Bad landing = negligence

[John R81]

Interesting conclusions of the Australian Court in a case where late touch-down lad to an "unusual" crash (the aircraft hit a Ferris Wheel). The case concerned liability for damages claimed by a person riding on the Ferris Wheel at the time.

You can read the case here (https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/1761bcf1a49d5847a34354fe)

[DaveReidUK]

A case like that doesn't come around very often.

[Maoraigh1]

That a court has granted substantial damages against a pilot going-around at an airfield where an event was taking place, due to hittng a new obstruction, close to the climb-out, should concern all of us who go to fly-ins.
My attention on final is on the runway. Looking at videos, I've seen detail on the approach I'd never noticed before.before.I hope his insurance company appeals and wins.
Interestingly different court decision to similar cause accident to Yak

[Pilot DAR]

It's okay Dave, I got it.....

[John R81]

It's okay Dave, I got it.....

I didn't react, it's really just swings & roundabouts.

But I think this is a serious legal point for all pilots. The "negligence" finding was based on an approach that was hot / high. If it stands, what would an insurance company then say about your claim for a busted nosewheel & prop and a shock-loaded engine?

[what next]

I didn't react, it's really just swings & roundabouts.

But I think this is a serious legal point for all pilots. The "negligence" finding was based on an approach that was hot / high. If it stands, what would an insurance company then say about your claim for a busted nosewheel & prop and a shock-loaded engine?

Exactly the same: Negligence. If you are high and fast you go around. We teach that to the students from the first day.

[rnzoli]

128. I accept the experts pinion that the collision was caused by two circumstances: less than reasonable competence in the landing performed by the Pilot; and the location of the Ferris wheel within the splay at the southern end of runway 17. Plainly, to the extent that the lack of competent piloting was a cause of the accident and, for this purpose, assuming damage to the Plaintiff, the Pilot, Mr Cox, is, at least in part, responsible for the damage. The question then arises as to whether the Council is responsible for the location of the Ferris wheel and/or the collision with it, of the aircraft, at a time when the Ferris wheel was located as determined.

Video of the accident, filmed from the Ferris Wheel....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X0joEYPoesY

[Maoraigh1]

"Exactly the same: Negligence. If you are high and fast you go around. We teach that to the students from the first day."
He did go-around. If he hadn't, and had gone off the end of the runway, this accident wouldn't have happened.
It doesn't look like the runway had all the approach clues of a major airport runway.

[what next]

Hello!

He did go-around. If he hadn't, and had gone off the end of the runway, this accident wouldn't have happened.
It doesn't look like the runway had all the approach clues of a major airport runway.

No, he did not do a go-around. I read most of the court proceedings linked above (tediuos reading, especially for a non-native speaker, believe me!). His first approach was for a deliberate touch-and-go to check the runway conditions. On this approach he already was fast and high and touched down halfway down the runway. On his second approach he was even faster and higher, yet instead of taking the diligent action of going around he continued all the way to a touchdown 2/3 down the runway at high speed. When he felt that he would not be able to stop the aircraft on the runway he converted this landing to another touch-and-go during which he allowed his airplane drift off the extended runway centerline right into the ferris wheel. He claimed that he never saw the ferris wheel during his two approaches... one wonders what he was looking at - obviously not the ASI and altimeter and not the airfield surroundings either. Anyway, the negligence verdict was split 1/3 to the pilot and 2/3 to the operator of the airfield who kept it open despite the obstacle situation.

[Pilot DAR]

I read small portions of the legal document, and watched the video. Having done so, I don't have a firm opinion either way. That said, in my effort to be a safe pilot, particularly when operating from an uncontrolled aerodrome, or other takeoff/landing area whose local factors are not "controlled" in the hazards sense, I make it my prime goal to understand and assess hazards. I'll overfly as needed to assess the possible hazards. So, I find it terribly discouraging that the pilot, when interviewed, said that he did not see the ferris wheel at all. It's his job one to confirm a suitably safe operating environment, and understand the proximity of encroachments. He admits that he did not do that. The ferris wheel encroached, he "did not notice" it, and failed to assure operations which would prevent a collision. If the ferris wheel, and associated public gathering, encroached on normal aerodrome operations, and safe excursion zones, marking the runway closed from the air would dramatically reduce the risk to the public. I don't see "X"s on the runway in the video. Sure, an average pilot should be able to operate an airplane suited to that runway safely in those dimensions, it's not "tight". But placing a crowd off the end creates a risk that the both the aerodrome operator and pilot should have considered, and mitigated.

