I really hope the reporter has his facts wrong!
Funny.. Foam stops fuel leaking? And you dump fuel to prepare for a "rough" landing. Where do they get these concepts from?
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.
Three people in an ultralight??
with picture, looks small enough to qualify as an ultralight. no tail wheel.
Just blew the photo up and no real help.. 'looks' like numerical rego - size about right.
Rescue costs? Insurance? Punative liabilty? This could be very ugly.
RAAus register shows a Savannah Bingo 19-4330 . Can't find an entry for 19-4329 !
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 ?
I am really getting worried about the future of RAA- seems a hell of a lot a incidents in recent months.
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.
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.
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).
the manner of operation could endanger the life of another person.
(4) Strict liability applies to paragraph (3)(b).
I'm on your side, you know your stuff.
I think this shows that the register is not too far out of date !