Queensland pilot may carry 'winegate' can
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Posts: 311
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Queensland pilot may carry 'winegate' can
From the Courier Mail
Pilot may carry Winegate can
Sean Parnell
09mar04
A PILOT from the government air wing may have to take sole criminal responsibility for the Wine Flight affair because of laws outlawing alcohol in some Aboriginal communities.
Police are investigating the presence of a bottle of red wine on the government jet at Lockhart River last week during a visit by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Minister Liddy Clark and her entourage.
Ms Clark's now-sacked media adviser Teresa Mullan has admitted taking the wine on board and said she did not know the Lockhart River alcohol ban included the airport.
Ms Clark and her director-general, Warren Hoey, have denied any knowledge of the wine. Cook MP Jason O'Brien, government staffer Catherine Dunne and chief pilot Miles Currington have refused to talk to The Courier-Mail.
A spokeswoman for Premier Peter Beattie yesterday refused to name the pilot, saying the Government would await the outcome of the police investigation and a Crime and Misconduct Commission inquiry.
Ms Mullan claimed she handed the wine to the pilots on boarding and it has not been revealed whether Lockhart River's alcohol ban was noted on their flight plans.
The Liquor Act states that "proof that liquor was, at the material time, in or on a vehicle is conclusive evidence that the operator of the vehicle had in possession all the liquor in or on the vehicle unless the operator proves that, at the time, he or she neither knew nor had reason to suspect the liquor was in or on the vehicle".
The Act, which treats a plane as a vehicle, indicates Ms Mullan's admissions may have little impact on the outcome of the investigation as "it is immaterial that another person claims to have had in possession any of the liquor at the material time".
While the police investigation is likely to look at whether Ms Clark could be deemed to be the operator of the plane, the pilot or his co-pilot would, at the very least, have been in charge when the wine was seen by a refueler as the minister and her entourage visited the community.
The maximum penalty for defying the alcohol ban is a $37,500 fine for a first offence, with larger fines and prison terms facing repeat offenders.
The CMC inquiry into potential official misconduct may delay an outcome in the criminal investigation. Yesterday a police spokesman said that "it is important that the police and CMC investigations be conducted and finalised simultaneously".
Mr Beattie has vowed to sack Ms Clark and Dr Hoey if it is proved they knew there was wine on the plane, and dismiss any government employee who defied an alcohol ban in an Aboriginal community. On that basis, the pilots who flew to Lockhart River last week could also be sacked.
Pilot may carry Winegate can
Sean Parnell
09mar04
A PILOT from the government air wing may have to take sole criminal responsibility for the Wine Flight affair because of laws outlawing alcohol in some Aboriginal communities.
Police are investigating the presence of a bottle of red wine on the government jet at Lockhart River last week during a visit by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Minister Liddy Clark and her entourage.
Ms Clark's now-sacked media adviser Teresa Mullan has admitted taking the wine on board and said she did not know the Lockhart River alcohol ban included the airport.
Ms Clark and her director-general, Warren Hoey, have denied any knowledge of the wine. Cook MP Jason O'Brien, government staffer Catherine Dunne and chief pilot Miles Currington have refused to talk to The Courier-Mail.
A spokeswoman for Premier Peter Beattie yesterday refused to name the pilot, saying the Government would await the outcome of the police investigation and a Crime and Misconduct Commission inquiry.
Ms Mullan claimed she handed the wine to the pilots on boarding and it has not been revealed whether Lockhart River's alcohol ban was noted on their flight plans.
The Liquor Act states that "proof that liquor was, at the material time, in or on a vehicle is conclusive evidence that the operator of the vehicle had in possession all the liquor in or on the vehicle unless the operator proves that, at the time, he or she neither knew nor had reason to suspect the liquor was in or on the vehicle".
The Act, which treats a plane as a vehicle, indicates Ms Mullan's admissions may have little impact on the outcome of the investigation as "it is immaterial that another person claims to have had in possession any of the liquor at the material time".
