RA-Aus being shut out of Morabbin and Bankstown

[Ian Baker]

I have been doing some research.

It would seem that Morabbin Airport corporation and Bankstown Airport are placing unjust requirements for visiting aircraft in their terms and conditions.

Morabbin $10million public liability required.
Bankstown $20million public liability required.

as RA-Aus aircraft dont have this level of insurance available to them under the standard registrations and supplied indemnity, these companies are treating RA-Aus registered aircraft owners unfairly.

How can we legally fly our Recreational Aircraft in there legally and not breach the terms and conditions?

Discuss.

[LeadSled]

Ian,
The answer lies in the Government enforcing the terms of the head lease from the Commonwealth to BAL etc., particularly Clause 3.1 of the lease document, plus enforcing all provisions of the Airport Act 1976, and related legislation.

Don't hold your breath waiting, most of the problems have been caused by the previous and present Governments apparently being unwilling to enforce the intent and the detail of the legislation and leases.

In my opinion, in the case of Bankstown, if the terms of the lease( Clause 9.2) had been enforced, runway 18/36 could not have been closed.

It is not only RAOz aircraft that have trouble getting insurance coverage at the level demanded ( it is not just a matter of high cost, in cases of which I am aware, insurance was not offered at any price) but many smaller privately operated GA aircraft, as well.

Commonly, as advised to me, the combined single limit maximum offered is only $5.0M.

Tootle pip!!

[Ted D Bear]

It might be a breach of the terms and conditions, but that doesn't make it illegal.

[LeadSled]

Ted,
Nobody said it was "illegal" ----- but a breach of the lease terms, and the provisions of the Airport Act 1976, which may possibly give rise to an offense, but I have not bothered to look that far.
Tootle pip!!

[Old Akro]

I'm struggling to see that a $10m public liability requirement is unreasonable. Its pretty much the low water mark for public liability insurance.

[Frank Arouet]

http://i465.photobucket.com/albums/rr13/scud_2008/prangintobuilding.jpg

[LeadSled]

Old Akro,

It may well be reasonable, but if no insurance company will sell it to you, at any price, if you are private GA, or several other categories, you are locked out.

Do you see the point, the "policy policy" covers a wide spectrum, not just a few with a dodgy or bodgie claims history.

Tootle pip!!

[Jack Ranga]

Don't go to BK or MB.

[LeadSled]

Jack,

Given that similar terms apply to Camden, and you live in Sydney basin, to say that choice is limited is an understatement.

At least, in the Melbourne area, you are almost spoilt for choice.

Tootle pip!!

[Jack Ranga]

Yep, we are spoilt as far as ML goes, I sypathise with the SY basin. There are so many structural problems in GA that it is time to move to RAA/Experimental. I have and haven't looked back.

I have family and business in Sydney and would appreciate BK being available. It's not viable for me so I don't go. MB is completely different to BK, my dealings with MB Management have always been civil, welcoming & efficient. You get the feeling that they actually welcome aircraft there (go figure!) but there is alot of choice.

[weloveseaplanes]

Frank I fail to see how you can possibly think that that photo "justifies $100 million insurance." :=

Around the world insurance companies and airport companies are both screwing the beauty that is flight for THEIR own benefit. They are forcing us out of the sky and off airports.

For heavens sake its the 21st century and the average man is finding it harder and harder to get into the sky while the big companies are creating rules for themselves and governments, institutions that should be for the people and by the people, are bending over backwards to help them

A picture of insurance executivities at yet another "conference" all staying first class and playing golf or in an executive box at an international rugby game would more appropriately be "Conclusive proof-$100 million insurance cost justified."
:*

[fencehopper]

gee i wonder what the new CEO of the RAAus does to earn his crust. (really, wt# does he do?)
maybe between writing his blurb in the magazine he could fire off a few letters to MP and the management of these airports pointing out that they do have to make it available to all aircraft. would not be going thru this sort of thing if every thing had VH on it.
10,000 members and no political clout.

[bentleg]

It would seem that Morabbin Airport corporation and Bankstown Airport are placing unjust requirements for visiting aircraft in their terms and conditions


I don't get it. How would BK know whether you had insurance or not when inbound without prior notice?

[Ultralights]

what about the RAAus aircraft operating out of there? possibly they are only targeting aircraft and operators based at those airports? i fly my RAAus Savvy and a few others in and out of YSBK every weekend, i have never been asked about insurance, and i am treated just like any other GA pilot and aircraft owner, landing fees, parking charges etc.
we also operate a few RAAus aircraft out of YSBK, permantly based there, the only way i can think of enforcing such a liability requirement is to enquire about it when leasing hangar space or parking spots., though when i enquired about permanent parking a few months ago, after 20 phone calls around in circles, i was eventually told, dont worry about it, just park anywhere you want. we will just charge you the daily parking rate.

i got the impression the BAL has no idea what they are doing, or their staff just dont care. most days now i get the feeling our RAAus fleet is the most active at YSBK since a few big names and their fleets have disappeared. if they force us out, then no one will be flying regularly enough to provide a stable income stream from landing fees.

