Jerry_Atrick

Only to claaim the insurance!!

Is it the right runway?

Phew!

I haven't flown a spit or an AT-802, but I have a few hours in a Yak 52... Would I use a camera and screen (viewfinder in the traditional sense isn't really the right phrase with today's lens/camera and display technology)? Probably not, But for those who have taken the time to get used to it in the cockpit and have trained their brain acccordingly may find it better - for the late flare (possibly), rollout and taxi (probably), depending in the lens angle, focal length, picture clarity and depth of field representation (I can't remember all the jargon terms for these). For the final approach where the mk 1 eyeballs provide the requisite picture in a nose down attitude, I would also suggest the camera is superfluous. Best.. J

I posted the funny to Dazza's comments because I thought he was referring to the Yak pilot and not Callahan. I think Bex's idea is fine, but there is no reason to get personal about Callahan's response as he was just stating it may not work with older eyes. I would go one step further and say even younger eyes may not adjust well; there are young people who have poor eyesight and, like everything physiological, even if they don't wear glasses (and don't need to), there will be differences in muscle reaction/strength, etc, which means for some people, there will be a greater impact and need to refocus than others. So, it really comes down to, if it works for you and it will make you safer (and, of course, it is legal), go ahead, install a camera and use it. For those where it would compromise safety, then don't.. Simples.

I have lived through EASA under Patrick Gordou (I think that's how his name is spelled).in which his remit was to harmonise aviation law across the EU. Unfortunately, he took it as harmonising recreational aviation law and requirements with CAT/RPT which decimated the recreational (but CoA) end of the market. An example as Part M which virtually doubled the cost of maintaining aircraft at the light end of CoA examples through increased paperwork and certification requirements. Flying schools that only taught to the PPL + IMC Rating + Night Rating + Complex Singles only had to be a registered traidning facility, which was like AOC lite; but this was to be abolished in favour of requiring a full ATO. There was no safety case for any of the changes and so punitive were the changes, many operators circumvented the rules as the CAA inspectors focussed on paperwork rather than the oil dripping from the machine that was signed off. Thankfully, he has been replaced (after 10 years of destruction), basically because he tried to push through all CoA aircraft over a certain weight - I can't remember it but YAKs were caught in it - requiring a certified cockpit voice recorder and black box. Despite years of protestations by the CAA, this was enough to get the French DGAC upset and Gordou is replaced by Patryk Ky, who then charges the DGAC for coming up with recommendations for streamlining light GA regs to be proportional and evidenced by the risks. It has been slow going, but there has been improvement - and we are getting to where we were before EASA got their claws into it. Part M lite has taken maintenance back to where it was (and in some areas, a little more relaxed), twin are again allowed to land in unlicensed airfields (for some reason, the Tecnam :P2006T was considered as needing a much emergency services cover as a B777). There is still some way to go. I can see where Bruce is coming from; My view is that once the regulation is more or less complete, the regulators tend not to be able ti justify their empires so move to the realm of fiction and over-regulate based on nonsensical safety cases. The problem is there doesn#t seem to tbe the political will of democratic accountability to fix it.

Which bit/s? And on what basis?

Sounds like they transplanted it into the V50 I bought

1@Phil Perry[/uSER] - wouldn’t worry about it. He would be pretty stupid to report it as he would be admitting a crime - intentionally flying into IMC without an appropriate licence/endorsement contravenes both the UK ANO and the SERA. Also if the Ikarus is not CoA then it will have to be individually certified by the LAA/CAA under permit rules to fly into IMC and my guess is he wouldn’t have it done so there is another crime. Secondly, the law in the UK and Australia permits breaking the law to save life - a famous case with respect to the Zebrugge (sp?) ferry that sank I think dealt with that. Clearly, the flight was not being conducted safely and you took action to ensure it’s safe conduct. This was not a case of you freaking out as a flyophobe so You have a good defence. As stated, this is his word against mine... all you would need to say is that once he saw the ice on the strut, he yielded control to you. One day, Should he outgrow his arrogance, he will thank you, Job well done,

On the topic of fling show restrictions - Avweb may have reported it slightly incorrectly. As I understand, all flight manouvres (sp?) have to be performed in the flight line, parallel to the crowd, etc. However, they have to be performed over the sea for delta/swept wing vintage jets, and there cannot be planned sea-based events and the normal amount of sea-going activities in the vicinity has to be less than some formula. The airshow management have to do extensive risk assessments as well. Deta/swept wing vintage jets are allowed to do flypasts and associated positioning manouvres over land along the flight line.

Do it sooner rather than later.. Even if you couldn't transfer your file, you will get it done quicker and ultimately cheaper in the long run...

Cessna Citation?

