HOW TO FLY - No Really!

[facthunter]

 Well if you think about it, it cant work over all situations but they try to make this stuff so as any fool can fly it so lazy feet doesn't matter ?? Nev

 

 

[Manwell]

 Well if you think about it, it cant work over all situations but they try to make this stuff so as any fool can fly it so lazy feet doesn't matter ?? Nev

 

Correct Nev.  They are trying to make it so any fool can fly.  And that's not a good thing for anyone....

 

 

[M61A1]

Correct Nev.  They are trying to make it so any fool can fly.  And that's not a good thing for anyone....

 

As long as they do it by themselves away from anyone else, does it really matter?    It's only a problem when they start taking out the public.

 

It's not like we need more people on the planet.      

 

 

[facthunter]

How can you manage that M61?. Anything aviation related is given great prominence in the news. OUR planes are not easy to fly and we need to train the pilots adequately for the scene they are in. or we lose out of it . Nev

 

 

[M61A1]

I have no problem with training those who want it, but I am of the opinion that as a society , we need to let go of the idea that we can save everyone from themselves by controlling everything they do.

 

Sure, have quality training available for all who desire it, and mandatory for those who fly where a mistake can harm others, but does it really matter if Joe bloggs smears himself doing low level aeros in his own back paddock?

 

Instead of those twats on The Project saying "Are we doing enough to stop the senseless deaths?", we should be hearing something like "Another clown quietly chlorinates his gene pool, happily he didn't involve anyone else, so,  moving on to other more important news now......"

 

In any case Nev, I doubt that I will manage to change the way our society sees things given that their dependence of their government to provide everything for them is only growing, while personal responsibility is shrinking. So not much to worry about except the ever increasing regulation that comes with it.

 

 

[facthunter]

 I've always been against regulation and punishment (Like we currently have) Knowing what you are doing beats it hands down .Education not extra regulation (which no one can understand anyhow). Nev

 

 

[turboplanner]

 I've always been against regulation and punishment (Like we currently have) Knowing what you are doing beats it hands down .Education not extra regulation (which no one can understand anyhow). Nev

 

So how are you going to deal with someone who says “I know there’ are safety regulations there but I disagree with them, so I’m going to disregard them?

 

 

[facthunter]

 . I'm saying it's a second best method. Especially inappropriate with  a system deficient in training levels and emphasis on knowledge . and clarity of rules. Even expert lawyers argue as to the meaning of a lot of this stuff. Nev

 

 

[M61A1]

So how are you going to deal with someone who says “I know there’ are safety regulations there but I disagree with them, so I’m going to disregard them?

 

That is really simple......If they do actually cause any damage or harm, make them pay for it.

 

The strict liability is only to make life easy for prosecutors, if you break the law there needs to be proof that harm was done. No harm ,no case.

 

It won't work with our current system of course because the lawyers will be looking for the deepest pockets, the regulators and the training establishments etc.

 

It needs to be kept at the lowest level.

 

Remember that article you posted about the idiot backpacker who turned herself into a quadriplegic in Tassie? Well that was her fault, no one else's.

 

You always ask "who's going to pay for her lifetime of care?". Well she should have thought about that before being a dill. It's her problem. Unfortunately we have a system that works differently, and there's always someone else to blame.

 

Before you rabbit on about seeing a PL lawyer, I know it doesn't work that way, I just think our current system is rubbish and needs to change.

 

 

[spacesailor]

"How can you manage that M61?."

 

I too would like to fly (safely) in a paddock, 

 

I had GOOD training " for a normal two seat aircraft".

 

And FAILED MY basic EXAM.,

 

NOW. HOW DO i FLY MY SINGLE-SEAT, UNTESTED (not FLOWN) Pride & joy. (TOY)

 

No licence

 

No RAA  registration ( removed from register list )

 

No insurance ( Not Registered)

 

Just once OR twice around the field, should let me savour the Joy.s & perils of " soaring like an eagle".

 

Maybe far too scary, to even Lift the Training wheel off the dirt & have the rudder control my Hummel Bird.

 

kick left to go left, unless side-slipping.

 

four other HummelBirds  stalled on the building stage, out of fourteen. ( one went to the TIP.)