[Ted D Bear]

Like I said, a breach of terms & conditions doesn't make it illegal.

With privatisation, the operator only "enforces" the requirement by contract (the terms and conditions, accepted when you operate there).

And the remedy for breach of contract? Presumably, the aerodrome operator can sue the pilot for damages to recover its losses arising from the breach. But surely the aerodrom operator would only have losses if the pilot hurt someone or something with his/her un[der]insured aircraft and the person who was injured or had his/her property damaged could establish the aerodrome operator was negligent ... :confused:

[LeadSled]

Folks,

The terms and conditions of use of YSBK are published on their web site.

The whole matter of insurance for ALL small aircraft is about to get a whole lot more difficult.

If this Government is re-elected, it is intending to announce a compulsory insurance requirement for all aircraft ---- based on a very sketchy couple of lines in the White Paper, which is considered settled policy, with "consultation complete" ( you must have missed the consultation when you blinked) ---- so "watch this space".

I do not know all the details, but it seems likely that, as well as mandatory Third Party Personal as per auto insurance, it will have a requirement for mandatory Third Party Property.

If the aviation insurance "industry" handle this with their usual sensitive and caring approach to cost and availability, it will be a big disaster ---- possibly the biggest yet, if "they" refuse to make cover available, let alone cover at affordable ( what's affordable) rates.

Will the "Government" require insurance to be made available at manageable rates --- or will it be treated as another milch cow by "all the usual suspects".

This is the end result of this Government signing the Montreal 1999 Convention, that ( as I recall ??) supersedes the Warsaw Convention.

Tootle pip!!

[OZBUSDRIVER]

If I heard it correctly on the day, it was a version of CTP. Will try and find the extract out of Hansard.

EDIT to add- cannot find exact entry..but methinks the Carrier Liability Insurance was to be levied on CHTR and above to the same level as domestic carriers...that how you remember it, Leadsled?

[Charlie Foxtrot India]

I could be wrong and should check with my broker, but I understand that the compulsory ten mil on my public liability for the business (rather than the individual aircraft which have only two mil) is what they require. JAH have to have a copy of the business insurance with them as an "interested party". It's probably the limit of their interest in aviation...I wonder how much the bullsdozers carry :mad:

[LeadSled]

OZ,
That's about it, there is a reference in the White Paper,pages 87/88/89, but it is CTP&P, personal and property --- was the story from Infrastructure, Transport etc.

Charter already have to carry the same per seat insurance as a scheduled carrier, per the CIVIL AVIATION (CARRIERS' LIABILITY) ACT 1959.

What will be interesting is if the whole force of the Montreal 1999 Convention is applied to Charter. Its strict liability limit is about the same as our Act, but in a complete departure from the Warsaw Convention, there is unlimited liability for proven negligence.

So far, the major underwriters previously have said that full Montreal 1999 cover will not be available for anything under -8/Saab 340 size ----- at any price ---- it simply will not be offered ---- the risk cannot be underwritten.

CFI,
If you have a commercial fleet, it is a completely different proposition, compared to a private owner, be it a GA or Sport/Rec aircraft, used for private operations.

Tootle pip !!

[Frank Arouet]

Frank I fail to see how you can possibly think that that photo "justifies $100 million insurance." :=

Irony is a waste of time.:(

Clinton;

Leading with your chin there mate. (bringing wheels up landings into the debate).:)

[peuce]

Now this is an issue that Dick Smith should be salivating over and using his considerable media leverage to make right :hmm:

[Ted D Bear]

And what if the pilot damages the runway, through a bad landing or a wheels-up, or damages some other piece of airport infrastructure?


Yep, I guess the aerodrome operator could sue the pilot for the cost of removing the scrape marks left on the bitumen by the RAAus ultralighty going in wheels up ...

I don't disagree that the pilot might be liable for damage s/he might negligently cause - and insurance is one way for him/her to protect him/herself. But this applies irrespective of what the terms and conditions about use of the aerodrome say about how much insurance you are required to have.

I'm not advocating that people should breach their contract with the operator, BTW. And I think it's sensible to have insurance. But breach of contract does not equal illegal.

Ted

[LeadSled]

But breach of contract does not equal illegal.

Ted,
What's your problem, where did anybody say it was??
Tootle pip!!

[Ted D Bear]

That's exactly where the very first post in this thread started, LeadSled :rolleyes::


How can we legally fly our Recreational Aircraft in there legally and not breach the terms and conditions?

[Ian Baker]

It is disapointing as recreational aircraft are far far safer statistically than GA aircraft so the premiums should be extremely low and they should be able to access policies easily.