Anyway, the Gold Wings thing doesn't mean anything anyway!
I've seen people actually break their plane in flight or in deed crash and still been given their Gold Wings!

Most of those I've witnessed that haven't crashed have been appalling and not even to Bronze Wing standard! When I've mentioned it, I get told that the pilot was nervous .............Well I say if they were nervous then, they'll fall apart in front of a crowd!
What else would you expect when mates are giving mates tests?

When I did mine, I had to do it with IMAC precision in a howling gale! AND it took me 2 goes to get them!

Originally Posted by aussiesteve

Yes - correct.

The problem is in the wording - the wording now requires the Director to be the one responsible for determining the ability of a flier to safely operate the plane at all times. If an incident happens and dumb thumbs are involved - it is proof that the director was not competent at doing this job. This was the opinion given to me by an actual lawyer earlier today. (I asked because I wanted to see if there was in fact an over-reaction). There are a lot of "injury lawyers" out ther enowadays - look on the back of the yellow pages and there is one right there (at least in WA - not sure about other states) - then there are TV adverts for them all the time too.

Ok, I go back to my original comment. The MOP does not establlish any legal liability - sure its not helpful but let me ask you this question? Do you really think that if the wording had not been changed and someone got injured at an event, the CD would not of gotten sued? I'm not a personal injury lawyer (I have some self-respect!) but I can guarantee you are going to get sued regardless of what the MOP does or doesn't say. Liability will be determined based on legal principles not what the MOP says. To get a little legalistic, public liability (as with all forms of negligence (with the exception of certain strict liability circumstances)) is based on duty of care and breach of that duty. I struggle to see how this document creates a duty of care in favour of a third party which does not otherwise already exist at general law.

Originally Posted by Stu_D

Unless you spoke to a specialist in the field of public liability you may as well asked a dentist .

Sorry to be so harsh but I delt with the legal profession in my previous life working in property development and you asked a very specific question which requires intimate knowledge of the
laws in their particular state . No GP approach when it comes to the laws .

Stu

Could not agree more with Stu's comments. Sadly most lawyers in small suburban firms will take any work they can get - they may even think they are experts at it - but generally don't have a clue about anything other then cottage conveyancing and parking tickets. If you want to get decent advice, go see a real specialist.

I was actually involved in the review of the MAAA insurance policy a couple of years ago. Unfortunately, the MAAA wasn't really interested in knowing about things like, will our members be covered if they inadvertantly breach the MOPs... They prefer to be able to assert that they can pick and choose who gets covered by the insurance policy at their discretion...

Originally Posted by aussiesteve

1 - The lawyer I spoke to is retained by the company for Liability law - YES he is a LIABILITY specialist.

All commercial lawyers advise on liability and risk - thats what they do. But unless your company is an insurance company I would be very surpirsed if he is a public liability/negligence specialist. if his is, thats great. But I suspect if you asked him if a CD previously had the same liability he would say yes.

Originally Posted by apalsson

With respect, this is not entirely correct. The Heavy Model inspection does not include a flight test to assess the flying abilities of the pilot. It does include a flight test to acertain the airworthiness of the airframe within the envelope the plane is designed for.

When I do heavy plane inspections (yes, I am a Heavy Plane Inspector), I make no assessment of the abilities of the pilot other than under the MOP, I have to have the pilot demonstrate for me examples of the kind of manuvres the plane is being signed off for.
This flight test is therefore a test of the airframe, not the pilot.

Its a bit of a cop out to say that you have no obligation to assess the pilots ability to fly the plane - that's what the whole process is about.... No wonder you guys are all so nervous about the insurance policy...

If ya dont like the mop buy yer missus another. sheesh!

Originally Posted by Patrick H

If ya dont like the mop buy yer missus another. sheesh!

crap i just bought her a house

Originally Posted by Patrick H

If ya dont like the mop buy yer missus another. sheesh!

Originally Posted by snoopy

crap i just bought her a house

Holy crap bill I thought I was the only stupid one to do that...............a mate of mine said next time!!!! After three divorces he was going to find someone he hated and just by them a house and save all the headache in between

You what the f u ck ed part of all this is? The fact that even if there was an event and there was an accident, it's sad that the first thing we want to do is sue!
If people really did treat others as you'd treat yourself...

