Jerry_Atrick

'ONLY MICROLIGHTS' ? ? ? Microlights are Great ! Welcome to the site Job, I'm located on the Southern edge of Cannock Chase Forest, and my local airfield is Otherton International, 6 miles South of Stafford, ( <othertonairfield.co.uk> ) alongside the M6 just North of J12. And I echo what Jerry said. . .This is a GREAT site ! If you're flying in the South Staffordshire area on a weekend, you may hear my dulcet tones on 'Otherton radio' 129.825. . .I am a volunteer, responsible for the Total Lack of air traffic control that we don't have. . . .

Of course, Dunkeswell is a fine mixed airfield (GA, LAA, Microlights and parachuting just to add to the mix). If you are in town and want an overnighter not too far from Dunks (EGTU), let me know and I will book the annexe out for you (FoC). If I can, I will pick you up as well (of course, goes for anyone on this forum - but no other).

'Allo Job.. Welcome to the site - a few UK based people are members... I am in soomahsait.... Mainly CoA to be honest, but a member of Devon Strut... But, this is a great site.

Well, one of the conflicts of interest is a solicitor's advice re litigation - the more you do it, the more they get....

Feel for you and can say I have had a few tough lessons learned over the years (and no duobt, more to come).

Well, one of the conflicts of interest is a solicitor's advice re litigation - the more you do it, the more they get....

Feel for you and can say I have had a few tough lessons learned over the years (and no duobt, more to come).

There are defiitely cases that go to court where the outcome is repugnant to the facts. Feel for you 1@boleropilot[/uSER] - though I am guessing this awas a damages claim for pain/suffering rather than the cost recovery for repairs of your car (unless you weren't insured comprehensively at the time).

To go off on a tangent, there is a bit more to this than meets the eye though. The (proven) failure to give way would by itslef give rise to the fault of the accident laying with the other driver, regardless of whether you skidded or not, whether you were on the other side of the road or not, or in fact whethe you were drunk or not. There is a seminal 19th century case (can't recall the name) of it where a drunk driver (of a horse and carriage) knocked over and killed a child who had run out onto the road between two parked carriages (true story). At the time, there were laws against being in command of a horse and carriage while intoxicated and one of the charges the driver was brought up on was the then equivalent of death caused by dangerous driving. He was found guilty of his drunk driving charge, but aqitted of the death by dangerous driving based on the fact that it did not matter what his state of intoxication was, but if the accident would have happened with a sober driver at the reins; i.e. it was unavoidable, the fact he was drunk did not contibute to the death of the boy. No driver would have been able to avoid him and therefore, while definitely guilty of drink driving, was not guilty of dangerous driving.

It still applies, AFAIK to most road law today - although I would not have a clue wha QLD law is. In the case of a failure to give way, there can be no contributory fault unless you were deliberately avoiding being seen or maybe you were driving so fast that it is reasonable he misjudged how quickly you would be arriving at the intersection - and neither of these seem plausible. Contributory negligence can be a factor in a damages claim for personal injury, pain and or suffering, but even then, from the above, the lack of skid marks may imply contributory negligence but the side of the road you were one means naught if he failed to give way.

Sounds like ths was probably in a magistrates or a specialist court rather than a crown court. Magistrartes have a bad reputation as hanging judges and if they don't like the look of your face, it can be a tough ride you are in for. This is of course not true for many, if not most magistrates, but you may have got an unlucky one. Sounds like, however, you could have been awarded $1m and you would have got nought as he would have just delcared bankruptcy - something your solicitor should have advised you before proceedings.

Back to topic - the benefit of strict liability for the aviation accidents is that it leaves in no doubt who is going to pick up the tab when it all goes pear-shaped. The only question is how much and it is up to us pilots to determine an adequate level of insurance cover (in the UK).

There are defiitely cases that go to court where the outcome is repugnant to the facts. Feel for you @boleropilot - though I am guessing this awas a damages claim for pain/suffering rather than the cost recovery for repairs of your car (unless you weren't insured comprehensively at the time).

