Thunder city vs God
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Your nearest Marriott
Posts: 1,127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thunder city vs God
"Cape Town - A R2.7m damages claim has been lodged on behalf of a seven-year-old Cape Town boy injured when a jet canopy fell on him, the Cape Argus reported on Tuesday.
The claim, lodged by the boy's father against the jet's owner, Mike Beachy Head of Newlands, would be heard in the Cape High Court next week.
Beachy Head argued in papers that the canopy was dislodged when his Hawker Hunter F6.7 hit a bird, and that the 1997 accident was the result of an "act of God".
The boy underwent a dozen medical procedures, including the excision of his left testicle and skin grafts."
mmmmmmmmm.....
The claim, lodged by the boy's father against the jet's owner, Mike Beachy Head of Newlands, would be heard in the Cape High Court next week.
Beachy Head argued in papers that the canopy was dislodged when his Hawker Hunter F6.7 hit a bird, and that the 1997 accident was the result of an "act of God".
The boy underwent a dozen medical procedures, including the excision of his left testicle and skin grafts."
mmmmmmmmm.....
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Cyberspace
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mmmm, accidents and incidents do happen. When they do, the insurance must be in place to compensate the party(ies) who suffers the damage(s).
I'm pretty sure that the insurance requirements for a Part 141 Training License (which is what Thunder City's got) is the same as for others. They must at least have 3rd party insurances.
Thunder City do operate "commercially" therefore I'm pretty sure that the insurance must be in place and that Mike will not be personally liable for the damages caused through this "act of God".
Good luck and I hope that it pans out allright for all concerned.
I'm pretty sure that the insurance requirements for a Part 141 Training License (which is what Thunder City's got) is the same as for others. They must at least have 3rd party insurances.
Thunder City do operate "commercially" therefore I'm pretty sure that the insurance must be in place and that Mike will not be personally liable for the damages caused through this "act of God".
Good luck and I hope that it pans out allright for all concerned.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: close to the sun
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry to hear of the above!
Can someone please be so kind to enlighten me what the regulations in South Africa are with regard to the insurance of Non Type Certified Airplanes? Mandatory 3rd party and the values etc.
Thank you so much!
Can someone please be so kind to enlighten me what the regulations in South Africa are with regard to the insurance of Non Type Certified Airplanes? Mandatory 3rd party and the values etc.
Thank you so much!
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Cape Town
Posts: 82
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All aircraft including home built and microlight are required to have insurance before the CAA will issue any form of certificate for the aircraft. These insurances must be in place for further renewal of the annual Cof A.
Language edited 4HP
Language edited 4HP
Last edited by 4HolerPoler; 12th Mar 2005 at 03:39.
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Africa
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Section 11 of the Aviation Act stipulates that the REGISTERED owner of an aircraft is strictly liable for any surface damage caused by the aircraft, or anything falling from it, whilst in flight, landing or taking off.
There is one exception, which is when the aircraft is bona fide leased or hired to a third party and where the registered owner plays no part in the operation of the aircraft. Then, the strict liablility switches from the registered owner to the operator.
By "strict", is meant that there is no defence, except that the registered owner can bring a TP as a co-defendant, or can claim that the plaintiff was wholly or partially to blame (unlikely in this case!). However, he cannot claim an "Act of God" was the cause, thus exonerating him. In aviation terms, God doesn't exist, I'm afraid.
So, all the plaintriff has to do is to (a) show that the loss was caused by aircraft ZS-xxx, (b) that ZS-xxx was registered to XYX and (c) what the quantum of his loss was.
You'll note there is NO mention of insurance in any of this. Whether or not you have insurance doesn't alter your liability, IF you are the registered owner of the offending aircraft. If you have insurance, mazeltov. However, oif you insurance doesn't respond ('cos you tried to save money by insuring cheaply?!!), you are still on the hook to the extent of your assets. No insurance, or insurance that doesn't pay fully or partially, is no excuse.
Now would not be a good time to find your policy had been placed in Russia, Costa Rica, Ukraine, the Phillipines, India, etc., etc.!
There is one exception, which is when the aircraft is bona fide leased or hired to a third party and where the registered owner plays no part in the operation of the aircraft. Then, the strict liablility switches from the registered owner to the operator.
By "strict", is meant that there is no defence, except that the registered owner can bring a TP as a co-defendant, or can claim that the plaintiff was wholly or partially to blame (unlikely in this case!). However, he cannot claim an "Act of God" was the cause, thus exonerating him. In aviation terms, God doesn't exist, I'm afraid.
So, all the plaintriff has to do is to (a) show that the loss was caused by aircraft ZS-xxx, (b) that ZS-xxx was registered to XYX and (c) what the quantum of his loss was.