 

spacesailor

 

 

[facthunter]

IF Cri cri's can fly, so should hummels. They are not a bad thing. Nev

 

 

[Manwell]

As long as they do it by themselves away from anyone else, does it really matter?    It's only a problem when they start taking out the public.

 

It's not like we need more people on the planet.      

 

If they do it by themselves, it's their business.  As Clint said, "A man's gotta know his limits."  How the hell can he discover them when every silly bugger with a mouth thinks his opinion is worth broadcasting on national TV?  

 

 I've always been against regulation and punishment (Like we currently have) Knowing what you are doing beats it hands down .Education not extra regulation (which no one can understand anyhow). Nev

 

Hear, hear.

 

So how are you going to deal with someone who says “I know there’ are safety regulations there but I disagree with them, so I’m going to disregard them?

 

Good question turboplanner.   The problem is that it would be quite feasible to disagree with the rules and disregard them without suffering any real consequences at present.  The solution, therefore, is to regard rules as Douglas "Tin Legs" Bader implied with these words... "Rules are for the obedience of fools, and the guidance of wise men."  If people want to ignore them and they get away with it, then good luck to them.  At this point, some bleeding heart will bleat something like, "Won't anyone think of the children?"  In fact we should think of the children's best interests and let them accept some responsibility for their own safety while they're young and can still bounce.  The older they are the harder they fall... 

 

 . I'm saying it's a second best method. Especially inappropriate with  a system deficient in training levels and emphasis on knowledge . and clarity of rules. Even expert lawyers argue as to the meaning of a lot of this stuff. Nev

 

I would have put it much further down the list than second best....

 

That is really simple......If they do actually cause any damage or harm, make them pay for it.

 

The strict liability is only to make life easy for prosecutors, if you break the law there needs to be proof that harm was done. No harm ,no case.

 

It won't work with our current system of course because the lawyers will be looking for the deepest pockets, the regulators and the training establishments etc.

 

It needs to be kept at the lowest level.

 

Remember that article you posted about the idiot backpacker who turned herself into a quadriplegic in Tassie? Well that was her fault, no one else's.

 

You always ask "who's going to pay for her lifetime of care?". Well she should have thought about that before being a dill. It's her problem. Unfortunately we have a system that works differently, and there's always someone else to blame.

 

Before you rabbit on about seeing a PL lawyer, I know it doesn't work that way, I just think our current system is rubbish and needs to change.

 

Music to my ears M61.  You're right, it won't work with the current system, and we haven't been able to change that system for the better except on the odd occasion.  The reason we've failed before is because we seriously underestimated the cunning of bureaucrats, and all the other parasites feeding off the productive in society.  These people aren't like us, they're much smarter, and less inclined to play by any form of "the rules" because they're above them.  

 

 

[Love to fly]

Silly me.  I thought flying was magic! 

 

 

[kgwilson]

Exactly

 

 

 

[kaz3g]

That is really simple......If they do actually cause any damage or harm, make them pay for it.

 

The strict liability is only to make life easy for prosecutors, if you break the law there needs to be proof that harm was done. No harm ,no case.

 

It won't work with our current system of course because the lawyers will be looking for the deepest pockets, the regulators and the training establishments etc.

 

It needs to be kept at the lowest level.

 

Remember that article you posted about the idiot backpacker who turned herself into a quadriplegic in Tassie? Well that was her fault, no one else's.

 

You always ask "who's going to pay for her lifetime of care?". Well she should have thought about that before being a dill. It's her problem. Unfortunately we have a system that works differently, and there's always someone else to blame.

 

Before you rabbit on about seeing a PL lawyer, I know it doesn't work that way, I just think our current system is rubbish and needs to change.

 

It’s a bit rough to continually blame lawyers...laws are made mainly at the behest of politicians assisted by bureaucrats who instruct lawyers on what they want.

 

And people who suffer hurt and damage are quick to go to lawyers to uphold their rights under those laws.

 

We need to change the politicians and bureaucrats to change laws we disagree with but, in an apathetic democracy where personal self-interest is the primary driver, change doesn’t come easily.

 

 

[M61A1]

It’s a bit rough to continually blame lawyers...laws are made mainly at the behest of politicians assisted by bureaucrats who instruct lawyers on what they want.

