Jump to content
  • Welcome to Recreational Flying!
    A compelling community experience for all aviators
    Intuitive, Social, Engaging...Registration is FREE.
    Register Log in
Sign in to follow this  
SSCBD

Queensland plane crash survivor cannot walk, facing lawsuits one year on

Recommended Posts

Nothing wrong with asking the pax to weigh themselves before they leave home.

Agree & if RPT weighed passengers with their luggage, would not take long for general public to accept/understand W&B is critical for flying contraptions.

 

 

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tells me once again there are planes out there claiming to be something they are not.

I don't understand the insurance side of it, people make mistakes in cars everyday and cause crashes, the insurances companies don't tell them to nick off.

They’ve started to; I was lucky enough to get an update on the small print, and need to be particularly careful about who is driving the car (best to have their names added) and their state re drugs and alcohol. On the other hand I get $40 million Public Liability cover.

 

 

  • Informative 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm fairly certain that if you or the aircraft don't comply with regulations insurance won't pay and after this read I'm fairly sure several regulation weren't quite right ! interesting report and very valuable this one !

 

They’ve started to; I was lucky enough to get an update on the small print, and need to be particularly careful about who is driving the car (best to have their names added) and their state re drugs and alcohol. On the other hand I get $40 million Public Liability cover.

At one time insurance companies would look for anything that was done wrongly and would (could) refuse to pay out. Arguing that whatever it was that existed, meant the driver or pilot should not have been driving or flying and therefore would not have crashed. Etc. About a decade or so back I am told, legislation was introduced that basically said unless the thing that was wrong was materially involved in causing the event then they could not withhold paying out.

 

But if you do something which is illegal and that illegal act was a direct cause of the event then I guess they would have more of a chance in not paying up.

 

Flying an overloaded or out of balance aircraft is strictly speaking illegal. You are supposed to do preflight calculations - and show them to a CASA officer if they ask at a ramp check.

 

So I would guess they would seize that as an opportunity.

 

Doesn’t stop them trying I guess.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I also have concerns about the report's focus on a slightly aft CoG, while obviously not ideal, there is virtually no discussion about the mishandled approach.Looking at the images from onboard footage, thee was no way he was going to make that strip, and I have to wonder if the end result would have been the same even with a CoG with limits. Did he try to rudder it around or increase the load factor too much ?

 

While clearly an aft CoG is not ideal, as long as it isn't extreme and there is sufficient elevator authority, it actually unloads the mainplane. I think it possible that although the aft CoG may may make recovery difficult or impossible, at that altitude a stall may not be recoverable anyway, especially if the pilot instinctively pulls back or corrects with aileron.

 

I think the aft CoG may have contributed, but was probably not the cause of this event.

That's just speculation, flying outside he CG limits means unknown territory!

 

The event was mishandled, that much is obvious but beyond that we simply don't know. It is however a good example of what NOT to do!

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tells me once again there are planes out there claiming to be something they are not.

I don't understand the insurance side of it, people make mistakes in cars everyday and cause crashes, the insurances companies don't tell them to nick off.

They should.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But if you do something which is illegal and that illegal act was a direct cause of the event then I guess they would have more of a chance in not paying up.

 

Flying an overloaded or out of balance aircraft is strictly speaking illegal. You are supposed to do preflight calculations - and show them to a CASA officer if they ask at a ramp check.

Of course there are limits, but damn, humans are humans, we aren't that bright sometimes, and that's why we even have accidents, and accident insurance. If we were perfect then what's the point, but we are not.

 

This guy made a stupid mistake, a big one, but there was no intent.

 

 

  • Agree 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They should.

No, they are willing to take the people's moneythen they should be willing to pay out.

 

They have all their statistics of how many stupid people there are, they take a gamble for 'X' return. If you think they should try to alter, i.e. increases those returns by destroying genuinely innocent, stupid, but innocent people's lives, then we will have to disagree.

 

 

  • Agree 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Of course there are limits, but damn, humans are humans, we aren't that bright sometimes, and that's why we even have accidents, and accident insurance. If we were perfect then what's the point, but we are not.This guy made a stupid mistake, a big one, but there was no intent.

The Donoghue v Stevenson precedent makes it clear that there doesn't have to be an intent to injure someone, just that if a duty of care is owed someone, and you breach that duty of care, whether by accident or neglect, you pay out.

 

We might get to hear what the duty of care owed was in this case, or it might be settled out of court.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This guy made a stupid mistake, a big one, but there was no intent.

given the requirement to check w&b then I’ll wait and see whether loading beyond the aft cg was inadvertent or not

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Standard weights for RPT generally work if they are realistic. Over 300 to 400 people it averages out. pretty much. You still can't just let people sit anywhere if it's say 1/2 full. Every flight has it's load sheet which is sighted and checked by the PIC. It's not a responsibility an aviator can dodge. The Buck stops with you. Weight in the C of G range cannot put the plane out of balance. Fuel cannot be relied on to keep the plane in balance. ie empty it must still be in balance.. Rearward C of G is the worst situation to be out of allowable range. If the tailfeathers stall, you are for it.. Nev

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fuel cannot be relied on to keep the plane in balance. ie empty it must still be in balance..

This particular aircraft seems to rely fairly heavily of the fuel level as an intergral part of the balance.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ATSB commentsVH-BEG loading

 

 

 

Using the weight of the front seat occupants from the accident flight and allowing for no fuel and no baggage, the ATSB calculated that the maximum weight able to be carried in the rear seats of VH-BEG, while remaining within the allowable centre of gravity range, was just 118 kg. Using 105 kg of fuel as ballast, this weight increased to 148 kg. This allowed for 15 minutes of flight fuel and a 45-minute fuel reserve to be carried within the 920 kg maximum allowable take-off weight.

