Dearest Hitch: mate….
Hitch – “According to CASA it must do or they wouldn't be suddenly getting into a lather about it.”
They are ‘getting into a lather’ for one, simple reason – at the end of the long, flawed, much abused system – they are ‘responsible’. Full stop. No one can break wind without ‘official’ permission, let alone dare to actually fly an aircraft in a manner which they fail to understand. You can; quite legally kill your fool self provided you do it in a legally sanctioned manner i.e. CASA approved. Once all those little boxes are ticked; you can do whatever the hell pleases you best –and; all is well. Consider the forgotten Mallard crash, in Perth, at an air show. Carmody went to considerable lengths at estimates to describe the process of establishing the ‘legality’ of the operation – that process put a pile of pressure on the pilot; who just kept saying ‘yes’ so as to be part of ‘the show’. Not one of the CASA ‘experts’ checked the performance envelope data for the aircraft. That was left to a pilot with little experience, who, after the ‘legal’ work out and last minute approval, was probably too wound up to stop, think; and, ask the big question. Can I fit the aircraft into the little box they have allocated?
“The pilots in the air show are all CASA-approved by virtue of their licence,
Legal – but operationally capable?
the planes are all CASA-approved by virtue of the CoA
But the performance envelope? Did anyone of the experts have a little look? – just to be sure – to be sure?
and the air show activities are also CASA-approved.
To be sure? All activities – including a very public fatal prang were all CASA approved.
So, why when you put them all together at an air show is it suddenly more dangerous to people not at an air show?”
Not so. You just need to be hit by a drone or; be in a building close to the operating airspace surrounding a ‘shopping experience’ to be in harms way – not, mind you, that this has anything to do with CASA.
No Sir – Strictly no liability is the approved and ‘robustly’ defended policy.
No son, fill it up again – I may sit here a while yet; quiet like and think on how bloody lucky we are to have the legally safe system we do; and, how happy I am to contribute to it. Then I may hit myself with a brick, have another and walk home.
Hitch – “According to CASA it must do or they wouldn't be suddenly getting into a lather about it.”
They are ‘getting into a lather’ for one, simple reason – at the end of the long, flawed, much abused system – they are ‘responsible’. Full stop. No one can break wind without ‘official’ permission, let alone dare to actually fly an aircraft in a manner which they fail to understand. You can; quite legally kill your fool self provided you do it in a legally sanctioned manner i.e. CASA approved. Once all those little boxes are ticked; you can do whatever the hell pleases you best –and; all is well. Consider the forgotten Mallard crash, in Perth, at an air show. Carmody went to considerable lengths at estimates to describe the process of establishing the ‘legality’ of the operation – that process put a pile of pressure on the pilot; who just kept saying ‘yes’ so as to be part of ‘the show’. Not one of the CASA ‘experts’ checked the performance envelope data for the aircraft. That was left to a pilot with little experience, who, after the ‘legal’ work out and last minute approval, was probably too wound up to stop, think; and, ask the big question. Can I fit the aircraft into the little box they have allocated?
“The pilots in the air show are all CASA-approved by virtue of their licence,
Legal – but operationally capable?
the planes are all CASA-approved by virtue of the CoA
But the performance envelope? Did anyone of the experts have a little look? – just to be sure – to be sure?
and the air show activities are also CASA-approved.
To be sure? All activities – including a very public fatal prang were all CASA approved.
So, why when you put them all together at an air show is it suddenly more dangerous to people not at an air show?”
Not so. You just need to be hit by a drone or; be in a building close to the operating airspace surrounding a ‘shopping experience’ to be in harms way – not, mind you, that this has anything to do with CASA.
No Sir – Strictly no liability is the approved and ‘robustly’ defended policy.
No son, fill it up again – I may sit here a while yet; quiet like and think on how bloody lucky we are to have the legally safe system we do; and, how happy I am to contribute to it. Then I may hit myself with a brick, have another and walk home.