turboplanner

The laws of physics make flying possible. Flying is still possible without CASA or RAAus.

Before you start on the "see a PL lawyer" line again, I understand exactly what you are saying, but we're heading down a dangerous path of self policing that will not end well for those that enjoy flying or much else for that matter.

Dictators control their population by getting them to self police, and gradually they tighten the noose around their own neck.

The whole idea that we ought to be grateful for the crumbs we are given is silly and we should demand much more than that.

As you know, seeing a PL Lawyer is not compulsory, but for about the cost of an hour's flying gives you a good idea of where to set your boundaries.

People who enjoy their flying and don't breach their duty of care and cover themselves by insuring should have nothing to fear from the lublic liability system, and from around 5 years ago RAA introduced good, affordable, insurance coverage.

I'm not sure who these evil Dictators are or how they could possibly tighten any noose when the laws have been in place since 1932.

It's only governments that have stepped away from self-insuring since the 1980s.

No sporting body is limited to crumbs being given except by their own self-management Formula 1 and V8 Supercar racing run under exactly the same laws we do.

There will always be the misfits under self administration, and often it's their noise or actions that trigger audits, but only the ones who injure or kill someone are really penalised.

......takes office.” But Turbo couldn’t stomach it, and baulked at the idea. So the deal fell through and RAA got the same old crew, Epaulettes, the dog patter, and Ghost Writer, and then.........

“.......shearer as well. He came up here once, shore out at Aramaic and knocked over 322 sheep in a day beating Jackie Howe’s record by one.” They still talk of it........

"......too far. [it was actually Mavis who said it, but we'll continue to humour the old chap] I'm HUMAN!" said Turbo, and the audience murmured agreement. "Even Locksy..................."

I do not know why and how the RAA can be blamed for this. ALA is "advisory only".

Therefore, in a nutshell:

What is allowed to Gods

is not allowed to Ox.

RAA are the Self Administering Organisation which makes your flying possible. If there is a safety standard, and they become aware that people are thumbing their noses at it they have a duty to correct the situation. They can do this by direct intervention (expensive) or by selected Audits (less expensive).

In turn, CASA, who authorise the SAOs as a means of affordable flying also have a duty of care to take action if safety standards are not being met.

CASA can do that by conducting an audit of RAA, which some members will remember they did in 2011 for compliance with CAOs, Recreational Aviation Australia Operations and Technical Manuals. We really don't need something to trigger one of those again; take a look at the attached photo and on the left the depth of the pages; everyone represented an aircraft and I suspect quite a few owners have never flown again.

........dealing with several of the Captain's aliases at the same time, some playing experienced aviators, others giving long explanations of an imaginary aircraft build, others playing the village idiot, all chiming in together to support any of the Captain's odd personality traits, and joining together to give likes to each other should Turbo make the mildest comment. On one occasion.......

If you are really worried about it all, don’t even drive your car to the airfield as you could crash! Forget owning a plane even.

Life has its elements of risk, just go out there and make the most of it:-)

 

Cheers,

 

Jack

It's nothing to do with whether you are worried or not; it's totally to do with innocent victims who have the right to go after you and RAA and the owner of the land and anyone else who's breached a duty of care.

This is why acquiring permission and insuring you are not putting anyone or anything else in harms way is one of the most important things in relation choosing where you may land. Even if it does comply with the standards of an ALA you are just as potentially screwed legally as has been demonstrated numerous times. But hey, maybe we should all just play it safe and stick to flying our keyboards?

There are plenty of breaches at ALAs but the ALA specifications are not in contention if it complies. We’re talking about using something which doesn’t comply with the CAAP.

Well there you go then. Now you have a great example on an incident at site that does not satisfy the CAAP regarding ALAs and not for a moment has RAA, CASA or the insurer had an issue with it.

Correct (although you might be talking a bit too soon). If you apply that to this accident there aren't any plaintiffs to be suing the pilot, unless he lost his income, in which case dependants could sue him.

The reason for making the example generic, is that, for example if an aircraft crashes with two people in it and the passenger becomes a quadriplegic he will usually sue, and if the pilot has breached his duty of care he will be paying.

Reminds me of a fairly recent at Hotham, at Essendon, at....

......Buddy Holly, Big Bopper, Richie Valens, Patsy Clyne, Hawkshaw Hawkins, Cowboy Copas, Jim Reeves, Dean Manuel..........

anywhere there's someone in a hurry and a weak pilot in command.

You start to learn about it as soon as you get your pax endorsement.

The tweaking does not appear to have had any effect.

 

When I tried to add the next photo to the Guess This Aircraft thread I got this message: You do not have permission to view this page or perform this action.

 

When I try to start a PM, I get this message: Oops! We ran into some problems. Please try again later. More error details may be in the browser console.

 

I don't know how to check the browser console.

 

In case it was because I use the Brave browser, I tried using Chrome with the same result. I tried using the computer at the Men's Shed. Same result. I have no problem with What's Up, Facebook or any other site.

