what bothers me about strict liability...
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2013
Location: have I forgotten or am I lost?
Age: 71
Posts: 1,126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
what bothers me about strict liability...
making penalties out of compliance situations that cant be negotiated.
in the CASA (actually CASA's predecessor) authorised flight manual is a requirement that the aircraft not be operated from runways less than 700 metres long.
the builder of the aircraft didnt ask for this. The department in its wisdom decided it somehow.
the reality is though that the aircraft has been operated from a 600 metre grass runway for all of it's 27 year life. Just today I flew it off the grass into a 5 knot at most headwind. at the end of the runway the aircraft was at 100ft over the end. when I landed on the same runway I was turned and backtracking within the first half of the runway. nobody understands why or how the department came to put the limitation in the manual.
in the old world the requirement was nonsense and was ignored.
In the new world of strict liability I am guilty of 2 offences, please forward your cheque in payment.
I liked it better when the legislation made sense to me. douglas bader and all that.
in the CASA (actually CASA's predecessor) authorised flight manual is a requirement that the aircraft not be operated from runways less than 700 metres long.
the builder of the aircraft didnt ask for this. The department in its wisdom decided it somehow.
the reality is though that the aircraft has been operated from a 600 metre grass runway for all of it's 27 year life. Just today I flew it off the grass into a 5 knot at most headwind. at the end of the runway the aircraft was at 100ft over the end. when I landed on the same runway I was turned and backtracking within the first half of the runway. nobody understands why or how the department came to put the limitation in the manual.
in the old world the requirement was nonsense and was ignored.
In the new world of strict liability I am guilty of 2 offences, please forward your cheque in payment.
I liked it better when the legislation made sense to me. douglas bader and all that.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: rangaville
Posts: 2,280
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You've just admitted 2 offences, even if you deleted this thread it can be forensically recovered.
I can understand your anger & frustration but you are better off shutting up & complying with the rules?? Otherwise you will be labelled a whinger............
I can understand your anger & frustration but you are better off shutting up & complying with the rules?? Otherwise you will be labelled a whinger............
Sooo... basically, if you do something that someone, somewhere sitting in an office has decided is naughty, without due consideration to your circumstances eg. Aircraft Type, Field Type, Obstacles, Aircraft Modifications, other extenuating circumstanes etc... they retain the right to fine you irrespective. Am I understanding Strict Liability correctly?
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
W8 - First there is the confession (pprune of You tube), then the discreet tap on the locked cubicle door and a whispered 'we got one'. In a while, after an interlude of breaking wind, the words "nail that bastard" are growled. The rest will then become part of the 'no complaints' record and find you no longer enjoying a peaceful, happy experience but wondering how to fight it all and pay the blessed mortgage. Alternately, you can spend days documenting a reasoned approach; then, wait for a few short weeks (if lucky) after tipping an exorbitant amount of hard earned over and have the joy of seeing your labour and logic thrown out. Probably closely followed by a penalty for bringing the matter of your transgressions to the attentions of powers that be......
RatsoreA - Choccy frog – everything, is the only correct answer....
RatsoreA - Choccy frog – everything, is the only correct answer....
Last edited by Kharon; 1st Jun 2013 at 23:20.
'FiY12'' I doubt W8 is referring to any one specific machine it's more a statement/comment maybe of the mythical sense but gets his point across.
We are all liable for our own actions these days but nobody seems to wanna take responsibility anymore, blame it on someone else & the lawyers are playing in that muck of liability with gay abandonment!
In life simply cover yr ass as that's about all we can do especially when it comes to aviation.
Wmk2
We are all liable for our own actions these days but nobody seems to wanna take responsibility anymore, blame it on someone else & the lawyers are playing in that muck of liability with gay abandonment!
In life simply cover yr ass as that's about all we can do especially when it comes to aviation.
Wmk2
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: rangaville
Posts: 2,280
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey Wal, strict liability goes beyond covering your arse. That won't save you, not even a huge wad of cash to defend yourself will save you. Some of the prosecutions under strict liability are interesting to say the least.
Sooo... basically, if you do something that someone, somewhere sitting in an office has decided is naughty, without due consideration to your circumstances eg. Aircraft Type, Field Type, Obstacles, Aircraft Modifications, other extenuating circumstanes etc... they retain the right to fine you irrespective. Am I understanding Strict Liability correctly?
In the normal system of legal liability for your actions, the prosecution must prove two elements:
1/. That you did in fact do the illegal deed and
2/. That you meant to do the deed.