While the police investigation is likely to look at whether Ms Clark could be deemed to be the operator of the plane, the pilot or his co-pilot would, at the very least, have been in charge when the wine was seen by a refueler as the minister and her entourage visited the community.
The maximum penalty for defying the alcohol ban is a $37,500 fine for a first offence, with larger fines and prison terms facing repeat offenders.
The CMC inquiry into potential official misconduct may delay an outcome in the criminal investigation. Yesterday a police spokesman said that "it is important that the police and CMC investigations be conducted and finalised simultaneously".
Mr Beattie has vowed to sack Ms Clark and Dr Hoey if it is proved they knew there was wine on the plane, and dismiss any government employee who defied an alcohol ban in an Aboriginal community. On that basis, the pilots who flew to Lockhart River last week could also be sacked.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: North son, I say go North..........
Posts: 599
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
)What an absolute crock of beat up bullsh*t! I have heard it all now. **** **** ****.
Cry cry cry, whinge whinge whinge, whine whine whine (or is that wine wine wine
)
So ferking what they had a bottle of plonk on a PRIVATE jet! It was my understanding of the rules that if it didn't leave the aircraft and the aircraft was on an authorised landing area then wow no problems.
More media beat up cr*p. Go and cover something worthwhile.
Oh hang on no thats right they were peddling it out the back of the jet for 100 bucks a bottle..... get real...
Man what is the world or more importantly Austalia coming to. I am no racist but fair dinkum eh!
Twin falls in Kakadu is being closed to swimming,
Looking at bringing in public photo restrictions at places like Katherine Gorge,
You can't film Aboriginal land if its for commercial TV...
Cry cry cry, whinge whinge whinge, whine whine whine (or is that wine wine wine
)So ferking what they had a bottle of plonk on a PRIVATE jet! It was my understanding of the rules that if it didn't leave the aircraft and the aircraft was on an authorised landing area then wow no problems.
More media beat up cr*p. Go and cover something worthwhile.
Oh hang on no thats right they were peddling it out the back of the jet for 100 bucks a bottle..... get real...
Man what is the world or more importantly Austalia coming to. I am no racist but fair dinkum eh!
Twin falls in Kakadu is being closed to swimming,
Looking at bringing in public photo restrictions at places like Katherine Gorge,
You can't film Aboriginal land if its for commercial TV...
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Aust
Posts: 203
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HA, this is Beattie being caught in his own rules. I agree that it is pretty silly to be carrying on about 1 bottle of wine that was obviously accidently on board for the return trip. Its the reaction thats interesting. Media advisor cops blame as part of a deal. Beattie sacks her (not in the deal). She gets the ****s and tells everyone about the deal. Now the poor pilot looks like copping it. What a crock. If they'd stuck their hand up and said we stuffed up at the beginning no one would care about one bottle of red wine.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Neverhome
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
While the previous posts may contain valid points I think that if anyone is angry about this it should be because a dedicated professional (who, for the record, is one of the 'good guys') could possibly lose his job in order to preserve the 'career' of an ignorant, pathetic politician. Makes me sick. 
What a disgrace.
LH
What a disgrace.
LH
Yes, this is getting to be a ludicrously expensive bottle of wine!!! 
It has already cost the tax payer a second Brisbane - Lockhart - Brisbane flight in the Government jet.
And I don't think Beattie is correct. If memory serves me correctly, Lockhart River airport is owned by the Cook Shire, not the Lockhart River community, and may be legally exempt from the community liquor ban? Also, I am sure there would be laws protecting the right of good in transit to transit an airport, without being subject to local laws?
It has already cost the tax payer a second Brisbane - Lockhart - Brisbane flight in the Government jet.And I don't think Beattie is correct. If memory serves me correctly, Lockhart River airport is owned by the Cook Shire, not the Lockhart River community, and may be legally exempt from the community liquor ban? Also, I am sure there would be laws protecting the right of good in transit to transit an airport, without being subject to local laws?
