Rebecca (00:00):
… director of Carter Capner Law. He’s the former president of the Australian Lawyers Alliance, and he also happens to be a pilot. Peter, good morning.

Peter (00:08):
Good morning, Rebecca.

Rebecca (00:10):
What is stopping people involved with aviation incidents accessing compensation?

Peter (00:16):
Well, the normal situation in these circumstances would be that each injured passenger, or the family of a deceased passenger, would be entitled to up to $925,000 damages, or whatever they can prove is their actual loss. That’s under federal law. And there is also under federal law an element of compulsory insurance. So commercial operators have to insure against this.

Peter (00:40):
The controversy that has arisen in the last couple of years relates to whether or not the federal law picks up state law. And in this case, Queensland law, it’s the state law that has all the nasties in it. And one of the nasties is a immunity in relation to paying damages for someone engaged in a dangerous recreational activity.

Rebecca (01:06):
So joy flights legally could be argued to be a dangerous recreational activity?

Peter (01:13):
Well, insurers have argued every light aircraft activity in Australia to be a dangerous recreational activity. There are two decided cases in New South Wales where they have succeeded in that. And even where the fault was accepted by the court to be someone else’s fault, the court has said, “No, you can’t get compensation if you’re on that aircraft because you’re engaged in a dangerous recreational activity.” So it’s a drastic course. It’s a drastic thing that affects anyone engaged in light aircraft activity throughout… Well, we’re talking about Queensland, and it applies equally in New South Wales.

Rebecca (01:56):
So when you get on board a helicopter joy flight or whatever it is, fixed wing, something like that, you have to sign some kind of a legal waiver. Is that where that detail is contained, and is that where you see this actually needing to be clarified in order to enable people to access compensation if mistakes are made?

Peter (02:24):
Well, I don’t know whether in this case they were required to sign a waiver. I doubt it. This is a commercial activity regulated by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, just like they regulate regular Qantas flights. I doubt there would’ve been any waiver signed. Even if there was, there’s still an obligation. There were still obligations on the service provider, on the operator to use due care and skill. But the kicker is in the extent to which the nasty state law comes into play to override all those good things and take away rights.

Rebecca (03:04):
Right. So this is an amendment or a change you would like to see the Queensland government make? What specifically are you calling for them to amend?

Peter (03:14):
Well, in Queensland, it’s a decentralized state. Far-flung places. Nearly every cattle and sheep station has an airstrip. Light aircraft travel is very important to Queenslanders. Very few people would think that when they get on a light aircraft, they are losing rights if another aircraft collides with them or some other negligence occurs. What I’m calling for, and I’m not alone in this. Other lawyers believe the same. That section 18 of Queensland’s Civil Liability Act is amended to clarify that light aircraft travel is not a dangerous recreational activity.

Rebecca (04:02):
You’re listening to Peter Carter, the director of Carter Capner Law, calling for an overhaul, specifically in the wake of the Sea World helicopter crash. The investigation by the Australian Transport Safety Bureau continues. The preliminary report was released yesterday, but it could be another at least 12 months, experts say, before the final report is delivered. Peter, what does the law say about people who helped at the scene after the crash, Good Samaritans?

Peter (04:33):
Well, the law says that if… If. This only happens in some cases. That a bystander or someone who helps at a calamity where it’s horrific scenes that affect their mental health and they suffer a psychiatric injury, and this is known among first responders and in other cases as well, the law says that they are also entitled to compensation from the person who caused the calamity.

Peter (05:12):
But the problem here is that the federal law that mandates compulsory insurance on commercial operators does not extend to that type of injury. It doesn’t extend to psychological injuries to bystanders. So that’s a federal law that requires rectification.

Rebecca (05:29):
Right. And Peter, in the course of your work, you’re a lawyer, you’re a pilot. Obviously, aviation is something that is important and significant in your life. So you’re saying people who help victims or go to wreckage sites will seek compensation? Is that a common claim that is made?

Peter (05:49):
No. But psychiatrists will tell you that that type of event, seeing horrific, mangled humanity can have everlasting consequences. It’s not common, but it can happen. And people who sustain that type of injury shouldn’t be barred from claiming compensation. It’s recognized by the law. All we’re asking for is that the mandatory insurance is extended to cover that, and to prevent insurers from limiting their policies so it doesn’t.

Rebecca (06:24):
There will be plenty of analysis, no doubt. And whether or not this becomes a catalyst for change at a federal and state level remains to be seen in those areas that you’ve highlighted this morning. Just have a final question for you, Peter. In the wake of the report released yesterday, there was lots of discussion about radio calls made and what communication there was. There’s no mandatory flight recording equipment in helicopters. Is that a change you would like to see?

Peter (06:52):
I don’t think we need mandatory cockpit voice recorders or data recorders in light aircraft. Whether the absence of a radio call is material in this instance is yet to be decided. I think the real issue here is what the procedures were and whether the departing aircraft turned in an appropriate direction or should have gone a different way. I’m not a helicopter pilot, but I’ve been involved in dozens of aviation accidents and that’s my initial view. We’ve just got to wait another 18 months or so before the final report comes out.

Rebecca (07:31):
Peter, very much appreciate your time this morning. Thanks so much.

Peter (07:35):
Thanks, Rebecca.

Rebecca (07:36):
Peter Carter, the director of Carter Capner Law. So he owns a single-engine private pilot’s license. He’s former president of the Australian Lawyers Alliance. And he’s saying that the Sea World helicopter accident should be the catalyst for major law reform, as you’ve heard, both at a state level and federal level. Federally when it comes to potentially compensation for members of the public who rush to help victims and are injured, or have PTSD or something like that as a consequence. And the state law change comes under the Civil Liability Act. Peter’s saying to clarify that light aircraft travel does not come with the definition of dangerous recreational activity. I’d be interested to hear your view on this morning. 1300 triple 2 612-