turboplanner

OK Turbo, I don't usually waste to much time with your armchair expertise, but I thought I'd review this list thinking there may be some systemic problems with the operations of Foxbats...?As you said, most occurrences were training related, so I studied them (knowing the aircraft intimately), with a view to operational habits characteristic to the 'Bat.

The following is my interpretation of how the aircraft being a Foxbat, as opposed to being any other type of aircraft, was relevant to incidents put forward;

 

1 Irrelevant.

 

2 Irrelevant.

 

3 Pilot error, partially relevant.

 

4 Irrelevant.

 

5 Poor instructing, partially relevant.

 

6 Irrelevant.

 

7 mechanical fault?, partially relevant?

 

8 partially relevant?

 

9 Ambiguous, partially relevant?

 

10 Irrelevant.

 

11 Irrelevant.

 

12 Irrelevant.

 

13 Pilot error, partially relevant.

 

14 Pilot error, partially relevant.

 

15 partially relevant.

 

16 Irrelevant.

 

17 Irrelevant.

 

18 Overestimated aircrafts abilities, partially relevant.

 

19 Pilot error, partially relevant.

 

20 Pilot/Instructor error, partially relevant.

 

21 Irrelevant.

 

22 Partially relevant

 

23 Pilot error.

 

Seeing a list of incidents put forward as you did, and saying they were all endemic of problems that could be associated to Foxbats is very misleading, and likely to cause anxiety to people buying and or learning to fly in said Foxbats.

 

All 'Ultralights' have their little quirks, but on the whole, are reasonably easy to fly.

 

If anything, I rate the Foxbat as one of the easier aircraft to fly, bordering on too easy, but still a great trainer.

http://www.usaarl.army.mil/techreports/93-2.pdfA short read for you Turbo.

The weights have certainly come down.

Interesting that they identified a head tolerance of 300-400 G without skull fracture or concussion (and people survive both, so could take more), yet the Gentex flight helmet I found only had a capacity of 175 G (Head-form not identified), and the Snell EA2016 (Elite Sports) capacity is only 275>243 G.

Maybe the are designed to fracture at that point to provide some additional controlled deceleration. I've seen several fractures where the driver was uninjured.

You are really in kindergarten with the holier than thou, attitude. If an CFI cant fly these bats in their sleep, then run away from them.

The following information comes direct from the RAA Accident and Defect Summaries for 2018, 2017, and two from 2016, involving people who apparently were not familiar with the Aircraft handling, Radio, Procedures - all training related.

Moorabbin - 6/2/18 - A22LS

Whilst conducting circuit training in the late afternoon, the aircraft breached last light.

Moorabbin – 23/1/18 – A22LS

Runway incursion; aircraft entered a runway without clearance.

Private – 12/2/18 – A22LS

The aircraft landed roughly, resulting in damage to nosewheel.

Moorabbin – 2/1/18 – AP22LS

After landing on runway 17R, we vacated as soon as practicable, we followed a yellow taxi way off to the right leading onto Bravo1. However, after making the right turn to vacate, we continued the turn to the right and entered runway 13R by mistake, which incurred an inactive runway.

Bendigo – 17/12/17 – A22LS

Summary: As the student applied full power and we started to conduct the take-off roll on runway 17, there was a slight crosswind from the left, student did not use correct crosswind technique. The nose of the plane started to veer to the left. At this stage the instructor started to take control of the aeroplane, applied right rudder to straighten the nose. At the same time, the student applied back pressure on the controls, over rotated, and resulted in tail strike. Instructor tried to push the control forward to regain control of the aircraft. However, the student had frozen on the controls. The aircraft gained height, but due to high nose attitude, the aircraft stalled and the left wing dropped. As the wing dropped it clipped the ground, which spun the plane 180 degrees and nosedived into the ground.

Moorabbin – 5/12/17 – A22LS - Instructor PIC

The aircraft departed to the south for an instructional flight in the YMMB training area from RWY 31R. Standard procedure for a departure to the south is a right-hand circuit however, the pilot made a left had turn. Usually RWY 31R is for Circuits at YMMB, and the instructor mainly use 31L for departures to the south. However, on this date, only RWY 31R was in use as per NOTAM and Circuits were not being done. The instructor didn’t recall departures from 31R were in the opposite direction and conducted a departure as if they were taking off on 31L. Tower notified the pilot of the error but as there was no risk of collision with another aircraft they continued with the original departure track.

