turboplanner

".......going to finish up itchy. I'll put ten in Een's tent for a start and that will make him.........."

Turbo, not sure what your saying? Please clarify.

".........spectacles so itchy that I was forever scratching them, and that made me bow legged [Ed: as readers will see of photos showing him at various fly ins], and the midges......oh the midges......."

....your old upskirting mirror, and cruising 50 feet above beaches with a collection of flour bombs"

"What did I dooooo!?" wailed the ex-Major "I was only reporting history as it happened, just like the ABC"

"We don't what to hear your history with all that........."

"....backpack full of coke and Aspros, it was almost....."

....the indecent Major, who really thought he was a decent Major who knew a thing or two about batteries.

"I'm always positive" he said, but when I'm connected to a......................"

"....last saw her she had a butcher's knife in her hand, and she........"

After reading all this I'm almost certain the cause is the fingers.

Like the idea of ESP, that should be the beginning of the end of inadvertent loss of control, and open up the possibility of maintaining controlled flight after inadvertent entry into cloud.

I guess it's not going to be $150,000 though.

I do too.

After the barman died, Paddy came to town and commiserated with the locals.

"I suppose you are all very sad to lose him" he said

Seamus replied "And it's costing us heaps too"

"And why would that be?" asked Paddy

"We buried him in a suit from Formal Hire" said Seamus

......I would no longer be an Iron Lady look alike, just a rusted wreck.

"I second that" said Kevin the whisperer, "because when I............................"

....after eight days of silence from the thousands of Recflying enthusiasts.....staggered some more and said "I wish to introduce myself, my name is Julia!"

No one..............

If you search the Jaspers Brush thread, I posted the Australian Design Rule drove-by noise limits.

These are the noise limits permissible at the side of an Australian road.

There are no exceptions to these in any Planning Zone.

So, for example, if this guy lives on a road, and the aircraft test noises are less than the maximum ADR noise, (where the Council has no right to impose any noise condition on any motor vehicle) it would be inappropriate, and possibly illegal, for any Council to impose any condition on a Use where it could be shown that the operating noise level was below the ADR level at the side of his road outside his house.

Also I would question the frequency limits the Council ha placed, as possibly contravening the Trade Practices Act. Normally, where a person's amenity (living comfort) may be affected by say, an Industrial operation next door or trucks on the road, frequency limits or prohibition are applied before 7 am approx. and after 7 pm approx.

The airfield is in need of a professional Planning Consultant.

When you talk of RAA clout, it is one person from a recreational aviation group against the State of South Australia or the State of Victoria police force and their associated legislative procedures, so not even Coles, General Motors or BHP cracks that wall - that's what the problem is. It's not a matter of someone from RAA wandering over to police headquarters and saying "look chaps, fair's fair, we could learn something from your reports. Evidence is protected by Fort Knox type procedures because of the potential liability/harm it can do.

You raise some interesting questions.

1. I presume where RAA is called in to assist in an investigation, the technical person effectively is part of a police investigation and the information is not subject to release.

Certainly I know of no police releasing a finished report before they present their evidence to the Coroner, so you can attend the Coronial Inquiry if you can ever find out when it is on

and you can obtain Coroner reports/findings but again there is no attempt to make this process user friendly, which is bizarre since part of State Coroners' jobs is to try to ensure the

same thing doesn't happen again. I remember reading the police evidence from a Queensland fatal bus crash which was very detailed and pursued the evidence of a steering failure

all the way up the manufacturing trail to a mistake in heat treatment after it was forged. However, often, as in a recent fatal aircraft crash the Coroner is at cross purposes with the

information we want and the report generally is nothing like an ATSB investigation report. And as you can see RAA are no better off than we are, in getting a definitive report.

2. If the CFI from the local field attends, I can't see any impediment to him giving us a run down on what he saw and what he knows of the incident, and this has been done on this

forum, however that is not an official report, and he will usually be caught up in the Public Liability claim, so he has to be very careful about how far he can go, sometimes having to

hold back the light bulb cause we would all like to know.

There have been occasions where I've all but fought with police sergeants not just to release reports but to investigate some truck accidents more thoroughly, but all I got were inferred threats to keep out of it or else!

We've covered this subject over and over again. Expect no investigation other than one by police, which is based on providing the State Coroner with a cause of death, not cause of crash, and this report will not be made public.

The system almost certainly condemns future pilots to death when they repeat the same circumstances, but that's the system we have - well outside RAA or its board operations, and pretty much the same system as for rock fishermen

You have good cause to worry unless the committee contains a couple of planning specialists - a DA may be won or lost, can go against you as often as for you, but the cruncher is that when the inevitable dissatisfaction with the Council decision occurs, it gets bumped off to the Tribunal where you can get wiped out for all the wrong reasons. I'd think this one might meet vexation requirements.

Gliding has been possible in 7 or 8 recent fatalities Crayon, they just didn't get control of their aircraft as they were trained to. Not saying this has occurred here, but you can't rule anything out just yet.

Any insurance company has to pay its wages, overheads, claims and returns on capital out of its premiums. This means that the premiums must average about 3 times the claims. So if you have average claims you will get back one third of what you paid.This means that you are a mug to insure unless you really can't afford the risk. For many of us, this would only be personal liability risk. Our planes are really only recreational toys and we can afford their loss.

There is another way of protecting yourself against personal liability, and that is to have no legally vulnerable assets. There was a lot of stuff a few years ago about protecting your assets, does anybody know about this?

 

Bruce

It's really a matter of talking with the insurance company so you both have a written specification of what will be covered for what. Companies will sell agreed value policies, so taking the earlier example where someone wanted a new engine after a prop strike rather than the price of an equivalent engine to the one that was in the aircraft, then if that's on the contract, which means the premium covers it, then that's what you'll get. Same with the 400 hours in 15 years engine - it may well be that an insurance company will insure it for a sum, but that sum has to take account of the fact that officially the engine is considered expired, so it might be better to delete the engine from the policy and take advantage of running the engine out to its mechanical end.

Fine print has been outlawed for 30 years or so, but too many people just ask a broker to get them the cheapest cover, then don't even read the contract, then bellow when they try to make a claim, and slag off at an innocent insurance company.

I recently got a quote for insurance (only for the cover note had no intention of paying) and they didn't ask the airframe or engine hours they were more interested in my hours on type etc. so the premium was in no way based on aircraft condition or hoursAnd yeah if i had a prop strike in a jab i would expect a new engine covered by insurance regardless of how worn out my old one was

The insurance company is also ready to deduct the value of your wear and tear, does that mean if your lovely reliable Rotax has done 750 hours they deduct half the price of the engine, but wait, it is 15 years old which is the full service calendar life of the engine so deduct the full price of the engine! Also if an engine failure causes the incident they will only fix the bent bits, leaving you to fix the engine.

Insurers calculate the odds just as well as, if not better than racecourse bookies, so if they set a premium for a given set of conditions, and you don't like those conditions, then you are free to go back and ask for the changes you want, and the premium can be calculated for the higher risk factor.

Back to insurance, how does not carrying insurance mean you shouldn't carry a passenger made aware of your fly at your own risk plackard?

Watch an upcoming legal case then nunans, I suspect you'll turn white when that little trick turns into a financial award involving possibly more than a million dollars!