Jump to content
Gibbo

3 onboard an Ultralight

Recommended Posts

The reporter probably asked a fireman what the foam was for (since there was no fire), and may well have got the helpful response "It's because of the leaking fuel mate"

 

Of more importance is what this does to our reputation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just blew the photo up and no real help.. 'looks' like numerical rego - size about right.

 

3 POB, MTOW??

 

Rescue costs? Insurance? Punative liabilty? This could be very ugly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just blew the photo up and no real help.. 'looks' like numerical rego - size about right.

 

3 POB, MTOW??

 

Rescue costs? Insurance? Punative liabilty? This could be very ugly.

 

A Savannah maybe ?

One of the occupants was reportedly 3 yo so probably not a major contributor to TOW

 

The muppetry continues ......:censored:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont know about you blokes, but I am seriously starting to get jacked off with all the wankers who allegedly have not been doing the right thing lately.This is making all Aviators look bad.Especially RAAus.

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

these crashs with pilots operating outside an ra pilots certificate (if this guy had a certificate) is very worring to people who have spent time and money to forfull a dream to lean to fly and do the right thing , we could finish up with a certificate which has the same costs etc as a ppl or lose the right to fly at all , any body else who is here and dose the wrong thing please stop

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Didn't we pay for lee Ungermann to be based in NQ only a couple of years ago, as a duplication? There should have been a lot of auditing there in recent times.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, the dust has settled and it appears that the injured are under good medical care. Bravo for that, but ...

 

IF, and I strongly preface these comments with IF, an investigation finds that there was a possible infringement of aircraft registration or pilot licensing law, I wonder how keen CASA will be to put the matter before a Court for a determination?

 

Should we as participants in an activity that is governed by laws made in out houses of parliament, demand that Justice be seen to be done?

 

I refuse to offer a suggestion as to penalty should a finding of guilt be made on any allegation brought, however, I would like to see a finding of guilt recorded against any person who has committed an offence, should the Court determine that the evidence supports such a finding.

 

(Please read the above carefully and with an eye to legalese in which it is couched.)

 

Old Man Emu

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's no evidence of any licence or registration infringement in the public domain at this point, but we certainly learnt what the penalties are from the Hume Dam crash.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

there would appear to be evidence of a passenger number infringement ,

unless one of them accidently fell into the aircraft , like old mate the captain accidently fell out of his ship into a life boat , well it could happen - couldnt it ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am really getting worried about the future of RAA- seems a hell of a lot a incidents in recent months.

 

Why?

 

Have people sold their brains to fund fuel bills?

 

If- this is a RAA plane, and it would appear to be- this is very serious. A child- completely innocent has been placed in harms way. whilst the weight may not a issue, the rules are. Either the child should have not been on board or the mother stayed on the ground and hence a lot less weight on the aircraft.

 

And what about a seat for the child with harness?

 

In so many ways this is going to be a big incident, I can not imagine CASA will look the other way nor the Police.

Some may be heading for a world of legal pain.

 

Not much different to 3 people in a MX5- two seats, two belts- have a accident, people get hurt.

 

Besides the pilot, a case may be made against the parent for negligence and parental duty of care.

 

Just speculating

 

Phil

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People take risks because they think it wont happen to them, but it can and it does as we are all finding out of late, when it does it makes the rest of us who do the right think look bad in the publics eyes let alone CASA and the RAA.

It only takes a couple of bad eggs in the basket to turn people against us.

95% of us fliers out there probably do the right thing, we just need to get the 5 %ers to have a serious think about what they are doing or about to do.

Because if it can happen it will happen to you eventually if you continue doing it.

 

Alf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, the dust has settled and it appears that the injured are under good medical care. Bravo for that, but ...

 

IF, and I strongly preface these comments with IF, an investigation finds that there was a possible infringement of aircraft registration or pilot licensing law, I wonder how keen CASA will be to put the matter before a Court for a determination?...

 

None of this bodes well for the responsible great majority,OME.

 

If a situation arises where there is an aircraft crash and an investigation finds that there was a third passenger - a child - carried in a 2 seat aircraft and if the carriage of the third passenger was not in accordance with the CAR's or CAAP 235(2) or the conditions imposed by the exemptions granted to RAAus, and if a court finds that the operation of the aircraft in that configuration was consequently reckless to the extent it could have endangered life, the pilot faces a sentence of a maximum 5 years gaol by operation of ss20A(1) and 29(3) of the CAA (also likely to be a relevant consideration in the Hume matter as mentioned previously).

 

CAAP235(2) http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/download/caaps/ops/235_2.pdf

 

 

CAA 1988

20A Reckless operation of aircraft

(1) A person must not operate an aircraft being reckless as to whether

 

the manner of operation could endanger the life of another person.

 

(2) A person must not operate an aircraft being reckless as to whether

 

the manner of operation could endanger the person or property of

 

another person.

29 Offences in relation to aircraft

(3) The owner, operator, hirer (not being the Crown) or pilot of an

 

aircraft commits an offence if he or she:

 

(a) operates the aircraft or permits the aircraft to be operated;

 

and

 

(b) the operation of the aircraft results in a contravention of

 

subsection 20A(1).

 

Penalty: Imprisonment for 5 years.

 

(4) Strict liability applies to paragraph (3)(b).

Note: For strict liability, see section 6.1 of the Criminal Code.

kaz

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RAAus register is very out of date...

 

Iggy

 

I think this shows that the register is not too far out of date !

 

Bob

 

 

31 January 2011 RA-Aus aircraft register cancellations in date of expiry sequence

 

 

Registration

numberManufacturerModelFirst

registeredReg

typeRegistration

expired

 

 

19-4329 Icp Srl Bingo 20/10/2005 X 20/10/2008

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×