Many central and eastern Europeans have a good grasp of the English language, have vibrant GA/recreational community and also have a vibrant manufacturing industry (Czech Republic, Poland, Solvenia to name a few). Oddly enough, except in France, all European countries conduct GA flights in English, but instructors brief students in their home language. It doesn't address why the gauges are unreliable and even why the warning light is also unreliable. With the Out n Back, it is real people flying real planes and an instructor going over relevant safety items and the reason behind them.

CASA have certainly not done themselves favours with the GA end of the spectrum. However, when they decide educate GA pilots (and others), they take it prety seriously, even though it may be a jolly for some: CASA Out-n-Back Bu EASA, with the fudning of about 32 states can only come up with this patronising sh!te: Introducing Sunny Swift ... | EASA While I philosophically support the EU, I can understand why people voted to leave

Phil - I hear and agree with you. The councils are low-lives and are more about destroying local communities while beating their chests with self-importance. Also it is HMRC and the police that enforce the law around red diesel... not the council... And let's face it, fuel is about 1/3 of the cost of running a tractor (well, mine anyway) so even of the council picked up the tab, the farmer would be contributing a lot out of his own pocket. But councils and their staff are imply too thick to see the picture. It is similar - in that the employees will provide the information to the councillors in such a way as to get the councillors to make a decision or strategy they way the employees want. However, councillors here do weild power over what is left of their employees because of massive outsourcing. Councils are about fleecing as much from their constituents as possible and minimising the services they provide. While I could probably write a book on the subject in terms of mismanagement and petty politics; taking on issues that are of a national concern rather than those of local administrative remit, there is a push by central government (when will they accept they run a federal system here, too) to offload as much of the responsibility for the provision of services to local councils while reducing the grants they give the councils to do their jobs. Anyway, back the thread - be interesting to see the cause of the emergency and how they could fly it out so quick... and yet we will still have to wait, how long, 2 years to know what happened???

It's not a comma - its a rare example of an inverted apostrophe. Worth millions, I hear...

This is one of those threads that reminds us why we are into aviation. Well done, gents!

Ouch! That's gotta hurt! I agree with Butch in the sense that there is way too much paperwork for what it achieves (over here, anyway) - a bit like CASA and general aviation - way over the top. And I agree about ambulance chasign lawyers - they work on the fact it is cheaper for insurance companies to pay the claim than defend it. But I do think an employer has to take reasonable care to mitigate against the risk and unfortunately, some farming pursuits are high risk. If a farmer has taken resonable precautions, there should be notning to worry about. Of course then, the bill will fall to the state workcover authority and they will charge a premium by business type/category - the higher the claims in the catgory of business - the higher the premium. I can't comment on specifics of how the premiums were formulated, but it bassically boils down to not pinging other business categories and also trying to provide some incentive for a type of industry to clean its act up a bit. I am not making a judgement on whether or not farming or any other high-claim industry category is generally negligent, but they do focus on trying to innovate with safety. At the time I was at the workcover authority, butchers had the highest number and value of claims, not farmers.

In Devon, my partner lost a friend to an agricultural quad bike accident in her early 50s. I will only go with ATVs

@farri, that's how many a farm were started. You should see our tractor - an old David Brown 780 - hydraulics need help, brakes need help, had the slasher suspended on the back and was wondering why I had no steering control as I was going up one of my hills until I noticed I was only travelling on my two back wheels!! . Actually, I thought it was fun except I have no roll cage (nor harness to keep me in!!!). So I dropped the slasher a bit and it was like the nose wheel coming down gently on the one greaser landing I have ever done... @M61A1, I haven't read the court report on the quad bike incident, but I sort of hear what you say.. But, and there's always a but, it is an employers duty to ensure that they mitigate against foreseeable risks to their employees. If they choose to employ d!pships, then they have to wear the consequences unless they up their game for them. Simples. The "it isn't required by law to wear a helmet" argument is a furphy. There is no legal requirement to wear a motorcycle helmet on private land and there is no requirement to wear a helmet when horseriding in public if you are 18 or over. I did my motorcycle L plates with Stayupright (great company - highly recommend them if they are still around) on the disused RAAF airfield in Laverton. Private property - but do you think they would let us ride without a helmet - not on your nelly. Learners and possibility of coming off is too much of a risk and they would have been held liable for it. And show me a horseriding school that will allow students on without a helmet (or even experienced riders) - public or private roads. No hope in hell. No law requires it... but they will be liable under tort law for not mitigating obvious risk because they have a duty of care. @turboplanner - I know at least one of those cases as I worked at the Vic Workcover Authority for a very short period of time.. I also read the Barooga case court reports (well, excerpts).. and when one sees the facts, you're quite right - liability did sit with Berrigan shire, however, they did find contributory negligence, and reduce the damages.. which at law is the correct technical approach. We can argue whether the extend of contributory negligence was set at the correct level, but that is a judgement call which will be based on many factors, not least that of public policy. @Bruce Tuncks - not a bad idea - though I would include the words what would be reasonably judged by the man on the Clapham omnibus (or the Aussie version of that, which I can't recall Turbo's rendition) a being dangerous.. And it is sad in the case of the farmer you mentioned - it shows that the farmer was probably already under significant stress of some sort to be honest, but it is inexcusable that lawyers start off with aggressive communication. In criminal law, there is the concept of the egghell principle.. If you hit (and intend to hit) someone on the head with a soft blow and because their skull is thin as an egshell, it crumples and they die or a blood vessel bursts, then you are liable to manslaughter/murder or grevious bodily harm (has the same maximum sentence as murder believe it or not - in the UK) and the fact that they were weaker than the average person is no defence. I know that is the same principle in Victoria. [edit] lawyers, debt collectors, etc should be under the same principle IMHO