 

And people who suffer hurt and damage are quick to go to lawyers to uphold their rights under those laws.

 

We need to change the politicians and bureaucrats to change laws we disagree with but, in an apathetic democracy where personal self-interest is the primary driver, change doesn’t come easily.

 

 

 

I know it's not all lawyers Kaz, but there are a couple of big name ambulance chasers that come to mind, that appear to be always looking to set a new precedent to get their hands on some cash.  Turbo says that the law hasn't really changed since the 30's and I believe that, but some lawyers (along with magistrates) keep changing what is "reasonable".

 

I think some of those people suffer hurt and damage at their own hand and are very quick to find someone else to blame. The ambulance chasers are only too happy to accommodate them.

 

The people who sued about bushfires several years ago were waiting years after the lawyers(big name) had their money.  All their ads on the telly will show some concerned mugshot, and how they fight for YOU.

 

Another bunch has begun a class action against Defence near where I live about PFAS/PFOS.

 

The first thing they did was push to have the safe levels changed from the Euro standard, which is quite stringent, but didn't suit their purpose, to the Californian standard, which is the tightest in the world and ten times lower. Having read the information about the class action, I think many of the litigants will be very surprised should they be successful because they are a long way down the list of who gets paid,

 

Meanwhile no-one wins except the lawyers. Defence is spending millions, if not billions cleaning up a chemical not actually shown to cause harm, some greedy locals think they will get a big payout real soon, and the property market in town have slumped significantly. There is a less publicised "lawyer free" way to make a claim, but to my knowledge, only one person has used that avenue.

 

I should also mention that these lawyers were actively seeking out claimants, all the documentation was pre-filled and sent to their address, unsolicited, so all people had to do was sign up.

 

I also think we are in a poor state when our legal system is so bad that without a lawyer you have virtually no chance. It makes a mockery of the whole "fair trial" thing.

 

 

[kaz3g]

Those lawyers are working in a system largely designed and implemented by pollies and their bureaucrats. They have the powers to bring about change as do those who elect them, albeit indirectly.

 

That “system” puts individual recovery for Bush fire survivors out of reach because the defendant has such deep pockets. The ambulance chasers carry a risk and expect to be remunerated accordingly. It’s not good but that’s the system.

 

I’m a Community Legal Centre lawyer, the bottom level of lawyer incomes, and none of the clients we work with can afford paid representation. Many just receive a little advice and face the magistrate alone, some we can appear for, a few are eligible for grants of legal aid to pay a small fee to private practitioners...justice generally comes at a price if it comes at all. That’s the system.

 

 

[Bruce Tuncks]

I am heartily sick of "safety". The word is mouthed by those who seek personal gain by pushing regulations. Many years ago, it was religion that was useful to gain power, then patriotism came in. Now its safety.

 

I think there are now more people in the safety business than there are in manufacturing in Australia. More people stopping work than making things!

 

And some safety regulation is counter-productive. For example, the requirement for adults to wear safety helmets when riding bikes on footpaths is counter-productive. It stops quite a few from riding at all, so they die of diabetes etc instead. Yes, the helmet mucks up your hairdo and makes you look like a dork.

 

Airspace is another example. Why was it necessary, on "safety" grounds, to keep below 5000ft crossing Bass Strait?  We know the answer, the word safety was just an excuse to bully and endanger people.

 

Aircraft maintenance is unnecessarily costly and a deterrent to flying.  The costs and bureaucracy could be lessened by adopting the Canadian system, alas the bureaucracy itself would never agree.

 

But as has been said, the public will never vote for the reforms we need, so in the meantime, I recommend passive resistance when doing so is safer than obeying every regulation.

 

 

[M61A1]

I think there are now more people in the safety business than there are in manufacturing in Australia. More people stopping work than making things!

 

That is quite true in SA Bruce. I read some time ago that SA had reached the point where it had more administrators and trainers than workers.

