RAAus Future

[turboplanner]

And why do you suspect rather than know......clarity in posting? Perhaps Keith could spend a few cents on some more words that mean we don't have to read between the sparse lines. Of course to do that you need to have sufficient info, perhaps even facts, to fill in the extra space with something meaningful..... but...Andy, play the ball not the man!

I only used the word "suspect" out of politeness in not speaking on his behalf, so "I'll take that out.

 

I do know what he is trying to get across because of the personal discussions we have had and I do know he is continuing to ask questions which I commend him for, and I do know most of what we discussed cannot safely be broadcast on an internet forum, so the issue is how much can you say without getting yourself in trouble, and the answer is "not very much", so all you can do is drop hints and hope people will make the effort to do their own research

 

What does the review mean for RAAus, I and everyone else has no idea today because as yet, as I understand the report has not been released (this is supposition because we don't know an exact date, just that it will, or should, be in May this year). I do note however that the time for submissions to be made finished in January this year so the fact that nothing is being discussed about it now is hardly surprising in context of time isn't it?

Keith is suggesting we are about to enter some very turbulent times, and I agree with him.

 

Yes, we know the Aviation Safety Regulation Review is underway, but the link he provided for people to read relates to Shannon O'Hara's message to "all the people who legally represent people injured or killed in aviation accidents."

 

So coming into a confluence are the results of the Senate Inquiry, the Aviation Safety Regulation Review, the spate of Coroner Hearings which Jim Tatlock referred to on another thread, and Keith is correctly saying the tough times are about to begin.

 

The critical part, for those who read Keith's posts and clicked on the link is that we are now well and truly under the spotlight of all the lawyers who will be suing us if we have been negligent (made a mistake), or are about to.

 

We discussed the review in some detail, including from memory the RAAus submission and others as well, in the http://www.recreationalflying.com/threads/john-mccormick-leaving-casa.113470/ thread.Discussions today, will provide us with what facts exactly?

I would have thought such an important review, a review convened by the Parliament of Australia, and a review which may have major consequences for every person who has spent thousands of dollars investing in flying, would have had a prominent thread of its own rather than being buried in a thread titled; "john-mccormick-leaving-casa.

 

So I suspect that many recreational aviators and aircraft owners missed that particular discussion.

 

Discussions today might leave us as less of a dead duck by the time the Parliamentary members have made their minds up, than if there were no discussions.

 

For example, although the word "submissions" was used I have only seen a series of what could be described as "letters", the RAA's being three pages.

 

I just checked a submission I made to the Victorian Parliament related to a small area of Victoria and it was in 38 different sections totaling 323 pages.

 

To be taken seriously, I would have expected an RAA Submission to be about one thousand pages of information, references, photos, charts, solutions etc.

 

Just a few Parliamentarians and others have to handle a Review like this virtually in the spare time they are already short of, so the information needs to quote references such as the Act involved, a clear explanation of the strengths and weaknesses of the current situation and a clear explanation of the strengths and weaknesses of the solution.

 

If you expect those guys to sit around in meetings for six months first trying to find proof and reference material for the claimed problems (some people have been known to colour things for financial gain), then come up with a workable solution without ever having worked in that industry, you're dreaming.

 

For example, you can't expect Josh Frydenberg to know what an ASIC card is, what a Recreational Pilot Licence is or have any idea what problems have been associated with those unless you clearly spell it out.

 

So discussions today may not produce any incoming facts, but I wouldn't be just sitting there like a duck on the pond.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Turbo,We have discussed this safety review, (the link that Keith sent us to) and in particular the excellent submission by the AAAA and how that contrasted in content and quality to our RAAUs submission.

Keith posted a link about what we all knew and the submissions involved. The report and the consequential outcomes won't be known for many months I suspect.

 

But if we are to post, what is the point if no one knows the point you are attempting to make.

Well from his post we now know that all the PL lawyers have their spotlights on aviation and know the extent of the RAA thoughts.

 

 

[David Isaac]

I agree that the RAAus submission was very weak given the potential outcomes of the report. But who at RAAus was paid the time to put a comprehensive submission together given all the other bushfires the poor buggas are trying to put out on all our members behalf.

