Originally Posted by TROYS PIT-BITCH

Yeah but I live central Wagga

Yeah you will never get me to live in town again I love being out here

Originally Posted by boxhead41

Yeah you will never get me to live in town again I love being out here

Would love to live out of town on some property, but can't knock down free rent, electricity and water

OK, for all those sick puppies who love to debate public liability and insurance etc attached is the MAAA's explanation of the amendments to the MOPs. Its and interesting perspective. Whilst I don't think it gives all the answer I think it does point out some of the potential flaws in the old wording.

The bit I find really scary is that holding a display is an offence unless it is in accordance with with the rules and procedures of the relevant approved aviation administration authority (read MAAA) - so I guess that takes the MOPs to a whole nother level.

And "strict liability" basically means you guilty regardless of intent or accidentally overlooking some rule that nobody ever heard of.

[QUOTE=TROYS PIT-BITCH;1645138]Would love to live out of town on some property, but can't knock down free rent, electricity and water[/

Yep hard to beat that

So is a permenent sign on the road advertising the clubs hours and the words visitors welcome classified in the MAAA mops as advertising a display?

Originally Posted by Hogboy

OK, for all those sick puppies who love to debate public liability and insurance etc attached is the MAAA's explanation of the amendments to the MOPs.

Who you calling a sick puppy....

As I read it, and as I stated earlier, the key word in the new MOP is "capable".

Originally Posted by MrFollies

Who you calling a sick puppy....

As I read it, and as I stated earlier, the key word in the new MOP is "capable".

I agree but I concede you now have the obligation to do something to substantiate or verify the capability of the pilots... Our wings system just doesn't cut it.

There is also the concern about the CD being obligated to approve or atleast be conscious of the manuevres to be flown... are all pilots expected to submit a schedule of manuevres?

Of couse, all of these issues are completely separate to the issue of insurance. But if you get convicted for breaching the CASA Regs you can pretty much guarantee your going to get sued for any damage that follows.

Apparently the Cobram Air Races are also struggling with the new MOP.

Originally Posted by Hogboy

OK, for all those sick puppies who love to debate public liability and insurance etc attached is the MAAA's explanation of the amendments to the MOPs. Its and interesting perspective. Whilst I don't think it gives all the answer I think it does point out some of the potential flaws in the old wording.

The bit I find really scary is that holding a display is an offence unless it is in accordance with with the rules and procedures of the relevant approved aviation administration authority (read MAAA) - so I guess that takes the MOPs to a whole nother level.

And "strict liability" basically means you guilty regardless of intent or accidentally overlooking some rule that nobody ever heard of.

Hey Michael, Great info and good to have the facts. The only other information I would like to see is to the liability on the CD in case of an accident, eg would any parties be able to hold the cd responsible for an accident if he has followed all guidelines. Might be a good one to throw at our Masa Committee for clarification.

Originally Posted by Aussieaero's

Hey Michael, Great info and good to have the facts. The only other information I would like to see is to the liability on the CD in case of an accident, eg would any parties be able to hold the cd responsible for an accident if he has followed all guidelines. Might be a good one to throw at our Masa Committee for clarification.

I think there is a fair chance that if you are a CD and something goes wrong which results in an injury you are going to get sued. Compliance with the MOPS (and perhaps more importantly) the CAS Regs will certainly go a long way to relieving you from liability.

Whilst I agree with the MAAA that the required standard for a public display may now actually be lower then the gold wings standard - for example if some one has a non-aerobatic scale model which they simply plan to take off, do a circuit, and land - gold wings standard is not needed. But conversley how does a CD for a large event satisfy themselves of the competency of the pilots if the wings rating can not be relied upon? Having looked at the CASR Part 101 I thnk the previous wording of the MOP (and specifically the refernce to Gold Wings) gave people a false sense of security. The onus on the CD at has always been somewhat higher depending on your interpretation of the CASR.

I think it is very difficult for a CD at a "fly-in" style event to comply with CASR. It will be easier for a CD at a invitation style event where you are actually presenting a structured public display such as an air show style event. Here you are controlling who actually flys and you should be able to verify that they are competent. I don't think you would have any problem with an IMAC style event (assuming it was a public display) because you know what manuevers they are going to fly. And freestyle events are generally limited to sportsman and above.

