Launceston prosecution – what has happened? (Part 2)
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Permanently lost
Posts: 1,785
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick, since posting that I have subsequently found out that the prosecution was through the Tasmanian Supreme Court, not the Magistrates Court. Prosecutions through the Supreme Courts can often take a long time to be resolved, especially in situations where no-one is in custody. However, that said, 5 years is still a long time.
As an aside, the State Supreme Courts take on a Commonwealth jurisdiction for cases such as this and Commonwealth legislation is applied to all aspects of the hearing.
Now, as I understand it, the reason for the long delay was essentially due to the defence team requesting huge amounts of prosecution material that was not going to be used at trial. The Crown is obliged to release its trial evidence to the defence prior to the hearing. In this case the defence was making repeated requests for delay as the prosecution had not provided all that the defence had requested.
I do not know what has happened in this case but I will see if I can track down any information. It may take some time as I am not in the north of the State where the trial was held (or was to be held).
As an aside, the State Supreme Courts take on a Commonwealth jurisdiction for cases such as this and Commonwealth legislation is applied to all aspects of the hearing.
Now, as I understand it, the reason for the long delay was essentially due to the defence team requesting huge amounts of prosecution material that was not going to be used at trial. The Crown is obliged to release its trial evidence to the defence prior to the hearing. In this case the defence was making repeated requests for delay as the prosecution had not provided all that the defence had requested.
I do not know what has happened in this case but I will see if I can track down any information. It may take some time as I am not in the north of the State where the trial was held (or was to be held).
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Abeam Alice Springs
Posts: 1,109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As I understand it, the court sat for about 3 weeks in late Nov/early Dec 2009 and heard quite a number of witnesses (at some cost I expect) To not have a result that is made public is not the norm I would guess? Maybe 60 minutes should look into this one??
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Permanently lost
Posts: 1,785
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My internet trawl has come up with nothing apart from the fact that it was last listed in the Supreme Court in Launceston on the 9th and 10th December before the Chief Justice.
There is no reported decision that has been published to date, although there is a decision regarding costs arising from a failed attempt to summons further witnesses for depositions.
I have requested further information from the Supreme Court registry but am unsure as to whether they will provide such.
There is no reported decision that has been published to date, although there is a decision regarding costs arising from a failed attempt to summons further witnesses for depositions.
I have requested further information from the Supreme Court registry but am unsure as to whether they will provide such.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Queensland
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Case history
The original hearing was held in early 2008 in an unreported judgement. A permanant stay of proceedings was granted on the basis the loss of evidence and delay could constitute an unfairness or injustice. The DPP sought special leave to appeal from the High Court on 5 December 2008. Special leave was granted. The appeal was heard in the High Court on 21st May 2009. The Crown was successful in that appeal and the permanent stay was dismissed, with the case remitted back to the Tasmanian Supreme Court for hearing. Not sure where its is at from there.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Permanently lost
Posts: 1,785
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TheOtherGuy,
Thank you for the reference to the High Court appeal. From that appeal this is their summary of the Crown case:
This is their record of the lost evidence:
And finally the judge's reasoning for applying a stay of proceedings which was overturned on appeal:
And no, I am not going to provide a link as it will identify the pilots. They have gone through enough without another outing.
Thank you for the reference to the High Court appeal. From that appeal this is their summary of the Crown case:
The respondents are airline pilots who were the pilot and first officer of a Qantas Boeing 737-400 aircraft on a flight to and from Launceston, which took place during night hours on 23 October 2001. Each of the respondents was responsible for the operation of the aircraft. The Crown alleges that the aircraft took off from Launceston Airport ("the airport") in darkness, without the necessary lighting being turned on. Qantas did not provide scheduled services to Launceston. This was a relief flight that was arranged in order to collect 70 passengers who had been stranded as the result of a mishap.
The control tower at the airport was unmanned between the hours of 10.00pm and 6.00am. The apron and terminal lights at the airport operated 24 hours a day. The taxiway, runway edge lights and the illuminated wind direction indicator ("IWDI"), or windsock lighting, (collectively, "the runway lighting") were not illuminated when the control tower was unmanned. During these hours it was the responsibility of pilots arriving at, or departing from, the airport to turn on the runway lighting. This was done with the Pilot Activated Lighting system ("the PAL"). The PAL was activated by a signal that was transmitted from the aircraft's radio to a receiving device at the control tower. Once activated, the runway lighting remained illuminated for a period of 32 minutes.