I don't think fault (rather than guilt) is cut and dried and it will depend on the circumstances of each case. For example, say your homebuild, built by yourself, was subject to all requisite RAA inspections during build and approriately signed off, had its maintenance performed rigorously to pubished standards, maybe an annual insepction from an RAA designated inspector, all signed off and you took someone flying with the placards in the a/c and you briefed the pax that the element of risk is higher in RAAus a/c than, say RPT, you have slown the a/c properly and on landing, a wing folds due to some undetectable fatigue, the a/c tumbles to the ground form say 30'; you both survive but are para or quadraplegic. It's not the fault of the pilot nor the pax. As the pax knew the risk was higher of something going wrong and they acquiesced to that risk, this can be argued to be a case where let the loss lay where it falls. It's very tempting and it is a valid argument. However, the difference is the pilot is likely to fly in this high risk situation often and the pax likely not. It may be the first time the pax has flown and the only time the pax ever intends to fly. Or maybe you are both good buddies and he comes up occasionally for that weekend fishing trip away. Maybe, unlike us, the pax really has no clue in terms of how to contextualise the magnitiude of the difference in risk between RPT and RAA as they have no idea about aviation other than what aircraft are. Where I am going is that when one partakes in a risky activity, they have the option (and should) insure to mitigate the consequences should the risks materialise. In other words, a pilot will likely have requisite insurance to cover these events or have decided not to. But for the occasional pax, would they likely have insurance? In theory, the pilot should not be at fault, but do we want to have a situation where someone who is really ignroant to the real risks and probability of those risks and as they do it so infrequenty and therefore do not (or cannot) have insurance be left out on a limb, so to speak? Also, consider the innocent bystander. Life is a risk; a tree limb may fall down on your head (Anyone been to Steavenson's falls in Victoria, near Marysville?) It would be hard to argue the council should be liable to a limb falling off a tree and int his case sadly killing at least one youngster (may have been more). If the pilot did everything right, is he at fault because when his wing fell off at altitude, it donked some innocent bystander on the head and killd him, after all we are always at some risk wherever we are? I think making it a strict liability tort, as in the UK, takes into account a balance of theory and practicality and says, well, pilots, you know much more about this that you lay pax, and the means to mitigate the effects of something going wrong, in reality, is not generally available to the pax. Rather than have Turbo's scenarios develop, you guys have to make sure you have in place mitigation for your pax and bystanders or they'll take it from you. Sort of works, I think.

Maybe that's the diiference between Aus and here. The CAA here will use prosecution only as a last resort and prefer compelling errant pilots to further education (sometimes futile) to remediate the problem. Only in flagrant, persistent or fundamentally bad beraches will they bring the clipboard out.

Hence my recommendation about encouraging chatting to an instructor... However, I have had a couple of instructors who have ballsed up big time.. Including one, who at the end of the lesson said, "Well, that's how not to do it!". Another had flagrant disregard to the rules of the air. So, regardless of our own experience levels, we have to try to evaluate what we are told anyway. [edit] Oh, and one I taught how to spin and recover in a C152! And it still cost me for the lesson.

I can't be 100% sure without looking it up, but I think so. The same person who floew their dual seat QuickR to Le Touquet in 2010 on a work flyout also went to Italy a cuople of years later in it and never complained about any height restrictions. At least suggest we chat to our instructors about anything you are proposing that is not by the book. There are many tips and tricks that can save one's life which aren't by the book, but if we followed the book, would make it that bit more difficult to survive. Its loss has been also lamented elsewhere. Apparently it was known as the Oshkosh of Europe.

Agree, but I think that was the purpose behind the "know you aircraft" message