turboplanner

how good are April 1 jokes that blow up

Well this one was emailed to Yenn on April 3, so he has a defence, but what about the person who says he has fitted one (which presumably he had to buy from the alleged April fooler), and it works?

 

 

Don't go to court. I did on a failing to give way. I supposedly failed to give way to a police car that was breaking the law. The police lied completely unnecessarily as we were all in agreement on the facts. I pointed this out to the magistrate, but he found me guilty. There was no justice then and I doubt that it is much different now.

I see that a lot in Planning Law the Applicant, and we'll just discuss the honest ones here, thinks he is doing the world a favour by setting up as a chicken farmer next to a residential estate.

 

He can't see a problem with that after all he has "a right to farm". The enraged residents sit down over coffee and the wives tales start, based on noise, smell, the farmer could build the sheds on the other side of the paddock, they were there first etc. They don't believe in consultants or lawyers; everyone knows they go for people with deep pockets, so they come looking for someone like me. (For this exercise we'll forget there is a Broiler Code which specifies minimum separation distances)

 

Although there are only two or three legal grounds on which they can be successful, they've already started writing their own list, and I've never heard anyone run out of wind in a planning case for less than an hour. When I tell them that noise, smell, activity comes under amenity and Councils rarely refuse a permit on amenity because it's so difficult to prove, but they keep that on the list ignore the comments I made such as scale, location, zoning conditions. They lose the case at Council, and now determinedly head for VCAT or its State equivalent, bypassing a Planning Consultant who could almost certainly win the case for them if the Application didn't meet zoning requirements, bypassing a Planning Lawyer who would normally hire the consultant and win. and decide they'll pass the hat around and go for broke with a QC. Now a QC is a barrister who normally works from a brief provided by a solicitor, in this case a Planning Lawyer, but he's qualified to do it so he takes the case and loses when the Applicant's Planning Consultant, many rungs down the ladder of importance is able to show that the Application meets every clause of the Zone requirement for that Council. The Applicant wins the case, and the myth that lawyers are no good, and never go to VCAT because they are bastards continues. The locals just didn't bother to check the exact rules the case was going to be decided on.

 

 

I started this post some time ago and it has deteriorated into the usual Anti /pro Jab engine fiasco. I still do not know if the piece of equipment proposed by Jabiru will work or even if they are still pursueing the matter. It did seem a bit silly to me as there was a company in the USA reworking the Bing carbies to provide mixture control. They were selling a DIY kit for it.

It's come back on track; look at the post directly above yours.

 

 

Maybe, but more likely we value safety over individual rights. I’d much prefer our problems than theirs!

No it was just trash talk. The US road fatality rate sits at 221% higher than Australia, and believe me, if you ever go back to continually looking over your shoulder, or had one light up as you approached, as I did once, you'll be very thankful for the much safer, and more impartial, system we have here.

 

 

I can envision Uber requesting a whole new airway level being made available to them - say, between 50 and 400 feet. As long as they stay away from regular aircraft glide paths, this would probably work.

 

I wonder where the hoverbike fits in here? Anyone with any current knowledge or info, on how the Hoverbike is going with the Dubai Police? Have they accidentally/on purpose, decapitated any speeders in Dubai, yet?

 

Or cut a foot off.

 

I built an off road trike once and ran over my foot testing it.

 

 

As far as Uberplanes flying all over Melbourne in every direction rushing people to the airport, taking them home, if you’ve ever flown, or planned to fly into Tullamarine, remember that fateful transmission; “Requesting airways clearance”. Now multiply that by thousands and see how long the queue is.

 

 

As far as Uberplanes flying all over Melbourne in every direction rushing people to the airport, taking them home, if you’ve ever flown, or planned to fly into Tullamarine, remember that fateful transmission; “Requesting airways clearance” and the answer you usually get after you've already phoned ahead for a slot

 

Now multiply that queue by several hundred.

 

 

Most of us can't afford that luxury. You have to weigh up cost for benefit, and usually unless the penalties are massive, the cost always exceeds the benefit by a long shot. Even with undisputable evidence and a positive outcome, generally you will be out of pocket for more than the fine.

My experience on the two occasions I hired lawyers was that their cost was about 1/3 what the fines were going to be. The third time I decided to represent myself and had to sack myself afterwards because I lost. Then along came speed cameras and I haven't had a problem since.

 

 

You are saying a lot about RAAus aircraft and what they should be doing or should not be doing.

 

Wondering what your interest in RAAus management would be?

 

KP

Well you'll just have to keep wondering Keith. I think I've said about the same about your people and theirs.

