comprehension problem.?

 

Quote where I said that all emergency workers are payed for their service. Mind you the community ends up footing the bill for your activities, one way or another. There is no such thing as free service - someone always pays.

 

You and your good volunteers are but one organisation in the emergency response services - most of of the others are payed, its their job. 😈

 

 

 

 

[rgmwa]

Almost everything we do involves some level of risk and if things go wrong it will inevitably involve other people in various ways. But there is a big difference between irresponsible and possibly unlawful behaviour and considered risk and legal activity. The trick is being smart enough to recognise the difference and there are plenty of idiots who don't care what the difference is. I think they are more the ones OT was referring to. I might like to go gliding but would I choose a Blanik or a wing suit. My choice might define who I was.

 

[turboplanner]

2 hours ago, BrendAn said:

If you actually read my posts you would not be accusing me of the thing's you just did. 

For a start I said we should have freedom to do our own thing within reason if we are not carrying passengers or flying near people. Which is what I do.

Look up part 103 in America. It works well.

You and one-track are making out I am flying a 6 seater full of passengers around the city.

I did read your posts. 

I also read the current iteration where you should have the freedom to do your own thing within reasons, not carrying passengers or flying near people.

I also have a LOT of first hand experience of why things changed, how they changed and how to cope with the current era. I remember one night a Chief Steward rang me from another State. That State had asked us to investigate a death where a car had crashed head on into a safety fence, I remember him asking "He died of a massive head injury from hitting the roll cage. When the floor pan is full of blood, what does that mean?" He hadn't done his harness up. Living the dream.

[Blueadventures]

On 05/12/2025 at 11:05 AM, danny_galaga said:

Plane totalled, landing short of runway.Pilot only minor injuries. A good reminder I guess that it gets toasty under the hood!

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c1w932vqye0o

Great advice to follow about what filament is not suitable.  I'm sure the supplier will get onto things, likely need to do a recall on others in service /use.  Thanks for posting.

[BrendAn]

24 minutes ago, Moneybox said:

I agree with Duty of Care in the context that we should not intentionally injure others however I believe our lawyers and law as it’s interpreted use it as a big money spinner. 
 

SAFETY in this country costs industry and individuals a fortune in implementing THE RULES that are put in place by a few without due consideration for the community as a whole.

 

Many of the RULES regarding SAFETY are ridiculously expensive to implement with very little gain in risk management. 

i used to work in  the bluegum harvesting industry in albany .  we used to carry spare hoses in our utes. if you blew a hose you took it off and fitted the new one.

now the big corporates have taken over the industry if you blow a hose you tag machine out. if its more than a meter off the ground the company sends a scaffolding person out to build a scaffold beside the machine.  once he is done a fitter will turn up and change the hose. then the scaffolder will return and remove the scaffolding. my mate that does repairs for all the companies in the area said an hours work now takes up to 2 days.  imagine the cost compared to the normal way.  

Edited Saturday at 09:39 AM by BrendAn

[skippydiesel]

14 minutes ago, turboplanner said:

I did read your posts. 

I also read the current iteration where you should have the freedom to do your own thing within reasons, not carrying passengers or flying near people.

I also have a LOT of first hand experience of why things changed, how they changed and how to cope with the current era. I remember one night a Chief Steward rang me from another State. That State had asked us to investigate a death where a car had crashed head on into a safety fence, I remember him asking "He died of a massive head injury from hitting the roll cage. When the floor pan is full of blood, what does that mean?" He hadn't done his harness up. Living the dream.

Does this story support the right of the driver to not wear a safety harness?

 

The drivers stupidity (assumed to be an adult), in not wearing a safety harness, (taking an unnecessary risk) may have been the prime factor in his death. No matter his stupidity, I believe that was his right to decide not to wear the harness.

 

I find it extraordinary that most of the apposing respondent's on this subject, are or have been pilots. This would suggest that, at least for some time in their flying activity, they have been exposed to risks, that the average Joe would think unacceptable, ergo you are risk takers. That you now wish to impose restrictions on other like minded people is hypocritical.😈

 

 

 

[skippydiesel]

Part of the above response was lost:

 

 Does this story support the right of the driver to not wear a safety harness?

 

The drivers stupidity (assumed to be an adult), in not wearing a safety harness, (taking an unnecessary risk) may have been the prime factor in his death. No matter his stupidity, I believe that was his right to decide not to wear the harness.

