Jaba-who

Google Carter Capner Law and follow links to airline compensation. They have pages and pages of cases they claim they successfully sought compensation for passengers. They outline cases of injury, inconvenience, turbulence and similar. Unless they are lying about the cases. But you have to assume they are being truthful.

So in answer to your question.Yes they have have been sued. Yes they have been found negligent and yes money paid out.

Unfortunately not. It’s a bigger minefield.Say you Fly off to “far-go-minda. Land and drive into town. Have one rock fly up from passing car and crack your windscreen. You are grounded. Park in the local pub car park and have a local back his Ute into your car-plane somewhere - grounded. Reverse out of a parking spot and hit a bollard or sign - grounded. The risks to the airworthiness are huge when you leave the safety of the sky and a runway.

I have it on my phone (WhatsApp) but rarely use it. My wife uses it all the time with her relatives in South Africa. The big plus is that it uses the internet rather than the phone system per se. She can talk with video for hours with her sister for essentially no cost. I’ll mention to her about this potential virus. Even if it’s a hoax this time if she knows at least she can be vigiilent if something else arises. Thanks

Same pros and cons as electric versions plus a few more.Depending on time of day. If you arrive at your destination in the middle of day you then have the con of forced exercise in the heat of the day. Some of the strips I’ve been to can be up to 10 km (admittedly most are closer but some are even further) out of town.

Mm. Might be fun for a while. but after more than a few minutes of teeth rattling rough country road, crossing a few cattle grids and being sideswiped by a 50 m long road train I think I’d be wishing I had just called the local pub and promised them I’d eat a meal, have a few drinks and stay at their establishment over night if they’d just come and get me in their car or courtesy coach. The concept of scooters, cycles etc is something I considered seriously for while when we were doing a lot of outback and regional flying over the last 15 or so years. Looked at quite a few models and concepts. But when I really seriously sat down and traded off all the pros and cons (of which there are lots) and alternative options (of which there are usually some ) we never bothered. Major con against it all was safety. Very few roads in Australia between airports and towns are actually safe. Most are on the main highway coming into town and few have any room for a cyclist or two to avoid a truck or road train. You get covered in dust, showered with gravel sideswiped by cars who seem to treat objects smaller than themselves as targets to aim at rather than people etc. you also have to consider that if you are staying overnight etc. you’ll need to carry bags. Hard to imagine carrying a nav bag and a clothes bag on one of those. It surprising how many lifts, rides etc you can organise with a little ingenuity.

They would be useless on anything other than very short flights. I can see the result. People buy a low cost seat and board - then the fun starts. Obese people can’t even get into the seat because of reduced pitch. Particularly if they are furthest from the aisle. The elderly get strapped in and then realise they can’t stand for more than a few minutes. What is the answer when you can’t seat people? Kick them off? I assume there will still have to be “seated” seats as well. Do they kick seat paying passengers out of their seats to seat a pax who suddenly needs one? Forced standing often will result is feinting (like soldiers on parade) So suddenly you get all these people who feint and have to be extricated and laid flat till they revive. And then seated but are unable to be “seated”. If they feint from being upright and can’t be extracted from the seat or the upright position - which is a lethal position in an unconscious person. And of course the incidence of DVT is dramatically higher when you are in the upright position for prolonged period. So after the event the claims for compensation for DVT will go up. Strikes me this is an idea that’s not been thought out very well.

That’s being very selective about the type of aircraft involved.I think these days many RAA builds are exactly the same aircraft as GA experimental. Jabirus and zenair variations etc can be built for either category. Same systems, same complexities.

Threads on just about every aviation forum in Oz!

Are you seriously asking?.The lawyers all crow about their successes on their websites. Just google Carter Capner and airline compensation. They have a list of cases they have they are claiming success on that takes about three pages. These include turbulence as well as engine problems. The payouts they claim extend from injuries etc to basically inconveniences and psychological distress.

You could do it here. Have to register it as GA experimental though I would have thought.

