NZ CAA prosecuting 'rescue' pilot

[John Eacott]

What a nonsense:

Victim pleads for mercy for 'hero' pilot prosecuted over dramatic rescue (http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/72661116/victim-pleads-for-mercy-for-hero-pilot-prosecuted-over-dramatic-rescue)

A "hero" helicopter pilot is facing possible jail-time over the dramatic rescue of an injured hunter who says he owes the pilot his life.

Hunter Scott Lee was left dangling on the edge of a 50-metre drop after falling in remote bush north of Kaikoura on April 5, 2014.

He suffered a broken femur, and had to be tethered to a tree with his girlfriend's clothing to prevent him from plunging further down the bluff to his death.

Local pilot Dave Armstrong stepped up to complete the rescue after another helicopter had already turned back.

But now he faces charges because his licence was at the time suspended, due to a medical scare from a diagnosis which had already been called into question.

The prosecution is thought to be the first of its kind in New Zealand for a pilot performing a search and rescue mission.

The situation has outraged some in the flying community, as well as the hunter Armstrong saved, with the Christchurch man saying he was "absolutely devastated" for the pilot.

Lee has written to the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) pleading for them to drop the three charges Armstrong is facing next weekin Kaikoura District Court.

In the letter he explains how he had gone after his girlfriend, Lisa McKenzie, who had tumbled down a shingle bank, before tripping and badly breaking his leg on the tree that broke his 15-metre fall.

The first rescue chopper had been forced to turn back due to low fuel.

Armstrong then attempted the rescue, and it is understood he sat alongside his co-pilot as a supervisor because he was suspended from flying.

But his junior struggled to make the manouevre in their Robinson R44 light four-seater machine.

Kaikoura Search and Rescue (SAR) alternate controller Mike Morrissey said it was cloudy, the couple were in dense bush on a steep slope, and the view was that Lee could not be left overnight in such conditions.

Armstrong took the controls instead and dropped in Morrissey, a doctor, and the rest of the SAR team .

"Dave knew exactly where these guys were," Morrissey said.

"He's been flying to do rain gauges there every month for years.

"At that time Dave had the opportunity to do it. He was the best person for it so we used him."

Lee said he and his girlfriend had lost hope after hearing the first chopper turn back.

He had even accepted he might die alone by the time he heard the approach of Armstrong's chopper.

It took the SAR crew about six hours to stretcher Lee out of the bush, Morrissey said.

A source close to the case said Armstrong's flight-logs were later seized by police on behalf of the CAA.

The source said the day Armstrong flew, there was doubt about his medical issue and he had been challenging the opinion while trying to get the grounding order lifted.

Lee and McKenzie both wrote to the CAA in support of Armstrong when they heard of the prosecution.

"We truly believe that we owe our lives to Dave and the team that helped us, and there is no way we will ever be able to express our gratitude to them."

Lee wrote: "Clearly it was a life or death situation and we are grateful that Dave made that decision as I would not be here without him."

He said the pilot did not deserve such scrutiny.

"He's done a heroic act in my eyes. If anything, he deserves a medal for what he's done," Lee said. "He's a hero."

Wanaka pilot and Armstrong's friend, John Levy, said the cost of the prosecution and being grounded had affected the family's livelihood.

A spokesman for the CAA said it was not in a position to comment on the case while the matter was before the courts.

Armstrong and his lawyer also declined to comment.

THE CHARGES

The charges relate to alleged breaches of the Civil Aviation Act for performing search and rescue flights without a current medical licence.

The Act, which is currently under review, says pilots can breach the law in life or death emergencies, but not if they are not lawfully entitled to fly.

That includes for medical reasons, or if their craft is not airworthy.

The maximum penalty is 12 months' jail or a $10,000 fine per offence.

[Peter-RB]

How sad,

Obviously the Authorities in NZ seem to be afflicted with the same sort of Mangled lines of thought ( NO BRAIN COMMON SENSE AREA) that all Civil servant types all over the world are afflicted with..

For Christ's sake, a guys life was saved...is that, or doe's that not justify extenuating circumstances, that Pilot was the only person on the spot who could get it done, he did it the man survived and now some Civil Law is going to try and Bin the man

Hey, Authorities WAKE UP and smell reality..!! would you have walked away ??

[chopjock]

So just claim the junior pilot was pic. The commander of the aircraft does not necessarily HAVE to be manipulating the controls.

[cattletruck]

Armstrong then attempted the rescue, and it is understood he sat alongside his co-pilot as a supervisor because he was suspended from flying.

But his junior struggled to make the manouevre in their Robinson R44 light four-seater machine.

This says it all. Mr Armstrong didn't just blatantly go out ignoring NZ CAA ruling, and his initial intentions were legal. But with possessing a good knowledge of the local area he then took over to assist in the final manoeuvre. It's not clear on the nature of his medical condition but the junior pilot was able to legally fly the rescue team out to the location and probably returned the ship.

On the surface it does seems like a bit of rough treatment though.

[Capot]

Chopjock; My immediate thought, exactly. At what point did Mr Armstrong take command, as opposed to handling the controls. What's the offence, exactly?

OK, I confess. I flew a helicopter a few years ago for 30 minutes from the LH seat, when on a trip with a friend of mine who was, and remained, PIC for the whole of the flight. We went up and down, turned left and right, all sorts of things.

It was a commercial flight, too.

The dreadful thing is,nowhere on my licence does it mention helicopters, rotary wings, Mixmasters or anything of that ilk.

Come and get me, Constable.

[chopjock]

At what point did Mr Armstrong take command, as opposed to handling the controls

I don't know but I presume he was not in command at anytime as he did not have a current medical certificate. But one can still fly the aircraft with the permission of the commander, right?

[G0ULI]

I suspect this case will hinge around whether Mr. Armstrong took off in the helicopter knowing that he would be required to take over the controls on arriving at the scene due to his co-pilots' inexperience.

If he went along intending merely to advise and assist but ended up taking over the controls without any intent to do so when the flight took off, then that is another matter. That would seem to fall into a similar category as to when an unlicensed pilot or passeneger lands a plane after their instructor suddenly becomes incapacitated.

In genuine life or death emergencies, actions can be taken to save life which would not normally be acceptable in law. But there will need to be a court case to determine whether Mr. Armstrongs' actions were reasonable at the time taking into account all the circumstances. Even if found guilty, the court may decide to impose only a trivial penalty reflecting the successful outcome of events.

[ShyTorque]

In UK there are cases where the authorities decree that "it is not in the public interest to pursue a prosecution".

I don't know if a similar caveat exists in NZ law, but if so, this is surely something that should be considered in a case like this.

[handysnaks]

I appreciate that it is a hypothetical question, as the flight was successful but.....
If the aircraft had an incident or accident on that flight and bearing in mind the pilot in question was grounded due to a perceived medical problem and as such, that commercial flight probably took place without valid insurance and outside of the companies AOC, then would you all agree that the pilot was right to give it a go?

[Thomas coupling]

Handysnaks - exactly. You're a hero if all goes well, but strangely you suddenly have no friends when something goes very wrong.

A fickle bunch us humans - eh?:ooh:

[John Eacott]

A couple of pertinent points from the Antipodes which may be outside the 'norm' for those posting with UK/EASA rules ingrained in their DNA.

We have a variation of commercial ops called 'airwork/aerial work' which has a lower standard of accountability. A search or a rescue would fall within the Airwork category. We also have a term 'mercy flight' where life is at risk, allowing variations in the rules and regs.

Finally we are reading a news report: how accurate is that? There is little point in debating the minutiae of words used in that report since it is unlikely that the journalist has the faintest idea how his terminology can be misinterpreted by the aviation community.

I see a responsible action by a pilot with a temporary (medical) licence suspension who went along in an advisory capacity on a flight with another pilot PIC, and then took over the controls to ensure that a critical part of the mission was accomplished to get essential personnel on the ground to save a life. The journo's use of 'co-pilot' should have no value since it is most likely that he (the guy in the RH seat) was the pilot for the flight. We don't use 'commander' and other such highfalutin terms down here :p

[G0ULI]

And that is precisely why there will be a court case to determine whether Mr. Armstrong took off in the knowledge that he would probably have to fly the helicopter at some point in the rescue.

It doesn't really matter that the rescue was successful, it was that someone allowed themselves to become involved in the knowledge that they might have to undertake an activity from which they were currently banned.

If something is proscribed by law, then it is up to the courts to determine whether any breech that occured is reasonable taking into account all of the circumstances. If the rescue had been unsuccessful or the helicopter had crashed, there could have been two sets of casualties stranded in a remote location in urgent need of medical assistance.

The offence is not flying with a suspended licence, it is flying in defiance of a ban (for whatever reason) imposed by the authorities. They don't like that!

[John Eacott]

I suspect this case will hinge around whether Mr. Armstrong took off in the helicopter knowing that he would be required to take over the controls on arriving at the scene due to his co-pilots' inexperience.

Again, this is interpreting the journo's use of the term 'co-pilot' as gospel. I find it not just unlikely but impossible for the flight to have commenced with Mr Armstrong as the pilot and the other as co-pilot. There would have been one pilot signing out the aircraft, and it would not have been the accused.

Had the journo referred to 'the other pilot' would there be such mock outrage? Are we living in such a rules dominated/risk averse culture that saving a life takes second place to doing what is morally right and logistically achievable?

I don't know what the medical grounding was for, but on the assumption that it was to guard against Mr Armstrong collapsing at the controls then the presence of the other (in command) pilot would have been more than enough to cover that issue for the few minutes needed to complete the task of landing in adverse conditions. If only to pull power and fly out of the landing.

[G0ULI]

John

I used the term co-pilot in the literal sense. That there was another pilot sitting in the helicopter, not to imply that the co-pilot was not actually the captain of the flight. The other pilot might have been a more correct way of putting it, but it just didn't seem right when I was typing.

[SilsoeSid]

Totally agree with handy, this time he got away with it.

Colin McRae & Mark Weir are two names that immediately come to mind when this topic of conversation crops up!

As Mr A. was company director, that cockpit gradient must have been interesting; and the question must arise, how many other occasions has this guy been flying around while suspended? I would wonder if one should ask the question, 'what would happen if a pilot phones in sick one morning, there is a booking to be flown and no-one else is available!'

How long has Mr Armstrong been suspended as it would seem that he is no stranger to being available when there's a bit of search and rescue on the side!

Jan 28 2015 - Grateful brothers praise rescuers | Stuff.co.nz (http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/65485562/grateful-brothers-praise-rescuers.html)


:ok:
http://www.aatravel.co.nz/travel-deals-packages/img/vouchers/392110.jpg

[SilsoeSid]

Pilot in court for crashing helicopter | News24 (http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/News/Pilot-in-court-for-crashing-helicopter-20110831)

Pilot in court for crashing helicopter

Johannesburg - A helicopter pilot appeared in the Pretoria Magistrate's Court on Wednesday for flying and crashing a helicopter while his licence was suspended, police said.

On December 2 last year Rainier Prinsloo, whose licence had been suspended by the SA Civil Aviation Authority, allegedly crashed a helicopter at Baltimore in Limpopo, Colonel McIntosh Polela said.

He and two other occupants, including a young trainee pilot, survived the crash, after Prinsloo made a steep turn to the left, and the helicopter went into a spin.

He was arrested on Monday, while consulting with the Civil Aviation Authority to lift the suspension of his licence.

He faces charges of attempted murder and reckless operation of a helicopter.

[John Eacott]

As Mr A. was company director, that cockpit gradient must have been interesting; and the question must arise, how many other occasions has this guy been flying around while suspended? I would wonder if one should ask the question, 'what would happen if a pilot phones in sick one morning, there is a booking to be flown and no-one else is available!'

He's also the Chief Pilot. What must those poor pilots suffer when they have to fly with the CP, how do they cope?



How long has Mr Armstrong been suspended as it would seem that he is no stranger to being available when there's a bit of search and rescue on the side!

As do many operators in NZ: unlike the UK there isn't a plethora of SAR operators dotting the coast. Public service and a willingness to help others isn't deemed worthy of criticism in the shaky isles.

I find the mean spirit being shown here to be amazingly disappointing, quite frankly. As I opined earlier, there seems to be a risk averse attitude that prefers to demonise a pilot for his actions rather than offer the appropriate praise; along with a determination to beat the Daily Mail for twisting facts to suit the demonisation.

[SilsoeSid]

Fair enough John and I understand the different mindsets we all have about this situation. Of course the prosecution may be a bit harsh given the outcome, after all someone's life has been saved. But there's always a little something else behind these stories isn't there.

Apart from the question about him flying while suspended prior to this incident, I'd like to know a bit more detail as to why the professional SAR aircraft couldn't go back to the search area. Was the weather that bad?

Mr A must have known they had turned back because of weather/fuel, was he listening to the event on the radio? Also, the report says that he apparently knew where the injured person was.

Why couldn't the SAR aircraft refuel at Mr A's facility? Pick him up and go back to the search area fully equipped for the subsequent rescue?

[John Eacott]

snip

But there's always a little something else behind these stories isn't there.

Only if you want there to be. There has been no reporting that I've seen which in any way implies that Mr Armstrong has any record whatsoever of previous 'transgressions'. This, again, shows a determination to see the worst in another's actions.

Apart from the question about him flying while suspended prior to this incident, I'd like to know a bit more detail as to why the professional SAR aircraft couldn't go back to the search area. Was the weather that bad?

What professional SAR aircraft? The best you may hope for is a local operator turning out to help in an emergency call, indeed it may even have been another machine from the same company.

Mr A must have known they had turned back because of weather/fuel, was he listening to the event on the radio? Also, the report says that he apparently knew where the injured person was.

Why couldn't the SAR aircraft refuel at Mr A's facility? Pick him up and go back to the search area fully equipped for the subsequent rescue?

See my previous reply: I suspect that you are still applying UK expectations to an Antipodean solution. NZ has a very sparse official SAR cover: it remains very much a self help part of the world.

[SilsoeSid]

"What professional SAR aircraft?"

The one mentioned here;
Hero chopper pilot in court | Radio New Zealand News (http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/286129/hero-chopper-pilot-in-court)

Amazing that so far all the discussion and opinion about this are based on a single online news report. Now there's another to read.

[John Eacott]

Absolutely, SS: but you weren't basing your previous comments on that, were you? Again we don't know the circumstances why the Westpac 117 turned back nor why the Rescue Co-ord chose to call Kaikoura Helicopters instead. But they did, and this is the result after a successful insertion of medical personnel; a witch-hunt.

This is becoming a broken record and if you are still determined to Monday morning umpire the decisions made at the time then there is no point in further discussion.

[SilsoeSid]

As it happens John, when I read a thread such as this I have a little look around to see what other articles there are around about the subject. The report I linked to was available since way before the beginning of this thread so I knew about the Westpac cab from the start. I'm surprised that those of us 'over there' didn't!

You say that the Westpac controllers called Kaikoira helicopters, where did you get that information and why do you think they would ask a R44 to do the job that a fully equipped 117 couldn't?

There is actually very little coverage about this considering it happened last year. Is Mr A still suspended?

[surely not]

If the R44 had been flying with Armstrong purely as a passenger and the PIC had become incapacitated, does the fact Armstrong was currently suspended preclude him from effecting a safe landing using his skills, or is he expected to say 'oh shoot, guess we're going to have to die cos I cannot touch the controls as I'm suspended'?

As the most experienced pilot in that area of flying surely he was right to tag along to offer experience and advice. When he saw that the PIC didn't have the required skills to effect the rescue he had two choices, leave someone to die, or to help them. Well done that he chose the right course of action and hopefully the powers that be will also recognise that he took appropriate action.

If he had been on his own then it is more contentious, but he wasn't, he had another pilot there to help.

[Squeaks]

You say that the Westpac controllers called Kaikoira helicopters, where did you get that information and why do you think they would ask a R44 to do the job that a fully equipped 117 couldn't?

The Rescue Coordination Centre New Zealand (RCCNZ) (http://www.maritimenz.govt.nz/About-us/RCCNZ-profile.asp) has nothing to do with Westpac Rescue: it is a Government funded organisation that coordinates rescue tasking within the NZ region. Same as Australia's RCC, they use whoever is suitable and available.

However, since it was overland it was probably the NZ Police doing the tasking as they have authority for overland SAR.

I thought previous comments to you may have got the message across that this ain't the pommy set up and UnZud looks after its own? If Kaikoura Helicopters were tasked it was for a good reason, and knowing the area may have been an important factor.

[SilsoeSid]

Squeaks, you seem a little mixed up.

It was John that said, "Again we don't know the circumstances why the Westpac 117 turned back nor why the Rescue Co-ord chose to call Kaikoura Helicopters instead. But they did .... "

All I asked is where he obtained that information.

[chopjock]

Sid
Why couldn't the SAR aircraft refuel at Mr A's facility?

I would hazard a guess that a 117 might not run very well on R44 fuel?

[SilsoeSid]

surely_not, yea right! Just like if you're flying to see us here in pommy land and the flight crew become incapacitated and you as a professional pilot do nothing but carry on munching your peanuts and swilling your lager :ugh:


I fully understand what we are saying here and of course the feeling that he shouldn't be prosecuted given the circumstances, but what really is the 'full story' here?

What do we know from the media, or in other words what information do any of us have on which to base our opinion?

1. Westpac 117 leaves the search area due to fuel or weather issues.
(Can't get fuel at Kaikoura base? Weather too bad for a fully equipped & crewed 117?)
2. Kaikoura R44 launches with an inexperienced pilot and the highly experienced yet suspended company director as pax.
(We don't know if they were asked to)
3. Casualty located in dense bush on a steep slope.
(Then what happens?)


