"Type training" ops manual changes

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

The legal precedent set by NSW DC 11 - Noel Campbell V Rodney Victor Hay and also Etchel V Southern Tablelands Gliding Club covers those risks, at least in NSW. Whether the "Inherently dangerous recreational activity" Act applies in other States, I do not know - but if it does, than nobody can sue anybody for negligence in this area. This precedent changed the whole ball game; it must be taken into account.

 

 

[motzartmerv]

Can you give some details Dafydd?

 

 

[frank marriott]

CASA has any SE aircraft <5700kg MTOW. Why make it more involved? The individual should ensure they are capable of handling an individual aircraft without MORE regulation.

 

The removal of the HP/LP lic is a forward step but from what I see, with limited information, replacing it with more restrictive regulation is questionable at best.

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

Can you give some details Dafydd?

See http://www.mondaq.com/australia/x/242022/Personal+Injury/Civil+liability+for+personal+harm+dangerous+recreational+activity+and+obvious+risk It explains the subject clearly and gives references. At present this comes under the NSW Civil Liabilities Act 2002; I haven't researched the situation is in other States at the present time.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

the stupid thing is you can't put an instructor into a #19 rego aircraft, so how does this create consistent safety environment? Does this mean the end of #19 in the RAA?

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

The second precedent is Echin vs STGC (also NSW) - I'm having trouble finding a link to it

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

the stupid thing is you can't put an instructor into a #19 rego aircraft, so how does this create consistent safety environment? Does this mean the end of #19 in the RAA?

No, what it does is make flying training an "inherently dangerous recreational activity" - which means the trainee does it at his/her own risk and cannot sue anybody for negligence. That has no effect whatever on the validity or otherwise of the current rules - but it does protect CASA, RAA, and the FTF from litigation for negligence, at least in NSW. That NSW Act was introduced in 2002 because it had become impossible to obtain liability insurance for things like bungee-jumping, para-skiing etc. So if those sorts of occupations are commercially available in your State, it's likely that some such Act exists in your State. This precedent has now been established in NSW for both flying in an RAA aircraft and for gliding; I do not know whether a NSW precedent can be applied for another State; we may have to wait until such precedants have been established in other States.

These precedents were what caused the Carol Smith case to go to settlement; but for this, Carol had a strong case against both GFA and CASA for negligence. The law moves slowly, but this principle seems likely to change the whole picture radically. I do not propose to debate it on this thread; work it out for yourselves.

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

Here's the link to Echin vs STGC: http://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/action/PJUDG?jgmtid=164594

 

 

[fly_tornado]

Dafydd you are confusing the legal implications of learning to fly with flying, the type endorsement is for people that have certificates.

 

The RAA really needs to bite the bullet and introduce the GA style medical examinations to thin the pack of the weaker and sicker pilots who are more likely to kill themselves flying.

 

Its the only way to diminish the RAA of the negligent liability

 

 

[Oscar]

The legal precedent set by NSW DC 11 - Noel Campbell V Rodney Victor Hay and also Etchel V Southern Tablelands Gliding Club covers those risks, at least in NSW. Whether the "Inherently dangerous recreational activity" Act applies in other States, I do not know - but if it does, than nobody can sue anybody for negligence in this area. This precedent changed the whole ball game; it must be taken into account.

Yes, there is probably an inevitability that this is the way things will go, though a precedent can be overturned. I'm not at all sure that we want the whole of Recreational Aviation to be lumped into being a 'dangerous recreational activity' because the consequences of that could be more damaging in the long run than the freedom it could bring to just flitting around in wee things out of the harm of everybody except the pilot/pax. However, that's probably a topic for a different thread; as things stand I believe that things like the airworthiness and operations standards (and the things that from those such as the status of licences, POHs etc.) at least imply standards that at least should have some legal status. All in all it's a can of worms and really needs to be thought through very, very carefully.

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

Dafydd you are confusing the legal implications of learning to fly with flying, the type endorsement is for people that have certificates.The RAA really needs to bite the bullet and introduce the GA style medical examinations to thin the pack of the weaker and sicker pilots who are more likely to kill themselves flying.

 

Its the only way to diminish the RAA of the negligent liability

No; the issue is not "learning" - it's simply the act of getting into either an RAA aircraft or a glider. Anybody who does this in NSW is now deemed to be "engaging in an inherently dangerous recreational activity" whose inherent danger is obvious - and by doing so, they have lost their ability to sue anybody for negligence in regard to the exercise, no matter what its intent is. Is that not "diminishing the RAA - or for that matter, the GFA - of negligent liability"?

If it's necessary to introduce type endorsements for pilots with certificates, that means the training is inadequate. Since the training syllabus is pretty much verbatim the old CAA syllabus for a restricted pilot licence, with a cross-country add-on, it should be no more inadequate than was the old RPL.

 

 

[SDQDI]

Dafydd you are confusing the legal implications of learning to fly with flying, the type endorsement is for people that have certificates.The RAA really needs to bite the bullet and introduce the GA style medical examinations to thin the pack of the weaker and sicker pilots who are more likely to kill themselves flying.

 

Its the only way to diminish the RAA of the negligent liability

Sometimes I get to hoping that ill live long enough to see FT get old and become sick and weak but maybe that's a bit sadistic?