 

Both organisations are companies, offering a service for a fee.

 

It's a bit like asking me what I think about the people who run Toyota, you don't get inside a Company like you do with an Association.

 

 

I've not been to a fly in yet where there are more than a couple of young rec pilots, most (over 95%) are ex-GA old farts. Fuel exhaustion and weather incidents have been occurring since the dawn of aviation. So I'm not sure what your point is besides vindictive sniping, ie: trolling.

I wasn't trolling, I was talking to PMCC who doesn't see a problem, and nor do I, and was discussing a pattern with cross country flying; nothing to do with your fly ins and ex GA old farts, unless you are travelling through three States. (If you're not travelling that sort of cross country distance, don't worry).

 

 

The private car parks in the city have access to vehicle registration details and they send you “ fines” for not paying. Seems similar as far as privacy goes. I guess I don’t see the problem because I fly GA and RA and don’t see why they should be different.

This is a little bit about RAA people buying the plastic fantastics, and leaving the home base, exploring cross country flying and encountering a world they may not be familiar with.

 

It fits in with fuel exhaustions, weather incidents etc.

 

 

there seems to be some movement on regulation although you wonder if Uber isn't trying to play off countries to get somewhere to legalize short range, low altitude commercial flying.

 

[/url]https://www.ft.com/content/13a8bd1e-82be-11e9-9935-ad75bb96c849

Well it is just a press release.

 

Uber has to contend with some massive financial blockades in Australia over the next few years, so they have to survive first against our taxi industry.

 

 

Oi! Turbo are you a member of RAAus yet?

 

If not I think there should be minimum of comment regarding RAAus members.

 

KP

Well you're not writing in the RAA members forum, for a start (that's if there is one), and I'm still waiting for a comparison with the Royal EAAA Air Force which seems to be having trouble getting off the ground; so hard to make a choice.

 

 

Turbs mentions hundreds of emotional comments on this subject. But I think there are only a dozen or so people who have complained here. I suspect the other several thousand members do not feel strongly about it.

Not in this thread, but when you take into account the several other threads which have been going for months, I think hundreds is reasonable.

 

As someone has just pointed out 3550 aircraft are involved, and a lot of those will be parked in sheds, part built, rebuilding etc, and a lot of RA aircraft fly around a home base, so are not likely to fall foul of this, so the actual number of aircraft could also be in the hundreds rather than the thousands.

 

One of the points for RA aircraft in the middle of this is the need for a one time visitor fee. So if it is $9:90 when you arrive, and you want to practice a few touch and goes, say at a higher altitude airfield, you should only be charged the once, not once a circuit. You can see from some of the figures presented over the months that what is intended to be a nominal charge for reasonably low cost maintenance can multiply to the point where it pushed the hourly rate for the aircraft beyond an affordable limit, and the whole system comes crashing down.

 

Another point about privacy I can't recall seeing is that your name and address are not published, just advised to the people who do the invoicing, pretty much as it is in the medical profession.

 

 

But playing loose with members right to privacy, is NOT the way to go, ever. Poor judgement by people that should have had more ethical backbone, than to even consider it.

Yet in GA the register is public, so there's also a potential discrimination factor to be taken into account.

 

 

Modifications to seatbelt assembly’s will need to be ADR retested as a complete assembly, crash dummies and all, probably. I am sure it would not be signed of as a simple addition/modification, restraint systems in vehicles is a very touchy subject.

 

Cheers,

 

Jack.

Did you get that from looking at the ADR on the link?

 

 

one interesting thing I read in the comments of the mainstream media reporting of this is how everyone thinks that even if it was reliable, even if it was safe, even if it was quiet, even if it was cheap, CASA would still kill it because CASA can't help themselves. we really are comfortable being the lucky country

People lie FT, sometimes they just wait to catch people.

 

 

It would be good if the person who has come up with the seat belt idea can go ahead. But, they will have to jump through ADR hoops with no real guarantee of success. Sadly, our stupid modern world :-)

 

Cheers,

 

Jack.

That is just not true. I'm in the business and as I mentioned I've processed thousands of different non-standard vehicles through the modification vehicle system, and all finished up compliant.

 

The system is there, it is waiting to be used, and Natalie Bell just has to click on the link I provided to know if she even has to do anything.

 

 

Either what they have done complies with the Privacy Act or it doesn't.

 

A person of reasonable intelligence should be able to download the ACT and see for themselves.

 

If what they've done does not comply, the Privacy Act is one of the strongest I've seen and there should be no problem in stopping RAA in its tracks.

 

That will not be resolved by having a talkfest or popularity vote.

