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

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, rhtrudder said:

Sorry skip, it’s now 2 paddocks with a couple of hay sheds we park planes in. Greg 

Shhhhhh - careful - the thought police may be listening.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, facthunter said:

If you have uninsured workers or a gathering of a few cars from the local car club you NEED PL insurance. I had it here for years. it doesn't send you broke but not having it might. Nev

Workers must be covered - Couldn't agree more.

 

Car Club - Why ?? doesnt the club have insurance for club activities??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 I'm not envisaging a few to mean a prescribed event and that's only an example. I had 60 + people here for an inaugural meeting to FORM a club so It can't have insurance before it's formed. Nev

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, facthunter said:

 I'm not envisaging a few to mean a prescribed event and that's only an example. I had 60 + people here for an inaugural meeting to FORM a club so It can't have insurance before it's formed. Nev

How very cautious 

 

I guess we approach life (at least in some respects) frome from opposites side of  the spectrum - I accept risk, as a fact of life, seek to manage it rather than insure against (yes I can see how insurance can be part of management). Its not just this conversation but my observation on the Australian psyche, which to me, seems to be increasingly risk averse  and prone to risk paranoia (no offence intended) all to the benefit of underwriters lawyers and the like. We must be the most over regulated English speaking country in the world and our people have become  so timid they are dependent on authorities for every decision - such is the "Cotton Wool" society.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can't insure something before it's structure exists. so you cover it another way. I don't LIKE the situation, but it's a risk management thing. I just believe prevention is better than cure and you should only gamble if you can AFFORD to lose. It hasn't stopped me doing much that I wish to do. You are entitled to do what you want with your own self and property. When others and their property are affected you don't have the right to be so cavalier. Nev

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's an interesting read in the report below. It's a report done in relation to impacts on all ALA's within the affected area of the proposed Rye Park Wind Farm - which Wind Farm was initially rejected, but which has now been approved.

The Wind Farm was initially rejected on one of the grounds that an inadequate study of the effect of the proposed Wind Farm, in relation to aviation, was not undertaken.

The second and third paragraphs in the Executive Summary clearly outline the legal position and standing of unregistered airstrips in relation to Aerodromes, Airstrips and ALA's. 

The rest of the report makes for interesting reading, because the authors went to great pains to find every unregistered ALA within the affected area - and they found lots of them!

 

https://epuron.com.au/documents/484/16._Rye_Park_Wind_Farm_RTS_-_Appendix_I_-_Aircraft_Landing_Areas_Assessment.pdf

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe  RAA need to define for us the members, a lower level (IN SIZE ) and requirement of a non commercial RAA Airfield. Not a ALA.   As we only fly 600kg (NO GA) and don't need all other requirements of one size fits all. May help with defining under council rules as strip not an airfield. It also may relieve some insurance problems, And future people moving and building into the area with council.  

Just a wish!!!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, skippydiesel said:

How very cautious 

 

I guess we approach life (at least in some respects) frome from opposites side of  the spectrum - I accept risk, as a fact of life, seek to manage it rather than insure against (yes I can see how insurance can be part of management). Its not just this conversation but my observation on the Australian psyche, which to me, seems to be increasingly risk averse  and prone to risk paranoia (no offence intended) all to the benefit of underwriters lawyers and the like. We must be the most over regulated English speaking country in the world and our people have become  so timid they are dependent on authorities for every decision - such is the "Cotton Wool" society.

I was more concerned with a 230 left here as has two owners , so they they share in all the ongoing costs including insurance and if it was damaged in my paddock whether there would be no issues with a claim , l was told buy a sceptic once that the claims department is made up of a team of barristers that throw every big claim out, Greg 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, facthunter said:

You can't insure something before it's structure exists. so you cover it another way. I don't LIKE the situation, but it's a risk management thing. I just believe prevention is better than cure and you should only gamble if you can AFFORD to lose. It hasn't stopped me doing much that I wish to do. You are entitled to do what you want with your own self and property. When others and their property are affected you don't have the right to be so cavalier. Nev

I could be a round head

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 20/08/2019 at 10:18 AM, rhtrudder said:

Thanks skip ,  basically that’s all my strip is , got 3 mates that hanger their planes here and have plenty that fly in but know the risks also had the odd plane come in who has contacted me asking to use the strip as the local strip has closed down , Kyabram, l point out the what’s involved  and leave it up to them to make that call , maybe l should stick to people l know. Greg 

Is Kyabram closed now? That’s another oldie gone by the sound of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, onetrack said:

There's an interesting read in the report below. It's a report done in relation to impacts on all ALA's within the affected area of the proposed Rye Park Wind Farm - which Wind Farm was initially rejected, but which has now been approved.

