turboplanner

As Your Honour wishes

Not capable of providing a response to the nitty-gritty questions, Turbs?

Don't go flying turbo ! It's too dangerous for you in anything as it is inherently dangerous !

I was well trained in my early flying days to accept I was in an inherently dangerous activity which could be quite safe if I applied the correct training procedures and airmanship.

I'm in a happy place.

He who said he has been collecting statistics: " for which my own first statistics start in 2007, around 7 years ago" ,(post #43) now "doesn't place much store in statistics" (post #168)Which is it to be Turbs? Are the statistics, in which you now don't place much store, suggesting that the sky may not actually be falling?

in #43, I was referring to RAA-only statistics which started in 2007. This put 2007 as a published time when the current issues were being reported. i.e. a time reference.

in #168 The statistics I was referring to were based on the preceding lines which indicated we were never going to get the ACCURATE total some people are screaming for. i.e. a different context for the word "statistics".

So no I'm not having a few bob each way.

Someone asked me what I would do way back in one of the early threads, before the limitations were applied, or even public consultation had occurred, and I posted it way back then.

I've lost interest Oscar, sorry.

Ah, a comedian in the face of the issue of the day.

Just for you Oscar, you could refer to a few hundred non-Jabiru safety posts of mine on this site for a start.

And yes, I have stayed out of aircraft or situations where the risk factor was elevated, Cirrus and Lancair being two.

It's over Camel, the decision was made in December, picking words out of everyone's posts isn't going to change it.

Good point Russ.

Well I wouldn't open up that can of worms right now FH, or a whole lot more people might be on the benches, spread across all sorts of engines and airframes.

The point is that limitations are now in force and it isn't a voting matter - people have to comply with them.

The opportunity that is available right now is for members to discuss, vote on, and decide actions to address the matters you raised, BEFORE those situations merit outside action.

FH, unless you've been given access to the CASA evidence, you don't know whether it's dodgy or selective.

You may well know the evidence which flows through from RAA for reported incidents.

You don't know, because none of us know how many unreported incidents there have been

You don't know how many of the unreported incidents have been helpfully reported to CASA by others

You might know the number of VH incidents reported, but you don't know the unreported ones

You might have scoured the used ads and tallied up engine TT vs airframe TT, and made some more estimates

....and so on.....

Personally I don't place much store on the statistics, I'm looking to see if anything is starting to drop out of the sky that I might be paying good money to hire from smiling CFIs.

Maybe we care about safety, don't want anyone hurt, and don't want our flying restricted in the future.

I've already stated my reasons for walking away from Jabiru and RAA for the time being; what has that go to do with being able to read and understand regulatory documents?

There is only one downside to big wheels, they cut into my visibility But they are awesome awesome awesome.

No one has to support it; it wasn't a vote.

Actually out of what RAA currently claims to be almost 10,000 members, if you count the number complaining on this site, it is very small, just the same ones over and over again on several threads.

Turpop, You might have missed , or perhaps you misunderstood the word NOT in my post. ( I put it in capitals so that it would be hard to miss.) To assume that because I said I was NOT implying something must mean that I was implying something else is as flawed as someone saying: "I don't know what A said to B but I do know what A didn't say to B." i.e. wrong in both examples.Can I assist you further?

Thanks Gandalph, what are you implying then?

Hi TPWhat was the critical disclaimer condition?

In your case Tex, the Civil Liability Act 2003 says:

Division 4, Page 16, Dangerous Recreational Activities

19 (1) A person is not liable in negligence for harm suffered by another person as a result of the materialisation of an obvious risk of a dangerous recreational activity engaged in by the person suffering harm.

19 (2) This section applies whether or not the person suffering harm was aware of the risk.

So whether there was a warning plaque or Volenti Non Fit Injuria the injured party can’t sue for an obvious risk.

HOWEVER:

The meaning of “obvious risk” is defined in detail in Division 13, Page 14 AND DOES NOT INCLUDE ALL THINGS (including negligence), saying in clause (5)

“To remove any doubt it is declared that risk from a thing including a living thing is not an obvious risk if the risk is created because of a failure on the part of a person to properly operate, maintain, replace, prepare or care for the thing, unless the failure itself is an obvious risk.

Examples for subsection (5)—

1 A motorised go-cart that appears to be in good condition may create

a risk to a user of the go-cart that is not an obvious risk if its frame

has been damaged or cracked in a way that is not obvious.