Private – 1/11/17 – A22LS

The pilot was approaching to land at Mt Jack Station, they were using the rudders to maintain runway alignment and noticed the right rudder had no response to inputs and only had left rudder control. The aircraft was almost at touchdown when the aircraft did a sharp turn to the left and the pilot attempted to control the aircraft keeping the wings level but the aircraft landed off the airstrip and flipped over coming to rest inverted.

Bendigo – 1/10/17 – A22LS

A student’s first solo at Bendigo Airport after completing CCTs with a Senior Instructor was incident free until the flare. As the aircraft entered the flare the nose yawed slightly to the left and the student immediately attempted to correct this with right rudder (which felt a little stiff). As the wheels hit the runway the aircraft banked to the right scrapping the right wing before tilting the nose forward and contacting the prop with the tarmac.

Caboolture – 16/9/17 – A32 Vixxen

While landing during circuit aircraft landed heavily on the rear wheels and bounced before settling on the second attempt. The pilot noticed some heaviness on rudder controls but was uncertain if this was normal as he is new to this type of aircraft. The next pilot to use the aircraft determined that the heaviness was not normal and took aircraft to maintenance for inspection. Outcome: The syndicate pilot voluntarily undertook additional training with the local CFI focussing on management of the aircraft in the landing phase to the satisfaction of the CFI. The aircraft was inspected and appropriate repairs carried out by an authorised maintainer.

Moorabbin - 5 /9/17 – Vixxen

During a dual training flight intended at YMMB, when the student made an incorrect call of being at the holding point Alpha 8 ready for departure to the training area without saying the aircraft was holding at the RWY35L, on the Eastern frequency 118.1 instead of the Western RWY frequency of 123.0. The Controller did not realise this as there was an aircraft of the same colourings other RWY's holding point, and gave the student clearance for take-off. After the aircraft had taken off and the error realised the instructor contacted the Western frequency tower and reported that they had taken off with a clearance on the wrong frequency. OUTCOME: Student pilot selected incorrect SMC frequency for clearance and was cleared by ATC to take off. ATC misidentified similar aircraft on parallel RWY. The instructor also failed to observe the error in SMC frequency selection by student. The incident was reviewed with the school CFI and the Instructor has been provided additional mentoring on command management of all aspects of instructional flight operations. Additionally the correct identification of similar aircraft types is to tabled by the school at the next aerodrome users safety meeting.

Moorabbin – 19/8/17 – AP22LS

The Foxbat landed on RWY 31L and was told to vacate the RWY as soon as possible via RWY22. The aircraft inadvertently turned right onto 35R instead of TWY Bravo and which took it back onto RWY31 at the intersection of Bravo 1, 35R and 31L. As the aircraft entered RWY31L another aircraft was on its take-off roll and was told to abort. The Foxbat was then instructed to stop by ground, and was directed back to Bravo by the Tower. From there it taxied to the apron. Outcome: RAAus Operations have engaged with the CFI and put measures in place to reduce the likelihood of runway incursions. RAAus Safety have also discussed with the CFI some proactive methods of communication that should improve the awareness of all airfield stakeholders.

Moorabbin – 14/8/17 – A22LS

The student was conducting run-ups in the Southern Run up Bay, and then departing from RWY17L for a total of 4 circuits. Upon requesting a full stop and landing on Runway 17L, the student exited on TWY Bravo, and requested taxi clearance to the apron. The student was advised to hold short of RWY 17R. After stopping short of the threshold the student checked the time and the VDO and inadvertently rolled across the threshold. The student stop the aircraft at the same time the Ground Controller asked them to do so. Outcome: Reviewed and discussed with CFI as part of monthly Operations review. Internal training actions undertaken with student to mitigate errors in CTR clearance compliance.

Gympie – 21/6/17 – A22LS

The aircraft bounced on landing and resulted in a loss of directional control causing the aircraft to veer off the RWY. Determined Outcome: Loss of control in the landing phase due to ineffective flare and hold off.

Currabubula – 9/6/17 – A22LS

The pilot lost control of the aircraft whilst on final with a 10kt crosswind. Outcome: Accident identified as Loss of Control during the landing phase (RLOC). Pilot has agreed to remedial training in advanced crosswind management in his own aircraft when repairs are completed.

Warnervale – 12/5/17 – A22LS

The engineer employed by Aircraft Owner was taxiing aircraft from its hangar to maintenance hangar for 50 hourly. As the aircraft reached a slight rise, the nose wheel lifted. The aircraft proceeded to leave the taxiway and collided with a fence and flag pole causing extensive damage to the port wing and snapping a propeller blade. DETERMINED OUTCOME: It is possible that the individual responsible for taxiing this aircraft was used to GA aircraft and may not have been familiar with the differences in ground handling characteristics of some recreational aircraft.