To go off on a tangent, there is a bit more to this than meets the eye though. The (proven) failure to give way would by itslef give rise to the fault of the accident laying with the other driver, regardless of whether you skidded or not, whether you were on the other side of the road or not, or in fact whethe you were drunk or not. There is a seminal 19th century case (can't recall the name) of it where a drunk driver (of a horse and carriage) knocked over and killed a child who had run out onto the road between two parked carriages (true story). At the time, there were laws against being in command of a horse and carriage while intoxicated and one of the charges the driver was brought up on was the then equivalent of death caused by dangerous driving. He was found guilty of his drunk driving charge, but aqitted of the death by dangerous driving based on the fact that it did not matter what his state of intoxication was, but if the accident would have happened with a sober driver at the reins; i.e. it was unavoidable, the fact he was drunk did not contibute to the death of the boy. No driver would have been able to avoid him and therefore, while definitely guilty of drink driving, was not guilty of dangerous driving.

It still applies, AFAIK to most road law today - although I would not have a clue wha QLD law is. In the case of a failure to give way, there can be no contributory fault unless you were deliberately avoiding being seen or maybe you were driving so fast that it is reasonable he misjudged how quickly you would be arriving at the intersection - and neither of these seem plausible. Contributory negligence can be a factor in a damages claim for personal injury, pain and or suffering, but even then, from the above, the lack of skid marks may imply contributory negligence but the side of the road you were one means naught if he failed to give way.

Sounds like ths was probably in a magistrates or a specialist court rather than a crown court. Magistrartes have a bad reputation as hanging judges and if they don't like the look of your face, it can be a tough ride you are in for. This is of course not true for many, if not most magistrates, but you may have got an unlucky one. Sounds like, however, you could have been awarded $1m and you would have got nought as he would have just delcared bankruptcy - something your solicitor should have advised you before proceedings.

Back to topic - the benefit of strict liability for the aviation accidents is that it leaves in no doubt who is going to pick up the tab when it all goes pear-shaped. The only question is how much and it is up to us pilots to determine an adequate level of insurance cover (in the UK).

From an ATCO at Gloucestershire, posted on "Light aircraft crash in Worcestershire" 08/01/2018 - FLYER Forums

Gloucester ATC lost contact with the inbound aircraft at around 1240 today. The alarm was raised and, as you will have seen, the outcome was tragically fatal.

EGBJ 081150Z 05002KT 8000 FEW008 BKN014 02/01 Q1022=

EGBJ 081220Z 05004KT 8000 -DZ BKN008 OVC011 02/01 Q1021=

EGBJ 081250Z 05003KT 3500 -DZ BR BKN006 OVC010 02/02 Q1021=

TAF EGBJ 081102Z 0812/0821 04008KT 9999 BKN016 BECMG 0812/0815 BKN012 PROB30 TEMPO 0815/0821 4000 -DZ BKN007

Revised around the time of the accident....

TAF AMD EGBJ 081240Z 0812/0821 04008KT 9999 BKN010 TEMPO 0812/0821 8000 -DZ BKN007 PROB30 TEMPO 0812/0821 4500 BR

Or graveyard spiral... Either way, really feel for those onboard and all affected.

My examiner here laboured the point how quickly the weather can turn in the UK... I have experienced it first hand, but thankfuly was able to maintain a horizon of sorts and fly into the Channel to the FIR without life vests on to maintain VMC andthat horizon. I am a bit fiurther south west, but the day started slighlty foggy, cleared to the point I was going to head to the local airfield and then clagged in.

I still havent done my IMCr (sub-ICAO instrument rating to keep us out of trouble). Since being laid off, I am doing the theory. and will be doing the prac as soon as I get a new role.

R.I.P. Apparently took off in flying conditions, but he Severn valley is apparently notorious for turning sour very quickly when dew point is close to temp.