2 A bungee cord that appears to be in good condition may create a

risk to a user of the bungee cord that is not an obvious risk if it is

used after the time the manufacturer of the bungee cord

recommends its replacement or it is used in circumstances contrary

to the manufacturer’s recommendation.

So it’s not the blank cheque some would have you believe. Our negligence is the disclaimer condition.

It has NOTHING to do with the RAA Constitution. It has to do with the authority under the CASR. I would have expected you to understand that, given your self-appointed knowledge of all things regulatory.

The most important point is RAA is self regulated and does not need CASA to hound and destroy it constantly.

RAA have been collecting the statistics, why didn't RAA take care of business.

And before someone says "they don't have the power" again, I'd suggest if you look at the Constitution it has never got very far off the standard Model Constitution, has never had sections developed for Compliance and Enforcement and other operational matters, but there is a clear path for those things to be taken care of.

Yes, but you have to get the strategy right for that to happen Camel.

It would all blow up if an aircraft lobs onto a beach and cleans up ten people.

It will not blow up if the Minister trots out the forced landing statistics and says "I'm doing my job"

I have and will continue to fly many hundreds of hours with my kids in the plane. Its no more dangerous than it was in November or the previous 7 years

What has changed is that where in the past, people would coin phrases like "Jab Bashers" and tell others there were no problems, the issue is now official.

The "foreseeable risk" is now up there in neon lights, not by a "Jab Basher" but by the Safety Authority.

Pay particular attention to the "good Neighbour" part of this link. The random in TT nature of this engine issue makes an argument that you can reasonably foresee a potential forced landing on any flight. http://lawgovpol.com/case-study-donoghue-v-stevenson-1932/

In the case of a severe injury or fatality it may even help to click it up to culpable negligence.

With that increased financial risk I would expect that by now PL Premiums may have gone up in price, and if they haven't the question is whether you have advised your insurer of the risk increase (increased cost that is).

For whatever reason, in almost 1500 hrs in Jabs I haven't had one issue from engine reliability. And many hundreds of others are the same.

In your case, 1500 successful hrs or not, you can't definitively say that yours will not let go next flight.

Numbers touted now indicate 12 engine outs in 90,000 movements.

I haven't had a good look at the ATSB figures, but since ATSB only started taking an interest in RAA registered aircraft recently they may be VH registered aircraft. Will have a more detailed look.

I'm not sure how many emails a day a Federal Minister gets Camel, but a couple of years ago it was 10,000 a day for the Victorian Premier.

Most of Truss's correspondence will be for the big portfolios of Infrastructure and Regional development.

(I've lost EIGHTEEN front ends on the Upper Gring Gring HIGHWAY (HAHAHA) in the last two years you bastard - FIX IT!)

Which was accepted by the Court in the case of Noel Campbell v Rodney Victor Hay [2013] NSWDC 11

People, you need to understand that this is a standard response drafted by someone in the Minister's office, not even by CASA. Ministerial staff have appallingly high levels of power, given that they are there to protect the Minister's person - NOT to advance the 'business' of actual government. Their function is to ensure that the Minister remains 'the Minister' and remains politically appealing i.e. will be re-elected!Having been a relatively senior public servant for many years, I've had years of dealing with Minister's offices. It is a standard requirement to reduce absolutely everything presented to a Minister to a specified length consistent with the Minister's attention span: about two A4 pages maximum of mostly dot points. Doesn't matter whether this was a response to a constituent's whinge about why their cat was not rescued from a tree in less than two hours after they rang 000 or a multi-million $$ proposal for a new programme for an improvement to survival rates for cancer: two pages was the response/submission requirement. With specific topic headings to be completed.

 

Camel, your Ministerial letter never reached Truss's attention, nor will your response. It was fielded by some spotty mid-20's apparatchik in the Minister's office and put on the slate for a response - which it has received. The generic response letter has in all likelihood been drafted by CASA and 'polished' by the Ministerial staff; meantime Truss is wandering aimlessly around Rockhampton on his summer vacation, blissfully unaware. Oh, and he's running the country at the moment - good thing we're all on Christmas break, eh?

 

Mind you, Truss is blissfully unaware of the world in general; he is intellectual porridge. He has been the Minister responsible for Aviation matters for many years - including during Howard's time - and he has consistently exhibited a grasp of aviation that can be summed up as: "If God had intended Man to fly, He would never have given us the Railways". He can probably count his toes, assuming he has the same number of them as his fingers, but you'd be wishful if you assumed anything more cerebral from him.