turboplanner

3% do 99% of the work. What's new?. At least you have some certainty and control. I've kicked in dough a few times to keep aerodromes from being closed. You never know when the battle starts again. Look at Benalla, Goulburn, Kyneton... lots of places. It's rare to have a place that runs well.. Nev

I don’t think there was much interest in saving Benalla; maybe the gliders have gone somwhere else. The town seems depressed, a lot of shops vacant. I couldn’t get any computer items there, had to go to Wangaratta.

 

 

I'm working on one which attaches wings to the airport departure lounge and flies off with it; but it also is just in the design stage.

 

For this to be of any use at all, there has to be a very substantial benefit to pay for the extra weight from the extra structure.

 

 

That’s what council rates are for. I do not use the library or most of the parks and skate facilities or even the roads around here but through various taxes and rates I pay for them. It’s part of being in a society of people with various different groups.

Well that's actually a very compelling argument; your rates pay for:

 

• multi million dollar Community Hubs for groups to hold meetings in and old people to gather
   
   
  
• Football grounds
   
   
  
• Soccer Grounds
   
   
  
• Netball/Basketball/Tennis Courts
   
   
  
• Caravan Parks
   
   
  
• Dance Halls
   
   
  
• Parks
   
   
  
• Swimming Pools
   
   
  

 

 

The aerodrome fits neatly alongside these.

 

 

Simple calculations that everyone should be doing before every flight.

 

As a very broad statement, you could say that every light aircraft up to and including some twins is sitting there on the apron waiting for someone to come along and put too much weight into it, or weight into it in the wrong place.

 

Many aircraft, having taken off legally (just), are immediately over the landing capacity of the undercarriage the minute the aircraft leaves the ground. Calculating the fuel burn required before you can land is part of your flight plan task.

 

Every pilot in command should have been trained in Performance and Operations.

 

 

A primary question is "why did AOPA not register the copyright or object to the registration to the registrar?" The copyright may have been open to snatchment by a commercial operator who may then have sought to use it for its own purposes or lecence or sell it for a fee. SeeUgg boots trademark dispute - Wikipedia

Good point; just as bad as the one who snatched it.

 

 

Of course there are limits, but damn, humans are humans, we aren't that bright sometimes, and that's why we even have accidents, and accident insurance. If we were perfect then what's the point, but we are not.This guy made a stupid mistake, a big one, but there was no intent.

The Donoghue v Stevenson precedent makes it clear that there doesn't have to be an intent to injure someone, just that if a duty of care is owed someone, and you breach that duty of care, whether by accident or neglect, you pay out.

We might get to hear what the duty of care owed was in this case, or it might be settled out of court.

 

 

Turboplanner have you seen the link in the earlier post, quoted above?

Yes, and I addressed it in my comments.

 

 

I tried to contact RecAus Board members in Victoria and Qld and I was told by those I spoke to that they will not discuss this matter. They have been told via email from the CEO and Chairperson to refrain from comment as the matter will be in the hands of RecAus staffers and legal moving forward.

The Board of Management Members which represented you in your area went with the Incorporated Association.

These people are Directors and you are now just shareholders of a Company, so it's not surprising that they just clammed up.

 

If you want to fix the situation, you have to follow the procedure to spill the Directors, close down the company reinstate the Incorporated Association and come up with a Constitution that ensures the members who pay the money decide what happens to it.

 

To do that you need several people with enough skill to bypass the proxy history of the past; someone else suggested calling a general meeting, but if you do that you have to overcome the potential of another meeting stacked with proxies (I'm not saying the present management would do that, just that it has happened in the past and needs to be addressed).

 

Unless you do that all your criticisms are falling on deaf ears; you have no more power than the individual shareholders of BHP Billiton.

 

 

Tks

 

 

It’s also odd that Tasmanians seem to tar themself with that image.

 

 

Same mob, still there at MB, (not at 9) but not so help-yourself-free-range as it was, but still, they have what you need and will sell you one or a hundred, and are happy to do so.

Can you give us a name/location 44?

 

 

It's going to be even more interesting when SAAA finally wakes up that RAA has their "Sport Pilot" image.

 

 

There is this:CASA warns DAMEs about Medical Assessments - Australian Flying

So much for medical reform. They are now putting the frighteners on the DAMEs who can issue assessments themselves. For how long will you be able to find them?

I don't know how many times people have to be told that governments, both State and Federal have been offloading liability to protect taxpayer funds, before it sinks in.

 

"They" are not putting the "frighteners" on; DAMES are simply being advised of potential increased operating risks (which they are insuring for in their daily lives anyway), CASA benchmarks to protect them, key things to do to minimise the risk, and confirming CASA will take the responsibility where the DAME requests it.

 

Far from being the ogres of the world CASA are making these changes quite a few years after the rest of the transport industry, and providing a much more comfortable cushion than anyone else received.

 

Parts in the report are in italics; I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice; these are just my assessment of what the report is dealing with.