 

 

[Bob Llewellyn]

Dafydd you are confusing the legal implications of learning to fly with flying, the type endorsement is for people that have certificates.The RAA really needs to bite the bullet and introduce the GA style medical examinations to thin the pack of the weaker and sicker pilots who are more likely to kill themselves flying.

 

Its the only way to diminish the RAA of the negligent liability

Yes, the RAAus IS a source of military pilots for times of conflict, which is why they need a military-level medical, and why the government sponsors flying clubs... hang on, that was the 1930's. BS proposal, flytornado. If they're fit enough to be in charge of a motor vehicle capable of killing tens of people in a single accident, then they're fit enough to fly a Skycraft Cyclone over this wide brown land. Have a coffee, eh?

 

 

[fly_tornado]

The law now recognises that flying is a dangerous activity and most deaths are self inflicted. The RAA has to bite the bullet and introduce a medical standard that reflects the new legal reality.

 

 

[alf jessup]

Dafydd you are confusing the legal implications of learning to fly with flying, the type endorsement is for people that have certificates.The RAA really needs to bite the bullet and introduce the GA style medical examinations to thin the pack of the weaker and sicker pilots who are more likely to kill themselves flying.

 

Its the only way to diminish the RAA of the negligent liability

FT,

 

Sometimes I wonder which end of your body you eat from with some of the drivel you come up with.

 

You think a GA medical will stop killing RAA pilots do you?

 

The only way RAA & for the matter GA people will stop killing themselves is if they stop pushing the boundary's of there capabilities ie, get home it is, watch this boys, beat ups bad judgment and the list of many ways to kill your self flying a plane through stupid decisions ect ect ect..

 

Yes there will be some accidents that may not be entirely the fault of their own so to speak but remember every accident has some form of human involvement.

 

If you think a GA style medical will solve this for us mere RAA pilots I want what drugs your taking and the same dreams your having because it must be good.

 

But at least your entertaining.

 

Alf

 

 

[fly_tornado]

There are so many accidents nowadays where the plane crashes without any sign of mechanical failure or weather issues. The standard response is always pilot error but the training standards, airworthiness standards and pilot awareness of issues have never been higher.

 

The only consistent issue is the average age of pilots is increasing, it has to be a fitness solution instead of just lining the pockets of the FTOs.

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

The law now recognises that flying is a dangerous activity and most deaths are self inflicted. The RAA has to bite the bullet and introduce a medical standard that reflects the new legal reality.

Sorry, but I do not see the logic that takes you from your first sentence to your second one. Given the precedents that I've cited, an individual's medical standard is his own concern and not anybody else's, provided he's not carrying a passenger, and not over a built-up area - essentially the same risk as flying the initial hours off, in an experimental homebuilt. However, if he's medically fit to carry a passenger in a car, I also don't see that there is any credible reason why flying in VMC by day, is any more demanding on one's fitness. I suppose you could argue that the agony of a kidney stone can be dealt with by stopping beside the road, in a car; whereas you have to stay in control of an aircraft long enough to get it down safely - but how is that prevented by a Class 2 medical? (I have one, BTW).

 

 

[fly_tornado]

The problem with the type training solution is that it won't stop people killing themselves, there is no evidence to suggest that pilots kill themselves due to lack of knowledge of the flight envelope of RAA/LSA type aircraft.

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

The problem with the type training solution is that it won't stop people killing themselves, there is no evidence to suggest that pilots kill themselves due to lack of knowledge of the flight envelope of RAA/LSA type aircraft.

I couldn't agree more. The issue is better knowledge. Not medical, not type endorsement per se - it's basically a case of RTFM.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

Knowledge of what though?

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

Knowledge of what though?

You said it yourself - knowledge of the flight envelope. The basic comprehension of what it means should be in whatever theory exam people have to do ( I assume, the equivalent of BAK - but it's 50 years since I looked at that sort of course material); the actual numbers that apply to the particular aeroplane are in the flight manual (and, hopefully, the speeds are colour-coded on the ASI - but not always).

This covers factory-built aircraft. How does specific type endorsement deal with home-designed aircraft? The whole concept of type endorsements comes apart on that point alone.

 

 

[motzartmerv]

What makes you think any of these rule changes are designed to stop people killing themselves? Ft, if that's what you think Casa are concerned with, then you don't know Casa.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

So once you have your endorsement for a type you need to maintain that endorsement via flying or training? Your BFR suddenly becomes a multi week thousand dollar expense to maintain your certificate. This alone is going going to kill the desire to keep flying. What time period does the endorsement last for?

 

And how finely tuned does the RAA want these type endorsements? One for each model, J120, J160, J170, J230, LSA etc.?

 

It seems to me that this isn't going to make a lick of difference though

 

 

[motzartmerv]

It's all about the finger of blame.

 

 

[Bob Llewellyn]

You said it yourself - knowledge of the flight envelope. The basic comprehension of what it means should be in whatever theory exam people have to do ( I assume, the equivalent of BAK - but it's 50 years since I looked at that sort of course material); the actual numbers that apply to the particular aeroplane are in the flight manual (and, hopefully, the speeds are colour-coded on the ASI - but not always). This covers factory-built aircraft. How does specific type endorsement deal with home-designed aircraft? The whole concept of type endorsements comes apart on that point alone.

The Skyfox is not required, by its design standard, to have either a Vb or Vno. This has cost lives. How many RAAus pilots know the difference between Vb and Vno? How many know that, eg, the Drifter Vb is ~12 knots below Va?