Indemnity end will force out crucial workers – CASA change
 

An interesting article by Annabel Hepworth in The Australian this morning discussed the scrapping of the indemnity that has been traditionally provided by CASA.

Someone may be able to help me. The indemnity has obviously existed for many years, presumably over 50. How many claims have there been and what payout has the Commonwealth (or CASA insurers) had to make on this? Has it been in the millions of dollars or has it been quite a small amount?

Surely that is a very important fact to know.

Also, what is the story in the USA and other countries where there are delegates? Are they indemnified or not? Does anyone have some simple information on this?

I always like copying the best from around the world and incorporating that with what we already do better here.

I lived in the USA and worked for a small company which was a type certificate holder and manufactured small GA airplanes. I was the company Designated Engineering Representative and not indemnified by the FAA - explained in the current order - Chapter 3 para 1 c at https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Order/FAA_Order_8110.37F.pdf

Indemnity arrangements
 

The expiration of the current indemnity is subject to a discussion paper and comments at the moment. The Department of Infrastructure and regional development is leading this. They have indicated that for those who cannot insure under commercial schemes Gov't indemnity should continue. see here for more details:
https://consultation.casa.gov.au/sta.../consult_view/

Yes. But what payouts have taken place?

I would like to know as a taxpayer!

Dick, I have no idea, but I suspect none at all, nada, zip. My opinion is that indemnity insurance has been foisted upon us by insurance companies and is taken out by gullible folk who believe in the fear propagated by the insurance and legal industry.

It is also my opinion that with insurance you are more likely to get sued. If you don't have it, it could be just too hard for the "percentage of win" lawyer.

In 40 years of self employment in variety of industries I have never had a policy. I see no reason to change my stance.

FOI Dick, FOI. With CAsA tho its mostly NON FOI !

What a crack up.

Another aspect of the Australian regulatory framework built on folklore.

A paragraph in an “advisory” publication is the source of a legally enforceable indemnity? Yeah right. I wouldn’t be putting my sheep station at risk on that paragraph.

Even if the original CAAP was actually a legally enforceable indemnity that survived the execution of the CAA, it seems to me that section 10 of the Civil Aviation Legislation Amendment Act 1995 plonked liability for it in Airservices’ lap. The grant of an indemnity is hardly a regulatory function. https://www.legislation.gov.au/Detai...5-9acc657a3fe2 (And remember in whose lap the TAAATS procurement mess created by the CAA was plonked: There’s a reason the case was called Hughes Aircraft Systems International v Airservices Australia...)

And the CAAP has some not-so-fine print loopholes through which a bullock wagon could be driven.

Does anyone have any first-hand experience of receiving a cheque from CASA to discharge a claimed liability under the indemnity? It wouldn’t be surprising if CASA’s insurer charges CASA a premium to cover the risk that the indemnity is enforceable against CASA - insurance companies like taking money from people - but who has actually made a claim against CASA under the indemnity and been paid?

Reminds when the fools insisted that Unicom operators required insurance. Ended up costing something like this $50,000 per annum at Ayers Rock for the CAGRO - all added to the landing costs paid by the industry!

The FAA told me no insurance required or action ever taken re a US Unicom because not prescriptive and therefore the pilot responsibility .

Dick

You're correct! Unicom is advisory only and the PIC is the go to person therefore no liability.

$50k per year for a CAGRS? That's cheap, particularly the cost spread across how many thousand pax? Imagine how much a TWR service would cost.That is probably something that would need to be tested in court, in the event of a foul-up by a Unicom operator - and indeed CAGRO, as theirs is an advisory service also.

"Vicarious Liability" was something I read bandied about some time back.

The insurance cost $50 k per annum. The total cagro was about $500k
Could not use local pilots. Had to fly in ex licensed people

Giving bad advice is a pretty established and well-understood ground for liability in negligence.

That's great that is! If I'm gunna be sued because the baggage-chucker handed out duff gen, then he can keep off the airwaves. Thanks, Dick, for supporting a dodgy-com because the pilot will have the responsibility for whatever happens.

300,000 revenue pax. What a rediculous cost for such low pax numbers.

This whole aviation thing becomes more of a circus every day.

Folks,
I have no idea about claims, but re. costs, it is negligible.

I discussed this once, with Bruce Byron, at that stage CASA had to negotiate a policy at Lloyds. CASA had to admit that premiums additional to cover all industry delegates under CAAP Admin 1, as opposed to just CASA employees who held a delegation was nil, zero, zip. Now that Comcare is the insurer, why would anything change??

The issue of withdrawing CAAP Admin 1 cover was/is largely doctrinal, the CASA "iron ring" opposing delegations to industry to perform tasks that were/are "CASA responsibilities". They were/are even more opposed to "taxpayer subsidies" to do jobs that are "rightfully theirs".

The fact is that professional indemnity insurance can vary from very expensive to not available at any price as soon as "aviation" is mentioned, and some states require registration of such as professional engineers, and compulsory PII. This has already resulted in the premature retirement of at least two "CAR 35" (21M) engineers. I am advised that PII cost recovery is a substantial part of the huge increases in costs brought about by the 21M system.

Tootle pip.

PS: The US and Australian situations are very different in that CASA can sue and be sued. While not impossible, it is very difficult, although not impossible, to sue the FAA (or any us Federal entity) and its delegates, and even if successful, even more difficult to be awarded damages. This is the result of US Federal legislation, an act with a name something like the "Federal Torts Damages Limitations Act".

It’s the Federal Tort Claims Act. Background info here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Tort_Claims_Act

Lead Balloon,
Close enough for Government work??
Tootle pip!!

I only know of two Dick. Both were fatal accidents during a flight test for a licence. CASA saved a bunch of money on premiums when Bruce was the boss, by getting the major airlines to actually name the delegates that were doing the testing for and on behalf of CASA. At one stage the delegation was a position in the organisation not a person. Lloyds of London didn't like that arrangement as CASA had no idea who these people were!

Bits,
That was not his formal advice to us (or informal) and as I recall, his advice to the relevant Senate Standing Committee. The claim to be "saving money" was not the driving impetus to dump CAAP Admin. 1.
No, I am not going to go back over Hansard for the quote.
Tootle pip!!

Like the regulatory ‘reform’ program, it’s just an expensive journey in circles: https://www.pprune.org/australia-new...ndemnification