 

I also notice that I have reverted from First Class Member to Well Known Member.

 

I don't know what else to try, other than creating a new login ID.

I guess you’ve already tried clear all history?

Turbo doing the run in the Getz, taking some deep breaths afterwards.....

.....electric car industry. As we know the industry so far has not been able to get off the ground due to ranges that roughly equate to the third intersection from the house and require new power generators, producing a net increase in CO2 of up to 60% more than ICE cars, plus they are effeminate. Not may people know but spuds can produce electricity, and when a potato is connected to the static boundary circuit of an encabulator and from the encabulator's cyclic output rotor to an electric motor, huge power outputs are available. Turbo put a system into an old Hyundai Getz and it blew tyre smoke along the complete 1/4 mile drag race circuit, pulling 6.96 seconds and 323.0736 km/hr, just short of the 6.94 secs world record, yet on the way back into town Turbo was actually waved away from a Booze and Roadworthy site, and all anyone needs to do is go down to the supermarket once a week, buy a spud and throw it in the hatch; and all that comes out of the exhaust is.........

.......some of Turbo's potato moonshine from the TurbinePotato Home Brewing Company, which harvested more potatoes per year than McDonalds, and........

....Laurel and Hardy or......

Well firstly what JG3 has said is far from correct. As stated before, people need to stop spreading rumors and making assumptions.

 

....No, to put it simply the strip did not meet the standards of an ALA. However at no point is there ever a recreational requirement, in GA or RAA for anywhere an aircraft lands to meet the standards of an ALA. Have you actually read the standards?

Rather than continue commenting on the current accident, I'm just going to talk generically about where an ALA fits in to our obligations, whether GA, RA or RA/STOL.

ALA – Aeroplane Landing Area, CASA CAAP 92-1(1) July 1992

92_1.pdf

Please note, I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice, it’s just to make everyone aware that they might need to go and see a Public Liability specialist lawyer to get a better understanding of what their legal obligations are when they operate an aircraft or use an area for take-off and landing.

CAAP stands for Civil Aviation Advisory Publication

At the beginning of the document are these key words:

“IMPORTANT

The information in this publication is advisory only. There is no legal requirement to observe the details set out in this publication.”

Does that mean you don’t have to take any notice of it?

Well if you talk to CASA about an ALA, you can expect them to have a neutral stance, maybe even limited to pointing out the existence of CAAP 92-1(1). They no longer prescribe a regulation for an ALA; they have stepped away from Public Liability relating to ALAs, so you would not expect a penalty from them if you don’t comply.

Who is responsible for the Duty of Care and Public Liability when you use one, build one or own one? You.

• In the case of a prescriptive CASA CAR regulation, you might get a fine of $200.00 if there is an accident where you’ve broken the regulation.
  
• In the case of an accident where there was no prescriptive regulation, but you had a duty of care, and breached it you may be paying out $12 million compensation plus a few million in both lawyers’ costs.
  

Industry Benchmarks help to protect you against this, and protect victims as well, and the CAAPs are a series of industry benchmarks where if you are in compliance you may not be found to have breached your duty of care.

So the CAAPs are your lifeboat than can save your house and assets, and in some cases criminal charges up to manslaughter.

The following extracts are worthwhile noting:

“……the aircraft can land at or take-off from the place in safety”

If you crash, you probably didn’t meet this requirement regardless of the scenario you might concoct; swiss cheese is not likely to help you.

“…factors that may be used to determine the suitability.”

If you didn’t use those factors you may have breached your duty of care.

Runway Length

“equal to of greater than that specified in the aircraft’s flight manual or approved performance charts or Certificate of Airworthiness for the prevailing conditions.”

Strip width

“60 metres, day……..actual runway surface 10 metres (below 2000 kg MTOW)”

And there are specified transition slopes, splays, clearances which everyone should read and become familiar with.

If you fly a STOL, you will be able to use a shorter length of runway, but the specific dimensions are benchmarks which, if you don’t adhere to, will usually breach your duty of care.

The transition angles, splays etc prevent you from landing under trees, in restricted valleys or on ridges.

......potato peeling tub, when she and Captain missed the word "potato" and jumped in, causing...........

Having not being there. I personally can not comment on what went wrong. However there does seem to be a huge "Cone of silence" on this one. Compared to what usually happens in this particular forum heading.

I guess as long as the gentleman hurt makes a full recovery. Thats all that matters.

No, that's not all that matters; if what JG3 said is correct, there is a behavioural issue that needs to be addressed. The next person who tries to prove he can do it may be killed. Who then takes responsibility? Did the proposed landing area meet ALA standards? Has the incident been reported to RAA? What action has RAA taken to avoid a repeat? Who was the responsible person at the site? and so on. These are aircraft, not trail bikes. One of the weak links in self administration of flying by bodies like RAA is that they have to administer and keep the sport safe, so ultimately all members are at risk of their rights if the safety standard drops. Just think back to the last CASA Audit which affected many RAA members, but seems to have been started by a few "incidents".