 

 

[David Isaac]

There has already been some interesting legal precedent set in terms of any passenger having to accept that RAA flying has inherent risks thereby limiting claims against members and pilots. So suing is not going to be a walk in the park like it might be in the USA.

 

 

[turboplanner]

I agree that the RAAus submission was very weak given the potential outcomes of the report. But who at RAAus was paid the time to put a comprehensive submission together given all the other bushfires the poor buggas are trying to put out on all our members behalf.

I'm suggesting more along the lines of some healthy discussion that RAA board members can use in submissions; there's no way I would be using the paid staff to prepare such a major submission, and perhaps that's why it's so short. I'm certainly not critical of any office staff because the issues affect us, not them and it's us who should be protecting our future.

 

 

[David Isaac]

The board are also volunteers and a comprehensive report would have taken potentially several weeks of work. Who on the Board has that time available.

 

Plus there is a perceived conflict where the board might not have wanted to be too critical of the regulator under our current circumstances.

 

 

[turboplanner]

There has already been some interesting legal precedent set in terms of any passenger having to accept that RAA flying has inherent risks thereby limiting claims against members and pilots. So suing is not going to be a walk in the park like it might be in the USA.

We discussed this in some detail only recently, can't remember the thread and it might well be in a thread entitled "Reskinning Drifter, but I believce we got right to the bottom of it.

 

The NSW case was not a precedent because the pilot had suitably warned the passenger/student, and he was not negligent.

 

We have a duty of care to warn someone if their environment is about to become less safe.

 

So, the orange cones at the doors to toilets/when floor are wet, barricades around trenches, warning signs in factories etc, and plaques on recreational aircraft.

 

However, you can still sue if the person was negligent.

 

I gave the example of where we were sued by a father whose child was injured by flying clay; the event was advertised as a family event, and there was no warning on the Programme, so we paid.

 

Then we had another crash where a car went through the fence and a family didn't claim because there was a sign saying "Motor Racing is dangerous, enter at own risk", but eventually they were advised to claim and we copped it in the neck for not telling them they could sue, so we had to pay and had to change all the programmes in Australia to read something like "Motor Racing is Dangerous and you enter at your own ricks, but you have the right to sue if the promoter is negligent. (In that case thye promoter had not used cable joints in accordance with safe industry practice.

 

So the precedent hasn't changed and if you run out of fuel and screw up the forced landing, breaking the passenger's back expect to pay.

 

 

[turboplanner]

The board are also volunteers and a comprehensive report would have taken potentially several weeks of work. Who on the Board has that time available.Plus there is a perceived conflict where the board might not have wanted to be too critical of the regulator under our current circumstances.

My 323 pages was about a month's voluntary work at nights, mainly because I had a lot of reference material, the RAA submission was worth about three months of discussions, explanations, agreements, and preparation.

 

I probably would not have been too critical of the regulator when I think about it.

 

Most of the issues may possibly be resolved in-house. Pointing out their exact limitations and exposures to them face to face may eliminate most of the issues.

 

 

[David Isaac]

Yes, but you have to PROVE negligence. In the case of running out of fuel that may not be difficult to prove. But there will be plenty of examples where negligence will be difficult to establish.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Agreed, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff and a lot of cases do not succeed past the preliminary discussion phase, which is why I get irate at the people who keep claiming it's a money tree.

 

 

[Guest Crezzi]

Hi CrezziI do not know where you are these days however look in the latest mag.. There in all it's glory RAAus are going ahead with the RTO... It has come to fruition.

Regards

 

Keith Page.

Yes indeed - I have been watching these developments with interest.

 

Whatever training RAAus wishes to offer, I still see no necessity for it becoming an RTO nor have I heard any case made to justify the overheads of doing so.

 

Cheers

 

John

 

 

[storchy neil]

fact to hard for me let some one else do it and I will live off their hard work as it does not affect me at the moment but when it does affect me I will scream blue bloody murder as some one else should have done it neil