M61A1

I think that Boeing would trying very hard right now to dot all their 'I's and cross all their 'T's and trying very hard to avoid any further negative publicity. I have found the engineers (the people that do the sums and testing) that work in that part of the industry to be extremely risk averse, to the point of painful.

Best stick to the relative safety of your lounge chair then. All aircraft go through this sort of process, and most have some sort of issues occur in their working life and are handled in the same manner. The emotive carrying on proves nothing.

I trust you can back this up with an engineering degree, calculations and modelling.

Actually a Safety Bulletin was released after the Indonesian crash. The Ethiopian crew should have been aware of it. The Indonesian crews probably knew about it too as previous crews on the same aircraft did what the checklist said, turned the trim off and kept flying.

One could argue that the aircrew were quite responsible because they failed to turn the trim off as other crews before them did several times. The aircraft was perfectly flyable with trim turned off, as demonstrated by the previous crews. I don’t see Boeing as completely innocent, but I know a witch-hunt when I see one.

It's perfectly good method of redundancy. The pilot gets information from the left side, and the co-pilot gets information from the left side. The autopilot won't engage when there's a discrepancy. A minor error might be difficult to spot but 70° should be pretty easy to spot. The connection between them is the aircrew and I think the Indonesian investigation was fairly spot on. There were multiple factors and the aircrew were responsible for a lot of them.

Another 6-8 degrees would be nice, won't need a jacket then.

We can't possibly be talking about the same country........

If you cant see the connection between class action PL destroying the economy and life in general and plain old PL claims, which do exactly the same thing on a smaller scale, then there's not much point going on. In any case they both make businesses risk averse to the point of giving up or relocating and more often than not, they set new precedents and legislation is made that removes a bit of someone's freedom and make life miserable. You may be happy with your highly regulated paradise, but for many others it's toxic.

Nothing to do with scamming.. Scamming is unlawful. These people are using our laws to make money, to the detriment of the country. Yes, it was written by a journalist, what’s your point?

Yes it’s about class actions, but the effect of the PL claims are pretty much the same. Well backed law firms tearing money out of whoever has the deepest pockets and destroying the country, whether financially or through the resulting legislation changes, which hit everyone financially anyway.

I'd rather fly in a Boeing 737 Max with a good airline than anything else with a sh1t airline.

I got flamed a while ago for daring to suggest that "third world" airlines played a significant part in this problem. If you value your life, don't use them. They're cheap for a reason.

