Jaba-who

Yep. Never heard of hangarage that cheap before. In the Atherton area the going rate is about $300 a month. When I was in Cairns about 5 years ago the cheapest I heard of was about $350a month. I doubt you’d get anything for $80a month in my part of the state now.

I would have to say that your reasoning is not correct.The GP or even specialists doing assessments have NO capacity to use their judgement as to how fit or otherwise they feel you are to fly. That’s a big problem part of the CASA system. The doc examines you and fill out a form which has tick boxes or boxes for findings etc. as to what they find when they examine you. They are not allowed to use judgement. When the examination is done if you have got ticks in all the boxes then you pass. If you don’t then the doc ( of whatever persuasion he /she is ) is not able to give you a pass based on their feelings about your capacity - whether they feel you are fit for your age or not.

Yep exactly. Depends on what’s happening. I’d agree that if the noise stops while you are at 100knots in the cruise you’d be wrong to nose over. The response is climb to best glide speed ( which in a jab 230 is about 80 knots) And if you were at Vtoss on climb and the noise stopped then you gotta get the nose over real quick. Depending on what situation he was talking about that comment by the GA pilot is probably completely correct.

North Queensland Aero Club does the lot - RAAus, RPL, PPL, CPL, instruments ( command and private) and night VFR and instructor ratings. Used to be based at Cairns ( for over 60years) now at Mareeba Airport.

That’s good for you. Little surprising though. Maybe the fact it was a locum meant they were happy to break the rules for someone else’s practice. Under Medicare law it is illegal for a doctor to bill Medicare for any form of medical examination for licences, insurances etc. the full cost of the examination etc has to be covered by the patient ( or sometimes insurance companies cover it for insurance medicals). Medicare is only to cover doctors costs where medical problems are suspected and/or found. If the doctor gets caught it is really really big time badness. Medicare audits the doctors practice at the doctors expense then requires repayment of every suspect Medicare payment and then charges the doctor for every offence and will usually take the doctor to court for fraud. They may then be struck off the register for some period of time and usually get some form of restriction of billing when that period of penalty is finished. DAMEs ( and almost all DAMEs are GPs) have no specialist level billing for medicals so when CASA make out that the new basic Class 2 which they are saying will only need a GP will be easier -it will only be easier to find a doctor but not any cheaper. Of course there is much debate as to whether you should keep your own GP who knows what your real ( aka important) health out of any loop which involves CASA. So even if you decide to use a GP not a DAME for a Basic class 2 you probably should seek out a seperate GP anyway. My own philosophy being that it is so well proven that your real health bears no relationship to flying health that you should keep them very very seperate. You don’t want the testing GP being privy to irrelevant stuff which will stop you getting a pass tick in every box.

Are you saying your GP did your RAMPC at no cost ( to you or anyone else -strictly speaking that means at the GPs cost) or are you implying he/she did it and charged it to Medicare so did it for a cost but just not to you?

AGain you have to define all the parameters before you can make statements. I have a jab which I own and I built. VH rego. I do all my own maintenance. If it was a RAAus aircraft it would still need the same maintenance. If I didn’t do it myself I’d still have to pay someone to maintain it. So It is not cheaper to maintain an RAAus aircraft. It is The maintenance costs the same. If you CHOSE a GA aircraft that you can’t maintain yourself then it will cost more but that’s like saying if you go GA you must chose the expensive alternatives.

It’s not. The original poster has it wrong. All things being equal - GA is cheaper if you have the same aircraft that could be registered in either category. Say for instance you owned two jabiru 230s - one RAAus and one VH. And you had a PPL to fly the Vh one and an RAAus licence to run the other. Before you turn a prop on either - your PPL costs you nothing per year your VH rego costs you nothing. They are both perpetual. On the other hand the the RAAus certificate costs you yearly membership of RAAus. Your RAAus rego costs you yearly fees as well. Things diverge a bit for some of the other costs though. This is where the VH might get ahead. Medicals. Depending on your medical status and age you may have to start forking out for medicals. If you are less than 40and fit and well then the costs are pretty minimal.

Do you work for CASA? Only kidding. That’s a line casa is always using to justify medicals being so stringent. In Australia as best I am aware ( and it’s been quoted endlessly elsewhere in relation to that topic )there has never been an injury or death to anyone on the ground from a recreational or a privately operated GA aircraft.

Do you work for CASA? Only kidding. That’s a line casa is always using to justify medicals being so stringent. In Australia as best I am aware ( and it’s been quoted endlessly elsewhere in relation to that topic )there has never been an injury or death to anyone on the ground from a recreational or a privately operated GA aircraft.

Not quite. Almost All aviation laws In Australia are based on strict liability. But the aviation laws are not what a passenger could sue under. That would have to be civil law relating to negligence etc. The pilot would be risking two entirely seperate legal battles here. CASA for breaking aviation law ( that’s if he did. If not then CASA would not be interested. ) and civil law for the negligence claim.

Not quite. Almost All aviation laws In Australia are based on strict liability. But the aviation laws are not what a passenger could sue under. That would have to be civil law relating to negligence etc. The pilot would be risking two entirely seperate legal battles here. CASA for breaking aviation law ( that’s if he did. If not then CASA would not be interested. ) and civil law for the negligence claim.

