Bad landing = negligence
Join Date: Jan 2021
Location: Bridgwater
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Pilot DAR
I see it differently: He said that he never saw the ferris wheel, which is hard to accept, as he is reported as doing a flyby/touch and go before the accident pass. If the pilot could do a flyby/touch and go, and not be aware that the ferris wheel was there at all, that's negligent.
Moderator
I'm not expert in the definition of negligent. But, in my opinion, if you've flown a pass to assess the aerodrome environment, seen a hazard proximate to the approach or departure path, and then continue to land, forget it's there, and hit it minutes later, it's hard to argue against some level of negligence...
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: England & Scotland
Age: 62
Posts: 1,413
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you read the case you will see that the "negligence" finding for the pilot related to the fact that he landed late, not that he hit the Ferris Wheel, or didn't see it.
Basically, this case means that in law a pilot who finds themselves on finals "hot & high" but tries anyway is "negligent".
Basically, this case means that in law a pilot who finds themselves on finals "hot & high" but tries anyway is "negligent".
Moderator
Basically, this case means that in law a pilot who finds themselves on finals "hot & high" but tries anyway is "negligent".
if you've flown a pass to assess the aerodrome environment, seen a hazard proximate to the approach or departure path, and then continue to land, forget it's there, and hit it minutes later, it's hard to argue against some level of negligence
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Near Stuttgart, Germany
Posts: 1,040
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Pilot DAR
Yes, that, is a worrying legal interpretation situation....
Flying according this concept is not beyond the capabilities of a recreational pilot, and every flying school for which I have been instructing during the past 30 years has implemented this concept to some degree. Here is an excellent writeup from IATA regarding this subject: https://www.iata.org/contentassets/b...nd-edition.pdf
Moderator
Continuing an unstable approach is not only negligent but constitues a violation with all possible consequences,
I can think of many examples where the only things stable during the approach are the rate of turn to final approach, the rate of descent and the rate of deceleration. I've done a number of landings, both to runway and to water, where topography precluded a straight in approach for more than short final. If you crossed the fence at the right speed, altitude, and lateral position, it was most likely not a negligent approach, and a decent landing is possible - though could still be botched too I suppose... On the other hand, I've flown beautiful, well set up approaches, to have Tower ask me to keep the speed up as long as possible. I had four times the runway length I needed for a landing, so it was not a problem to cross the threshold at"cruise" speed, and essentially, start my approach from there.
Negligence will be very hard to qualify for a landing, as what one pilot botches horribly, another pilot could probably make work quite neatly...
Landing a low inertia wood-and-fabric tailwheel aircraft with a gusting crosswind, do not consider the approach stable until two tiedowns are secured, or the aircraft is partly in the hangar.
Especially on tarmac, and when the crosswind element is above the manufacturer's demonstrated limit.
The stabilised approach is a high inertia procedure.
Especially on tarmac, and when the crosswind element is above the manufacturer's demonstrated limit.
The stabilised approach is a high inertia procedure.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Near Stuttgart, Germany
Posts: 1,040
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Maoraigh1
Landing a low inertia wood-and-fabric tailwheel aircraft with a gusting crosswind, do not consider the approach stable until two tiedowns are secured, or the aircraft is partly in the hangar.
Especially on tarmac, and when the crosswind element is above the manufacturer's demonstrated limit.
The stabilised approach is a high inertia procedure.
Especially on tarmac, and when the crosswind element is above the manufacturer's demonstrated limit.
The stabilised approach is a high inertia procedure.
Anyway, in the end the verdict is spoken by a judge and jury who base it on testimonials from experts (among them pilots and other aviation professionals as in this case). Therefore we must never forget that the aircraft we operate, be it for work or leisure, can pose a substantial risk to innocent bystanders at any time. Which means that we have to apply more than "normal" care all the time when we fly. It can not be that others have to suffer the rest of their lives because of our passion. If I would have called as an expert to testify before this court I would then have said exactly what that ex 747 captain did. If you are fast and high you go around. You don't fly into Ferris wheels instead. If "negligence" ever had a meaning then it is exactly that.
Moderator
It can not be that others have to suffer the rest of their lives because of our passion.
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: LHBS
Posts: 281
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Asturias56
I'm pretty impressed with the construction of the Ferris Wheel - I'd have guessed it would go right over from such an impact
This was a 1 in a milliion chance to survive from the aircraft occupant's point of view.
Hitting obstacles durng a climb hardly ever produces such a lucky outcome.
But speaking as a person who was ejected through the windshield, into the water, by my student, woke up four days later, and then spent three months in hospital, I immediately decided for myself, and was vigorously mentored, to get over it and get on with my life,
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: England
Posts: 130
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Remember that this is just NSW, and not a binding precedent anywhere else.
At para 107 of the ruling, once can smell the evidence pointing to pilot error and negligence:
In other words, the process undertaken by the Pilot was one which, on any reasonable basis, could not identify risks involved in the landing or take-off of the aircraft, namely, obstacles on the Airstrip (albeit in the very small area that was obscured by the aircraft) and in the splay to the south of the Airstrip. Further, to the extent that the Pilot discerned colours, as he said in evidence, but could not ascertain the height and nature of the coloured item, this demanded further investigation.
The judge went on to say that the pilot had no claim against the Council for the placing of the Ferris Wheel, as the pilot was engaging in an inherently dangerous activity (i.e flying recreationally).