........some Drifter drivers would be worried about. Mavis noticed a microphone; she'd been up in Drifters before and had picked up the aviators radio phrases. "G'Day", she said, "it's Mavis and I'm not familiar with procedures here, so what do I do" The ATC guys looked across their desks and rolled their eyes. "Another RAA driver" said one, and was about to say "We're not either, so XXXX off", but thought better of it and said "Mavis, do you have a problem?" Mavis thought he was being personal, and said "NO!, but I need to get this thing down, and does it matter if the level in the little bottle is 20 mm from the bottom?" And with that, NES readers, the ATC fraternity cleared all traffic from Melbourne airport and guided her down to a perfect landing on the runway; she actually landed across it due to misunderstanding simple instructions (she was from Wagga Wagga), but it didn't matter, she looked like a bug on a windscreen in the footage from the Channel 9 News helicopter. On the ground the news media were comparing her with Nancy Bird Walton, and she quickly warmed to the fame. When a journalist asked her what make of aircraft it was, she confidently replied "a Cessna" and that provided six weeks of comments about the dumb press on WF, the winner being........

I don't think some people realise how quickly it happens. I had a recent experience where I took a family member up for a flight. It was a hazy day with smoke in the air from the fires, but on the ground it looked ok. I was cautious on climb out and decided to turn crosswind and climb up over the airfield - just in case. While I was making sure the aircraft was behaving etc, and my Pax was Ok, we started to climb above 3000, and the ground started to fade very quickly. It was at that point I immediately descended and put her away. I reckon another 30 seconds or so, and the ground was gone!

 

From the ground though, it looked OK. I live on a hill not far from the AD, and I could see right across the valley. Obviously very different conditions at 3000ft up!

Smoke can have similar properties to an inversion layer; from one angle it's transparent, from another opaque.

So is every incident logged with ATSB? Or is it only if its deemed nessasary to report on?

I've never seen a document from ATSB specifying any classes they will or won'y get involved in. It seems to be pretty much all GA accidents,except for a few where no lessons would be learned by spending money on an investigation. For example there was one aerobatic crash where a very experienced pilot was killed and there was no ATSB investigation.

In the case of RAA, ATSB has stepped in on a few occasions, and on others has been called in by RAA for expert work, but in the bulk of cases serious accidents are investigated by RAA, and in the case of fatalities the State Coroner usually conducts a hearing, the State or Territory Police carry out the investigation, and usually call in RAA for technical assistance. RAA makes their report to Police, Police make the combines report to the Coroner and the Coroner decides how the person died. The only information we get from these investigations is the Coroner's report, and you need to be alert to when the hearing is and when the report is published.

.......joystick and thought of England, but the Drifter rolled into.....

I wouldn't be so certain about that. I believe there is an 'intention' by our regulator to have all 'recreational' flying under a single roof. Training for CPL, and all current aerial work flying, and all charter flying, would become a new 'GA'. When you look at the bigger pic, it would not take very much change to merge the RPC and the RPL, which might require some changes to the theory exams, but really only a few differences to the flying syllabus. The differences between aircraft types could be via licence endorsements. Probably the most difficult part would be with the 'standardising' of instructors, but even that could be done by way of a common basic instructor course with add on endorsements for the type of instruction. I think we'll see changes in the near future.

happy days,

Depends what near future you're talking about; I believe that was the plan around 2008, but if you go over the HGFA, RAA, GA PVT and even the bottom end of GA Commercial, it's more likely that stricter oversight will come in.

..........take off" "Tomorrow morning at first light" said the piper, and when she got out to the airfield, there was a Drifter which had been rolled out of the hangar.

"Hop in" the Scotsman said, and he jumed in started up rolled out to the strip, and jumped out again, but he had tied the throttle and controls for a steady climb and within seconds Mavis was headed up into................

Turbo, I was envisioning a possible misunderstanding between pilot and journos, as to what what actually said, and what was reported. But the ABC article reported the pilot explicitly stating (to Seven News) ..."we lost rudder control".

Then, later in the initial reported statement, the pilot claims, "we kept the aircraft under control" .... ?

 

Finally, in another, later report, the same pilot reported engine failure, as the cause of the crash.

I guess if the engine stops and the airspeed drops, you sure won't have too much rudder authority - but I just wonder why engine failure wasn't even mentioned in the initial report? - and why one second he's claiming he, "lost rudder control", and next second he's saying, "we kept the aircraft under control"?

 

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-01-29/plane-crashes-off-fraser-island-survivors-swim-ashore/11910632

We'll get to learn about it in fine detail from ATSB; prelim report is now up, File AO-2020-10.

Note: this isn't the fine detail; ATSB are obtaining that and will produce a final report with all the details in it in a few months time.

https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2020/aair/ao-2020-010/