turboplanner

Agree with you sf, but with a heavy heart we have to push on.

Teckair, you're right that the system has failed us, and the crucial importance of finding out what caused each accident, so we ourselves don't face the same fate is treated with a couldn't care less attitude.

On the other hand, by discussing each accident, even if unrelated or unfounded theories are put forward, is education, and in many cases something we haven't come across in our training. That's the value of these threads, so if they stray from the case in point it doesn't matter, better that someone gets some hints which could save his/her life.

Knowing the person, I think this one is leaning towards something like a heart attack or structural failure. He was flying along with a mate.

I'm shocked to find out who it is. Apart from being a very professional and responsible person, he made a number of calls last year to check on me while I was going through cancer treatment. A very sincere man.

Since so far, this is a condolence thread, I've started a separate thread "Temora Crash - Lessons" for discussion on how we can become safer.

I've started this thread to avoid the previous thread splitting and leave the condolences untainted by speculation.

With what is now an unacceptable level of lives lost, we need to educate ourselves to a point where we can reduce this carnage without the horrible trauma to our loved ones, and without any disrespect to the deceased and his family and friends.

At this early point my observations indicate that the area might be crab holey, but it seems a forced landing could have been successful.

That would leave the possibilities of weather, mechanical failure and medical issue?

If Board members carry out their fiduciary duties to the best of their ability, technically they are not liable. However, as has been pointed out, this has to be proved in court and the legal (and perhaps contracted) proceedings are likely to be costly to the organisation, even if RA Aus eventually wins the case.Something has to be done about the vulnerability of individual Board members. There are only three ways that I can think of:

 

1. Organise proper insurance cover (obviously this has been difficult, so one of the next two methods will have to suffice)

 

2. CAA indemnifies RA Aus for any legal comeback (if this ever happened, CAA would like a lot more say in RA Aus matter and RA Aus is likely to become an "arm" of CAA)

 

3. The Federal government passes legislation that indemnifies RA Aus (this is not as crazy as it may first seem when you read this. A lot of lobbying by RA Aus members of the Federal parliamentarians may achieve this ...it just needs a groundswell of RA Aus members to pull this off)

Firstly, The "Board" being referred to is not a Board of Directors, and is not attached to a Company with Limited Liability. The posts and threads on this site continually cross over into this confusing territory.

So laws relating to limited liability companies, and company procedures which people on this site may be familiar with in their day to day life do not necessarily apply. In fact I'd go as far as to say Company experience can be an impediment to understanding how RAA is structured.

What does matter is Incorporated Associations law in the Australian Capital Territory, the Constitution of Recreational Aviation Australia (there is no such thing as RA Aus), and any regulations/rules/bylaws it may have produced and either published or not made public.

The "Board" you are referring to is a board of management, which consists of people who remain members of the Association, and do not necessarily have the powers or separation or responsibilities referred to in this thread.

The thread itself is confused by at least two types of insurance, several "incidents" or potential claims, various individuals who may involved in one incident but not in another, who may have made an incorrect decision in a critical incident or non crtitical incident, who may have departed for a valid reason or a misunderstanding.

Even then I don't think I've summed up all the nuances.

It's a good example of how the Net provides us with rapid communications, but how that goes with many different levels of experience, knowledge and agenda. Nothing you wouldn't encounter in a robust Club Meeting, but at warp speed.

In terms of points 2 and 3, Eighty, I've covered this before.

(a) You can't hand off a tort - to the Federal Government, or anyone else.

(b) No one in Australia, including the Prime Minister, has immunity from Criminal Prosecution

In the 1980's Governments started divesting themselves of risk by getting out of any activity which put them in the Chain of Responsibility.

For example, In Victoria the Department of Labour and Industry used to have inspectors who regularly visited factories checking cranes, chains, hooks, machine guards etc., and providing either a "Do Not Use" notice or a Certificate of Safety.

That stopped, the DLI was closed down and factories became responsible for managing their own affairs.

One exception is Dotars in road transport and aviation, which did nolt cut all ties, and in a couple of cases foolishly stepped back into control positions, reassuming liability.

Under that environment, having distanced itself from control of recreational aviation, the Federal Government is unlikely to be keen to take on more risk.

A request to CASA to leave control in the hands of volunteers, but assume liability, as you suggest would probably produce a rare round of laughter and email swapping.

Just read Pilot Notes over a few months and you'll see a lot of these.

Starts with bad instructing

In $ terms it will cost more especially if you put in a lot of hours.

I'm basing that on recency, or currency, and the comparative amounts of time it tales to keep skills up in a 172/Cherokee vs Jabiru

So if you want to take someone on a trip every three months or so, the preparation hours in a Cherokee are at lot less, even though the hourly cost is slightly greater.

If you own an aircraft:

If you do fly a lot more frequently, and you do record costs accurately, the cost envelope on an RA aircraft is almost the same pattern as a Japanese truck. They cost a lot less up until the time the engine needs to be replaced, but if you haven't sold by then, the extra engine replacement costs exceed the GA aircraft costs at that point and you can never get back.

In the case of the Japanese truck, the economics are brilliant because even the better make four cylinder models achieve around 600,000 km. This is not so in the case of RA aircraft where in some cases you aren't going to make a year's flying before the massive dollar crunch.

Try 10 kilos or two

Certainly the RA Aus issue would appear to be PI in the Sting Issue Tubz.

Don't see much incentive for someone to spend $3,500ono on the B1-RD that has been for sale in Sport Pilot last few issues when they then have to do 20hrs and plus all the add ons to be really legal for a 'ramp check'. The B1-RD should be well and capable of lifting all that paperwork.Respect your support for the stand FH and from the others, the place to really start a revival would really be in Canberra. Maybe moving 'Canberra' to Holbrook would could work. Understanding that there still healthy grass roots activity and start dealing with it at board level, most from what i have seen over the years is mostly 'underground' and look at a real 'Minimum Aircraft' category based on the 265lbs empty and certificated for same. Absolute basics! Fly it where it is intended to be flown, off airport. Really need that insurance if you fly on your own property? The RAAus is pretty high maintenance for a B1-RD.'