Purely hypothetical and merely an opinion;
Given the dire circumstances, wouldn't you drop off the inexperienced pilot and have the extra capability to get the expert rescuers to the scene asp?

Could it be that the R44 found the casualty, the pilot had difficulty landing so the suspended pax took control and landed. Now what?
Was the inexperienced pilot left to care for the casualty while the experienced yet suspended pax flew in the rescue team, after all, if the suspended pax had stayed with the casualty it wouldn't be certain that the inexperienced pilot would be able to get them back in.


Spot the difference;
Helicopter pilot admits aviation breaches | Stuff.co.nz (http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/65080231/Helicopter-pilot-admits-aviation-breaches)

[SilsoeSid]

chopjock
Sid
Why couldn't the SAR aircraft refuel at Mr A's facility?
I would hazard a guess that a 117 might not run very well on R44 fuel?


But it would on 206 fuel :ok:

About Us (http://worldofwhales.co.nz/about-us/)

[EatMyShorts!]

From the AIP:

Fuel:
Air BP Avgas 100, Swipecard
Mobil Jet A1 available on request to Kaikoura Helicopters, Tel (03) 319 6609. (Not located on Kaikoura aerodrome)


Morally this pilot should not be prosecuted, of course. I think that slapping him right and left (a verbal warning!) would be sufficient.

[[email protected]]

One problem with this case is that the urgency and severity of the injury (ie the amount of jeopardy the casualty was in) has only been reported by the injured party himself to support the actions of the pilot.

Quite understandable that the casualty should be enormously grateful for having a doctor delivered to him when he is in pain and shock but he didn't die in the 6 hours it took to stretcher him off and broken femurs (unless accompanied by femoral bleeding) aren't usually fatal.

So the pilot took a big risk with his life, the co-pilots life, the medical teams lives and that of the casualty, in a single engine piston aircraft in very challenging terrain and weather conditions.

Was it a skillful piece of flying? Yes. Did it need to be carried out? Perhaps not - if the casualty was carried out, a team could walk in so it may just have saved some time and discomfort for the casualty.

Had anything else gone wrong it could have been a multiple-fatality accident with a much bigger witch hunt then there now is.

Experienced SAR operators know when to say NO - I don't blame the pilot for trying to help but I don't think he did much of a risk/reward assessment before acting.

[chopjock]

crab
So the pilot took a big risk with his life, the co-pilots life, the medical teams lives and that of the casualty, in a single engine piston aircraft in very challenging terrain and weather conditions.

Perhaps not such a big a risk as you may think though since the biggest risk factor in accidents is the pilot, not the number of engines!

[Fareastdriver]

IIRC 22 Sqn. used to operate piston engine Whirlwinds for years without too much trouble even though the old Leonides was prone to throwing pots.

As with others I feel that this is some jobsworth making a name for himself in todays PC/HS world. A few years ago this would have got the plaudits it deserved for making the best of a difficult situation.

Does the modern SAR crew know how long the survivor has the potential to live before he/she is picked up?

[[email protected]]

Does the modern SAR crew know how long the survivor has the potential to live before he/she is picked up? no-one can know how long anyone else has to live:) But yes, they often know the extent of the casualty's injuries, either because there is someone on scene already or because the person or passer by used their mobile phone to call for help.

The Whirly was used because we didn't have a choice - once the Wessex was available, the Whirlwind soon went out of service.

Perhaps not such a big a risk as you may think though since the biggest risk factor in accidents is the pilot, not the number of engines!
Except a single engine failure in a single is always dramatic - not so much in a twin. However you are right in this case - the inexperienced pilot couldn't hack it and could easily have clipped a blade or similar -the more experienced pilot chose to continue and ends up as hero or villan depending on his luck that day.

[ShyTorque]

Meanwhile, back in the UK........

Simon Burgess drowned after firemen refused to wade in 3ft deep lake due to health and safety rules | Daily Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2104358/Simon-Burgess-drowned-firemen-refused-wade-3ft-deep-lake-health-safety-rules.html)

[SilsoeSid]

Another meanwhile,

Barnet police swim to save car plunge woman - BBC News (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-21531241)
Hero police officer saves drowning man | News | London Evening Standard (http://www.standard.co.uk/news/hero-police-officer-saves-drowning-man-6568464.html)
Police officer saves woman who had fallen into the River Trent | Central - ITV News (http://www.itv.com/news/central/update/2014-09-04/police-officer-saves-woman-who-had-fallen-into-the-river-trent/)

Perhaps at a more sober time, you may like to remember these police officers;

Blackpool police officers' drowning tragedy recalled - BBC News (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lancashire-20892279)
On a winter morning 30 years ago, one man's efforts to rescue his pet from the sea set off a chain of events which cost his own life and those of three police officers.
:(

[SilsoeSid]

Back on thread, does anyone have any actual details that are not taken from the media?

[ShyTorque]

The Whirly was used because we didn't have a choice - once the Wessex was available, the Whirlwind soon went out of service.


The definition of "soon" is totally subjective, Crab. The HAR10 actually continued in service alongside the Wessex for more than twenty years. I fondly look back on my time flying them (and prior to that, a short time under them, getting wet, on what some would consider the "wrong" end of the winch cable).

[nigelh]

Silsoe .....if you were hanging off a rock I wouldn't come and save you in case you did a ramp check on me afterwards !!! You really really are a sad old jobsworth ..... His suspended medical did not effect his skill , or otherwise as a pilot . In an emergency I would like someone with no medical and licence out of date rather than being left !! Don't forget in this country ,not having a type rating for the heli you are flying would ( in your book ) make you unsafe .
Well I haven't got any type ratings and fly about 7 different types quite happily !! Give the man a medal :ok:

[SilsoeSid]

Thanks for that Nigel, going back to page 1 you'll see that I wrote;
"Of course the prosecution may be a bit harsh given the outcome, after all someone's life has been saved." but you just couldn't resist it could you :rolleyes:

Nigelh
Silsoe .....if you were hanging off a rock I wouldn't come and save you

And here's the difference nigel, I would come and save you :ok:

Where did I say that anything was unsafe or unskillful? I have said nothing of the sort. Please don't make things up to support your twisted personal agenda.

[SilsoeSid]

Anyone know what three charges he is facing?


Stuff.co reported Monday that police seized Dave Armstrong's logbooks after the flight in April of 2014 and now he's facing three charges relating to the incident

Pilot Faces Jail For Rescue Flight - AVweb flash Article (http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/Pilot-Faces-Jail-For-Rescue-Flight-224954-1.html)

[[email protected]]

Shy - that's because you are much older than me:) When I joined in 82 the Whirlwind had gone and the Wessex and Sea King were the only SAR options - it must have been different in the 50s:)

Nigel - your viewpoint only works if the rescue is successful - if it isn't, or worse there are more casualties as a result, then the brave hero becomes the foolhardy idiot.

If you had a choice between waiting a few hours in pain for a fully equipped and crewed rescue helicopter or letting a 'have-a-go-hero' in a flimsycopter try to get you, who might well total himself and you in the process.

Just because the Kiwis don't have proper SAR cover for their A-level scenery doesn't mean it is best practice.

[SilsoeSid]

Is this really such a simple case of someone who effectively is just a passenger, being asked to take over control for the shortest of times in order to land an R44 at a field location that was a bit tricky for the pilot?

Makes me wonder that if the passenger was any old Joe Soap and the pilot said, "This is a bit tricky, I know you have a few hours under your belt can you give it a try", would anything have come of it?

Are there no news reports from the time of the rescue itself?

[chopjock]

sid
Makes me wonder that if the passenger was any old Joe Soap and the pilot said, "This is a bit tricky, I know you have a few hours under your belt can you give it a try",

Don't be so bl00dy stupid.

[SilsoeSid]

Exactly, so who decided Mr A was going to fly?

[Luke SkyToddler]

FFS you lot are no better than the CAA, getting all twisted up in intents and terminology and meanings of words, and gray areas of who was the intended PiC.

A guy was in imminent life threatening danger, somewhere up in the deep bush, literally hanging off a tree by the seat of his pants over a 50 metre cliff drop, with a broken leg, in sh!tty weather, with darkness setting in. There was only pilot on the scene, who was willing and able and confident and experienced enough, to do the job of rescuing this poor bugger. He assessed ALL the risks, of which I presume his medical issue and the legal consequences was one of them, and then he chose to do the right thing.

Hope the judge can see the big picture and kick this out of court after about one millisecond.

[Evil Twin]

Hear Hear.....:D:D:D:D:D:D:ok: Well said Luke. The vast majority of the armchair critics in this thread are the very reason we're all going to hell in a handcart. Political Correct cobblers

[chopjock]

so who decided Mr A was going to fly?

Officially, it will obviously be the PIC. Unofficially, I expect the boss made the suggestion that he "supervises" the flight and suggested he takes control if it gets too difficult.
Either way, if the commander gives his permission, then that's all that's needed, right?

[SilsoeSid]

PiC, Boss, Supervisor, Commander. Lots of titles flying around in that cockpit.
So who is the Commander if the pilot is under supervision?

Lets not forget that there is a commercial helicopter company involved here, not just a good willed private pilot doing what they see as the right thing to do.

Anymore facts, or are we still going on opinions?

https://sparkyleegeek.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/opinions.jpg

[John Eacott]