The Wind Farm was initially rejected on one of the grounds that an inadequate study of the effect of the proposed Wind Farm, in relation to aviation, was not undertaken.

The second and third paragraphs in the Executive Summary clearly outline the legal position and standing of unregistered airstrips in relation to Aerodromes, Airstrips and ALA's. 

The rest of the report makes for interesting reading, because the authors went to great pains to find every unregistered ALA within the affected area - and they found lots of them!

 

https://epuron.com.au/documents/484/16._Rye_Park_Wind_Farm_RTS_-_Appendix_I_-_Aircraft_Landing_Areas_Assessment.pdf

Interesting...but written by a non-aviation person I suggest.

 

It contains out of date info. States aerial fire-fighting is done under VFR only. CFA began night ops last year using night vision goggles.

  • Informative 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kaz, the Rye Park Wind Farm report was drawn up in 2015 - so at that date, the aerial firefighting information was correct.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, rhtrudder said:

I was more concerned with a 230 left here as has two owners , so they they share in all the ongoing costs including insurance and if it was damaged in my paddock whether there would be no issues with a claim , l was told buy a sceptic once that the claims department is made up of a team of barristers that throw every big claim out, Greg 

This thread has covered several different types of insurance and several different situations, and includes a lot of good advice and a good dose of fiction. It's no use at all trying to get answers based on a drip feed of information.

1. You need to contact insurers who handle damage. fire, loss, theft etc. because it's amazing how friendships fade after a fire etc.

 

2. You need to contact a Public Liability Insurer to work out the cover you need, your duty of care obligations and whatever the insurance company needs to calculate their premium from.  Even though you're thinking of only allowing people you know to use the airfield, once they've lost an arm to a prop,, hit a stree in the splay and suffered partial loss of a leg etc, or broken their back for the full $11 million or so, their focus tends to shift onto how they are going to support themselves for the next 30 years. Frequently wives sue husbands (the insured) or the husbands, cousins, friends estate if there has been a breach of duty of care. The benefit of talking to him/her is that they know a lot more about the cases than we do, often knowing the amounts and reasons on cases settled out of Court etc (which we never see).

 

3. From what you have said here and if the property is in a Farming Zone (FZ), (Victoria) it requires a permit to operate as an airfield. It doesn't matter what it's called (e.g. "paddock"), it's what is happening that determines the USE, and it doesn't matter whether it's one aircraft or many.)

In your case, with the same owner each end who is not likely to object, the temptation might be there to avoid going through the Council process, but the Planning Permit is a once of cost and from the day it is issued, you can quote the Permit Number to all your insurance companies, which might make a big difference, and you'll have one more line of defence if there is an accident, but most of all you are accruing time which will eventually turn into an Existing Use Right, so if your neighbour decides to retire and someone comes in and wants to breed left handed mountain goats which require total silence, or some such allegation, you are in a strong position to present a copy of your Planning Permit, and the applicable Planning Scheme clauses, and tell them to go jump. You don't have to go direct to the Council to do this, you can find a Planning Consultant, discuss what you want to do, and the Planning Consultant will make a recommendation and if that is to apply for a Permit, can do the application paperwork, drawings, discussions etc.

  • Winner 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, kaz3g said:

Is Kyabram closed now? That’s another oldie gone by the sound of it.

Paddock is under crop

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To just add a small rider to Turbos excellent advice - find a good Insurance Broker, who is there to work for you, and who places your insurance arguments in front of the Insurance Co's, to garner the best deal for you.

In addition, Insurance Brokers know which is the best Insurance Company for your type of insurance, because each Insurance Co. is only interested in, and only specialises in, specific types of insurance.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please!!  Do you just like spending money for the sake of it - we do not need to be insured for every action/ breath/ thought we may have. There are other perfectly legitimate nil or near nitl cost alternative. You guys must surely have shares in insurance companies.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Skippy, unfortunately, we now live in the litigious 21st Century, led along by the litigious Americans.