Condolensces to family, friends and those affected.

1@Jaba-who[/uSER], not meaning to be pedantic, but when I referred to (bolded in the quote only and not original post):

As mentioned above, it appears the UK have imported tortious liability as one of strict liability against the pilot/operator in the case of aircraft accidents. This means there is no requirement to prove negligence, recklessness or other misfeasance on behalf of the pilot/operator to hold them liable. Aus is different in that it appears the general law of tort applies.

(note, there may be certain provisions a breach of the ANO or Civil Aviation Act is a strict liability offence, but it is not in general)

@Jaba-who, not meaning to be pedantic, but when I referred to (bolded in the quote only and not original post):

As mentioned above, it appears the UK have imported tortious liability as one of strict liability against the pilot/operator in the case of aircraft accidents. This means there is no requirement to prove negligence, recklessness or other misfeasance on behalf of the pilot/operator to hold them liable. Aus is different in that it appears the general law of tort applies.

Looks like the UK is somewhat different to Aus in that a breach of an aviation law is not necesarily a strict liability offence, although one's licence may be suspended pending an investigation, whereas all that is needed is an accident to happen and a pax (or third party) to incur a loss, pain or suffering for the pilot/operator to be liable under tort/law of negligence.

(note, there may be certain provisions a breach of the ANO or Civil Aviation Act is a strict liability offence, but it is not in general)

As mentioned above, it appears the UK have imported tortious liability as one of strict liability against the pilot/operator in the case of aircraft accidents. This means there is no requirement to prove negligence, recklessness or other misfeasance on behalf of the pilot/operator to hold them liable. Aus is different in that it appears the general law of tort applies.

As mentioned above, it appears the UK have imported tortious liability as one of strict liability against the pilot/operator in the case of aircraft accidents. This means there is no requirement to prove negligence, recklessness or other misfeasance on behalf of the pilot/operator to hold them liable. Aus is different in that it appears the general law of tort applies.

I did think it was strange that checking from regional flights would carry through to larger domestic or international flights and on re-reading the article, maybe I read too far in between the lines. That said, the reason espoused by @jetjr seems to be more probable..

It feels surreal that I would be thinking that GA is heading the way it is here in the UK for no plausible reason at all other than corruption... Pollies and corporates looting public services of a more niche nature than others for their benefit seems to be the only plausible reason.

[edit]Would 4 corners care enough to do an expose(ay) [/edit]

I agree - it's the implementation that is the issue. Over 'ere, the regulators (even EASA for private GA) are now talking about proportionality - is the requirement proportional to the risk? They till err on the side of caution in many instances, but things are moving in the right direction. ASIC/AVID is an example of where there is a risk someone will use light aircraft to perpetrate a terrorist act but the response is both disproportionate and ineffective, especially when considering one is allowed to fly by merely applying for either card. The response has to be more like here - intelligence and surveillance - not security cards. Also, even if security challenged a terrorist fir the ASIC, they would probably meet their end fairly quickly.

But that is my point with the security measures at regional airports - disproportionate requirement to meet the risk,

Reading the article I got the sense security screening was there because the the risk that a pax commencing their route from a regional airport (e.g. Mildura) to some destination (e.g. London) requiring them to transit through a major airport (.e.g Tullamarine) and that for some reason where there is no security at the origination airport, the bags and pax can embark without thorough screening a the major airport onto their longer flight.

It seems eminently sensible to have security screening for these flights.. the alternative is to do it at the major airport, but the argument may be that a bomb could go off at any time. Though, if I attempt to bring a bomb with me when the flight originates from the major, I guess it could go off in the car/taxi/bus/train, in the terminal or anywhere in between.

Also, the chances of someone packinga bomb in rural Aus???

Potential problem - yes.. Right answer to address it? Not really.

[edit - Turboplanner got his post in while I was composing this...]