Moorabbin – 15/4/17 – A22LS

During circuit training on RWY 17L at YMMB, after making the final touchdown it was realised there was an aircraft on finals behind them so made the decision of exiting on RWY22. The pilot missed the turn on to taxiway Foxtrot and continued on RWY22. As soon as the pilot realised the error the pilot stopped and contacted YMMB ground. It was concluded that the aircraft had just crossed the holding point for RWY17R, which was also the duty RWY the time. The pilot had the gable markers ahead, indicating the entry into a RWY. OUTCOME: A joint visit was undertaken between Airservices ATC staff, the school's training manager and RAAus Operations to identify specific operational issues and an appropriate working process to address these. Agreed attendance at monthly safety meetings by the Flight school and Airservices and the removal of a taxiway where regular occurrences have occurred has been applied as appropriate mitigation with continued monitoring being adopted.

French Island (Vic) – 25/2/17 – A22LS

The pilot landed the aircraft on a beach, then taxied to what appeared to be a flat rocky surface, however this turned out to be mud with about 20cm of water beneath the surface. The nose wheel then sank under the mud and the aircraft bogged. The pilot turned the engine off and tried to pull the aircraft from the soft ground and to locate firmer ground to take off from. When the pilot started the aircraft and tried to taxi the aircraft to the harder ground it bogged again, this time with the tip of the propeller making contact with the muddy ground. The pilot immediately shut the engine down, closed the fuel valves for both wings and turned off the electric system of the aircraft then called for assistance as it was unknown how long it was until high tide. OUTCOME: The pilot elected to land on a beach however the surface was not appropriate and the aircraft became bogged. The pilot moved the aircraft to what was believed to be a more suitable location, however during the take off roll the aircraft sank into soft sand and the propeller impacted the sand. The aircraft was disassembled and removed for an assessment of the engine to ensure no damage occurred. The pilot has undertaken further research and determined landings on beaches must include an independent assessment of the surface suitability prior to landing.

Private – 25/2/17 – A22LS

Upon return to a private strip, after waiting for a local shower to pass, the pilot carried out a normal approach and landed. The strip had just been mown and was covered with grass which caused the aircraft to skid when the brakes were applied. The aircraft overran the strip impacting with the fence at the end of the RWY. Upon exiting the aircraft it was noted that the prop had impacted a star picket and there was some minor damage done to the cowlings and a branch had touched the leading edge of the left wing leaving a small indent and scratching underside of left flaperon. OUTCOME: RAAus Operations Managers have reviewed this report and the pilot identified that due to the wet grass (that was cut that day) it caused an increase of the aircraft speed off the runway. The pilot also observed that the wind had dropped to nil which also was a factor. Additionally the limited overshoot area contributed to the incident and with an additional 20 metres or more would have avoided any impact. As such the private strip will now be extended to overshoot / undershoot by 75 metres and include an installation of a 2.8 metre windsock.

Quirindi – 11/2/17 – A22LS

The aircraft suffered a heavy landing causing nose wheel leg to be bent. Determined Outcome: Due to the approach speed not being managed appropriately, the aircraft suffered a hard landing and damaged the nose gear. PIC noted HF and inappropriate approach speed and steep angle. Pilots are reminded of the importance of a stabilised approach at the manufacturer's recommended speed according to the POH.

Moorabbin – 5/2/17 – A22LS

On final landing of a circuits session in gusty conditions, the student straightened the nose but didn't flare quite enough causing plane to land reasonably gently but flat resulting in a small bounce of approximately 3ft height. The student steadied well initially but the nose then dropped quickly, partly due lack of control by the student and partly sudden lull in wind. When the nose dropped the nose wheel landed firmly first with audible thud. The Instructor went to take over at first sense of nose dropping but was not quick enough to go around before nose landed due to being about to land. OUTCOME: Instructor has had debrief with CFI and Operations on control management practices, student control limits and instructional policies that have been implemented and reviewed to prevent further re-occurrences of this nature.

Moorabbin – 29/1/17 – A22LS – Instructor PIC

During a trial instructional flight the aircraft entered Controlled Airspace without a clearance. OUTCOME: The Instructor was distracted during delivery of a lesson and violated Moorabbin airspace. The CFI has required further retraining and a flight review prior to conducting further instruction to prevent a recurrence.

