what bothers me about strict liability...
'sunny' although what you wrote here is most likely what would happen in the scenario (especially in the crazy States!) & you see it all the time on 'TV' I seriously doubt that such a scenario would be the case here to that extent with any reference to aviation. I guess what essentially is the crux of the matter is humans have two traits when faced with a situation that is or appears desperate & that is 'fight of flight', the latter is what yr describing & road rage for Eg is the 'fight' aspect of those traits. Yr story is more about persecution about a particular race & am sure it can/does happen in aviation but it would be rare & most of us are law abiding citizens..
"Don't get caught" is something we figured out at primary school or even earlier at home as a very young child being naughty we try to save our asses & that goes all the way thru our lives 'till we breath no more & if yr journey along the way happens to have aviation in it then some of that 'don't get caught' still applies for some.
Remember humans are an intelligent species of the animal kingdom (well meant to be) so we can canive, scheme & deceit & we seem to be good at it sadly!
The secret is don't be that mythical black man being chased in the first place, there's plenty of 'black' people out there (the colour is irrelevant) that do the right thing in life & never end up getting chased by the cops.
40 yrs of driving & I have a clean driving record, there doesn't have to be a 'chase' in ones life
Wmk2
"Don't get caught" is something we figured out at primary school or even earlier at home as a very young child being naughty we try to save our asses & that goes all the way thru our lives 'till we breath no more & if yr journey along the way happens to have aviation in it then some of that 'don't get caught' still applies for some.
Remember humans are an intelligent species of the animal kingdom (well meant to be) so we can canive, scheme & deceit & we seem to be good at it sadly!
The secret is don't be that mythical black man being chased in the first place, there's plenty of 'black' people out there (the colour is irrelevant) that do the right thing in life & never end up getting chased by the cops.
40 yrs of driving & I have a clean driving record, there doesn't have to be a 'chase' in ones life
Wmk2
Last edited by Wally Mk2; 3rd Jun 2013 at 02:02.
Or, Wally, you could look at at the driving analogy another way. Take moi - 50 years of driving and heaps of speeding tickets. But what fun I had collecting them! As they were nearly all committed on a motorcycle, I justify them by saying the only danger I posed was to myself. Not to mention that the tickets only represent a tiny proportion of the number of times I have exceeded the speed limit, so the penalties were paid without rancour. Even the one in Victoria for being 64 in a 60 zone......
The same happens in aviation daily. Pilots and operators knowingly stetch the law to its limits - or break it - and manage the resultant risks. As well as the chances of being caught.
This strict liability stuff will give the bureaucrats a warm fuzzy feeling to know they have the power, but it is unlikely to modify our behaviour or contribute meaningfully to aviation safety.
The same happens in aviation daily. Pilots and operators knowingly stetch the law to its limits - or break it - and manage the resultant risks. As well as the chances of being caught.
This strict liability stuff will give the bureaucrats a warm fuzzy feeling to know they have the power, but it is unlikely to modify our behaviour or contribute meaningfully to aviation safety.
Well that's yr choice I guess to speed 'Mach'. I don't think it's too clever ( I wouldn't be proud either) & you wouldn't be the only one your hurting in an accident as children for Eg can simply cross a rd without looking, the result?..........well 10 yrs in the RFDS was enough for me to know that some out there shouldn't even be allowed out. It's just plain crazy what some people do to themselves or others.
In my mind you can never justify breaking the law, but that's just me I guess.
Stay safe out there
Wmk2
P.s....owned a bike myself for most of my teenage/adult life, never got booked for speeding not once, since sold off my bikes as the risk simply isn't worth it.
In my mind you can never justify breaking the law, but that's just me I guess.
Stay safe out there
Wmk2
P.s....owned a bike myself for most of my teenage/adult life, never got booked for speeding not once, since sold off my bikes as the risk simply isn't worth it.
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Bathurst NSW AUS
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The more I drive on our roads the two things I have observed are re-enforced. There are no road rules really, they are only 'road suggestions' and they don't really apply to 'me' only to 'everybody else' 
I would hope in the air we would take them a little more seriously, the stakes are somewhat higher.
I would hope in the air we would take them a little more seriously, the stakes are somewhat higher.
