Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


turboplanner last won the day on December 6

turboplanner had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

4,904 Excellent

About turboplanner

  • Rank
    Well-Known Member
  • Birthday 07/24/1902

More Information

  • Gender
  • Location
  • Country

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. turboplanner

    RAAus to disclose member details

    That's what should happen, but the taxes just go into general revenue.
  2. turboplanner

    RAAus to disclose member details

    Avgas taxes are not collected by airport owners and have nothing to do with airport owners.
  3. turboplanner

    RAAus to disclose member details

    I did, how have you paid an airfield owner for his finance, improvements and upkeep when you land on his property?
  4. turboplanner

    RAAus to disclose member details

    Last I heard it went into general revenue, and we certainly are reamed out on fuel in Australia, but this thread is about airfield operators charging landing fees, using radio to identify the aircraft landing, which then identifies the owner's name and address if the aircraft is registered VH, and in this thread specifically the decision of RAA to release the names and addresses of owners of RA registered aircraft, so what we pay in fuel taxes is not related to what we pay an individual organisation for using their airfield.
  5. turboplanner

    Alternate organisation...deafening silence

    It's an annual agreement; the deeds are updated each year and there should be a few on this site that you could search for.
  6. turboplanner

    Alternate organisation...deafening silence

    No, a corporate structure is not the way to go when you primarily want the low cost available from many volunteers carrying the load. In RAA there were two people in particular who exhaustively sold the fallacy of RAA having outgrown a "cricket club" style. They disappeared as soon as the company was formed Governments do carry public liability in many areas. However, the areas which concern RAA members are where governments have off-loaded public liability through self-regulation, thus allowing things like sporting activities to continue. This extends down to sausage sizzles and fund raising events. The current SAO system is a great way to allow RAA members to operate at the grass roots level at minimal cost. It just has to manage its safety levels to the point where government taxpayers don't have the burden when things go wrong. So far the insurance has been able to cover the accidents and with a few exceptions the aircraft have operated away from heavy traffic and large urban areas. As far as can see the same simple self-administration model would allow SAAA to practically operate. There's no reason for RAA aircraft to become experimental aircraft, unless the SAO system collapses, and that's unlikely to happen while the taxpayer isn't exposed to accident costs. Where a government cuts you adrift, and no longer prescribes what you do, you're on your own; you're FREE! There's no point in continuing on as if nothing has changed, no point in going to the government wanting it to intervene, no point wanting it to "fix" something, no point in waiting for it to spend taxpayer money on your sport; the old days are over. The downside we have is that we have to pay for our accidents, so we have to minimise the accidents, which, as an example, is why the ladies on the sausage sizzle and cake stall need to go and do a course on food handling and take out insurance. What makes the principle hard to understand in flying is that there are several bodies, like CASA and Airservices involved which require a certain level of performance to ensure safety, and we have a mix of self administration and prescription. GetUp works to produce electoral outcomes, Greenpeace works to produce environmental outcomes. What we've just seen is AOPA working to get the same medical standard as RAA, even though they operate in CTA; CASA has re-assumed public liability in quite a few areas. What would normally happen is that a government would not get involved in the medical standard specification of a self administering body; that would be the decision of the body which is paying for its own accident liabilities. For example, when Department of Labour and Industry, the department which used to have hundreds of inspectors visiting factories, testing safety equipment and signing tickets and thus taking legal liability for the equipment failures, was closed down, the regulations applying to speedway track safety fences, crowd separation etc were cancelled, and we had to establish our own - which were much easier to understand and much more effective btw. If the government had come back in and laid down some new specifications, it would have re-incurred public liability for its actions. CASA has not made a clean break, so in all sorts of messy areas it still wants a say, but it will be there beside you in the court room as a defendant. So I'll admit the situation is complex, but there's no point in harking back to the good old prescriptive days when the taxpayer paid for any negligence; it's not coming back. Public liability is not limited to dropping out of the sky and hitting someone on the ground. I'm not a lawyer and this is not legal advice, but as soon as you start going your pre-flight you're in the PL envelope. If you get distracted and leave the oil filler cap sitting on top of the engine, if you didn't notice your aileron hinge rod was hanging out, and they fall on the ground as evidence and you take off and crash, injuring or killing someone, you'll most likely pay. If an aircraft is on short final in plain sight and you enter the runway, if you fail to make the take off and hit a shipping container or a restaurant next to the Airfield, that will usually be on you. If you forgot to check the fuel, or the engine stops and you fail to make a successful forced landing, for which you have been trained, If you decide you'll ignore the regulations and do oval circuits and hit someone, if you are flying along and decide to fly down below 500 feet and hit a power line, the beach, a radio mast, a building, if you decide to do some aerobatics and snap a wing off the Skyfox, or you come in to land and have an excursion, or if you mess up your shut down checks, or if you leave the aircraft in an unsafe place; these are just a few of the examples where if someone is injured or killed, lawyers may be able to sue you or your estate and prove negligence. Insurance take the pain away from being caught out in one of a million innocent mistakes. Going back to your original question, I can't remember, but the RAA records will almost certainly include some injuries. One advantage RAA pilots have had is operating at outlying and country airfields remote from lots of spectators and urban structures. What does come to mind though is the Dove crash at Essendon which killed Sam Gulle's family, the King Air which hit the Essendon DFO, a C152 which drilled a shed in the Moorabbin circuit, a forced landing in, from memory Aspendale, where a pilot missed the South East Green Wedge right beside him and demolished part of a street., and for public opinion which resulted in transponders being fitted in CTA, the Cerritos crash in 1986 where 82 were killed including 15 on the ground after a Piper Archer hit a DC9, and one last week in the US where a light aircraft tried to land on a freeway killing two on board and two or three on the ground. While RAA stays as it is now. OR, if your question was related to the last line, that's certainly not the sole area where you'll be exposed to lawsuits for negligence. I get the impression you're from the gliding world, and if so you've missed about ten years of discussions, which are still on this site in relation to liability. Some others came to the same conclusion as you on those cases, and there's material on the site which goes into the cases in detail and explains the critical parts of what the courts said, in one case very specifically that the pilot was not negligent,(and not that he had a sign on the dash which protected him). We also discussed a case I was involved in, which we lost, where we have to protect ourselves by adding the statement "Motor Racing is Dangerous and you enter at your own risk", then losing another case and having to add the words, "but you have the right to sue if the promoter has been negligent".
  7. I remember seeing video of the crash; what was the correct story?
  8. Is the relaxation applying just to Recreational Aircraft Phil, or is it extending to what we'd call GA; Piper Ti Pacer, Cessna 150/152, C172 etc? Interesting that you're self administering and sanctioning the laggers at local fields which is sould be happening here. Given that the Donoghue V Stevenson case is a key component in the tort of negligence, similar to here, just as the participants get relaxed they start to realise they are the ones paying for their mistakes, and there can be a short period where insurance companies dump certain industries which are making too many claims, but as risk management kicks in affordable insurance comes back.
  9. turboplanner

