turboplanner

There is another way out of the litigation / insurance maze and that is to not have anything worth suing for.Of course this can also lead to disaster, like if you give it all to your son and he marries a nasty woman who gets it all in a divorce.But if this didn't happen and your property was disposed of, and you are left with a modest superannuation pension, could this be garnished to leave you destitute each week?

There is another way out of the litigation / insurance maze and that is to not have anything worth suing for.Of course this can also lead to disaster, like if you give it all to your son and he marries a nasty woman who gets it all in a divorce.

But if this didn't happen and your property was disposed of, and you are left with a modest superannuation pension, could this be garnished to leave you destitute each week?

We've been through this too many times.....Yes, I understand this Australian law.Yes, I understand how it works.

You seem to think it's just awesome that just about anyone who does something stupid can manage to find a way to blame someone else and legally be compensated, I think it's atrocious, and does society no favours.

All we have done is create a 'victim' mentality, and lost a lot of our freedoms in the process, and people like you are responsible for my loss of freedom in a pointless attempt to save society from themselves. I see no end in sight, but it's not sustainable and it is destroying our country.Now, please understand,I have no problem with genuine compensation claims for genuine negligence, but here in Australia, we really have stretched the term 'negligent' to the point where it's no longer anything like it was meant to be.

What does happen though is that serial rule flouters rail against organisations who prudently improve their safety standards after injuries and fatalities occur.

The alternative, of doing nothing, means that, as in 1932, if they were negligent, they pay. Now, much more often, the rule flouters pay; and that's where the squeals are coming from.

Well someone was stupid, for using someone unqualified to make recommendations about things they aren't qualified to understand. It doesn't seem to be an isolated occurrence, nor is it confined to the legal system.

He/she makes recommendations, and due to the daily workload many of those will be outside his/her technical qualifications, but often based on evidence given by people qualified by education, or experience. Sometimes the recommendations are picked up and run with; sometimes they are not. Industry based investigations will always be more focused on the environment/specification aspects and can make it easier to take action to prevent repeats. That's just the system which has evolved over centuries.

The main thing about training for winch launches is that of cable-breaks. The instructor will "pull the plug" several times when the student least expects it.I have personally had 3 cable-breaks in a row.

In the case before the coroner, the break happened fairly high and had nothing much to do with the accident. And the coroner was told the physics by gliding people but didn't have the mental capacity to take in any new ideas.

Back to topic - the benefit of strict liability for the aviation accidents is that it leaves in no doubt who is going to pick up the tab when it all goes pear-shaped. The only question is how much and it is up to us pilots to determine an adequate level of insurance cover (in the UK).

However, Governments and Bodies quite regularly tweak the system and inadvertently re-assume legal responsibility for that action as a result.

Back to topic - the benefit of strict liability for the aviation accidents is that it leaves in no doubt who is going to pick up the tab when it all goes pear-shaped. The only question is how much and it is up to us pilots to determine an adequate level of insurance cover (in the UK).

This seems to deflect liability away from Government, and away from the Arm's Length Body, and where it belongs; with the people who cause, promote and engage in the activity.

However, Governments and Bodies quite regularly tweak the system and inadvertently re-assume legal responsibility for that action as a result.

There was a spectacular example of a stupid coroner some years ago in Australia. A glider had crashed following a cable-break and the coroner clearly thought is was like a crane-cable failure. If the GFA had not spent big dollars appealing, launching would have to be with great heavy cables now.

The Darwin motorbike rider is a classic example of the old adage - "make something idiot-proof, and a better class of idiot will find a way around the idiot-proofing".Now, as an old Roads Scholar (road builder), I know there's a lot of roadworks instructional signs that could be vastly better, as regards the manner in which they've been set up.

But - despite having come across a fair few deficient roadworks sites, I have yet to damage a vehicle or seriously maim myself, because of the roadworkers skills deficiencies.

 

Perhaps it's because I was taught "defensive driving", where you make allowances for other people making serious errors in skill or judgement.

 

One of those defensive driving techniques I was taught, is to exercise caution and a greatly reduced speed, whenever you sight any kind of roadworks. I'd guess the Darwinian motorbike rider missed that lesson.