You'll note there is NO mention of insurance in any of this. Whether or not you have insurance doesn't alter your liability, IF you are the registered owner of the offending aircraft. If you have insurance, mazeltov. However, oif you insurance doesn't respond ('cos you tried to save money by insuring cheaply?!!), you are still on the hook to the extent of your assets. No insurance, or insurance that doesn't pay fully or partially, is no excuse.
Now would not be a good time to find your policy had been placed in Russia, Costa Rica, Ukraine, the Phillipines, India, etc., etc.!
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: The World, although sometimes I wonder
Posts: 388
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Regular fliers within the FACT CTR have often commented that Thunder City Jets do not seem to comply with the CTR speed requirements.....
It would be interesting to know the consequences iro damage to aircraft when a bird hits it, when it is going much faster than 200kts IAS as compared to being flown at 200kts IAS.
I was always told that several a/c are speed limited to protect certain items of the airframe (ie windscreens) from damage caused by outside sources ie possible bird strikes.....
It would be interesting to know the consequences iro damage to aircraft when a bird hits it, when it is going much faster than 200kts IAS as compared to being flown at 200kts IAS.
I was always told that several a/c are speed limited to protect certain items of the airframe (ie windscreens) from damage caused by outside sources ie possible bird strikes.....
Gatvol
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: KLAS/TIST/FAJS/KFAI
Posts: 4,195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not being one of those guys who flys fast movers, and not familiar with the aircraft mentioned, I always thought that the canopy was in the rear and the forward portion was fixed........Based on what little I know I should think that a bird strike would take out the glass in front........
But its Africa so maybe you have those fast birds who sneak up behind and "dislodge" the canopy from the rear.
Is there something wrong with this picture??
But its Africa so maybe you have those fast birds who sneak up behind and "dislodge" the canopy from the rear.
Is there something wrong with this picture??
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: close to the sun
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank you for your responses Kennel Keeper & Teignmouth.
A bunch of my flying mates from Ireland wanted to fly in a Huey Helicopter in Cape Town some weeks back. The sales lady trying to sell them the tickets could not give them any firm answers on the insurance deal, and upon further inquiry in turned out that the folks who operate the Huey have no insurance of any kind, not on the hull, pax or 3rd party. So no flight.
Now surely, operating a 14 seat helicopter on tourist flights without any form of insurance is highly illegal? I copied Kennel Keeper's footnote in his posting, but how can the SACAA allow this to happen? Can someone tell me that please?
With regards to the Jet losing its canopy, one can only think that it dis-latched itself during flight due to a malfunctioning latch, poor fitment or perhaps finger trouble. Maybe it was'nt properly secured for flight. I doubt very much if a bird could cause such a catastrophé. Anyway, be as it may, hopefully the matter will be resolved without to much discomfort to the parties concerned.
Good luck and safe flying!
A bunch of my flying mates from Ireland wanted to fly in a Huey Helicopter in Cape Town some weeks back. The sales lady trying to sell them the tickets could not give them any firm answers on the insurance deal, and upon further inquiry in turned out that the folks who operate the Huey have no insurance of any kind, not on the hull, pax or 3rd party. So no flight.
Now surely, operating a 14 seat helicopter on tourist flights without any form of insurance is highly illegal? I copied Kennel Keeper's footnote in his posting, but how can the SACAA allow this to happen?
Can someone tell me that please?With regards to the Jet losing its canopy, one can only think that it dis-latched itself during flight due to a malfunctioning latch, poor fitment or perhaps finger trouble. Maybe it was'nt properly secured for flight. I doubt very much if a bird could cause such a catastrophé. Anyway, be as it may, hopefully the matter will be resolved without to much discomfort to the parties concerned.
Good luck and safe flying!
Gatvol
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: KLAS/TIST/FAJS/KFAI
Posts: 4,195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Alwaysinverted. How about putting the blue side on top for a bit and start from the beginning on the "Huey back in the news thread"
Its should explain the whole story regarding the OD Coffin.
Its should explain the whole story regarding the OD Coffin.
I am a figment of my own imagination
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Jeddah, Saudi Arabia
Posts: 726
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The bit about left testicle and sugical prcedures made my eyes water and sway my mind perhaps some pain involved, always inverted.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Cape Town (where else?)
Posts: 579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
News24:
Disfigured teenager awarded damages
March 18 2005
A Cape High Court settlement will allow a teenage boy to "rebuild" his damaged body - nearly eight years after a jet aircraft canopy fell from the sky, leaving him disfigured and without his left testicle.
