Regional events – the future

Planemike · Post by **Planemike** » Fri Jul 24, 2009 10:16 pm

Woweee...........common sense spoken. What a breath of fresh air!!!

Planemike

jamie_duff · Post by **jamie_duff** » Mon Jul 27, 2009 5:47 pm

Steve Brown wrote:I think it is odd that the response to the danger of propellers and aircraft is to ban people from access to them.
Change propellers /aircraft to cars on the street and it looks even odder. No-one is trained to access the roads yet is anyone inc unaccompanied children banned from access to them?

Hand everyone a note warning them of the dangers airside and leave them to get on with it.

I read today of a civil contractor in Iraq or somewhere similar who was badly wounded when travelling on company business. He sued his employer because he was not afforded an armoured vehicle. His case failed because the judge said it was not possible to be certain that an armoured car would have prevented his injury.

Similarly a toddler drowned in an unprotected pool of water on a holiday complex and the court judgement was that it was not the fault of teh owners because it is not possible to prevent accidents happening.

Seems to me we are a bit pessimistic and that legal advice always opts for the worse case senario rather than the likely senario based perhaps on previous judgements.

Eventually things go full circle ( I note the French girls are not going topless now on their beaches - too gauche). Some enlightened girls started the change and similarly some people in the UK will soon see the lawyers in the same light as previously high esteemed bankers are now viewed - incompetent & out for their own ends.

Then we will see sense, innovation, and adventure rise again in Britain.

Would you honestly stick your neck on the block personally or take the safeguards that Peter is taking to minimise the risk of only being able to see his relatives during visiting hours due to someone else's accident?

I see what you're saying but the examples you quote don't really serve as test cases and the Injuryclaims4U lawyers still roam free.

If I were in Peter's position I wouldn't pin all my hopes on common sense either.

Steve Brown · Post by **Steve Brown** » Tue Jul 28, 2009 10:55 am

I am no lawyer but my understanding is that you have to be proven negligent or failing in a duty of care to be procecuted or sued.

I was not saying the cases cited were test cases merely that people are too risk averse.

In answer to your question

Would you honestly stick your neck on the block personally

Well yes - I do it all the time. eg

When you are flying with insurance of say £1m third party cover - and due to a navigation error or health problem you bring down an airliner - do you think your neck, home, family security and future is not on the block?

So do you buy enough cover to guard against all possibilities - or do you take a punt!!

I would get legal advice and ask whether handing out a warning notice of the dangers airside is sufficient and if you really wanted belts and braces get a signature of receipt of that notice by every airside entrant.

The recent failed Goodwood car racing case was another interesting result. It was alledged that a trackside camera caused a crash but the the ciircuit was not held responsible because it could not be proved that the accident was caused by the camera and it was alledgedy stated that it was possible the driver may have been taking the corner too fast

Translate that to a warned airside person going too near a propeller and causing themselves harm and you can see parallels.

Provided pilots are diligent in statrt up checks & taxiing, this would mitigate risk too.

I have no answers - just a different point of view which in the current climate - is needed (and it seems iis ncreasingly being shared by the courts)

Remember the man who never made a mistake never made anything.

No do - no risk.

Best put that airplane project on a bonfire, eh!

Regards

G.Dawes · Post by **G.Dawes** » Thu Jul 30, 2009 6:13 pm

Does anynoe remember the Chipmunk pilot being sent to PRISON after a car drove into his path on a taxiway during an airshow and then stopped to show the children 'The Aerplane close up' A bit too close, as the prop struck the car and severely damaged it. The judge stated the the PILOT failed to take the safety of the car occupants into consideration. The Judge also totally disregarded the ANO stating that VEHICLES SHALL GIVE WAY TO AIRCRAFT, he went on to make a sentence showing the severity of the actions of the PILOT.
I dont think anyone was hurt but it was the fact the children were so frightened that led to the sentence.
I thought at the time it was the driver who should have been charged, but obviously the pilot had a lousy brief.
These things do happen and it isnt always the fault of the one blamed, hence Sywell ha taken thiercourse of action

Planemike · Post by **Planemike** » Thu Jul 30, 2009 7:45 pm

The expression "Hard cases make bad law" springs to mind. I have not heard of the incident cited but basing a decision one instance such as this is just crazy.

Look rather to the many years of incident free PFA annual rallys which were well supervised by a team of competent marshals who helped to ensure everyone remained safe. Several of the Cranfield rallys had over 1500 visiting a/c and probably ten times as many visitors arriving by car. Yes, the PFA could and did organise some large rallys that were SAFE.

Planemike

steveneale · Post by **steveneale** » Sat Aug 01, 2009 7:46 pm

Members may be interested to know the following resolution was passed unanimously by National Council today:

"The NC recommend that the term 'Regional Rally' be withdrawn in favour of a single annual LAA led flying event. The NC further recommend that struts wishing to organise a local aviation event should be supported by LAA in respect of promotional materials only"

This is a strong steer for one national rally and clarifies strut/affiliate expectations of LAA support at their events in the future.

A reminder that EC make policy not NC so the above can only be advice to the executive. 4 EC members were present and participated in the vote so I feel it will get a favourable reception.

Steve

steveneale · Post by **steveneale** » Sun Aug 02, 2009 4:39 pm

Hi Peter,

No decision has been made of course but if NC's recommendations are adopted by EC then yes I think a vote of thanks would be appropriate. In that event I will ask the LAA chairman to table such a motion to EC, in my opinion the correct place for it. I think NC (your peers) have always made clear their appreciation of the heavyweights that stepped into the breach and would i'm sure will wish to do the same. Let's also not forget the other smaller struts and affiliate organisations that run events week in week out. However patting ourselves on the back might be seen as a bit daft

Steve