turboplanner

This is low scrub on the banks of Coopers Creek;there's no roadway or airstrip, he was banking left and right to find clear spaces between the trees, and did about six passes for the campers.

Re the CASA SD reports held under http://www.casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:STANDARD::pc=PC_90818Of the total of 5 Jabiru engine "failures" I can find reported on the CASA list of 114 prop engine failures in 2014, three failures are claimed as engine, one failure claimed as ring gear and one as fuel pump.

 

Only one Jab failure is listed on the CASA SD list for 2015 so far.

How long does Tomo have to stay a "Young enthusiast" considering he's an old married man.

The tracks in #1 looked like a typical bog pattern to me Tomo, whether in an aircraft, a 4WD off road bike or horse.

The going fine phase

The Oh Sh!t phase

The attempted 180 turn phase

The hard evidence of tracks when you don't make it back out of the bog.

No need for a tin hat.

That type of attitude to flying used to be called gung ho, I believe, and now has various expletives used. We see his gene pool active on this site now and again. They usually don't tell us about the incidents they survive, but occasionally we read about them in the newspapers. Like this one, they often move from place to place when their welcome runs out, relying on the CFI not to take any action, or warn anyone else. I've been trained by one or two at times.

If anyone really wants to know just read the Act relevant to your particular state. For example for Qld it is Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Act, Section 79 (22 pages) for drink driving and Section 80 (37 pages) for breath/blood taking. (Each state will have something very similar)

It is all covered, no arguements, whether you like it or not that is the current statute law.

Very good advice - it will be slightly different in each state, so why spend time conjuring up an example when you'll have the exact answers within five minutes.

Marty, the case this refers to should have been a clear warning to you; actions took place over a waterway - roughly the legal equivalent of the paddock you mentioned, no one injured so a two year suspended sentence. Kaz pointed out the more serious issues if someone had been injured or killed.

We've pretty well covered the breathalyser situation, and reckless situation, so we can leave you to your dreams.

There are enough cases in the newspapers to give you more clarity, and if you've missed the previous ones we can be sure there will be more usually involving people who never expected it could happen to them.

You missed the point Marty. It's not so much whether the car happens to have its registration paid up.

If you are acting recklessly you can be charged in a paddock or on a road

You can be breathalysed anywhere in any motor vehicle, even in Tasmania.

There's a good solution to that confusion; we could do away with customer relationship management, and we'd get less calls from people who don't know what they are doing asking us to comment on people who do know what they are doing.

Well that's a scary thing - I hope I never get chorossis of the liver, or any other form of chorossis.

Turbo. . . . did you mean to type " A change that isn't necessarily Warranted / Required / Needed" ?? . . .confused dot com ( Bearing in mind from the outset that I have absolutely NO IDEA how your existing systems operate. . . )Phil

I can't understand why people go out to a restaurant, and all of them sit there texting messages to someone else. . . . . ? ?

I remember buying meat, when the local butcher shop had sawdust on the floor and a big wooden block to chop the meat on. The meat was then wrapped in paper and string tied around the paper, what I don`t remember, is, anyone getting sick from eating the meat.One needs to ask the question, Why are so many people getting sick these days?

 

Frank.

The requirement was in response to 4 million people being hospitalised each year in the US and 40,000 people in Australia, with food poisoning.

From the limited search I did this morning it seems that the US result has been reduced to 128,000

In the TWO most publicised UK multiple shooting tragedies over the last few years, ie, the Scottish P.E. teacher who killed lots of small children, and the Swindon shooting, where a bloke named Michael Ryan walked around the town killing people at random with a semi-automatic rifle, . . .Both of the persons involved were cleared as competent and safe to hold a UK Firearms certificate, even though they were BOTH known well known "Oddballs" in their local areas, and in the case of the Dunblane massacre, a lady police officer, who accompanied the firearms safety inspecto to the bloke's home on application, expressed strong reservations, calling the bloke a demented wweirdo,. . but he was allowed to have a certificate anyway ? ? so that was purely and simply a failure to apply the required criteria properly. As a result, I and several thousand other shooting enthusiasts lost the privilege of home owned firearms, we had the "Two separate safes" rule back then also. Interestingly, only weapons using expanding ammunition were banned, but not those pistols using black powder, and muzzle loading rifles. . . .?

 

I gave it up after coming home from the range too often with my face and clothing blackened with soot ! !

 

Phil

This is another example of how easy it is to lose your freedoms when governments perceive that something has to be done. Research and logic go out the window in favour of a fast decision.

Both being well known oddballs supports my GP's opinion that they could eliminate nearly all these disaster cases if they were brought into a formal loop.

We have covered the RPL and its limitations many times; I'd suggest a careful study of its limitations before inventing a change that isn't necessarily there.

fair enough....so how about some alternates that support your assertions......

The butcher always had a few fingers missing or short. He had not sued his employer about that.