Townsville – 1/12/16 – A22LS

Flying from Bluewater Park to Townsville. On descent left rudder felt heavy and rudder pedals would rest at full left stop if the pilot did not maintain foot pressure. The pilot was not very familiar with the type at the time and felt this might be unusual. They decided to ask tower for visual inspection of undercarriage in the event of damage during take-off roll. No damage or anomaly sighted by tower. Aircraft flew normally as speed reduced to normal level flight and approach configurations. The pilot did not request any further assistance from the tower or ground support and the aircraft landed normally. Aircraft was fully inspected by a LAME on the ground at the GA parking. The pilot since learned that this aircraft type does not have the usual self-centring arrangement the pilot is used to on tricycle undercarriage types. Determined Outcome: The PIC has self-identified that he did not understand the effects on the handling characteristics of the aircraft that can occur with an aircraft fitted with all-terrain wheels. When events such as these occur, RAAus recommends a report is submitted via the OMS for information purposes and allow assessment of the benefits of education to members. Nothing further was required of the pilot as the aircraft characteristics are correct relevant to the type of tyre used on the aircraft.

Private - 7/11/16 – A22LS

During take-off the pilot opened the throttle to get up to speed however the aircraft did not seem to be performing, despite the gauges reading okay. The pilot decided to abort the take-off however was too late to pull up before the end of the RWY. The aircraft went through a ditch and several bushes, coming to a stop approximately 45m from the end of the RWY. After inspection it appeared that the handbrake of the aircraft may have been engaged. OUTCOME: Investigations revealed the hand brake of the aircraft may still have been engaged reducing the performance of the aircraft. Pilots are reminded of the importance of using checklists to ensure the aircraft is configured correctly for the intended phase of flight, and early actions to reject take-off if reduced aircraft response is recognised.

All

Yes but my point is this idiot was capable of taking off and landing a tail wheel Aren’t all planes the same?

It is a plastic

The Gentex style helmet (like that one) has to be one of the most developed of all flying helmets. As I understand it, it started out many years ago as the standard issue US Navy pilot helmet and consequently was 'tested and developed' in numerous landing mishaps on (and off) carriers by fast jets and helicopters, as well as during high-speed ejections.

I had a quick look at the Gentex site and found one reference: "Not to exceed 175G" but it didn't have any details.

The Snell foundation (link below) gives a lot more detail on the test standards for various types of helmets and accessories.

The Snell EA2016 standard for "Elite Motor Sports" test specification for a head form is 275 > 243 G peak acceleration.

The Snell standard limits the maximum projection of rivet heads to 2 mm, and any feature more than 7 mm beyond the outer service must readily break away. (The helmet nuts on BMX standard helmet Visors are thermoplastic, so therefore will shatter with a hard impact, rather than punch through the shell).

Snell Foundation - helmet standards

Inside the kevlar/glass shell is a medium density styrofoam liner and inside that is the leather and webbing suspension liner which holds the helmet clear of your head, that liner is adjustable for a good fit . In an event where the helmet impacts something the suspension liner should keep your head away from the styro liner and the shell except in the severest instance.

Normally the visor would be down (clear or tinted) in which case the star shaped nut is not in the position shown in the picture above. I think it would be very unlikely, or an exceptionally unlucky chance that it were ever to protrude through the helmet, especially not far enough to reach the head. If it did, I think the occupant would have many more much more severe injuries, so the nut might be the last of his worries.

I've seen more than a dozen helmets fractured in a crash, and the driver is out there unscathed, swearing at the Chief Steward to give him back his helmet; but than can only happen if he doesn't have a bolt, camera, or some other object embedded in his brain.

I also understand what you are saying about the nut being the last of his worries, but we are getting very good at incremental survival strategies, removing an item at a time over the years to reach near zero fatalities in Australia and the US.

And for those who keep saying things along the line of "RAA should just say no to casa" obviously don't remember just what casa can do. For example do we remember when the whole fleet was grounded?

[ATTACH=full]53927[/ATTACH]

When a golf ball is hit, it becomes a flat disk for a second, then expands back.

Much the same applies in a crash helmet. The helmet will flatten as it hits an object; if you look inside, you'll see the compressible material is around 40 mm thick. That's the progressive crumple material that helps prevent your brain being smashed into your skull with fatal results. When that material is fully compressed, in a really bad collision, your skull starts to elongate/distort.

