Skydive The Beach / Skydive Australia - Deleted thread
 

Why did this thread get deleted?

Is this not a rumour site, about aviation? Seemed like a pretty important thing going on! No one was slandering, defaming or libellous!

I think that the 2 largest skydiving companies in Australia holding a tight grip on that industry, then one trying to list publicly to raise the cash to buy the other and establish a monolithic monopoly would be something of great interest to many parties, especially if they are intending to 'get into bed' with them.

So, why the hush hush? Did someone get sand in somewhere uncomfortable about it, and they exert such influence they are able to dictate terms to what amounts to "the press"?

And just remember people, the truth is a defense to defamation!

The person who started the thread deleted it

Rob

Rob,

Thank you for replying, appreciate it.

But also remember the onus of proof rests with the defendant who must prove the statement is true. It is not for the plaintiff to prove it is not.

Kaz

And just remember people, the truth is a defense to defamation!

This is incorrect... A widely held belief amongst Pilawyers, however the defence has a number of other elements that need to be involved, for example how the truth was found, you can't rely on the fact that the statement becomes true or is discovered to be true after the publication.

But also remember the onus of proof rests with the defendant who must prove the statement is true. It is not for the plaintiff to prove it is not.

This is also incorrect, there are certain scenarios where the burden of proof is switched, especially in criminal law (yes defamation is covered under criminal law too)...

At the end of the day if you are running on rumour and innuendo that you think others may not want to be published. You are probably better to keep it to yourself. Unless of course you are an expert at torts law and criminal law...

Hawkerxp, did you really just advise us to keep rumours to ourselves, on a rumour network? You win the Internet today.
Perhaps this site should be called the ProfessionalPilotsandTortsLawExpertsNetwork, or PilotsTruthAdvocacyForum? I bet they would be thrilling reading. :ugh:

No I was simply referring to any case where the rumour may be defamatory... So what do I win as a prize?

Today's Internet features a stunning showcase of angry armchair bloggers, arguments with strangers via social media, and everyone being offended by everything. Or for a second choice, a full grown African Elephant.

Yawn, lets make this thread real.

So the biggest skydiving company in the world is buying Australias 2nd largest skydiving company. When do AOC's kick in for commercial parachuting?

FCP, Thank you, exactly what I was getting at.

If they are trying to raise $70m (a figure I heard, take it with a grain of salt), it is big business, essentially carrying as many pax as a small-medium airline, with almost no oversight, and the oversight it does recieve is essentially the body put in place to promote it.

It's a bit like your parents agreeing to buy you a new Ferrari, if all your mates agree that it's a good idea...

Works for the FAA in the USA!! :ok:

ATT RatsoreA
 

RatsoreA please delete some messages in you PM box as it is full and won't accept anymore. wish to send a PM

This link to a summary of the Uniform Defamation Laws may be useful for those who are planning on saying things that might diminish reputations:

Arts Law : Article : The new uniform defamation laws

Kaz

Maybe it is big business because the oversight body promotes it and that's one of its functions. If it wasn't one of its functions then it might as well kill off skydiving through over regulation. No jumpers = no accidents. Sound familiar?

I would have thought that the case for more regulation and oversight is a safety case. Not, there's 70 million bucks, let's put a stop to that nonsense.

"Almost no oversight"

What, as in no operational regulations, no regulatory schedules, no safety management systems, no training systems in place for examiners and instructors, no technical conferences, no incident reporting, no incident investigations.

Its a bit like saying all ferraris are dangerous, because you have never touched one.

Teenager describes harrowing moment he skydived during hailstorm only to wake up in hospital - 9news.com.au

I have made room in my inbox.

And, GT, from a pilot perspective, no.

If flying school/charter company A is flying un airworthy POS' and the get found out, their regulatory body pulls their right to operate.

When has the APF, being the regulatory body for all things skydiving ever done that? Even if any incident has nothing to do with the airworthiness of the aircraft, I have never heard of the APF pulling their support/right to operate under their oversight from any company, for any reason. But if you know of any such instances, I am happy to listen.

I have been told CASA refers complaints about skydive ops to the APF. Without wanting to sound like Tracey Grimshaw, how many teenagers do they need to fling through hail storms before someone says something! And yes, I am well aware of the factious nature of my last remark.

"Maybe it is big business because the oversight body promotes it and that's one of its functions."

Champagne comedy

You are right there is no aoc as such to "pull". CASA, not the APF still regulates their aircraft and I know of instances where the operator has been fined.

I can also think of instances where charter aircraft have flown through weather that was too much too handle.

The APF can pull the DZ's/company's approval to conduct parachuting, the same way CASA can pull an AOC, but I've never heard of it happening.