Yep. My experience has been that whether it’s a broad target approach or as specific age target group approach the 50-ish plus age group are the only ones you’ll get.But There is a high attrition rate in this group that further whittles down the remaining population. We have seen high attrition at all stages. The greatest though is at the very beginning. We get/got lots of people ask about it but when they hear about cost, time needed, the ongoing maintenance etc not to mention the added issue of getting a licence as well. (It surprises me how many people approached us over the years with no prior aviation experience at all and who hadn’t taken into account the need to get the licence as well. ) And you, and a few others, are right - plenty of people these days who have no building experience of any sort, even basic repair skills, who ask about it but then feel it will be beyond them. Often the first thing they have to consider is building a workshop before building a plane and they stop at that. But the other attrition rate is age related illness. We have had a number of projects come to a halt when the older builders get sick and either die or remain unfit to continue on flying or building. It’s this short tenure aspect of the aged group that really says we need younger people in the sport. But for all the mentioned reasons they ain’t fronting up.

It’s not all roses there either.Had my kids in the 90s and recently married again and wife has two kids in early teens. Something Ive seen is that there are now so many sports that they all have a difficult time from low numbers. When I was a kid in the 60s and early 70s there were a few sports and many were seasonal and everyone played em all. Then my kids had choices of more. Now there’s dozens of sports and each has multiple subtypes ( J ball, T ball, baseball, softball. Etc) and runs all year round. Then they all require costly memberships (with insurance making up a bit slice). As result they all struggle.

I can’t speak for RAAus but I can speak for SAAA/GA homebuild scene and I would guess the general gist is the same. That gist is young people are not interested. And that is both not interested in aviation and definitely not interested in building. Have just spent some time chewing the fat with a mate who lamented the days when the aero club was a rocking social as well as flying place. Lamented how the club used to own a dozen aircraft and employed ten full time instructors etc. but that just doesn’t exist anymore because there is no demand. We (FNQ chapter of SAAA) have put in a huge effort over the last few years trying to increase interest and encourage particularly young people to get interested. We spent heaps of money, expended huge effort about 3 years back on newspaper articles with photos, local radio segments with interviews and then an information night with BBQ talks and presentations by builders, technical counsellors etc. We got a good roll up to the info night, about 30 people. How many under about 60? 3! How many under 35? 1 and that was a teenager who came with his father. How many ended up continuing on and undertaking a build? None. The basic problem is that young people have endless other options to occupy their time. And most of them involve technology which is bought off the shelf and does not require the time input. The general mindset these days is “I want it, and I want it now! And if I can’t have it now, I don’t want it! “ The age group who maintain an interest is the same for RAAus as well as GA and that’s the older male. Younger adults have families and costs and can’t get involved, kids aren’t interested. So all that’s left is the old guys. I’d like to say there are ways to attract other groups into aviation but it won’t happen here in Oz. The whole recreational aviation scene here is stagnating. But the place to see some positive progress is the USA. They have a vibrant Young Eagles program and a viable supported and encouraged aviation sector. That’s the big difference compared to here. Our aviation sector is strangling in regulation, rules and excessive cost. None of that is enough to offer any enticement to the very few who do have an interest.

I don’t think you can assume that or anything.Unfortunately it’s a difficult area to get meaningful data. But in reality you need the whole lot. Numbers of aircraft, numbers of hours flying, division of incidents into pilot error vs airframe vs engine mechanical etc. until you have the full range of data any use of the figures is open to question.

I think you could just as correctly have said “renting a hangar is never a certainty.” I have rented and owned and it’s very much dependant on the local situation. I think every situation is so independent and modified by its own variables that it’s hard to generalize. I think it’s a case of do your homework first no matter what you are planning so you minimize the risks. Always going to be pros and cons. On balance in my situation buying was the best option despite some negative bits to it. But then while I was renting (at a different airport) that was the best option. The guys who bought got stung.

I have no knowledge of, or position on, the contest between ELAAA and RAAus. But something that everyone needs to understand is that anyone whose major thrust is the stance that “safety” is everything (or “in the interests of safety” or whatever other safety related terminologies get strung together), will not and won’t any more in the future be trusted.We all know our hobby has risks and we all know of people who have demised because the risks caught up with them. But we undertake flying accepting the risks. But historically people who have decided they know how to lower those risks (in those who have taken up the hobby actually accepting the risks as they are) have always always always become controllers and limiters of those who have openly expressed the desire not to be controlled by those who feel they know better. I have seen in many fields, aviation, medical and ground transport, the use of the word “safety” is a mechanism for closing down discussion. If you want to accept risks as they are, don’t want to accept restrictions, in the name of safety or a culture of safety to fix an acceptable level of risk you are cast in the same pit as climate change deniers and anti-gay rights believers. I’m not surprised you got a less than stellar response from training establishments if your approaches contained anything that might suggest that anything less than your idea on an approach to safety was tantamount to negligence in their part. I’ve been in a training establishment where similar sorts of suggestions had been made from an ex-casa official who after leaving casa felt he could join the club and save an actually impeccable record (nil events in over 20 years) from itself by internally imposing a culture of safety that included costs that would bankrupt the club. To fix a problem which didn’t exist. While the intentions may be good, the reality is that we have been gradually restricted to the point of disappearing in the name of safety and no one will be anything but wary of it. Everyone has to accept that there is a balance between the two and at some point there has to be a stop to allowing one side overbalance the other.