Someone going to buy the thing? Be perfect for a little father/son bonding. Try and pass it off to the council ranger as a 'park flyer'.

 

BTW, I really find the term 'rag and tube' as irritating as finger nails on a black board. The term has been around a lot longer than the minimum movement and really best describes the welded tube and rib stitched fabric types especially from the earlier period.

 

Minimum Aircraft is there original classing and should be recognized as such. Grass Roots is a popular term that accurately places Minimum Aircraft correctly in the Time Line. The beginning.

 

Viva Les Revolution!

I didn't quite know how to say that so I made it as gentle as possible.

I've tried to do the same thing from a central position in Speedway and wore myself to a frazzle, receiving helpful abuse in the process.

I think *ag and *ube (I was only kidding) Grass Roots Flying is probably a key market position between RC Aircraft (and don't forget some of these are as big as Tomo's) and 100 knot cross country aircraft.

It's a market position where flying on a budget is possible.

There is a group active in this area at the moment, and that's the Aerochute (and derivatives) group.

However, the push for it, or revival of it has to come from people participating themselves - they can't be some sort of aerial dole bludgers expecting other people acting in a voluntary capacity donating their time fopr a grass roots group which doesn't do anything to get active or promote their sector.

Despite the constant sarcasm against RAA, I haven't seen anything in RAA operations that inhibits grass roots activity.

Everything we use including jetskis has a lot more safety gear on it today, radio is essential when you have 100 to 200 kts in the same circuit, so that's a hurdle that may need some lateral thinking.

I notice that the Aerochute guys have quite big paddock based events where they all get to fly with instructors and controllers on site, and something like that could be organised for GR, perhaps even to temporary closed airspace between two airfields or two landing paddocks.

A Cherokee is one of the most docile aircraft you'll ever find, but still flies and lands to the laws of kinetic energy like your average tennis ball.

I'm sure this would have been a very early stage student, maybe first or second solo, but it does provide a lesson for all of us to put in our refresher locker.....that the dynamics of a nose wheel first, or nose over due to pointing your aircraft at the landing point (advocated by some here), or going to sleep are a magnification best fixed by a go round.

I think you'll find the RAA issue was Professional Indemnity, not Public Liability - a much smaller issue.

Re any large PL amounts in the ongoing Sting issue, My undertstanding is that would centre around duty of care, including duty of care of the pilot/pilot's estate.

Especially the one about how they had the engine stop, which many here consider a breeze, AND FAILED TO MAKE A FRIGGING FORCED LANDING FROM ALTITUDE.

An example of how authorities foster aviation is that in my role as President of the NZ Hang Gliding Association way back in 1979 I got a delegation of our more responsible members to meet with the CAA people with various proposals & the assistance provided was overwhelming. They advised us on what we had to do, got rid of their involvement by making us responsible for all things HG & we got our height restriction lifted from 300 feet to 9,500 feet in one fell swoop.

Very similar to the pattern here in other sports Kevin - that's the hand over of responsibility to the people active in the activity.

What's the situation regarding Public Liability in NZ? Here we got the legal liability along with the control, which in my opinion is still a vast improvement on having non skilled public servants making up regulations and enforcing them.

I think that 12 months from date of sale sucks. I have a customer who bought his engine several years ago so he could get his engine mount fitted and do all the plumbing, but the engine hasn't been asked to fire up at all. In otherwords, it has just been a lump of metal hanging off the front of his plane with zero hours. I reckon that Jabiru should warrant its engines on a time in use basis, like everything else in aviation.OME

Don't worry too much Andy, have a look at the Barry Hempel thread on prune and you'll really see a stunning story.

(a) Is the RPL going to come any sooner than a decade or so?

(b) I looked at it, but felt, as long as you were medically fit, the PPL wasn't really all that much of a hurdle, and then for a start you can travel with three other people.

Has anyone ever flown a single seater Chinook? There is one for sale with a 277 rotax near me. I know all about the engine but the research I have done on the aircraft is disturbing. It has two significant problems. The tail boom has snapped off killing a few pilots. In flight, the frame, especially the tail section, can distort causing no control over pitch. The a/c pitches nose first into the ground. There is a video of that happening. There are a few cases of near misses and fatalities to that. The boom has a modification to strengthen it and the tail section can be brased with wires. This plane is not to be confused with the two seater which is made by a different manufacturer.Norm

How can RAAus be delegated by CASA to "control" it's members and represent their interests at the same time?

If RAAus acts as an authority (on their behalf) I believe CASA should indemnify the RAAus from a "malevolent action".

 

It's time to start from scratch and get every body together and sort out a new structure. Nev

(b) You can't hand off a Tort, and, you can't get undemnity from proscution under the crimes act, such as for culpable negligence.

In fact, CASA and its employees by insisting on controlling aviation bodies is in the chain of civil and criminal liability

© Good luck.

get rid of the word "Board" first, and then there's no ego trip

Reminds me of the 6 wheel drive all terrain vehicle I used to have - sea water slopping in and around every crevice and piece of equipment.

No matter how thoroughly I washed it, next time out two switches and three lights wouldn't work and some sheet metal was rusted out.

Got caught on a submerged log once and it was like two whales mating for half an hour or so.

Very professional Pud, and a great investment in future flights with Gay growing in confidence.

Skating on water with the brakes on has been promoted on a few sites lately. What's the bet some idiot tries it and goes straight in?