Lectures duly noted. I have slowed up a little in recent years but that is due to the aging process and lessened reflexes, not through any respect for some of our arbitrary limits, nor through any great fear of injury. Risk acceptance is an individual thing which in most of us varies according to many variables - the environment, the machinery, whether or not fatigued etc.
The point is, rules do not necessarily modify our behaviour, nor guarantee a consistency in behaviour across individuals. Heaven forbid that we all become lobotomised to do exactly the same thing because some government department dictates that it should be so. Either because we may see the law as too restrictive, may read it differently, or because other rewards MAY over ride the possible penalties, risks will continue to be taken in many of our daily endeavours. In aviation we see duty times busted, aircraft over-loaded, flown with defective equipment, shaving the minima by 50 feet etc. Now it can be an offence not to wear a hi-vis vest on certain airports. Oooh ahh, how naughty is that? Sometimes rules are broken by a 'smidge' and sometimes more blatantly. After so many years, of course I have been guilty at times of being a 'smidge' person, if need be to get the job done, and if I a) reckoned I could get away with it, and b) it wasn't dangerous - well not any more dangerous than the act of being in the air in the first place. Every now and then I still run the gauntlet without the hi-vis vest.
I think all pilots would have to admit to some 'crime' against the rules at some stage of their careers. This strict liability environment will indeed make it a crime to do the aviation equivalent of 64 in a 60 zone, and some will always push back against that culture.
Or maybe there are pilots (and motorists) out there who can lay claim to have never sinned? I did know an otherwise-normal 60 year old virgin who was not a priest (he was also very law-abiding as it happened), so I suppose it's possible.
The point is, rules do not necessarily modify our behaviour, nor guarantee a consistency in behaviour across individuals. Heaven forbid that we all become lobotomised to do exactly the same thing because some government department dictates that it should be so. Either because we may see the law as too restrictive, may read it differently, or because other rewards MAY over ride the possible penalties, risks will continue to be taken in many of our daily endeavours. In aviation we see duty times busted, aircraft over-loaded, flown with defective equipment, shaving the minima by 50 feet etc. Now it can be an offence not to wear a hi-vis vest on certain airports. Oooh ahh, how naughty is that? Sometimes rules are broken by a 'smidge' and sometimes more blatantly. After so many years, of course I have been guilty at times of being a 'smidge' person, if need be to get the job done, and if I a) reckoned I could get away with it, and b) it wasn't dangerous - well not any more dangerous than the act of being in the air in the first place. Every now and then I still run the gauntlet without the hi-vis vest.
I think all pilots would have to admit to some 'crime' against the rules at some stage of their careers. This strict liability environment will indeed make it a crime to do the aviation equivalent of 64 in a 60 zone, and some will always push back against that culture.
Or maybe there are pilots (and motorists) out there who can lay claim to have never sinned? I did know an otherwise-normal 60 year old virgin who was not a priest (he was also very law-abiding as it happened), so I suppose it's possible.
Last edited by Mach E Avelli; 3rd Jun 2013 at 03:58.
australian aviation law only worked because it wasnt enforced
"because it has not been tested in the High Court"
I justify them by saying the only danger I posed was to myself.
As a Chief Pilot, I would let a prospective employee drive me to the local cafe for lunch. This was part of the interview process.
If they treated the car with respect and the road rules in the same way, they would move onto the next stage. If they drove as though they we at Bathurst, that would finish the process.
I found over the years that the attitude on the road carried over to the attitude in flight.
Last edited by 601; 3rd Jun 2013 at 05:10.
'601' I like yr idea of the interview process BUT even a well behaved driver on the day trying to impress you (& lets face it we've all been there, to impress) may very well be Evil Knievel in disguise:-) Still yr process would most likely filter out a lot
Hey 'Mach' it wasn't a lecture as such it's just the way I view the road rules & act accordingly. EVERYONE breaks rules (jnc me
) but not intentionally for me such as speeding as a deliberate act.