On the other hand, I see a legal system which seized the opportunity to make the most out of a sad mistake, making a tempest in a teapot. Yeah, I get that the kids were scared. They probably watch scary movies, and play scary video games too. I doubt, that on their own initiative, they sought monetary compensation for emotional distress. Someone led them down that path. An insurance payout for damage to property was certainly appropriate, as the pilot damaged the ferris wheel. Big dollars for emotional distress? I'm not so sure...

The "negligence" finding was based on an approach that was hot / high.

I interpret the negligence found to be not so much hot / high, but failing to assure safe separation from an obvious hazard. I infer that this was an elective landing, rather than the pilot being compelled to land. If it's elective, take your time, and apply all of your skills to assure it is not only safe, but safe with margins. In all cases of elective operations, it is the pilot's responsibility to assure that the operation can be safe. If you feel that you need "published" dimensions, then stick to documented airports, everything will be by the book, and all hazards marked. If you feel that you can figure things out for yourself, okay, but accept responsibility. I would much rather have heard the pilot say: "I checked out the aerodrome, saw the ferris wheel and crowd, and gave extra thought to maintaining a safe operation with them in mind, but I could just not get the performance out of the plane to make it work.". But, I admit, Sunday morning quarterback on my part....

[First_Principal]

A couple of posters have commented on the pilot's apparent inability to see the thing he ran into.

While I agree it may appear surprising that something as large and mobile as a Ferris wheel wasn't visible to him I recently read another Court decision here (https://www.courtsofnz.govt.nz/assets/cases/2021/2021-NZHC-429.pdf) that I think has relevance.

In this case a pilot landed on a runway that contained two large orange cherry-pickers, and struck one of them. Two pilots gave evidence that they simply did not see the cherry pickers even though they were probably closer to them on landing than the Ferris wheel would have been to Mr Cox. These two pilots had 19,000-odd and 25,000-odd hours, they were clearly very experienced.

While there were different circumstances one could expand upon the common point to me was that, generally, from the base leg these three pilots were very much concentrating on where they were going to land to the exclusion almost of all else in the periphery.

From the comfort of the flight-desk it's easy to be critical of this, but with the evidence at hand, and particularly for Mr Cox, I'm not sure I'd call it 'negligence' in the normal dictionary sense (albeit it may be so in law).

Why is this? Well Mr Cox was a low-hour pilot (80-something IIRC), he was clearly cautious and probably nervous, and given the conditions would have been looking even harder at the runway surface than perhaps he might normally. On his first attempt at a full stop he made a mess of it (haven't we all at some stage?) and in his recovery drifted off-line striking the wheel he never saw.

The evidence in the NZHC document supports a view that his inability to see the Ferris wheel was likely quite genuine - and possibly not entirely unusual. To me this suggests that the outcome of the Cox accident may not be a simple result of failure to exercise care and attention, rather it was a mistake - and one from which the dramatic consequences may have been more easily and effectively avoided by those on the ground than the one in the air...

[what next]

I think it all lies in the definition of "negligence" as a legal term, not the everyday meaning. The Wikipedia article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negligence) makes interesting reading because this term has slightly different meanings even across English speaking countries. Not to mention the non-English speaking ones. A person from our aviation authority during one of the many courses I have taken once explained, that there can be no accident without some degree of negligence (acts of god like being hit by an asteroid and force majeure apart). If everybody involved applies 100% care to erveything he does there can be no accident. So for an accident to happen, a certain degree of lack of care - or negligence - is required. We are all humans and few of us can be 100% diligent 100% of the time. We make mistakes, which, in legal terms, translates to: We are negligent. To cover us, and the people we might harm, we take out an insurance. Which is mandatory in many countries for operating aircraft. And insurers have to pay out for accidents caused by negligence, this is exactly what they are there for. They don't have to pay if the court rules, that "gross negligence" was the cause of the accident. But there are very very few cases in aviation where a court has come to that conclusion and in this case of the ferris wheel that term was not even mentioned.