PiC, Boss, Supervisor, Commander. Lots of titles flying around in that cockpit.
So who is the Commander if the pilot is under supervision?

~~~snip~~~~


Anymore facts, or are we still going on opinions?



Since this has turned into the SilsoeSid thread of guesses and inability to read, another reminder.

None of those terms/titles would have been 'flying around in that cockpit', since they are all UK terms and generally unused down here. There was a pilot who signed for the flight, and his CP who was along for the ride in an advisory capacity which turned in to a decision to complete part of the flight on Mercy Flight grounds.

No more facts than those that SS has been applying to his suppositions, but a lot more understanding of how the system works holding both NZ, Australian and UK licences upon which to base my posts. And a lot less inflammatory criticism of the pilot based on 'wotifs' :rolleyes:

[Peter-RB]

Gentlemen,
I still say, this action by saving a man's life, give's the Pilot a lot of credit, and any sane person would do similar things, would any of you here use the excuse I am not trained to save life, so I cannot even attempt it...!!!

The pilot concerned may have done wrong in a perfect world, but a heart is still pumping and a family still have that man, through this Illegal action..

GOOD ON HIM..!

[SilsoeSid]

In the same vein as to when I said earlier to nighelh "Where did I say that anything was unsafe or unskillful? I have said nothing of the sort.", I would say to John, where have I laid 'inflammatory criticism' of the pilot?

"None of those terms/titles would have been 'flying around in that cockpit', since they are all UK terms and generally unused down here." - Maybe that is because that conversation was between two Brits :rolleyes:


I find it strange that back in April 2014 there isn't a thread or any online news report singing any praises and I'm sure those of you in the business over there must have heard of it, so why do we only have a couple of very recent news reports about this?

The only things I mention are those reported in the same articles that we are all basing our opinions on. Why no mention of bad weather or airworthiness as also mentioned in the articles?

[SilsoeSid]

The pilot concerned may have done wrong in a perfect world, but a heart is still pumping and a family still have that man, through this Illegal action..

GOOD ON HIM..!

Absolutely, and no-one has said different.

[RVDT]

This has been in the Act forever.

Civil Aviation Act 1990 as at 1 July 2014

13A Duties of pilot-in-command and operator during
emergencies
(1) Subject to subsections (2) and (6), in an emergency that arises
in flight, the pilot-in-command may breach the provisions of
this Act or of regulations or rules made under this Act.
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), a breach of any prescribed
requirement is permitted only if the pilot-in-command is satisfied
that—
(a) the emergency involves a danger to life or property; and
(b) the extent of the breach of the prescribed requirement
goes only as far as is necessary to deal with the emergency;
and
(c) there is no other reasonable means of alleviating, avoiding,
or assisting with the emergency; and
(d) the degree of danger involved in complying with the
prescribed requirement is clearly greater than the degree
of danger involved in deviating from it.
(3) Subject to subsections (4) to (6), where an emergency (not being
an emergency that arises in flight) necessitates the urgent
transportation of persons or medical or other supplies for the
protection of life or property, the pilot-in-command of the aircraft
or the operator of the aircraft may breach the provisions
of this Act or of regulations or rules made under this Act.
(4) For the purposes of subsection (3), a breach of any prescribed
requirement is permitted only if—
(a) the emergency involves a danger to life or property; and
(b) the extent of the breach of the prescribed requirement
goes only as far as is necessary to deal with the emergency;
and
(c) there is no other reasonable means of alleviating, avoiding,
or assisting with the emergency; and
(d) the degree of danger involved in deviating from the prescribed
requirement is clearly less than the degree of
risk in failing to attend to the emergency.
(5) Nothing in subsection (3) permits—
(a) the operation of an aircraft that is not registered in New
Zealand or elsewhere; or
(b) the breach of any prescribed requirement as to the airworthiness
of an aircraft; or
(c) the operation of an aircraft by a person who is not lawfully
entitled to operate that aircraft.
(6) Where, in any emergency described in this section, a pilot-incommand
or an operator breaches this Act or regulations or
rules made under this Act in accordance with the provisions
of this section, the pilot-in-command or the operator, as the
case may be, shall—
(a) immediately notify the relevant air traffic control service
of the action; and
(b) as soon as practicable, notify the Director of the action
and the circumstances that necessitated it, and, if requested
by the Director, provide to the Director a written
report in respect of the action.

Personally I think that there is more to it of course or someone is barking up the wrong tree.

Commercial interests?? :=

As to the SAR and rescue coverage - in NZ in any town with more than 2 dogs there is a "rescue helicopter" of some sort.

[JerryG]

Sorry if this is going to seem simplistic but I reckon it all boils down in the end to whether you can sleep soundly at night and then look yourself in the mirror the next morning and be proud of what you see.

The guy in question can ... and good luck to him for that, whatever the paper-pushers conclude.

[homonculus]

There are many unknowns which will undoubtedly be aired in court, including who squealed on the defendant and why was a 44 sent to do a man's work.

However, it seems from my armchair that the authorities decided to request a commercial operator to launch a rescue flight. There was an onus surely to ensure the pilot of that flight was capable of undertaking the mission. It was a single pilot aircraft not rated for multi pilot operations.

So along comes a chap who is not licensed to act as a pilot in any shape or form. Why did he get in the aircraft?? If a grounded fixed wing pilot strolled onto the flight deck I suspect he would get short shrift.

This chap then took command of the aircraft. The suggestion that he could assess the risk from his medical condition is farcical. Whatever the risk, any accident would have presumably have been uninsured. Any loss of life such as to the pilot would have resulted in financial catastrophe for his widow.

I am not sure what the Authorities are supposed to do other than prosecute. This wasnt a chance situation but a deliberate set of decisions. Nobody likes losing their license but we cant allow pilots without a medical to decide they can fly.

[chopjock]

homo
This chap then took command of the aircraft

Manipulating the controls does not put him in command.

It was a single pilot aircraft not rated for multi pilot operations.

It has dual controls as standard for a reason.

[SuperF]

We actually have a term in NZ, im sure the rest of you have heard, PICUS, Pilot in Command Under Supervision.

Someone has to supervise the PIC, especially young or junior pilots. There is nothing to stop the CEO, CP, Director of the company from going onboard every flight of a junior pilot, until he is happy with how that pilot is flying. Then as the Junior pilot gets to undertake more "difficult" jobs, a good CP will then go with the junior pilots to ensure that they dont do anything stupid and end up dead.

That is actually what "should" happen in a good company. Therefore both pilots are allowed to be onboard a single pilot helicopter at the same time. And yes, you can supervise without a medical, and we get our license for a lifetime in NZ. and no we don't have to have type checks every couple of years like the UK. you have a license, if you have done a BFR within the previous 2 years then you can fly any machine that you are rated for.

Yes you need a medical. we also have different levels of medicals for different operations.

And as for saying they should let the "professional SAR crew" do the operation, here in New Zealand there is every possibility that the Junior pilot that was flying the 44 has as much experience as the SAR pilot. They are just flying different machines. Our local SAR helicopter gets these "highly experienced" pilots with 1500-2000 hrs.

Around here that still makes you a junior pilot...

Maybe there is more to this story than what the newspapers reported??? It wouldn't be the first time that the reporters didn't get all the relevant facts...

[SilsoeSid]

So, if a PICUS does something dangerous, or is doing something leading to a dangerous situation, who on board the ac has authority to take control from them?

[ramble on]

Well said JerryG.

We so quickly lose sight of "do the right thing"

Read some of the adventures of a true flying doctor Dr Clyde Fenton in the NT in the 1930s. He was the bane of the then CAA but he saved people first then worried about the CAA.

[QDMQDMQDM]

Crab,

You're completely wrong. Fractured femur, lying in the cold and wet on a mountainside, is always a dire emergency.

Firstly, they could have significant blood loss from the femur.

Secondly, they may well have other, as yet undiagnosed, life-threatening injuries.

Thirdly, they are at significant risk from hypothermia.

You don't leave this person waiting hours for a better equipped helicopter.

David

[oleary]

Yup, you can always count on cops and the CAA to do the extra stupid.

[oleary]

If my medical was invalid (lapsed or suspended) and someone's life was in danger I would cheerfully fly the damn thing by myself.

These gummint idiots could then sue me or throw me in jail or whatever - my conscience would be clear.

[[email protected]]

QDM - I did specify that femoral bleeding was the main thing that would make a broken femur life-threatening.

I don't dispute that the guy need rescuing from the hillside - note that he was eventually walked out not helicoptered out which took a long time even though he had received medical attention.

The question is, was the extremely high level of risk involved in getting the doctor there in difficult conditions with an inexperienced PICUS justified?

It is easy to be wise after the event because the outcome was successful - so the next time it happens (as it surely will) is it right to risk several lives (especially if you don't know if the casualty has a life-threatening condition) just to get medical aid to one person?

I and many of my colleagues have done exactly that when we KNOW that life is slipping away and the ONLY way to save that life is to put ours at risk (mitigated as much as possible by lots of training and a well-proven SAR helicopter).

SuperF - the difference between your 'experienced' local pilot and your 'less experienced' SAR pilot is TRAINING not just numbers of hours - that is why one flys tourists and the other is a professional SAR pilot.

[SilsoeSid]

If my medical was invalid (lapsed or suspended) and someone's life was in danger I would cheerfully fly the damn thing by myself.

These gummint idiots could then sue me or throw me in jail or whatever - my conscience would be clear.


Isn't this the crux of the matter and the reason why the NZCAA have to take this to court.

Aviation law was broken, simple. Therefore it has to be followed through no matter what the circumstances of the flight. It is then up to the courts to decide the outcome based on everything available to them, which is a darn sight more than the two media reports we have to go on.

Otherwise we would have every Tom Dick & Sheila qualified, unqualified or simply with just enough experience to start whatever aircraft is available, giving it a go with the belief that the courts will not be involved and the aviation community will support them in their give it a go hero moment. (of course that's only ever going to be the case if all turns out well)

Don't forget that there are people reading all this who may be in the early years of their career and will base their future aviation descisions on what is posted in these threads, there are others with a few more hours under their belts wanting to learn from the more advanced of age here and will do what they would probably never normally have considered, simply because they are led to believe that this is 'the way we do things'.


Making the decision to knowingly break an aviation law is not one to be taken lightly and I'm sure some of us have had such instances. Whether we went through and did them or not would have been based on experience, judgment and with our eyes wide open of the consequences good or bad whatever the final outcome.


There are a few things that need to be made clearer;

1. PICUS - is a pilot acting as PiC and will be expected to make the captaincy decisions, who is under the supervision of the 'actual' PiC.

2. Nothing in NZCAA regulations permits the operation of an aircraft by a person who is not lawfully entitled to operate that aircraft ... even in an emergency situation. (see RVDT's post)

3. NZCAA - A person who does not hold a current pilot licence issued or validated may not manipulate the controls of an aircraft unless the person is—
(1) receiving dual flight instruction from an appropriately qualified flight instructor who occupies a pilot seat; or
(2) acting as a pilot in command in accordance with rule 61.105. (student solo)

4. The casualty in this case had already been injured for a full tanks worth of rescue aircraft fuel before aid arrived, it then took a further 6 hours to recover him off the hills.

5. A pilot of a New Zealand registered aircraft, or a foreign aircraft operating in New Zealand, must hold a current aircraft type rating for that aircraft.

6. Dr Clyde Fenton was always current and was an RFC/RAAF trained pilot. Amongst his many life saving sorties he had many crashes and was once stranded for a week after a forced landing from running out of fuel. Admirable - Yes, Lucky - undoubtably

[chopjock]

sid
3. NZCAA - A person who does not hold a current pilot licence issued or validated may not manipulate the controls of an aircraft unless the person is—
(1) receiving dual flight instruction from an appropriately qualified flight instructor who occupies a pilot seat; or
(2) acting as a pilot in command in accordance with rule 61.105. (student solo)

Interesting, where did you get this from?

[SilsoeSid]

CAA NZ - Pilot Licences and Ratings.
or just google the quote :ok:

[chopjock]

NZCAA - A person who does not hold a current pilot licence issued or validated may not manipulate the controls of an aircraft unless the person is—
(1) receiving dual flight instruction from an appropriately qualified flight instructor who occupies a pilot seat; or
(2) acting as a pilot in command in accordance with rule 61.105. (student solo)

Ok so would a chief pilot, having had a "pilot licence issued or validated" but now suspended due to no current medical, fall into this category? That looks like it's open to interpretation to me.

[SilsoeSid]

Ok so would a chief pilot, having had a "pilot licence issued or validated" but now suspended due to no current medical, fall into this category? That looks like it's open to interpretation to me.


How convenient that in your reply you missed off the word 'current' before 'pilot licence' :rolleyes:

[chopjock]

Ok so would a chief pilot, having had a "current pilot licence issued or validated" but now suspended due to no current medical, fall into this category? That looks like it's open to interpretation to me.

[SilsoeSid]

It doesn't say that though does it!

It says;
"A person who does not hold a current pilot licence issued or validated may not manipulate the controls of an aircraft .... "

[chopjock]

Like I said, open to interpretation, since there had been a licence issued and validated previously, although not current.

This could just mean that non trained pilots (without a previously issued or validated licence) may not manipulate the controls.

[BGQ]

So much BS in this thread. The initial hearing is today. It is my understanding the Pilot concerned will plead guilty.... He clearly broke the law and is aware of that. The particular Rule that allows a pilot to forego compliance with the rules in an emergency situation has a hook

Quote
(5) Nothing in subsection (3) permits—

(a) the operation of an aircraft that is not registered in New Zealand or elsewhere; or
(b) the breach of any prescribed requirement as to the airworthiness of an aircraft; or
(c) the operation of an aircraft by a person who is not lawfully entitled to operate that aircraft.
Unquote

In addition some other "facts"

Mr Armstrong was the only pilot on board the aircraft when the offence occurred. He had initially gone along with a "junior" pilot who could not complete the task. That pilot was dropped off to enable more of the rescuers to get into the site. The police asked for 9 rescuers to be taken to the scene. Mr Armstrong managed to get 6 in before nightfall and the conditions became unacceptable.

In NZ officers of the law and officers of the court have discretion not to prosecute. There is one fool on here who has often stated that once the law is broken you have to prosecute.... BS. I do not know a country in the world that takes that view but I guess he lives in one.

In this case the Director of CAA could very easily have chosen not to prosecute because there is clear evidence of the urgent nature of the emergency, other options were no longer available because the original rescue aircraft was low on fuel and nightfall was approaching. The police were advised by the pilot when they requested his services he could not legally fly so he went as an advisor with the junior pilot indicating an attempt to be legal. Circumstances developed that could not have been foreseen. He exercised good judgement in ceasing the mission when conditions became unacceptable.

CAA have steadfastly refused to give their side of the story including (unusually) not even releasing the charge sheet. Plenty of high profile people in the industry have asked for info on "what and why"

There is no doubt in my mind that those who have carried out SAR missions in the past and those who will in the future will be seriously affected by this. I have done plenty and have broken rules in doing so.

The best that can be hoped for considering the guilty plea will be a conviction and discharge.

Some of this is my opinion and some of it I know to be fact.... I will happily accept the egg thrown at my face if revelations in court today indicate I am wrong

[John Eacott]

BGQ,

Thanks for putting some meat on the bones of the sparse media reports. That the CAA NZ are withholding details of the prosecution is a worry, but your comments certainly hold true of the replies from many on this thread.

I look forward to hearing what happens today in court, but given that you say Mr Armstrong is pleading guilty we may never know the intricacies of the prosecution nor what instigated it :(

[Fark'n'ell]

'Hero' helicopter pilot admits flying breaches but asks for mercy | Stuff.co.nz (http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/73073746/hero-helicopter-pilot-admits-flying-breaches-but-asks-for-mercy)

[[email protected]]

The more information that is released, the more Mr Armstrong looks like a foolhardy idiot instead of a hero.

He was grounded for a suspected 'mini-stroke' or Transient Ischaemic Attack (TIA) which is often a pre-cursor to a full blown stroke - you wouldn't want to be a in a car if the driver was likely to have one so why on earth would you want to be a pax in a helicopter???

I wonder if he mentioned his actual medical condition before risking the lives, not once but 3 times, of the police and medical teams.

One delivery of a 2-man medical team would have allowed the casualty to be stabilised and assessed and protected until daybreak would have allowed a SAR aircraft to complete the recovery.

All this HERO BS is exactly that and, whilst I cannot fault his flying skills, I find his cavalier attitude to his personal safety and that of the rescue teams worthy of any sanction the CAA might impose.

[Thomas coupling]

In the cold light of day - I agree wholeheartedly with Crab.
It is symptomatic of a bunch of guys go into a burning building to save a small child from burning to death - only to burn to death themselves. At the scene - almost everyone would be sympathetic with the guys but the next day having read it in the newspapers - they would probably have said - what idiots.
This is where being human shows its true colours - we are after all - unpredictable and vunerable to high emotion.

On the day of the race this guy probably thought he had no option and that saving life is more important than breaking the rules......and occasionally it is....but he had time to assess the situation and he had innocent people on board who may have become victims themselves if he had relapsed under duress. Then how would the fraternity have felt about this so called 'hero'.
The deceased's relatives, his own family, lawyers - all would have been embroiled in a very tumultuous outcome for years to come. Would it have been worth it?

The weakness here, is human frailty and it will be up to the judge after he has found him guilty - to be lenient.

I bet loads on here can attest to this situation........but never got caught!

[Stupidbutsaveable]

If this was a one-off event I suspect the CAA may have opted not to prosecute given the successful outcome. However, it seems there is more to this story than this rescue event given the other cases investigated and, IMHO, they are given little choice as the Regulatory Authority.

Sad outcome but maybe whoever made the anonymous tip alluded to in the article can also look themself in the mirror and like what they see; especially if they had tried to address concerns previously to Mr A.

[Hughes500]

Crab

" He was grounded for a suspected 'mini-stroke' or Transient Ischaemic Attack (TIA) which is often a pre-cursor to a full blown stroke "
You can have a heart attack and die at any time ( friend died from a heart attack, having had a full medical previous week, on the squash court, he was a county player and very fit ) Does this mean that we don't go flying, don't drive a car etc etc. You certainly drive on the road with LGV drivers that if they have a heart attack would certainly kill you. So the balance of probability is what makes us human. We look at the risk and weigh things up. In this case the pilot appears to have weighed things up. It is no different to you launching on a mission !
