Prosecution

[Eyrie]

Comments?

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

[prospector]

Certainly on the face of it he committed an offence in the eyes of CAA.

It would appear every effort was made to remain legal, by using an understudy who did not have the experience to carry out the task in hand.

I am sure that if the hunter had of died because the pilot refused to fly the mission because of an alleged medical problem, which obviously did not affect his flying ability,because the rescue was carried out successfully, then he would have been in an even darker place.

To expect CAA to use a bit of common sense would appear to be asking to much.

[Biggles78]

There's a thread about this in Rotorheads.
http://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/568736-nz-caa-prosecuting-rescue-pilot.html

[Fred Gassit]

Is there an NZ equivalent of a mercy flight?
It would probably fit that criteria here if there were no other options.

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

Good One Fred - Although you might find that a 'Mercy Flight' has to be notified 'in advance'....
i.e. You are going to do the flight because of a 'situation' involving 'grave and imminent danger', but need to break some rule / regulation in the doing....

Or, that is how it 'used to be'.....

Cheers :ok:

[The name is Porter]

From the FAA (An enlightened regulator)

Are we witnessing the dawn of a kinder, gentler Federal Aviation Administration? Saying it is seeking to challenge the safety status quo, the FAA is adopting a new "compliance philosophy" designed to cut pilots and aircraft operators a break for honest mistakes as part of what is being described as an agency-wide push to identify and correct safety issues before they lead to aircraft incidents or accidents.

"The FAA wants safe operators, not operators who inadvertently make a mistake and then hide it because they're afraid they will be punished," the agency said in a press release after FAA Administrator Michael Huerta discussed the new philosophy at a Flight Safety Foundation breakfast in Washington, D.C., yesterday.

"The FAA's compliance philosophy helps the FAA and industry to use critical thinking to work smarter and more efficiently to get to the bottom of potential safety problems," Huerta said. "It's about finding a problem, fixing a problem, and making sure it stays fixed."

Huerta stressed that the FAA will continue to have zero tolerance for intentional reckless behavior, inappropriate risk-taking, repeat offenders, falsification of records or deviation from regulatory standards. However, in cases where it is found that the pilot made an honest error remedial training, in accordance with a guidance released a few weeks ago, will be used as an alternative to certificate action.

The FAA in June adopted a national policy notice instructing agency personnel to correct simple mistakes arising from a lack of understanding or diminished piloting skills through training and education rather than enforcement action. It is unclear if those changes are being broadly implemented in the field.

[Aerozepplin]

The NZ Civil Aviation Act allows rule breaches, however in the event that the emergency isn't one that arises in flight (and while the events of this SAR flight evolved during flight, it wasn't an in-flight emergency, it was still "the urgent transportation of persons or other supplies") one of the conditions is that the person must still be lawfully entitled to operator the aircraft.


Part 135 only allows flight crew members or representatives of the director to manipulate controls. So it might be an interesting legal test as to whether the PIC can breach that rule in the event of a flight like this (one operated under section 13A of the Act). Because they are still the PIC, and lawfully entitled to operate the aircraft, they are just letting another person manipulate the controls. That is, does the PIC remain the "person lawfully entitled to operate the aircraft" even when they aren't in control.


Overall, in cases like this I wonder what we don't know. I'd bet a small amount that there's plenty of history leading up to the decision to take this to court, history beyond just the simple suspension of a medical and a single illegal flight.

[Aerozepplin]

From the FAA
In theory the CAA (as do other transport regulators in NZ) operate under a similar "compliance model", in that minor errors or rule breaches are treated as opportunities for learning and education. Only wilful non-compliance, failure to amend behaviours, or cases with high public interest should go to court or result in certificates being revoked.


It only takes one bad prosecution to make people lose faith in that system though. It seems FAA do a pretty good job with most aspects of their system, and I'm always glad when I see NZCAA following the FAA. CASA seem to think they know better though from what I've seen.

[27/09]

Overall, in cases like this I wonder what we don't know. I'd bet a small amount that there's plenty of history leading up to the decision to take this to court, history beyond just the simple suspension of a medical and a single illegal flight.

One would hope so. However I've heard of some stupid situations caused by by one "investigator" who still works at CAA. If he's involved nothing would surprise me.

[neville_nobody]

If you get your publicity right you should embarrass the CAA enough to cause them to drop the case.
Basically they are arguing that the guy should have been left to die just to fulfill their rules.

And if that is the case and they did as the CAA requires are they then guilty of failing to render assistance?

