turboplanner

The difference with taking only family is that - worst case scenario and the whole family perishes there is no estate left to sue my estate. And if they survive but need care then it comes out of my insurance and my estate to whom I would have been leaving it anyway.Last thing I want is to have a prang and then have a passengers estate sue for psychological loss ( as did the families of the skydiver Cessna 206 a few years ago and I think they won) or passenger sue for future costs of care and then my family loses it all and my family is left destitute while a passenger or their family get my estate.

 

Something else that most people are not aware of is that when they step into an aircraft that is not fixed route advertised rpt then their own life insurance is almost always invalid. So that leaves the injured party or the family left behind reliant on seeing to have any money to cover medical costs, care etc etc.

 

The other thing pilots should be aware is that if a passenger dies or loses their income then the estate can make claims based on loss of future earnings of that person. So if you take a doctor or a lawyer flying then have the prang the likelihood is that the claim for loss of future earnings will be huge. It may well be greater than your insurance payout even if the insurers payout without a quibble. If the payout falls short you or your estate has to make it up. If you don't have it they can garnishee your future income.

 

All very scary but that's the way it's become.

 

Sadly when an accident happens the victim will usually try to blame someone.

Your family only loses it all if you are under-insured. Certainly some of the insurance figures bandied around on here are under by millions, which curious since the premiums, while serious money, don't dominate the total cost of flying.

Sadly you’re example is exactly what the world has become. A society of victims with no personal responsibility. Any reasonable person should completely understand any activity they are about to undertake and not live in a world of its not my fault, especially if they sign a wavier. Maybe I just expect to much of society.

Sadly you’re example is exactly what the world has become. A society of victims with no personal responsibility. Any reasonable person should completely understand any activity they are about to undertake and not live in a world of its not my fault, especially if they sign a wavier. Maybe I just expect to much of society.

I`ve probably taken more people flying than anyone else, here in Australia, I`m still prepared to do so and I`m fully aware of the consequences; I take it as a privilege that those I take flying are prepared to put their lives` in my hands.Before we go flying, I brief everyone on the fact that the aircraft is an Ultralight aircraft, it is a real aircraft and things can and do something go wrong; I finish briefing by adding, that all I can guarantee is that I will give them the best of my ability, if they can`t accept that ( from memory, only 2 did not ) I won`t take them; For anyone under 18 years of age, I want their parents permission (always granted), therefore, those I take up have made an informed concious decision to fly with me; In the past, things have gone wrong! I`ve had several engine failures but never so much as scratched myself or someone with me and I have never even had the slightest hint of a lawsuit...Could it happen???

I`m old school, I believe in personal responsibility, I also believe that we are not creating a better society if we all hide under a rock (figure of speech) because we might be sued: All those I take flying come to me, I don`t go looking for them and as far as I`m concerned, we need to go back to personal responsibility, lawsuits, mostly make the Lawers rich!

 

By the way! I was at the first meeting, where we discussed if we were prepared to pay a bit more for A.U.F.now RA-Aus membership fees to have insurance for all members...We voted YES! Initially it was only third party insurance.

 

Frank......... A.U.F/RA-Aus member, 993.

I`ve probably taken more people flying than anyone else, here in Australia, I`m still prepared to do so and I`m fully aware of the consequences; I take it as a privilege that those I take flying are prepared to put their lives` in my hands.Before we go flying, I brief everyone on the fact that the aircraft is an Ultralight aircraft, it is a real aircraft and things can and do something go wrong; I finish briefing by adding, that all I can guarantee is that I will give them the best of my ability, if they can`t accept that ( from memory, only 2 did not ) I won`t take them; For anyone under 18 years of age, I want their parents permission (always granted), therefore, those I take up have made an informed concious decision to fly with me; In the past, things have gone wrong! I`ve had several engine failures but never so much as scratched myself or someone with me and I have never even had the slightest hint of a lawsuit...Could it happen???

 

I`m old school, I believe in personal responsibility, I also believe that we are not creating a better society if we all hide under a rock (figure of speech) because we might be sued: All those I take flying come to me, I don`t go looking for them and as far as I`m concerned, we need to go back to personal responsibility, lawsuits, mostly make the Lawers rich!

 

By the way! I was at the first meeting, where we discussed if we were prepared to pay a bit more for A.U.F.now RA-Aus membership fees to have insurance for all members...We voted YES! Initially it was only third party insurance.

 

Frank......... A.U.F/RA-Aus member, 993.

I’m sorry I just don’t understand this. A guy who WILLINGLY steps into an ultralight should know there is a chance things could go wrong, unless said person is retarded to the point of not knowing an injury could occur. Unless the pilot pointed the aircraft at the ground and purposely injured this guy in my opinion he deserves zero. This is the kind of thing that makes everybody pay to much for insurance.

