PPRuNe Forums - View Single Post - Liability to remain strict under civil aviation regulations
Old 13th Aug 2003, 19:40
  #15 (permalink)  
Creampuff
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Salt Lake City Utah
Posts: 3,052
Noodle – see my 0308100511 above.

Richo – Salt Lake City my “ass”. Don’t you mean “arse”?

I’ve tried to help AOPA by giving it as many free hints as I can. On the strict liability issue, I keep telling AOPA (via this forum) that it’s pointless trying to convince the Parliament that strict liability under the “new” rules poses any different a threat to air safety than it posed under the “old” rules.

If the argument is that strict liability is simply bad policy, because it’s bad to convict people for something they physically did, but didn’t intend to do, then that’s a different justification for opposing strict liability. That’s not a safety argument: it’s a general policy argument. If AOPA wants to put that argument to the Parliament, then AOPA’s going to have to come up with some convincing reason for treating participants in aviation differently from participants in (e.g.) driving. If you exceed the speed limit or the prescribed blood alcohol level in a car, it’s no defence to say you didn’t intend to. Why should aviation be different?

Christ: If I had a dime for every post I’ve made about the Holy Grail of clear rules……

Again, I’ve tried to help AOPA and all the other “clear rule” pilgrims by pointing the way to the least messy route back to the least unclear rules you’ve ever had: repeal the traincrash, and start again with the 1988 CARs.

Alas, to no avail…..

At last - Ding reveals the reason for rubbishing the thread while reading and responding repeatedly.

Ding: should pilots be treated differently to car drivers? If so, why?

Ding: is television mentioned in the Constitution? If it's not mentioned in the Constitution, how did the Federal Parliament get power to regulate it?
Creampuff is offline