Several years ago, the boy's father lodged a R2,7-million damages claim against the jet's owner, Newlands businessman and vintage airplane enthusiast Mike Beachy Head.
The exact amount that Beachy Head on Thursday agreed to pay for the child's medical expenses, loss of income and general damages has not been disclosed to the media, but is understood to be substantial.
Among the operations the boy will undergo include surgery to correct damage to his pelvis and the reconstruction of his left testicle, which was lost after the canopy of Beachy Head's Hawker Hunter F6.7 jet fell on him in April 1997.
Beachy Head earlier argued that the canopy became dislodged after his jet was struck by a bird, making the accident the result of "an act of God".
He later agreed that he was liable for the injuries suffered by the boy.
In papers before the Cape High Court, the boy's father said his son was walking in the Vredenhof Farm area of Belhar when the aircraft canopy struck him. He was rushed to Tygerberg Hospital, remaining there until June
3 that year. He was forced to repeat Grade 1 because of his months in recovery.
The child, who can be identified only as Jeffrey, underwent nearly a dozen operations, including the excision of his left testicle and skin graft surgery for his groin wound.
Jeffrey was left permanently scarred and disfigured by the accident and will forever be marked by an 8cm facial scar, a 7cm scar on his left collarbone, a 24cm scar on his left thigh, an 11cm scar on his right arm, a 3cm scar on his left arm and a 4.5cm scar on his left Achilles tendon.
He also received treatment for a left femur fracture and wounds to his feet.
Papers before the court revealed that Jeffrey, now 15, is a victim of ridicule by his peers, particularly when his scars and absent left testicle are exposed.
Part of the damages his father claimed from Beachy Head was R35 000 for a prosthetic implant and plastic reconstruction of his son's testis and a future hip replacement operation.
Speaking to the Cape Argus on Thursday, Charles Abrahams, who represented the boy's father with Renata Williams, said Jeffrey would start undergoing the operations he required in April.
"This case has taken a great deal of time to finalise and I think Jeffrey's family are looking forward to going on with their lives," said Abrahams.
"I think we are all hoping that the operations that Jeffrey will undergo will change his life positively."
March 18 2005
A Cape High Court settlement will allow a teenage boy to "rebuild" his damaged body - nearly eight years after a jet aircraft canopy fell from the sky, leaving him disfigured and without his left testicle.
Several years ago, the boy's father lodged a R2,7-million damages claim against the jet's owner, Newlands businessman and vintage airplane enthusiast Mike Beachy Head.
The exact amount that Beachy Head on Thursday agreed to pay for the child's medical expenses, loss of income and general damages has not been disclosed to the media, but is understood to be substantial.
Among the operations the boy will undergo include surgery to correct damage to his pelvis and the reconstruction of his left testicle, which was lost after the canopy of Beachy Head's Hawker Hunter F6.7 jet fell on him in April 1997.
Beachy Head earlier argued that the canopy became dislodged after his jet was struck by a bird, making the accident the result of "an act of God".
He later agreed that he was liable for the injuries suffered by the boy.
In papers before the Cape High Court, the boy's father said his son was walking in the Vredenhof Farm area of Belhar when the aircraft canopy struck him. He was rushed to Tygerberg Hospital, remaining there until June
3 that year. He was forced to repeat Grade 1 because of his months in recovery.
The child, who can be identified only as Jeffrey, underwent nearly a dozen operations, including the excision of his left testicle and skin graft surgery for his groin wound.
Jeffrey was left permanently scarred and disfigured by the accident and will forever be marked by an 8cm facial scar, a 7cm scar on his left collarbone, a 24cm scar on his left thigh, an 11cm scar on his right arm, a 3cm scar on his left arm and a 4.5cm scar on his left Achilles tendon.
He also received treatment for a left femur fracture and wounds to his feet.
Papers before the court revealed that Jeffrey, now 15, is a victim of ridicule by his peers, particularly when his scars and absent left testicle are exposed.
Part of the damages his father claimed from Beachy Head was R35 000 for a prosthetic implant and plastic reconstruction of his son's testis and a future hip replacement operation.
Speaking to the Cape Argus on Thursday, Charles Abrahams, who represented the boy's father with Renata Williams, said Jeffrey would start undergoing the operations he required in April.
"This case has taken a great deal of time to finalise and I think Jeffrey's family are looking forward to going on with their lives," said Abrahams.
"I think we are all hoping that the operations that Jeffrey will undergo will change his life positively."
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Ex FACT now EGLD
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Papers before the court revealed that Jeffrey, now 15, is a victim of ridicule by his peers, particularly when his scars and absent left testicle are exposed.
PP
