Problems

[Oscar]

I understand a very recent (and apparently unilateral) decision was taken by the RAA Executive to drop the 'Human Factors' endorsement from the RAA Pilot Certificate. If indeed this is correct, what implications does that have for automatic transfer to an RPL?

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

I understand a very recent (and apparently unilateral) decision was taken by the RAA Executive to drop the 'Human Factors' endorsement from the RAA Pilot Certificate. If indeed this is correct, what implications does that have for automatic transfer to an RPL?

I believe that as a separate endorsement it no longer lives but that is because you simply cannot have A pilot certificate without being taught and being tested for the HF content.

 

It in no way means that it isn't still as need as it was.

 

Andy

 

 

[AlfaRomeo]

To clarify comments about rolling into AOPA or SAAA . . . It was in the situation where RA-Aus had collapsed or was imminently about to collapse. If the rego and licensing functions were stripped and everyone was in the CASA/RPL system, there would only be left one role for the remnant RA-Aus - advocacy (+ cheap stuff). That could easily fit into either AOPA or SAAA. We probably have more affinity with SAAA except for a few of the old guard who loathe and despise with a passion the SAAA. You would roll into another organisation because you still had some of the $2.75 million net assets left and didn't want to leave them behind for the ambulance chasers to gobble up.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Just be careful what you are advocating there because firstly people who have suffered loss and can prove negligence are not ambulance chasers, and more importantly they may decide to extract compensation collectively from the members at the time of the loss.

 

 

[facthunter]

Changing the organisation to get out of a real or possible obligation is usually frowned on. I can't see that being a member of the RAAus connects you to the liability . If so, Let someone say so because they should get your attention. Nev

 

 

[metalman]

Just be careful what you are advocating there because firstly people who have suffered loss and can prove negligence are not ambulance chasers, and more importantly they may decide to extract compensation collectively from the members at the time of the loss.

Bullsh1t, stop scaremongering mate, as members our liability ends with our fees!

 

 

[turboplanner]

LOL Metalman you've got a lot to learn - you don't read the Victorian papers?

 

 

[turboplanner]

OK I'll give you some specific research opportunities:

 

(a) Who did the Victorian Government go after with the full weight of the law when an Association looked like stopping its port Phillip Bay dredging operation

 

(b) Who did the Victorian Government go after with the full weight of the law when an Association was succeeding against its North-South pipeline

 

Hint: They didn't screw around with the Associations.

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

OK I'll give you some specific research opportunities:(a) Who did the Victorian Government go after with the full weight of the law when an Association looked like stopping its port Phillip Bay dredging operation

 

(b) Who did the Victorian Government go after with the full weight of the law when an Association was succeeding against its North-South pipeline

 

Hint: They didn't screw around with the Associations.

I dont know the details but i'll bet they went after the person(s)who did or said something illegal. That person(s) may well have tried to hide in or behind an association but they are never shields of steel if you personally are involved in something dodgy.

 

The question is, did they also go after members who did nothing wrong. I'll bet they didnt!

 

Andy

 

 

[turboplanner]

I'm standing by post #229, it is correct

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

To clarify comments about rolling into AOPA or SAAA . . . It was in the situation where RA-Aus had collapsed or was imminently about to collapse. If the rego and licensing functions were stripped and everyone was in the CASA/RPL system, there would only be left one role for the remnant RA-Aus - advocacy (+ cheap stuff). That could easily fit into either AOPA or SAAA. We probably have more affinity with SAAA except for a few of the old guard who loathe and despise with a passion the SAAA. You would roll into another organisation because you still had some of the $2.75 million net assets left and didn't want to leave them behind for the ambulance chasers to gobble up.

How many owners are about to find their $100K + aircraft is now a single-seater? Maybe 100 owners? The math is simple - $100K x 100 owners = $10 million. That $2.75 million will go just far enough to temp a lawyer, no further.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Firstly their $100,000 aircraft have been used, so it's market value they might get, and lets say that was in the present post GFC days $45,000.00. During the case there would have been a vigorous forensic examination of what the owners knew of the process they used to get these aircraft registered, and that may knock out some of this, and of course there's no commercial loss since these are purely recreational aircraft, with the possible exception of a few trainers, but let's say it's $45,000.00 x 100 owners = $4.5 million.

 

RAA could settle for that without incurring major legal costs, apply an extraordinary one-time levee on members of $450.00, and put the matter behind them.

 

 

[kaz3g]

OK I'll give you some specific research opportunities:(a) Who did the Victorian Government go after with the full weight of the law when an Association looked like stopping its port Phillip Bay dredging operation

 

(b) Who did the Victorian Government go after with the full weight of the law when an Association was succeeding against its North-South pipeline

 

Hint: They didn't screw around with the Associations.

In these cases, as I recall, individual members took actions which were illegal - proscribed by law - or which caused damage to the subject of those actions -civil tort- and sought to hide behind their membership of an association.

 

Membership of RAAus won't help you as an individual if you kill someone by low flying into a wire and then claim you are immune because you are a member with a certificate to fly.