A Speedcar driver was killed at Adelaide International. It was at a time when tracks were converting from sand/grit, where cars slid sideways through corners to clay, where the new sprintcar designs glued the cars to the track, dramatically reducing laps times. The disadvantage for other classes was that clay became bumpy, making it a wilder ride. On the day after the fatality a Club President stood facing the National News V Camera and declared the death was due to the rough track; not a good move by the way. I'll leave out the months of infighting over it, but it hadn't finished by the Coroner's hearing and several people inserted themselves into the process, condemning the track, while others defended the track. One of the condemners pointed out the track was so rough that the Ambulance could be seen bouncing on its way to the driver. Case closed they thought. However, in summing up, the Coroner referred to this and accepted the track was rough and the ambulance was bouncing. "But" he said, (or words to that affect) " I also note that video shows the car become airborne due to xxxx, and leave the ground 10 metres after the entry to turn one, remain airborne over the area where the ambulance was bouncing, and land heavily xx metres from the point where it left the ground flipping several times, so I find the condition of the track played no part in this death." He then when on to accurately describe what caused the death.

At a Victorian Road Transport Association conference, we have a segment where the Victorian State Coroner went through a case with us where a truck driver was loading his 9 tonne van using a well-known brand of hydraulic tailgate, using its remote control to ride up with the load (which was prohibited). The support arms of a tailgate rotate on the way up describing and arc where the tailgate on the ground is in line with the rear of the van, in mid-lift, is maybe 450 mm outwards of the van, and then swings the platform back in to the rear of the van. For whatever reason the driver took a step/slipped and fell down between the tailgate and the van with the tailgate on the way up. He still had the control in his hand, so still had the ability to stop the tailgate, but it didn't stop and guillotined him. Evidence was given to the coroner that the remote control cable was found to have bare wires, perhaps by previously being jammed between the tailgate and body, allowing the "UP" wires to remain in contact, this removing the ability of the driver to stop the tailgate. As part of his finding. the Coroner recommended a fool-proof remote control cable. The family-run tailgate company responded immediately, and he proudly held up the new remote control and said "You can pick the new one by this round green section embedded into the side."

With regard to your roadworks comments, the Shire of Wentworth case, where a driver who was plastered drove off a bend and became a quadriplegic, and the Shire lost the case, makes this clearer. Highway advisory signs are set to a National Standard which is gradually becoming an International Standard. These are for the same reason as the throttle response in all motor vehicles is much the same, the steering response is much the same, the barking response is much the same. It enables people to step from the car they normally drive to a different car without requiring an endorsement course, and it allows them to drive anywhere in Australia on a major road and be able to negotiate unknown hazards. So, for a given degree of road curvature there will be a curve sign, and for a given degree of curvature there will be a recommended speed sign. If you are driving a car, you may be comfortable taking the corner x km/hr above the advisory; if you're in a fuel tanker, you may stay on the advisory or even under it; but for the performance level of your vehicle there are no surprises, or shouldn't be. If you are in a diminished status; such as in heavy rain, fog, a bushfire, with marginal medical conditions, or intoxicated, these signs by their reflective nature still give you some warning of elevated risk.

If the standard isn't met Human Factors kicks in and suddenly you're out in no man's land, having to make a judgement without the tools usually provided to do it. So it was valid comment to draw attention to the road works. It would appear the rider contributed substantially to his own death, and if there is a public liability case resulting from this accidents, the lawyers are there to discuss the degree of contributory negligence by the rider, so the checks and balances are in place.

When you live amongst them, you get a bit of an idea about how they think. That said, I swear some of our magistrates and legislators live in a completely different world again.Also, some/most of those court cases you post illustrate my point perfectly.

the problem is basically that any skilled (notice I did not use the word 'good') practitioner of law can make an angel look like the devil - that's what he/she is paid to do and many of them are very good at itthe only other time I was in court was to witness the trial of the 'juvenile' who murdered my Father in Law (a Rat of Tobruk, no less) by mowing him down as he crossed the road in his electric scooter - on a pedestrian crossingand if I had a choice of whether it was the driver or the lawyer that could be dragged out the back to a set of gallows, my vote would have been for the lawyer

 

BP

But its no use giving someone a gun without the ammunition.

the problem is basically that any skilled (notice I did not use the word 'good') practitioner of law can make an angel look like the devil - that's what he/she is paid to do and many of them are very good at itthe only other time I was in court was to witness the trial of the 'juvenile' who murdered my Father in Law (a Rat of Tobruk, no less) by mowing him down as he crossed the road in his electric scooter - on a pedestrian crossing

and if I had a choice of whether it was the driver or the lawyer that could be dragged out the back to a set of gallows, my vote would have been for the lawyer

 

BP

Where one lawyer makes an angel look like the devil, the other lawyer's job in rebuttal is to strip away that disguise, which is what they are trained to do.

But its no use giving someone a gun without the ammunition.

The "Hummel-Bird" WAS on the 95-10 registry, (two cylinder single seat, good looking, efficient design)and if Flying could stay there, If registered after a certain date, it gets the chop & needs a new rego, 94-19 or VH.

Check that registry now & see how many are left there.