I have personally rescued a close friend from drowning while surfing. The balance of probability was probably against me as the rip current was very nasty and I had been out for a couple of hours myself. When someone is screaming for help you don't just sit there and do nothing. By the time I got there, he was face down in water, managed to swim them back to the beach and they were ok. Probably the hardest physical thing i have ever dome including messing about on selection type stuff in the mil. It is this that makes us human and it is sad to see that in this day and age that sort of thing seems to have gone ( remember 2 PCSO's who didn't rescue a drowning kid as they weren't trained or so they said ) If that is the sort of society you wish to live in well .......

[ShyTorque]

Hughes 500, while I can see both sides of this, I tend to agree with your view.

After all, as things turned out, the casualty was rescued and no-one got hurt. I hope, if this case doesn't get thrown out as "not in the public interest", that the "evil perpetrator of this heinous crime" gets nothing more than a conditional discharge.

I can only wonder how the "hang the guilty bastard regardless" brigade would react if they were in the same position as this pilot and if the casualty had been a close relative of theirs.....

"Sorry to hear about your busted leg, son; but I'm off down the pub" :rolleyes:

[[email protected]]

Hughes - you are right that we can drop off our twig at any time but this is all about probability and risk vs reward. A medical board took his licence away for 2 years because they deemed the risk of him having another problem was too high!

If I had had a TIA or minor heart attack I wouldn't dream of taking passengers with me in a vehicle - I had the same argument with my brother after he started having fits due to a brain tumour from which he subsequently died, it is just irresponsible to put other lives at risk when there is a choice - and there surely was a choice in this case.

I am all for people doing brave things to save lives - if it is only their own lives they are risking - as I said before, did he make it clear to the police and medical teams the real risks involved in letting him fly them?

I suspect not.

[Radgirl]

Sorry Hughes 500, a heart attack is not the same as a TIA. After a heart attack you dont fly and you dont drive professionally not only for a period of time but also until tests indicate the risk of another heart attack re below a specific level. We cant do these tests with most TIAs (and it appears he didnt have the type where we can identify the cause) so we cannot predict the risk. We therefore set a longer period of no flying or professional driving.

This is rather irrelevant however: if you lose your medical you may appeal, you may seek out better medical opinions but you dont simply say the rules are wrong and break them.

It appears this gentleman may have broken the law four times in 21 months. Whatever your view on this single event, it is stretching the boundaries of credibility to believe there had been four such events where illegal flying was the only way to save lives. In this case he wasnt passing the drowning man, but had deliberately acted to make himself available. If he had known he had escaped prosecution the first two times by procedural failures by the prosecutor, he appears to have no insight into his situation. That to me makes him dangerous as it sets a pattern.

Lets hope now he has pleaded guilty he has gained that insight

[pulse1]

Although this case is quite different, in some ways it is the opposite of the above case, with a very sad result.

BBC NEWS | UK | England | Manchester | Police defend drowning death case (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7006412.stm)

The police officers may have been above criticism but still have to live with the unanswerable question, could they have made a difference. At least Mr Armstrong, who may never by passed fit to fly again, will not spend the rest of his life asking that question.

[[email protected]]

Except that a child trapped underwater WILL drown in a few minutes without assistance - a man with a broken leg on a hillside will very probably survive for many hours (he might not be comfortable but that is not life-threatening).

The levels of jeopardy are not equal and it seems that much has been made of the 'emergency nature' of this situation in order to defend Mr Armstrong's actions.

[Hughes500]

Radgirl

Sorry I have seen to many so called problems with people's health stop them flying. One of my customers had his licence pulled by our CAA over heart issues, it was not reinstated despite the UK's top heart specialist telling our CAA's head man he didn't know what he was talking about. Lets be honest I could have a heart attack and still legally drive a landcover for instance pulling 3.5 tons, how many people do you think I could kill on the M25 ? am I stopped from driving - no. I am afraid we are being legislated to death ( excuse the pun ) on factors that can't be proved either way. Yes I agree there has to be laws and 4 times might seem to be excessive, but it is not as if this guy was doing passenger flights every day of the year
As for a broken leg, in a former career as a mountain guide I have seen the result of a broken leg, due to shock just above the Mer de Glace in the French Alps they died.

[G0ULI]

I suspect that the authorities view the falsification of official documents as a far more serious offence than flying without a valid licence. Instructing an employee to enter false information into the flight records is just the tip of the iceberg. What other documentation and maintenance procedures have been glossed over in the interest of expediency.The evidence advanced so far shows a casual attitude to rule breaking on several occasions, not just once in order to save life.

I would expect Mr. Armstrong to lose his flying priviledges for life based on the evidence presented so far and he will be lucky to avoid a prison sentence.

A sad end to what has obviously been an exciting career.

[SuperF]

I will withdraw my comment about PICUS, etc. i'm not going to delete it, as it will make the replies after the fact look silly...

However the way the issue was first portrayed was that he took over the flight on duals, and it seems that is not the case, so therefore the PICUS comment was irrelevant.

I would suspect that there is far more to this case than most of us on here will hear about, and you will never get all the relevant facts from a news story.

Considering that he dropped the guys in with a 44, why didn't he just load the rescue crew in the Jet Ranger that is sitting in the background in his pictures, put the duals in and go along supervising his junior pilot.

[Radgirl]

Hughes 500

I totally agree with your comments and the feelings behind them. Over on the medical board you will see that I and others repeatedly voice our frustration about silly rules and restrictive legislation. However, we never tell anyone to go fly without a medical. Not only is there the risk of incapacitation; there is also the risk arising from flying uninsured. It is I am afraid selfish and irresponsible.

[BGQ]

Yep those medicals are very important for pilots.... A lot of us have found out about pending long term health issues early because of them but have they ever stopped a crash happening?..... we will never know for sure.

What we do know is that every pilot who died or has become incapacitated in an aircraft had a valid medical.

In this case Mr Armstrongs so called medical problem turned out to be not a problem and at least one person is alive because of it.... please remember nobody has yet challenged the fact that all other options had been exhausted to save this persons life.

The doctor flown into the site was in fact the doctor who initiated the suspension of Armstrongs medical and was fully aware of his medical status and still got in the helicopter.:D

[Radgirl]

I don't want this to become a medical forum but

Medicals don't prove a pilot is fit. They merely seek to identify pathology or possible risk and by grounding or putting limitations on those involved seek to ensure those pilots flying legally are safer than if there were no medicals

Like other 'facts' on this thread I take the suggestion that his illness was wrong with a pinch of salt. We can't prove someone didn't have a TIA. It may simply be that nothing was found and after the two year grounding he got his medical back. This happens in most cases but he may well have had an event where the blood supply to part of the brain failed

As for the doctor getting in the aircraft, well we medics are as mad as anyone else. We believe we can walk on water and talk to God (whereas surgeons believe they are God). Most doctors would have jumped at the chance of saving a life and being a hero, either ignoring the pilot's medical or believing any problem wouldn't happen on the that flight. The doctor involved may have done a full risk assessment and examined said pilot before boarding, or may not have

[BGQ]

http://www.caa.gen.nz/inept-power-tripping-witch-hunters-judith-collins-lays-caa/

Judith Collins and Phil Goff comment along with the green party.

[Duck Pilot]

How much is this costing the Kiwi taxpayer?

The pilot made a good call IMHO given the circumstances.

[[email protected]]

It’s simply not fair on our brave search and rescue pilots, from whom we are already asking so much, to now also ask them to put their families and freedom on the line too. Why should they bother? Does she actually think Mr Armstrong is a Search and Rescue pilot???? How unusual for someone from the Green party to rant about stuff they don't understand.

[RVDT]

Crab,

On the day and in the conditions I would say that Mr Armstrong was "the Search and Rescue Pilot".

Not in the way you would understand as a dedicated pilot but he was the one doing the "searching and rescuing".

Having flown in NZ and the UK I don't think you may appreciate the differences.

The UK is tiny - you can see from one end to the other on a good day and it is basically flat.
I don't think it even has mountains?

NZ - think Switzerland with UK weather.

The single biggest attribute to successful SAR in NZ is local knowledge.
This is backed up by empirical evidence over the years and REGA in Switzerland would concur.
Most of their bases utilise pilots from local operators on a roster, it is that important and having flown there as well
I would estimate a pilot without local knowledge would not last a month before hitting some obstacle.

I am guessing that Mr Armstrong being told as to where the victim was he would have been able to fly there visually
and from memory without any nav aids or even a map.

Most of the dedicated SAR machinery in NZ spend 99% of their time doing transfers to better medical facilities. Their "local knowledge"
is probably limited to being able to program a GPS.

From your profile I am assuming that you operate (or did) the SK61.

In NZ that would be about as useful as a chocolate fireguard or similar unless you had a 1000' winch cable and can hover in cloud.

As to -

How unusual for someone from the Green party to rant about stuff they don't understand.

I would suggest that respectfully you may be in the same boat as someone from the Green Party. :p

Mr Armstrong has apparently pleaded guilty - "as charged". The issue is whether the charge makes sense.

[[email protected]]

RVDT - I would suggest that your local knowledge of UK, it's terrain and the type of weather encountered by day (and oh yes by night) in the lumpier areas of the country might need some refreshing;)

So just how will you rescue someone in an R44 in cloud? I think a Sea King will take you safely to places where an R44 wouldn't even be a chocolate fireguard.

A 249' winch has pretty much always been enough for a lot of interesting rescues.

As I have said before - I don't question Mr Armstrong's flying skills or local knowledge but he is not a SAR pilot - he just happened to be in the right place with a helicopter - since he knew the area he didn't have to search and he didn't actually rescue anyone.

[krypton_john]

"RVDT - I would suggest that your local knowledge of UK, it's terrain and the type of weather encountered by day (and oh yes by night) in the lumpier areas of the country might need some refreshing"

I can see his point though. Ben Nevis is 1344m whereas NZ's top 100 peaks range from 2409m up to 3724m. The NZ weather is at least as bad as the UK weather.

[[email protected]]

Ah, The old ours are bigger than yours and therefore so much more dangerous fallacy - the ground will kill you if you fly into it whether it is 5' amsl or 15000' amsl.

But how many Kiwis go flying round them or conduct rescues in them at night and/or in that bad weather???

Darkness, snow showers and 40 kts gusting 60 -70 is quite normal for either a Welsh or Scottish winter but we train crews to get in amongst it and rescue people - but not in a R44!

[RVDT]

Ah, The old ours are bigger than yours and therefore so much more dangerous fallacy

Darkness, snow showers and 40 kts gusting 60 -70 is quite normal for either a Welsh or Scottish winter but we train crews to get in amongst it and rescue people

Contradiction in terms and a monopoly on bad weather?

As to "in the bad weather" - all the time. Highest recorded wind speed in UK was 150.3 knots apparently and only 135 in NZ. Will let you have that one.

As to "night" well I think the NVG equipped guys get called first.

2 examples of many:

Sir Richard "Hannibal" Hayes (http://www.southernlakeshelicopters.co.nz/general-info/search-rescue)

Otago Rescue Helicopter (http://www.otagorescue.co.nz/about.php)

[[email protected]]

And you always take advertising at face value and without question??

You can claim any capability and quality you like on a web-site.

[RVDT]

No I leave that to the Commerce Commission and the Fair Trading Act to enforce. :ugh:

As there is "competition" in this business any false claim would be jumped on in a millisecond.

Also as they are "certified operators" by the CAA I am sure they would take an interest as well. :ugh:

[krypton_john]

"Ah, The old ours are bigger than yours"

Isn't that exactly what you are doing wrt to equipment?

...

"But how many Kiwis go flying round them or conduct rescues in them at night and/or in that bad weather???"

Um, a handful?

"Darkness, snow showers and 40 kts gusting 60 -70 is quite normal for either a Welsh or Scottish winter but we train crews to get in amongst it and rescue people - but not in a R44!"

And for those sort of missions not here either, obviously. Not sure what point you are making?

[krypton_john]

"2 examples of many:

Sir Richard "Hannibal" Hayes

Otago Rescue Helicopter"

Also the main guys in Auckland/Wellington of course.
The Helicopters | Auckland Rescue Helicopter Trust (http://rescuehelicopter.org.nz/the-helicopters)

Central North Island
Homepage - Philips Search and Rescue Trust (http://www.rescue.org.nz/)

Queenstown (where the mountains are):
Night vision | Southern Lakes Helicopters, Fiordland, New Zealand (http://www.southernlakeshelicopters.co.nz/general-info/night-vision)

Canterbury/West Coast (where the *big* mountains are):
Canterbury West Coast Air Rescue Trust Westpac Rescue Helicopter Christchurch Greymouth New Zealand (http://www.airrescue.co.nz/)

Northland:
Northland Emergency Services Trust (NEST) | Northland?s dedicated emergency helicopter rescue service (http://www.nest.org.nz/)

That seems to cover the whole country with day/night/NVG and a mix of AS350s, BK117's and S76s.

[[email protected]]

The first one I look at has This impressive technology enhances the pilot's visual acuity at night to 20/25 vision as opposed to unaided vision at night of they must be even better than the best US goggles - 20/35 is a really good set of NVG.

Who, nationally, is responsible for monitoring standards and SOPs amongst those 'SAR' operators?

[RVDT]

Wanna job Crab? You might be just the man.

[RVDT]

Advisory Circular for NVIS Operations is located here (https://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.caa.govt.nz/Advisory_Circulars/AC091_13.pdf&sa=U&ved=0CAUQFjAAahUKEwigkvPhy-PIAhWDNKYKHWvUCTA&client=internal-uds-cse&usg=AFQjCNEnUcQfh34vFz9eYwT-0cjWeCcJOg).

Pretty much aligned with FAA requirements.

[Te_Kahu]

Silsoe Sid. Land SAR is controlled by local police. My understanding it was the local Police sergeant on the ground who said to the pilot "you'll have to do it"

RCCNZ is part of Maritime NZ - a Government Department. It is responsible for responsible for coordinating "all major maritime and aviation search and rescue missions within New Zealand’s search and rescue region land-based missions arising from someone activating a distress beacon."

The New Zealand SSR is 30-million sq KMs covering a large part of the Pacific Ocean from the Equator to the Antarctic, and from half way to Australia to half way to Chile.

[[email protected]]

RVDT - According to that circular, you could have a PPLH holder with no IR (but having demonstrated very basic IF skills), with minimum night hours and single figure NVG hours acting as PIC on NVG - that's not worrying at all!!!

I note that a rad alt is mandated but a selectable low height bug and associated audio warning are just recommended! That couldn't possibly go wrong.

The circular is a nice list of things to cover but no real limits for things like 'low level searching' or winching - if a military SOP was written so loosely and without clear direction, it would be torn up and started again.

It starts off by stating that NVG is to aid VFR night flight only but them glosses over the sort of things that can easily go wrong = winching, low level searching, unimproved sites, confined areas etc.

No rad alt setting procedures (because the bug isn't mandated), allowing pilots to fly with different generations of NVG in the same cockpit (who can see what the other can't?)

All in all rather amateurish and in no way an assurance that NVG ops are conducted safely or professionally in NZ.

As you might guess I might be the wrong man for the job;)

[ShyTorque]

allowing pilots to fly with different generations of NVG in the same cockpit (who can see what the other can't?)I flew RAF helicopters when the SOP was that the PNF wasn't even allowed NVG, although the PF and crewman were. This included confined area landings. I was the PNF and was expected to take control and save the day if the goggles snowflaked out. They did, just inside the top of the CA, which was in a very large German forest, and I had to! :)

Edit: Actually, it was PNG, the RAF hadn't got NVG in those days..

[krypton_john]

"As you might guess I might be the wrong man for the job"

No argument there.

[[email protected]]

No argument there. Well may be I should reconsider since the Kiwis renowned introspectiveness and willingness to acknowledge critical analysis might not prove a barrier to progress;)

Shy - yes, self-drive nitesun into S Armagh fields with only the crewman on PNG - got the Tshirt but it is 30 years old and we don't have to do it that way any more:ok:

[[email protected]]

Oh I forgot - just in case anyone thinks I am being harsh -

The currency for NVG in NZ is 120 days but, if you renew your currency within 60 days of its expiry (ie before it), you can retain the original expiry date - that means a pilot could be classed as current not having flown on NVG for 6 months!!!!!:ugh:

[If all else fails]

definitely wrong man for the job

[ShyTorque]

Shy - yes, self-drive nitesun into S Armagh fields with only the crewman on PNG - got the Tshirt but it is 30 years old and we don't have to do it that way any more

'Cept we didn't have nitesun. Just the normal white landing light. But it can be done (and it was, our crew were doing it 33 years ago and we're all still around).

[[email protected]]

definitely wrong man for the job so, Ifallelsefails, you can't see anything wrong with the rather flimsy process by which your regulatory body chooses to assure safety of NVG ops in NZ?

Maybe if a newbie PPLH towards the end of his 6-month currency crashes into someones house you might just have a different view.

Shy, yes, ISTR there was no requirement for nitesun in RAFG - it was done well because it was all we had and probably didn't stop to think how freakin' dangerous it was - which compared to normal RNF, it probably wasn't:)

[ShyTorque]

Shy, yes, ISTR there was no requirement for nitesun in RAFG - it was done well because it was all we had and probably didn't stop to think how freakin' dangerous it was - which compared to normal RNF, it probably wasn't:)

It wasn't until my fourth SH tour that the term "RNF" was invented; definitely no Nitesun back then. But the LSs were recce'd with night landing aids laid out by a dedicated ground team....

.......and some of us are still required to do it like that these days - I'm sure you'd soon get used to it again as a corporate pilot. ;)

[[email protected]]

I did quite enough 'interesting' night flying in the 80s both in NI and Cyprus, all pre NVG!

The stuff in the mountains in Cyprus to 'recced' sites in dusty fields or hilltop OPs with just cans of burning kerosene (which often blew out as the downwash hit) as the NATO T were character building.

28 Sqn used to fly heading and time into the hills around Kai Tak and then switch on the landing lamp which hopefully illuminated a bucket that indicated when to turn onto the approach heading for the LS!

[ShyTorque]

28 Sqn used to fly heading and time into the hills around Kai Tak and then switch on the landing lamp which hopefully illuminated a bucket that indicated when to turn onto the approach heading for the LS!

The buckets were actually lumps of concrete which had been cast in a metal waste paper bin, upturned and painted white. I can tell you from personal experience that some of them were subsequently stolen, but I can't imagine why! :ugh:

[Fareastdriver]

cans of burning kerosene

which hopefully illuminated a bucket

We used to dream about those in China.

[[email protected]]

And, just to be even handed - that was an awesome performance from the All Blacks today - very many congratulations on a well deserved win.

[krypton_john]

Nice words, Crab. Some of the Aussies around here don't seem too enthused with Nigel Owens at the moment. Can't see why!

[RVDT]

Ozzies got their dose of Barnesy for a change?

[[email protected]]

Yes, there were some odd decisions and omissions (how forward does a forward pass need to be, right in front of the linesman, for him to notice?)
But the best team won against a excellent Australian team who have come so far in a year.

[krypton_john]

Yeah, but I think Owens was impartial and both sides got the benefit of that.

As long as it doesn't change the result and such things balance out, I much prefer the light handed style ref though. Nothing worse than a pedantic ref and a game that stop-starts for 80 minutes and has 30 minutes of actual play.

Perhaps there's a strange parallel here, with happy go lucky antipodeans preferring light handed rugby referees and light handed aviation regulators? :-)

[RVDT]

Maybe Barnesy was not "current".

Currency (with its requirements) is 120 days MAX - full stop.

Proficiency check is 12 months MAX 10 months MIN. For flexibility.

You could delay your proficiency check only to the max extent of 14 months or less to 12 months and it is not cumulative.

Currency - see above.

As to -