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Granite Belt, Australia
Posts: 841
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When there's too much emotion (read "media beatup") logic goes out the window.
What if the pilot had refused to take the wine (that is if he had the opportunity) would he still have a job?
Bloody politics!!
What if the pilot had refused to take the wine (that is if he had the opportunity) would he still have a job?
Bloody politics!!
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Ebye
Posts: 125
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ICAO Annex 9 'Facilitation' applies
As Australia is an ICAO signatory, ICAO rules apply.
There are no exemptions to Annex 9 filed by the Australian authorities to reflect that this is a "totally dry port" therefore there is no wrong-doing.
Wine does not have to be declared on arrival & held by relevant authorities whilst the aircraft is on the ground.
I can imagine every car in transit thru the area being searched for hidden beer for the long dry drive north.
What about the semi's in transit as well with commercial loads.
Do they have to submit a cargo manifest at the entry to the town & cargo sealed whilst the driver has a pie & pee.
Just more of your Premier's b*llsh1t - trying to be squeeky clean & stuffing up, again.
Torres, you are obviously more aware of the local laws that would apply.
It is believed you were operating airplanes in this region at one time, so will listen to your comments on this matter.
One can not believe the extreme expense and trouble politicians go to, just to prove a very minor point.
Is the refueller related to the one in Townsville who compiles all the local rumours?
Maybe it is only a rumour.
There are no exemptions to Annex 9 filed by the Australian authorities to reflect that this is a "totally dry port" therefore there is no wrong-doing.
Wine does not have to be declared on arrival & held by relevant authorities whilst the aircraft is on the ground.
I can imagine every car in transit thru the area being searched for hidden beer for the long dry drive north.
What about the semi's in transit as well with commercial loads.
Do they have to submit a cargo manifest at the entry to the town & cargo sealed whilst the driver has a pie & pee.
Just more of your Premier's b*llsh1t - trying to be squeeky clean & stuffing up, again.
Torres, you are obviously more aware of the local laws that would apply.
It is believed you were operating airplanes in this region at one time, so will listen to your comments on this matter.
One can not believe the extreme expense and trouble politicians go to, just to prove a very minor point.
Is the refueller related to the one in Townsville who compiles all the local rumours?
Maybe it is only a rumour.
I can't help but feel this has nothing to do with a bottle of vino; more to do with a political objective lurking somewhere in the background.
I don't know what the scam is, but my guess eventually the Minister will go down in history for the shortness of her term.
I don't know what the scam is, but my guess eventually the Minister will go down in history for the shortness of her term.
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Wa
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
im told the airport refueler started this hole thing when he noticed a bottle of wine and reported it to the cops.
what was this guy doing in a gov jet you may ask
im also told that the land is no longer gov owned and the airport
belongs to the locals ie was handed back to the lockhart river people
although the tax payer still foots all the bills
what was this guy doing in a gov jet you may ask
im also told that the land is no longer gov owned and the airport
belongs to the locals ie was handed back to the lockhart river people
although the tax payer still foots all the bills
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Aust
Posts: 203
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The next aircraft on the ground after the govt jet was a charter containing liquor licencing officers. Bit of bad timing! I am not sure but I believe the political angle is that Beattie's new liquor laws for communities are not really popular. Also, apparently a provision of these laws is the confiscation of the vehicle carrying the alcohol. Now that would be an interesting legal dispute!
I may be wrong...... But I'm sure Lockhart Airport belongs to Cook Shire. Cook Shire extends from north of the Daintree to the Jardine River and includes the Lockhart River Community.
Not wishing to self incriminate...
...I would suggest the vast majority of aircraft refueling in transit at Lockhart River for Horn would be carrying booze........
This is so ludicrous there has to be more involved to the story than merely one bottle of booze transiting Lockhart River Airport!
Either that, or our State Government has completely lost the plot!