Yep. You are completely correct.It’s essentially self congratulatory on CASAs part with a few people who don’t understand what little ground has actually been given saying “thanks for moving us a little closer to what is now standard in the USA and Britain.” I frequent an aviation doctors Facebook forum and the general gist is the DAMEs are mixed between those who will not be issuing medicals directly because of medicolegal concerns if someone they say is fit then has a problem and those who feel the requirements are exactly the same as now so any issuance will be in accordance with the strict requirements of casa so anyone with anything other than complete fitness of a healthy teenager will have to be sent back to casa anyway. To think that anyone who can’t get a medical now will somehow be able to get one is completely wrong. All that has changed is the administration required to process the same standards. The likely savings are $10 (provided the DAME or GP doesn’t increase costs to do more tests to cover their own legal position).

For VH experimental - no, not strictly. If your AP gives it as a direction in the c of a then it applies and could be given to any engine. You would have a good argument to object if it were done on an unmodified standard certified engine but on any other engine if thats what the AP says then that’s it. Most APs would add it if you were flying say a converted auto engine or a modified certified engine (which strictly would be no longer certified once it was modified) But there is not a blanket requirement in all aircraft of Experimental category without a certified engine. There have been frequent comments and urban myth that once a certified engine is put in an experimental (even if completely unmodified) it automatically is de-certified. This has been refuted to me by both an AP and Rod Stiff from Jabiru so I assume it is just an urban legend.

All aircraft have to stay above 1000 ft in that case (except while actually taking off and landing).As far as gliding distance stuff - I guess so, if that’s true of all RAAus aircraft. I don’t know the rules about that. Does it apply to all? Say you bought a factory built aircraft that could be registered in GA or RAAus. If it’s GA then the above gliding bit does not apply strictly. Does the rule then apply if same aircraft were converted to RAAus. In GA experimental it varies from aircraft to aircraft. If you have a jabiru with particular versions of engine you have to be able to glide clear but if you have some other different engine version you can fly over built up areas without the requirement. But that’s a strict aircraft to aircraft variation not a broad brush rule. What’s the story with RAAus aircraft?

Yep Skippy you are correct. An RAAus aircraft can still access any CTA as long as the aircraft is radio and transponder equipped AND as long as the pilot is qualified to fly the aircraft (ie: has RAAus certificate ) AND qualified to enter CTA (ie ppl (or I guess certain applicable situations with an RPL ) or higher CPL etc with a current applicable medical)

It would still be iffy. There would be little gain in doing that (rebuild a specific part of the aircraft like the wings or some such small part of the aircraft. Under today’s rules, you can only work on the parts of the aircraft you built. So all you could work on were the wings -even if it were allowed. But You would not fulfill the majority of the build requirement “ so called 51% rule” so would not be eligible anyway. The builders that I am aware of did a complete strip back to kit basic components. They then photographed the kit in its basic apart form and then did the reconstruction as they would have for a new kit.

Not saying this applies here but .....sometimes things eventuate, like 2 bodies controlling the one activity, but they occurred because the rules were not in place to stop it happening because no one ever thought it would. But once it does happen it proves to be a pain in the butt and so the controlling body works ( perhaps quietly) works to not let it happen again.

That’s exactly how my O 320 ran for over a 1000 hours when I had it and 2200 hours before that. - in. My Robinson R22 helicopter.

You can do your own maintenance and 100 hourly with GA experimental. You have to have built the aircraft and do a maintenance procedures course.The fact you bought it from someone else and that I t is already mostly built doesn’t completely remove possibility of getting approval to do your own maintenance. I have heard of cases where people have got the aircraft and essentially pulled it completely apart again and inspected all the parts and then rebuilt it. They did this under guidance of their AP (right from the start) so they knew what they were doing wasn’t a waste of time. Not saying it’s an absolute it will be ok but might be worth persuing with your AP.