[Pilot DAR]

So for an accident to happen, a certain degree of lack of care - or negligence - is required.

I don't entirely agree, It is possible for a totally attentive and qualified pilot to just run out of skill enough to have an accident, though I agree that generally, for an accident to happen, someone missed something they should have seen coming, and that is, in some part, negligence.

In the case of Mr. Cox, and the ferris wheel, there are two interpretations of "did not notice" [the ferris wheel]. One is: Did not know it was there at all - that's negligent. Or, knew it was there, but lost situational awareness, and with the nose high, momentarily could not see it - error, not quite so negligent. As he reported doing a touch and go to check the runway, I hope that a view of any factors and encroachments to the operating area were a part of that check. So, having flown a runway check, and not ever noticing the ferris wheel, seems negligent to me...

[what next]

I don't entirely agree, It is possible for a totally attentive and qualified pilot to just run out of skill enough to have an accident, ...

Yes, of course, but the pilot must not necessarily be the negligent one in the chain of events that lead to the accident. It might have it's origin with his instructors and examiners, who either did not notice his lack of skill or let him pass anyway. I do not know what's involved in maintaining an Australian microlight license, but if it includes anything like a biannual flight review or similar, his obvious inability to fly an approach at an appropriate speed and altitude should have been noticed, as well as his difficulty in maintaining directional control after the touch-and-go.

Also I do not know what's involved when flying to small airfields in Australia, especially ones where one has not been for some time. In many European countries it is custom, even if not legally required, to give them a phone call in advance and inquire about the runway condition and whatever else one should know. In this case a visiting pilot would certainly have been made aware of the carnival including ferris wheel right next to the field. On larger airfields these things would be NOTAMd and not reading NOTAMs before departure will definitely be regarded as negligence.

[Maoraigh1]

Was there a fly-in associated with the carnival?
Had he phoned but not been warned about the ferris wheel?
Was he based at a long runway airfield?
Why would a small airfield not notam the carnival and ferris wheel?

[First_Principal]

Was there a fly-in associated with the carnival?
Had he phoned but not been warned about the ferris wheel?
Was he based at a long runway airfield?
Why would a small airfield not notam the carnival and ferris wheel?

Quite, and why I alluded to more being able to be done to avoid this by those on the ground. Also I think the following is relevant (taken from the table at s40 of the Court decision):

-The centre of the Ferris wheel was located inside a 5% lateral take-off clearance splay of the end of RWY17 by an estimated 2.7m with a maximum uncertainty of 1.7m.
-Based on an obstacle distance of 160.6m, a 5% vertical take-off slope gradient equates to a take-off elevation gain of 8.0m from the end of RWY17. The uncertainty in this elevation is 0.25m.
-The obstacle elevation of the Ferris wheel was located above a 5% vertical gradient clearance splay of the end of RWY17 by an estimated 7.9m with a maximum calculation uncertainty of 0.35m (0.1m +0.25m).
-The aircraft impact zone is coincident with the region of the Ferris wheel that falls within the required RWY 17/35 approach obstacle clear area; CASA Guideline 92-1(1).

IOW it was foolish place to put the damned thing...

[jeepjeep]

I see a legal system which seized the opportunity to make the most out of a sad mistake, making a tempest in a teapot. Yeah, I get that the kids were scared. They probably watch scary movies, and play scary video games too. I doubt, that on their own initiative, they sought monetary compensation for emotional distress. Someone led them down that path. An insurance payout for damage to property was certainly appropriate, as the pilot damaged the ferris wheel. Big dollars for emotional distress? I'm not so sure... Concur. At most, the compensatory damages to the riders on that ferris wheel should be a fresh pair of underwear. They should thank God they survived and now they have a great story to impress their friends at parties. That ought to be worth $omething.