You never need insurance until the day the ordure hits the rotating air-movement device, and the claims are lodged and the lawsuits start - and then you're very glad you have it - if you do.

I've actually seen fires started by pure, 1 in a 1,000,000 chance - and those fires turned very destructive. I've accidently and innocently started one myself, which fire burnt out quite a bit of very nice, valuable crop.

Fortunately, when the claim for the loss was lodged, my PL covered it, and I didn't have to worry about a thing.

One of my operators accidently tore up a PMG main trunk cable between two towns - despite us checking for cable location. The cable wasn't where it was supposed to be, but it didn't matter.

This was over 40 years ago, and the trunk cable was down for just 4 hrs. That didn't stop the PMG from lodging a claim for all income losses for the time the cable was down, plus the cost of repair.

The figure came to something like $4,500 in 1977. You could buy a very nice, new Holden Premier for that kind of money back then. But never fear, my insurance company picked up the tab, and I didn't have to fork out a cent.

Few people realise if you simply run off the road in your vehicle and wipe out a telephone or electricity pole, just how much you can be billed for the repair.

Asset replacement cost, lost income of the asset owner, attendance by multiple emergency services, you get the bill for the lot. 

It's not until someone incurs major, debilitating injury or limb loss, in a simple accident, that gets sheeted home to your liability, is when you realise how little there is between you enjoying life and acquiring assets, and you being bankrupted by a claim for life-long losses for that individual - if you're not covered.

And no, I don't have insurance company shares, but I have contributed many hundreds of thousands of dollars to their income - and I couldn't afford not to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, onetrack said:

Skippy, unfortunately, we now live in the litigious 21st Century, led along by the litigious Americans. - Sheep!

You never need insurance until the day the ordure hits the rotating air-movement device, and the claims are lodged and the lawsuits start - and then you're very glad you have it - if you do. - Insurance companies playing on our natural insecurities (Cant!)

I've actually seen fires started by pure, 1 in a 1,000,000 chance - and those fires turned very destructive. I've accidently and innocently started one myself, which fire burnt out quite a bit of very nice, valuable crop. - Industrial (Agricultural high risk) environment 

Fortunately, when the claim for the loss was lodged, my PL covered it, and I didn't have to worry about a thing.

One of my operators accidently tore up a PMG main trunk cable between two towns - despite us checking for cable location. The cable wasn't where it was supposed to be, but it didn't matter. - Again an industrial environment but one in which you are  easily able to demonstrate no fault ("cable wasn't where it was supposed to be")

This was over 40 years ago, and the trunk cable was down for just 4 hrs. That didn't stop the PMG from lodging a claim for all income losses for the time the cable was down, plus the cost of repair. - I assume the claim was either withdrawn or they lost

The figure came to something like $4,500 in 1977. You could buy a very nice, new Holden Premier for that kind of money back then. But never fear, my insurance company picked up the tab, and I didn't have to fork out a cent. - tab for what they had no claim (according to you)

Few people realise if you simply run off the road in your vehicle and wipe out a telephone or electricity pole, just how much you can be billed for the repair. - motor vehicle accidents are in a whole debate of their own one reason why we are obliged to carry motor vehicle insurance

Asset replacement cost, lost income of the asset owner, attendance by multiple emergency services, you get the bill for the lot. 

It's not until someone incurs major, debilitating injury or limb loss, in a simple accident, that gets sheeted home to your liability, is when you realise how little there is between you enjoying life and acquiring assets, and you being bankrupted by a claim for life-long losses for that individual - if you're not covered.

And no, I don't have insurance company shares, but I have contributed many hundreds of thousands of dollars to their income - and I couldn't afford not to. - I would be appalled if any employer did not have appropriate insurance for all aspects of their operation.

