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

skippydiesel

Members
  • Content Count

    1,059
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    9

skippydiesel last won the day on August 20

skippydiesel had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

489 Excellent

About skippydiesel

  • Rank
    Well-known member

More Information

  • Aircraft
    ATEC Zephyr
  • Location
    The Oaks
  • Country
    Australia

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. To add to Nev's observation - From my reading, it would appear that having CR engines for carrier opps makes the pilot workload less. I only have a single engine rating, so with no experience, speculation and low tech understanding, I understand this to mean that the aircraft will not swing on take off as the DH Hornets predecessor (DH Mosquito with out handed engines) was supposed to do.
  2. I thought Merlines did come in CR variants - did not the DH Hornet have "handed" engines for carrier ops ??
  3. 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.
  4. Workers must be covered - Couldn't agree more. Car Club - Why ?? doesnt the club have insurance for club activities??
  5. Shhhhhh - careful - the thought police may be listening.
  6. I really feel like I am banging my head against the proverbial brick wall - 1. This is NOT a strip, tease, landing, search or any of them - ITS A PADDOCK !! that a few friends land in from time to time. There may be a shed (NOT A HANGER) nearby that can at a pinch, accommodates said aircraft. 2. Should you venture down the ALA/AirField/Strip rout, be prepared to invest a lot of money & time in the unlikely chance (if you live somewhere in the outer urban sprawl/"peri urban") that you will get approval to construct the same. THEN you will have to meet the authorities (is ist CASA or CAA?) standards /specifications before anyone can land/take off - bucket loads more dosh. Once you have it up and running there will be ongoing compliance requirements (more $$$) which most certainly will include a hefty annual insurance premium covering the owner & users from all eventualities (including unwanted pregnancy - FYI that's a joke ). GIVE UP ON THE STRIP !!!!
  7. This is not due diligence, its quivering temerity - the inability to just accept, that you need not seek the approval of anyone, for an activity that is not prescribed.
  8. Change is inevitable, even a fully compliant whatever is likely to find, over the course of time, that it can no longer be permitted - so your scenario gives our enquirer 5 years, sound like a good deal to me.
  9. The logical extension (extreem to be sure) to some of the opinions/advice is - check with council/authorities when you feel the "call of nature" coming on - on the off chance someone might just lodge an objection . What ever happened to all that much vaunted Aussie independents . Why- O- why would you ask permission to do something that is not against the law/rules. By asking the question, you place yourself in the hands of a no risk bureaucrat - what do you think the answer will be ????
  10. In what way?? - no laws/rules broken - just keeping low profile - the worst may never happen (but have a plan just in case)
  11. This is called jumping your hurdles befor you get to them - so in this context ,have contingency plans but deal with the future happening when it happens - let's face it the ugly neighbours may never build next door.
  12. I just dont get it - We all know it would be almost impossible, in the Peri-Urban area , (where ever you live) to get Council approval for a new airfield - no one is going this route, so why keep bringing it up?. A paddock, quit possibly used for grazing stock (when aircraft not landing/taking off) is not a development, it's not a road either but unlicensed vehicles and drivers can use it as long as its not open to the public - why keep pushing the unlikely and very costly approval process? Provided you dont antagonise your neighbours (unfortunately some may be born with a grudge) there will be no "loss of amenity" complaints - if you are you an advocate of noisy aircraft engines , go use a public airfield . Now very much part of the Australian Landscape - yes you can go down the Insurance track and further enrich the lawyers & underwriters (for what ultimate benefit?) OR you could minimise your exposure by documenting the willingness of your friend to accept responsibility for their own actions & presence on your paddock - now there is an old fashioned concept. I may be totaly wrong but my understanding of the original posts was that this is a low frequency, low impact, nil development activity conducted by friends on a rural/semi rural property - no problem - dont blow it up into something it is most definitely not. I am a firm believer in begging for forgiveness rather than permission. Why keep handing authority to third parties and responsibility to underwriters ??
  13. Fair comment but again you insist on "muddying the waters" - our friend Rhtrudder talks of 3 friends flying out of a paddock and if he is as smart as I expect, he will "fly neighborly" avoiding complaints that would bring his activity to the attention of Council ("let sleeping landing grounds lie") and even in the draconian WA, I doubt that flying from your own property is actually a prescribed activity. More likely their concern is noise, damage, pollution of the environment, intensive agriculture, etc which may impact on the neighbors quiet enjoyment of their property/environment causing the neighbor(s) to complain, thus involving council. The reference to profit is simply that an activity that is intended to make a profit may be seen as a business. The conducting of that business is likely to be subject to zoning regulations - involving Council. Responsible behaviour is very much in the "eye of the beholder" and subject to context - in the highly unlikely situation where your council has already prescribed private aviation from a private property, then conducting flying opps from your property would be irresponsible because it is by definition a breach of council regulations. I am not a lawyer however I think it highly likely that under English Common Law (which is the basis for much of Australian Law) the right to quiet enjoyment of your own property exists, in some form or another - this gives your neighbor(s) the same right(s) hence my advice to "fly neighbourly". In my, admittedly limited, experience of Councils, they tend not to involve themselves in the activities of ratepayers (who are not actually breaking any council rules of note) until spurred into action by a complainant OR some gilt ridden resident asks for a determination (that they didn't have to ask for) on their proposed activities. Do you think we might have exhausted this argument ???
  14. I dont think you understood the thrust of my statement - (I have underlined the key words you appear to have missed) "have a right to responsible enjoyment of your property." and "you do not derive a profit from such activity and that such activity is limited to a small group of friends" and again "Be mindful of your neighbours concerns, minimise noise & low flight " I have clearly articulated - the right/principal to enjoy your property but not at the disadvantage/negative impact on your neighbours. Your neighbour's right to enjoy their property, free from undue noise/dust/exposure to your activity must also be respected. Do I need to underline the salient words/phrases?
×
×
  • Create New...