 

Assuming he was driving under some sporting organisation that had a rule about using safety equipment - IF

• The Steward (mentioned) failed to notice that the driver was suitably strapped in at the start  - this may be seen as a Failure of Duty of Care (FODOC)and proportionate blame may result
• The drivers was known to do this and allowed to enter the competition - as above
• There was some practical way that the organisation could monitor the use of safety equipment and this was not implemented - as above
• The driver removed the harness after the start and there was little/no possibility for this being observed - the fault is the driver alone.

 

I find it extraordinary that most of the apposing respondent's on this subject, are or have been, pilots. This would suggest that, at least for some time in their flying activity, they have been exposed to risks, that the average Joe would think unacceptable, ergo you are risk takers. That you now wish to impose restrictions on other like minded people is hypocritical.😈

 

 

 

[onetrack]

Quote

 imagine the cost compared to the normal way.  

And imagine the cost when someone falls off a machine, lands on their head, and is turned into a living vegetable? I can't count on both hands, the number of people I know, who have done just that.

 

One bloke I know just fell off the back of a low-loader. He lives a miserable, spoon-fed life, and the cost of looking after him, runs into millions over his lifetime. The cost of what he's lost in life enjoyment, is immeasurable.

 

I have a mate who was fixing the track on bi-fold doors on a superphosphate shed. He was working alone, in a remote rural area. He tied the doors against the low level of prevailing wind, and went up the ladder to fix the track.

While he was up the top of the ladder, the wind rapidly reversed direction and gusted (you'd know all about this, as a pilot). The doors were driven back by the wind gust, the movement sent his ladder over backwards, he fell 4 metres onto concrete.

 

He totally shattered his left femur (the big top bone in your leg), shattered his left elbow - and he laid there in agony for over 2 hrs until he could raise help with a weak phone signal.

He ended up with a 10mm stainless steel rod through the full length of his femur, a stainless plate and a number of screws in his elbow, and he spent 3 mths in a wheelchair, and another 3 mths learning to walk properly again.

The cost in medical/rescue terms would have run into hundreds of thousands. And the pain and lifestyle/work restrictions he's endured since, can't be measured.

 

Yet, if you saw him before he started, taking steps along proper safety lines, with scaffolding, a fall-arrest harness, a safety and risk assessment, and assistance from others, I guess you'd just call him a safety wuss??

 

Edited Saturday at 11:02 AM by onetrack

[BrendAn]

22 minutes ago, onetrack said:

And imagine the cost when someone falls off a machine, lands on their head, and is turned into a living vegetable? I can't count on both hands, the number of people I know, who have done just that.

 

One bloke I know just fell off the back of a low-loader. He lives a miserable, spoon-fed life, and the cost of looking after him, runs into millions over his lifetime. The cost of what he's lost in life enjoyment, is immeasurable.

 

I have a mate who was fixing the track on bi-fold doors on a superphosphate shed. He was working alone, in a remote rural area. He tied the doors against the low level of prevailing wind, and went up the ladder to fix the track.

While he was up the top of the ladder, the wind rapidly reversed direction and gusted (you'd know all about this, as a pilot). The doors were driven back by the wind gust, the movement sent his ladder over backwards, he fell 4 metres onto concrete.

 

He totally shattered his left femur (the big top bone in your leg), shattered his left elbow - and he laid there in agony for over 2 hrs until he could raise help with a weak phone signal.

He ended up with a 10mm stainless steel rod through the full length of his femur, a stainless plate and a number of screws in his elbow, and he spent 3 mths in a wheelchair, and another 3 mths learning to walk properly again.

The cost in medical/rescue terms would have run into hundreds of thousands. And the pain and lifestyle/work restrictions he's endured since, can't be measured.

 

Yet, if you saw him before he started, taking steps along proper safety lines, with scaffolding, a fall-arrest harness, a safety and risk assessment, and assistance from others, I guess you'd just call him a safety wuss??

 

We can all come up with accident stories about this and that.

I know plenty. At the end of the day you have to use common sense.

People will always have accidents. 

You have to minimise risks but these days they just go over the top with everything.  If you think it's a good idea to waste 2 days changing a hose then good for you.

 

[Moneybox]

Coming back to the original cause of the accident, somebody designed a very nice looking air duct. They obviously had the skills to draw it in 3D, so better than most of us can do however they may not have had the skills to understand the properties of the material used.

I spent many years doing things like this, not aeronautical but automotive. I designed and build all components for LH to RH conversion, steering boxes, pitman arms, idler arms, pedals etc. I also made the airconditioning/heater and dash components. Perhaps the difference was I started out as a motor mechanic and then studied mechanical engineering before designing and building components for sale.

