Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I was at Narromine and I reckon the airshow was mucked up by all the "safety" regulations. This was not the RAAus fault , just what we live with these days in many parts of our lives.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 94
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

There was nothing in the handbook to that effect Auqward... hey what flying is permitted in Dubai?

Not sure Bruce,. .but Emirates Airways are always buzzing in and out of there in their A-380s, so flying Must be legal there ?

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Avweb have 'cherry picked' a snippet of Info & published it !!!!

 

The UK recommendation is that any Coastline Air Display should be flown over the water to minimalise risk to the General Public.

 

The UK recommendation is that any inland Air Display MUST BE FLOWN in a designated area over the airfield ( away from the Crowdline areas )

 

Currently Fast Jets are forbidden from any aerobatic manoeuvres, just low passes and steep turns & climbs.

 

As the Weather is so bad that virtually every bit of Inland UK is constantly rained on every airfield has a Coastline 008_roflmao.gif.1403968ae51b10bfcd4c01d7b660b53c.gif

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Avweb have 'cherry picked' a snippet of Info & published it !!!!The UK recommendation is that any Coastline Air Display should be flown over the water to minimalise risk to the General Public.The UK recommendation is that any inland Air Display MUST BE FLOWN in a designated area over the airfield ( away from the Crowdline areas )

 

Currently Fast Jets are forbidden from any aerobatic manoeuvres, just low passes and steep turns & climbs.

 

As the Weather is so bad that virtually every bit of Inland UK is constantly rained on every airfield has a Coastline 008_roflmao.gif.1403968ae51b10bfcd4c01d7b660b53c.gif

Surely that fast jet, no aerobatic rule doesn’t apply to the Red Arrows? By the way, I was born and grew up in Edinburgh. My first flying lessons were at Turnhouse Airport, a very different place back then 1968, to what it is now. Where are you?
Link to post
Share on other sites

You make my point Phil, there are many who would like to see flying banned for all except airlines.

 

There were 15,000 ft cumulus when I was in an airline over there once. When I asked this guy who worked there (but returned to South Australia to glide) about gliding conditions in the Middle East, his reply was about how on earth could you convince a bunch of sheiks and imams that gliding should be permitted.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
You make my point Phil, there are many who would like to see flying banned for all except airlines.There were 15,000 ft cumulus when I was in an airline over there once. When I asked this guy who worked there (but returned to South Australia to glide) about gliding conditions in the Middle East, his reply was about how on earth could you convince a bunch of sheiks and imams that gliding should be permitted.

While not suggesting the good ol’ US of A gets many things right something that I read somewhere was about the allowance of aviation activities and went something like “in the USA in deciding what will be allowed the starting premise is the activity starts from a position of it WILL be allowed and can only be stopped if there is good reason to disallow it. In the rest of the world the starting position is “the activity WILL NOT be allowed until sufficient reasons can be found to allow it to happen.”
Link to post
Share on other sites
While not suggesting the good ol’ US of A gets many things right something that I read somewhere was about the allowance of aviation activities and went something like “in the USA in deciding what will be allowed the starting premise is the activity starts from a position of it WILL be allowed and can only be stopped if there is good reason to disallow it. In the rest of the world the starting position is “the activity WILL NOT be allowed until sufficient reasons can be found to allow it to happen.”

If only our lot were that smart...pull_hair.gif.3994f465d56951521f66ae0593c25df0.gif

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
While not suggesting the good ol’ US of A gets many things right something that I read somewhere was about the allowance of aviation activities and went something like “in the USA in deciding what will be allowed the starting premise is the activity starts from a position of it WILL be allowed and can only be stopped if there is good reason to disallow it. In the rest of the world the starting position is “the activity WILL NOT be allowed until sufficient reasons can be found to allow it to happen.”

Absolute fantasy. I sat opposite a Minister for Sport, who asked me what I wanted to do, involving 1500 Victorians across the State, I told him, he asked who would control the risk; I said we would; he said "Done". That's as hard as it needs to be RIGHT HERE IN AUSTRALIA.
Link to post
Share on other sites

And if your writings about controlling risk are accurate, you've made it quite clear that it is way more difficult than it needs to be. You've hit the nail right on the head though, they always want someone else to wear the risk.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

It all depends on how you define "perpetrator". When you can be charged with participating in an "unregulated high risk activity", it would seem that they can charge you for almost anything that they can determine to be "high risk" using their wonderful little risk matrix, almost anyone could be a "perpetrator" for almost anything.

 

The very idea that that govt regulators feel the need to regulate half the stuff they do says a lot about the silly state we're in.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
It all depends on how you define "perpetrator". When you can be charged with participating in an "unregulated high risk activity", it would seem that they can charge you for almost anything that they can determine to be "high risk" using their wonderful little risk matrix, almost anyone could be a "perpetrator" for almost anything.The very idea that that govt regulators feel the need to regulate half the stuff they do says a lot about the silly state we're in.

If you're the one that's naughty, you're the one that gets smacked; not Grandma.
Link to post
Share on other sites
If you're the one that's naughty, you're the one that gets smacked; not Grandma.

Your own posts about liability clearly point out that isn't the case.Anyway, the point has been missed.

 

Don't regulate things that don't need regulating.....and stop moving goalposts.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
...the starting premise is the activity starts from a position of it WILL be allowed and can only be stopped if there is good reason to disallow it. In the rest of the world the starting position is “the activity WILL NOT be allowed until sufficient reasons can be found to allow it to happen.”

Yeah, that works so well with guns, doesn't it.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah, that works so well with guns, doesn't it.

Because Americans have guns, would shouldn't have simple aviation (and many others) regs and appropriate freedom to do what you want without harming others ??
Link to post
Share on other sites
Because Americans have guns, would shouldn't have simple aviation (and many others) regs and appropriate freedom to do what you want without harming others ??

I agree completely that they have a freer set of laws regarding aviation, and that's a good thing. My point was that it's not always wise to apply a blanket "it's better to allow everything then restrict than ban everything then allow" ruling to anything and everything.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Guns and aviation are completely different. It would be hard to use an aeroplane as a missile without hurting the pilot.

 

But still I hate the idea of letting guns into the hands of mental defectives, and this includes lots of people and unfortunately some of the police. Gosh there was this Australian example where bad police killed a lockup guy with their tasers for fun. They wouldn't have been in trouble if he hadn't died.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Young boy in USA had the perfect answer to The Right to Bear Arms - US Constitution

 

“... why don’t they just ban ammunition”

 

Mmmm out of the mouth of babes as they say

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Gosh there was this Australian example where bad police killed a lockup guy with their tasers for fun. They wouldn't have been in trouble if he hadn't died.

Really? That would mean they would be guilty of murder or manslaughter. What happened to them?
Link to post
Share on other sites

I actually don't know what happened to them... the story was on tv. What should have been the case from the beginning is that when you fired the taser you also took a photo and had to fill in a report. I think ( hope) that this is what came out of the case.

 

I blame the system more than the cops.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...