Qantas pilots charged over 'reckless' takeoff
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Townsville,Nth Queensland
Posts: 2,717
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Qantas pilots charged over 'reckless' takeoff
Tues "The Australian"
Qantas pilots charged over 'reckless' takeoff
By Steve Creedy, Aviation writer
June 08, 2004
A QANTAS captain and first officer are facing charges of reckless operation of a Boeing 737 with 77 people on board after a late night takeoff.
The Civil Aviation Safety Authority alleges the pilots took off from Launceston, Tasmania, for Melbourne about 11pm on October 23, 2001, without activating the airport runway, taxiway and obstacle lights.
The lights can be activated from within the aircraft cabin and provide a vital reference point if the aircraft hits trouble and has to turn back.
Charges laid by the commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions under the Civil Aviation Act are due for a first mention today in the Launceston Court of Petty Sessions.
The two sections relate to reckless operations that could endanger the life, property or person of another individual.
The fact that CASA opted for the unusual course of prosecuting a major airline, rather than issuing an infringement notice or taking other regulatory action, indicates the seriousness with which it views the alleged incident.
CASA's enforcement manual says officers should refer to the commonwealth DPP for prosecution any matters that are deliberate and serious or that demonstrate a reckless disregard of the safety rules; are part of a pattern of similar contraventions; that involve knowing or reckless breaches of the act; or that seriously endanger the safety of people other than those committing the offence.
The act provides for a variety of penalties ranging from licence suspension to fines and demerit points.
A Qantas spokeswoman said it was inappropriate for the airline to comment. However, it is understood the airline is defending the matter.
==========================================
Qantas pilots charged over 'reckless' takeoff
By Steve Creedy, Aviation writer
June 08, 2004
A QANTAS captain and first officer are facing charges of reckless operation of a Boeing 737 with 77 people on board after a late night takeoff.
The Civil Aviation Safety Authority alleges the pilots took off from Launceston, Tasmania, for Melbourne about 11pm on October 23, 2001, without activating the airport runway, taxiway and obstacle lights.
The lights can be activated from within the aircraft cabin and provide a vital reference point if the aircraft hits trouble and has to turn back.
Charges laid by the commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions under the Civil Aviation Act are due for a first mention today in the Launceston Court of Petty Sessions.
The two sections relate to reckless operations that could endanger the life, property or person of another individual.
The fact that CASA opted for the unusual course of prosecuting a major airline, rather than issuing an infringement notice or taking other regulatory action, indicates the seriousness with which it views the alleged incident.
CASA's enforcement manual says officers should refer to the commonwealth DPP for prosecution any matters that are deliberate and serious or that demonstrate a reckless disregard of the safety rules; are part of a pattern of similar contraventions; that involve knowing or reckless breaches of the act; or that seriously endanger the safety of people other than those committing the offence.
The act provides for a variety of penalties ranging from licence suspension to fines and demerit points.
A Qantas spokeswoman said it was inappropriate for the airline to comment. However, it is understood the airline is defending the matter.
==========================================
Nunc est bibendum
F/O: Hmm, looks a little dark out there tonight. Want me to activate the lighting?
CAPT: Nah, don't worry about it, we don't need that.
F/O: No problem, always thought that lights were over rated anyway.
Yeah. right!
If memory serves correctly, the initial investigation on this was on the basis of a CAIR report was it not? Now THAT will make an interesting point of 'natural justice' when it comes to court! 'I now call on witness.....um.....errr....well, we don't actually KNOW who that is!'
CAPT: Nah, don't worry about it, we don't need that.
F/O: No problem, always thought that lights were over rated anyway.
Yeah. right!
If memory serves correctly, the initial investigation on this was on the basis of a CAIR report was it not? Now THAT will make an interesting point of 'natural justice' when it comes to court! 'I now call on witness.....um.....errr....well, we don't actually KNOW who that is!'
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Over 250 posts so far. Perhaps I support Pprune by posting regularly.