Whoever designed this air duct may have had sufficient skills to develop the component but insufficient skills to engineer it suitable for it's intended use. I think it's ok to build something like this for your own use but perhaps this item should never have been sold?

 

[turboplanner]

7 hours ago, Moneybox said:

I agree with Duty of Care in the context that we should not intentionally injure others...........

It's a VERY important point to understand that what we've been talking about is UNintentional injury to others.

The legal precedent that RA pilots, owners, administrators fly under is donaghue v stevenson [1932] ac 562.

 

 

[turboplanner]

7 hours ago, BrendAn said:

i used to work in  the bluegum harvesting industry in albany .  we used to carry spare hoses in our utes. if you blew a hose you took it off and fitted the new one.

now the big corporates have taken over the industry if you blow a hose you tag machine out. if its more than a meter off the ground the company sends a scaffolding person out to build a scaffold beside the machine.  once he is done a fitter will turn up and change the hose. then the scaffolder will return and remove the scaffolding. my mate that does repairs for all the companies in the area said an hours work now takes up to 2 days.  imagine the cost compared to the normal way.  

I've used a lot of hydraulics in my working life. If you've ever see the speed of drop when a strategic hose blows you become very wary from that time on. There are supposed to be restrictor valves fitted so the heavy mass drops slowly enough that you can get out of the way, but sometimes people forget. Sometimes an operator needs to get into town to have a new hose made up. Someone else may see the machine idle and needs to get it out of the way. The Tag is just a safety factor instead of going round everyone and telling them not to use the machine until you get back.

 

Re the 1 metre off the ground.....

The Falls from Heights legislation kicks in for anyone working more that two metres above the ground and follows a parade of fatals, paraplegics, quadriplegics etc. Cleaning your gutters was a good way to die; I know two people who did.   You can have permanent rails, scaffolding or use a safety harness. I had to lop some trees and was very laid back with a chain saw from 30 years experience, but I buckled and bought a harness, rested an extension ladder on a branch about 4 metres up, and started to cut the outside extension. This one twisted my way and slid the ladder sideways and there I was hanging in mid air. I slid the chainsaw down on its rope, then realised the safety harness was locked and how I was going to feel when the fieries came out and said "Having a little look over the roofs this morning?" Luckily there was someone on site who put the ladder up again, I climbed on, took the weight off and lowered myself down. If I'm working on a shed roof, I throw the rope over the roof and attach it to the towbar of the ute, and someone moves the ute along as I work. I've had three slides, probably none of them where I was likely to go over the side, but it's surprising how easy it is to work with the harness.

 

[BrendAn]

24 minutes ago, turboplanner said:

I've used a lot of hydraulics in my working life. If you've ever see the speed of drop when a strategic hose blows you become very wary from that time on. There are supposed to be restrictor valves fitted so the heavy mass drops slowly enough that you can get out of the way, but sometimes people forget. Sometimes an operator needs to get into town to have a new hose made up. Someone else may see the machine idle and needs to get it out of the way. The Tag is just a safety factor instead of going round everyone and telling them not to use the machine until you get back.

 

Re the 1 metre off the ground.....

The Falls from Heights legislation kicks in for anyone working more that two metres above the ground and follows a parade of fatals, paraplegics, quadriplegics etc. Cleaning your gutters was a good way to die; I know two people who did.   You can have permanent rails, scaffolding or use a safety harness. I had to lop some trees and was very laid back with a chain saw from 30 years experience, but I buckled and bought a harness, rested an extension ladder on a branch about 4 metres up, and started to cut the outside extension. This one twisted my way and slid the ladder sideways and there I was hanging in mid air. I slid the chainsaw down on its rope, then realised the safety harness was locked and how I was going to feel when the fieries came out and said "Having a little look over the roofs this morning?" Luckily there was someone on site who put the ladder up again, I climbed on, took the weight off and lowered myself down. If I'm working on a shed roof, I throw the rope over the roof and attach it to the towbar of the ute, and someone moves the ute along as I work. I've had three slides, probably none of them where I was likely to go over the side, but it's surprising how easy it is to work with the harness.

 

I have many years experience with hydraulics. The restrictor valves as you call them are break aways fitted to lifting booms , cranes etc.

On mine sites anything above 600 mm requires fall Protection and forestry has gone the same way.

I am not getting into a pissing competition about workplace accidents. 