Insurance is a whole separate issue. I would hope that regardless of all this you would still be covered by the insurance. This is what it is there for. MAAA needs to clarify this for everyone's sake. It seems to me that there is a very real arguement by an insurer that if you have not complied with the strict requirements of the CASR you have acted unlawful which would commonly be a exclusion from public liability insurance.

would be interesting to put this in to the people that run the Nall in the USA,

would be interesting to put this in to the people that run the Nall in the USA,

I have no doubt I will be flamed again for daring to post but here goes anyway

The AMA has very clearly laid out the liability (or otherwise) for perons running the event. It is all there clearly for all to see on their website.

As I stated many pages earlier - Legal opinions are exactly that - opinions. Until such time as they are tested in a court. Once that has occured - it is too late for the losing party.

So is a permenent sign on the road advertising the clubs hours and the words visitors welcome classified in the MAAA mops as advertising a display?

Yes - according to the opinion I was previously given from a person more qualified in such things than any of the posters here.

CASR 101 is a lot more detailed than the PDF posted by Hogboy. During my many years of involvement with the Aviation industry (Commercial Full size, Sport full size, UAV and RC) I have had cause to refer to it on a number of occassions.

As others have recently posted - I too sure am glad to have my own strips to fly from. (with my own liability insurance that specifically mentions the full size and the RC planes that operate from them)

Originally Posted by aussiesteve

Yes - according to the opinion I was previously given from a person more qualified in such things than any of the posters here.

CASR 101 is a lot more detailed than the PDF posted by Hogboy. It in fact places the onus on the MAAA for control of RC models and events associated with them. During my many years of involvement with the Aviation industry (Commercial Full size, Sport full size, UAV and RC) I have had cause to refer to it on a number of occassions.

I would be causious about making assumptions about the qualifications of persons here... some of them may actually know a thing or two about the law...

Yes, Part 101 has a bit more in it. I didn't creat the PDF, the MAAA did. But to be frank Part 101 is a pretty simple document and is wholely self contained. Whilst the MAAA does have certain delegate authority from CASA you still need to comply with the regs. I go back to my orignal comment that the MOPS do not create or modify liability that otherwise arises under the law. I actually think that the MAAA has done the right thing here by making the MOP more consistent with Part 101 and dispelling a few myths about what action was necessary to properly discharged the legal obligations (as per Part 101) of the CD.

Originally Posted by Hogboy

Yes, Part 101 has a bit more in it. I didn't creat the PDF, the MAAA did. But to be frank Part 101 is a pretty simple document and is wholey self contained. Whilst the MAAA does have certain delegate authority from CASA you still need to comply with the regs. I go back to my orignal comment that the MOPS do not create or modify liability that otherwise arises under the law. I actually think that the MAAA has done the right thing here by making the MOP more consistent with Part 101 and dispelling a few myths about what action was necessary to properly discharged the legal obligations (as per Part 101) of the CD.

In other words, nothing the MAAA has done has changed the question of responsibility for organisers. But we now have guidelines in our hobby that more closely direct us to do what is needed to adhere to real laws that were already in place?

This whole issue came up and the discussion commenced because an Experienced modeller (or modellers) and CD cancelled the only large multi-discipline event we have for RC in Australia. That person (or persons) reasons were to do with some wording that makes them personally responsible for ENSURING the safety of people.

When I first heard of it, I happened to be near the office of a well qualified and experienced Lawyer who is retained by our company for the express purposes of dealing with potential Liability issues. I asked for his opinion in the vain hope that it may help for the event to be run and to help the person or persons who cancelled it feel more at ease about the wording. I also posted the opinion given. The event had been cancelled well before I sought that opinion.

I wish I had not bothered, except that my conscience wouldn't allow me to ignore it. If anyone does get injured at an event (god forbid and lets hope it never happens again here in Austalia). Then the test will be made.

Meanwhile some unfortunate wording has cost the Aeromodelling community a very good showcase event and looks like it is about to cost a second one (if it hasn't already been cancelled). The loss of such events is a real blow to the RC community here - we are losing participants at a great rate. Any event (whether it be an IMAC, Pylon, Combat or any other event) is really not that well attended by the modelling community in general and is even less so when compared to other sports. My only concern is the damage (or loss of opportunity) that has occured to the hobby we all enjoy.

I won't bother posting about it again - but I also notice nobody else has offered to step up and take over the official duties of these events. Perhaps that in itself says something (or a few things).

I can't believe I'm goint to say this but it seems like your gripe (and everyone elses) should be with the federal government - not the MAAA. As the MAAA points out, they cannot change the Regs or the responsibility of people thereunder. THe change to the MOP has had absolutely zero impact on the liability of the CD - it has only drawn attention to something that people seem to have been ignoring.