Aussie Court decision obligations of power company't to low flying helicopters.
 

Thanks Bob for posting this one. Not something a pilot may readily stumble upon.

Do you feel the power companies will make any moves on their own, or is this going to be an insurance company led revolution?

Very interesting reading.:ok::D

I have had plenty of close calls with SWER lines while doing powerline inspections, with company inspectors on board. They mark the map and record my comments on marker balls etc, but the next year the line is still unmarked.

All in the name of privatisation, profits, and tough luck for the unlucky bunny in the chopper.:{:=

I'm surprised they didn't use marker balls. They're all over the place in western Canada, even on the smaller lines:

http://www.tanawiremarker.com/

Interesting to note that power line inspectors get maps and therefor warnings re swer lines up to 666000v wires. The PBP (poor bloody public), haven't the benefit of same even to such an obvious danger. There is a demonstrated "duty of care" toward the contractor/ inspectors.

I think this "duty of care"highlights the concept which appears to be lost with modern ideals of Corporate Governance in the name of duty to investors which in Oz take pride of place over Good Corporate Citizenship.

Black dog; Although the Court judgment and appeal went the way of the link, I understand not a penny has passed hands yet. It's hard to think of an insurance counter claim when liability has been proven in two Courts.

I have my finger on the pulse as have a few others and I'll let you know how that pans out. Remember this sort of precedent is of interest to many within the aviation industry, not just helicopters.

Sorry Bob I was not clear in my post.

Is it conceivablethat the insurance co's may "encourage" the power co's to place balls on wires as the power co's losses/liabilities must surely be insured against.

Take the example of the sidewalk with a bump in it which some poor unfortunate trips on: the council would have public liabity insurance to cover such accidents and accordingly would then be "encouraged" to look after/maintain their infrastructure by way of increased premiums or possible inability to get insurance.

Thoughts? Am I confused re liability and duty of care?

Ascend Charlie: it's been a while. Good to have your input.

Cheers FBD

Black dog;

Yes, I mistook your drift. One can only hope that this matter is a catalyst for change. Lets hope so.