The currency for NVG in NZ is 120 days but, if you renew your currency within 60 days of its expiry (ie before it), you can retain the original expiry date - that means a pilot could be classed as current not having flown on NVG for 6 months!!!!!

Tain't so.

But if you came down here Crab you probably have to pass an Air Law exam so that would set you straight.

[[email protected]]

RVDT - I took that currency information straight out of the NZCAA circular you provided a link to.

[If all else fails]

"so, Ifallelsefails, you can't see anything wrong with the rather flimsy process by which your regulatory body chooses to assure safety of NVG ops in NZ?"

"Maybe if a newbie PPLH towards the end of his 6-month currency crashes into someones house you might just have a different view."


Crab, the regulatory process is fine; "flimsy" seems to work for us better than the draconian regime up with which you must put.


As for the fanciful scenario you have painted - how on earth do you think a newbie PPLH can get hold of NVG? As for crashing into someones house.......I must bow to your superior knowledge on that one.


As RVDT said - you could come down and get set straight.........


actually........please don't.

[[email protected]]

Ifallelsefails - according to your CAA circular, it is quite possible for a company to employ a PPLH holder as an NVG qualified captain - whether they would or not is up to the company but it would be quite legal to do so.

That PPLH could have minimum hours and be just current but would be allowed to conduct NVG Ops with a Rad alt but no audio or visual warning.

Now I don't know how much NVG experience you have but I have done quite a lot, in various roles, and that 'light-touch' legislation has a lot of Swiss-Cheese holes already lined up (if you understand the reference to how many accidents are attributable to more than one cause).

You may be happy with it but most NVG operators would look at the curency and qualification requirements and, combined with the lack of mandated audio and visual low height warnings, would conclude that they don't provide much in the way of quality control or assurance of safe NVG Ops.

Thanks for the warm welcome............I guess you are not a typical Kiwi:ugh:

[If all else fails]

Crab, This thread started out about a good bloke doing the right thing and who is now facing prosecution. We have drifted somewhat.


In recognition of your undoubted experience, extensive readership and (until now) wizened and balanced approach - I make one final observation;


Your continued determination to make assumptions based on reading one document in isolation is an insult to the very many experienced and capable NVG aviators and indeed, regulators who have in partnership delivered a regulatory framework for a very specific group of operators to safely conduct government contracted EMS NVG operations.


You should read all the associated regulatory and contractual documents in order to fully understand how the process here works before commenting further.


25 years NVG - Mil, Civ, single/dual pilot, ex QHI, and yes we have more than a passing knowledge of Professor Reason's model.


We are not fools, Sir.


Oh ...and as for the traditional warm kiwi welcome - that is unfailingly delivered in a greeting of mutual respect; you'll get yours when you've apologised.




Now let us get his thread back to Dave.


The CAA process must run it's course and we must hold faith that the humanity with which Dave acted will ultimately be recognised and met with 'just culture' approach.


Hang in there Dave!

[[email protected]]

Apologised for what exactly???

Having an opinion???

Criticising a document that purports to be the basis of a regulatory system??

if there are better documents then show me them.

We are not fools, Sir. I don't believe I ever said that at all.

[nigelh]

Don't take any notice of old crab ... He is ex mil and a bit grumpy about civilians being allowed to fly at all , but wait til you get both barrels from old TC . He's crabs father and is even grumpier !!!!!
I for one hope he gets treated leniently as rules should never get in the way of common sense . With me also the low point in this country was the man drowning in a 4 ft deep pond with lots of people , including Police , watching . Better a bit reckless than a coward .

[FD2]

I remember that drowning incident Nigel. I expect the bystanders carried out a thorough risk assessment of the situation and decided they shouldn't risk their own necks to save someone who was drowning. That attitude seems a bit familiar to me....

[SilsoeSid]

Now let us get his thread back to Dave.

The CAA process must run it's course and we must hold faith that the humanity with which Dave acted will ultimately be recognised and met with 'just culture' approach.

Hang in there Dave!




I'm glad someone mentioned a 'Just Culture'.

"Just Culture" is a culture in which front-line operators and others are not punished for actions, omissions or decisions taken by them which are commensurate with their experience and training, but where gross negligence, wilful violations and destructive acts are not tolerated.Just culture | Eurocontrol (http://www.eurocontrol.int/articles/just-culture)


"The pilot admitted he broke the rules …"
'Hero' helicopter pilot admits flying breaches but asks for mercy | Stuff.co.nz (http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/73073746/hero-helicopter-pilot-admits-flying-breaches-but-asks-for-mercy)



But that link is from Euroland I hear you say. Ok here's one from New Zealand;


Other barriers to the successful adoption of Just Culture standards include rogue management selectively applying some principles, turning a blind eye to incidents, losing sight of the requirements and/or jumping to conclusions before reviewing all the facts.

Historical patterns of behaviour that remain unchallenged for years can become “normal” behaviour, which defeats a Just Culture.

http://www.safeguard.co.nz/databases/justculture (http://www.safeguard.co.nz/databases/modus/sgfree/sgmagfree/JRNL-152-SG-52?tid=481743722)


Just saying :oh:

[nigelh]

The Just Culture is very different , albeit a good thing . It involves the person effectively handing himself in admitting a fault or mistake . As I read it this pilot was caught so that is not applicable . There is however a Good Samaritan law that covers some areas of immunity if you try to help someone in danger ....that would be more suitable . Of course you will always run the risk of making a mess of it and then causing another accident , but if you are doing something that you have done many times before without incident I would say the risks are well worth it .
Would I take off and have someone dangle a rope from the door of my helicopter into the water to save someone if they were about to go over a huge waterfall ?
Yes . Would I care about the legality ? No !! I think I speak for most on here....( he says hopefully )

[RVDT]

it is quite possible for a company to employ a PPLH holder as an NVG qualified captain - whether they would or not is up to the company but it would be quite legal to do so.

That would be a first - just how would you employ a PPL on an AOC as an NVG qualified "captain"?

[ShyTorque]

Would I take off and have someone dangle a rope from the door of my helicopter into the water to save someone if they were about to go over a huge waterfall ?
Yes . Would I care about the legality ? No !! I think I speak for most on here....( he says hopefully )

Especially the bloke in the water.
('cept if it were Crab, he might prefer to do a base check on him first though :E ).

[Hughes500]

RVDT

Perfectly legal to be a PPL and instruct !!

[John Eacott]

RVDT

Perfectly legal to be a PPL and instruct !!

Not in the antipodes :=

[Dan_Brown]

Seems to becoming a bit of a police state.

I knew you were in trouble down there, when the CVR transcripts were used, in the prosecution of an accident pilot/crew years ago.

" ... He is ex mil and a bit grumpy about civilians being allowed to fly at all..." LOL. Came across that type of imbecile on numerous occasions over the years.

"Rules are made for the guidance of wise men and the blind obedience of fools"

[[email protected]]

But don't blame others if you break those rules and get caught out.

Some rules are there for very good reasons.

Sadly, I have spent too much time in my professional life picking up the pieces from situations where people knew better than the rules.

There are none as blind as them as don't want to see.

[Hughes500]

John

I stand corrected, can up here in EASA land. Interestingly though if you were a ppl could you teach someone to use NVG as presumably the pilot ( P1) already has a rating on the type of machine for both day and night and if he is Captain of the aircraft then the PPL is " not instructing " Normally when instructing you would be the P1 ????????? Hope you can see what I am saying !

[John Eacott]

You have to have a CPL (H) or higher; and this is a thread about NZ, not EASA ;)

[nigelh]

Crab ... We have always said you have to take it on the chin if you f***k it up !!!! Whatever you say I believe that if you and I were sitting around next to my 109 and you really believed someone would die if we didn't 1) pick them off a roof or 2) pick them out of a river .... You would be first into the cockpit !!!

[[email protected]]

Probably true Nigel - but I would have the benefit of having rescued lots of people from different situations before and have a pretty good grasp of techniques to use and pitfalls to avoid.

Always up for a go in your 109 though:ok:

[nigelh]

That's what we wanted to here crab !! I do take your point as well ...
You are welcome to have a play in it anytime you are oop North !

[[email protected]]

Whereabouts are you oop North?

[John Eacott]

Convicted chopper pilot says rescue decision was easy
(http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/75063926/hero-pilot-dave-armstrong-convicted-after-rescuing-injured-hunter)

The Kaikoura helicopter pilot convicted for flying without medical clearance to rescue an injured hunter in dangerous conditions says "you had to be there" to understand.

Dave Armstrong, who has been flying since 1989, was on Monday convicted on three charges of breaching civil aviation rules and fined $5800. He was grounded in June, 2012, after what was thought to be a mini-stroke.

Judge Tony Couch in the Christchurch District Court rejected a request from Armstrong's lawyer Craig Ruane to discharge the pilot without conviction saying the conditions for a discharge had not been met.

After sentencing, Armstrong said the fine "had to happen" but he was disappointed by the convictions.

Given the same situation, he would have to think seriously about whether he would fly, he said.

"It was an easy decision [at the time]. You had to be there. No-one can really understand unless they were there. Anyone who had a loved one in that situation, they would do the same."

While he had flown on other occasions without medical clearance, in situations which were not obvious emergencies, they were not always "as you see it, or hear it".

"It was all done on the side of safety. We all got home safe and that is all that matters."

The law should enshrine a "good Samaritan rule" so people "can step up and not step back", Armstrong said.

He continues to fly under a commercial licence but is not allowed to take passengers.

To Scott Lee, Armstrong will always be the hero who saved his life.

On April 5 last year, Lee lay injured in the hills near the Clinton River with the weather closing in. He was dangling on the edge of a 50-metre drop after falling in remote bush, suffering a broken femur. He had to be tied to a tree with clothing to stop him from falling further down the bluff.

After the sentencing, Lee said he was devastated for Armstrong.

"He made a decision to save my life. Dave is that type of Kiwi bloke who puts others before himself. I might have died up there and Dave was the most experienced pilot up there. Rules have to be broken sometimes and there's got to be something in the law to cover that.

"I just want to thank Dave. I really could have died up there and my partner with me. He is my true hero and always will be. So thanks Dave. I wouldn't be here without you."

Judge Couch carefully traversed the facts before sentencing Armstrong.

He said Armstrong was contacted on April 5 last year after the Westpac Rescue helicopter had twice failed to find Lee and his partner. Kaikoura doctor Chris Henry had advised the search and rescue team Lee could die from internal bleeding if left overnight.

Armstrong knew the terrain well and believed it would be possible to get a team to a nearby ridge before nightfall. Although Henry and search and rescue staff knew Armstrong was not authorised to fly, the police were not aware of his flight status, Judge Couch said.

The rescue team persuaded Armstrong to leave behind his co-pilot to make room for another rescuer and Armstrong flew in six rescuers, including Henry, in two flights.

He then urged the other pilot to enter the details of the flight in his log book.

Judge Couch said on April 21 last year three people kayaking on the Clarence River were reported overdue. A police constable in charge of search and rescue decided to fly up the river to look for them and contacted Armstrong.

Although another pilot came along, Armstrong flew the helicopter while the constable and the other pilot looked for the kayakers. They landed at several huts along the way.

When Armstrong was interviewed by the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) he admitted being pilot in charge on four flights during the period he was not authorised to fly.

Two of the flights were outside the 12 months limit for prosecutions to be commenced, the judge said.

Armstrong told investigators although his company employed other qualified and competent pilots, he decided to fly because of weather conditions and his greater familiarity with the terrain.

As a result of the breaches, Armstrong lost his ability to supervise flight and ground operations for his company.

His job, Judge Couch said, was to decide whether Armstrong should be discharged without conviction.

Conduct relevant to the gravity of the offences included the length of time Armstrong was in control of a helicopter given the perceived risk of a stroke or similar. The flight on April 5 could have been fatal had the pilot "suffered even a momentary loss of awareness or control".

The situation on April 21, when Armstrong was at the controls for about an hour, presented a very real risk of a crash because the other pilot was not monitoring what Armstrong was doing.

The offending involved a measure of premeditation although he accepted Armstrong made the decision to fly on April 5 under considerable pressure from the search and rescue team.

"What the history tells me is these were not isolated events. Rather they were part of pattern of unlawful behaviour."

Judge Couch said the main thrust of Armstrong's defence was the conduct was justified by emergency situations. Looking at the facts of April 5th "anyone would have sympathy", however, other options existed and Armstrong knew his obligations.

The Civil Aviation Act allowed breaches of rules in emergencies but "even if it is a life threatening emergency the defendant is not entitled to operate the helicopter". The pilot still had to be authorised.

"Given that clear statutory provision, I cannot conclude the breach was justified by the circumstances on April 5."

There was no emergency on April 21, the judge said.

Armstrong had deceived the police who would not have allowed him to fly if they had been aware of his lack of medical certification.

An affidavit from rescue industry stalwart John Funnell suggested a conviction would send the wrong message to pilots asked to fly as a last resort, Judge Couch said.

"While I accept Mr Funnell has put this view forward sincerely it proceeds on a very limited view of the issues....It would be wrong for the court to accept as an adverse consequence that other people would be discouraged from breaking the law."

Judge Couch said he could not take into account a defence submission the charges had cost Armstrong's company about $55,000 in lost income and other expenses.

Funnell, a rescue pilot in Taupo, who was at court in support of Armstrong, said he had hoped for mercy for Armstrong.

Before the saga unfolded, Funnell had already made a submission to the Civil Aviation Act review, asking for the "good samaritan" principle - which protected grounded pilots flying in life-and-death situations in the 1990s - to be reinstated.

He said he had been told it was unlikely, but Funnell, a former president of the Aviation Industry Association, hoped Armstrong's case would bring pressure for a law change.

He acknowledged that Armstrong had flown more than once.

"There were two or three other flights he did – all were for search and rescue... when Dave was flying it was in the context of saving lives. It appears he has been penalised harshly for doing so."

Since news of Armstrong's conviction broke, donations to Lee's Givealittle page fundraising for his rescuer have climbed by almost $2000 to more than $5000 – closing in on the amount Armstrong was fined in court.

TIMELINE:

July 18, 2012: Pilot Dave Armstrong awakes in a confused state. His doctor warns he may have had a mini-stroke.

July 26, 2012: A neurologist's test returns normal results.

August 2, 2012: But the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) suspends him from flying.

January, 2013: The neurologist tells the CAA the pilot's medical risk remains "unacceptably high" and Armstrong is grounded for for 2 years from June, 2012.

August, 2013: Armstrong gets a review of the decision, but the CAA stands by it.

5-6 November, 2013: Armstrong completes two more flights and omits his role from the logbook. The CAA later runs out of time to prepare its prosecution. The missions in the Kaikoura Seaward Ranges are understood to have involved searching for then retrieving the body of tramper Pete Manning.

April 5, 2014: Armstrong is called in by his doctor and Search and Rescue to airlift an injured hunter.

April 21: Armstrong flies again after kayakers are reported missing.

June 24, 2014: The CAA interviews Armstrong, who initially downplays his role. Eventually he admits flying three other times, saying he felt the missions needed an experienced pilot.

October 16, 2015: Armstrong pleads guilty to three flying breach charges.

December 14, 2015: The pilot's request for a discharge without conviction is rejected. He is convicted and fined.

Armstrong had not recorded the flights in his logbook.

CASE 'SERIOUS'

Civil Aviation Authority lawyer Chris Macklin said the case was "very serious".

Armstrong displayed a sustained disregard for aviation laws.

A discharge without conviction would send a "very unhelpful message" to the industry.

Defence lawyer Craig Ruane said Armstrong decided he could not ignore Lee's plight.

Ruane said a conviction would send a "dangerous signal" to other pilots, especially those in search and rescue.

Armstrong's other lawyer and aviation legal specialist, Angela Beazer,said the law needed to change. It permitted pilots to breach rules in an emergency where there was a potential danger to life or property - but that did not apply to pilots who were not lawfully supposed to be flying, or who whose craft was not airworthy, even in the same scenarios.

Beazer said it was possible her client may yet appeal.

[[email protected]]

Anyone who has a problem with the ruling in this case really needs to go and get themselves on a proper flight safety course - the sort where case studies analyse the events leading up to an accident and highlight where that chain of events could be broken and the accident prevented.

This pilot was (and possibly still is) an accident waiting to happen - from his self-denial of his medical condition (enough doctors seem to believe he was at risk) to the insistence that he was the only pilot who could fly those 'missions'

Fortunately for all involved, the last hole in the Swiss cheese didn't line up (through luck rather than good judgement) and he managed to rescue the chap on the hill.

The emotive part about the casualty not surviving without the rescue is a red herring - he was carried out many hours later and internal bleeding would have done for him long before that.

Mr Armstrong was foolhardy to the point of recklessness with other people's safety and he has, as a serial offender, been appropriately punished.

[Fareastdriver]

I hope he is around if I am injured on the side of a cliff.

[RVDT]

It's OK Crab - we understand where you are coming from.................or similar.
http://www.northdevonjournal.co.uk/images/localworld/ugc-images/276410/Gallery/images/27897262/11057839.jpg

[ShyTorque]

According to the report, this pilot was actually allowed to fly, but not to carry passengers. That's unusual if true.

However, he was convicted and what a naughty boy he was to go and rescue someone, tut, tut.....

Now, as an ex SAR pilot myself, I've been on quite a few "proper" flight safety courses in my time and held the post of flight safety officer so that's me vindicated.

So how do I send a contribution to the fund to help pay Dave's fine? :)

[krypton_john]

https://givealittle.co.nz/cause/supportdave

The passenger Dave flew to the site was a doctor who was aware of Dave's medical and more than happy to fly with him.

[Vertical Freedom]

& had He'd had a seizure, stroke or sumting else medically go pear shaped right in the middle of the thick of it..........then what???? (just sayin' like) http://www.bladeslapper.com/images/smilies/icon_question.gif

[krypton_john]

Did the pilot have a medical condition that made any of that more likely?

The reason for the medical suspension was that he had some time previously "woken up in a confused state" and a mini stroke could not be ruled out. However no test had ever found anything unusual subsequently.

There seemed to be a judgement call that the injured hunter had a good chance of dying overnight if not rescued vs the risk of the pilot having a medical event.

[edit]

John Funnell reckons he made the right call. To me that counts for more than anything I've seen said here so far.

[Luke SkyToddler]

Seems the kiwi public take a pretty dim view of the CAA's actions. A charity donation page set up in support of Dave Armstrong to pay his $6,000 fine, has reached over $20,000 and still climbing

Appeal for convicted chopper pilot Dave Armstrong reaches $20,000 | Stuff.co.nz (http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/75120517/appeal-for-convicted-chopper-pilot-dave-armstrong-reaches-20000)

[Thomas coupling]

What the history tells me is these were not isolated events. Rather they were part of pattern of unlawful behaviour.

This pilot repeatedly flouted the law. He knew he was under review. He knew there 'might' be something wrong with himself. Medical experts tell the courts he was a risk. The legal experts tell the court that he was breaking the law and a Judge (voted in by a democratic society to carry out their wishes) found against him.