 

From the hundreds of emotional comments on this subject, I'm not so sure.

 

The current situation is that RAA registered aircraft are avoiding legitimate charges for the use of airfields in what appears to be substantial numbers.

 

So just bear in mind that how self righteous you may feel about one moral principle, the other moral principle will come out of the woodwork and bite you on the bum.

 

 

Tell that story to a policeman :-). And don’t get me wound up on the mod plate system, lots of dodgy practices going on there, seen it all :-(

 

Cheers,

 

Jack.

That's not a story, it's the legal process for ADR items in a car.

 

I haven't bothered to check if this item is ADR compliant, just provided the link for the person who came up with the idea.

 

The police will be assessing the compliance on the same basis as the supplier so there should be no problem there.

 

Let's say this produce complies with the applicable ADR. There may be some initial confusion by police, but a stamp saying "Complies with ADR XXX" should fix that on the spot, and internal police memos should provide a permanent fix.

 

Like any part of human society, about 5% will not be complying with anything including the Vehicle Modification Scheme, and they are destined for the love/hate relationship with the Compliance and Enforcement community.

 

 

You may thinks so, it’s even commonsense and logical BUT, the law does not think so. Ask your state transport dept and get written confirmation. It won’t happen.....

 

Cheers,

 

Jack.

This is not a State transport matter Jack, so while local police may have an opinion on the road, there are two formal systems in place covering motor vehicle design,

 

1. The ADR system in the link above where the compliance details are available.

 

2. Where a modification is wanted, which does not comply with the ADR, The Motor Vehicle Standards Act 1989 where you submit your design to an approved signatory, and he/she assesses it and does/doesn't sign it of.

 

I've personally modified thousands of vehicles in every State and Territory under this system, and it works very smoothly and takes very little time, so no great obstacle to someone setting out to manufacture and sell these provided they either do not interfere with the ADR details, or are approved by a signatory when the design can be shown to comply with the ADR performance requirement.

 

 

As long as these lightweight signs can't reach the section of the belt which retracts onto the reel, they may be acceptable, but the place to find out is in the Australian Design Rules section of Department of Infrastructure, Regional Development and Cities which the person developing the idea should consult: Third Edition Australian Design Rules

 

 

I do a lot of driving a year and find that the seat belts become uncomfortable with the constant retracting pressure , what I do is pull the seat belt enough to take the pressure off but not to loose and where it retracts back in the car I use a clothe peg on the seat belt to stop it retracting back it works for me

Two things are likely to happen: in a crash the clothes peg will become a lethal weapon, and, when the slack is taken up like a whip cracking you will be seriously injured from broken collarbone to fatal internal injuries. Don't even think of doing it. Up to you.

 

 

There is a big difference between having difficulty with the law and thinking that it is used as a destructive instrument to make money for law firms.

 

Believing that there is some sort of fairness, common sense or justice in it would be a grave misjudgment.

 

Sometimes it gets it right, and sometimes wrong. If aircraft manufacturers and pilots got it wrong as often as the judiciary there'd much carrying on.

As I previously mentioned, I can understand that some people have difficulty with the law. This thread is about Public Liability Insurance, where, if you you happen to injure or kill someone, and someone thinks you were negligent, you will simply call your insurance company, and they will take it from there. You do not have to hire lawyers, so you don’t have to worry about who has deep pockets, and you don’t have to be subject to the horror stories, whether fictional or true. You may come in contact with one if your Insurance company decides not to settle out of court. All you have to do is tell the truth for a few minutes and that shouldn’t be hard. Then you’re out of it.

 

Just as a matter of academic interest PL cases consist of two lawyers arguing their cases, for the plaintiff and the defendant, so if lawyers are as bad as we read above, you’ve still got a 50:50 chance. However, for this thread you don’t need to discuss the merits of lawyers, you just need to look at your PL Insurance obligations and make sure you are covered. If you operate at a regular RPT airport where you may hit an RPT aircraft you may need more than $20 million cover.

 

 

It has been said that the law is an ass. It can certainly be unfair.. and some privileged people can do great harm with no fear of the law because they own it.

 

For example, you can be represented by an incompetent lawyer and suffer great damage as a result, with no redress at all. And what of the insane person who commits murder while free at the behest of an incompetent judge? There have been a few of these lately. The judge is legally blameless.

 

Thinking that the law is just or fair or sensible is plain wrong. I have seen people lose badly because they thought there was some fairness in the law. Sure, there are some who win big because of the same reason, but they only read about, not known personally to me.

I can quite understand how some people have difficulty with the law