Can you imagine what our society would be like lawless? Devoid of any rules? Christ there would be chaos in the streets & the Airlines would have 400+ all standing on a Boeing 737:-)
Rules are a bit like locks to some people, they are only there for the honest thieves
Wmk2
Hey 'Mach' it wasn't a lecture as such it's just the way I view the road rules & act accordingly. EVERYONE breaks rules (jnc me
) but not intentionally for me such as speeding as a deliberate act.Can you imagine what our society would be like lawless? Devoid of any rules? Christ there would be chaos in the streets & the Airlines would have 400+ all standing on a Boeing 737:-)
Rules are a bit like locks to some people, they are only there for the honest thieves
Wmk2
No one said anything about driving as if they were at Bathurst. Being a motor-cyclist I am quite intolerant of hooning or stupidity on the road and have kicked in more than one car door in my early days (not any more - I can't outrun them now!). As a former CP, I too, have used the drive to the cafe (or pub, more likely!) test to assess candidates. I was looking for co-ordination and smoothness, care for the machinery and general anticipation rather than whether the speedo went a few kays over the limit. Then I would look at how they behaved after three beers. If they were two-pot screamers, game over.
Can we reasonably be a bit over the legal limit in some areas of aviation and remain safe, if not strictly compliant? Or are all rules totally inviolate?
Take the B200. The AFM says the MTOW is 12,500 lb. Many of our regulations centre around below 5700 kg and above 5700 kg, which is within a bee's dick of (but not exactly) 12,500 lb. However, that was the intent - to capture a number close to 12,500 lb which in the first place was arbitrary. CASA dictates that the MTOW of the King Air should be 5670 kg, because that is the number when you apply the exact conversion of Lb to Kg. But, say I want that extra 30 kg of fuel on every flight and therefore l always carry it because it could mean the difference between being able to do a leisurely instrument approach and having to rush it a bit. In respecting that ultimate document - the AFM - and in order to have my evil way, I have applied a 'near enough' (and often accepted) conversion of lb to kg. In so doing, I have committed an offence of strict liability by putting the aircraft some small number over CASA's MTOW. I say a 'small number' because I don't know EXACTLY what it is. The pax weights are a bit of a guess anyway, fuel quantities and fuel consumption are always an estimate because the indicating systems are never exact, aircraft put on weight with time (just like us), and so it goes.
Here is another one. We are on approach to a remote island in our B737, having had a cracking tailwind all the way to top of descent. It is a filthy night, with the weather fluctuating around minima. My ever-diligent (and somewhat anal) F/O informs me that the FMS predicts that our landing weight will be 300 kg over MLW. Being the sensitive new-age, CRM guy that I am, I explain to him that the MLW on this aeroplane is not a structural limit - it is an arbitrary number that a former operator adopted and had an AFM amendment raised to dodge higher landing fees. The real structural limit is several hundred Kg more. We get visual right on minima. We may not have another chance at this, so we land. What to do? Park the aeroplane, fill in endless paperwork, call out the engineers to a remote island to sign off an overweight check, or make 300 kg of fuel go away?
So, here is the question - in my deliberate disregard of the law in the examples given, I have most certainly committed offences of strict liability (or just plain vanilla offences, because the acts have been intentional) but have I really, really posed any danger to aviation or my passengers? Or have I actually had safety in mind, coupled with common-sense? Is such an attitude really wrong?
Can we reasonably be a bit over the legal limit in some areas of aviation and remain safe, if not strictly compliant? Or are all rules totally inviolate?
Take the B200. The AFM says the MTOW is 12,500 lb. Many of our regulations centre around below 5700 kg and above 5700 kg, which is within a bee's dick of (but not exactly) 12,500 lb. However, that was the intent - to capture a number close to 12,500 lb which in the first place was arbitrary. CASA dictates that the MTOW of the King Air should be 5670 kg, because that is the number when you apply the exact conversion of Lb to Kg. But, say I want that extra 30 kg of fuel on every flight and therefore l always carry it because it could mean the difference between being able to do a leisurely instrument approach and having to rush it a bit. In respecting that ultimate document - the AFM - and in order to have my evil way, I have applied a 'near enough' (and often accepted) conversion of lb to kg. In so doing, I have committed an offence of strict liability by putting the aircraft some small number over CASA's MTOW. I say a 'small number' because I don't know EXACTLY what it is. The pax weights are a bit of a guess anyway, fuel quantities and fuel consumption are always an estimate because the indicating systems are never exact, aircraft put on weight with time (just like us), and so it goes.