 

spacesailor

Apart from that, just recently there were suggestions from some that nothing was restricting the light end of RA, and people were just whining about rag and tube. I know the Hummel-Bird is not rag and tube, but would this be a good example where aircraft have been lost to RA (and their owners) without reasonable cause?

YOU build a safer plane and it's "wing-loading" stops the registration!.spacesailor

Sounds good, but the reality is that the "Australian Way" is to demand a full investigation to prove that it wasn't your or your loved ones fault that they killed themselves, regardless of cost, and to make sure you have someone to blame , (anyone but your loved one), and if you can't get it straight up, go to the media (A Current Affair, anyone?) When half the time the deceased might as well have said "Hold my beer, watch this"."I't not his fault your honour, he was drunk and didn't know what he was doing. That publican is at fault because he gave him the beer."

Emu,I like you. I like all you Aussies whether you like me or not. I guess I have an unconformist attitude but that's who I am.

 

You put my YouTube link up & I really appreciate it. But some of you guys take this Coroner stuff too seriously & you depend on "experts in the field" for which the most dangerous thing they've ever done in their lives is crank their car for the drive to an office...or a serious bowel movement as stated earlier.

 

YOU GUYS ARE THE EXPERTS.

I don't know about LL practice

I wonder if that disorientation due to the change from IFR to VFR when breaking out of muck could be a contributor to some "flight into terrain" crashes.

I always thought that the "blind flying" section of a student flight training was meant to put the frighteners into the student so they were too scared to fly into a shadow when they got their VFR licence. As always, there will always be the 'bold' young pilot who will claim that two hour's under the hood on a clear day is all that is needed to handle a quick shot through a storm front, or conducting a flight along a familiar VFR route when the cloud base is 100 feet below lowest safe height, and there's a gorilla in the mist called Turbulence.

You wanna make a bet on that? I've seen plenty of a/c at zero feet along a deserted beach! Rules are like door locks they are only for honest thieves!!

LL practice I suppose.

The point I'm trying to make is that is a critical low level manoeuver you have to get right. and needs the skills taught in low level flight. What you are doing is putting a slant I never intended on things I say. Very selective and often out of context. For example a go around because you floated too far because the wind had become a tail wind while you were in the training area. There's plenty of pilots who have never done a downwind landing and will probably fly too slow on approach when they do one in anger. and tend to do the same on go around with a down wind at low level (AS MANY WOULD DO). I've sent students solo (not initial) no radio when the runway became unsuitable due a wind change, when they were out in the training area, and being somewhat concerned as to how they would interpret the changes when they returned.. Nev

That attitude is exactly why our fatality rate is as high as it is, and it's the same on our roads, we're too focused on the wrong things and we outlaw things that could be saving lives.If it's a "Caractacus Potts" scenario, why does it seem to rear it's head fairly regularly? Also, most other countries allow low level flight, yet their accident rate is no higher, our's is certainly no lower. Your justification is completely invalid.

We are getting a lot of instances of thermal based gusty winds and mini twisters as well as mechanical turbulence from tree rows and shed/ Hangars orographic terrain and sea breeze effects. Your sterile choice option is not a real feature of ultralight flying. Many coastal areas have known sea breeze effects affecting aviation at certain times of the day.. A go around is a very critical area of low level flying. that every pilot should be able to execute at a moment s notice safely as we encourage it if the approach isn't satisfactory./safe to land from. Nev.

So, how does that help your average pilot who has an engine fail, has chosen to be somewhere where he can land, then finds out that he's completely out of his depth having to manoeuvre at low level for the first time without power? Taking off and landing don't count as LL as far as I'm concerned, as no manoeuvring is done.My experience is that LL is very intimidating for a short while, but I'm glad I had the experience when I had an engine fail.

From some of the incident reports that I have seen, things may have ended a lot better for a few people if their first engine fail wasn't their first LL.

Saying getting into a low flying adverse situation is " Your Choice " in not valid. No one says a few sessions gives you lifelong protection either but It does change your view on things permanently and you build on that. Your attitude changes. You set yourself a standard..Not training people in some facet of flying because they might do silly things is presumptuous, a cop out and not based on facts. They will (IF that's the people they are ) do silly things not knowing the dangers anyhow, regardless and being incapable of coping (untrained) will often end up badly. Every pilot who crashes because he/she wasn't well enough trained is a blot on the system. The system has failed them. As I see it that's the present situation. I've been bloody lucky to have got the opportunities I got to learn and it's saved my life at least 3 times. The idea that " what I know is my business and it's your job to find out for yourself" is not on.. Not part of aviation. as it should be. People who decide the limit of what should be taught are playing GOD. You produce people who think they are there when they are well short of it. The truth is you never actually get "there" where there is no more to learn. Nev