turboplanner Posted November 12, 2012 Share Posted November 12, 2012 This thread is not going in a very smart direction - see earlier warning - you could find yourself with a summons to attend Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
68volksy Posted November 12, 2012 Share Posted November 12, 2012 Happy to attend to offer my utterly unscientific and at best marginally professional soap-box style opinions! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted November 12, 2012 Share Posted November 12, 2012 Your barrister will cost about $7000.00 per day to do that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
68volksy Posted November 12, 2012 Share Posted November 12, 2012 Could you elaborate then on what basis the parties to the proceedings might see fit to call me? I don't see how I could offer anything more to them than speculation? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted November 12, 2012 Share Posted November 12, 2012 No, I'm not making any comments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kaz3g Posted November 12, 2012 Share Posted November 12, 2012 Vo Could you elaborate then on what basis the parties to the proceedings might see fit to call me? I don't see how I could offer anything more to them than speculation? Volksy, what TP is telling you is that contempt of court is a very serious matter. It is generally a contempt to comment on matters before a court that might preempt a decision or be seen to prejudice it. Kaz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
68volksy Posted November 12, 2012 Share Posted November 12, 2012 Thanks Kaz - always learning something new. Do you know of any cases where "anonymous" posters on internet forums have been held to account in this manner? Can't be too common can it? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted November 12, 2012 Share Posted November 12, 2012 You could be the first in that case Volksy - we are not anonymous in legal circles - easily traced Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExJourno Posted November 13, 2012 Share Posted November 13, 2012 Your barrister will cost about $7000.00 per day to do that. Your Barrister must be a "cheap" one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admin Posted November 13, 2012 Share Posted November 13, 2012 VoVolksy, what TP is telling you is that contempt of court is a very serious matter. It is generally a contempt to comment on matters before a court that might preempt a decision or be seen to prejudice it. Kaz Kaz, this forum/thread is NOT open to public viewing thus any person that reads any posts in here has to register as a member on the site and thus agreeing to the site's rules...it is not in the public domain...does that make any difference? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExJourno Posted November 13, 2012 Share Posted November 13, 2012 Ian, pardon my mistake if I am incorrect here, but isn't this forum viewable without being logged in? I was under the impression you need only to be a member to comment. About the public domain issue, as Kaz will no doubt assert, finding yourself in contempt of court can be as easy as discussing something one should have not, with just one other person... no matter how privately. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admin Posted November 13, 2012 Share Posted November 13, 2012 Ian, pardon my mistake if I am incorrect here, but isn't this forum viewable without being logged in? I was under the impression you need only to be a member to comment.About the public domain issue, as Kaz will no doubt assert, finding yourself in contempt of court can be as easy as discussing something one should have not, with just one other person... no matter how privately. Adam, if you log out and then try and look into the Governing Bodies forum as a guest (member of the general public), you can see the thread titles but you can not see the content of any thread in that forum, all the posts are hidden from public view and can only be seen by registered users. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExJourno Posted November 13, 2012 Share Posted November 13, 2012 Okay. So only limited content is able to be seen by visitors... pardon my mistake. Thanks for clearing that up for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kaz3g Posted November 13, 2012 Share Posted November 13, 2012 Kaz, this forum/thread is NOT open to public viewing thus any person that reads any posts in here has to register as a member on the site and thus agreeing to the site's rules...it is not in the public domain...does that make any difference? It really depends on the decisions of those viewing it, Ian. If someone with a particular interest in the proceedings felt their position might be adversely impacted by comments made, they might complain to the Court or a party and open up that can of worms. In reality, probably unlikely but it's good practice to not get into that area and leave open the chance. Kaz 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kaz3g Posted November 13, 2012 Share Posted November 13, 2012 IMO opinion (and based upon study of non-popular media) Australia is in actuality no more litigious than it was 25 years ago... Australians Yes.. The insurance companies have had a pretty easy trot in the Australia or am I missing something here? I mean what is the point of having insurance if the insurance companies can get away with not paying? And this happens on a BIG scale from what I see. About 10 years ago the insurance companies managed to convince governments around the country that "ever increasing negligence suits" would send them to the wall. The threshold for personal injury actions became a cliff that only the bravest could surmount. Kaz 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winsor68 Posted November 13, 2012 Share Posted November 13, 2012 Thankyou for that Kaz.. For a moment there I thought I had lost my sense of perspective and had adopted a blame the victims mentality... But that would be crazy wouldn't it???!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted November 13, 2012 Share Posted November 13, 2012 So many people do Win, particularly on here, but I think giving the victim the chance at a partially normal life is humane. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