And yet many of you here and the pilot himself still think they are above all of this.
Talk about pilot ego's.
Sometimes we (either as an individual or as a fraternity) are our own worse enemy.

When or what does it take for some of you to smell the coffee.

Do you really think you know better than other experts in their field?

Yet, no doubt if someone questioned your expertise, you'd be the first to tell them where to get off.

The man deserved everything he got and more. A serial law breaker who was flying on borrowed time. Let's hope his licence has been revoked for good.

I have been a practitioner and supervisor in the world of aviation for 38+ years and the vast majority of pilots and operators have been proficient and capable in what they do, yet there are a few, just a few, spread amongst our industry who continue to set us back years with their 'legerdemain' preoccupations.

[[email protected]]

If he went out tomorrow and speared in, taking other with him, there would be an outcry of 'why wasn't he stopped' or 'who let him fly' - the history of this man's behaviour shows he shouldn't be allowed in a cockpit.

I thought Kiwis were a bit more cerebral but the 'he was a good bloke doing the right thing' sounds more like a cobber from the outback.

[ShyTorque]

Donation made!

[Fareastdriver]

And another one. (48 years in five continents)

[SilsoeSid]

Well, I'm happy which side of the fence I prefer to stand in this matter; I'm even happier that it is the other side to those that are still contributing to a fundraising site that has raised $20,000 to cover a $6,000 fine :ugh:

[ShyTorque]

How does the saying go...? "Blessed are the self righteous, for they think they will inherit the earth".

Those who understand legal matters might realise that an appearance in court costs far more than any fine awarded. The man saved someone else's life and I for one put that above anything else. He took a risk in the hope of doing so and it paid off, at least until the authorities found out.

Ironically, there have been two very recent fatal accidents involving EMS helicopters, one of them killing the patient as well as the crew. No doubt some might see those those flights were "OK" because the crew were fully legal to go and fully authorised. Will the deceased pilots be pursued in court?

Btw, I wouldn't have thought any different about the subject, even if it had been yourself stuck on a mountain bluff tied to a tree and with a badly broken leg, Sid.

But I might have hoped for a lower cloud base....

[RVDT]

Jeopardy and those with 20/20 hindsight.............................priceless! :D

What was the name of the show again?

https://c2.staticflickr.com/4/3017/2894181382_c1e9f52f59.jpg

[BOBAKAT]

on december 17 (today) but in 1903...Wright brothers flying a plane for the first time....
Not sure they have a valid class 1 or 2....:=

[Hughes500]

Bobakat

What about a certificate of release to service ?

[[email protected]]

So we should still be doing aviation by the safety standards of 1903???????

[RVDT]

Crab, apparently 1959 was acceptable up until only recently?

[Thomas coupling]

Shy: the case where an S76 flew into the side of the mountain several years ago: The dead pilot responsible for doing this was successfully sued by the deceased co-pilots wife.
{Or rather the dead pilots estate was successfully sued].
Puma crash. Dead crewmans family are suing the dead pilots family.
You see, the repurcussions are enormous, here.

So here we have a hero (seemingly by several peoples views on pprune) saving the life of another (bravo). Until or unless it goes wrong.
Then we have lawyers saying....so we have the dead pilot unlawfully flying.
The family of the other innocent third (dead) party now sue both the owner of the helo and the family of the medically unfit pilot. Solely on the grounds that he flew knowingly illegally???

In addition.

Since when do we have members of the general public (and I inculde those sympathisers amongst you) deciding it is fine to ignore the rules and just get on with it because in their (very limited) view of things - it's the "right thing to do at the time".

And on what basis does society build its legal and communal infrastructure if we include rule 36: "Exception: Do what you feel is right on the day".

Aviation as black and white as this scenario, doesn't come any clearer. Those who think they have a God given right to twist the rules to fit - should be cause for concern by their associates and those who work around them.:ooh:

[homonculus]

ShyTorque

Your last comment is unworthy of you. Sid said nothing to justify it.

I have watched this thread with incredulity. First the medical facts (which I can comment on with some expertise):

The pilot was IMHO lucky to have been just given a 2 year grounding. To wake confused is not typical of a TIA (mini stroke) and many neurologists would consider it far more 'risky'. No sensible neurologist would have allowed him to fly and comments that he knew better are daft

He did not save anyone's life (the casualty stayed on scene overnight and survived). It is true the doctor on scene erroneously stated a life was at risk, and in my organisation pilots dont argue with doctors on medical matters. But equally pilots have the final say as to whether a flight occurs and never put the patient before crew and bystander safety. The doctor was wrong but that is irrelevant.

Now the aviation issues:

Regardless of why this chap was on scene with no license, his skill as reported in court was that he knew where to land the R44 to insert rescuers. It does not say he had exceptional piloting skills to land there, merely that he knew the location. I dont buy the argument that the other pilot was jettisoned to insert additional rescuers but it is unlikely given the difficulty of getting extraction kit in a 44 and the question remains as to why if adequate rescuers were inserted why did they stay overnight????? So the sensible course of action would have been for him to act as unofficial navigator.

The details are also known for one of the pilot's previous illegal flights where we are told he handled the aircraft so the other pilot could look out for the missing person. I cannot construct a situation where it would not have been feasible for the other pilot to fly the aircraft and this chap to look out.

At the end of the day this chap lacks any insight. Having been almost prosecuted and escaped on a technicality he continued to break the law. He put his business and employees on the line financially. He flew people, in ignorance of the risk that he could have lost consciousness and killed them, on the flimsiest of reasons, then had the audacity to argue that he should be let off because it was a rescue mission.

What confidence can society have that he has learned from his prosecution and will not continue to break the law in future where he disagrees with them?

[[email protected]]

Homonculus -:D:D:D:D:D:ok::ok::ok:

RVDT - they are still going in the Falklands:)

[RVDT]

What confidence can society have that he has learned from his prosecution and will not continue to break the law in future where he disagrees with them?

Bold statement from a country that let a person drown in waste deep water because the coppers and fire bobbies would not enter the water for risk of an OSH prosecution?

UK 2012 and the law was changed accordingly.

the question remains as to why if adequate rescuers were inserted why did they stay overnight?????

He was roped to a tree at the top of a 50 meter drop. And it was dark? By consensus it was probably wise not to shift him? Who knows
except the people that were actually there?

The 20/20 hindsight goggles and an armchair added to the mix - still priceless.

[ShyTorque]

TC, Those who know me (and you don't) might well think very different to what you're implying, trying to tar me with a certain brush.

I have been very careful to make no reference to alleged previous examples of rule breaking by this pilot. My reaction is based purely on the incident in question, i.e. the one for which he was prosecuted. He made his decision to fly on the facts as presented to him at the time, not in the comfort of an armchair after the event. Westpac had failed to reach the casualty. He did better. He undoubtedly knew he was going to be held to task but still did the job, as he saw it, to try to save a life.

He did not have an accident and reference to other pilots being sued by dependants because they did is a red herring. He broke the law to save a life, that is the only relevant fact.

I have to say that I'm 100% certain I wouldn't have flown that particular mission in the circumstances. In fact, in my fairly distant past, as a fully qualified SAR pilot, I've been obliged to turn down (thankfully a very small number of) very urgent missions on safety grounds. I was taken to task on all of them to explain why. Although I was legally justified, one small part of me will always wish I'd gone.

It could be argued that this pilot just has bigger balls than all of us. My donation to the fund set up for him by the person rescued was for that reason, not that I condone rule breaking. As part of the donation process, one is invited to make a comment on the website. I asked Dave not to do it again without a medical.

My final comment on the matter.

[Thomas coupling]

It doesn't come much better than support from homonculus in this matter. Support, not for my views or Crabs but for the fact that this man was reckless in the extreme.
Shy - I'm disappointed in you , your argument is feeble and lacks credibility.
RVDT - another disappointment. Trying to find any excuse to defend this pilot.

I can only hope that those who haven't bothered to respond to this thread - understand the situation and agree wholeheartedly with the findings of the court otherwise I fear for this industry.

[chopjock]

I can only hope that those who haven't bothered to respond to this thread - understand the situation and agree wholeheartedly with the findings of the court otherwise I fear for this industry.

Not me. Rules that allow someone to die should be allowed to be broken in my opinion. It was a calculated risk.

[homonculus]

RVDT

I am an individual not a country! There is a vast difference between expecting an individual to have insight and expecting a government to change complex legislation. Of course we want more common sense in health and safety but the two situations have little in common.

I regret your explanation for leaving the casualty overnight because it was dark and he was on the edge of a drop is rather an own goal. That means there was never any suggestion of evacuation that evening and the claim that six rescuers were needed cannot be sustained

Chopjock

The patient didn't die. In fact looking at the evidence available to us there is no evidence he was going to die or even that anyone thought he might die. We simply don't know what the doctor said, nor how he might have gained the evidence to make any assertion. But my concern is that the other pilot could have legally flown in the rescuers guided by this chap avoiding risk to the rescuers and illegality

[krypton_john]

Homonculous - he didn't die but the fact he was secured and attended to and wrapped up and given general medical assistance rather than being left exposed to the elements on a mountain cliff tied to a tree may have had some effect.

There have been plenty of "expert" opinions from the rescuers that he could easily/probably been a goner if just left there overnight. I'd trust them over the "experts" commenting here any day.

[RVDT]

Lets play the Devils Advocate -

The "rescue" helicopter that normally does this job has failed to find the casualty and has become unavailable for whatever reason.

It has been established to the best knowledge available and interpretation that the situation is life threatening.

There are two pilots available - one inexperienced yet fully "qualified" and one highly experienced and with a restricted medical yet a huge amount of local knowledge gained over the years in this particular area. To the point that if the position was described to him over the phone he could fly there without a map or GPS in marginal weather yet above helicopter VFR VMC.

There is only so much time available before nightfall.

The area where the victim is happens to be below ~5500' so in that area it is under the beech forest canopy.
If you had a winch capable aircraft it would be of no use anyway.

The landing area is at the limits of the aircraft performance with respect to altitude and that steep it requires a "hover exit" so 3 pax is the limit. No place for superfluous "observers" and "navigators" or a pilot not experienced in these types of operation.

Time allows for 6 ground SAR folks to be positioned and thats all before darkness.
They know that he will possibly need to be carried out and 4 folks is not adequate as they have done this before.

The "doctor" is aware of the pilots restricted medical as are the other occupants of the aircraft.

As the pilot in question you are fully aware that rules will be broken to the extent necessary.

There are no other "resources" available. This is not the UK. The South Island of New Zealand is ~ 20,000 sq km larger than England
and has approximately 1 million people in it. It is mountainous and with very few roads it can be "remote" away from the urban areas.

You decide not to go as you would be "breaking the law".

The casualty succumbs overnight.

Humanity differs from mere justice in that there is a level of altruism towards individuals included in humanity more so than the fairness found in justice.

I hope you sleep well at nights with your 20/20 hindsight goggles on.

[Hughes500]

RVDT

You have my vote.

TC, many years ago while guiding on Mt Blanc a friend took a major leader fall that broke his ankle in 3 places. A long night with no rescue on a 9 inch ledge 400m above the bergschrund. We had to abseil 400m both back to The Mer de Glace . Then carry drag him 3 km to a mountain hut. We were picked up by a Lama helicopter. Question to you would you have got in the helicopter ??

[homonculus]

I really dont want to flog a dead horse but the last three posts miss the point. We agree the casualty needed medical assistance that night. I would have put in a team of two to carry in the kit to make the position safe, give shelter and provide medical support ready to evac the next day.

That needed one legal flight with pilot, unofficial navigator and medical team of two.

Any further medical crew were a luxury - OK insert them if it is safe and legal - but they were not needed that night

I think the facts we know are adequate to be confident this casualty did not need anyone to break the law.

[SilsoeSid]

So, if another professional, let's say a doctor, is struck off yet continues to practise, as long as nobody dies because of their actions that's all ok then is it?

[Thomas coupling]

The situation is either critical or not.
If this patient was definitely going to die without the rescue by helicopter AND it needed not just any old helicopter pilot to carry out this mission (who incidentally was available) but one who was capable of conducting such a treacherous rescue - I would suggest that the adrenaline would be pumping and that pilot would be under severe stress conditions during the actual rescue.
So here we have the conditions present at the time of the 'lift'.

Now let's invite a pilot with these capabilities to attend the rescue - one who has a medical problem, severe enough for the AME's to ground him.
So we insert a pilot with either previous TIA or similar medical concern into a seriously stressful scenario with total disregard for the outcome.

Is this the thought process of a sane person(s)?

IF (and of course it is a big IF)...IF he had suffered a relapse and an accident resulted in the loss of one or more individuals. Where would you armchair judges be then?

Half a mile away no doubt, walking in the opposite direction and washing your hands of the fact that you knew him and supported his actions.

In summary, just so I get this clear: You identified a risk (it being an injured person (ONE PERSON) on a mountain side) and your solution to this risk was to throw another risk at it.
God help us all. :ugh:

[Hughes500]

TC

I think ALARP is what you are looking at. The pilot would be more likely to have a heart attack while driving (didn't have his driving licence pulled ), so that is driving at 60 mph on a single carriage way road less than 6 ft from another vehicle doing 60 mph the other way. What is the greater risk to human life ?
You are looking at everything with rose tinted hindsight, so it is easy to be critical.

[nigelh]

Doesn't the fact that the doctor climbed in knowing about the pilots medical show us that the "risk" of the pilot keeling over was absolutely minimal ?
If I believed that I could SAFELY carry out a rescue in , and ONLY in , a real life and death situation ... Would I fly ? Absolutely yes . Would I fly if my licence or medical had just run out and make the flight illegal ...yes again . I really honestly don't believe that if any of you were having a cuppa at my house and we knew , with requests from the emergency services , that a life could be saved if we flew ....we would not sit on our hands . We would make a decision which we would have to live with .... Can we do this safely ? Are we sure ? I don't think we would spend time discussing if it broke a rule !!!!!!

[SilsoeSid]

Wow, I never knew we were in the presence of so many heroes here :rolleyes:

8qkSe4YM7EY

If you're going to do something like this, save your heartbeats for the day when it happens and you really do have to make such a critical descision; make your decision there and then and stop all this chest beating armchair, port sipping, playground heroics from the luxury of your conveniently comfy chair ffs.

[Hughes500]

SS

I take it then you wouldn't have condoned Johnson Beharry's action that ended in him saving people and getting a rather rare medal ?

[SilsoeSid]

Well, that's a bit of a wild comparison you bring into this thread. As much of a contemptible comparison that I think it is, while you probably don't, let me explain why I think it is well off the mark.


Hughes500;

SS
I take it then you wouldn't have condoned Johnson Beharry's action that ended in him saving people and getting a rather rare medal ?


Hughes, don't you think there's a huge difference between nigelh from the comfort of his comfy armchair, glass of port in hand, predetermining that he would go flying even if he wasn't legally allowed to and then expecting to be treated as a hero as long as nothing went wrong; and a soldier's actions while under effective enemy fire in a theatre of war, twice, the second time sustaining life threatening injuries?



As he (H500) brings this comparison to the thread, let us compare the two and see if Hughes500 et al still believe that Mr Andrews' actions really do make him the hero they all believe him to be, comparable remember in Hughes500's eyes, to Johnson Beharry VC;

Mr Armstrong;
Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) suspends him from flying. The neurologist tells the CAA the pilot's medical risk remains "unacceptably high" and Armstrong is grounded for for 2 years from June, 2012. Armstrong gets a review of the decision, but the CAA stands by it. Armstrong completes two more flights and omits his role from the logbook. The CAA later runs out of time to prepare its prosecution. Armstrong is called in to airlift an injured hunter. Armstrong flies again after kayakers are reported missing. The CAA interviews Armstrong, who initially downplays his role. Eventually he admits flying three other times, saying he felt the missions needed an experienced pilot. Armstrong pleads guilty to three flying breach charges. Armstrong had not recorded the flights in his logbook.

Johnson Beharry VC;
"On 1 May 2004, Beharry was driving a Warrior tracked armoured vehicle that had been called to the assistance of a foot patrol caught in a series of ambushes. The Warrior was hit by multiple rocket propelled grenades, causing damage and resulting in the loss of radio communications. The platoon commander, the vehicle’s gunner and a number of other soldiers in the vehicle were injured. Due to damage to his periscope optics, Pte. Beharry was forced to open his hatch to steer his vehicle, exposing his face and head to withering small arms fire. Beharry drove the crippled Warrior through the ambush, taking his own crew and leading five other Warriors to safety. He then extracted his wounded comrades from the vehicle, all the time exposed to further enemy fire. He was cited on this occasion for "valour of the highest order".

While back on duty on 11 June 2004, Beharry was again driving the lead Warrior of his platoon through Al Amarah when his vehicle was ambushed. A rocket propelled grenade hit the vehicle six inches from Beharry's head, and he received serious shrapnel injuries to his face and brain. Other rockets then hit the vehicle, incapacitating his commander and injuring several of the crew. Despite his life-threatening injuries, Beharry retained control of his vehicle and drove it out of the ambush area before losing consciousness. He required brain surgery for his head injuries, and he was still recovering in March 2005 when he was awarded the Victoria Cross."


Here's a couple for you;
They both had the lives of others in their hands, but which one put the lives of others at risk and which one put the lives of others above their own?
I would have absolutely no problem in giving nigelh a medal if his actions were similar to Johnson Beharry VC, but would you really give nigelh a medal when he does those actions similar to Mr Armstrong?

[Hughes500]

SS

You could argue that they both people potentially put others lives at risk, while the comparison is not ideal it goes to show that each one of us is different in perceived risk and who would do what in a given circumstance.
Mr A was told by a doctor that someone might die so he took the risk
Mr B ( who I take my hat off to and thank you sir ) despite being injured accepted the risk of rescuing his comrades in a selfless act

Both had great outcomes, but as one had said if Mr A had ,had a heart attack while flying then the lawyers would have been involved and a different outcome in everyones eyes
Suppose Mr B had not been successful and others had died trying to retrieve him as well as his comrades, what would some people be saying then, if it ever got to the press that is ???

It would seem that there are too many people around the world that pontificate from on high but I suppose this is what what makes us human some will and some won't. I am sure that Mr A hadn't even thought about a Dick Dastedly medal or come to that anyone else who puts their lives on the line to perhaps save others. So do away with the crass comparison, it does you no favours. Before you say it my comparison is not crass it serves as an example on the way the human mind works and how risk adverse some are and how some are not.
