[Peetwo]

Folks,
Beware what you wish for, you may just get it.

It was "the industry" that knocked back a Part 125, not CASA, and also originally knocked back a Part 135, the current draft Part 135 is not anything like US/NZ/etc Part 135, it is the Part 121A of Part 121A/B re-badged.

A a major meeting of charter/regional operators in Canberra, the meeting, chaired by Buck Brooksbank, literally howled down the idea of a Part 135, claiming that would be "a reduction in standards" and these small operators could operate to "one level of safety".
What was on offer was a modernised version of the old ANR 203 exemption, that gave rise to regional operators in Australia, in the first place.

Quite how you operate a FAR 23 aircraft to the "same standard/level of safety" (whatever that means) as a modern HC FAR 25 CAT III certified turbine airliner has got me beat.


Cheers,
Bill Hamilton

Bill that particular drift has been taken across to here where I believe the intent is to allow robust discussion and drifting to all posters' content - I will add though that my reference to Annex 6 was not for any other reason but for the definition of commercial air transport...

commercial air transport operation (is) an aircraft operation involving the transport of passengers, cargo or mail for remuneration or hire.4

 ...that most reasonable, civilised countries and signatories to ICAO, seem to have no issue conforming to. But that discussion is best carried on the above thread link...  

Okay back to the Ziggy decision, the following is from MMSM Steve on the Justice Schmidt decision... :

Landmark ruling: nurse’s air-crash PTSD ‘had physical cause’  

• by: STEVE CREEDY
  
• From: The Australian
  
• May 16, 2015 12:00AM
  

Aviation Editor
Sydney




The CareFlight Pel-Air Westwind plane that was forced to ditch in the sea off Norfolk Island in 2009. Source: Supplied
 
A nurse whose life was shattered by the crash of an air ambulance off Norfolk Island has won her case against operator Pel-Air for post-traumatic stress disorder, in a decision that could have inter­national ramifications.  

Karen Casey was part of a medical evacuation team that ditched into the sea off Norfolk Island in 2009 when the Westwind jet ran out of fuel.

All six people in the aircraft survived but Ms Casey and doctor David Helm, who also successfully sued Pel-Air, were injured as they were flung around violently in their seats.

Ms Casey was also trapped in her seat by her seatbelt, surrounded by rising water, but managed to break free and help others remain afloat for the 90 minutes it took for rescuers to arrive.

In a decision that will attract international interest, the NSW Supreme Court ruled that the PTSD was not just the result of injury to her mind “caused by shock, fear and other emotional trauma’’, but of damage to her brain and other parts of her body.
This means she is able to get compensation for the disorder under national and international rules governing air crashes.

Pel-Air argued the PTSD did not attract compensation under the Montreal Convention, the international agree­ment defin­ing airline liabilities that informs the Australian Civil Aviation (Carriers Liability) Act, which allows only for “bodily injury”.

But judge Monika Schmidt ruled that Ms Casey’s PTSD was not merely the result of an injury to her mind “caused by the shock, fear and other emotional trauma caused by the crash”.

She said this was a psychiatric injury caused by a physical route.

“It must be concluded, on the balance of probabilities, that Ms Casey’s PTSD also involves an injury to her brain and other parts of her body involved in normal brain function,’’ she said.

The judge determined that Ms Casey was entitled to damag­es assessed in accordance with the Civil Liability Act and awarded costs against Pel-Air.

Carneys Lawyers partner and aviation specialist John Dawson said the decision appeared to widen the definition of bodily injur­y. Mr Dawson said Australia adopted the term in 2013 when it boosted the cap on damages that passengers in an air acci­dent could claim, from $500,000 to $725,000.

“Post-traumatic stress disorder of itself has not been considered to be a bodily injury and therefore not compensable if you come within the scope of the convention or the act, which is based on the convention,’’ he said.

“It gives a wide meaning to the term bodily injury to say a psychological injury such as PTSD is compensable.’’

Ms Casey said outside court it had been a long, hard fight and that there needed to be justice in aviation laws in Australia and inter­nationally.

“I’m very happy with the outcome, but it’s certainly not over yet because it’s an international (issue) that needs to be recognised,’’ she told the ABC.

“No one should have to go through this again, no one.”

 
{Reference also here at Carneys Lawyers}
MTF...P2