If it is a "strict liability" offence, they merely have to prove:
1/. you did in fact do the deed.
The only defence available to you is
HONEST AND REASONABLE MISTAKE OF FACT.
Charmingly, the onus is now on you to prove all 4 elements of your defence, ie:
1/. it was an honest mistake
2/. It was a mistake that was reasonable in the circumstances
3/. It actually was a mistake
4/. It was a mistake of fact, not mistaken circumstances or a misunderstanding of the law.
Good luck chaps.
.......now JR ya gotta stop whingin' mate
Yeah I understand where ya comin' from buddy that's why I said all one can do is cover yr ass, it ain't a sure fire way of protecting it (yr ass) as 'HL' has so kindly pointed out to us in a frightening way but what else is a working class pleb to do?
Best not to get out of bed I reckon
Wmk2
Yeah I understand where ya comin' from buddy that's why I said all one can do is cover yr ass, it ain't a sure fire way of protecting it (yr ass) as 'HL' has so kindly pointed out to us in a frightening way but what else is a working class pleb to do?
Best not to get out of bed I reckon
Wmk2
Last edited by Wally Mk2; 2nd Jun 2013 at 00:17.
haven't got much to say if I'm not whinging Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Perth
Posts: 133
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perhaps I digress from the issue of strict liability but the reason I mentioned "CASA flight manuals" is simply related the old (and wonderful) takeoff and landing distance plot charts that the Department of Civial Aviation (pre CASA) produced (the lovely ones that allowed you to plot pressure alt/shade temp, runway distance, surface type, slope, headwind etc... and also give you the ability to derive max takeoff weight and takeoff safety speed from all the above too).
As far as I'm aware they automatically included a fudge factor in there... I think it was about 15%.
Those charts were a real eye-opener when learning to fly... so what does short wet grass do to my takeoff distances?
Similarly, things like what should my approach speed be given a particular landing weight? Also, on a given day, with temps and pressures at X can I get into airfield of length Y? Let's recalc that and arrive early the next morning instead... now can I get in?
Try plotting all that from a 1960s or 1970s lightie manual and getting anything meaningful without figuring out all of the non-linear factors. You just won't do it (at least at a PPL/CPL level).
As far as I'm aware they automatically included a fudge factor in there... I think it was about 15%.
Those charts were a real eye-opener when learning to fly... so what does short wet grass do to my takeoff distances?
Similarly, things like what should my approach speed be given a particular landing weight? Also, on a given day, with temps and pressures at X can I get into airfield of length Y? Let's recalc that and arrive early the next morning instead... now can I get in?
Try plotting all that from a 1960s or 1970s lightie manual and getting anything meaningful without figuring out all of the non-linear factors. You just won't do it (at least at a PPL/CPL level).
Sprucegoose
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Hughes Point, where life is great! Was also resident on page 13, but now I'm lost in Cyberspace....
Age: 59
Posts: 3,485
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
What bothers me about strict liability...
Note A defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to the matters in subregulation (3). See subsection 13.3 (3) of the Criminal Code.
Am I now required to carry a copy of the criminal code when flying? Or should I just take a lawyer on each flight to be sure?
How does this promote sound decision making and 'just culture'? It's just counter productive in terms of safety.
takeoff and landing distance plot charts
During an investigation into an accident, we pointed out to DCA that the charts provided to us by DCA did not represent the real world conditions and that the aircraft, if operated in a country other than Oz would be legal, they, in their words, "buried the investigation in the basement".
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2013
Location: have I forgotten or am I lost?
Age: 71
Posts: 1,126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
for wal mk2. the runway limitation is written in my departmental approval.
neither I nor the 29,000 hour pilot who preceded me as owner have ever been concerned by it because we were operating totally safely.
if the regulator made a stuff up in the days before strict liability you could do the bader thing and be guided by what they intended and make the error a non event.
now that the lawyers have introduced strict liability you cant interpret what they intended and make the system work in spite of errors in paperwork.
you are in a position of peril if you dont follow the written word.
although in the regs it is the pilot's discretion to determine the suitability of a runway this written requirement means that if I fly safely from a 600m strip (as in fact we have done for 27 years) I am breaking the law...supposedly.
australian aviation law only worked because it wasnt enforced and we had discretion to use the guidance of wise men thing.
enforcing it means revealing all the errors they have made.
at least they no longer have indemnity and we can sue them.
neither I nor the 29,000 hour pilot who preceded me as owner have ever been concerned by it because we were operating totally safely.
if the regulator made a stuff up in the days before strict liability you could do the bader thing and be guided by what they intended and make the error a non event.
now that the lawyers have introduced strict liability you cant interpret what they intended and make the system work in spite of errors in paperwork.
you are in a position of peril if you dont follow the written word.
although in the regs it is the pilot's discretion to determine the suitability of a runway this written requirement means that if I fly safely from a 600m strip (as in fact we have done for 27 years) I am breaking the law...supposedly.
australian aviation law only worked because it wasnt enforced and we had discretion to use the guidance of wise men thing.
enforcing it means revealing all the errors they have made.
at least they no longer have indemnity and we can sue them.
