NZ CAA prosecuting 'rescue' pilot
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 !!!
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
Always up for a go in your 109 though
Whereabouts are you oop North?
Thread Starter
Convicted chopper pilot says rescue decision was easy
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.
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.
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.
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.
It's OK Crab - we understand where you are coming from.................or similar.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,578
Received 435 Likes
on
229 Posts
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?
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?
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.
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.
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Domaine de la Romanee-Conti
Posts: 1,691
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
1 Post
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
Appeal for convicted chopper pilot Dave Armstrong reaches $20,000 | Stuff.co.nz
What the history tells me is these were not isolated events. Rather they were part of pattern of unlawful behaviour.
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.
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.
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.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,578
Received 435 Likes
on
229 Posts
Donation made!
Purveyor of Egg Liqueur to Lucifer
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 
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,578
Received 435 Likes
on
229 Posts
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....
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....
Jeopardy and those with 20/20 hindsight.............................priceless! 
What was the name of the show again?
What was the name of the show again?