 

Edited Saturday at 05:58 PM by BrendAn

[turboplanner]

7 hours ago, skippydiesel said:

Part of the above response was lost:

 

 Does this story support the right of the driver to not wear a safety harness?

 

The drivers stupidity (assumed to be an adult), in not wearing a safety harness, (taking an unnecessary risk) may have been the prime factor in his death. No matter his stupidity, I believe that was his right to decide not to wear the harness.

 

Assuming he was driving under some sporting organisation that had a rule about using safety equipment - IF

• The Steward (mentioned) failed to notice that the driver was suitably strapped in at the start  - this may be seen as a Failure of Duty of Care (FODOC)and proportionate blame may result
• The drivers was known to do this and allowed to enter the competition - as above
• There was some practical way that the organisation could monitor the use of safety equipment and this was not implemented - as above
• The driver removed the harness after the start and there was little/no possibility for this being observed - the fault is the driver alone.

 

I find it extraordinary that most of the apposing respondent's on this subject, are or have been, pilots. This would suggest that, at least for some time in their flying activity, they have been exposed to risks, that the average Joe would think unacceptable, ergo you are risk takers. That you now wish to impose restrictions on other like minded people is hypocritical.😈

As far as we know; the driver was quite happy wearing a safety harness and arm restraints.

The driver wasn't stupid.

He wasn't looking for a right not to wear a harness.

 

The Chief Steward I mentioned was a Victorian Chief Steward flown to another state to investigate the accident.

 

Step 1 in this case was the driver probably rushed back to the pits to jump in his car and forgot to do up his harness.

Step 2 was that at all tracks there must be a Pit Steward in Pit Lane who goes down the line reaching in and grabbing the harness to make sure it's tight and fitting correctly. Normally this is enough to pick up those who forgot.

Step 3 was the head on crash - unusual in racing where the car stopped dead and he was thrown up with his head hitting the roll cage. (roll cages must be roomy enough that no part of the body can hit the roll cage when you are restrained by the harness.)

 

As far as your "Driver stupidity" is concerned which implies a normal driver wouldn't do that; having experienced the trauma of this event for all the people directly involved there was a night where we were called to the pits for an unscheduled race. We had to run back, jump in, get pushed into order in Pit Lane and get the car primed for a push start out onto the track.

 

There was no Pit Steward in place to check the harnesses.

 

I didn't notice that, but I always made a habit when the engine started, to pull the shoulder straps tight. This night they came loose in my hands. We were only going to get one roll around lap so I made the decision that if I couldn't get the harness done up by the time we rolled to the end of the straight (it involved both hands and some twisting), I'd pull onto the infield and out of the race.

 

So in this case no one intended to let this go through, but just through check failures there could have been a fatal accident.

 

 

 

[Moneybox]

22 minutes ago, BrendAn said:

I am not getting into a pissing competition about workplace accidents. 

 

It seems these pissing competitions have gone on for more than a century. It’s what the legal profession live off. Take the case supplied by Turbo, it’s a great example where totally unrelated subjects are brought into question in the making of a decision in a court of law thus prolonging the suffering of both plaintiff and defendant.

 

 

The legal precedent that RA pilots, owners, administrators fly under is donaghue v stevenson [1932] ac 562.

 

It starts out of a snail getting into a bottle that is later filled with ginger beer and then sold. It then takes many twists and turns such as a faulty gun being sold, a faulty car repair, a faulty car manufacture etc.etc.

 

A whole lot of unrelated hogwash to eventually get back to the original issue of a snail in a bottle. The cost of the case way back in the early thirties went on for years with references back into the twenties, most of it irrelevant to the final decision. 

[turboplanner]

14 minutes ago, Moneybox said:

It seems these pissing competitions have gone on for more than a century. It’s what the legal profession live off. Take the case supplied by Turbo, it’s a great example where totally unrelated subjects are brought into question in the making of a decision in a court of law thus prolonging the suffering of both plaintiff and defendant.

 

 

The legal precedent that RA pilots, owners, administrators fly under is donaghue v stevenson [1932] ac 562.

 

It starts out of a snail getting into a bottle that is later filled with ginger beer and then sold. It then takes many twists and turns such as a faulty gun being sold, a faulty car repair, a faulty car manufacture etc.etc.

 

A whole lot of unrelated hogwash to eventually get back to the original issue of a snail in a bottle. The cost of the case way back in the early thirties went on for years with references back into the twenties, most of it irrelevant to the final decision. 

Obfuscation isn't going to help, it's the precedent that Australia works on, and last time I checked so did New Zealand, USA, UK and Canada.