Jodel down Ball Bay Qld.

[spinex]

Another one just before Christmas😢.
According to ASN, VH-WBL at about 08:00 AEST

[Capt Fathom]

What! No speculation, no theories? Must be holiday time!

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

'Tis a sad event capt........even moreso because its Christmas, and the respective families, from now on, will have a 'not so merry' Christmas........

[aroa]

Some pics on a few news sites. Stated as engine failure and attempted forced landing beach and or water. Looks pretty busted up. Fixed gear caused to flip? Tide further out when pics taken ?
RIP that man , and hopefully a speedy recovery for the injured. Not such a merry Xmas.

[Cloudee]

Investigation discontinued. https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2021/aair/ao-2021-054-1/

ATSB states pilot not licenced to fly and aircraft not legally maintained for the last ten years. You have to wonder if the deceased passenger knew that.

[43Inches]

Not just unlicensed but also had made his own maintenance release stating it was maintained to schedule 5 and then flew after his own document had expired. There's enough in that report to suggest the seat belt on the passenger failed possibly leading to more severe injuries. An unbelievable set of circumstances to really think he was flying the thing around for so long with no maintenance or a valid licence.

[grizzled]

I don't know if Australian law permits criminal charges against this guy for the death of the passenger. Hopefully it does. And hopefully under civil law, the family of the passenger can sue for every penny that pilot has. Beyond disgusting.

[Squawk7700]

To be glass half full, there’s no mention if it was actually maintained and just not documented, as I guess they wouldn’t know. You’d have to think that it would have had an oil change at some stage, but perhaps not written up… well why bother to write it as he wasn’t permitted to anyway.

There’s no excuse for those compression figures though and it was probably shaking away on 75% of it’s max power.

[Capt Fathom]

If he was unlicensed and the aircraft was ‘unmaintained’ he would never have taken it into Mackay for any service.

Ball Bay would be the perfect spot to stay under the radar and do your own thing.

I have no doubt this happens all over Australia.

[SWBKCB]

I have no doubt this happens all over Australia.

Bit surprised that this didn't seem to be an issue of concern in the report - "He wasn't following our procedures so nowt to do with us"?

[43Inches]

Bit surprised that this didn't seem to be an issue of concern in the report - "He wasn't following our procedures so nowt to do with us"?

Pretty sure it's been handed to the police as a matter for them subject to a coroners report. The ATSB is supposed to be about improving aviation safety through investigation of occurrences. In this case it would be a waste of their time as the pilot was not complying with any rules, so the basic summary would be "follow the rules dummy". Pilot will be charged with various aviation breaches and most likely manslaughter, if there's no jail time it will be suprising.

[43Inches]

Still waiting for a trike operator to be charged with manslaughter as well as aviation offences over a death that happened a few years ago...

CASA can not prosecute anyone for manslaughter, they are an aviation regulator, they can only issue fines and such for regulatory infringements. If a crime like that is committed its up to the police to gather evidence and assess if charges are warranted.

Also which trike accident are you referring to?

[Squawk7700]

Also which trike accident are you referring to?

This one. https://amp.9news.com.au/article/aa007f10-1aae-4b4b-8d02-0f9170dc49f4

I seem to recall at the time that Sunfish felt that action should be immediately taken because the family was well-to-do.

[43Inches]

From reading the details of that one, it seems the pilot was the uncle. He seemed genuinely remorseful and the family probably just wanted it to end there. The OPP must have agreed with them and have not moved for any further action. No point of pushing for charges if there is no public interest in the matter and parties are agreed to move on. Would be different if it was an act of violence, rather than one of very poor judgement. Unlike drink driving there is no ruling that they have to proceed with charges.

There is a big difference in what could be a single spot of dangerous flying gone wrong and the complete lack of regard for a number of laws in the Jodel case.

A car equivalent would be a fatal accident when going too fast on a wet winding road, vs doing the same in an unregistered car with bald tyres, worn brakes and frayed seat belts while having no licence.

[43Inches]

Not sure whats wrong with what I said. It's obvious the police and OPP didn't find anything worth prosecuting and CASA has either fined him or not. Again legally there's a gulf between what has occurred with the Jodel and what happened in the trike, especially if the passenger of the Jodel was led to believe that the aircraft was maintained properly and flown by a licenced pilot. I mean that's speculation on that last bit, but I assume the uncle had correct certification for the flight, he was just performing a dangerous manuvre beyond his capability at an unsafe altitude. In any case the body responsible for this is SAFA, as its a powered hang glider.

43inches: - this was not " a single spot of dangerous flying" it was a thirty minute low level acrobatic performance, culminating in death of the passenger.

That was one contiguous event as far it's concerned, yes it was irresponsible, but not different to hooning a speedboat around the lake for 30 minutes and hitting a log and someone dies. Both instances would be considered high risk activities to agree to participate in and yes, unsafe, but moving on into manslaughter would be difficult to prove. Should he be fined for breaches of the law, for sure, do we know that hasn't already happened?, it would only go to court if he decided to fight the system. Police don't inform the public if I'm fined for various breaches of the road rules, if i just pay up its over. It's only if the OPP finds it worth prosecuting for criminal charges that it will end up in court unless they want to fight the fines, which was probably warned that if they fought it then other more serious charges would occur.

[Squawk7700]

43inches, your thoughts on the matter are absolutely spot on. Criminal cases are never black or white and even when they do try and take you to task, a good layer pops up and the result goes in a different direction entirely or is appealed or dropped. On that note I am reminded of the aircraft water skiing accident where a young child was killed.

Sunfish, you post on so many different forums, you wouldn’t remember what you wrote, or where you wrote it.

[43Inches]

43, I wish everyone was as forgiving as you.

I'm not being forgiving at all, I know how the Victorian court system works. It's not about forgiving the accused, it's about whether first, sufficient evidence of a crime has been committed, and second, is the crime worth the time and effort to prosecute based on the evidence gathered. The latter not just a matter of proof, but also weight of the crime. While the family can not decide whether or not manslaughter charges are pursued, their opinion can be taken into advice for the Office of Public Prosecution (OPP) decision on whether to continue. The OPP will not pursue charges on individuals where an outcome would not serve much public benefit or prove some point to the greater community and will just get bogged down in the courts using up valuable time in the process. Generally they will seek alternatives to court action if possible, if the accused takes up the offer and sticks to it no further action is taken. This is why its always of benefit to be nice in an accident and offer some recompense, any judge/magistrate looks very favorably on these gestures.

Now in the Eildon accident first you have to gather evidence of crime. Witness statements from the press are very vague and point to most not seeing the actual accident, it may be eyewitnesses will not want to be involved or have no actual view of the accident itself. Coneverting "I think I saw (whatever)" into usable evidence can be problematic. Was the accident a direct result of the flying sequence performed, or some engine failure after the event while normal flying etc etc etc...T hen you have to dig into whether the deceased knew the type of flying proposed and how the uncle flew prior to strapping into the machine and becoming a willing participant (or not). There are a lot of circumstantial and speculative elements which have to be heavily followed up to ascertain what laws have been broken.

In the case of the Jodel there is clear breach of regulations, no record of required maintenance, no record of holding valid licences or medicals, proof of forged maintenance certificates, proof of not completing required safety ADs in regard to the seatbelts. A willful disregard for almost all aviation rules over a large period of time.