I'm surprised the insurers haven't had a mention until now. That is a key driver here - setting objective competency standards (not that I'm saying this particular rule achieves this) to determine when insurance policies will/won't respond.

No lawyer would give a definitive opinion on this issue without a lot of due diligence and research. There are a lot of factors in play - well beyond what the MOP says.

There's no use jumping to conclusions about actual liability in the absence of proper advice, which will differ from case to case depending on the facts.

It's amazing how far common sense can get you (obviously with the fundamental issues in mind)

T

Originally Posted by Bam Bam

You what the f u ck ed part of all this is? The fact that even if there was an event and there was an accident, it's sad that the first thing we want to do is sue!
If people really did treat others as you'd treat yourself...

I don't bregrudge anyone the right to sue. If I go along to a modelling event, either as a participant or a spectator, and because of someone's negligence I suffer an injury (NB sometimes **** just happens - its not always someone's fault) I should be able to be compensated for the loss that i suffer. This is exactly why we have insurance! The MAAA's job should be to make sure that we are all covered by the insurance - not create rules to put well intentioned people outside of the policy.

If I act like a dickhead and fly my plane into you, I don't think for a second that you should be expected to sit there and say, "thats alright, I can't ever work again or pay my mortgage but I won't sue."

Originally Posted by Rookey

Hi all. My Aerofly Platinum Simulator has died and I'm wondering what to replace it with and where to purchase from here in Oz. Any ideas? Thanks.

I'm a big fan of the new Aerofly 5. Need to tweak the stock planes though, and doesn't have downloadable models like Realflight. Direct order from Ikarus or from OMP in the states I believe. Not sure how many people are using it. RF is good too but I prefer Aerofly - including because I can run it in Mac OSX.

Tim

Originally Posted by liftytim

I'm surprised the insurers haven't had a mention until now. That is a key driver here - setting objective competency standards (not that I'm saying this particular rule achieves this) to determine when insurance policies will/won't respond.

No lawyer would give a definitive opinion on this issue without a lot of due diligence and research. There are a lot of factors in play - well beyond what the MOP says.

There's no use jumping to conclusions about actual liability in the absence of proper advice, which will differ from case to case depending on the facts.

It's amazing how far common sense can get you (obviously with the fundamental issues in mind)

T

Guys, I'll give you all some good advice and put your minds to rest. They main issue here is whether or not the insurance will cover you if you act as CD or for that matter if you are the pilot. The MAAA's way of beating the general membership around the head is to say if you don't comply with the MOPs you "may" not be covered by the insurance. They also assert that the MAAA as "the insured" has the ability to set conditions regarding who the insurance will and won't extend to. I don't know if this is legally correct. I doubt it. If I was sued, regardless of if I intentionally or accidentally breached the MOPs I would be joining the insurer as a co-defendant.

Everyone thinks that the MAAA insurance policy is something magical. Its not. Its a bog standard public liabiliy policy - have a look at the certificate of currency on the MAAA website. There are no exlusions for failing to comply with MAAA MOPs. I doubt the insurer has ever heard of or seen the MOPS. Also keep in mind that the insurance costs about $8 per member. The rest of your $100 a year goes to paying for all the junkets of flying people around the world on fact finding missions and conferences.

Next, do youself a favour and look at your home and contents policy. (I have QBE and Allianz policies). Each of these policies cover me for legal liability (one is anywhere in the world, the other says anywhere in Australia). Why is it that my home insurer gives me insurance cover (effectively for free!) but the MAAA carries on like they are heros for taking out the MAAA policy?

My home insurer will provide me cover without worrying about crap like MOPS, without worrying about anything other then me paying my home and contents premium...

Think about that next time someone says that all these rules are needed to keep a cap on insurance premiums or becuase the insurer requires them....

So provided that the CD of the Scale Rally has a home and contents policy there should be no reason for the Scale Rally not to proceed... unless of course there is some other reason...