Later:
OK. I was half right, half wrong:
"State Government regulations mean that no alcohol can be carried in the Lockhart River Aboriginal Council's community area except for:
the Lockhart River Canteen
the Portland Roads Road
Frenchmen's Road.
The canteen is licensed to sell beer only, to be drunk only on the premises. No takeaways are allowed. The Lockhart River Airport is not part of the community area but is part of the declared Restricted Area.
These regulations apply to anyone within the Restricted Area, whether a resident, visitor or tourist passing through. Heavy penalties apply." (My bolding)
Didn't think the airport was part of the Community.
Still think this is an expensive beat up!
Not wishing to self incriminate...
...I would suggest the vast majority of aircraft refueling in transit at Lockhart River for Horn would be carrying booze........This is so ludicrous there has to be more involved to the story than merely one bottle of booze transiting Lockhart River Airport!
Either that, or our State Government has completely lost the plot!
Later:
OK. I was half right, half wrong:
"State Government regulations mean that no alcohol can be carried in the Lockhart River Aboriginal Council's community area except for:
the Lockhart River Canteen
the Portland Roads Road
Frenchmen's Road.
The canteen is licensed to sell beer only, to be drunk only on the premises. No takeaways are allowed. The Lockhart River Airport is not part of the community area but is part of the declared Restricted Area.
These regulations apply to anyone within the Restricted Area, whether a resident, visitor or tourist passing through. Heavy penalties apply." (My bolding)
Didn't think the airport was part of the Community.
Still think this is an expensive beat up!
Last edited by Torres; 9th Mar 2004 at 13:35.
PPRuNette
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: de nile...
Posts: 458
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Let's say for a moment that any conclusion to this fiasco does indeed find that it was the pilots' fault; would it be prudent to suggest that there might then be a bit of a backlashing from the pilots who operate these flights for the government?
It's like the smartass at the restaurant who gives the waiter a hard time.... never f**k with the waiter
Another point; let's waste a whole bundle of taxpayer's $$$ on the investigation, the CMC inquiry, and all that it entails, and forget about the fact that the $$$ would be far better spent on resources for the community in question.
What a crock of crap.
GG
It's like the smartass at the restaurant who gives the waiter a hard time.... never f**k with the waiter
Another point; let's waste a whole bundle of taxpayer's $$$ on the investigation, the CMC inquiry, and all that it entails, and forget about the fact that the $$$ would be far better spent on resources for the community in question.
What a crock of crap.
GG
Moderate, Modest & Mild.
"The Liquor Act states that "proof that liquor was, at the material time, in or on a vehicle is conclusive evidence that the operator of the vehicle had in possession all the liquor in or on the vehicle unless the operator proves that.."
Isn't "the operator" - under the definiton of the ANO's - the QUEENSLAND STATE GOVERNMENT?
The Government vs itself!
Isn't "the operator" - under the definiton of the ANO's - the QUEENSLAND STATE GOVERNMENT?
The Government vs itself!
Man Bilong Balus long PNG
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Looking forward to returning to Japan soon but in the meantime continuing the never ending search for a bad bottle of Red!
Age: 69
Posts: 2,976
Received 102 Likes
on
59 Posts
If it was'nt so bloody ridiculously idiotic I would be inclined to think that the whole incident would make a Monty Python sketch!!
Also; what is it with the intellectual pygmies that comprise the media these days that makes them apply the suffix 'gate' to every 'scandal' that surfaces. I honestly fail to see what a third rate burglary carried out by some totally inept criminals in some office in a hotel on the other side of the world, some thirty odd years ago carries such weight as to be attached to every aforesaid 'scandal'
Rant over.
You only live twice. Once when
you're born. Once when
you've looked death in the face.
Also; what is it with the intellectual pygmies that comprise the media these days that makes them apply the suffix 'gate' to every 'scandal' that surfaces. I honestly fail to see what a third rate burglary carried out by some totally inept criminals in some office in a hotel on the other side of the world, some thirty odd years ago carries such weight as to be attached to every aforesaid 'scandal'
Rant over.