 

 

 

It was also found that when allowing for full fuel and any weight in the front two seats, the aircraft also required weight in the rear seats, or the baggage compartment, to ensure the centre of gravity was not located forward of the allowable range.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Simple calculations that everyone should be doing before every flight.

 

As a very broad statement, you could say that every light aircraft up to and including some twins is sitting there on the apron waiting for someone to come along and put too much weight into it, or weight into it in the wrong place.

 

Many aircraft, having taken off legally (just), are immediately over the landing capacity of the undercarriage the minute the aircraft leaves the ground. Calculating the fuel burn required before you can land is part of your flight plan task.

 

Every pilot in command should have been trained in Performance and Operations.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nearly every accident in which somebody is injured would involve some regulation being broken. If breaking a regulation means that you are not insured, you should at least know that.

 

I would like to have this made clearer than it is now. For example, is the RAAus liability insurance we all have dependent on 100% regulation compliance or not?

 

 

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My (albeit limited) knowledge of insurers is that as soon as they face a large payout they will deny liability and tell the insured to pass on all letters of demand (which they will then lose or deny receiving them - standard procedures). The insurer then tells the claimants to start legal proceedings against the insured before they will even acknowledge the claim exists, and in phone calls to the claimants they will hint that they will drag out the legal process for years, but "we could settle for 10% of your claim with a confidentiality agreement".

 

I attended a worker's comp insurance seminar (run by our insurer but using a training company) and they explained in great detail how the insurance industry would process all claims made upon them, My notes - "Never accept liability, lose the claim, resubmit claim, ask for expensive medical reports by Dr XXX, lose all the reports and blame the claimant, attempt to bankrupt claimant, appeal any court settlement".

 

 

  • Agree 2
  • Informative 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My (albeit limited) knowledge of insurers is that as soon as they face a large payout they will deny liability and tell the insured to pass on all letters of demand (which they will then lose or deny receiving them - standard procedures). The insurer then tells the claimants to start legal proceedings against the insured before they will even acknowledge the claim exists, and in phone calls to the claimants they will hint that they will drag out the legal process for years, but "we could settle for 10% of your claim with a confidentiality agreement".I attended a worker's comp insurance seminar (run by our insurer but using a training company) and they explained in great detail how the insurance industry would process all claims made upon them, My notes - "Never accept liability, lose the claim, resubmit claim, ask for expensive medical reports by Dr XXX, lose all the reports and blame the claimant, attempt to bankrupt claimant, appeal any court settlement".

That’s a bit of wishful thinking, and they do use strategies, but they have to abide by the law. Quite often people bitch about them, when the terms and conditions are perfectly clear.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That’s a bit of wishful thinking, and they do use strategies, but they have to abide by the law. Quite often people bitch about them, when the terms and conditions are perfectly clear.

Nothing illegal about denying liability, losing files, asking for resubmissions or requesting medical reports. It’s standard practice. Inconvenient, unconscionable but not illegal. That’s why they do it.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The easiest plane to balance has the people and the fuel as close to the C of G as possible to reduce the range of balance possibilities.. I don't GET the ATSB reference to fuel "ballast" as fuel is useable if shown on the plan and the plane must NOT be out of Cof G at any stage of the flight including using ALL the useable fuel if you need to.. Side by side 2 people and wing tanks could produce a plane that's never out of balance. The one in this case seems so full of dangerous possibilities it should never be certified. . Nev

 

 

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

.

 

Nothing illegal about denying liability, losing files, asking for resubmissions or requesting medical reports. It’s standard practice. Inconvenient, unconscionable but not illegal. That’s why they do it.

These are the things I referred to as strategies; frustrating but can’t do you any harm, but there are suggestions above that they illegally evade paying you out.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Insurance companies give discounts for experience and a good accident record. If you buy a reasonably sized tail dragger warbird with little experience to show you might find it hard to get any flight insurance at all.. Nev

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Insurance companies give discounts for experience and a good accident record. If you buy a reasonably sized tail dragger warbird with little experience to show you might find it hard to get any flight insurance at all.. Nev

Doesn't have to be a warbird either: try insuring one of these to do tailwheel endorsements!c170-a.JPG.a0fc1e4761ac672b9b69f2561bd3d941.JPG

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cost of insurance is a slightly different subject; are you referring to low flying in trees, or the type of aircraft?

 

Is there a history of insurance claims?

 

Warren Buffet secured Berkshire Hathaway, his first company purchase. BH owned a number of cotton mills in the US, around the time people started buying clothes, particularly T Shirts from China. He bought the mills cheap, and tried to make them more efficient, but it was no use, the Chinese beat him, so he had BH buy an Insurance Company, Geico.

 

Today a Berkshire Hathaway Class A share is worth $304,180.00

 

BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY INC.

 

What he had observed about insurance companies was:

 

(a) You get to lay off the price against the payouts, much the same as a bookie

 

(b) You get payment up front, which you can invest, and you pay out much later, after you've made a substantial gain on your money.

 

No need to do things like defrauding customers by finding ways not to pay out. (sometimes this is done by brokers who take your premium, but don't pass it on to the insurance company)

 

 

  • Informative 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some years back I spent a few hours in the cockpit of a Cathay B747 HKH to London with a few insurance people who worked for Lloyds and they had been making agreements with the mainland Chinese government regarding insuring major projects like Dams etc. The government itself could not or didn't wish to carry the risk so got Lloyds the very large underwriters to do it. It was revealed in discussion that international currency trading was the main source of revenue for the Insurance companies or I guess the one in question.. Maybe if you are big enough eh!. That's back in the early 80's and Lloyds went out backwards sometime later, I think sending many of the guarantors (associates) into big debt when they were called on..Nev

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later for your post to be seen If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...