Might be an interesting argument. Just because your license is suspended doesnt mean he wasnt capable of rescuing the guy as has been shown.

[Derfred]

So if both pilots on a jet become incapacited and the cabin crew make the hollywood famous PA: "Does anyone know how to fly a plane?"' then the retired jet pilot down the back should keep quiet because he'll go to jail if he tries to save the day...

[prospector]

To my way of thinking, the pilot in question, even though he was potentially knowingly breaking the regulations, was the only one who had the local knowledge to successfully carry out the rescue. The outside helicopter had to abort because of weather, and no doubt lack of intimate local knowledge of the area the hunter was cast in.

It was stated in one of the reports that the pilot in question knew this area exceedingly well, having made many flights for DOC emptying rain gauges etc etc.

To then be charged after successfully carrying out a difficult rescue, because of a potential medical factor, which obviously had no affect on his flying ability, certainly makes one wonder as to CAA motives in bringing a prosecution

[Sunfish]

Isn't rule #1 that all the following rules may be broken if life depends on it?

[Aerozepplin]

Neville, as per the act, in NZ if the emergency arises in flight the requirement to be lawfully entitled to operate the aircraft doesn't apply. More importantly though, do you get to log the time?

[Frank Arouet]

It's been written elsewhere: Had this happened in Oz, and his name been Hemple, he would not have been subject to any scrutiny or intervention let alone prosecution. Probably given a medal while waiting for the canonization.

[Eyes only]

I think this is due process, on face value rules have alleged to have been broken, and a human life has been saved. The court will take into account mitigating circumstances and the intent of the the rules.

Judges tend to have the appropriate amount of words to when red tape comes in the way of saving a human life. The embarrassment to the CAA will be entertaining to read.

The CAA is just being the headmaster administrating a fatal beating. http://youtu.be/3Q-2TAfM3Fg

[27/09]

I think this is due process, on face value rules have alleged to have been broken, and a human life has been saved. The court will take into account mitigating circumstances and the intent of the the rules.As is so often the case these days in New Zealand where instead of common sense being applied the case is prosecuted the defendant is discharged but these is a lot of unnecessary cost, grief and anxiety along the way.

The CAA is just being the headmaster administrating a fatal beating. http://youtu.be/3Q-2TAfM3FgExtremely funny but bizarrely true.

[neville_nobody]

Neville, as per the act, in NZ if the emergency arises in flight the requirement to be lawfully entitled to operate the aircraft doesn't apply.

So why the court case then?

[27/09]

Neville, as per the act, in NZ if the emergency arises in flight the requirement to be lawfully entitled to operate the aircraft doesn't apply.
So why the court case then?
I'd say the emergency didn't happen in flight. The emergency was the reason for the flight.

That aside I'd say it's a very silly situation.

[AerocatS2A]

So why the court case then?

Because it wasn't an in-flight emergency?

[Derfred]

If the pilot in command found himself unable to complete the rescue, whilst inflight, then the emergency arose inflight, yes? The emergency wasn't the safety of the aircraft, the emergency was that a human needed rescue, and the PIC found himself unable to complete the rescue. A human life was in danger. The suspension of the licence of the prosecuted was clearly not limiting as to his capability to execute the rescue safely. Does this come down to semantics of what constitutes an in-flight emergency? Does it really matter if the human life in distress was internal or external to the aircraft?

If the prosecuted pilot was otherwise limited in capability (for example, he had a medical condition that actually limited his ability to fly safely, mentally or physically unfit, or had been under influence of alcohol/drugs) then there could be a case as he could have been jeopardising the lives of those on board the aircraft, but that is clearly not the case here.

The decision to prosecute has been made by a person of authority, and that decision is disgraceful, even though it is likely to be thrown out of court. If it is likely to get thrown out of court, then it should never have been in court in the first place. The only thing I can think of that is worse than being falsely accused of a crime, is being accused of a crime while selflessly saving another person's life.

When you get unfairly hauled before the courts, your life has changed. When you are found innocent or charges dropped, you don't even get a letter of apology. The government bureaucrat who decided to charge you goes to work the next day as if nothing happened. Your life as you knew it has changed forever.

This impacts severely on the credibility of the regulator to conduct it's duty, and has the potential to impact on future such mercy flights... lest we hear: "Let him die - I can't afford to risk my licence..."

Is this what we fought in the trenches for? He'd get a medal in a military environment. Can someone phone the PM's office? This guy deserves an honour, not a subpoena.