Had this happened in the UK or Ireland, then the pilot would be held strictly liable, without any need or proof of negligence, for the damages to the claimant. (Section 76 (2), Civil Aviation Act 1982 - e.g. Shoreham Airshow accident). The ruling would have been half the length...
At para 107 of the ruling, once can smell the evidence pointing to pilot error and negligence:
In other words, the process undertaken by the Pilot was one which, on any reasonable basis, could not identify risks involved in the landing or take-off of the aircraft, namely, obstacles on the Airstrip (albeit in the very small area that was obscured by the aircraft) and in the splay to the south of the Airstrip. Further, to the extent that the Pilot discerned colours, as he said in evidence, but could not ascertain the height and nature of the coloured item, this demanded further investigation.
The judge went on to say that the pilot had no claim against the Council for the placing of the Ferris Wheel, as the pilot was engaging in an inherently dangerous activity (i.e flying recreationally).
Had this happened in the UK or Ireland, then the pilot would be held strictly liable, without any need or proof of negligence, for the damages to the claimant. (Section 76 (2), Civil Aviation Act 1982 - e.g. Shoreham Airshow accident). The ruling would have been half the length...
"Had this happened in the UK or Ireland, then the pilot would be held strictly liable, without any need or proof of negligence, for the damages to the claimant"
Are you sure? The Shoreham Airshow crash was very different - not performing a standard manoeuvre at an airfield.
Was the Ferris Wheel NOTAM'd?
An English Local Authority erected a marker post in the middle of a private strip, after a pilot took off, and he hit it landing into the low sun on return. The pilot was not criticised
I agree the girl was an innocent victim deserving compensation.
But whoever sanctioned the wheel position should pay. They knew about the airfield.
Are you sure? The Shoreham Airshow crash was very different - not performing a standard manoeuvre at an airfield.
Was the Ferris Wheel NOTAM'd?
An English Local Authority erected a marker post in the middle of a private strip, after a pilot took off, and he hit it landing into the low sun on return. The pilot was not criticised
I agree the girl was an innocent victim deserving compensation.
But whoever sanctioned the wheel position should pay. They knew about the airfield.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Near Stuttgart, Germany
Posts: 1,040
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Maoraigh1
But whoever sanctioned the wheel position should pay.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: England
Posts: 130
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
100% sure. Read S 76 (2) of the Civil Aviation Act 1982 to understand the strict liability regime applicable in such circumstances. It matters not whether it is a T7 doing aerobatics at a commercial show, or an ultralight at a private strip. For the insomniacs amongst us, the Section is repeated below:
Section 76 Liability of aircraft in respect of trespass, nuisance and surface damage.(1)No action shall lie in respect of trespass or in respect of nuisance, by reason only of the flight of an aircraft over any property at a height above the ground which, having regard to wind, weather and all the circumstances of the case is reasonable, or the ordinary incidents of such flight, so long as the provisions of any Air Navigation Order and of any orders under section 62 above have been duly complied with F1....
(2)Subject to subsection (3) below, where material loss or damage is caused to any person or property on land or water by, or by a person in, or an article, animal or person falling from, an aircraft while in flight, taking off or landing, then unless the loss or damage was caused or contributed to by the negligence of the person by whom it was suffered, damages in respect of the loss or damage shall be recoverable without proof of negligence or intention or other cause of action, as if the loss or damage had been caused by the wilful act, neglect, or default of the owner of the aircraft.
(3)Where material loss or damage is caused as aforesaid in circumstances in which—
(a)damages are recoverable in respect of the said loss or damage by virtue only of subsection (2) above, and
(b)a legal liability is created in some person other than the owner to pay damages in respect of the said loss or damage,
the owner shall be entitled to be indemnified by that other person against any claim in respect of the said loss or damage.
(4)Where the aircraft concerned has been bona fide demised, let or hired out for any period exceeding fourteen days to any other person by the owner thereof, and no pilot, commander, navigator or operative member of the crew of the aircraft is in the employment of the owner, this section shall have effect as if for references to the owner there were substituted references to the person to whom the aircraft has been so demised, let or hired out.
Section 76 Liability of aircraft in respect of trespass, nuisance and surface damage.(1)No action shall lie in respect of trespass or in respect of nuisance, by reason only of the flight of an aircraft over any property at a height above the ground which, having regard to wind, weather and all the circumstances of the case is reasonable, or the ordinary incidents of such flight, so long as the provisions of any Air Navigation Order and of any orders under section 62 above have been duly complied with F1....
(2)Subject to subsection (3) below, where material loss or damage is caused to any person or property on land or water by, or by a person in, or an article, animal or person falling from, an aircraft while in flight, taking off or landing, then unless the loss or damage was caused or contributed to by the negligence of the person by whom it was suffered, damages in respect of the loss or damage shall be recoverable without proof of negligence or intention or other cause of action, as if the loss or damage had been caused by the wilful act, neglect, or default of the owner of the aircraft.
(3)Where material loss or damage is caused as aforesaid in circumstances in which—
(a)damages are recoverable in respect of the said loss or damage by virtue only of subsection (2) above, and
(b)a legal liability is created in some person other than the owner to pay damages in respect of the said loss or damage,
the owner shall be entitled to be indemnified by that other person against any claim in respect of the said loss or damage.
(4)Where the aircraft concerned has been bona fide demised, let or hired out for any period exceeding fourteen days to any other person by the owner thereof, and no pilot, commander, navigator or operative member of the crew of the aircraft is in the employment of the owner, this section shall have effect as if for references to the owner there were substituted references to the person to whom the aircraft has been so demised, let or hired out.
