turboplanner

Franco,

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck it probably is a duck.

If you have an airstrip, even if you have only given two or three people permission to use it there could still come a day when someone on a cross country flight, pushed down by weather could see the strip and the windsock and assume it was a working airstrip.

So while it is open your duty of care to ensure it is legal and safe applies.

To reduce the chances of a claim you would need to put out the white crosses (closure signs) when it wasn't active or safe.

The case, Ballerini vs Shire of Berrigan shows how, although a person dived in to the Murray River, a natural watercourse, and hit a snag the Shire of Berrigan was responsible because they had taken "ownership" of the Cobram swimming hole, with fencing and signs.

The attachment is just a press release, but does give the $5.6 million award against the Shire, but you can search the case on the Austlii website and get the full reasons for the decision.

Dazza, If you knew about it and had it when you were self employed, then all you are doing when flying is protecting yourself from similar claims, so there's nothing new there.

It's probable that at some stage of setting up or applying for a contract that the need for cover was brought to your attention.

What I find unconscionable is that State Governments ditched a lot of their prescriptive legislation on the quiet, and just didn't tell us that under self regulation we bear the risk.

I had an issue with Vicroads on some transport regulations which lasted for years, and while they admitted they should have publicised these regulations (which related to self-administration risks) when they changed the legislation, they knew they were gone 100% if they were sued, and sat in a panic for nearly a decade until they finally got the government to put it in with a new Act, then sat back with bated breath hoping there would be no claims before finally publicising the regulations without referring to them as new, and with the excuse that they had been around for a decade, and XXXX Act said they were compulsory.

You needed to pay for it from the early 1980's like the rest of us - you've just been lucky.

What you are calling a waiver, may be a warning of inherent dangers, and the signature may be the Insurance company's proof that certain dangers were pointed out.

You cannot have someone sign away their right to sue you if you are negligent.

In fact we lost one case because a promoter advertised an event as a "family night" and didn't have a danger warning, and we lost another after when we did have a danger warning, because we failed to add that the injured party had the right to sue for negligence.

The danger warning can in some cases mitigate the level of negligence, but of course you still need full PL Insurance.

Forget about comments like "idiot proof", there are standards of safety you must maintain, which should be spelled out in your SMS.

Here it is - http://www.recreationalflying.com/threads/why-dont-they.61603/#post-286678Sue

Here it is again, rather than trying to reinvent the smoking wheel.

Steve it would be helpful to know just what has happened on insurance. I think you said RAAus insurance is making demands on you? I don't understand that. Have they paid a claim to your "mate"? You might, not know, I suppose. Did you have aircraft insurance that included public liability? It seems strange that any insurance company is having a go at you.

This certainly does seem bizarre.

hang on, you've said to someone "I'm a pilot, I can fly this plane, come fly with me", they accept, and you think you can convince a court that you don't owe any duty of care?? Good luck!Let me add that I really sympathise with Steve who has broken his back and his ^&*( "mate" is suing him over some clothes or some such stuff. And also I don't think Steve is at fault in any way. Steve, you don't deserve this and I hope youget better very soon and that the legal hassles go away.

What I said was the person claiming had to prove you breached your duty of care; there has to be proof that you were negligent before anyone gets a cent.

I don't think it has become any easier to sue - the person has always had to prove you owed them a duty of care and breached it.

Mind you that's fairly easy if you've just done a beach beat up with them, got hit by windshear and put the nose into the sand breaking their back.

If you scared someone and it caused permanent damage that might be a problem but they would have to prove negligence on your part, and would need to involve some serious psychological analysis, so it probably wouldn't be worth it unless permanent damage had been done by something really terrifying, which would probably mean you had persisted with whatever scared them.

I also have shed a tear over the poor condition of Moorabbin buildings, and the loss of the once bustling Civil and Schutt operations, but I wonder if we are just blind to the changes which progressively take place over time, and get behind in our perceptions.

I just pulled the figures for Moorabbin Airport Movements for the past fifty one years (figures/graph attached)

GA is alive and well and the trend is still upward at Moorabbin.

The GA traffic in and out of Moorabbin also indicates that some other GA airfields are getting healthy traffic, so the picture might not be as bleak as it sounds.

EXX26.pdf

EXX26.pdf

EXX26.pdf

But if everyone is doing it, perhaps it is safe to do so.

It was this part Col, some people will see that as a loophole. It could ruin their life, but some people hang on those statements to justify what they do.

It is important to exercise duty of care by pointing out all the risks; that will help you in a case where someone might be claiming he/she had been told more people are killed driving to the airport/you can get killed crossing the road, or other clever ploys to downplay the risk.

Having someone sign a written explanation of risks provides proof your insurer can take to court, but a person doesn't have the right to hand off a Tort, which means they cannot give away their right to sue if negligence occurs, so those good old days are gone.

The key today is

(a) Know what duty of care is and means

(b) Minimise risk

© Have adequate public liability insurance at all times

To understand what this is all about I STRONGLY recommend you spend less than the cost of a hour's flight (in most cases), and get a briefing from a lawyer who specialises in public liability.

In the prescriptive legislation days most could get away with this clever play on words, with just a few being caught and prosecuted.

In these self-regulation days, while nothing happens, nothing happens, but if there's an accident EVERY pilot involved is not only likely to be found negligent, but culpably negligent, which is a criminal charge. The Insurance company would be within its rights to reject a claim, and I haven't looked up the CASA site, but there's probably a strict liability regulation with severe penalties as well.

In every case, with an injured or dead person lying on the ground, the weight can be measured against the regulation.

In short you'd have to be nuts to get sucked in by Col's slippery line above.

Herm took the correct path.

