David Isaac Posted December 14, 2011 Share Posted December 14, 2011 NOTAMS are NOT provided for ALAs except under special circumstances. NOTAMS cannot be expected for ALAs and therefore cannot be relied upon for flight planning purposes into an ALA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pudestcon Posted December 14, 2011 Share Posted December 14, 2011 Both items answered by the preliminary report. The water has been muddied by the suggestions that "Morgan Aeroworks" had been invited to display their aircraft at the airfield, during the festival and that the pilot was flying it in for that purpose, on behalf of said Aeroworks. Such an invitation would appear to be specific and thus constitute permission. Whether any information about the strip condition and obstacles was provided and if provided, passed on to the pilot is not in the preliminary report and has not been posited. That said, if the pilot had been informed about the ferris wheel, he would surely have looked for it and seen it, which is contrary to the information in the preliminary report.I suspect that there will be a lot of changes in the way people seek and obtain permission to fly into private ALAs after this investigation completes. The scenario seems to highlight a lack of general knowledge in the area. There are lessons emerging about responsibilities and potential liability on the part of all parties. I'm not sure if anyone is aware of Federal OHS harmonisation legislation that is to become effective on new year's day 2012. I've just had a briefing on it and it will cast a wider net than current state based legislation. There are some states that have not yet signed up to the new federal legislation, so in some states there may be a choice of legislation depending on whether the business operates within a state or across state boundaries. The concept of an "employer" has been changed to "PCBU" (Person Conducting a Business Undertaking) and the emphasis is changed from compliance to proactive prevention. If you cannot prove the latter, then you are guilty (more laws of strict liability). My understanding is that in WA and Vic the new harmonisation laws have been put back 12 months - so 1st January 2013. That is certainly the latest date mentioned for WA at the seminar I attended on Monday. Not 100% sure about Victoria though. Pud Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Isaac Posted December 14, 2011 Share Posted December 14, 2011 Interesting Scotty, The ATSB preliminary report stated ... "Special local procedures for use at Old Bar were published online and in airfield guides. That included advice that the airstrip satisfied the requirements of Civil Aviation Advisory Publication 92-1 (1) - Guidelines for Aeroplane Landing Areas, with the exception of the transitional surfaces". The 'Country Airstrip Guide' makes no statement as to compliance with the 'Civil Aviation Advisory Publication 92-1 (1) - Guidelines for Aeroplane Landing Areas' this reference and further information is found here http://www.mrac.org.au/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=6&Itemid=6 on the Manning River Aero Club page about Old Bar. I noted the specific reference ...... Permission: To be confirmed with the Operator prior to use. The reference to 'transitional surfaces' refers to the flyover area of 15 metres width either side of the runway strip which gives a total of 60 metres width as collaborated on the 'Country Airstrip Guide'; 'transitional surfaces' are not the splays. The only published warning given as to obstructions are the playing field lighting poles within the 'transitional surfaces' which I mentioned in an earlier post. Specific reference to the lighting poles is made in the above link reference. There is no advice as to any other non compliance issues so a pilot could reasonably assume the splays are in place. One would assume that on obtaining permission any further operational information such as obstruction within the splay would be provided. EDIT 14/12/2011: Rearranged grammar for clarity Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest davidh10 Posted December 14, 2011 Share Posted December 14, 2011 My understanding is that in WA and Vic the new harmonisation laws have been put back 12 months - so 1st January 2013. That is certainly the latest date mentioned for WA at the seminar I attended on Monday. Not 100% sure about Victoria though.Pud Certainly WA and Vic are not on-board yet, but for the company I work for, as they are national, they have elected to be managed under ComCare. Not sure they had a real choice actually, due to having several MHF sites in different states. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pudestcon Posted December 14, 2011 Share Posted December 14, 2011 Certainly WA and Vic are not on-board yet, but for the company I work for, as they are national, they have elected to be managed under ComCare. Not sure they had a real choice actually, due to having several MHF sites in different states. Yep. Also, if you work (as some of our divisions do) on Federal Government funded projects (such as new detention centres!!!) then you need to be aware that most of the OHS Harmonisation rules will apply. Pud. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winsor68 Posted December 14, 2011 Share Posted December 14, 2011 My recent experience with WH&S in Qld certainly points to a need for some sort of harmonization... there is a lot of confusion and compliance issues in small business it seems. Let's hope the application (assuming they are compelled to apply the rules!)does not prove too onerous on them. It seems that the BIG issue here is not having too few rules and regulations but a lack of proper auditing and compliance with the framework that already exists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted December 14, 2011 Share Posted December 14, 2011 Pilots using the airstrip do so entirely at their own risk and must personally ensure the airstrip is suitable for their operation. Since you can't hand off a tort, that could be interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Isaac Posted December 14, 2011 Share Posted December 14, 2011 Tort is based on proving 'negligence'. There may be an argument that the persons responsible for the placement of the Ferris wheel did not exercise their 'duty of care' in minimising the likelihood of causing harm to others. I would think the argument may have some momentum as the placement of the Ferris Wheel was within the splay of an active airfield in circumstances where the airfield was advertised in participation with the festival. The Ferris Wheel caused an estimated 10 metre vertical obstruction and what potentially compounds the problem is that the circular face of the Ferris Wheel faced the runway, so the obstruction could have had up to a 18 metre lateral dimension (being the diameter of the wheel). The wash up of all of this incident is going to be traumatic for many and interesting from a legal and aeronautical perspective. Those who want to pin the blame of this incident solely on the pilot seriously underestimate the complexity of the issues involved. Arguably there are separate and distinct areas of responsibility that have merged as contributing factors in this accident. Hopefully we in the aviation community and others will learn valuable lessons in areas of responsibility and not just see this as a technical argument on legal matters. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted December 17, 2011 Share Posted December 17, 2011 Two current examples of Public Liability cases which have made the news: The Little Aths case shows you don't have to be in a "dangerous" sport to face a big payout. In fact most high risk sports are very good at risk management. The "freakish thing" comment is very common from people who haven't thought much about risk management. The snail in the bottle in the Precedent Case was freakish too, so this one won't wash. The V8 Supercars one shows the case from the victim's side, shows the future costs You'll notice that both incidents took place three years ago, which is about average for activities to start, and the cases usually come to Court at about the seven year mark, a huge psychological drain on all the people involved from both sides. S2045.pdf S2000.pdf S2045.pdf S2000.pdf S2045.pdfS2000.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted December 17, 2011 Share Posted December 17, 2011 If you put a "Beware of the DOG" sign up it could indicate that you were aware that dog is dangerous. Nev Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted December 18, 2011 Share Posted December 18, 2011 If you put a "Beware of the DOG" sign up it could indicate that you were aware that dog is dangerous. Nev I haven't been following the Cases, and a lot of these deals are settled out of Court, albeit for huge amounts. So I don't know the current status of "Beware of the Dog" signs, but suspect it could go something like this: If you have a dog of a dangerous breed, or your dog has exhibited any anti social behaviour you need to put up and maintain an obvious sign saying something like "Beware of the Dog, enter at own risk. You are then exercising a duty of care to provide a warning which gives the uninvited, such as meter readers and thieves, the opportunity not to enter the area where the dog is restrained by suitable fences. The next step is you have a duty of care the dog doesn't get out the gate, so pool fence type locks might be a defence there, and you have a duty of care that a dog can't get through its perimeter fence, otherwise you are being negligent. The next step is the invited, so the husband/wife/children/relatives/friends/invited guests of the owner. You have a duty of care to ensure the dog doesn't bite them, not by telling them he's never bitten anyone/be careful/don't tease him/he's usually good because you'll lose your case if you do that - the dog has to be restrained before they enter. What Facthunter says is also correct, if you know the dog is dangerous but still don't exercise full duty of care, you'll get the Council fine of maybe $105.00, the cost of a prosthesis, suffering etc for the child that lost the eye, and a criminal charge, maybe assault (because the person of reasonable intelligence knew the dog was dangerous and didn't restrain it. And most probably the dog will be shot and you'll make the local newspaper as the biggest ******** in the district. And, what's more, the proof is, if the kid is bitten, you didn't restrain it. Forget about we only turned our backs for a minute, the dog's been around kids for years eating their homework etc. The other side of the coin is, if you practice care in training and restraining your dog you can pretty much disregard all the bove because you won't be caught up in it. This is not legal advice, talk to a PL lawyer before buying a dog or feeding him parts of your neighbour. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dazza 38 Posted December 18, 2011 Share Posted December 18, 2011 Seriously- This country is turning into $h*&, what ever happened to the old days, when a person tripped over on a crack in a foot path.Brushed themselves off.Thought to themselves how stupid THEY where for not seeing the crack and falling over .Or slipping over on a wet floor in a supermarket whilst wearing crappy footwear . Or hurting themselves in sport.Nobody got sued etc.I have had my fair share of come offs on motorcross and enduro bikes when racing around when younger.Eg- I passed a bloke on a XR600,(Me on a Yamaha WR426) then out braked him at the next corner, about 10 metres in front of us,he smashed into me. Next thing his bike is on top of me whilst I was sliding down the track. I called him a wanker, but I wasnt going to sue him There seems to be a bunch panzies being brought up in this world today. Here is a hint- If worried about getting hurt in anything, sport you play or general day to day life.It maybe safer the stay at home in a padded room. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted December 18, 2011 Share Posted December 18, 2011 What ever happened to the old days, when a person tripped over on a crack in a foot path.Brushed themselves off.Thought to themselves how stupid THEY where for not seeing the crack and falling over .Or slipping over on a wet floor in a supermarket whilst wearing crappy footwear . Or hurting themselves in sport. They frequently lived out their lives in abject misery, sometimes dragging their carers/partners/parents into the vortex where they couldn't afford the necessary treatment to live a normal life, or their relatives sold their homes to pay for treatment, or the person died young, or if it was a minor injury they had to live with a handicap. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlyingVizsla Posted December 18, 2011 Share Posted December 18, 2011 Its not all doom & gloom. There has been a swing back - particularly in Local Govt in Qld regarding non-feasance (failure to perform a required task - eg fix the footpath). There is greater onus on the user to take responsibility for their actions, provided the Council has taken reasonable steps to maintain the asset. Had a school teacher trip on the footpath outside the school and seriously injure herself. The path had been built in the 1940's but had recently been assessed as "average" condition by an engineer from an asset assessment consultancy firm (they built them well in those days). Council had spent approx 20% of the capital value of footpaths on maintenance that year. My table of intervention levels and regular inspections also helped. The insurers decided there was no case to answer. We all went away a little poorer. Similar stories for potholes. I think all the stories out there (a lot not true) fuel the desire to have a go at compensation. If they can get it why can't I? mentality. Sue 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dazza 38 Posted December 18, 2011 Share Posted December 18, 2011 They frequently lived out their lives in abject misery, sometimes dragging their carers/partners/parents into the vortex where they couldn't afford the necessary treatment to live a normal life, or their relatives sold their homes to pay for treatment, or the person died young, or if it was a minor injury they had to live with a handicap. So what your saying turbo, is that because somebody walks around with blinkers on, instead of switching on, and always looking around at there surroundings.Eg - Footpath scenario.It is sombody elses fault instead of there own, and somebody has to pay by sueing somebody else? I guess we all pay though dont we. With ever increasing insurance premiums.When are people ever going to be responsible for their own actions, or lack of actions. Like I said Panzys 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dazza 38 Posted December 18, 2011 Share Posted December 18, 2011 For the record i didnt get hurt when old mate took me out.Why because I was wearing full gear.Motorcross Boots, knee braces, helmet, gloves, goggles.nylons,and Body armour. When I see people riding their road bikes down the road in thongs, stubbies and a singlet.It does make me wonder if they left there brain at home.If they come off, bad luck to them, as they slide down the road wearing there skin off. Everybody has a duty of care, to themselves and others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted December 18, 2011 Share Posted December 18, 2011 So what your saying turbo, is that because somebody walks around with blinkers on, instead of switching on, and always looking around at there surroundings.Eg - Footpath scenario.It is sombody elses fault instead of there own, and somebody has to pay by sueing somebody else? I guess we all pay