Article in The Oz today..... Surge in class action lawfare hits economy EXCLUSIVE GEOFF CHAMBERS FEDERAL POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT @Chambersgc 12:00AM OCTOBER 30, 2019 102 COMMENTS An explosion in class action claims funded by overseas litigation backers is threatening investment and jobs in Australia, with more than $10bn in claims lodged against businesses in the last financial year. Ai Group chief executive Innes Willox has warned that the surge in litigation presented a “clear and present danger” to the nation’s “fragile economy” amid record insurance premium increases and limited regulation to minimise class action exposure. Business, legal and insurance figures have called on the Morrison government to urgently ­address the spike in class action claims in the past two years. The Ai Group, representing the interests of more than 60,000 businesses, will release a seven-point plan on Wednesday aimed at reining in class action claims before they damage the economy. “Investment and jobs are threatened and business insurance costs are going through the roof. The Australian gov­ernment needs to act now to rein in speculative and costly class ­actions before they materially damage our economy,” Mr Willox said. “Overseas litigation funding firms have moved into Australia in a big way due to the fact that class actions in Australia are subject to scant regulation, compared with other countries such as the US and UK. “Overseas investors should not be permitted to make super-profits at the expense of Aus­tralian businesses and jobs.” The Australian understands $10bn is a low estimate in relation to overall claims made against Australian businesses, and there were growing fears that start-ups and corporations unable to service insurance costs would move offshore. The Australian understands of the 54 prominent class action cases commenced in the last fin­ancial year, a majority were backed by overseas funders, with leading plaintiff lawyers including Maurice Blackburn, Shine Lawyers, Slater & Gordon and William Roberts Lawyers. Major corporations targeted include Westpac, Domino’s Pizza, Bayer Australia, Santos, Volkswagen Australia and Woolworths. In July, Allianz Global Corporate and Security announced it was abandoning liability cover in Australia following the class ­action surge, declaring it “untenable” to remain in the market. Mr Willox said the government must introduce legislative amendments into parliament to implement a raft of protections. “Regulation cannot be left to the courts. Litigation funding arrangements are financial products and these arrangements need to be regulated like other fin­ancial products,” he said. Mr Willox, who warned that class actions were leading to “massive increases in insurance costs” that could be spent on job creation and investment, said the level of returns sought by some litigation funders and plaintiff law firms was “unconscionable and have been criticised by the courts”. “Workers are being enticed to join some of the class actions through, what many would argue, is misleading and deceptive conduct,” he said. Mr Willox said the government must act quickly on Australia’s “lax class action laws” to protect the economy from speculative class action claims. The seven-point plan calls on the government to regulate litigation funders through the Australian Securities & Investments Commission, impose reasonable limits on returns to plaintiff lawyers and litigation funders, and prohibit litigation funders from exerting any control over the positions and arguments prosecuted by law firms. The Ai Group also asks to expose plaintiff lawyers and litigation funders to adverse costs orders for unsuccessful class ­actions and to increase the current minimum number of plaintiffs and implement a “predominance rule” that operates in the US requiring common issues among claims. The peak industry group also wants the government to implement a preliminary or certification hearing process, under a similar system operating in the US. Colin Biggers & Paisley Lawyers head of class action practice Michael Russell said the rapid increases in class actions had been sparked by “local and overseas litigation funders” expanding their operations and investments into Australia. “Australia is now seen as the most attractive jurisdiction for litigation funders to set up. This has come at a huge cost to the Australian economy because Australia has now become a far more difficult, expensive and high-risk place to do business,” Mr Russell told The Australian. “Some insurers have left the Australian market citing class ­action losses and exposures as too significant to maintain a viable insurance business in Australia.” Mr Russell said litigation funders were coming to Australia with “enormous amounts of capital seeking to replicate the high returns that have been achieved by other litigation funders in Australian litigation in recent times”. “Litigation funding is big business globally, particularly as traditional investments such as the equity and capital markets have become increasingly regulated and increasingly volatile,” he said. The class action defence lawyer said the funding market for shareholder class actions had become “completely saturated over the past two years”. “That’s resulted in litigation funders looking for alternative or less traditional types of litigation to invest in, with no shortage of enthusiasm or entrepreneurship. You only have to observe there have been no less than 12 funded employment and industrial class actions announced or begun in the past 18 months to see how eager funders are to deploy capital.” Insurance broker Bellrock managing director Marc Chiarella said spikes in premiums for directors’ and officers’ liability insurance were linked to losses and uncertainty of shareholder class actions. He said 45 per cent of all SCAs commenced in the past 20 years were notified from 2016 on. “All of these remain unresolved. Market statistics suggest for the 2016 year, against the Australian D&O market of $250m in gross written premium, $400m was reserved in claims. It gets worse. For the 2016 to 2018 period, reserves are estimated at $1.8bn,” Mr Chiarella said. He warned that the risk to smaller companies was greater than larger businesses that could self-insure and have bigger budgets for internal compliance and risk management staff. GEOFF CHAMBERS FEDERAL POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT Geoff Chambers is The Australian’s Federal Political Correspondent. He was previously The Australian’s Canberra Bureau Chief and Queensland Bureau Chief.

Ashdown Ingram.... https://view.publitas.com/ashdown-ingram/automotive-electrical-accessories-catalogue-2015/page/288-289

Yes it's certainly dry. I didn't see any green all the way down, but some places appeared worse than others. I left early Saturday last year because of predicted weather and arrived home to hear that they had some quite severe storms. I really felt for that guy sitting in a camping chair next to his Jab and a 2 inch high tent still pegged firmly down, covered in dirt.

You could send up someone who costs less or send someone who can do the job.

I thought it was a good event. Less air show and more catching up and meeting other aerosexuals.

Was that you sitting next to a Jab with a very flat tent on Saturday afternoon?

I should mention that’s not me in the pic. It’s just a photo pulled from the interwebs. The photo doesn’t show the knife usually strapped to the leg either. At Avalon this year one of the aircrew thought he might not make the flying display because a security guard wouldn’t let him in with a knife and the Army won’t let them fly without all their kit.

I thought similarly, but with the Air Warrior vest the Tigger crew use. They fit with a harness, but to quote Emily Joy Hills "Look like a f**kin gypsy caravan".

Alway have a tool bag with main and tail wheel tubes and a pump, plus a couple a water bottles.

Sounds exactly like what Space Sailor was getting at. Some have called it “ mission creep” on the safety / regulator part, but I heard the correct term for it a few months ago, and that is “ bureaucratic inertia “. Sooner or later it will become so big it can’t support itself, much like the parasite that eventually kills the host, and effectively kills itself in doing so.

I'm not suggesting they should be. All I'm saying is that as usual here in Australia, the rules are far more restrictive than need be (and getting worse), for no actual benefit (unless your business is safety , quality or training) and all the while they would have you believe they're doing YOU a favour.

As usual you've completely missed the point. Yes we have heaps of members doing exactly what they are told and when just so that they can aviate. Basically we're just taking the crumbs we're offered and expected to be thankful, also, many of those members you just mentioned are not actually recreational aviators, they are RPT/CPL in training.