Kharon:
Part 61 bears all the hallmarks of a flying school weekend 'project', written by coven of junior flight instructors and their first year law student mate, all intent on impressing their mentors. No one with a serious, qualified background would design and produce such a perfect example of 'bad-law', not while sober anyway.
Interesting that by default Part 61 (all 1600 + pages of it..
) appears to be acceptable law and is being actively embraced by the recently sighted
'fabled bull elephant'...
Insurer to provide PI so flight examiners don’t fly solo
All in a selfless interest of course...
“supporting the long-term health of the local aviation industry”
&..
“Underwriting this indemnity allows us to ensure our valued customers and Flight Examiners can continue their important contribution to flying training across Australia with confidence and security,”
...because:
ATOs had been protected for professional liability by CASA however the Authority announced earlier this month that existing ATOs will be transitioned to a FER on 30 June 2016, at which point protection would cease. Those transitioning to or commencing as FERs from 1 September 2014 will also no longer be covered by CASA and will be required to make their own insurance arrangements.
Call me cynical..
..but could Part 61 be the new age 'bad-law' equivalent of CAR 206?? Lets face it with LHR, Hempel (see
footnote #1) & the PelAir embuggerance CAR 206 as a 'cash cow' has almost passed it's use by date...
Footnote #1 - Hempel sighting of FBE...
Email one:
Adam, Narelle,
I received a phone call from the individual below. He claimed to represent the insurers of Hempel Aviation, (blank) have received a claim from Hempel's Aviation. He also stated that Hempel's has provided a document on a record that showed Barry Hempel still held all his ratings at the time of the accident.
He also stated that he has seen the request for information on the CASA web site and that he has doubts as to the truthfulness of the claim.
I did not discuss any of the details of the investigation but did commit to have someone contact him to determine if he constitutes a bonafide interested party.
Email 2 (fwd):
Adam,
I advised (blank) that you were the most appropriate person to handle this.
Regards,
Narelle
Email 3 (reply):
I spoke to Mr (blank) - I advised him of Mr Hempel's licence status at the time of the accident- he will make an FOI request seeking relevant documents, he was very cooperative and said he considers Hempels are trying to make a fraudulent insurance claim.
(blank) -he said he is happy to speak to you in the event you would like any information you may not already have.
{Disclaimer: The email chain excerpts are extracted from documents released under the FOI Act 1982}
Q/ So will Part 61 be as equally & eagerly manipulated to the advantage of the true puppet masters of Oz aviation regulation??
Buyer beware: Any current ATOs or future FERs signing up to the PI offered, FFS get your lawyer (lawyer friend) to decipher the Fine print..
MTF...