The aircraft touched down at the airport at 10.32pm. Before this a signal had been transmitted from the aircraft to the control tower, which had activated the PAL. Thus the runway lighting was on. The aircraft arrived outside the terminal building at 10.34pm. The interval between activation of the PAL and the aircraft's arrival is not known. Accordingly, the end of the cycle of runway lighting commenced by the initial activation of the PAL cannot be determined with precision.
The aircraft moved from the terminal building at 11.01pm. It travelled along taxiway A, instead of taxiway C. Taxiway A was usually reserved for smaller aircraft. It taxied past the Royal Flying Doctor Service ("RFDS") hangar and prepared for take-off at 11.03pm. Its wheels left the runway at 11.05pm. The take-off was observed by Mr Griffiths and Mr Withers, two RFDS pilots, a paramedic and two nearby residents, Mr Walker, an aircraft enthusiast, and Mr Dergacz, a pilot.
Mr Griffiths telephoned the duty operations officer at the airport shortly after the aircraft's departure to enquire whether there was a problem with the operation of the runway lights. The following day he reported the matter to the Civil Aviation Safety Authority ("CASA"). Mr Withers reported the matter to the Air Transport Safety Bureau ("ATSB") on 29 October 2001.
The control tower at the airport was unmanned between the hours of 10.00pm and 6.00am. The apron and terminal lights at the airport operated 24 hours a day. The taxiway, runway edge lights and the illuminated wind direction indicator ("IWDI"), or windsock lighting, (collectively, "the runway lighting") were not illuminated when the control tower was unmanned. During these hours it was the responsibility of pilots arriving at, or departing from, the airport to turn on the runway lighting. This was done with the Pilot Activated Lighting system ("the PAL"). The PAL was activated by a signal that was transmitted from the aircraft's radio to a receiving device at the control tower. Once activated, the runway lighting remained illuminated for a period of 32 minutes.
The aircraft touched down at the airport at 10.32pm. Before this a signal had been transmitted from the aircraft to the control tower, which had activated the PAL. Thus the runway lighting was on. The aircraft arrived outside the terminal building at 10.34pm. The interval between activation of the PAL and the aircraft's arrival is not known. Accordingly, the end of the cycle of runway lighting commenced by the initial activation of the PAL cannot be determined with precision.
The aircraft moved from the terminal building at 11.01pm. It travelled along taxiway A, instead of taxiway C. Taxiway A was usually reserved for smaller aircraft. It taxied past the Royal Flying Doctor Service ("RFDS") hangar and prepared for take-off at 11.03pm. Its wheels left the runway at 11.05pm. The take-off was observed by Mr Griffiths and Mr Withers, two RFDS pilots, a paramedic and two nearby residents, Mr Walker, an aircraft enthusiast, and Mr Dergacz, a pilot.
Mr Griffiths telephoned the duty operations officer at the airport shortly after the aircraft's departure to enquire whether there was a problem with the operation of the runway lights. The following day he reported the matter to the Civil Aviation Safety Authority ("CASA"). Mr Withers reported the matter to the Air Transport Safety Bureau ("ATSB") on 29 October 2001.
The lost evidence comprises the electronic record of the activation of the PAL made by a Monitor at the airport ("the Monitor List") and the information recorded on the aircraft's flight data recorder ("FDR").
The Monitor List contained a record of the last 13 activations of the PAL. A print-out of the Monitor List was obtained two days after the incident. This only contained records of activations on 24 and 25 October 2001.
The FDR recorded the keying of the VHF radio system, the time of transmission and its duration. It did not identify the specific frequency or the purpose of the transmission. Given the time of night at which the incident occurred and the absence of staff in the control tower, an inference could be drawn from the FDR data that a radio transmission was made in order to activate the PAL. Data recorded on the FDR was overwritten after a time. The evidence established that the information recorded on the FDR during the aircraft's flight on 23 October 2001 could have been retrieved within 13 to 15 days of that day.
