Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
  • 1
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
#1719045
If an airfield runway is maintained to the standard required, how can the airfield be held responsible if someone crashes on it?
The pilot should be blamed for scratching the runway.
We are far too much of a woosy state.
#1719049
Bill McCarthy wrote:Could be that it’s a lovely sunny Sunday and he’s only one of the stretched controllers available for the field. He needs time off like everybody else - he is not going in on the chance of the odd bliddy Jodel turning up.
The insurance claims culture has killed off chance landing out of hours - if you make a ballsup putting it on the deck you may be tempted to claim airfield liability. That is why we have out of hours indemnity, I suppose.
Plan well ahead your intentions.
:D

I presume you're talking about Cambridge ie ATC rather than FISOs at Duxford.
In addition to the well known 'taking a 30 min break for every 2 hours of operational duty', controllers can only work for 6 consecutive days consisting of a maximum of 10 hours per day reducing to 8 hours if their period of operational duty starts before 6 am. After that 6 days, they MUST have a break of at least 60 hours.
As an example, the roster I was on when I retired from Farnborough was 6 days on/3 days off, the 6 days on consisting of 3 x 7am starts followed by 3 x 10 pm finishes.
There are no such limitations on FISO working hours.
Last edited by chevvron on Sun Sep 08, 2019 4:44 pm, edited 2 times in total.
#1719057
2Donkeys wrote:
Crash one wrote:If an airfield runway is maintained to the standard required, how can the airfield be held responsible if someone crashes on it?


Simple. They aren’t.


I was referring to this.

“Few airfields in the U.K. are publicly owned CAA gold plate the rules, people try and sue if something goes wrong. Welcome to the wonderful world of 21st century U.K. :roll:
#1719066
Crash one wrote:I was referring to this.

“Few airfields in the U.K. are publicly owned CAA gold plate the rules, people try and sue if something goes wrong. Welcome to the wonderful world of 21st century U.K. :roll:


I am not sure that I recall any case in the UK where the pilot successfully sued an airport following an out of hours accident/incident.
#1719073
Dave W wrote:I don't even recall a report of an occasion where somebody attempted to sue.

Has there been one?

The majority of pilots who operate OOH are sensible enough to realise it's at their own risk.
Unfortunately there might be one out there who cocks it up and to try and hide the fact that it's his own fault will try to blame the aerodrome operator in order to claim off his own insurance (always provided it covers him; you all know how insurance companies will try to find any excuse not to pay out).
#1719074
I don’t know why we have these issues in the U.K. There’s no need for such tight control and the liability risk is easy to limit or eliminate.

It’s much less of a problem in other countries :(
#1719077
Fly a helicopter and you don’t need airfields or runways.


If you want to fly into Duxford for the museum you still need the airfield or at least somewhere nearby that has given permission to land!
#1719079
foxmoth wrote:
Fly a helicopter and you don’t need airfields or runways.


If you want to fly into Duxford for the museum you still need the airfield or at least somewhere nearby that has given permission to land!

Fixed wing or helicopter, wherever you land other than an aerodrome with a public license, you must have the permission of the owner of the land unless you're in a glider and have no option but land.
Law unto themselves these gliding people and I was one once! :roll:
#1719088
chevvron wrote:...you all know how insurance companies will try to find any excuse not to pay out).

Well, no - we don't all know that.

This is frequently asserted here, and almost as frequently challenged. Those challenges have never been replied to with any evidence of low behaviour by insurance companies so far as I can recall. If I'm mistaken, no doubt there will be several historic posts to link to.
Miscellaneous, Bobcro, flybymike and 1 others liked this
#1719090
Not only am I unaware of anyone even attempting to sue after an out-of-hours mishap, I can't even think of a theoretical scenario where one could plausibly suggest that the airfield has any liability. Without ATC present the one obvious airfield liability scenario (an ATC cock-up) is taken off the table.

It is fairly well established I believe that you do everything in an aeroplane at your own risk. If you taxi into a pothole and strike your prop, the airfield aren't going to cover it on their insurance - you should have looked more carefully where you were going. If you land hard and collapse your nose wheel, how can anyone argue that the owner of the runway is at fault?

So whenever anyone says it's an insurance problem I find myself asking "insurance against what?"

Such safety-first decisions are often (usually?) made by people with little or no understanding of the legal system. They're imagining liabilities that simply don't exist.
flybymike, foxmoth, johnm and 1 others liked this
#1719166
A perfectly good coastal WW2 airfield (unmanned ) in my area was closed to all aircraft, on the advice of the farmer’s insurance company. Why - because sheep or deer could wander on to the runway or a pilot could ground loop into a hay bale. Claims culture. Now, Duxford may not have sheep wandering around, but you get my drift. A commercial flight, diverted from Wick to that airfield due to haar some time ago, ran into a sheep on the runway. I am not aware of claims, either way though.
#1719185
2Donkeys wrote:Would Duxford or Fowlmere have been an option, rather than cancelling ?


Possibly, yes, but my friends are the other side of Newmarket, so a fair drive both ways.
The 24hr PNR is published in the AIP and in Pooleys.

I fully appreciate that there is a national shortage of ATC staff and of course they are required to have their statutory breaks and rest periods and this does explain the short term closures we are experiencing.

Requiring 24 hours PNR seems excessive and implies preparation of some sort, otherwise why 24 hours?

The whole PPR debate has been comprehensively covered here and I can see that it might help ATC on a busy day with short staffing, to have some notice of the amount of incoming traffic and have the strips written out. It only reduces the initial RT call by a couple of words though, as proved on a previous thread.
Yesterday, I heard both Gloucester and Shobdon, both super busy, have a couple of people call up who had not got PPR and both were easily accepted and slotted in.

On the original subject, would it not be possible for airfields to downgrade to some sort of unlicenced status if they can't provide the full ATC/FISO/fire cover , much like France and the US? We could all use SafetyCom and if necessary sign an online form to accept the risk of a sheepstrike?
kanga liked this
#1719190
Kittyhawk wrote:On the original subject, would it not be possible for airfields to downgrade to some sort of unlicenced status if they can't provide the full ATC/FISO/fire cover , much like France and the US? We could all use SafetyCom and if necessary sign an online form to accept the risk of a sheepstrike?


Not only is it possible, it's a damn good idea.

The problem is a certain management mentality which imagines liability where none exists. The sort of personality that won't accept a lift from a work colleague without inspecting their car insurance policy.
Kittyhawk, chevvron liked this
  • 1
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8