 

“Outgoing CASA Principal Medical Officer Michael Drane has warned Designated Aviation Medical Examiners (DAME) that they may be subject to liability issues should their assessment be legally challenged.”

 

Michael Drane is simply pointing out potential operating risks for DAMES following changes made after April 3 this year; he is being helpful.

 

“DAMEs needed to take care when assessing candidates for aviation medicals.”

 

He is bringing to their attention an elevated level of risk; again, helpful.

 

"………….. please remember to follow the CASA eLearning guidance and Clinical Practice Guidelines to ensure you include sufficient information when making your assessment and record it clearly.”

 

He is pointing out the main Benchmark protecting the DAME (same as complying with Australian Standards, Industry Codes of Practice, laws, and keeping a record.

 

"It’s important that you clearly note the basis for your decision and whether further monitoring is required. Remember there’s a reason certain reports are requested and your decision needs to stand up to scrutiny in settings such as the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT).

 

He is pointing out the value of preserving evidence which led to the decision, in case it is required for a Tribunal or Court to justify the decision. (Normal Industry procedure)

 

"Decisions failing in these areas may present medicolegal liabilities for the assessing doctor."

 

I have lost cases, and seen many other cases lost because no one can remember what actually happened and who did what.

 

“Up until 3 April this year, most DAMEs would perform the examination for a medical certificate, but CASA would assess the results and issue the certificate based on the DAME report”

 

This paragraph should have been first, instead of buried down the page, but points out that before April 3, liability for the report rested with CASA.

 

“Under reforms instigated by CASA Director of Aviation Safety Shane Carmody this year, all DAMEs can now do the assessment themselves………….”

 

This is a nice way of saying “You are now on your own”

 

“……but still have the option to refer the candidate to CASA if they wish.”

 

This is an option to assist a DAME with a difficult or borderline case, and also gives the change a helpful soft landing.

 

 

Tells me once again there are planes out there claiming to be something they are not.I don't understand the insurance side of it, people make mistakes in cars everyday and cause crashes, the insurances companies don't tell them to nick off.

They’ve started to; I was lucky enough to get an update on the small print, and need to be particularly careful about who is driving the car (best to have their names added) and their state re drugs and alcohol. On the other hand I get $40 million Public Liability cover.

 

 

My concern is that such reports as this are used in legal proceedings.I have seen several coroners reports of a similar vein, where there are multiple contributing factors, but these are barely acknowledged and there is an unrealistic focus on one small factor.

They can be, and they do have standing, but the lawyers on each side will usually consult experts looking for anything which will support their client’s case and may provide a rebuttal to the report, or if their client doesn’t have a prayer, go for an out of court settlement in which case none of the case details are published.

 

 

Should have saved my breath.

 

 

Given that a legal claim has been announced, we’ve probably got as close as we can get to debating the facts of this crash. I would be discussing Sling performance in general, but not in relation to a live case.

 

 

A single seater is sounding more and more like a good idea....

Not really, your estate can be frozen, any any family memer or person on the ground affected can sue for negligence. Much simpler to oay attention to the few safety regulations which need to be adhered to.

 

 

Patrick and Paddy, two airline pilots were flying in to a new airport, and realised, while on final that it was much shorter than any they had previously landed at.

 

They put the aircraft down right at the edge and furiously worked to slow the aircraft down, finally pulling up just metres from the fence.

 

After a short silence Patrick said : "Joisus! that runway was SHORT!"

 

"To be fair" replied Paddy "it was the widest we've ever seen though"

 

 

Is the mix of weights, fuel and associated cofg location overly complex for an aircraft of this type? (Genuine question)You need fuel in the front to counterbalance rear weight, but need weight in the rear with full fuel and front passengers only with full fuel.

Is it a bad design?

No, there are many designs where this is critical; one example was where someone decided to bring along his 15 kg tool box and placed it on the floor in front of the passenger seat in a Morgan. He lost control of the aircraft on take off and only just managed to get it on the ground without damage. Virtually none of the RA and GA aircraft can carry full fuel + full pax + full baggage. That’s for the Pilot in Command to calculate, and come up with a solution before each flight.

The perfect aircraft would have the fuel, baggage, pilot and all pax on the one CG line, but that’s not feasible, so there’s always a compromise, and on some aircraft re-balancing is required in flight by moving fuel around.

 

 

Indurance companies don’t pay out on illegal activity.

 

 

This is a duplicate thread - see the original

 

 

To be legal then, you need a set of scales to weigh passengers. Probably OK at home field, but not something you would want to carry if picking pax up elsewhere. Baggage is OK, I use a small spring balance with a hook.

Nothing wrong with asking the pax to weigh themselves before they leave home.

 

 

Yep, the ATSB report to me is a lot of words without really saying much

They showed plenty though.

 

 

Not likely.. they'll be too busy videoing with their iPhone.

A very good possibility; someone's eventually going to get bashed up or killed standing there filming the action.