Update on Lockhart River
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Alabama, then Wyoming, then Idaho and now staying with Kharon on Styx houseboat
Age: 61
Posts: 1,437
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Update on Lockhart River
And from what I heard this week plenty of problems still exist up North!!
May they R.I.P.
World-first as Lockhart River air crash families seek compensation
Melanie Petrinec
Wednesday, June 13, 2012
© The Cairns Post
LATEST: THE value of traditional hunting in indigenous communities is likely to become a key factor in deciding how much compensation is paid to the families of five Lockhart River air crash victims.
As revealed on cairns.com.au yesterday, most of the victims were skilled in traditional hunting and Supreme Court Justice Jim Henry has been asked to calculate the pecuniary value of the practice in what is believed to be a world first.
On May 7, 2005, a twin-engine aircraft owned by Transair crashed into a mountain on approach to Lockhart River, killing all 15 people on board.
The families of victims Frank Billy, Gordon Kris, Mardie and Fred Bowie and Helena Woosup are suing the airline's parent company, Lessbrook Pty Ltd, and insurer QBE for up to $500,000 in damages.
The court heard all five victims resided in the tiny Cape York Peninsula town of Injinoo, just 4km from Bamaga, where many traditional Torres Strait Islander ways are still practised.
Mr Bowie's adoptive father, Erris Eseli, said his grandfather was the author of Eseli's Notebook - a history of Torres Strait customs that has been translated by scholars at the University of Queensland. In a statement tendered to the court, Mr Eseli said his son would often go fishing with him for turtle, dugong and crayfish while he was alive.
"Hunting and fishing are a very important part of our community," he said.
"From my earliest memories, I can recollect that my family has been largely dependent on the ocean as a source of food.
"The hunting and fishing that the families in Injinoo currently do is a continuation of those traditions."
Mr Eseli's wife, Mary, said in her statement that Mr Bowie was a "kind and caring young man", who was "always available to give us help".
"His death is a great loss to us," she said.
Emily Kepa, whose partner was Mr Billy, gave evidence that food was shared among all family members after hunting expeditions.
The families' barrister, Gerard Mullins, said Justice Henry would need to undertake the difficult task of calculating the value of traditional hunting.
"The question is, how does one value that pecuniary benefit?" he said.
Mr Mullins said it could possibly be worked out by hours spent hunting, or the market value of the food.
All six other compensation claims have been finalised, with the fiance of police officer Sally Urquhart receiving the biggest payout when he was awarded the $500,000 maximum in 2010.
The trial continues today.
Melanie Petrinec
Wednesday, June 13, 2012
© The Cairns Post
LATEST: THE value of traditional hunting in indigenous communities is likely to become a key factor in deciding how much compensation is paid to the families of five Lockhart River air crash victims.
As revealed on cairns.com.au yesterday, most of the victims were skilled in traditional hunting and Supreme Court Justice Jim Henry has been asked to calculate the pecuniary value of the practice in what is believed to be a world first.
On May 7, 2005, a twin-engine aircraft owned by Transair crashed into a mountain on approach to Lockhart River, killing all 15 people on board.
The families of victims Frank Billy, Gordon Kris, Mardie and Fred Bowie and Helena Woosup are suing the airline's parent company, Lessbrook Pty Ltd, and insurer QBE for up to $500,000 in damages.
The court heard all five victims resided in the tiny Cape York Peninsula town of Injinoo, just 4km from Bamaga, where many traditional Torres Strait Islander ways are still practised.
Mr Bowie's adoptive father, Erris Eseli, said his grandfather was the author of Eseli's Notebook - a history of Torres Strait customs that has been translated by scholars at the University of Queensland. In a statement tendered to the court, Mr Eseli said his son would often go fishing with him for turtle, dugong and crayfish while he was alive.
"Hunting and fishing are a very important part of our community," he said.
"From my earliest memories, I can recollect that my family has been largely dependent on the ocean as a source of food.
"The hunting and fishing that the families in Injinoo currently do is a continuation of those traditions."
Mr Eseli's wife, Mary, said in her statement that Mr Bowie was a "kind and caring young man", who was "always available to give us help".
"His death is a great loss to us," she said.
Emily Kepa, whose partner was Mr Billy, gave evidence that food was shared among all family members after hunting expeditions.
The families' barrister, Gerard Mullins, said Justice Henry would need to undertake the difficult task of calculating the value of traditional hunting.
"The question is, how does one value that pecuniary benefit?" he said.
Mr Mullins said it could possibly be worked out by hours spent hunting, or the market value of the food.
All six other compensation claims have been finalised, with the fiance of police officer Sally Urquhart receiving the biggest payout when he was awarded the $500,000 maximum in 2010.
The trial continues today.
Last edited by gobbledock; 15th Jun 2012 at 06:55.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 705
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It must be the tropics
This sad story will never end especially for the loved ones of those that perished. While this story is in the local news, rumour has it that another Cairns operator's safety manager has walked in frustration after his employer refused to learn anything from his skills and experience.