though dont we. With ever increasing insurance premiums.When are people ever going to be responsible for their own actions, or lack of actions. Like I said Panzys Not at all, FV has given a good example. A case I do know of occurred in a pub where a person was sitting on a bar stool, and was accidentally bumped. He grabbed at the bar stool to keep his balance and his finger was badly sliced by a piece of flat steel which had bent up at some time. He won his case, and one reason was because he was not in a position to see the steel. I'm compressing thirty years of experience into a few forum posts. The sore back brigade, people with blinkers on brigade, brushed themselves off but thought they could make a dollar days are pretty much over. Attitudes though, and people educating themselves are in some cases running 30 years behind the changes. FV, my Council handles the footpath and other issues by having an asset register and assigning priorities and that seems to be working although you never know until someone launches a suit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dazza 38 Posted December 18, 2011 Share Posted December 18, 2011 I also better add, I do not have a problem at all for people who have been hurt and are compensated for it, if it was not their fault . I just get annoyed when we hear the stories of people, who do things stupid and then try and sue to make money out of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dazza 38 Posted December 18, 2011 Share Posted December 18, 2011 This is a bit off thread-But it was funny seeing on TV- CCTV footage of people hurting themselves on purpose at pubs and clubs, not relizing that they where on CCTV then trying to sue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted December 18, 2011 Share Posted December 18, 2011 I also better add, I do not have a problem at all for people who have been hurt and are compensated for it, if it was not their fault . I just get annoyed when we hear the stories of people, who do things stupid and then try and sue to make money out of it. They aren't the ones we are talking about Dazz. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dazza 38 Posted December 18, 2011 Share Posted December 18, 2011 They aren't the ones we are talking about Dazz. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winsor68 Posted December 18, 2011 Share Posted December 18, 2011 Seriously- This country is turning into $h*&, what ever happened to the old days, when a person tripped over on a crack in a foot path.Brushed themselves off.Thought to themselves how stupid THEY where for not seeing the crack and falling over .Or slipping over on a wet floor in a supermarket whilst wearing crappy footwear . Or hurting themselves in sport.Nobody got sued etc.I have had my fair share of come offs on motorcross and enduro bikes when racing around when younger.Eg- I passed a bloke on a XR600,(Me on a Yamaha WR426) then out braked him at the next corner, about 10 metres in front of us,he smashed into me. Next thing his bike is on top of me whilst I was sliding down the track. I called him a wanker, but I wasnt going to sue him There seems to be a bunch panzies being brought up in this world today. Here is a hint- If worried about getting hurt in anything, sport you play or general day to day life.It maybe safer the stay at home in a padded room. I think this little furphy was started by a lawyer who didn't want his client to face his responsibilities... this idea must save the insurance companies millions now so many of us are repeating it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted December 18, 2011 Share Posted December 18, 2011 There's no doubt that taken to extremes, the liability thing could bring almost every active pastime to a halt on consideration of the "cost to the community etc". Sueing the big three in the USA... Cessna, Piper Beechcraft, virtually put the world leaders out of business for many years and currently probably adds "whatever" 20%? to the price of a light aircraft? The RAAus attitude/charter of limited exposure to risk and the concept of "informed" participant is a real breath of fresh air, and something we must strive to protect. An individual should be able to indulge in some things that are riskier than "normal", but having a responsibility to not expose third parties to unexpected hazard, in so doing. Protecting people from themselves is an area that raises some concern. In some cases it is a victimless crime. eg Compulsory pushbike helmets. Nev 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest davidh10 Posted December 18, 2011 Share Posted December 18, 2011 ...Protecting people from themselves is an area that raises some concern. In some cases it is a victimless crime. eg Compulsory pushbike helmets. Nev Not if the public purse has to pick up hospital and rehab expenses that would have been avoided with a helmet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted December 18, 2011 Share Posted December 18, 2011 That's the excuse given. Very few countries have this law and it is still a matter of debate as to their effectiveness. You could ground all Raa aircraft with the same logic. Where do you draw the line? Nev Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now