68volksy Posted February 15, 2013 Share Posted February 15, 2013 The Coroner made some very 'unkind' (ameliorated word used here) about Mr M Coates who imported this aircraft. I wonder if the action referred to above also threatens the importer? Interesting point to note actually. Originally the case seemed to be building against Mr Coates. It would seem though that proceedings were halted effectively by the "Everyone flies at their own risk" legalities in the setup of RA-Aus. If a case could have been made against the aircraft importer and seller it certainly would have been but there is no legal link that can be made due to every RA-Aus aircraft being "Fly at own risk". There is effectively no recourse for any liability in RA-Aus. As such the case was turned to RA-Aus and CASA for allowing such a state of affairs to occur. That's my interpretation of the goings on anyway... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eightyknots Posted February 19, 2013 Share Posted February 19, 2013 Interesting point to note actually. Originally the case seemed to be building against Mr Coates. It would seem though that proceedings were halted effectively by the "Everyone flies at their own risk" legalities in the setup of RA-Aus. If a case could have been made against the aircraft importer and seller it certainly would have been but there is no legal link that can be made due to every RA-Aus aircraft being "Fly at own risk". There is effectively no recourse for any liability in RA-Aus. As such the case was turned to RA-Aus and CASA for allowing such a state of affairs to occur.That's my interpretation of the goings on anyway... So, I suppose that's where the matter rests. I hope Mr Coates has learned a hard lesson and has changed his ways to more ethical conduct. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teckair Posted February 19, 2013 Share Posted February 19, 2013 And people have been wondering why the placard issue suddenly became a priority. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted February 20, 2013 Share Posted February 20, 2013 Interesting point to note actually. Originally the case seemed to be building against Mr Coates. It would seem though that proceedings were halted effectively by the "Everyone flies at their own risk" legalities in the setup of RA-Aus. If a case could have been made against the aircraft importer and seller it certainly would have been but there is no legal link that can be made due to every RA-Aus aircraft being "Fly at own risk". There is effectively no recourse for any liability in RA-Aus. As such the case was turned to RA-Aus and CASA for allowing such a state of affairs to occur.That's my interpretation of the goings on anyway... Not correct Volksy, and the differences have been covered in previous threads; the Coroner follows one path, but plaintiffs look at a totally difference ball game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest L/D Posted February 20, 2013 Share Posted February 20, 2013 I hope Mr Coates has learned a hard lesson and has changed his ways to more ethical conduct. LoL - good one Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruce Tuncks Posted February 24, 2013 Share Posted February 24, 2013 The Smith and Guthrie coroner report is disappointing. All the stuff on engines and props was irrelevant. The pilot's failure to carry out a survivable forced landing was the real issue. The whole reason for our freedom from onerous GA type regulation is that our landing speeds are low enough that we can survive an engine failure. Yet we had a silly woman of a coroner hardly address the issue of the pilots not handling the engine-out landing, making silly excuses (downdrafts etc ) which if true would mean most glider landings would be crashes. These guys in the plane were experienced? I bet they weren't at engine-out landings. They probably did the classic thing and panicked and stalled with the result that they hit nose-down in a fairly open area. I know the aircraft was a Sting with a Rotax engine, but the first page of the Jabiru flight manual says that the aircraft is , like any single-engine aircraft, is to be operated where an engine failure can be tolerated. Well this sure implies that the resultant landing be done properly, with a flair-out. Even if the wings are ripped off, this would be survivable. This survivability of controlled forced landings has been written up many times, and it all applies particularly well to RAAus planes with their slow landing speeds. Bruce 1 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teckair Posted February 24, 2013 Share Posted February 24, 2013 The Smith and Guthrie coroner report is disappointing. All the stuff on engines and props was irrelevant. The pilot's failure to carry out a survivable forced landing was the real issue.The whole reason for our freedom from onerous GA type regulation is that our landing speeds are low enough that we can survive an engine failure. Yet we had a silly woman of a coroner hardly address the issue of the pilots not handling the engine-out landing, making silly excuses (downdrafts etc ) which if true would mean most glider landings would be crashes. These guys in the plane were experienced? I bet they weren't at engine-out landings. They probably did the classic thing and panicked and stalled with the result that they hit nose-down in a fairly open area. I know the aircraft was a Sting with a Rotax engine, but the first page of the Jabiru flight manual says that the aircraft is , like any single-engine aircraft, is to be operated where an engine failure can be tolerated. Well this sure implies that the resultant landing be done properly, with a flair-out. Even if the wings are ripped off, this would be survivable. This survivability of controlled forced landings has been written up many times, and it all applies particularly well to RAAus planes with their slow landing speeds. Bruce Yeah true, but when I have posted on this forum about the importance of practising glide approaches and how many people have trouble doing them I got very little support. There many excuses as to why glide approaches are not a good idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted February 24, 2013 Share Posted February 24, 2013 Techair, It's not the amount of support you get, it's the quality of that support. Nev 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now