Hopefully they are not forced to learn from another tragedy.
Hopefully they are not forced to learn from another tragedy.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hamlet only
King: O, my offence is rank, it smells to heaven,
It hath the primal eldest curse upon't—
A brother's murther. Pray can I not,
Though inclination be as sharp as will. - Hamlet.
No folks – it's not Bollocks, not this time.
Selah.
It hath the primal eldest curse upon't—
A brother's murther. Pray can I not,
Though inclination be as sharp as will. - Hamlet.
No folks – it's not Bollocks, not this time.
Selah.
Last edited by Kharon; 15th Jun 2012 at 08:33.
Frank - it was an Aerotropics flight, but as far as I am aware they had no AOC for the Metro, it was held by Transair, thus you could argue that since the crew was employed by Transair, under their AOC that they were infact 'involved' in the flight.
Closure for victims families maybe??
I see what is being heralded as a 'Landmark Case' has come to fruition for four families of victims of the Lockhart Crash, see here:
Families win Lockhart River air crash compo bid - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)
A Supreme Court Judge has awarded the maximum compensation to four families affected by the Lockhart River air disaster on far north Queensland's Cape York in 2005.
Frank Billy, Fred and Mardie Bowie, Helena Woosup and Gordon Kris from the Cape York community of Injinoo were among 15 people who died on board the Transair plane seven years ago.
Five separate compensation claims were lodged by their families, all seeking the maximum of $500,000.
Today, Justice Jim Henry awarded that amount to four of the families.
He awarded $388,000 to the husband of Mardie Bowie and her dependents.
In each case, just over $5,000 was for funeral expenses.
In his judgment, Justice Henry acknowledged the loss of skilled services such as traditional hunting, valuing them at $25 per hour.
Frank Billy, Fred and Mardie Bowie, Helena Woosup and Gordon Kris from the Cape York community of Injinoo were among 15 people who died on board the Transair plane seven years ago.
Five separate compensation claims were lodged by their families, all seeking the maximum of $500,000.
Today, Justice Jim Henry awarded that amount to four of the families.
He awarded $388,000 to the husband of Mardie Bowie and her dependents.
In each case, just over $5,000 was for funeral expenses.
In his judgment, Justice Henry acknowledged the loss of skilled services such as traditional hunting, valuing them at $25 per hour.
Why was it necessary to go to court?
From the CASA web site
Was the amount awarded on top of the compulsory insurance policy or the legal eagles getting a cut of the compulsory insurance for dragging it through the courts?.
From the CASA web site
Each carrier who carries passengers for hire or reward to or from Australia, or within Australia, is required to have in place passenger liability insurance which ensures that compensation will be paid in respect of death or personal injury to passengers arising from an air accident.
What is an "Acceptable Contract of Insurance"?
An insurance policy will only constitute an acceptable contract of insurance for the purposes of the legislation if it satisfies the requirements prescribed in s.41C (2) of the Civil Aviation (Carriers’ Liability) Act 1959. Amongst other requirements, it is essential that your insurance policy grants you a right of indemnity in respect of personal injury liability:
for an amount not less than $500,000 (for domestic carriers) or 260,000 Special Drawing Rights (for international carriers) per passenger; and which cannot be voided by an insurer in the event that you fail to comply with safety requirements or become insolvent.
You are expected to hold insurance which covers all of the types/models of aircraft which you are authorised to use, or propose to use, to conduct Regular Public Transport or charter operations under your AOC.
What is an "Acceptable Contract of Insurance"?
An insurance policy will only constitute an acceptable contract of insurance for the purposes of the legislation if it satisfies the requirements prescribed in s.41C (2) of the Civil Aviation (Carriers’ Liability) Act 1959. Amongst other requirements, it is essential that your insurance policy grants you a right of indemnity in respect of personal injury liability:
for an amount not less than $500,000 (for domestic carriers) or 260,000 Special Drawing Rights (for international carriers) per passenger; and which cannot be voided by an insurer in the event that you fail to comply with safety requirements or become insolvent.
You are expected to hold insurance which covers all of the types/models of aircraft which you are authorised to use, or propose to use, to conduct Regular Public Transport or charter operations under your AOC.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SARCS# 7 - I see what is being heralded as a 'Landmark Case' etc.
This case stunk to high heaven at the time and the smell has not improved with time.
Lockhart River shames the industry.
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Oz Trailer
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
601
The $500,000 limit (soon to be $725,000) in exactly that - a limit.
One of the claims was awarded less than the limit.
I happen to know that most of the claimants were offered the $500,000 limit many years ago - but refused to accept. There are a number of reasons for this which I will not go into - it's complicated.
Suffice to say it was not the insurer fault that this went to court!
TB
The $500,000 limit (soon to be $725,000) in exactly that - a limit.
One of the claims was awarded less than the limit.