Yes many fail - but clearly this one didn't. So getting back to my original statement - there must have more to it than a simple accident for a sum to be awarded. Like examining accident causes to act as an education for pilots to avoid it In future the only thing that will be helpful to us is knowing why the courts found the pilot negligent. Does anyone know what the circumstances were which were considered to be reasonable to award the money.

Yes many fail - but clearly this one didn't. So getting back to my original statement - there must have more to it than a simple accident for a sum to be awarded. Like examining accident causes to act as an education for pilots to avoid it In future the only thing that will be helpful to us is knowing why the courts found the pilot negligent. Does anyone know what the circumstances were which were considered to be reasonable to award the money.

Not as simple as that. I have no doubt it may have been one of the cases ( can't recall but happy to believe you about it being one) Cessna ceased production in 1986 after years of declining production. Piper went broke ( for the final time) about the same year or maybe a couple later and Beechcraft closed down all its piston singles production about then as well. But they had all been in steep decline in production for years due to many factors but not least if which was reaching the tipping point in liability claims. Part of the reason cited at a congressional hearing a few years later was the liability costs on each unit produced now exceeded the entire cost ( in adjusted terms ) of the aircraft prior to the beginning of the rise in liability claims in the late 1970s. The law treated aircraft accidents as such as cash-cow that there were major law firms whose sole area of action was private general aviation accident suits. There was not one but hundreds of cases. The new law which attempted to revitalise the industry was in the General Aviation Revitalization Act and that was in 1994. Probably That's where that date comes to your mind. But that happened years after the cessation of production. From Wikipedia ( if you believe that): The General Aviation Revitalization Act was passed by the Congress in 1994, and signed by President Bill Clinton in a White House ceremony August 17, 1994.[2]

Not as simple as that. I have no doubt it may have been one of the cases ( can't recall but happy to believe you about it being one)Cessna ceased production in 1986 after years of declining production. Piper went broke ( for the final time) about the same year or maybe a couple later and Beechcraft closed down all its piston singles production about then as well. But they had all been in steep decline in production for years due to many factors but not least if which was reaching the tipping point in liability claims. Part of the reason cited at a congressional hearing a few years later was the liability costs on each unit produced now exceeded the entire cost ( in adjusted terms ) of the aircraft prior to the beginning of the rise in liability claims in the late 1970s. The law treated aircraft accidents as such as cash-cow that there were major law firms whose sole area of action was private general aviation accident suits. There was not one but hundreds of cases. The new law which attempted to revitalise the industry was in the General Aviation Revitalization Act and that was in 1994. Probably That's where that date comes to your mind. But that happened years after the cessation of production. From Wikipedia ( if you believe that): The General Aviation Revitalization Act was passed by the Congress in 1994, and signed by President Bill Clinton in a White House ceremony August 17, 1994.[2]

My only guessing comment was strictly in relation to the forgoing sentence. By that I meant that the litigations only affected ( to the point of cessation of production) singles. Clearly having poor visibility due to having wings in the way is not restricted to singles therefore it would appear, dare I say it, to the man on the Clapham omnibus, that there must have been more too it then just visibility. but I was only guessing about the context of the visibility. What I didn't say but was thinking was that I did not recall the visibility issue. So was only guessing about that. There was in fact a string of litigations. They were regarding events like the seat locking pins on cessnas, the aforementioned manual that seemed to indicate you could teach yourself out of it, another pilot who against instructions on first solo departed the circuit area and flew over his house and stalled while in a turn are three that come to mind. But it's been so long since I did the lecture to the club ( maybe 1998 or so that I can't recall or still have any references ) the cases.

My only guessing comment was strictly in relation to the forgoing sentence.By that I meant that the litigations only affected ( to the point of cessation of production) singles. Clearly having poor visibility due to having wings in the way is not restricted to singles therefore it would appear, dare I say it, to the man on the Clapham omnibus, that there must have been more too it then just visibility. but I was only guessing about the context of the visibility. What I didn't say but was thinking was that I did not recall the visibility issue. So was only guessing about that. There was in fact a string of litigations. They were regarding events like the seat locking pins on cessnas, the aforementioned manual that seemed to indicate you could teach yourself out of it, another pilot who against instructions on first solo departed the circuit area and flew over his house and stalled while in a turn are three that come to mind. But it's been so long since I did the lecture to the club ( maybe 1998 or so that I can't recall or still have any references ) the cases.

There were a number of adverse findings over a number of years in the 1980s over a number of accidents and events. Off the top of my head I can't remember them all. The issues must have only affected singles as Piper and Cessna and Beechcraft continued to make twins ( at least until Piper went broke ). Since the twins were also high or low wing there must have been more to it than that otherwise they would have closed down everything. Only guessing there.

There were a number of adverse findings over a number of years in the 1980s over a number of accidents and events.Off the top of my head I can't remember them all. The issues must have only affected singles as Piper and Cessna and Beechcraft continued to make twins ( at least until Piper went broke ). Since the twins were also high or low wing there must have been more to it than that otherwise they would have closed down everything. Only guessing there.