Posts: 349
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dunno about the CAIR side of things but the end result will definitely be interesting to read.
Never want to see fellow aviators in the poop but would like to know what they were allegedly thinking if they allegedly went without activating the PAL.
PAL... I presume that's what the journo is referring to when he says "the lights can be activated from within the aircraft cabin".
Never want to see fellow aviators in the poop but would like to know what they were allegedly thinking if they allegedly went without activating the PAL.
PAL... I presume that's what the journo is referring to when he says "the lights can be activated from within the aircraft cabin".
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 590
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
People.
This piece of gutter-trash journalism is just that........total ****e.
The media would have us think that a fellow aviator would both knowingly and willfully choose not to activate the PAL.
Total crap.
Besides this point we dont know the real facts, so it would be both reckless and inappropriate to comment until an investigation is conducted if required.
Besides, love to see the legal processes at work and relevant witnesses being interrogated after all this supposed time.
We pilots typically dislike journo's and find their biased and inacurrate stories contemptible at best.
This could be just another one of those unsubstantiated pieces of journalism with which to wipe our backsides!
This piece of gutter-trash journalism is just that........total ****e.
The media would have us think that a fellow aviator would both knowingly and willfully choose not to activate the PAL.
Total crap.
Besides this point we dont know the real facts, so it would be both reckless and inappropriate to comment until an investigation is conducted if required.
Besides, love to see the legal processes at work and relevant witnesses being interrogated after all this supposed time.
We pilots typically dislike journo's and find their biased and inacurrate stories contemptible at best.
This could be just another one of those unsubstantiated pieces of journalism with which to wipe our backsides!
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Oztraya
Posts: 354
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
adama, Buckshot is probably right with the type, there haven't been 737s into Launceston (well Red Rat ones anyway) for ages, at least until Jetstar started May 25th when one returned.
In 2001 it was a Southern base, operating 146s on the routes toAdelaide, Melbourne and Sydney.
In the festivities following the attack in the US and Ansett's collapse the 146 base was moved to Canberra and Impulse took over the route around late October so 717 probably was the type operating out of Launceston. If it was a 737 then it would have been an ad hoc charter.
In 2001 it was a Southern base, operating 146s on the routes toAdelaide, Melbourne and Sydney.
In the festivities following the attack in the US and Ansett's collapse the 146 base was moved to Canberra and Impulse took over the route around late October so 717 probably was the type operating out of Launceston. If it was a 737 then it would have been an ad hoc charter.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Skylab
Posts: 441
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yet another informative post from Assdama. Now we are calling people idiots.
Nice one Assdama.
Meanwhile, back on the bridge of Battlestar Galactaga;
Boomer to Starbuck - "Assdama's gone mad, now he has nothing better to do that call us all idiots, no wait - he's trying to come to grips with fly by wire technology, next he'll be walking around saying retard, retard,retard".
Skyler to Assdama - "you know assdama, like your name, anything goes big boy"
Nice one Assdama.
Meanwhile, back on the bridge of Battlestar Galactaga;
Boomer to Starbuck - "Assdama's gone mad, now he has nothing better to do that call us all idiots, no wait - he's trying to come to grips with fly by wire technology, next he'll be walking around saying retard, retard,retard".
Skyler to Assdama - "you know assdama, like your name, anything goes big boy"
Last edited by Pete Conrad; 8th Jun 2004 at 00:18.
Bottums Up
I know nothing of this incident, save what is published on this thread.
It does however put comments elsewhere on PPRuNe, describing non QF mainline pilots as, REJECTS, FAILURES, crusty bits on a sore, MONKEYS, and other similar derogatory adjectives cast at non QF pilots, by what appears to be a minority of QF mainline drivers full of their own self import into a different light.
Doesn't it?
It does however put comments elsewhere on PPRuNe, describing non QF mainline pilots as, REJECTS, FAILURES, crusty bits on a sore, MONKEYS, and other similar derogatory adjectives cast at non QF pilots, by what appears to be a minority of QF mainline drivers full of their own self import into a different light.
