Tom, I was trying to find a way to say that simply - you saved me the trouble.
However, looking at the MOSP, I don't see a requirement for a signature for an Independent Inspection 6.2 DAILY INSPECTION Before each days' operation and after each rigging all sailplanes must receive a Daily Inspection in accordance with the procedures in the GFA Daily Inspector's Handbook. This inspection may only be performed by persons who are authorised as a Daily Inspector for that particular construction category or in the case of powered sailplanes, for that particular type. When the Daily Inspection is completed the Inspector certifies so in the Daily Inspection Record (GFA Form 1) which is in the same booklet as the Maintenance Release. 6.3 INDEPENDENT INSPECTIONS An independent inspection is required each time a control circuit is reconnected. When performing the independent inspection, the inspector must check that all parts are correctly attached, that all controls have correct safety locking, that the controls move in the correct sense and that there is full and free movement. The minimum qualification for performing Independent Inspections is a Daily Inspector Authorisation. Matt On 17/05/2011, at 11:59 , tom claffey wrote: > Unfortunately logic does not always win in the law area. > Just ask Boonah club members what it cost the club when the family of a tug > pilot sued after the wings came off the tug! > They hadn't even rigged it and the dead pilot had DI'd it! > Tom > > From: Peter F Bradshaw <p...@exadios.com> > To: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia. > <aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net> > Sent: Tuesday, 17 May 2011 11:10 AM > Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] Foka incident > > Hi Mike; > > On Tue, 17 May 2011, Mike Borgelt wrote: > > > At 10:16 PM 16/05/2011, you wrote: > > >Hi Ron; > > > > > >A lawsuit like what? You are responding to a mail that hypothesizes that > > >lawsuits are possible. There is no actual lawsuit. > > > > Read it again. He didn't say there was, just that there is the > > possibility in similar situations. > > Hence my use of the word hypothesizes - a word that gives his argument > more dignity than it deserves. > > > > > I sure wouldn't try your legal defence. "So are you telling the > > Court, Sir, that even though you knew there was no way of positively > > checking, you signed that the aircraft had been rigged correctly?". > > The second signer is not signing that the aircraft has been rigged > correctly. The signer is stating that he or she has checked the rigging > in a competent and reasonable manner. This is a different proposition in > law and in fact. > > I think the lesson to be learnt from this accident is that, as somebody > else here has noted, that DI tickets should be issued on a per aircraft > type basis. Plainly, in this case, neither the riggers nor the people > who checked the rigging knew how to rig or check this particular > aircraft type. > > > > > It might even be worse than a civil suit which even if you win is > > going to cost thousands to tens of thousands of dollars to defend > > with the loss of time, stress, worry etc. You might run into a > > coroner or Public prosectuor who wants to make a name for him or > > herself and find yourself on a criminal charge. > > What is this? Fear Mongering 101? How did we jump from civil lawsuits to > criminal proceedings? > > The problem with your argument is that it is one best tailored to the > idea that the best way to live our lives is to enter a windowless room, > close and lock the door, and sit quietly in the dark. > > The truth of the matter is that each of us perform actions and take > risks every day in order to live our lives. Any of us may be sued at > any time. How far the plaintiff gets is a function of the merit of their > case. The best defense is to perform in a competent and reasonable > manner. > > Further the best way to operate our sport is to perform in a competent > and reasonable manner and cross checking is an important part of this > paradigm. > > > > > Mike > > Borgelt Instruments - manufacturers of quality soaring instruments since > > 1978 > > phone Int'l + 61 746 355784 > > fax Int'l + 61 746 358796 > > cellphone Int'l + 61 428 355784 > > > > email: mborg...@borgeltinstruments.com > > website: www.borgeltinstruments.com > > > > Cheers > > -- > Peter F Bradshaw: http://www.exadios.com (public keys avaliable there). > Personal site: http://personal.exadios.com > "I love truth, and the way the government still uses it occasionally to > keep us guessing." - Sam Kekovich. > _______________________________________________ > Aus-soaring mailing list > Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net > To check or change subscription details, visit: > http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring > > > _______________________________________________ > Aus-soaring mailing list > Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net > To check or change subscription details, visit: > http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
_______________________________________________ Aus-soaring mailing list Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net To check or change subscription details, visit: http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