One of the weaknesses in the RAA structure is Performance and Operations, and this needs to become a much more important factor in giving Certificates to pilots, because key factors like incorrect balance, last light and overweight issues do show up regularly in discussions.

Full passengers and full fuel prohibit many aircraft from taking off, and this doesn't just apply to Jabiru or recreational aircraft, but right up through single engine GA aircraft. Not only that, but many aircraft do not have the undercarriage strength to land at MTOW, so a fuel burn has to occur until the reduce to maximum landing weight. That's why you hear of them flying round to burn off fuel - other than a few cases, they are not doing this in a perfectly safe aircraft because of fire, they are trying to land without bending their undercarriage.

The calculations are so simple and quick, that it's surprising so many don't do them.

What`s happened to the ' Dangerous activity' ruling? Fly at your own risk! Why doesn`t it apply in Steves case, or anyone else for that matter? I thought it was all clear cut now and sorted out!

Apart from that it varies from the basic principles of negligence so still might be challenged in future cases (I think a key factor was that the passenger was a pilot, but can't remember if that is correct).

What has happened here is routine, and we must have advised a dozen or more times on this forum for owners and pilots to get Public Liability Insurance.

Even if your wife is injured, she can sue you (or it may be decided by a third party that she sues you)

And the dollars are never small - loss of a finger could cost $100,000.00

Yes Geoff, but I think he meant what percentage of internal combustion engines do they represent.

Congratulations on your progress of turning dream into reality.

No doubt there will be more hurdles to be solved, but this already is a good success!

Hatshat had been rambling for days now, a victim of constitutionitis.

"There's only one way to fix that" said GoldenRat looking across at Pussygalore "and that's.................."

Thank you to both Ians; that has to be a huge plus plus for aviation safety, and saved time.

"...........shut down.......but wait minute, if shut down then we cannot speak; this same as honourable Emperor when he tell us 'Have I got deal for you, I crose down schools, you free to fly in ratest aircraft, we teach you well', and we did and we frew to Darwin, bombed the crap out of it, and then that sirry Kazoko said 'Why we not do some roo shooting while here' so we rand at the bomber field near Batcheror, borrow jeep from yanks and shoot roos, all having big BBQ, drinking Budweiser when the local police sergeant call in to check a newspaper report of six new Cessnas just randed near Batcheror. 'I thought so' he said "Cessna not invented yet, you can't trust newspapers, but you lot are on your way to Cowla!"

It.....

"Dual ignition" I hear. Why? Yes, maybe in the old days of dirty oils & dynamo driven ignition systems. But since the advent of electronic breakerless CDI systems, hands up anyone who's had an ignition failure on their car that would have been prevented with a dual system. And what constitutes dual redundancy anyway? Two magnetos driven off the same shaft?

I can see merit in Turbo's argument in the general case but, in the particular case of RA-Aus, I believe this is an essential change and will do vastly more good than harm. In my longish career, I have not seen many examples where somebody sitting in the top job for a long time was beneficial. Steve Jobs, Warren Buffet, Richard Branson and Bill Gates being notable exceptions to what I consider a general rule.

Exactly, and the change elminates taking advantage of a Steve Jobs, Warren Buffett, Richard Branson, and Bill Gates - the Constitution would prohibit you from keeping them on, and I know Warren Buffett for one would quietly thank everyone, but decline standing for any time, and so would I. On the other hand, with the present Constitution, the members can choose to boot someone out any time they like.

To suggest this change will get someone out who's a problem right now is just opportunistic, and if you apply natural justice you still won't be rid of him for another two terms.

What's going on here is a diversion - fixing things that aren't broke, while turning backs on the most urgent issues to be addressed - recruiting good candidates and actually getting people to vote. In the last four years I have seen virtually no effort made to inform members of the major issues, which would have got them fired up enough to do something to ensure their flying had a good future. It was done in the AUF days, because the massive expansion has certainly occurred, but the will and the skill has been lost.

Manipulating the Constitution like this is like designing a new set of deck chairs for the Titanic.

there's a note in this month's Sport's Pilot explaining why the accident reports have been missing and a graphic that says "bring them back?". So I plan to write them and cast my vote to bring those back. The reason they gave was that it had been one person manually compiling those on his own time, and that person was no longer there.

How sad; it really does show you how priorities have been lost, and how much new blood is needed.

No I'm not a paid up member of RAA Major; if you want members only discussions you have a website and you have a magazine and you have the option of calling meetings, and you have clubs, and you have FTF's and you even have an annual event at which you can conduct club only discussions, but you haven't done that and nor has Don Ramsay, you've come on this site where there are Recreational Flyers of all types with a lot more life in them, and they are going to react to dumb ideas, if not for themselves, but for their friends.

It wasn't called a re-organisation committee by the way, so you need to do some more study on your organisation.

Not dumb Facto, If they can't make a difference in six years they shouldn't be there in the first place, how many years do they want ??.....................Maj...

OK, VERY dumb then.

You can vote the bad ones out after the first term, or the second term, but you can NEVER have continuity with a good President with this change.

Most Associations have good officials, and some of these people are brilliant. I'm currently working with some I'd give my right arm for, and I've known some Presidents who've been in office for 30 years and taken their Associations to heights which could never be achieved with a mate just putting his hand up on the spur of the moment, and b9ing booted out after two terms when he may have done enormous damage.

Changes to the RAA Constitution should not be based just on the current standard of officials; that will pass either over time or at a Meeting of very angry members, and the Association will go into a normal phase of operations.

This sort of proposal shows the short sightedness of a tiny committee coming up with ideas on their own without the discussion being open to all members; now there's only one extreme or the other to vote on.

Dumb - you lose the services of the very best talent right when you've got it.

They can't help it if they can't spell