Doesn't it?
Don Quixote Impersonator
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
eerm does that mean there were allegedly no runway lights etc.? and was there a full moon, did they do it by braille?
or did the PAL system time out sometime in the takeoff and they had already moved on to preselected dep and enroute freqs.
Been there.
how many radios or freq preselectors has B737?
or did the PAL system time out sometime in the takeoff and they had already moved on to preselected dep and enroute freqs.Been there.
how many radios or freq preselectors has B737?
Nothing to do with Impulse/Qantaslink/Jetstar pilots - apologies to all. This from abc.net.au/news
Pilots breached safety laws says CASA
Two Qantas pilots charged with recklessly operating an aircraft have had their case adjourned in the Launceston Magistrates Court this morning.
Peter Maxwell Edwards, 61, of Eltham in Victoria and 39-year-old Stephen Sarunic of Essendon in Victoria are charged with two counts of reckless operation of an aircraft.
Around 77 people were on board on the Qantas Boeing 737-400 which flew from Launceston to Melbourne in October 2001.
The Civil Aviation Safety Authority alleges Qantas pilots Peter Edwards and Stephen Saranic failed to activate the Launceston Airport's runway, taxiway and obstacle lighting system before take off, around 11 pm.
CASA says the flight arrived in Melbourne without incident but it believes the alleged actions breached the Civil Aviation Act.
The men were not required to enter a plea or be present for their first appearance.
The court heard the men's defence lawyers are yet to receive a detailed brief from the Commonwealth Department of Public Prosecution.
The matter was adjourned until the middle of next month.
Pilots breached safety laws says CASA
Two Qantas pilots charged with recklessly operating an aircraft have had their case adjourned in the Launceston Magistrates Court this morning.
Peter Maxwell Edwards, 61, of Eltham in Victoria and 39-year-old Stephen Sarunic of Essendon in Victoria are charged with two counts of reckless operation of an aircraft.
Around 77 people were on board on the Qantas Boeing 737-400 which flew from Launceston to Melbourne in October 2001.
The Civil Aviation Safety Authority alleges Qantas pilots Peter Edwards and Stephen Saranic failed to activate the Launceston Airport's runway, taxiway and obstacle lighting system before take off, around 11 pm.
CASA says the flight arrived in Melbourne without incident but it believes the alleged actions breached the Civil Aviation Act.
The men were not required to enter a plea or be present for their first appearance.
The court heard the men's defence lawyers are yet to receive a detailed brief from the Commonwealth Department of Public Prosecution.
The matter was adjourned until the middle of next month.
Mostly Harmless
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Oz (cold & wet bit)
Posts: 457
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Should we re-activate the PAL"
"Nar, come on, it'd be grouse..."
So what actually happened? I can think of three possibilities:
Didn't refresh the PAL and took off with the IWI flashing,
Didn't refresh the PAL and the lights went off between brake release and takeoff,
Made a concious decision to take off without lights.
Years ago at a country aerodrome I noticed (while a C130 was doing night circuits) I had the VASIS on but had forgotten the lights. I turned them on and was rewarded immediately with, "Oh! We were having fun..."
"Nar, come on, it'd be grouse..."
So what actually happened? I can think of three possibilities:
Didn't refresh the PAL and took off with the IWI flashing, Didn't refresh the PAL and the lights went off between brake release and takeoff, Made a concious decision to take off without lights.Years ago at a country aerodrome I noticed (while a C130 was doing night circuits) I had the VASIS on but had forgotten the lights. I turned them on and was rewarded immediately with, "Oh! We were having fun..."
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Latest Aviation Safety magazine from CASA:
Speaking of CAIR reports, which are now of course defunct, did anyone else spot the irony of positioning a story about the demise of the CAIR system (and how in-house self reporting is now in its place) right beside the story of the Hazo's a/c that got a little close to terra firma near Bathurst? No self reporting there, a concerned passenger brought it to BASI's attention. CAIR had its many faults, but now there's no system for a third party or independent observer to illuminate a safety deficiency. Self reporting? Doubt it.