Over regulated and ridiculously so?.......... I`ve been saying that for many years! It has just kept getting worse.Because of the ever increasing regulations, it became harder and harder for me to legally farm Sugar Cane,here at home, on our 100 ha property. Didn`t need to keep working my ar#e off, so, I stopped farming, retired and now I have more time to go flying.

 

I reckon it will get worse before it gets better, if it ever does.

 

Frank.

We have a growing mountain of legislation with very little effort at deleting or slightly adjusting the old.

I'm in favour of a rule which says for every new piece of legislation introduced and old one must be thrown out.

Now don't be calling anyone knobs acro, particularly when you don't know their level of intelligence and power.

TubsAs I said I don't know if the statement there are more is true or not, I doubt that any one member of the general public could ever know. I accept that people who care less about the law will continue to be unaffected by changes in the law, because legislation can never cause observation of legislation. I mean if the Death Penalty doesn't make people follow the law then there is no sanction available to step up to....

 

But easy availability of weapons to cause accidents and on the spur crimes is the one area where legislation can have an impact. My comment that it might be time to repeat was a throw away line.....if the controls that were introduced to prevent those on the spur incidents or accidents are still appropriate and effective then nothing more probably needs to be done......

 

Im not sure I agree with your last statement........"Identified and dealt with" I suspect the devil is in the "dealt with" statement how exactly? Mental health is an area of medicine that isn't well funded today let alone to be able to deal with a step increase in activity....although in thinking further perhaps our entire prison system is just a very poor extension of the mental health treatment regime.......

 

Andy

I was saying to the family doctor that quite often trained Psychiatrists and Psychologists can't pick one of the people who are over the edge enough to commit murder. He responded that the family doctor has usually known for years.

So my "dealt with would be:

(a) Following a compulsory report block the person from owning/obtaining the weapons (with suitable natural justice)

(b) Treat the mental condition of the patient

Suggestions like yours are what I was posting about Andy. Someone starts the ball rolling and next thing we all have our guns taken off us.

In looking back on the last buy back:

The career criminals who always bought untraceable guns usually from overseas haven't missed a beat.

The two compartment safes required have probably prevented many suicides and family deaths.

The people who brought their gun home after fighting for their country with no intent of ever using them probably suffered more post traumatic stress than they needed to.

I think there are less guns than before because legal shooting areas have really tightened up, and Police statistics would confirm either way.

Murders have continued on, but are often carried out with knives these days.

The real key, controlling the people who, unlike almost all of us, who tip over from reality to the point where they can kill someone, still has a way to go. My family doctor at the time told me fixing the problem was easy;if compulsory reporting by GPs was brought in almost all the misfits would be identified and could be dealt with.

That's what we all should have done in hindsight turbs, dumbest thing that was ever done. But never mind all those crims that handed in their guns are all the better for it. Stupid stupid stupid. But I won't get started on guns.But back to the point of this fast getting wild discussion, I do think it would be nice if there was a little more discretion given to the powers that be (I know that gets abused too) to differentiate between an accident and deliberate negligence. It is never good when someone is killed or seriously injured but I feel that the system could be a little more lenient depending upon the 'intent'. We can't change things after they have happened but if someone has accidently killed/injured someone don't you think they will be punishing themselves enough?

 

For example my better half pulled out of our driveway without looking as good as she should have and got cleaned up by an elderly couple who until then had been happily driving along minding their own business. The end result was a couple of banged up cars, no one was injured just shaken up and in shock (not only the elderly couple but also our two little kiddies and even me who had just crawled into bed after a night on the tractor and heard it all.).

 

Insurance covered everything so no cost to any except the inconvenience for the other couple and of course the excess for us.

 

But the better half still got booked for neg driving. Ok I know she definately was guilty of that, obviously. But can't we as a society accept if it is an accident and no real damage is done and it's obvious that the person is sorry that any extra penalty doesn't really benefit anyone?

Someone has to pay, if the breadwinner is killed, to support the wife and children to the extent that the husband did.

I understand your thoughts on feeling sorry after an accident, but so do thousands after being caught in an RBT, even though they didn't harm anyone to that point.

Granted!.. Doesn`t mean it should be accepted though and it will never change while it is being accepted. I will not accept being grounded for the actions of anyone else.

I havn`t come across anyone discussing " The unthinkable". In your opinion, what would the unthinkable be? I`ve been discussing the attitude of penalizing everyone for the actions of an individual.

The "unthinkable" I was suggesting was where your reckless conduct killed or injured someone. That just lights the fuse under Governments to "do something" One example was the massacre in Tasmania which took perfectly safe guns off hundreds of thousands of us. Good luck prancing up and saying you don't accept something like that.

But the thing is, people who as a example, trip over a tree root or something. These days are trying to find somebody else to blame instead of blaming themselves for walking around with blinkers on. Where is it going to end ? It will get to the stage where kids wont be able to ride motorcross bikes or ride horses at the weekend pony club. IMO we are heading in the wrong direction with all the cotton wool stuff.

What has changed in the last ten years?

maybe they should fight instead of having their rights constantly trampled on then