Basically there is not a correct answer to this

[Flaxton Flyer]

This pilot was proven to be a serial rule-breaker, making the decision to fly numerous times even though he was well aware that he wasn't allowed to do so. He knew it, he took the chance and he got caught. I fail to see how anyone (including the pilot) could expect that he wouldn't be prosecuted, even with playing the "lifesaving" card.

A one-off occurrence he might have got away with, but his constant disregard of the regulations was always going to end in tears.

[Hughes500]

I wonder what his motive for taking on the flight was ? I can only assume that if it wasn't for someone else's good then it was to wave 2 fingers at the regulatory body. Anyone else think of another reason ? As it would be obvious with doctor, police etc etc he would be found out.
For those who know the guy, if any on this forum, would they like to comment ?
Or we can break it down to
a. was for someone's good
b. wave 2 fingers
c. Too thick to realise

[Rotonutz]

Whats that old saying about if you don't have anything nice to say??

[SilsoeSid]

Is that the saying found on the same page as, 'don't defend the indefensible'?

[Mark Six]

Hughes,
Don't forget:
d. ego, and
e. money (his company would be remunerated for the flights).

[Thomas coupling]

Hughes500 - you're a dope for bringing that other example to the table and now that SS has shown it for what it was, you realise what a faux pas you made. Never mind.
This NZ guy would still be flying today if the scenario hadn't been brought to the attention of the press, probably.
I wonder if there is a psychological association between pilots flouting the rules like this NZ guy and those other stories we talk about where pilots fly their client come hell or high water, or fly in dodgy weather to accept the next job?
In other words, Press on itis - being the main driver.

[Flaxton Flyer]

A better comparison for Mr. Armstrong would be Harry Clarke, Glasgow bin lorry driver, who shouldn't have been driving due to an existing medical condition but chose to do it anyway.

For our foreign readers who may not be aware of the incident, a blackout at the wheel lead to six fatalities.

[Salusa]

Been trying to stay away from this thread...

Worked with DA in PNG and consider him a pro from my engineers arm chair.

I'm confident he did the right thing after weighing up the pros and cons.

[Hughes500]

Ok I am a dope for trying to point out life is all about risk

[SilsoeSid]

Seems to me that the only risk considered that day by Mr. A was getting caught.

[[email protected]]

You are looking at everything with rose tinted hindsight, so it is easy to be critical. The people using 20/20 hindsight are those defending Mr Armstrong - your main point is that he did it and got away with it so that justifies his actions - it doesn't.

Flaxton Flyer makes an excellent comparison with the Glasgow bin-lorry driver - known medical condition, keeps driving and tries to cover it up, kills 6 people doing their Christmas shopping.

If you advocates of Mr Armstrong want your aviation industry populated by serial risk-takers and rule-breakers then carry on the way you are going but don't blame the rest of us when it bites you in the future.

[krypton_john]

Yeah Flaxton and Crab, because people would have died if he didn't collect the bins eh?

:ugh:

The proper comparison was the UK emergency service that let someone drown in a puddle.

[rantanplane]

A better comparison for Mr. Armstrong would be Harry Clarke, Glasgow bin lorry driver, who shouldn't have been driving due to an existing medical condition but chose to do it anyway.

For our foreign readers who may not be aware of the incident, a blackout at the wheel lead to six fatalities.

nonsense, the lorry driver drove every day, certainly not for rescue missions.

different with the pilot, who wasn't flying every day

[SilsoeSid]

How do you know he wasn't flying every day ranty, it has been shown in court that Mr A hadn't been logging his flights.

[Rotonutz]

Well not every day SilsoeSid……..;)

[rantanplane]

Oh dear, I have been a SillySid as well!
Of course the bin lorry driver wasn't driving his lorry every day either.
But he drove on a regular weekly schedule. Same with the prosecuted pilot?

So what is the overal risk when flying on very rare occasions with a perhaps just slightly higher risk of an heart attack compared to flying on regular schedule with a normal risk? Or with a higher risk as well, just the doctor has not found out yet.

[Flaxton Flyer]

"Yeah Flaxton and Crab, because people would have died if he didn't collect the bins eh?"

No John. Because he decided to risk it and in this case people DID die.

[SilsoeSid]

rantanplane;
Oh dear, I have been a SillySid as well!
Of course the bin lorry driver wasn't driving his lorry every day either.
But he drove on a regular weekly schedule. Same with the prosecuted pilot?

Come on ranty, you must allow us to reply to your posts based on what you previously say, which in this case was;

nonsense, the lorry driver drove every day, certainly not for rescue missions.
different with the pilot, who wasn't flying every day

:rolleyes:

[chopjock]

FF
No John. Because he decided to risk it and in this case people DID die.

That's true, but he did not have a good reason to risk it though did he?

[Hughes500]

So SS and TC and those who said he did wrong you have never ever broken the law and put peoples lives at risk ?

[[email protected]]

The pro-Armstrong lobby are really clutching at straws now - petty references to either the character or the history of those posting here are irrelevant and show the real argument has already been lost.

[Flaxton Flyer]

Chop Jock - who knows why the bin man took the risk - maybe his "good reason" was a fear of being unemployed / unemployable with a family to provide for? The point is, he made a conscious decision to drive even though he shouldn't have been doing it, as Dave did to fly, when both in reality had other options.

This case wasn't just about this one incident of risk-taking though, was it? At least four illegal flights, (most of which did not involve immediate threat to life) document falsification, flying without a medical which invalidated his licence and therefore insurance and trying to hide the facts from the CAA ( sorry "playing down his role").

Even Dave said the prosecution " had to happen". For me, IF he had been the only pilot available on the day, and IF he had no previous, and IF he had been told implicitly that this casualty will die if you don't fly then he might have (should have) come out of this relatively unscathed. As it was .......

[SilsoeSid]

Hughes 500;

So SS and TC and those who said he did wrong you have never ever broken the law and put peoples lives at risk ?


I've done both, but not both at the same time, so to answer your question ...No.

[Hughes500]

SS
The point is that you have for instance, probably broken the speed limit,intentionally or not, but by doing so you have put other lives at risk. Now yes the risk maybe small but you are guilty of breaking a law and serially. So you would be in a very hypocritical position.
This all comes back to the circumstance on the day and the impossibility of anyone here weighing up the risk probability. Yes he broke the law, no one disagrees, the question is should he have done. I certainly can't weigh up the probability of him having a heart attack while flying, I doubt anyone could.
Now agreed if he has serially broken the law yes he should be prosecuted, but we have to look at this case in isolation. If we don't then what message does it send to everyone.
To go to the logical conclusion let us take an EASA example, I am told that the only chance someone has of living is to use a single engine heli when flight viz is say1000m. If I say no which is the correct legal thing to do then he dies. If I say yes than I am prosecuted for busting the 1500 m flight viz law.
So please correct me if I am wrong here are you saying that I shouldn't go ?

[SilsoeSid]

H500;

SS
The point is that you have for instance, probably broken the speed limit,intentionally or not, but by doing so you have put other lives at risk.

Rubbish, just because someone may go over the posted speed limit, does not necessarily mean they are putting the lives of others at risk.

Now yes the risk maybe small but you are guilty of breaking a law and serially.

Serially, doesn't that mean something has been done many times? Very presumptuous of you.

So you would be in a very hypocritical position.

So, a pilot with no insurance, no valid license, knowingly and intentionally breaking the law, while carrying passengers, in the mountains, in dodgy weather conditions, at dusk; is comparable to me driving alone on a deserted desert highway, perhaps exceeding a speed limit along the way … not sure I'd agree with that.

[SilsoeSid]

H500;

To go to the logical conclusion let us take an EASA example, I am told that the only chance someone has of living is to use a single engine heli when flight viz is say1000m. If I say no which is the correct legal thing to do then he dies. If I say yes than I am prosecuted for busting the 1500 m flight viz law.
So please correct me if I am wrong here are you saying that I shouldn't go ?

You have totally missed the point here hughsey, if I may refer to the post by RVDT on 7 Oct 21:07 (thread post 53);


Civil Aviation Act 1990 as at 1 July 2014

Quote:
13A Duties of pilot-in-command and operator during
emergencies
(1) Subject to subsections (2) and (6), in an emergency that arises
in flight, the pilot-in-command may breach the provisions of
this Act or of regulations or rules made under this Act.
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), a breach of any prescribed
requirement is permitted only if the pilot-in-command is satisfied
that—
(a) the emergency involves a danger to life or property; and
(b) the extent of the breach of the prescribed requirement
goes only as far as is necessary to deal with the emergency;
and
(c) there is no other reasonable means of alleviating, avoiding,
or assisting with the emergency; and
(d) the degree of danger involved in complying with the
prescribed requirement is clearly greater than the degree
of danger involved in deviating from it.
(3) Subject to subsections (4) to (6), where an emergency (not being
an emergency that arises in flight) necessitates the urgent
transportation of persons or medical or other supplies for the
protection of life or property, the pilot-in-command of the aircraft
or the operator of the aircraft may breach the provisions
of this Act or of regulations or rules made under this Act.
(4) For the purposes of subsection (3), a breach of any prescribed
requirement is permitted only if—
(a) the emergency involves a danger to life or property; and
(b) the extent of the breach of the prescribed requirement
goes only as far as is necessary to deal with the emergency;
and
(c) there is no other reasonable means of alleviating, avoiding,
or assisting with the emergency; and
(d) the degree of danger involved in deviating from the prescribed
requirement is clearly less than the degree of
risk in failing to attend to the emergency.
(5) Nothing in subsection (3) permits—
(a) the operation of an aircraft that is not registered in New
Zealand or elsewhere; or
(b) the breach of any prescribed requirement as to the airworthiness
of an aircraft; or
(c) the operation of an aircraft by a person who is not lawfully
entitled to operate that aircraft.
(6) Where, in any emergency described in this section, a pilot-incommand
or an operator breaches this Act or regulations or
rules made under this Act in accordance with the provisions
of this section, the pilot-in-command or the operator, as the
case may be, shall—
(a) immediately notify the relevant air traffic control service
of the action; and
(b) as soon as practicable, notify the Director of the action
and the circumstances that necessitated it, and, if requested
by the Director, provide to the Director a written
report in respect of the action.


Whereas Mr Armstrong was not lawfully entitled to operate the aircraft, in your example you would be, and therefore able to complete your task should you make the decision to do so..

[Hughes500]

SS
Got me there on my example, some how had missed RVDT's post :ok: I beg to differ on the speed limit you are putting people lives at risk otherwise why have a speed limit ? The point being you would seem to be happy to break the law yourself which is there for everyone's safety ( now I don't know if you are a serial speeder, lets hope not ) and so would the majority of motorists. I am not saying that we should, but lots have been arguing from a higher morale ground than they should perhaps be on. The law is the law as I was once told !
Again in isolation from his other offences it comes down to the risk of him carrying out the flight and more interestingly the 2 questions the legal and the morale one, in which there maybe differing answers.

Well as a side note this is killing an awful lot of time in some really ****e weather ( days of it now ) and I just love playing the devil's advocate

[SilsoeSid]

Ah, the old, "I was only playing Devils's Advocate" response once the hole gets to a certain depth :rolleyes:

So how come in your last post you say" The law is the law as I was once told!" ... yet you are still defending the premeditated illegal actions of Mr A.


I'm not happy breaking the law, should the case ever be that I may inadvertantly exceed the posted speed limit for the briefest of time, but I must say that I'm even unhappier when I get caught .. should I ever do such a thing.

To lighten up your weather situation;

HTsDS9A7NiM

47 seconds of comedy classic :ok:
All the best

[[email protected]]

Hughes - I have broken the speed limit, and been caught, and faced the consequences of my actions without bleating, without trying to justify my actions, without excuses. Perhaps Mr Armstrong would like to do the same.

[RVDT]

Civil Aviation Act 1990 as at 1 July 2014

Quote:
13A Duties of pilot-in-command and operator during
emergencies
(1) Subject to subsections (2) and (6), in an emergency that arises
in flight, the pilot-in-command may breach the provisions of
this Act or of regulations or rules made under this Act.
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), a breach of any prescribed
requirement is permitted only if the pilot-in-command is satisfied
that—
(a) the emergency involves a danger to life or property; and
(b) the extent of the breach of the prescribed requirement
goes only as far as is necessary to deal with the emergency;
and
(c) there is no other reasonable means of alleviating, avoiding,
or assisting with the emergency; and
(d) the degree of danger involved in complying with the
prescribed requirement is clearly greater than the degree
of danger involved in deviating from it.
(3) Subject to subsections (4) to (6), where an emergency (not being
an emergency that arises in flight) necessitates the urgent
transportation of persons or medical or other supplies for the
protection of life or property, the pilot-in-command of the aircraft
or the operator of the aircraft may breach the provisions
of this Act or of regulations or rules made under this Act.
(4) For the purposes of subsection (3), a breach of any prescribed
requirement is permitted only if—
(a) the emergency involves a danger to life or property; and
(b) the extent of the breach of the prescribed requirement
goes only as far as is necessary to deal with the emergency;
and
(c) there is no other reasonable means of alleviating, avoiding,
or assisting with the emergency; and
(d) the degree of danger involved in deviating from the prescribed
requirement is clearly less than the degree of
risk in failing to attend to the emergency.
(5) Nothing in subsection (3) permits—
(a) the operation of an aircraft that is not registered in New
Zealand or elsewhere; or
(b) the breach of any prescribed requirement as to the airworthiness
of an aircraft; or
(c) the operation of an aircraft by a person who is not lawfully
entitled to operate that aircraft.
(6) Where, in any emergency described in this section, a pilot-incommand
or an operator breaches this Act or regulations or
rules made under this Act in accordance with the provisions
of this section, the pilot-in-command or the operator, as the
case may be, shall—
(a) immediately notify the relevant air traffic control service
of the action; and
(b) as soon as practicable, notify the Director of the action
and the circumstances that necessitated it, and, if requested
by the Director, provide to the Director a written
report in respect of the action.

Highlighted correctly as this was not an emergency that arose in flight.

If the type of emergency was in flight he would have been within the law as Subsection 5 only applies in the condition of Subsection 3.

Seems like not all actually understand the regulations as written just like Mr Armstrong possibly?

He may easily have misinterpreted it just as easily in hindsight.

And if he was never examined about the actual regulation beforehand which is highly likely how would his grasp of the regulation been tested prior?

Ignorance has not been an excuse for a long time. He was charged found guilty and convicted and fined.

Nothing to see here.

[rantanplane]

I recall a funny situation: volunteer fire brigade had a little party on Friday afternoon but then had to drive drunk to a fire as the only sober driver in that small village could not get in time to the fire station. Police was on the scene, knew the sober driver wasn't there and the others had a couple of beers already. The little drunk fire brigade did what they had to do and all went home when the sober driver eventually arrived on the scene.
All completely illegal but nobody was tempted to blame or even prosecute the fire brigade for helping in a situation requiring immediate response.

Oh yes they could have waited a couple of hours for the guys from the next village some 50 miles away.

In the remote areas I got to know plenty people did not even have a driving license, however they offered me a lift all the time, just willing to help, be friendly. They were not always good drivers. For me I decided I was much safer in their car than on the road and chased by them!

This is deep countryside living. You simp'y can't apply the rules ( usually made for the part of a country filled up with a lot more people, industry and roads than remote wilderness areas ) exactly as they have been written down.

People in these areas grow up with that understanding and the great thing is they know their own limits a lot better than somebody obeying just rules superimposed by others far away from their actual situation.

I suggest Silly Sid, crabby Et all should spent some time like 2-3 years in a very remote place, earning their money from the daily jobs available, no monthly paycheck via HMS government - but basically from the ordinary taxpayer like Mr Armstrong.

Oh dear do I really know if Mr. Armstrong has payed his tax bill?
:rolleyes:

[Hughes500]

SS

Lets keep this going as another ****e windy day. The reason I am playing devils advocate with you reference risk and speeding is very close to home. This time last year my 23 year old niece 6 weeks before her wedding was decapitated in an RTA. The other vehicle in the words of the police was travelling too fast round a bend and had a head on collision. That other driver could have been you speeding, could have been me speeding. That other driver could have been anyone who is prepared to speed and brake the law. So all you guys sitting there being hypocritical about legal matters are being very hypocritical as you all break the law, thankfully the risk of killing someone is slim, but you increase the risk by doing so, so why do you ? In Mr A's case yes he broke the law ( remember we are JUST looking at this flight only ), yes he was a serial offender and should be prosecuted for his general actions. Should he have flown that particular flight, well given the information I have seen and if he was told by a doctor that this was a life threatening situation then yes he should have flown it.
I was shot down by TC in a comparison which was to show life is always a risk. ( The flip side of the military example I gave was the situation shown in lone survivor, a rescue mission that ended with a whole seal team killed in the CH 47, yes I know it is combat and they accepted the risk BUT they were going to try and help a fellow human being as Mr A was) Yes we try to minimise risk where we can, hence there are laws, medicals etc etc but we are human and infallible and Thankfully so otherwise where do we go as a race. We would have the situation where persons will not try and rescue a drowning person because they are not trained as happened over here !
Unfortunately there will not always be a successful outcome
As for the crass part of being a hero and getting medals post, that never even crossed my mind before or after I had to rescue a body boarder who was drowning. If I hadn't swum him back to shore ( the physically most demanding thing I have ever done )then he would have drowned.
Was I a qualified life saver/ life guard NO but I was not prepared to see someone drown in front of me.
I am afraid in my eyes there is a risk to everything we do, but to sit there and do nothing is wrong. To pontificate about someone breaking the law when we all do is laughable.Mr A weighed up the risk and went for it. In that case he shoulnt be prosecuted. He should be prosecuted for breaking the laws in the other none humanitarian flights he flew.
Think I will go back to the looking at the trees bending over

[SilsoeSid]

Sorry to hear about your niece H500, an awful time of year for something like that to happen and even more compounded by the forthcoming occasion. :(

An observation; with that unfortunate incident in the family, you're not really playing Devil's Advocate though are you?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devil%27s_advocate

Imho this thread has reached a point where it can simmer until the New Year.


Have a good Christmas everyone.
Enjoy your family, enjoy your friends, enjoy your work colleagues (if they're not your friends), enjoy the friends that you've just met, enjoy the time together.


And for those of us working over the festive season, fly safe and as always, the kettle's on at 'our place' if you're popping by :ok:

[krypton_john]

As I understand it, emergency workers in the UK without this "special training" would have just looked on.

Off-duty cop races to rescue - National - NZ Herald News (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11564951)

[[email protected]]

As I understand it, emergency workers in the UK without this "special training" would have just looked on. utter bo**ocks Krypton John, you clearly have an agenda to pursue here.

Note that your heroic policewoman (and she did an excellent job) was off-duty and may have been constrained by professional protocols had she been on-duty on the beach.