Here is another one. We are on approach to a remote island in our B737, having had a cracking tailwind all the way to top of descent. It is a filthy night, with the weather fluctuating around minima. My ever-diligent (and somewhat anal) F/O informs me that the FMS predicts that our landing weight will be 300 kg over MLW. Being the sensitive new-age, CRM guy that I am, I explain to him that the MLW on this aeroplane is not a structural limit - it is an arbitrary number that a former operator adopted and had an AFM amendment raised to dodge higher landing fees. The real structural limit is several hundred Kg more. We get visual right on minima. We may not have another chance at this, so we land. What to do? Park the aeroplane, fill in endless paperwork, call out the engineers to a remote island to sign off an overweight check, or make 300 kg of fuel go away?
So, here is the question - in my deliberate disregard of the law in the examples given, I have most certainly committed offences of strict liability (or just plain vanilla offences, because the acts have been intentional) but have I really, really posed any danger to aviation or my passengers? Or have I actually had safety in mind, coupled with common-sense? Is such an attitude really wrong?
Last edited by Mach E Avelli; 3rd Jun 2013 at 07:16.
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Land Down Under
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Strict Liability
The real worry of strict liability shouldn't be focussed on operating 'legally' and the potential penalties, but consider the Damage By Aircraft Act if something goes wrong and you have an accident.
Damage by Aircraft Act 1999
This effectively means if you cause death/injury/property damage, you're up for it with unlimited liability (not capped like for charter/RPF passenger claims). Importantly, just by being owner of the aircraft you can be held stricly liable for an accident, with unlimited damages awarded:
safe flying... (just don't ponder the consequences if something goes wrong!)
Damage by Aircraft Act 1999
This effectively means if you cause death/injury/property damage, you're up for it with unlimited liability (not capped like for charter/RPF passenger claims). Importantly, just by being owner of the aircraft you can be held stricly liable for an accident, with unlimited damages awarded:
11 Recovery of damages without proof of intention, negligence etc.
Damages in respect of an injury, loss, damage or destruction of the kind to which section 10 applies are recoverable in an action in a court of competent jurisdiction in Australian territory against all or any of the persons who are jointly and severally liable under that section in respect of the injury, loss, damage or destruction without proof of intention, negligence or other cause of action, as if the injury, loss, damage or destruction had been caused by the wilful act, negligence or default of the defendant or defendants.
Damages in respect of an injury, loss, damage or destruction of the kind to which section 10 applies are recoverable in an action in a court of competent jurisdiction in Australian territory against all or any of the persons who are jointly and severally liable under that section in respect of the injury, loss, damage or destruction without proof of intention, negligence or other cause of action, as if the injury, loss, damage or destruction had been caused by the wilful act, negligence or default of the defendant or defendants.
(2) If this section applies, the following people are jointly and severally liable in respect of the injury, loss, damage or destruction:
(a) the operator of the aircraft immediately before the impact happened;
(b) the owner of the aircraft immediately before the impact happened;
(c) if the operator of the aircraft immediately before the impact happened was authorised to use the aircraft but did not have the exclusive right to use it for a period of more than 14 consecutive days—the person who so authorised the use of the aircraft;
(d) if the operator of the aircraft immediately before the impact happened was using the aircraft without the authority of the person entitled to control its navigation—the person entitled to control the navigation of the aircraft.
(a) the operator of the aircraft immediately before the impact happened;
(b) the owner of the aircraft immediately before the impact happened;
(c) if the operator of the aircraft immediately before the impact happened was authorised to use the aircraft but did not have the exclusive right to use it for a period of more than 14 consecutive days—the person who so authorised the use of the aircraft;
(d) if the operator of the aircraft immediately before the impact happened was using the aircraft without the authority of the person entitled to control its navigation—the person entitled to control the navigation of the aircraft.
Thanks for that. No one else is ever going to get to fly my aircraft. When I cease to use it I will give it a Viking funeral just to be sure.
The problem I was referring to earlier relates to a system that is as bad as the hypothetical system encountered by my example. If you know you are going to get screwed no matter what the circumstances, then your response to a threatened pRosecution is going to be different to one where you know you are going to get a fair hearing.