I have tried to answer every one of your points - you may not agree with my responses  but that up to you. For non industrial environments (ie private life) your most telling comment is the first - rightly or wrongly we perceive the American (USA actually) leads the world in petty litigation. Ultimately who started it doesn't matter we have a choice, play along with the urban myths, that enrich the insurance companies or stand on your own two feet. Case in hand (paddock used for infrequent landings by group of mates) make a dispassionate assessment - most of the points I have made already ,so wont bank on but the crux of my argument is -  agreement/document. By all means insure but  (in the private world) recognise this is giving in to irrational anxiety and or laziness - both quite legitimate if that what you want.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, skippydiesel said:

I have tried to answer every one of your points - you may not agree with my responses  but that up to you. For non industrial environments (ie private life) your most telling comment is the first - rightly or wrongly we perceive the American (USA actually) leads the world in petty litigation. Ultimately who started it doesn't matter we have a choice, play along with the urban myths, that enrich the insurance companies or stand on your own two feet. Case in hand (paddock used for infrequent landings by group of mates) make a dispassionate assessment - most of the points I have made already ,so wont bank on but the crux of my argument is -  agreement/document. By all means insure but  (in the private world) recognise this is giving in to irrational anxiety and or laziness - both quite legitimate if that what you want.

Unfortunately you need to do a lot more research.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, turboplanner said:

Unfortunately you need to do a lot more research.

Unsupported sweeping statement - what do you mean?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Industrial (Agricultural high risk) environment 

And you're trying to tell me, that flying ultralights, and letting other ultralight owners utilise your property, and assets provided by you, isn't high risk?? You have some strange ideas, as regards risk levels.

 

Again an industrial environment but one in which you are  easily able to demonstrate no fault ("cable wasn't where it was supposed to be") 

Your logic and understanding is wrong again. You want to dig holes in the ground where assets are located? You get an "asset map" from the owner of the underground assets, and they advise that the location of the assets is a guideline only, and that all care must be taken by the hole-digger. The hole-digger needs to probe manually and carefully, until the asset is found.

Once you have been advised underground assets are located "in the area" where you are digging, the onus is on you 100%, as the hole-digger.

 

I assume the claim was either withdrawn or they lost 

The claim was not withdrawn, if the claim for losses by the PMG was not paid, they would have sued and won. In my case, I and my operator were negligent, we failed to locate the trunk cable precisely. 

My PL policy covered my negligence, and they paid the amount claimed by the PMG.

 

motor vehicle accidents are in a whole debate of their own one reason why we are obliged to carry motor vehicle insurance 

Sorry, I fail to see any major differences between motoring insurance, and any other form of insurance involving mechanised transport, high speed, risk to life and property, human factors, etc, etc ...

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, onetrack said:

 

 

And you're trying to tell me, that flying ultralights, and letting other ultralight owners utilise your property, and assets provided by you, isn't high risk?? You have some strange ideas, as regards risk levels.

You miss read/understand my points - I have made no comment on the degree of risk.  The key to my argument is, that  the parties involved and the amount of activity is minimal and private (not open to any flier that passes or enquires) AND I have consistently suggested a collective approach to assessing & documenting the risk (fully informed consenting adults) that the few mates can sign (literally) up for. Aside from a criminally negligent or deliberate  incident, the owner of the property will have reduced his/her exposure to litigation to almost 0

 

When you board another RAA fliers aircraft there is supposed to be a placard informing you (the passenger - now an informed/consenting adult) of a heightened risk - Why? because having that placard where you can not avoid seeing it (I make a point of drawing it to my passengers attention) reduces your pilots chance/exposure that you can successfully sue him/her should there be an incident caused by the aircrafts failure to stay aloft (Please note; it does not cover the pilot for negligence/deliberate endangerment, etc)

5 hours ago, onetrack said:

 

Your logic and understanding is wrong again. You want to dig holes in the ground where assets are located? You get an "asset map" from the owner of the underground assets, and they advise that the location of the assets is a guideline only, and that all care must be taken by the hole-digger. The hole-digger needs to probe manually and carefully, until the asset is found.

Once you have been advised underground assets are located "in the area" where you are digging, the onus is on you 100%, as the hole-digger.

 

So, you seem to be changing the goalposts - in your earlier post, I understood/you inferred, the fault was with the cable company  - "despite us checking for cable location. The cable wasn't where it was supposed to be" your words -  now you say your operator was "100%" responsible - make up your mind.

 

The claim was not withdrawn, if the claim for losses by the PMG was not paid, they would have sued and won. In my case, I and my operator were negligent, we failed to locate the trunk cable precisely. 