Your wife buys you a surprise birthday present; a fight in an ultralight.

On your birthday she takes you out to this cute little airfield in the middle of a dense forest.

The sign says "Flying School", and there are a few people around, so you relax with a cup of coffee in the club BBQ area before your flight.

You have to sign a disclaimer; but you think "Everyone does, nothing to worry about"

Your Instructor comes over, gets you strapped into the aircraft taxys out to the strip and you take off.

Just after take off the engine cuts out; you realise there is nowhere in the area to land; it's all forest.

Some hours later you find yourself in a hospital you can't move; you're a quadriplegic age 32, with a life expectancy of 87.

Who is going to pay for the 55 years of live in nurse, rebuilding the house to suit which adds up to a total cost of around 48 million.

Someone advises you to go to a PL lawyer. He does his research, comes backl and says "With the airstrip surrounded by forest there was a forseeable risk, that any forced landing would result in serious injury or fatality. The Flying school operator breached his duty of care to prevent that risk. Your life costs are covered.

I’m sorry I just don’t understand this. A guy who WILLINGLY steps into an ultralight should know there is a chance things could go wrong, unless said person is retarded to the point of not knowing an injury could occur. Unless the pilot pointed the aircraft at the ground and purposely injured this guy in my opinion he deserves zero. This is the kind of thing that makes everybody pay to much for insurance.

You know nothing about flying, except for the odd interstate or international flight, which you consider about as safe a taking a train.

Your wife buys you a surprise birthday present; a fight in an ultralight.

On your birthday she takes you out to this cute little airfield in the middle of a dense forest.

The sign says "Flying School", and there are a few people around, so you relax with a cup of coffee in the club BBQ area before your flight.

You have to sign a disclaimer; but you think "Everyone does, nothing to worry about"

Your Instructor comes over, gets you strapped into the aircraft taxys out to the strip and you take off.

Just after take off the engine cuts out; you realise there is nowhere in the area to land; it's all forest.

Some hours later you find yourself in a hospital you can't move; you're a quadriplegic age 32, with a life expectancy of 87.

Who is going to pay for the 55 years of live in nurse, rebuilding the house to suit which adds up to a total cost of around 48 million.

Someone advises you to go to a PL lawyer. He does his research, comes backl and says "With the airstrip surrounded by forest there was a forseeable risk, that any forced landing would result in serious injury or fatality. The Flying school operator breached his duty of care to prevent that risk. Your life costs are covered.

No doubt Geoff you are aiming at me that is OK I can handle that, only a small time swipe at me. When one stands up to be counted that is the normal treatment but we will move on to all those things which are at play and not too many get to have them highlighted.However have you looked into the truth behind the Jabiru issue? When you have time go and get your angle on the manoeuvring.

The big one ---- the lobbying to get enough votes to change the structure of RAAus to a company from what we knew. Delve about and get that information you will be shocked.

 

What about the China flying schools? RAAus had the opportunity to have some of that business but egos got in the way.

 

There are three for you to contemplate, Geoff. Just a disgrace more members are not told.

 

I try and get people thinking about what is going on but most look at the situation for holes and reply. Not to many look to understand what is happening.

 

KP.

It's not really a practical comparison to look at an overseas situation.

Our laws are relatively simple; the plaintiff has to prove the defendant had a duty of care to prevent a reasonably foreseeable risk, and breached that duty of care

If you're a person who isn't reckless enough to be charged with culpable negligence, and your insurance cover is enough to cover the type of accident which you're likely to be involved in (e.g. flying solo from a farm up to flying in controlled airspace where you can take out a QLink etc. then you don't have a lot to worry about.

There's no difference taking up family members or strangers.The point of the legislation is to look after the person who has been injured or the family of the person who had been killed, and plenty of family members sue, particularly if they will need millions of dollars worth of medical assistance over a period of years.

It's not really a practical comparison to look at an overseas situation.

Our laws are relatively simple; the plaintiff has to prove the defendant had a duty of care to prevent a reasonably foreseeable risk, and breached that duty of care

If you're a person who isn't reckless enough to be charged with culpable negligence, and your insurance cover is enough to cover the type of accident which you're likely to be involved in (e.g. flying solo from a farm up to flying in controlled airspace where you can take out a QLink etc. then you don't have a lot to worry about.

There's no difference taking up family members or strangers.The point of the legislation is to look after the person who has been injured or the family of the person who had been killed, and plenty of family members sue, particularly if they will need millions of dollars worth of medical assistance over a period of years.

...... drifter must have left the sands of surfers .... by now ?....... anyone now how ?

Aussies love snitching?Well, you guys tried your best & lost many of your best in Vietnam. So if any of you want to snitch, you go right ahead.