I will not elaborate further on what this might mean, but it could be extremely bad for all concerned.
The problem I was referring to earlier relates to a system that is as bad as the hypothetical system encountered by my example. If you know you are going to get screwed no matter what the circumstances, then your response to a threatened pRosecution is going to be different to one where you know you are going to get a fair hearing.
I will not elaborate further on what this might mean, but it could be extremely bad for all concerned.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sunny,
and aint that the truth!!!!
Those bottom feeding lawyers have set things up nicely aint they.
Perhaps the answer is make sure your net worth on paper is zero!!
If there's no money in it lawyers tend to vanish.
and aint that the truth!!!!
Those bottom feeding lawyers have set things up nicely aint they.
Perhaps the answer is make sure your net worth on paper is zero!!
If there's no money in it lawyers tend to vanish.
Last edited by thorn bird; 3rd Jun 2013 at 12:14.
(Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Owen,
could you enlighten us on what strict liability means, you being an expert on law and all.
Might be very educational as to why its so good for us as well, so far I only see negatives to aviation safety. Strict liability dosnt seem to be applied universally elsewhere around the world and they seem to get much better safety outcomes than we do.
could you enlighten us on what strict liability means, you being an expert on law and all.
Might be very educational as to why its so good for us as well, so far I only see negatives to aviation safety. Strict liability dosnt seem to be applied universally elsewhere around the world and they seem to get much better safety outcomes than we do.
Last edited by thorn bird; 3rd Jun 2013 at 21:22.
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Dark side of the moon
Age: 61
Posts: 124
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The explanation of strict liability, as applied to aviation regulations, is explained at the CASA web site.
From memory, Creampuff has explained it at least once on this site.
CASA did not instigate the concept, the government legal department did.
It's probably to stop bush lawyers from drawing out a simple infringement notice into a Grand Jury trial.
The only mitigation for a Strict Liability offence is the "external force" defence.
Please don't let facts stop you from posting your risible thoughts.
From memory, Creampuff has explained it at least once on this site.
CASA did not instigate the concept, the government legal department did.
It's probably to stop bush lawyers from drawing out a simple infringement notice into a Grand Jury trial.
The only mitigation for a Strict Liability offence is the "external force" defence.
Please don't let facts stop you from posting your risible thoughts.
The only mitigation for a Strict Liability offence is the "external force" defence.
...and do we have "Grand Jury" trials in Australia?
...and since when did CASA actually prosecute anything in a court, when the AAT will do the job without all those pesky criminal standards like "beyond reasonable doubt"?
Folks,
Just to be a tiny bit anal, it is the CDPP that prosecutes Cth aviation offences, not CASA.
Owen, most of us actually do understand what strict liability (or the absolute liability of the various "Damages by Aircraft" acts, whatever their correct names). Your post rather illustrates you do not. Look up the meaning of actus rea, it has already been set out precisely, in plain English, in a post on this thread.
Tootle pip!!
Just to be a tiny bit anal, it is the CDPP that prosecutes Cth aviation offences, not CASA.
Owen, most of us actually do understand what strict liability (or the absolute liability of the various "Damages by Aircraft" acts, whatever their correct names). Your post rather illustrates you do not. Look up the meaning of actus rea, it has already been set out precisely, in plain English, in a post on this thread.
Tootle pip!!
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Dark side of the moon
Age: 61
Posts: 124
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Leadsled
If you consider Absolute Liability and Strict Liability the same I rest my case that the usual suspects on DG know not what they talk about.
If you consider Absolute Liability and Strict Liability the same I rest my case that the usual suspects on DG know not what they talk about.
Last edited by owen meaney; 4th Jun 2013 at 06:43.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Owen old mate,
Quote:
"Please don't let facts stop you from posting your risible thoughts."
I didnt post any "Facts" I simply asked a question in the hope that you would give us the "facts".
My risible thoughts are now perhaps you dont have any "facts" to give us.
Quote:
"Please don't let facts stop you from posting your risible thoughts."
I didnt post any "Facts" I simply asked a question in the hope that you would give us the "facts".
My risible thoughts are now perhaps you dont have any "facts" to give us.