1@turboplanner[/uSER], an established doctrine of English civil law is "the loss should lie where it falls" and the law of contract, tort and other branches seeks to transfer the loss where the loss was imposed by a third party through negligence, recklessness, etc (which have different legal meanings). In your example above, you are implying the man in the Clapham Omnibus (i,e, the reasonable man) would not have been able to reasonably differentiate the level of risk posed between an airliner and the flat expanses of major airports and an ultralight and a small grass strip?

It would be very sad if this is what has become of society for two reasons: 1) man's power of deduction and reasoning as been so diminished that he cannot make a reasonable assessment of risk of anything (say the difference between jumping into the sea at Bells Beach and a local swimming pool) and b) an advanced society such as ours cannot educate man enough to be able to make these decisions based on the information presented to them.

Of course, if there was neglect or recklessness in the accident, it would be a different kettle of fish and I accept in these circumstances, there would be evidential difficulty, in which case a country may be at liberty - such a the UK - to presume fault of the pilot and therefore ensure the risk is always borne by a specific party and that the party is aware it is they their responsibility to insure for the risk regardless of the actual circumstances. However, in the absence of such specific direction/law from the state, then, as sad as the outcome of the hypothetical case would be and on the assumption there were no neglect, recklessness or legal compliance issue (e.g. to ensure adequate stopway was mowed through the trees), why should someone else be held responsible for what is, to a reasonable man, an obvious risk that on this case materialised?

Or has our own obligation to assess general risks to ourselves and insure against them been dispensed with?

[edit - Turboplanner got his post in while I was composing this...]

@turboplanner, an established doctrine of English civil law is "the loss should lie where it falls" and the law of contract, tort and other branches seeks to transfer the loss where the loss was imposed by a third party through negligence, recklessness, etc (which have different legal meanings). In your example above, you are implying the man in the Clapham Omnibus (i,e, the reasonable man) would not have been able to reasonably differentiate the level of risk posed between an airliner and the flat expanses of major airports and an ultralight and a small grass strip?

It would be very sad if this is what has become of society for two reasons: 1) man's power of deduction and reasoning as been so diminished that he cannot make a reasonable assessment of risk of anything (say the difference between jumping into the sea at Bells Beach and a local swimming pool) and b) an advanced society such as ours cannot educate man enough to be able to make these decisions based on the information presented to them.

Of course, if there was neglect or recklessness in the accident, it would be a different kettle of fish and I accept in these circumstances, there would be evidential difficulty, in which case a country may be at liberty - such a the UK - to presume fault of the pilot and therefore ensure the risk is always borne by a specific party and that the party is aware it is they their responsibility to insure for the risk regardless of the actual circumstances. However, in the absence of such specific direction/law from the state, then, as sad as the outcome of the hypothetical case would be and on the assumption there were no neglect, recklessness or legal compliance issue (e.g. to ensure adequate stopway was mowed through the trees), why should someone else be held responsible for what is, to a reasonable man, an obvious risk that on this case materialised?

Or has our own obligation to assess general risks to ourselves and insure against them been dispensed with?

certainly looked that way from the aerial photograph, above

Melbourne being the most liveable city is a furphy. It is a title dreamed up my the Economist magazine for liveability by expat snr mgt/executive employees where at the very least, they are paid a premium to adjust for the cost of living or more usually have most of their living expenses directly paid for and then some for FBT/tax equalisation, etc. I can tell you from experience, London is more liveable the Melbourne for the average punter like me.

But it depends on your interpretation of living. For some people rural is living and city life is existing, for others, it is the opposite. And it would appear from the expression on random strangers faces that it is im about equal proprotion that they feel they are existing. Drug and crime problems are rife in both sets of civilisation (to use that as a possible measure of existence v living); the proportion may be different and the nature slightly different as well (e.g. rural locations generally are not places of terrorism because the impact is lower).