You only live twice. Once when
you're born. Once when
you've looked death in the face.
Information can be found on the following
www.mcmc.qld.gov.au/community/lockhart.php
From here you can go to the other communities for info.
Can anyone explain how an Operator or Pilot is expected to know of this site when flight planning?
www.mcmc.qld.gov.au/community/lockhart.php
From here you can go to the other communities for info.
Can anyone explain how an Operator or Pilot is expected to know of this site when flight planning?
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Oz
Posts: 331
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Considering that LHR is long enough to take a Dash 8 what would be the ramifications if say one of the 2 X daily Sunstate CS - HID- CS flights needed to divert into there for whatever reason.
Seeing that the galley has quite a reasonable load of alcohol and if the same rules were applied, the Dash would be in the same position as the Govt aircraft and for that matter any other vehicle.
Constable Plod "Hand over the keys Captain, consider the vehicle confiscated and yourself and anyone knowing about the grog under arrest."
Same deal for some poor charter guy whose aircraft is carrying grog for any legitimate customer/passenger up that way (several resorts and cattle properties etc) who may have planned a fuel stop via COE but cant get in so diverts to LHR (closest fuel available). This senario not being all that improbable in the FNQ Wet Season.
Yet another example of another law some Pollie rammed through without getting appropriate advice nor thinking the whole big picture.
Seeing that the galley has quite a reasonable load of alcohol and if the same rules were applied, the Dash would be in the same position as the Govt aircraft and for that matter any other vehicle.
Constable Plod "Hand over the keys Captain, consider the vehicle confiscated and yourself and anyone knowing about the grog under arrest."
Same deal for some poor charter guy whose aircraft is carrying grog for any legitimate customer/passenger up that way (several resorts and cattle properties etc) who may have planned a fuel stop via COE but cant get in so diverts to LHR (closest fuel available). This senario not being all that improbable in the FNQ Wet Season.
Yet another example of another law some Pollie rammed through without getting appropriate advice nor thinking the whole big picture.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: North son, I say go North..........
Posts: 599
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As I said what an absolute w*nk.........
Get a life and do something productive.
Tossers....
Lets all stand by our fellow pilot and leave empty cans/bottles of VB, MB, Tooheys New, Grange Hermitage (maybe not), Silver Pillows, Lady in a boat, Jimmy, Bundy, Johnie, etc in the bin at LHR!!! If you are only over flying past farkem and throw em out the window (even worth a pressurisation dump).... The gods must be crazy part XIV...
Get a life and do something productive.
Tossers....
Lets all stand by our fellow pilot and leave empty cans/bottles of VB, MB, Tooheys New, Grange Hermitage (maybe not), Silver Pillows, Lady in a boat, Jimmy, Bundy, Johnie, etc in the bin at LHR!!! If you are only over flying past farkem and throw em out the window (even worth a pressurisation dump).... The gods must be crazy part XIV...
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: The land of Oz
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Proof of negligence!!!
How can any person on this flight be found guilty of anything at all. How would these people know it was a dry camp, it is not in the ersa etc. There are no signs warning them en-route, as there is when driving. As this is "non stardard", ie booze IS allowed to be carried in a vehicle within Australia without special permits.....what a crock, the pilots, if charged or sacked, will be sitting on a goldmine!!
How can any person on this flight be found guilty of anything at all. How would these people know it was a dry camp, it is not in the ersa etc. There are no signs warning them en-route, as there is when driving. As this is "non stardard", ie booze IS allowed to be carried in a vehicle within Australia without special permits.....what a crock, the pilots, if charged or sacked, will be sitting on a goldmine!!
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Way, way, way up there
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A BIG ^^*hic`*^ JOKE!!
Now they want the pilots' scalp!!??
Maybe the pilots should have/would have known that ONE bottle of wine was on the aircraft. BUT did they know about the alcohol restriction in LHR, or at any of the other communities in Cape York?