    Alternate organisation...deafening silence

    I don't doubt that there's a point there that would have been a game changer in 1980, but there's no point discussing the finer points of draught horses once tractors take over. One way or another you have to come to grips with the changes which have occurred to understand what is happening now.
  10. turboplanner

    RAAus rego Vs Casa cost

    Depends whether you want to buy an aircraft or hire. Hiring is cheaper for most people. Hiring in GA is cheaper than hiring in RA if you include hours from your first flight, and with a PPL you can take three passengers and access touring aircraft.
  11. turboplanner

    Alternate organisation...deafening silence

    Jim to get any traction at all, you need to address the implications of government exposure to public liability claims, and the general public's political attitude to paying part of their income tax to prop up sports. That's the starting point. Then you have to understand what triggered the decision by Federal and State Ministers to adopt "user pays" wherever possible, then the initiatives by sporting, volunteer and certain industries to control their own destinies by self administering and self insuring, then how those groups adopted policies such as audit policies to ensure that the members enjoying the benefit also took the liability. That's a minute explanation of what's been happening, and it had generally been a great success, the flow of taxpayer funds down compared to where they would have been. When you then take that system as a base, and have an RA aircraft built under the supervision of RAA sitting in a paddock, you would have the same happy situation. When that aircraft then rolls down the paddock, then at the time there was provable intent to take off, it starts to enter the prescriptive world, so things like external regulations and strict liability kick in, and as it rises and travels over the countryside it is travelling in the GA prescriptive world, where, it would appear quite often the pilot has not been trained for. When it approaches a GA operating airfield there can be another mix of self-administration and strict liability, and so on. Way too much to discuss with one liners on a forum.
  12. turboplanner

    Alternate organisation...deafening silence

    CASA is a complex body; it retains legal liability for the things it prescribes or proscribes, it has some joint liability where it is doing that in the SAOs
  13. turboplanner

    Accident and defect

    It used to be easy; they got involved in all GA fatal crashes, and they didn't get involved in RA crashes. Then probably under pressure to cut back on taxpayer funds, they stopped investigating the GA crashes with an obvious cause, such as some aerobatic crashes, where investigation wouldn't add any knowledge. Then they they started to strategically choose some RA accidents to investigate. Today, my take is that they strategically select which crashes to investigate based on potential learning, so the line is slightly blurred. In my opinion ATSB is a very professional operation.
  14. turboplanner

    Alternate organisation...deafening silence

    Exciting as the prospect of another pointless hair splitting exercise is, I'd point out were were specifically talking about CASA being closed down and re-establishing the Department of Civil Aviation. It isn't going to happen, primarily for public liability reasons.
  15. turboplanner

    Accident and defect

    If ATSB are involved there is a series of progress reports and a final report so you get a good idea of what happened; I miss the old days when Macarthur Job would go one step further and look into the pilot's background, and there would often be a section pointing out that the pilot had often bragged to friends about flying in cloud, or aerobatics down to zero etc. and this removed any doubt about what happened. However time and legal conventions move on. Where ATSB are not involved, the normal procedure for any fatal accident applies; Police prepare a brief for the State Coroner of the day, and do not release any information to the public. People can attend the Coroner's hearing if they can work out when it is on, and they can read his/her opinion if they can find it in public records. Given that a number of years can pass before the Coroner will have made a decision, the timeline is almost impossible to follow, and the Coroner is usually looking for a cause of death rather than a cause of accident. Some reports aren't of much help to us; others can be very enlightening. Police frequently call in RAA for technical assistance, and RAA don't breach the police legal process. One person in RAA tried a process where he issued a very broad safety report, not specific to a crash or location, and I thought that was very helpful. He was able to get a very strong message across for other pilots to do something without breaching the legal process, but I haven't seen one recently I've often tried to think of ways we could tap into the Coroners process more reliably, and I have a meeting coming up where fatalities are not being optimally recorded in a particular road transport sector, where there might be an opportunity to raise the subject again.