If that's the extent of the collision, the skull flexes back, the compressible material flexes back, and you might have a sore head for a few days.

If the collision is harder, the skull flex becomes a fracture, and you are right on the fatal range, but fracturing the skull when the brain acceleration has been slowed by progressive crumple gives you a much better chance of survival without ongoing brain damage.

A genuine crash helmet is an amazing piece of engineering, developed over many decades of practical experience.

Yes the A32 is less draggie but nothing hard. Its a learning process of handling the aircraft with speed control, just like using flaps extension speeds or wheel retract speeds, learning to fly a constant speed range is just another step which you should have been taught anyway on any aircraft you trained on, including a drifter!.

You mention your nose being broken through a mask....how much worse would it have been without the mask?

Probably surgery, fractured skull; saw the benefits of full face straight away

 

You mention your nose being broken through a mask....how much worse would it have been without the mask?

Why do you need one that complies with racing standards when there are proper aviation helmets out there? They usually lighter, do not restrict vision , are lighter and have better optics than vehicle helmets.. new ones are more expensive, but there are reasonably priced ones out there. They usually have a lighter shell, but most aircraft don’t have 1 1/2 inch seamless steel pipe anywhere in the cockpit.

1. Structural Strength needs to be recalculated first

2. Without that tube, if you flip over during a forced landing and bang down on a stump/Rock etc. the Helmet doesn't protect your neck from braking.

These are the current Australian race standards; they are international and it should be possible to google the test standards and compare them with your "proper aviation helmets", it's performance you are looking for.

Full faced and comply with one of the following:

1) Snell SA-2015

2) Snell SA-2010

3) BS 6658-85 Type A/FR. (must be no older than 5 years from manufacturer date).

4) FIA 8858-2010

5) FIA 8859-2015

6) FIA 8860-2010

I notice they've moved to full face; if you are sliding along upside down, things like rocks, tree branches etc on the ground are at your face level.

I used to wear an open-face helmet and a thermoplastic Motorcross mask until one night the car in front of me threw up a rock which compressed the mask so far back, it broke my nose, and I suspect facial injuries are the reason full face helmets are specified now. In a car, like a motorbike, the major forces are coming at you straight on, and full face provides a structural safety barrier, which may not be as necessary in an aircraft.

I tried my full face helmet on to check available vision, and found:

The visor gives you wider angles than your glasses, if you wear them.

Without glasses, I was able to line up with a wall, and see along it at 90 degrees facing directly away from it, so 180 degree vision, really limited by our eyes.

Upward vision is unlimited by the visor, your ability to roll your eyes up is the limit.

Down, the angle is about 20 degrees below horizontal, with your head horizontal. That applies to the central 50 mm or so, otherwise the lower extent of your glasses is the limit.

The weight of my full face helmet is 1325 grammes.

Mine doesn't have audio, and I'd suggest the best way to experiment is as a passenger, because the downward vision to the instruments can only really be checked in the cockpit with the aircraft bouncing around.

How does it financially benefit RAA?Opposite id have thought

And CASA demanded a process to gain L1 privaledges i believe.

The Self Administering Organisations are set up to throw legal responsibility over to the people gaining the benefit where there is a high risk present.

Having achieved that, the smartest thing for CASA to do is to stay out of the management chain (demanding people do this or that) and remain an arm's length Safety authority, just auditing what is going on.

If in their regular auditing, which can come from formal reports, formal accident investigation results, or even the lurid stories, photos and videos from social media, they found that a string of people didn't even know how to tighten spark plugs etc. they may well suggest to RAA that that isn't good enough, and it's then up to the self administering organisation to decide what it wants to do.

However, if CASA, once in a blue moon, forgets what the SAOs were set up for and simply orders, or demands a specific action, or process, and RAA is simply complying with a mandatory directive from CASA, the legal flame is likely to stop at their door.

There's a big difference between the two management methods, and I would be very surprised if CASA slipped up.

You need one which complies with racing standards (if it fractures with a decent bump, so will your skull.

You can’t afford to have an earphone indent your skull when the head cradle does its progressive stretch (crumple) thing if you take a side hit. This may mean helmets with external headphone bulges.

Jesus, FLYING SCHOOLS ARE A COMMERCIAL OPERATION. what happens when a flying school gets a new type of aircraft - say a Jab - BRM - Sling for example, they fly it for an hour or so, read the book then take students. Its not hard. They also will learn while training on it. this is what CFI's are for. These aircraft are simple to fly and operate - where is this all coming from.

