Kerry Packer's Falcon roo-ted
 

Friday, May 13, 2005

AUSTRALIA
Australia’s richest man in dispute about repairs after kangaroo hit his jet


AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE in Sydney

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Australia’s richest man Kerry Packer is engaged in a legal tussle with a local council over who should foot the repair bill after a rogue kangaroo clouted his private jet, a report said on Friday.
Mr Packer claims Snowy River Shire Council is responsible for the AUD$400,000 (HK$2.39 million) bill to fix his Falcon 200 jet after it hit the roo on the runway, the Daily Telegraph reported.


It said the council refuses to pay, citing what it calls improper landing procedures by the pilot at the Snowy Mountains airport south of Cooma in southeast Australia last August.

A council official was quoted as saying that pilots should radio ahead so the runway can be cleared of intruders.

It was not known if Packer was on the plane, which suffered minor damage to a wing flap system. The extent of damage to the kangaroo was also unknown.

And there are people out there who say you cant train a kangaroo :E

NOTAM or ERSA for YCOM doesn't mention anything about any procedure for radioing ahead.

I'd say he's got grounds to make them pay...what are fences for, to keep the roos in?

If one drives down the road in one's car and hits a dog, damaging said car; is the owner of the dog or road liable for the damage to your car?

...and don't get me going on shopping trolleys and car parks.....


I believe thats why we have insurance, or just cop it sweet.

K

Is it reasonable for a pilot to know that kangaroos are part of the local ecology.

Is it reasonable for a pilot to know local procedures if they have operated for that airport before.

More than one way to look at an argument, I would suggest it is the aircraft in the wrong as it is the PIC ultimate responsibility to avoid collisions with any object whilst airborne or on the ground.

CAR 92 Use of aerodromes (1) A person must not land an aircraft on, or engage in conduct that causes an aircraft to take off from, a place that does not satisfy one or more of the following requirements: ……and, having regard to all the circumstances of the proposed landing or take-off (including the prevailing weather conditions), the aircraft can land at, or take-off from, the place in safety.

CAR 93 Protection of certain rights - Nothing in these regulations shall be construed as conferring on any aircraft, as against the owner of any land or any person interested therein, the right to alight on that land, or as prejudicing the rights or remedies of any person in respect of any injury to persons or property caused by the aircraft.

There's that lovely butt covering statement in ERSA that seems to be repeated for almost every aerodrome in Australia that cautions about kangaroos on the field. Common sense perhaps, but that's the direction legal eagles are pushing.

No wonder people are averse to putting in new aerodromes.

Who's representing the kangaroo that got clouted by the rogue jet?

I thought the proceedings would be held in a Kangaroo Court?

Meekatharra had an electric fence all round the airport when I was there. Every so often, during leisurely runway inspections, you'd see a roo with his head through the fence eating the grass on our side (which looked the same as the stuff on his side) when the fence would zap him. Usual result was an involuntary boing from the roo which left him bewildered on the aiport side, and quite disinclined to approach the fence again.

We'd chase them with the Golden Holden until they jumped back over. Yes, fences work real well with roos.

I don't suppose Kerry got rich by just paying for things tho, I hear he pays less tax than I do.

SWH,
Are you serious? A bloody kangaroo hops across you as you're landing your Falcon 200 and you say it's the PICs fault? Come on! So the captain of the DHL 757 should share equal blame for being killed by someone else? No wonder society has almost litigated itself into oblivion...

Bloggs,

I didn’t write the law, however I do support the law that the PIC should do everything in their power to avoid collisions with any object whilst airborne or on the ground.

The object being an aircraft, a hill, a light pole, vehicle, baggage trolley, gate, or kangaroo all have the possibility of putting the safety of they persons in the PIC charge at risk as well as the aircraft.

As for the role for avoiding the 757 mid air collisions, yes the controllers were a casual factor, however please also take into consideration the ramifications of blindly following an ATC clearance in the Australian law -

CAR 161 Right of way

(1) An aircraft that is required by the rules in this Division to keep out of the way of another aircraft shall avoid passing over or under the other, or crossing ahead of it, unless passing well clear.
(2) The pilot in command of an aircraft that has the right of way must maintain its heading and speed, but nothing in the rules in this Division shall relieve the pilot in command of an aircraft from the responsibility of taking such action as will best avert collision.

CAR 163 Operating near other aircraft -

(1) The pilot in command of an aircraft must not fly the aircraft so close to another aircraft as to create a collision hazard.
(2) The pilot in command of an aircraft must not operate the aircraft on the ground in such a manner as to create a hazard to itself or to another aircraft.

CAR 163A Responsibility of flight crew to see and avoid aircraft -

When weather conditions permit, the flight crew of an aircraft must, regardless of whether an operation is conducted under the Instrument Flight Rules or the Visual Flight Rules, maintain vigilance so as to see, and avoid, other aircraft.

:ok:

Of course if we were to follow swh's logic and verbatim quoting of rules and regs the only way to be 100% certain of not being involved in an incident is to not go flying. Not very practical.

By the way swh are you pilot?

If you would use those rules to crucify the DHL crew, or the Falcon crew for hitting the roo, you are the sort that would obviously happily destroy many advanced activities of the human race. You cannot protect idiots, or those that blindly and out of context enforce rules out of context, from themselves, and I am now convinced that you are one of those. Now that's the nastiest post I've made for a while, but in my opinion entirely justified.

As far as I am aware, runway inspections only have to be done daily before the arrival of RPT aircraft. Or at least that is the way it is at the airfield I operate from. I suggest if KP wants the runway inspected before he swans in then he should make the necessary arrangements beforehand AND pays whoever has to do it out of his own pocket.

DF.

Yes, I would suggest also that swh is from a non pilot planet! Don't we all wish these intellectual ground turkeys would stay out of the cockpit and concentrate on doing there own jobs better, for the sake of aviation safety? :sad:

SWH,
And after the PIC has done everything in his power to avoid a collision, as any right thinking PIC would, a kangaroo comes bouncing out from a previously hidden position, aircraft to fast to stop, to slow to go around, at what point can it be determined that he has failed to avoid a collision by not doing everything in his power to do so??? (I think that's what I mean)

Prospector

I fly for a living, and I haven’t bent any aircraft that I have flown, or run into anything for that matter.

The buck stops with the PIC if something goes wrong, they are the last line in defence protecting the aircraft and its passengers from others mistakes. My previous posts did not say the PIC was at fault, I was highlighting that the responsibility for avoiding collisions rests with the PIC.

What I did take issue with is with this line out of the original article "Mr Packer claims Snowy River Shire Council is responsible for the AUD$400,000 (HK$2.39 million) bill to fix his Falcon 200". In my view, that responsibility does not rest with the Snowy River Shire Council.

If I happened to hit a roo in my car or aircraft, I would lodge a claim with my insurance company, I would not sue the Snowy River Shire Council for something which was clearly an accident.

It would appear that KP is not insured
My thought would be that he should claim on his insurance and then let them recover if they so decide

Lawyers.
In a nutshell.
Lawyers.

$400K ? how many minutes does he have to work to earn that?

hey KP! its a tax deduction right!