 

 

[facthunter]

 Someone should tell them they aren't succeeding SOME work is still being done.  I told the planning dept at Ballarat Council that some years back. Some houses etc ARE still being built.  Nev

 

 

[turboplanner]

If you're adequately insured for Public Liability (as against Directors and Officers policies), and you don't commit culpable negligence, then you're unlikely ever to have to gripe about "lawyers" or "deep pockets", because if you do forget to refit the oil cap, or you do mess up a forced landing and someone is injured, your Insurance company will be managing all of that for you.

 

When was the last time you heard of someone in RAA being sued for negligence??????????????????????

 

What you do have to do is educate yourself so you don't become the odd man out.

 

 

[Manwell]

Some great info being shared above.   I'm sure kaz is a great guy, even if he is a lawyer....      Some of the nicest people I've met are too, as well as some of the sneakiest.

 

"..people who suffer hurt and damage are quick to go to lawyers to uphold their rights under those laws."  True, but it is usually lawyers who wrote the laws in the first place, enabling people .....  encouraging people.... to sue for damages.

 

The old adage "Rules are made to be broken" is so much more subtle and significant than I'd previously ever thought possible, until I read Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged".  The one valuable takeaway from the whole book was the notion that rules are indeed made to be broken, so those making them could exert moral authority over those breaking them without them actually behaving immorally!

 

M61 offered this further insight -  "I know it's not all lawyers Kaz, but there are a couple of big name ambulance chasers that come to mind, that appear to be always looking to set a new precedent to get their hands on some cash.  Turbo says that the law hasn't really changed since the 30's and I believe that, but some lawyers (along with magistrates) keep changing what is "reasonable".  

 

Turbo may be sort of right about the law not really changing since the 30's, but the whole structure changed in 1973 when Gough Whitlam changed a constitutional monarchy into a corporate government whose only head of power stems from Maritime law, which is based on contracts we unwittingly perfect without full disclosure, thereby rendering them illegal ab initio.  The only problem is that most people don't know they're illegal, and neither the Govt nor the legal chaps are likely to spoil our illusion, and after all, they have guns, and we don't.  Funny how that happened...   Anyhow, "the law" may not have changed much, but the context in which it functions has, dramatically.  That's why some lawyers and magistrates keep changing things according to the latest trend, because the rules governing them have basically dissolved.  If you can con someone into accepting a contract where you get their first born child as a slave, and the parties agree, and neither dispute the validity of the contract, then you're home and hosed.

 

Then M61 threw this blinder in - " Defence is spending millions, if not billions cleaning up a chemical not actually shown to cause harm".  Is that really true?  I must admit not bothering to look into it because it didn't interest me at all, but if that's true, I'm definitely not surprised.  A very common theme that's being playing lately.

 

Bruce added this gem - "I am heartily sick of "safety". The word is mouthed by those who seek personal gain by pushing regulations. Many years ago, it was religion that was useful to gain power, then patriotism came in. Now its safety."  

 

It truly is a religion, because you're treated like a heretic if you dare dispute the high priests, in this case, CASA, and the application of common sense is taboo.  How ironic it is that the bible itself advises to "Prove all things, hold fast that which is good."  But you won't hear that preached in any sermon.  In other words, don't believe anything at all unless you've proven it in your mind conclusively.  Sort of spoils the old blind belief in dogma line, doesn't it?

 

Finally, turbo provided this advice - "If you're adequately insured for Public Liability (as against Directors and Officers policies), and you don't commit culpable negligence, then you're unlikely ever to have to gripe about "lawyers" or "deep pockets", because if you do forget to refit the oil cap, or you do mess up a forced landing and someone is injured, your Insurance company will be managing all of that for you."   I could go into great lengths in response to this idea, but suffice to say my view of insurance is this -  Insurance is a bet you make against yourself in the hope that by losing, you win, against someone who knows the odds of you failing better than you do, and who never lose.  Insurance is for those who can't handle full responsibility for their actions, and prefer to be waste their money with insurance companies than invest in themselves.   Is that clear enough, or am I being too subtle.... ? 

 

 

[Garfly]

To reiterate: a.) We're not all great guys here.   b.) Subtlety sure ain't one of your problems. Prolixity, maybe, but not subtlety.

 

 

[pmccarthy]

And we're not all guys!

 

 

[spacesailor]

So.

 

Which of the five or six sexes do you belong to.

 

LoL

 

spacesailor