If you don't understand the dangers posed by swift-water (and by this I mean inland flooding not coastal tides) then you should try standing up in 2 feet of water moving at 5 mph - some of the 'special training' you dismiss so readily.

Surely even in NZ you understand the first rule of first aid is not to become another casualty????

[Kiwi500]

No Crab, I can assure you that there are no Police professional protocols here that constrain you from attempting to save someone's life.

[SilsoeSid]

So this policewoman's husband went into the rip current to save two people, then the policewoman left her own two children to also go into the rip current.

Very fine line between heroism and tragedy.

Blackpool police officers' drowning tragedy recalled - BBC News (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lancashire-20892279)

[[email protected]]

That's about right Sid - I've often been told that NZ is about 30 years behind the UK. Sadly it might take a tragic event such as that to change people's attitudes.

[Kiwi500]

Yes, very true Crab. And may it take all of that 30 years and more for us to progress to the state where we are that constrained by policy or paralysed by fear that our population won't risk a calculated attempt at saving someone from drowning...or burning to death....or warm English beer.
On a warmer note if any of you from the motherland find yourselves in our backward little paradise these holidays then drop me a line, a cold beer always awaits. Even you Crab, if the thought of someone helping if you were seriously in the crap doesn't terrify you.
Come on, you know you want to.... :E

[SilsoeSid]

Just my opinion, but it doesn't sit right with me that a mother would leave her own two children on a beach and knowingly enter the water, putting her life in danger alongside the father of her children.

What seems even more wrong to me, is that a nation appears to be happy for those children to be put in that situation. You must have some pretty good orphanages down there to have that kind of mindset.

[RVDT]

I've often been told that NZ is about 30 years behind the UK

I doubt that. The place is rapidly catching up to the status of "Nanny State" achieved by the UK.

[[email protected]]

That same nanny state that is dealing - safely - with horrific urban flooding using properly trained people with decent equipment.

[Kiwi500]

Sid, I hear what you are saying but as I said....it's all about calculated risk, something you and Crab should supposedly know about.
And we don't have orphanages down here....you might be showing your age.

And Crab, this is fantastic news that despite the reported economic peril of motherland.....this disaster has been completely sorted by fantastic resourcing of properly trained people and decent equipment. Obviously not a spontaneous volunteer utilised anywhere by the nanny state, because they couldn't possibly be fully trained, the pool of fully trained experts on standby must be enormous. I'm slightly bemused because by the accounts of some of your own bobbies their stunning training budgets must have been siphoned off to the fully trained flood expert funding.
As most readers here would have guessed my comments are somewhat tongue in cheek but with an undertone of real world experience. Let's just agree that it requires different strokes for different folks/demographics and if any good can be achieved without harm to others it's a happy day.
What does give me a giggle is that between 2 posters here there are about 10,000 posts, I'm surprised that anyone(s) with that much spare keyboard time actually has the time to consider burning some fuel....or saving anyone.
Understand that in little old NZ ability does not always come on the form of a flash flight suit, a uniform or a cheesecutter and creavet.

[[email protected]]

Is that creavet a Kiwi version of a cravat??;)

I'm sure you will be pleased to know that the floods have thrown up plenty of ordinary Joes and Josephines who have saved lives without proper training - no-one in the UK ever wants to stop that happening, perhaps you have rather a skewed view of our 'nanny state'.

As to calculated risk management - yes Sid and I have plenty of experience in that field given our occupations but in order to calculate risk you must have some more accurate basis than 'it'll be right mate'.

I don't doubt there is plenty of ability in NZ and I'm sure it doesn't always come in the bare-chested, testosterone-fuelled, shorts-wearing, authority-hating form that has appeared from time to time on this thread:ok:

Looking forward to the beer:ok:

[FD2]

Dear me - I've come across a few barrack-room lawyers and smart-alecs in my time but you take the biscuit Crab. I've watched this thread for some time and cannot quite get to grips with what your argument is. Professional rescue services need to be properly trained and make decisions about how to carry out rescue missions. Sometimes even professionals get it wrong. Sometimes however the 'rules' can be used as an excuse for one's own indifference:

In Aden in the mid-sixties there was an Army patrol which was pinned down by rebel fire up in the mountains - very inconveniently on a Friday afternoon. The Army called the light blue helicopter boys :hmm: who were stationed there for just such an event but was told they were all 'out of hours'. In desperation he contacted one of the commando carriers which had just arrived in port after weeks at sea. They immediately pulled their aircrew out of their barbeques and other activities ashore and off they went to do the job. :ok:

The police or PCSOs who wouldn't go into a pond to rescue a drowning person fall into the same category - the rules seemed to overcome what I hope was their better instincts to jump in and rescue someone. The doomed Channel rescue of a man overboard was a good opportunity to have another sneer and submit us to more excuses about how 'training' and 'professionalism' should have mitigated against it. Yes - people do make mistakes at times and lose their lives in the pursuit of saving another's but it would take a very particular sort of person to turn away if he thought there was a good chance of rescue wouldn't it?

The pilot who is the subject of this thread broke the rules and has paid dearly for it, but it provides another excuse to argue the toss and also take the mickey doesn't it? There simply isn't the money in New Zealand to provide the sort of rescue set-up that Crab boasts of and with lots of remote areas that people (who Crab would no doubt sneer at for enjoying adventurous activities, sometimes without sensible planning :=) - then other people are tempted to take risks to try and rescue them. It's human nature isn't it? ;) Many people go to New Zealand to get away from the nanny state, where everyone can quote an appropriate rule or regulation why something isn't possible, and there is certainly a 'she'll be right' attitude at times but it's usually for the right motives isn't it?

My better nature told me that I shouldn't descend to an ad hominem post but sometimes it just seems necessary to put the case for the rest of us who aren't so amazingly superior.

[SilsoeSid]

In Aden in the mid-sixties there was an Army patrol which was pinned down by rebel fire up in the mountains - very inconveniently on a Friday afternoon. The Army called the light blue helicopter boys who were stationed there for just such an event but was told they were all 'out of hours'. In desperation he contacted one of the commando carriers which had just arrived in port after weeks at sea. They immediately pulled their aircrew out of their barbeques and other activities ashore and off they went to do the job.



FD2, ref Aden; are you referring to the 3 PARA/X Coy 45 Cdo RM incidents at either Al Naqil on 5 May '64, or Bakri Ridge on 24 May '64, or perhaps some other 'contact'?

If it's either of those two, I'd like to hear your version of events a bit more if you'd be so kind ... it's close to home should we say.

Or would truth be getting in the way of your good story. :suspect:

[FD2]

"Or would truth be getting in the way of your good story".

My 'version' of the events is exactly as it was related to me at the time by several of the squadron aircrew. As you were obviously closely involved at the time would you be so kind as to let us know what 'really' happened - it's something that's stuck in my mind for many years. I do not know what Army unit was involved.

[[email protected]]

FD2 - thanks for a cheery start to 2016 - Happy New Year to you.

Your ad hominem post shows exactly what they always do - that you don't really have a constructive argument but you just dislike what I have to say - rather sad really.

I think my viewpoint has been fairly consistent - I don't agree with what Mr Armstrong did - despite perhaps his best intentions - you and others just can't get past that criticism and look at what you would have thought and said if he had crashed and killed the medics and himself, still leaving the casualty on the hill.

If it had just been a single episode of clear bravery then few, even me, would have condemned him - but he has broken the rules more than once and the perceived danger for the casualty seems to have been just one more excuse to fly when he knew he shouldn't.

One of the most important lessons a professional rescuer has to learn is when to say no.

Unfortunately, most of the counter arguments have degenerated into name-calling and dragging in situations that were not relevant or pertinent to Mr Armstrong's case - just an excuse to have a go at those of us who think he did wrong - your latest excursion into what happened in Aden many years ago is a case in point and equally irrelevant.

Have a chilled New Year:ok:

[SilsoeSid]

Way way too young to be involved FD.

Without a particular date or more references to your example, we have little definite to go on. The closest storyline to your example would be Bakri Ridge on 24/25 May.

In a nutshell;
At last light X Coy 45 RM & 3 PARA advanced to clear the Wadi of enemy positions. X Coy came under heavy fire from dug in tribesmen.

Because of radio problems a Scout (653 Sqn piloted by Maj Jackson, XR600 or 601) was sent in to get a clearer picture of what was going on. Before it could get any information it was brought down by automatic fire. (no casualties, ac recovered next day after REME field repair) A fierce battle then ensued.

Hunters from 43 Sqn laid fire into the enemy positions allowing 3 PARA to manoeuvre into better positions.

The next morning the troops moved back to Bakri Ridge and were flown back to Thumier by 845 Sqn Wessex from the commando carrier Bulwark stationed off the coast.


So we have the light blue, dark blue and powder puffs all playing their part, and if you were wondering about the 4/6 Belvederes (26 Sqn) in country, perhaps there was a very good reason such as ferrying artillery pieces around the area and ls size why Wessex were tasked that morning.

But still, we can see why RN crews may well see it differently from the comfort of their hammock, post beach bbq :rolleyes:

Have a good 2016 everyone :ok:

[SilsoeSid]

Anyway, removing history and facts from the discussion re Aden, am I reading this right FD?

They immediately pulled their aircrew out of their barbeques and other activities ashore and off they went to do the job. :ok:

Not only does FD et al find it acceptable for someone to fly with a suspended licence on medical grounds, FD appears to be condoning flying while under the influence.

Would it have been ok if Mr A had been bbq'ing the day he got the call?

Where do people draw the line here, simply getting away with it?


Lady Luck isn't the best co-pilot on any day.
Maybe Roger Regulate and Colin Commonsense aren't the best, but they'll do their best to keep you from harms way.

(Too keep it PC;
Laurence Luck isn't the best co-pilot on any day.
Maybe Ruth Regulate and Cynthia Commonsense aren't the best, but they'll do their best to keep you from harms way.)

[FD2]

Crab:

I don't think anyone could argue that what he did was 'wrong' and 'broke the rules' and he has been punished for it. I think that a lot of annoyance has been caused by your black and white interpretation of a situation where Mr Armstrong was widely thought of as being a 'good bloke' for 'having a go', which generally people approve of in New Zealand.

As a serial offender he was smacked by the CAA but I don't think you will find many people who would condemn him outright even for that - sometimes it is necessary to improvise when facilities that are enjoyed by European countries are not available and there is a tremendous desire to help others in distress - remember the 'community spirit' that used to exist in the UK? Sometimes 'rules' may be broken to achieve that. ;)

You are correct in stating that there are times when it becomes impossible to complete a task because all the odds are stacked against succeeding, but at other times, where there is a better chance of success, there are always critics who will pick the thing apart afterwards with the benefit of hindsight to say it would have been better if.....

The rescue services must be trained to the highest degree possible and of course there are times when a rescue attempt is not possible. Perhaps a little less strident condemnation in hindsight of those who have not made what you consider the 'right' decisions would cause a little less annoyance to others and fewer personal attacks in 2016?

[FD2]

Sid:

I never claimed to have been 'involved' in a flying sense but I was present at the time, albeit as a junior officer under training (before my flying training). Even so I was still allowed to talk to the aircrew who were personally involved and have retold their version of events that took place and were related to me personally then and later - I dare say when we were boozing in our hammocks. I have no reason to believe those people were telling lies or making it up. Your remarkably precise memory of one particular incident is very interesting though I have no idea if this was the incident I was informed about but I can't argue against what must be the complete and undisputable version of those particular events.

As I'm sure you'd agree, attitudes were quite different 50 years ago but even so I think that if I was pinned down by enemy fire I wouldn't give a rat's *rs* if the bloke who saved my life was several sheets to the wind. Your assumption that I condone flying in that state is a bit peculiar to say the least. If any of those people who were told to get airborne that day had turned round and refused they would have been held in the sort of contempt that was, sadly, often reserved for the RAF by the other two services because of what was seen as a blind obedience to their rules and regulations. No doubt they could have felt proud of having stuck to the rules though. :( I say 'sadly' because I never found any RAF aircrew I worked with later when I was a pilot (at a squadron level) anything other than great company and extremely capable.

I'm also sure that the Belvederes you mention were very busy with other tasks during the incident you relate but your assumption that I approve of flying after drinking alcohol would be like me assuming that the Belvederes were not up to the task but the Wessex were! In other words a little over the top? I can see that you and Crab are 'fellow travellers' on this thread and it's good to have chums but it's also good to keep things in proportion isn't it?

[SilsoeSid]

Well, as the 25th May 1964 was a Sunday, and the 5th May was a Tuesday, it couldn't have been either of those incidents anyway.
Weekday Calculator ? What Day is this Date? (http://www.timeanddate.com/date/weekday.html)

Still, one service being 'unavailable' on a Friday afternoon while another does a job for them, makes for a good story wherever the action takes place. Can you remember which ship you were on or even which squadron you were in at the time? It wasn't HMS Centaur and 815 was it?

I'm so glad the Argentinians didn't know about the Friday afternoon shenanigans at both Murray Heights and later at MPA for example .... there wouldn't have been any service available, including any ship based assets offshore :E

Reading your second paragraph, you do appear to condone a pilot flying "several sheets to the wind", rather than obeying the rules and being held in contempt, just as long as they saved your life. Would your family say the same if they didn't? Would they say, 'at least they gave it a go' and tell the lawyers to go away?

[[email protected]]

but at other times, where there is a better chance of success, there are always critics who will pick the thing apart afterwards with the benefit of hindsight to say it would have been better if..... FD2 - the benefit of hindsight is what you and others are using because Mr Armstrong was successful - what I keep trying to get across is that you would have viewed it very differently had the outcome been less favourable.

I am all for 'good blokes' and 'having a go' but the notion that because he was a 'good bloke having a go' therefore makes him a local hero rather than an irresponsible risk-taker seems to be viewed through the rose-tinted specs of national pride and manly stereotyping.

Please be assured that community spirit very much still exists in the Motherland and the rough diamond who sometimes bends or breaks the rules to get the right outcome still finds admirers here.

The trouble is - how far do you bend or break those rules and which ones do you fracture? That is a very long debate and context becomes vital when assessing the right or wrong in such cases.

In Mr Armstrong's case, the law in your country said he was wrong and punished him accordingly, the press coverage and public opinion (or some of it at least) romanticised the reason for him breaking the law and taking liberties with other peoples safety.

If it had just been him, flying the aircraft to pick up a casualty and recover him to hospital - a one-flight, mission of mercy when no-one else could do it - I would be more inclined to your point of view but that isn't what happened.

An analogy might be the off-duty policewoman persuading several onlookers who were not as capable in the water, of joining her in the rescue of the swimmers. She only risked her own life (although she was following her partner who was ahead of her), not that of others and that is what, in my mind, differentiates the hero/heroine from the foolhardy.

[FD2]

Sid:

You're trying very hard to dissemble this but perhaps you 'protest too much'. I never said that I condoned flying after drinking, merely that there was a different take on these things 50 years ago and like so much of today's revisionist nonsense, one cannot necessarily judge those events by today's standards, when lawyers and other clever people govern what we must think and say. How you infer that I condone drinking and flying is beyond me! Also, because I mentioned Mr A on this thread does not mean that I necessarily agree with what he did but we can all be smart with hindsight.

You may come up with all sorts of hypothetical 'what ifs' but nothing is ever an 'absolute' and human nature often gets in the way of those who try and make it so. None of us is 'holier than thou' if we look back with anything other than rose tinted glasses. If I was a soldier pinned down under fire and a helicopter turned up to rescue me I wouldn't turn it away and I'm sure you wouldn't either. On the other hand, if it was carefully explained to me that I wasn't going to be picked up until the next day because of various rules and regulations I'm sure I would understand - my family would too.

Perhaps to follow your moral absolutism stance Mr A should also have been subject to some public humiliation like the stocks - but then I mustn't infer more than you are implying must I?

By the way I never served in Centaur - I was in a frigate at the time - and strangely enough I can remember lots about it - as I said, it was before I started flying training.

[FD2]

Crab:

I'm not condoning someone breaking the law several times. Hypothetical 'what ifs' don't wash I'm afraid - we can all dream up various weird circumstances to support our arguments but human nature has a way of interfering doesn't it? Our instinct to help those in distress can sometimes over-ride common sense can't it? You say yourself that someone bending the rules can still be applauded occasionally, so sometimes it is excusable isn't it? With human beings these things are never completely black or white and I think we should not be too swift to publicly condemn people for their humanity to those in distress, even if some of us might think their actions 'foolhardy'. There but for the grace of God etc. eh?

[krypton_john]

Crab:
"utter bo**ocks Krypton John, you clearly have an agenda to pursue here."

No agenda,other than the pursuit of common sense over a slavish adherence to regs.

"Note that your heroic policewoman (and she did an excellent job) was off-duty and may have been constrained by professional protocols had she been on-duty on the beach."

Now you are making stuff up.

"If you don't understand the dangers posed by swift-water (and by this I mean inland flooding not coastal tides) then you should try standing up in 2 feet of water moving at 5 mph - some of the 'special training' you dismiss so readily."

Why are you bringing this "swift water" into this? Neither example cited had any "swift water".

"Surely even in NZ" you understand the first rule of first aid is not to become another casualty????"

Well obviously. It's called judgement and experience and it's what you use instead of looking up regulations to tell you what to do or not to do.

[[email protected]]

Why are you bringing this "swift water" into this? Neither example cited had any "swift water". no but that is the 'special training' that you dismiss regarding water more than 3 feet deep.

No-one is suggesting that the incident when the PCSOs didn't go in was admirable or sensible but it was an isolated incident completely unrepresentative of what goes on in the rest of the country. There are sensible guidelines given regarding entry into water but they are 'handrails' not 'handcuffs'.

No agenda,other than the pursuit of common sense over a slavish adherence to regs. your agenda seems to be the 'nanny state' about which you appear to have a very distorted and 'Daily Mail' view.

Now you are making stuff up. professionals are constrained by protocols - ask any doctor or nurse who comes across an accident or injury.

Well obviously. It's called judgement and experience and it's what you use instead of looking up regulations to tell you what to do or not to do. and if your judgement is skewed due to ego and your experience doesn't extend to the situation at hand, then wading in makes you a fool not a hero. No-one is suggesting you need to look up rules and regs before saving a life - just think a bit first.

If you saw someone knocked down crossing a busy road, would you run straight out into the traffic or would you try to stop it or wait for a clear patch before rendering aid?