Well if some party is found negligent then it's that party. If that party has insurance and the payout does not exceed the insurance limit and the insurance company doesn't get out of paying by some means, then it's the insurance company. If the court imposed payout exceeds the Insurance limit then the negligent party makes up the balance. As for compulsory insurance - Unlike motor vehicles which number millions aviation is a very small number. I am not sure the premiums would cover the payouts. It requires a lot of people putting in a small amount to cover them. Otherwise it would not be viable for the insurers. So if the compulsory scheme still didn't cover payouts then the negligent party would still have to fork out. The lawyers would still be required to sort out who was negligent and who,was not. So maybe no real advance over what we have. I don't know for sure. Just surmising.

Well if some party is found negligent then it's that party. If that party has insurance and the payout does not exceed the insurance limit and the insurance company doesn't get out of paying by some means, then it's the insurance company. If the court imposed payout exceeds the Insurance limit then the negligent party makes up the balance.As for compulsory insurance - Unlike motor vehicles which number millions aviation is a very small number. I am not sure the premiums would cover the payouts. It requires a lot of people putting in a small amount to cover them. Otherwise it would not be viable for the insurers. So if the compulsory scheme still didn't cover payouts then the negligent party would still have to fork out. The lawyers would still be required to sort out who was negligent and who,was not. So maybe no real advance over what we have. I don't know for sure. Just surmising.

The problem is negligence is in the eye of the beholder. I presented a paper at an anaesthesia conference a few years back in which I outlined a study by a national anaesthetic training college. Essentially the study looked at a number of scenarios where anaesthetic complications lead to disasters. The scenarios were presented to an expert panel and they were asked to decide on negligence or not. Only problem was that the scenarios were doubled up and the outcome changed. So the same scenario was modified slightly to hide that it was the same case as another. The outcome was however made opposite. If it was previously a bad outcome it was changed to a good outcome etc. The panel of experts judged that 85% of the bad out come cases were as a result of negligence. But the same cases were only 15% negligent when there was a good outcome. 85% of cases were considered to be within the standard of care and that things go wrong despite the best of care. As for under insurance that's a lot harder to predict what you might need than you might think. - "Blue Sky " claims (ie: basically ridiculously high claims for multi millions) are not unexpected these days if a young person requires a full life of full time care. Or if you have to make up for lost income of a promising young surgeon you would be looking at about a million per year - very easy to go well over the 5 or 10 million that most general aviation insurances cover.

The problem is negligence is in the eye of the beholder.I presented a paper at an anaesthesia conference a few years back in which I outlined a study by a national anaesthetic training college. Essentially the study looked at a number of scenarios where anaesthetic complications lead to disasters. The scenarios were presented to an expert panel and they were asked to decide on negligence or not. Only problem was that the scenarios were doubled up and the outcome changed. So the same scenario was modified slightly to hide that it was the same case as another. The outcome was however made opposite. If it was previously a bad outcome it was changed to a good outcome etc. The panel of experts judged that 85% of the bad out come cases were as a result of negligence. But the same cases were only 15% negligent when there was a good outcome. 85% of cases were considered to be within the standard of care and that things go wrong despite the best of care. As for under insurance that's a lot harder to predict what you might need than you might think. - "Blue Sky " claims (ie: basically ridiculously high claims for multi millions) are not unexpected these days if a young person requires a full life of full time care. Or if you have to make up for lost income of a promising young surgeon you would be looking at about a million per year - very easy to go well over the 5 or 10 million that most general aviation insurances cover.

Sadly at least in Oz what is obvious to the man on the Clapham omnibus has been subverted by sneaky legalese. In my neck of the woods a few years ago a young bloke fell off a cliff at popular tourist spot and was injured. He sued the local council for not protecting him from the dangerous cliff. Although he was found PARTIALLY to blame the council was forced ( through its insurance which we all pay for as rate payers) to then pay for. The reason the council was found predominantly negligent was 1. The fact that a cliff is an obvious danger was not apparently obvious to this idiot. Despite the fact that most people realise that precipitous drops are dangerous. 2. The signs that said to stay back from the edge were not a deterrent and the council should have realised that people don't take notice of signs 3. The fence that bordered the viewing platform was of a construction that the person involved was able to climb over it. It was up to the council to make fences climb proof. In other words the man on the Clapham omnibus is no longer the standard even the courts won't admit it. - it's a drunk idiot who apparently needs protection from himself. And if someone doesn't protect him its society's fault. Same applies to the guy who bought a Piper Cherokee ( I think) and tried to use the pilot manual to teach himself to fly from scratch with the manual in his lap. Crashed and died. His estate sued the company alleging that a normal person would - on reading the manual which gave worded instructions on general flight controls - would think it was reasonable to believe the manual could be used in such a way. This is despite laws stating that you had to do instruction through a flight school of some sort, you had to do training and gain a licence and that the general public knew that there was requirement for these things etc etc. So in this case even laws and public knowledge were not enough to the plaintiff. That case was one of the reasons why piper ceased production of light singles.