Speaking of CAIR reports, which are now of course defunct, did anyone else spot the irony of positioning a story about the demise of the CAIR system (and how in-house self reporting is now in its place) right beside the story of the Hazo's a/c that got a little close to terra firma near Bathurst? No self reporting there, a concerned passenger brought it to BASI's attention. CAIR had its many faults, but now there's no system for a third party or independent observer to illuminate a safety deficiency. Self reporting? Doubt it.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Planet Plazbot
Posts: 1,003
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And I bet that there will be feasting in the streets at the decline in reported incidents. heh. Spot a problem and remove the vehicle for exposing it therefore hiding it. I wonder who came up with this one?
A things to think about ....
I see that the DPP is charging them with a breach of the Civil Aviation Act, so they could not find a regulation that specifies that runway lights must be on for takeoff ?
Why is the F/O being charged ?
The Capt is now over 60, so I would guess he is not flying anymore anyway ....
The "responsible" person the airline pays to be on the ground for 30 minutes after takeoff to ensure the lights are on, where were they ?
Is it a QF requirement in the company operations manual to have runway lights on for takeoff and landing ?
I know its sounds like I am taking the pi$$, this whole thing stinks, at the same time a number of operators in Australia frequently operate from unlit or sparsely lit aerodromes at night, specifically night ag-spraying, RFDS, Air Med, ship pilot helicopters etc. I cannot see how it is any less reckless for a night ag-spraying aircraft to fly at night under power lines, or operate from unlit strips than its is for a 737 at Launny.
I note that they have been charged with allegedly "recklessly operating an aircraft", but CASA is not actually saying they did "recklessly operate an aircraft", but they allegedly "failed to activate the Launceston Airport's runway, taxiway and obstacle lighting system before take off",
Don’t have to be the quickest kid on the block to see that runway lights do not form any part of the list of components as specified by Boeing for the B737-438, and therefore under CAR 2 they cannot be an aircraft component, and therefore by the pilots not turning them on they are not recklessly or otherwise operating an aircraft or aircraft component.
So if runway lights are not aircraft, or aircraft components, how can a pilot be charged with "recklessly operating an aircraft" when they are not part of an aircraft.
Sorry to hear of this guys, keep your chin up, sounds like CASA are on shaky ground. I recon this will get thrown out.
I see that the DPP is charging them with a breach of the Civil Aviation Act, so they could not find a regulation that specifies that runway lights must be on for takeoff ?
Why is the F/O being charged ?
The Capt is now over 60, so I would guess he is not flying anymore anyway ....
The "responsible" person the airline pays to be on the ground for 30 minutes after takeoff to ensure the lights are on, where were they ?
Is it a QF requirement in the company operations manual to have runway lights on for takeoff and landing ?
I know its sounds like I am taking the pi$$, this whole thing stinks, at the same time a number of operators in Australia frequently operate from unlit or sparsely lit aerodromes at night, specifically night ag-spraying, RFDS, Air Med, ship pilot helicopters etc. I cannot see how it is any less reckless for a night ag-spraying aircraft to fly at night under power lines, or operate from unlit strips than its is for a 737 at Launny.
I note that they have been charged with allegedly "recklessly operating an aircraft", but CASA is not actually saying they did "recklessly operate an aircraft", but they allegedly "failed to activate the Launceston Airport's runway, taxiway and obstacle lighting system before take off",
Don’t have to be the quickest kid on the block to see that runway lights do not form any part of the list of components as specified by Boeing for the B737-438, and therefore under CAR 2 they cannot be an aircraft component, and therefore by the pilots not turning them on they are not recklessly or otherwise operating an aircraft or aircraft component.
So if runway lights are not aircraft, or aircraft components, how can a pilot be charged with "recklessly operating an aircraft" when they are not part of an aircraft.
Sorry to hear of this guys, keep your chin up, sounds like CASA are on shaky ground. I recon this will get thrown out.