Cost less in the country? You are kidding? One earns less and the property rental is less (unless one wants something close to civilised). Despite being in an agri-belt, food was more expensive, petrol is more expensive and everything else costs much the same. That was my experience, anyway. After 6 months, moved to Melbourne and despite renting a house in South Yarra (long before the rental boom - we got the house $200/wk less than he wanted), we were much better off because cost of living was ever so slightly cheaper, but incomes were much better. Having said that, I preferred the rural location, though the missus wasn't quite so keen on it.

(I take the point, rents/cost of housing in Melb or other major cities these days much higher than rural).

You're right about finding people whom share the same interests though... I don't consider myself much of a ladies man (nor do the ladies), but one young-ish lass in the country town did ask if I was spoken for when she found out I was a private flyer - as she was also a pilot and couldn't find a lad that shared the same passion who was available. I was (and still am by the same person) spoken for.

These are great, honest appraisals of real-life flight situations where anyone of us can come a cropper. Thank's for posting. I will try and dig another out where a pilot succumbed under marginal weather to a runway overshoot/slide off the rwy at Scilly Island (St. Mary's?) and totalled a piper twin (though can't recall the model). He posted a forthright and seemingly honest assessment of the event and we all learned from it.

I had a situation where I was flapping about with unexpected ATC and weather leading me to less than legal VMC flight conditions. Started pressing ahead and eventually logic and training kicked in and I turned around while I could still make out a horizon of sorts. Almost breached French airspace without a flight plan as a result. When I thought about the flight, the signs were there early on and I should have simply found a place comfy to orbit and assess the situation.

Detailed info in the above goes a long way, where the ATSB/AAIB/NTSB and their ilk can't go once the crew/pax end up as statistics.

jeez you should see how the place has changed since howard ran it

When I arrived in Melb a couple of weeks ago after a 8 years since my last visit, I understood what he meant. I cal it America without the guns (unless, I guess one goes to Keilor, apparently).

Having said that, have applied for a job down there.

There's quite a bit of discussion about it here: Personal injury - FLYER Forums (@:mods - feel free to delete if you feel that forum competes with this one - I don't think it does).

The shareoplane I was involved with included third party liability to about £10m from memory (for each 3rd party - there was a max and restrictions, buit would have covered this). Aviation insurance companies here will generally pay out, even if there is some minor breach of the policy - the market is tight and as soon as word gets out that an insurer is unreasonable in handling claims, it is sunk.

What interested me was that, although for normal claims of tort, this would probably fail (someone claimed unfair contract terms act can't remove liability for personal injury - may be true - but if so, is a relatively recent change as when I studied law here, UCTA only protected liability for death), some posts claim that an accident is strict liability (i.e. it only has to have happened (unless various conditions apply) and one is liable). [snipped my interpretation, which after looking up strict liability, was not quite right - though I don't recall it in Tort (yet I still passed it)]

It would appear from the above, that in Aus, it would fall under the law of general tort or similar, in which case, it would come down to whether or not the pilot was negligent in their flying or emergency handling under the circumstances.

There's quite a bit of discussion about it here: Personal injury - FLYER Forums (@:mods - feel free to delete if you feel that forum competes with this one - I don't think it does).

The shareoplane I was involved with included third party liability to about £10m from memory (for each 3rd party - there was a max and restrictions, buit would have covered this). Aviation insurance companies here will generally pay out, even if there is some minor breach of the policy - the market is tight and as soon as word gets out that an insurer is unreasonable in handling claims, it is sunk.

What interested me was that, although for normal claims of tort, this would probably fail (someone claimed unfair contract terms act can't remove liability for personal injury - may be true - but if so, is a relatively recent change as when I studied law here, UCTA only protected liability for death), some posts claim that an accident is strict liability (i.e. it only has to have happened (unless various conditions apply) and one is liable). [snipped my interpretation, which after looking up strict liability, was not quite right - though I don't recall it in Tort (yet I still passed it)]

It would appear from the above, that in Aus, it would fall under the law of general tort or similar, in which case, it would come down to whether or not the pilot was negligent in their flying or emergency handling under the circumstances.