From the point of view of those aircraft operators in the Cape, I don't think they would have known. The Cape operators I do not believe received formal notification from the communities or the Government about the newly introduced alcohol restrictions/bans, except for ONE out of the 7 or 8; a simple lack of courtesy and foresight on their behalf.
The pilots I know who fly in the Cape learned about the restrictions via the local grapevine or from the signs at SOME of the affected communities.
I cannot remember seeing a sign at LHR about the alcohol restrictions visible from airside for a pilots' benefit; I have been told that there is one as you enter the airport, but I can't remember seeing it. How would those pilots have known about the restrictions/ban? AND there are different restrictions to alcohol in each community.
It is all so confusing with limits here, bans there, here carton, there a tavern, everywhere an impounded aircraft……… .!
These pilots were from Brisbane; from another world far, far away (like the government is). Is there a new AVFAX code/NOTAM for them to access? Is it in the ERSA? They have NO access to this information.
Imagine and have pity for those private holiday fliers from down south stopping for fuel at LHR, or any other of the communities in Cape York, on the way to HID or WP. They have their survival gear aboard (a couple of alcoholic drinks for the evenings celebration/cooling off), stop of to refuel, have a chat with the refueller who then sets the police onto them for being in possession of grog!!
The two pilots must not become the scape-goat for this foolishness. It is a crime in itself that they have even been implicated. The minister and escorts should have known about the restrictions though! Is it not their portfolio. Like the episode of "Yes Minister" with the endless urgent messages from "a Mr Johnny Walker, Mr Jim Beam ….."; must have been watching it on the way over to LHR and thought of all those radios/telephones in the aircraft.
Can someone tell me if the local police can search an aircraft? I cannot find a reference with regards this.
High Altitude: SPOT ON with all. The 'Gods' are crazy! GONE TROPPO!?
C.W.
Now they want the pilots' scalp!!??
Maybe the pilots should have/would have known that ONE bottle of wine was on the aircraft. BUT did they know about the alcohol restriction in LHR, or at any of the other communities in Cape York?
From the point of view of those aircraft operators in the Cape, I don't think they would have known. The Cape operators I do not believe received formal notification from the communities or the Government about the newly introduced alcohol restrictions/bans, except for ONE out of the 7 or 8; a simple lack of courtesy and foresight on their behalf.
The pilots I know who fly in the Cape learned about the restrictions via the local grapevine or from the signs at SOME of the affected communities.
I cannot remember seeing a sign at LHR about the alcohol restrictions visible from airside for a pilots' benefit; I have been told that there is one as you enter the airport, but I can't remember seeing it. How would those pilots have known about the restrictions/ban? AND there are different restrictions to alcohol in each community.
It is all so confusing with limits here, bans there, here carton, there a tavern, everywhere an impounded aircraft……… .!
These pilots were from Brisbane; from another world far, far away (like the government is). Is there a new AVFAX code/NOTAM for them to access? Is it in the ERSA? They have NO access to this information.
Imagine and have pity for those private holiday fliers from down south stopping for fuel at LHR, or any other of the communities in Cape York, on the way to HID or WP. They have their survival gear aboard (a couple of alcoholic drinks for the evenings celebration/cooling off), stop of to refuel, have a chat with the refueller who then sets the police onto them for being in possession of grog!!
The two pilots must not become the scape-goat for this foolishness. It is a crime in itself that they have even been implicated. The minister and escorts should have known about the restrictions though! Is it not their portfolio. Like the episode of "Yes Minister" with the endless urgent messages from "a Mr Johnny Walker, Mr Jim Beam ….."; must have been watching it on the way over to LHR and thought of all those radios/telephones in the aircraft.
Can someone tell me if the local police can search an aircraft? I cannot find a reference with regards this.
High Altitude: SPOT ON with all. The 'Gods' are crazy! GONE TROPPO!?
C.W.