[FullMetalJackass]

Hello!
He claimed that he never saw the ferris wheel during his two approaches... one wonders what he was looking at - obviously not the ASI and altimeter and not the airfield surroundings either. Anyway, the negligence verdict was split 1/3 to the pilot and 2/3 to the operator of the airfield who kept it open despite the obstacle situation.

He was flying a low wing aircraft in a nose high attitude.....just look at the video linked above, pause it 36 seconds in and look closely at the aircraft. From the pilot's seat, the raised nose would have blocked all view of the ferris wheel. The pilot was possibly negligent in not correcting for drift but there is no need to doubt his statement that he never saw the Ferris Wheel. The fact that the council was considered negligent by the positioning of the wheel is, in my mind, the correct decision. The accident also reminds me in principle of the crash of the TB10 of the Pilatus Flying Club back in 2018 - the pilot, who was the Chief Pilot of Pilatus at the time - didn't see the ridge he eventually crashed into because of the nose high attitude.....

[what next]

Once again, I beg to differ with both of you. Each of us claims to be knowledgeable in his own field of work, maybe even up to expert level. So I think we should concede the same to the expert psychologists/psychiatrists who examined the young lady and came to the joint conclusion that she was severely traumatised by the accident. To the point, that now, ten years later and in her twenties, she is "unemployable". Which means that she may, unless one day she recovers from her condition, never be able to earn her own living. In other countries she would have been awarded 10 or even 100 times the sum that she now gets because of that. And if you read the paper, she (or her family) did not sue right after the accident. But only years later, after it became obvious that permanent damage was done.

Did any of you two ever suffer from panic attacks? Lay awake every night and relive that near-death experience over and over again? Me neither, but I know people who do. They do not have a good life. Two of them are professional pilots, both are unable to continue working in their/our(!) profession. Neither of them suffered an actual accident, "just" very close calls, one in a jet fighter too low to eject and the other during a cocked-up approach into a Swiss mountain airfield with a business jet. No two humans have the same mental stability, some can shake off such an experience, others can get over it after months or years of counsel and yet others never fully recover.

What would you write here if she had actually suffered physical damage, maybe lost an arm or a leg in the accident? That this is no big deal because teenagers see lots of blood and ripped-off limbs in the scary movies they like to watch? Certainly not. So why would (permanent) psychological damage constitute a lesser disability than losing a leg?

[Pilot DAR]

but there is no need to doubt his statement that he never saw the Ferris Wheel.

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. Once aware that there is a hazard in the departure path, it's up to the pilot to be flying so as to be situatationally aware of it all the time. Best to be seeing it the whole time, but if not, having a really effective awareness as to where not to fly.

Sure, you can get the nose really high, and lose some visibility, particularly on the other side. It's up to the pilot to either determine that is manageable, or not attempt the operation. I've certainly had to land in the water, knowing there was a water hazard, which I would not be able to see (right side of the plane) as I went by. It's up to me to effectively "picture" where it is, and not hit it. 'Same thing with obstructions.

In many European countries it is custom, even if not legally required, to give them a phone call in advance and inquire about the runway condition and whatever else one should know.

I can't speak for Australia, but in Canada, there are hundreds of aerodromes, where "there's the runway, and no "X"s, so decide for yourself", no local information nor Notams would be available. Hence a very wise flyby first, perhaps a couple of flybys to be sure. There have been many times I've run a mainwheel along a runway, before deciding to land.

So I think we should concede the same to the expert psychologists/psychiatrists who examined the young lady and came to the joint conclusion that she was severely traumatised by the accident. To the point, that now, ten years later and in her twenties, she is "unemployable".

Hmmm... Maybe, I guess we have to keep an open mind... 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, I did. I understand that not everyone can do that, but through the process, I realized that money would not make my life better, making my life return would, and it did. Suing someone was never in my mind, getting better was. I wish the same for the victim of any accident, and understand it's more difficult for some than others. Support helps...