[AerocatS2A]

If the pilot in command found himself unable to complete the rescue, whilst inflight, then the emergency arose inflight, yes? The emergency wasn't the safety of the aircraft, the emergency was that a human needed rescue, and the PIC found himself unable to complete the rescue. A human life was in danger. The suspension of the licence of the prosecuted was clearly not limiting as to his capability to execute the rescue safely. Does this come down to semantics of what constitutes an in-flight emergency? Does it really matter if the human life in distress was internal or external to the aircraft?




if you want to use the "in-flight emergency" defense then I suspect it does.

[Sunfish]

Derfred:

This impacts severely on the credibility of the regulator to conduct it's duty, and has the potential to impact on future such mercy flights... lest we hear: "Let him die - I can't afford to risk my licence..."


Sorry, but in Australia we are already there. The defence of "necessity" no longer exists for the most part. Its trumped by "strict liability".

[aroa]

Sunny. How right you are.

[thorn bird]

which is why all my pilots are instructed... do NOT under any circumstances agree to carry out a mercy flight without an indemnity from prosecution signed by the CEO of CAsA or preferably by the prime minister

I have been placed in that position and encouraged to "declare the emergency" by ATC. Fortunately my rational mind overcame my emotional side and I had to think clearly and ask myself some questions.

Why are they asking me to declare an emergency? All I needed was a climb into restricted airspace.

Conclusion?, they do not want to take any responsibility leaving me to carry the can for any repercussions.

Could I trust in the probity of CAsA??

Conclusion?, based on the evidence you couldn't trust them as far as you could kick them. I have yet to find anyone in CAsA who is not a two faced lying bastard, they would all make good politicians.

Given the above if I had declared the emergency and CAsA true to form decided it was unjustified, how many other people would lose their livelihood if they decided I was not "fit and proper".

Conclusion?, too many. The life of one child against the lives of many.

This country is so screwed up now a good Samaritan is destroyed,
doubters?? ask the man from Longreach.

[Sunfish]

Thornbird, without trust a society, and a country, cannot function and eventually descends to Third world conditions because people are too untrusting of each other to cooperate to achieve a shared good. There are no win/win outcomes any more because people automatically are afraid of entering actions where win/lose is a possibility. Francis Fukuyama wrote a book about the economic value of trust in Society.


http://www.amazon.com/Trust-Social-Virtues-Creation-Prosperity/dp/0684825252


What the NZ prosecution will do is feed through to Two sorts of pilot behaviour:

(1) Pilots refraining from "Good Samaritan" behaviour, as you suggested, if it involves the possibility of the slightest infringement of the rules.

(2) Risky behaviour and unreported incidents away from the prying eyes of the regulator.

As far as CASA is concerned, lack of trust feeds through to exactly the same behaviour.

For example, there is no way in hell I'm fitting ADS-B out because I don't trust Air Services Australia and CASA not to turn it into both an automatic infringement generator and a means of harassment of targetted individuals.

To put that another way; if the power exits to exactly track individual aircraft, it will ultimately be misused, unless there are ironclad safeguards and even then all some regulator has to do is yell "Terrorism!" and we are all monitored by CASA.

While I may fit a video camera (Virb youtube videos of some flights are stunning) there is no way I'll be sharing them with anyone lest I get Quadrio'd.

I was thinking of a high visibility colour scheme for the beast, but I may instead opt for ubiquitous white, less recognisable and hence less likely to attract the attention of stickybeaks.

I already know I have a paranoid/schizophrenic "deep green" neighbour Two doors away who will automatically report me for low flying and excessive noise to the council and CASA if I land/takeoff from my place, furthermore, I expect exactly the same behaviour from bushwalkers around here and I will log all flight data against that occurrence.

The transponder? Radio calls? The bare, legal, minimum.

I will treat my flying as surreptitious, shameful, behaviour of an "uncaught criminal" as it is in the eyes of CASA because that it appears is what they want.

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

Hey Sunny,
Enjoy yr posts.

Re 'but I may instead opt for ubiquitous white, less recognisable ...'

Consider light matt grey, with corresponding matt rego numbers or whatever.
The Military Guys /Gals seem to use it OK.......
'Barely Visible' at twenty paces in the morning / afternoon haze......

Whatever is the bare 'legal minimum'......

Cheers:ok:

[Sunfish]

FSO Grifo:

Consider light matt grey, with corresponding matt rego numbers or whatever.
The Military Guys /Gals seem to use it OK.......
'Barely Visible' at twenty paces in the morning / afternoon haze......


Thought about that, but I think a better idea is to stencil "black rotor shapes" under the wings and tail. Then people on the ground will think its a drone.:E