I happen to know that most of the claimants were offered the $500,000 limit many years ago - but refused to accept. There are a number of reasons for this which I will not go into - it's complicated.
Suffice to say it was not the insurer fault that this went to court!
TB
Tuna Bum, I think you may had mis-read the quote from 601, it states "for an amount not less than $500,000 (for domestic carriers)". So his question still stands, why are they receiving LESS THAN $500,000? is this because its not a "Domestic Carrier" and as such covered under a different rule?
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Oz Trailer
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ixixly (is that a Roman numeral? LOL)
The quoted legislation is about compulsory insurance requirements of the Carrier. The Carrier must have insurance for a minimum amount - ie: not less than $500,000.
601's post infers that there should therefore have been no need to go to court because the full $500,000 should have been automatically paid in each case. If this is not what 601 is suggesting then my apologies in advance.
TB
The quoted legislation is about compulsory insurance requirements of the Carrier. The Carrier must have insurance for a minimum amount - ie: not less than $500,000.
601's post infers that there should therefore have been no need to go to court because the full $500,000 should have been automatically paid in each case. If this is not what 601 is suggesting then my apologies in advance.
TB
Huh, fair enough, wasn't having a go or anything, i'm genuinely curious, another one of those things you get shown in training but you pay little attention to till you really think about it!!
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tomorrow!.
About 1400 EST tomorrow, marks the end of an era. It will quietly happen in the Senate and your comments on this subject have made it happen. Brava Ppruners, well done!, well done indeed.
I will not bang on about the sad state this industry is in, or the governmental agencies which have; in no small way, contributed to it's near demise. My thoughts, hopes and care for an industry I love, have been shared with some great folk here; infinitum; et tedium (and probably, ad nauseam).
My hope is that just for a short while, we can all stick together and rid ourselves of the invidious, often incestuous, expensive, non productive,. parasite on this industry, which has become our Civil Aviation Safety Authority.
Tomorrow is a start, the 22nd gives a slim (60/40 against) chance – the rest boys and girls; is really - up to you.
Selah – sleep well (if you can).
PS, the old man says Cheers (then rasps "about bloody time": Kilkenny rules. OK).
With the indulgence of T28 –
Macbeth:
To-morrow, and to-morrow, and to-morrow,
Creeps in this petty pace from day to day,
To the last syllable of recorded time;
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle!
Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player,
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage,
And then is heard no more. It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.
I will not bang on about the sad state this industry is in, or the governmental agencies which have; in no small way, contributed to it's near demise. My thoughts, hopes and care for an industry I love, have been shared with some great folk here; infinitum; et tedium (and probably, ad nauseam).
My hope is that just for a short while, we can all stick together and rid ourselves of the invidious, often incestuous, expensive, non productive,. parasite on this industry, which has become our Civil Aviation Safety Authority.
Tomorrow is a start, the 22nd gives a slim (60/40 against) chance – the rest boys and girls; is really - up to you.
Selah – sleep well (if you can).
PS, the old man says Cheers (then rasps "about bloody time": Kilkenny rules. OK).
With the indulgence of T28 –
Macbeth:
To-morrow, and to-morrow, and to-morrow,
Creeps in this petty pace from day to day,
To the last syllable of recorded time;
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle!
Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player,
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage,
And then is heard no more. It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.
If this is not what 601 is suggesting then my apologies in advance.
I would imagine that an AOC holder would take out the minimum amount of insurance required under the legislation. There is an accident and as I alluded to the insurance "cannot be voided by an insurer in the event that you fail to comply with safety requirements".
So why take it to the courts if there is a chance that, as we have seen in this case, you will end up with less than the $500,000?
Because you’re not automatically entitled to anything, much less $500,000. You’re only entitled to the amount of damage, calculated in accordance with ordinary legal principles, up to the cap (currently $500,000).
If the insured and its insurance company consider your damage is only $300,000, and you want more, you have only one option: go to court and prove your damage is more than $300,000.
If the insured and its insurance company consider your damage is only $300,000, and you want more, you have only one option: go to court and prove your damage is more than $300,000.
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Oz Trailer
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks Creampuff. Spot on.
The insurance is not a life insurance or personal accident insurance policy where you can automatically claim the full amount. It's a liability policy. If you have a minor injury you might be offered $5,000. If you die your dependants will get the full $500,000 if they can prove they were dependant on you (or your hunting expertise!
). If they can't prove dependancy up to the limit then they will get a lower figure.
TB
The insurance is not a life insurance or personal accident insurance policy where you can automatically claim the full amount. It's a liability policy. If you have a minor injury you might be offered $5,000. If you die your dependants will get the full $500,000 if they can prove they were dependant on you (or your hunting expertise!
). If they can't prove dependancy up to the limit then they will get a lower figure.TB
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Oz Trailer
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the insurance "cannot be voided by an insurer in the event that you fail to comply with safety requirements."
TB