[FullMetalJackass]

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.

The question is, where was his focus at each stage of the landing, touch and go, go around? He might have seen the Ferris Wheel, physically, on his first touch and go, but was not truly aware of it because his mind was focussed elsewhere - and I believe that pilots have different levels of mental capacity. Maybe you and I would have seen and been aware of the Ferris Wheel but to call him negligent because he possibly lacked the mental capacity to understand the implications of it's positioning is, I feel, a little harsh. The second time, he went around, was nose high and bang - smacked into the Ferris Wheel without knowing what he hit.

[Pilot DAR]

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...

[John R81]

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".

[Pilot DAR]

Basically, this case means that in law a pilot who finds themselves on finals "hot & high" but tries anyway is "negligent".

Yes, that, is a worrying legal interpretation situation....

[megan]

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 negligenceYet the Yak thread shows if you don't assess the landing strip for hazards and run into something, despite the obstacle being an intruder, the court will find in your favour.

[what next]

Yes, that, is a worrying legal interpretation situation....

What is worrying about that? In commercial aviation the concept of a "stabilized approach" has been in use since 60 (!) years. If your approach is not stable at a specific height above the threshold (i.e. you must be on centreline and glidepath, configured for landing and flying at Vref +/- a set margin) you have to go around. Continuing an unstable approach is not only negligent but constitues a violation with all possible consequences, especially in case of an accident or incident.
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/b6eb2adc248c484192101edd1ed36015/unstable-approaches-2016-2nd-edition.pdf

[Pilot DAR]

Continuing an unstable approach is not only negligent but constitues a violation with all possible consequences,

I agree that in an employee/employer relationship, a pilot must fly the plane the way the company procedures state, and doing otherwise is negligent - corporately. If company procedures say "on centreline and glidepath, configured for landing and flying at Vref +/- a set margin", then that's the standard. However, I'm not aware of a legal standard (in Canada, anyway) for a stabilized approach/touchdown. Yes, there could be a "negligent" approach and landing (probably a crash), but there's a wide grey zone between the on centerline, on glideslope on speed approach, and the assured to crash approach.

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...

[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.

[what next]

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.

Basically yes. But there was no gusting crosswind involved in this accident. And a gusting crosswind is also a factor when landing a tranport category aircraft. If the approach is not stabilised at 1000, 500 or 200 feet (whatever one's "gate" is set at) it will not result in a safe landing. Some kind of landing maybe, but a good landing is always the result of a good approach (don't know who said that, but it could have been the Wright brothers).
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.

[Pilot DAR]

It can not be that others have to suffer the rest of their lives because of our passion.

Absolutely true! We pilots have chosen to fly, and in doing so, allow the risk of an airplane in motion to exist. We have no right to increase the risk to someone else of being hit by it, because we chose to fly. This goes to the heart of my point, as a responsible pilot, we do whatever it takes to be aware of hazards and collision risks, so we prevent a collision. If you're not aware of an obvious risk, why not? If you're aware, and you allow your piloting to increase the risk, why?

[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

[rnzoli]

I'm pretty impressed with the construction of the Ferris Wheel - I'd have guessed it would go right over from such an impact
I am impressed how it caught the aircraft like a safety net!
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.

[ShyTorque]

This discussion is just going round and round.

[clareprop]

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,

A shocking occurrence and an admirable attitude for moving on with life. However, I'm not sure your experience as a flying instructor (and all that entails) can necessarily be equated to that of a 13 year-old kid out for a day's fun. Going by the video, she had to endure being stuck up there for well over an hour and, as you would expect from an older child, being in fear for her life all that time.

[Swiss Cheese]

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...

[Maoraigh1]

"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.

[what next]

But whoever sanctioned the wheel position should pay.

If you read the court proceedings you will see that indeed, they do have to pay. Two thirds. And the pilot (or rather his insurance) has to pay one third.

[Swiss Cheese]

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 (https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1982/16/section/76#commentary-key-3492088a3bfd3b3df2de9d24ad9212f6)....

(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.