44 Dangerous activity involving aircraft, aeronautical product, or aviation related service
(1) Every person commits an offence who—
(a) operates, maintains, or services; or
(b) does any other act in respect of—
any aircraft, aeronautical product, or aviation related service, in a manner which causes unnecessary danger to any other person or to any property.
(2) Every person commits an offence who—
(a) causes or permits any aircraft, aeronautical product, or aviation related service to be operated, maintained, or serviced; or
(b) causes or permits any other act to be done in respect of any aircraft, aeronautical product, or aviation related service,—
in a manner which causes unnecessary danger to any other person or to any property.
Every Person.... Permits..... thats a lot of people potentially outside of just the PIC.
"unnecessary danger" is going to be interesting to get the legal opinion of a departure without incident, given the definition of the term danger in common use, and also the fact that the NZ CAA deems that the potential risk is so low that their regulation on this matter were not breached.
Would the fact that the PIC feels compelled to his course of action by the company (if it is the case
) negate "unnecessary" danger, or perceived passenger expectations?
The NZ CAA is not the only NAA that is acting in a manner that raises the question of the safety merit of retribution vs regulation.