 

In your examples, it was a question of individual versus corporate action.

 

RAAus is a corporation and hence has a legal personality. This protects members should the association be sued for actions taken in its own name such as incorrectly registering an aircraft with the wrong MTOW where that error allegedly leads to an injury or worse if it can be shown that RAAus were negligent in not properly assessing the information provided to it for example.

 

In addition, the pilot/owner may be individually liable for providing incorrect information as may be the importer in this hypothetical example.

 

But the broader membership is protected by incorporation in that the association is only liable to the extent of its recoverable assets and members do not HAVE to put their hands in their pockets. They may decide it more expedient to do so if it is necessary to keep the association running in order for them to keep on flying.

 

Directors, on the other hand, may also be held liable if it can be shown that they were so negligent in their duties that they should also be made financially responsible for the failure and that is why they carry directors insurance. They just have to hope that it is enough!

 

Kaz

 

 

[turboplanner]

This protects members should the association be sued for actions taken in its own name

That is correct Kaz.

 

On another note, Isn't secreting funds to avoid an outcome of a known upcoming case illegal?

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

Firstly their $100,000 aircraft have been used, so it's market value they might get, and lets say that was in the present post GFC days $45,000.00. During the case there would have been a vigorous forensic examination of what the owners knew of the process they used to get these aircraft registered, and that may knock out some of this, and of course there's no commercial loss since these are purely recreational aircraft, with the possible exception of a few trainers, but let's say it's $45,000.00 x 100 owners = $4.5 million.RAA could settle for that without incurring major legal costs, apply an extraordinary one-time levee on members of $450.00, and put the matter behind them.

Thanks, now we're getting to the nitty-gritty part. First question: Just how many aircraft are affected - and what does the actual number do to the size of the levy? Second question: How do the members feel about such a levy? These are the answers that RAAus is being coy about.

 

 

[turboplanner]

(a) The numbers have not been released, and my scenario may not be what plays out, but I'm suggesting whatever happened, it would be survivable

 

(b) The members would recoil from a levee in a bunch I would suggest, but they haven't shown any real interest in keeping their own finances secure.

 

 

[Oscar]

if it can be shown that RAAus were negligent in not properly assessing the information provided to it for example.

What would your assessment be of the situation that RAA could be shown to have been actively complicit in registering an aircraft with the wrong MTOW, that led to injury or worse? Let us say, just hypothetically, an officer with specific delegation for certain matters who had determined that an aircraft should NOT be registered at a certain MTOW, being directed from above to accept the supplied documentation rather than to apply the applicable rule?

 

 

[frank marriott]

All this is pre-supposing a claim is successful - there is other views on that as well.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Well those two examples are probably the extremes, but my point was, within those two parameters this issue could be resolved by a levy or financing to keep RAA in operation.

 

 

[kaz3g]

That is correct Kaz.On another note, Isn't secreting funds to avoid an outcome of a known upcoming case illegal?

Im glad my learned friend and I are in agreement on this point :-)

 

Courts have very wide powers to undo arrangements that are clearly designed to obstruct the proper administration of justice

 

Kaz

 

 

[kaz3g]

What would your assessment be of the situation that RAA could be shown to have been actively complicit in registering an aircraft with the wrong MTOW, that led to injury or worse? Let us say, just hypothetically, an officer with specific delegation for certain matters who had determined that an aircraft should NOT be registered at a certain MTOW, being directed from above to accept the supplied documentation rather than to apply the applicable rule?

They shot Breaker Morant.

 

Kaz

 

 

[Bandit12]

They shot Breaker Morant.Kaz

And 100 years on, people still can't agree whether it was legal. Doesn't bode well for RA-Aus then, does it!

 

 

[turboplanner]

Im glad my learned friend and I are in agreement on this point :-)Courts have very wide powers to undo arrangements that are clearly designed to obstruct the proper administration of justice

 

Kaz

Lol, as you very well know I'm not learned, just cunning.

 

I said you were right, I didn't say they did anything wrong, and I'm too stuffed to call them right now, but a certain Minister found a certain way to avoid due process.

 

 

[kaz3g]

A person who is given a statutory authority has an independent discretion and a duty to discharge their duty according to the authority and within the law.

 

They cannot absolve themselves from that duty by claiming they acted in contravention of it because they were ordered to.

 

One could argue that the delegated duty from CASA would render such a hypothetical act a malfeasance of public duty.

 

Kaz

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

A person who is given a statutory authority has an independent discretion and a duty to discharge their duty according to the authority and within the law.They cannot absolve themselves from that duty by claiming they acted in contravention of it because they were ordered to.

 

One could argue that the delegated duty from CASA would render such a hypothetical act a malfeasance of public duty.

 

Kaz

Does the Technical Manager have a statutory authority (i.e. presumably issued by an Instrument of Appointment from CASA); or are his duties solely defined by the RAAus Procedures manual? The two situations would seem chalk and cheese; in the latter case I would expect an employers liability act to absolve the TM except in a case of criminal negligence (i.e. acting not in accordance with his instructions).