That doesn’t mean instructors need the same time as students, but there is a happy medium. I can remember a Gazelle instructor who came down from the country for an assessment on a Jab J170 I was about to be tested on. When he finally reappeared and landed, he pulled up short, got out and threw up. When they taxiied in he got out flew back to his home strip and we never saw him again.

Whaddayarecon? Helicopter pilots use helmets, RAA pilots in open aircraft often do, but people in Foxbats and Savannahs never seem to.Sitting in the Foxbat/Savannah, there are exposed structural beams all around your head. The way I see it, if you crash, there is a high probability that your head will hit such a beam and you will die unnecessarily. The force will be concentrated on a smaller area of your skull and break it. As far as I know, internal roll cages in cars, close to the occupants heads, are illegal.

 

There less of an argument in a Cessna or Vixxen (relative of the Foxbat), because there are fewer beams around. Likewise, short people would have far fewer problems.

 

There is some cognitive bias/behaviour where people who have safety measures in place take more risks and thereby decrease the effectiveness of the safety measure. I can't remember what it is called. Sometimes it is used as an argument against bicycle helmets.

Which only goes to show some people will believe anything.

do you think I should display it at the next Narromine air show and all the parts that do not comply with the airworthy neil

There’s no point leaving a glass aircraft out in the open when the door surrounds etc have gaping gaps that let in the rain.

Just sold two stud rams to a new hobby farmer. The National Health Statement and travel documentation took 30 minutes.

Farms at least give you variety. I had the top of one thumb almost severed, and the other thumb cut to the joint when I was up a windmill, lost control of a tractor when I was five, but rode it out, out on the main road in another tractor in road gear, when I was sixteen and a bump compressed the coil seat spring which then flung me into orbit. The lowest part of me was my hands which hung on until I managed to stand on the draw bar then get back up in the sea;dozing logs, reversing with my arm extended upwards to the blade control and watched a tree trunk come between my arm and ribs, fell off a ladder when a hanging tree branch let go while the chainsaw was at full noise, neighbour No 1 cut the legs off neighbour No 2 with a swing saw. Neighbour No 3 thought he would prime a hot tractor with an open top can of petrol, petrol caught fire and his reflex action pulled it over his head, burnt to a frizzle, died, neighbour No 4 finished building his haystack, slid down, forgot the star picket he’d hammered in; castrated.

Care to explain the "caution" Turbo?We see news reports like that almost daily. I guess I might be able to forgive them, as the standard of driving around here is so bad. Many are so far behind the vehicle, they may as well just be passengers, .

All of this OHS stuff is going to continue while food is so cheap its taken for granted. /QUOTE]Farm production has already started to move away from manual handling. The grain industry started it with bulk handling equipment and bigger properties, and the properties are now being consolidated from family-owned, to much bigger company-owned blocks, where mechanisation can be used for safer production at a lower price, so it will take care of itself.

So the likely scenario is that you will make a bundle selling, along with 20 or 30 other farmers to a big corporation which will knock down the fences and process mind boggling volumes.

 

It's interesting that we've been there before in terms of land holding sizes in the south east and western districts.

The manager was covering has arxe.... I was transitioning it from horizontal upright on a CTB plant using the plant's hydraulic cylinder. The silo rises like a tipper until vertical then braces are installed. I was installing the braces. If I was dumb enough to be under it and due to some failure of the laws of physics , it fell on my head, no $15 piece of plastic is going to change anything but the splatter pattern. Guaranteed, no-one on top. But nice try.Clearly you have forgotten, so I will repeat myself yet again.....I understand how it works....I just object to it...I consider they system to be utterly broken and more destructive than helpful. Consider this analogy: I understand how a Hillman Hunter works, but I despise them, because they didn't have to built the way they were, and yet still they were.

 

Public liability lawyers are not there for the good of society, there there to make money regardless of the cost to society.

I started my own cane harvesting contract business at the age of 23 and for a number of years, I was an Employer so I wouldn`t argue that an employer shouldn`t have a responsibility to their employees, but I would argue that an Employee also has a responsibility to themselves.In your post, you`ve said the machine Operator told the Ring Road Contractor that the brakes were faulty, therefore, the operator knew there was a problem with the brakes so regardless of the order or advice that was given by the Contractor to the Operator, the Operator should have refused to operate the machine but continued to operate it.

 

I know a guy who owned a Gold Mine on the Palmer River, knew that the truck his son was driving had faulty brakes, the son eventually had an accident and was killed, the guy was charged and jailed.

 

Frank