It sounds like the opposite of the old "innocent until proven guilty."
Where does 'reasonable doubt' fit into this? Can that be assuaged also?
Where does 'reasonable doubt' fit into this? Can that be assuaged also?
And if you ask John McCormack about it he trots out the old line of "well if you don't do the wrong thing you've got nothing to worry about".
In my view, they are effectively criminalising human error.
The rule is now simply: "don't get caught".
Some of you, in moments of relaxation and weakness, may end up watching the Criminal Investigation channel on cable television (aka Foxtel).
The standard fare you will observe is American police car video of an American policeman chasing an alleged offenders car at lethally high speeds. This is followed by either a car crash or an interception by another police car.
At this point, the alleged offender, who is almost invariably Black, runs from his car and the police as fast as he can until brought down by a policeman, or a police dog, or is shot and wounded. The voice over then opines about how stupid it is to run from the police.
Now inquiring minds might like to ask themselves a question: why would an adult black male almost invariably try and run away from police? Surely he must know his chances are very slim of escaping alive and that running wil only result in further penalties?
The answer to that one comes from neurolinguistics training:- People always do what they believe is best for them at the time.
Using that yardstick, we can now answer the question; why run?
The answer to that is simple. The Black man knows that;
(a) The police will most probably beat him to a pulp when he is apprehended, no matter how compliant he is.
(b) The Police wil lie about his behaviour.
(c) The Police will be unbending and no amount of argument or discussion will convince them he is not guilty of something. He won't ever be believed. He will be jailed pending trial.
(d) He has not a hope in hell of ever receiving a fair trial. He cannot afford a competent defence and the judicial system is totally corrupt.
(e) He will receive a manifestly severe punishment by the courts for his alleged crime - more than a white man will ever get.
(f) Punishment will continue in jail and of course long after he is eventually released because he has been branded a "felon".
That is why they run folks, they believe that even perhaps the Five percent chance that they may escape is worth taking because they know what is in store for them if they don't.
The alleged behaviour of the Australian Aviation regulator is going to provoke similar behaviour, if it hasn't already, and for exactly the same reasons as apply to the American Black man.
Some of you, in moments of relaxation and weakness, may end up watching the Criminal Investigation channel on cable television (aka Foxtel).
The standard fare you will observe is American police car video of an American policeman chasing an alleged offenders car at lethally high speeds. This is followed by either a car crash or an interception by another police car.
At this point, the alleged offender, who is almost invariably Black, runs from his car and the police as fast as he can until brought down by a policeman, or a police dog, or is shot and wounded. The voice over then opines about how stupid it is to run from the police.
Now inquiring minds might like to ask themselves a question: why would an adult black male almost invariably try and run away from police? Surely he must know his chances are very slim of escaping alive and that running wil only result in further penalties?
The answer to that one comes from neurolinguistics training:- People always do what they believe is best for them at the time.
Using that yardstick, we can now answer the question; why run?
The answer to that is simple. The Black man knows that;
(a) The police will most probably beat him to a pulp when he is apprehended, no matter how compliant he is.
(b) The Police wil lie about his behaviour.
(c) The Police will be unbending and no amount of argument or discussion will convince them he is not guilty of something. He won't ever be believed. He will be jailed pending trial.
(d) He has not a hope in hell of ever receiving a fair trial. He cannot afford a competent defence and the judicial system is totally corrupt.
(e) He will receive a manifestly severe punishment by the courts for his alleged crime - more than a white man will ever get.
(f) Punishment will continue in jail and of course long after he is eventually released because he has been branded a "felon".
That is why they run folks, they believe that even perhaps the Five percent chance that they may escape is worth taking because they know what is in store for them if they don't.
The alleged behaviour of the Australian Aviation regulator is going to provoke similar behaviour, if it hasn't already, and for exactly the same reasons as apply to the American Black man.