Plus I'm too old to give a crap. If you guys are anything like South Africans you're a fantastic bunch...and I think you are!

 

Happy New Year from Florida in what was the good ol' USA now the Socialist States of America.[ATTACH=full]53195[/ATTACH]

And thanks for your service.

Is there a procedure for the aircraft to take off from the beach (once CASA have been reassured that the motor is functioning)? What I mean is, aren't there rules that prohibit operation from the beach? Or must the A/C be derigged and trailered out?

Another site suggesting it has very clean wings.

With the manually adjusted valves you got an indication of valve stretch.(or seats moving into the head). The Hydraulic lifters mask all that.Re reporting only on the later stuff doesn't do a lot for those who will still be running various versions of the older motors. It's reasonable to differentiate when commenting on Jab motors, to avoid confusion. Nev

Frankly the standard is far less variable in GA than RA. Might have something to do with the person issuing the licence being a representative of CASA and having actually gone through training to assess their suitability to conduct flight tests as well as the fact that they generally have several thousand hours (generally more like 10 000 hours), not the minimum 250 needed for an RA CFI endorsement.

It would be best just to stick to discussing Gen4, or before you know it, we'll have no idea how the Gen 4 is going because of all the crossover.

My 2c on jab engines. Replace exhaust valves every 300-400 hours max and ensure you replace your flywheel bolts. Those two items alone will save you a lot of grief.

barnaby has got all sorts of problems.his wife left him

his kids hate him

 

one of his "key" staff members is pregnant

 

fiona nash is plotting to resume her position in the party

 

darren chester is an enemy now for not backing the no campaign

 

littleproud and mcviegh have no cabinet experience

 

its a like a plot from fawlty towers

I think what is being missed here is we have a commercial pilot that has a record of wheels up landings, maybe there is a problem, maybe the pilot is human.What would Alan Joyce say to his pilots if they had mobile phones hooked up to his aeroplanes ?

Not wanting to throw more mud at this pilot but I think the second wheels up landing that is being spoken about here is this pilots first one which according to my colleagues in the workshop happened over in south Australia years ago, same type of aeroplane, C337, doing fish spotting, wheels up landing.I know if I made two serious mistakes at work like this, my boss would sack me. On the spot !!

Maybe this commercial pilots license should be reviewed, what is going to be his next mistake ? select an empty fuel tank on take off with the phone ringing leaving say Essendon airport.

Get a load of the comment below the image in this grab from the Blackshape Prime Facebook page.[ATTACH=full]53115[/ATTACH]

It is a hard one with the truck.The driver is a complete idiot, but the truck seemed to bash the horn rather than emergency brake. I would fine both if it was me.

 

The driver of the car should get negligent driving charge. You do not have the right to brake anywhere you like in the traffic- unless it is a emergency. You must take care that your actions do not endanger others- even if you are in front. Just like it you have no right to go into a intersection when the light is green- you must do so safely and only when it is safe to do so.

 

The vehicle in front does not have carte blanche to do anything they like, nor can they just decide to brake and stop in a lane unless it is for emergency reasons or because the traffic ahead has stopped. Just like you can't just decide to enter a intersection and then stop and read a map etc.

 

If it went to court esp. if someone is injured and compensation was sought, then I would expect both drivers would be found to have contributed to the accident. Some states may see it different but that is the general principle.

 

As far as multiple rear end crashes- in NSW the last car to hit only pays for the car they hit and so on down the line. I know because this happened to me 20yrs ago. The police that arrived were fortunately- the accident investigation team, lucky us. The fool at front slammed on the brakes on a major road for no reason and we all barreled in. The cop stated that as no one was injured and cars were movable (to a side st) she would not charge anyone. But the first driver- the idiot, wanted everyone fined- the nice officer obliged. The idiot was charged with negligent driving - they had no lawful reason to emergency brake, and by the very nature of it been a arterial road, the whole road is a NO stopping zone. Just like you can't park your car on a freeway lane and have a picnic.

 

A similar situation is when swerving to avoid wildlife, if you cause a accident- you are at fault. You can not drive in a manner that endangers others- no matter what signs, lights, wildlife etc.

 

I agree though that many cops have very little law knowledge and just rely on us copping it. Or they pick the easiest target and don't want to get involved.

Do you fly Camel?

Well, I decided to bite the bullet and fly out of well camp and FT might be onto something here, firstly the amenities are quite spartan and the cafe sells overpriced food of very average quality.. amenities are clean but you would expect that with little use (so far) there is no customer service counter on the air side of security and the airline "Airnorth" scheduling is terrible with over an hour delay with my flight with NO notification from them. will I do it again? Well let me put it this way... The Qantas club lounge at Brisbane airport looks really good from here