Pro-active work by RA-Aus

[Bob Murphie]

Ref Recreational Aviation Australia, Presidents report November 2008.

The insurance mentioned last month, is now in place and you all have a quarter of a million dollars ($250,000) insurance on the passenger in all RA-Aus aircraft. That is on top of the five million dollars third party that is already on your aircraft as part of your RA-Aus membership.

Solid thinking, considering this announcement today for mainstream aviation.


CASA Briefing newsletter November 2008.

Amendments have been made to the Civil Aviation (Carriers Liability)
Act to streamline insurance requirements for air operators authorised
to carry passengers. The Act is administered by CASA and the
amendments were passed by Federal Parliament in September this year,
coming into force in March 2009. The Act requires passenger carrying
operators to maintain appropriate levels of insurance in relation to
the death or injury of passengers in the event of an accident. Under
the new arrangements carriers will no longer need to obtain a
certificate of compliance from CASA, but will have to provide a
declaration indicating they have obtained an appropriate contract of
insurance. The Civil Aviation Act will also be amended so an
operator's authority to carry passengers under their air operators
certificate will only remain valid while they hold an appropriate
contract of insurance. The changes improve the administrative
arrangements for both air operators and CASA, while enhancing CASA's
ability to proactively enforce insurance requirements.

[Jabawocky]

All interesting reading Bob.

What is the direct link between Private Ops in RAA and the Commercial ops under an AOC though?

As I understood the RAA were doing this for the benefit of their members and nothing else was on the agenda.

I qualify my comments as being very much from a distant sideline though.

Good work for the RAAus folk!

J:ok:

[Bob Murphie]

I don't think there is a link. Just two minds working alike for the benefit of passengers. Could also be of benefit to operations in controlled airspace if you are concerned about them coming through your bedroom window.

[VH-XXX]

It's great news for Recreational Aviation, although $250k isn't enough, but it's a good start. The bonus is that if you own a $5,000 el-cheapo 2 seater aircraft you effectively don't need to insure it which is helping to keep costs down (one of the charters of RA-Aus). The best part is that for a yearly membership fee of $165 you get this insurance for nothing and it goes with you no matter whose aircraft you are flying under RA-Aus as long as it's registered.

What do I get for the dollars I shell out for my CASA ASIC and Medical - NOTHING!

[Super Cecil]

XXX, a cheapy $5000 two seater? You haven't looked at prices lately, maybe an $18,000 cheapy.

[VH-XXX]

I can say that with authority, I'm just about to buy one @ $5k! Luckily for me it's in such a remote place it's hard to get to and nobody wants it which reflects the price! But agreed, perhaps $15-$20k for a basic 2 seater. Either way, with $110 rego a year and the $165 membership, it's cheap flying.

[Jabawocky]

Could also be of benefit to operations in controlled airspace if you are concerned about them coming through your bedroom window.

What the??:eek:

[Bob Murphie]

Too cryptic?

It may have been a pre requisite for RA-Aus flight into control zones.

[VH-XXX]

Whilst on the topic of insurance v's CTA, is there anything out there that suggests that an aircraft need actually even be insured, or atleast for 3rd parties? On the roads there is compulsory third party insurance, but nothing exists for aircraft as far as I know. RA-Aus will continue to increase insurance for members for as long as it is possible in our ever evolving world of liability.

[CitationJet]

No, no CTP insurance on aircraft and lets keep it that way.

Competition from the 'no-insurance' option is one of the few downward pressures on our insurance rates.

[Horatio Leafblower]

If everything goes pear-shaped, you will promptly discover the meaning of "self-insured" :uhoh:

[CitationJet]

Of course - however that is the choice for individual aircraft operators.

Insurance coverage is capped, whether it is $1m, $3m, $5m or whatever. Some aircraft owners are happy to carry that risk and are able to withstand that loss so choose not to insure against it.

Some choose not to insure the hulls because they are happy to carry the risk.

[LeadSled]

Folks,
Please be aware that the various State/Commonwealth "Damages by Aircraft" Acts, by whatever correct title, have one thing in common, they are all "absolute liability".
Tootle pip!!

[KittyKatKaper]

absolute liability
I've seen this phrase in passing, sometimes in the company of strict liability.
Are they one and the same ?
But more importantly, what do they actually mean in laymans' terms. ?

[DanArcher]

good old wikipedia came up with

An absolute liability offence is a type of criminal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_law) offence that does not require any fault elements (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea) to be proved in order to establish guilt. The prosecution only needs to show that the accused performed the prohibited act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actus_reus). As such, absolute liability offences do not allow for a defence of mistake of fact (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mistake_of_fact).

Strict liability is a legal doctrine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_doctrine) that makes a person responsible for the damage and loss caused by his/her acts and omissions regardless of culpability (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culpability) (or fault in criminal law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_law) terms, which would normally be expressed through a mens rea (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea) requirement

[LeadSled]

Folks,
Maybe we should hear from Creampuff on this !! For our purposes, the definitions in the Commonwealth Criminal Code are the relevant definitions.

In short, the only defense for a "strict liability" offense is "honest and reasonable mistake", and it is a very high test.

Absolute means absolute, no defense is available, as an Ag. operator recently found out, at very great cost.

You need to be very brave or very rich to fly without any cover for third party personal or property insurance.

This makes sobering reading:
ACQ v Cook; Aircair Moree v Cook; Cook v http://www.austlii.edu.au/images/displeft.png Country Energy; Country Energy http://www.austlii.edu.au/images/dispright.png (http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/nsw/NSWCA/2008/161.html?query=country%20energy#disp2) v Cook [2008] NSWCA 161 (16 July 2008)




Tootle pip!!