My PL policy covered my negligence, and they paid the amount claimed by the PMG. As above

 

Sorry, I fail to see any major differences between motoring insurance, and any other form of insurance involving mechanised transport, high speed, risk to life and property, human factors, etc, etc ...

 

First difference is you do not have any discretion on the matter,  you cannot legally drive on a public road, without at least minimum (3rd party) cover.

Second the public road is just that public,  open to all comers. I have suggested limiting the use/access of the landing paddock to the few mates mentioned - a private activity.

It's not about the machinery, it's about private as opposed to public access non business/industry activity.

 

5 hours ago, onetrack said:

 

Dear onetrack,

We are not going to agree or even come close - you insist on using industrial/business models to support your argument - I consistently highlight this is a PRIVATE activity on PRIVATE land.

I believe your argument to be valid for a declared airfield/ALA/strip/port etc OPEN TO THE PUBLIC  but not for a few mates using a relativly unimproved paddock for their exclusive  use.

Let us retire to our separate corners and contemplate the future.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Skippy, you're living in a fantasy land regarding the potential for bankruptcy in the simple act of just inviting a few mates over, to use your paddock as a landing area.

In fact, you don't even have to invite your mates over, to incur a major liability, if something goes seriously wrong, and someone gets injured or killed, or property damage ensues.

 

Even trespassers can, and have made, claims against property owners, although their claim can be weakened by trespassing. 

 

Property owners are subject to what is known as "occupiers liability". This is a large legal minefield, which leaves you open to damage/injury/death claims, even when you did not invite the person onto your property.

 

From a Legal Services Commission piece of advice ....

 

"(under the Civil Liabilities Act or Wrongs Act - from 1987 onwards) it is no longer important to classify the injured person as a licensee or invitee. The court will still however, take into account how the person came to be on the land, in deciding how careful the occupier should have been for that person's safety."

 

And ...

 

"Onus of proof
In deciding liability for breach of a duty, the plaintiff always bears the onus of proving, on the balance of probabilities, any fact relevant to the issue of causation."

 

The act of simply having a few mates over to use your ALA, located on your property - whereby that act results in death/injury/damage, can rapidly turn into a major disaster, if a bereaved widow seeks out a smart lawyer to try and obtain compensation. Your great "mateship" is rapidly forgotten in the heat of recriminations and legal arguments, which will always cost you dearly, even if you do win.

 

In civil liability claims, the law places a great deal of emphasis on interpretation of the words, "ought reasonably to have known (the risks)".

You don't want to end up paying multiple lawyers (and other legal costs) for their time spent debating the intrepretation of, "ought reasonably to have known (the risk)", as it applies to your case.

 

The bottom line is, a few hundred dollars a year invested in a good PL policy is simply good sense, in that it protects you from a host of unforeseen circumstances, that can become life-altering.

Edited by onetrack

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mate! - as previously stated - " I have consistently suggested a collective approach to assessing & documenting the risk (fully informed consenting adults) that the few mates can sign (literally) up for. Aside from a criminally negligent or deliberate  incident, the owner of the property will have reduced his/her exposure to litigation to almost 0" PLEASE NOTE THE WORDS:  FULLY INFORMED CONSENTING ADULTS and SIGN (eg document acceptance/agreement/supports)

 

Your words - "the law places a great deal of emphasis on interpretation of the words, "ought reasonably to have known (the risks)". - I suggest you have supported my statement above

 

Your words again - "The bottom line is, a few hundred dollars a year invested in a good PL policy is simply good sense, in that it protects you from a host of unforeseen circumstances, that can become life-altering." and mine "I accept risk, as a fact of life, seek to manage it rather than insure against " - by all means spend your "few hundred dollars a year" but be warned this sort of approach to life/risk is like a drug, once hooked it's extraordinarily difficult to stop. Some drugs make you feel invulnerable, great but it's an illusion - you can not protect yourself from criminal negligence or deliberate act that causes injury/loss/death to a third party but the feeling that the drug gives requires ever higher doses, just like insurance.

 

I am not against liability insurance IN THE APPROPRIATE CIRCUMSTANCES but this example (as much as we have been informed) in my opinion is not one of them.

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.


×
×
  • Create New...