The PAL was activated by the transmission of three pulses on a frequency specified by the manufacturer. Each pulse was required to be between one and five seconds in duration and it was necessary for all three to be transmitted within a 25 second span. Once activated, the PAL operated for an interval of between 30 and 60 minutes depending on the timer setting. The timer setting at the airport provided for a period of 32 minutes illumination. The system was designed to warn of the impending extinguishment of the lights; during the final 10 minutes of the cycle the IWDI flashed continuously.
There were two distinctive features of the operation of the PAL at the airport. First, if the final pulse was transmitted during or after the 25th second, the lighting cycle defaulted to the concluding 10 minute phase, which was accompanied by the flashing of the primary IWDI ("the straddle effect"). Secondly, Civil Aviation Order 92 required the primary IWDI to be located on the left side of the runway, unless this was impractical. The primary IWDI at the airport was positioned on the right side of the runway. There were two IWDIs at the airport. Only the southern IWDI was configured to flash during the concluding phase of the PAL cycle. The northern IWDI, which was closer to the terminal, remained constantly alight throughout the PAL cycle.
The Monitor List contained a record of the last 13 activations of the PAL. A print-out of the Monitor List was obtained two days after the incident. This only contained records of activations on 24 and 25 October 2001.
The FDR recorded the keying of the VHF radio system, the time of transmission and its duration. It did not identify the specific frequency or the purpose of the transmission. Given the time of night at which the incident occurred and the absence of staff in the control tower, an inference could be drawn from the FDR data that a radio transmission was made in order to activate the PAL. Data recorded on the FDR was overwritten after a time. The evidence established that the information recorded on the FDR during the aircraft's flight on 23 October 2001 could have been retrieved within 13 to 15 days of that day.
The PAL was activated by the transmission of three pulses on a frequency specified by the manufacturer. Each pulse was required to be between one and five seconds in duration and it was necessary for all three to be transmitted within a 25 second span. Once activated, the PAL operated for an interval of between 30 and 60 minutes depending on the timer setting. The timer setting at the airport provided for a period of 32 minutes illumination. The system was designed to warn of the impending extinguishment of the lights; during the final 10 minutes of the cycle the IWDI flashed continuously.
There were two distinctive features of the operation of the PAL at the airport. First, if the final pulse was transmitted during or after the 25th second, the lighting cycle defaulted to the concluding 10 minute phase, which was accompanied by the flashing of the primary IWDI ("the straddle effect"). Secondly, Civil Aviation Order 92 required the primary IWDI to be located on the left side of the runway, unless this was impractical. The primary IWDI at the airport was positioned on the right side of the runway. There were two IWDIs at the airport. Only the southern IWDI was configured to flash during the concluding phase of the PAL cycle. The northern IWDI, which was closer to the terminal, remained constantly alight throughout the PAL cycle.
Accepting that the aircraft spent some four minutes in taxiing and the PAL transmission sent during pre-flight procedures some six minutes previous, the differing accounts of the RFDS pilots that there was no runway lighting with the claims of activation by the pilots, could be reconciled. The lighting sequence ended during take-off and the observation of the RFDS members made during that take-off, following their hearing the aircraft's acceleration. That might be conjecture but could be a matter advanced at trial. That conjecture is relevant to the initial question of whether or not the runway lighting was on at the relevant time. Less problematic is its relevance to the issue of recklessness. The sequence, especially the 'straddle' possibility, is whether the pilots were reasonably entitled to assume that the lighting was in operation.
The above matters are made more complex and significant if, at trial, the jury accepted the prosecution evidence that the aircraft had moved along runway A, whereas it ought to have exited the terminal apron upon taxiway C before executing a 180 degree turn at the southern end of the main runway. This course would have impinged on the capacity of the pilots for observation of the IWDI. Thus even if the jury were to be satisfied, on the evidence, that the runway lights were 'off' at the time of take-off, the issues of timing, straddle, activation by transmission, and the like, remain cogent matters on 'recklessness'. The jury would be well able to consider whether the differing views of the pilots and the RFDS pilots, the position of the windsocks, the use of runways A or C for taxiing, the effects of other illumination from the terminal or apron lighting, and various inconsistencies between the evidence of observers, both inside and outside of the aircraft in their general consideration of a verdict. But the PAL related matters require a journey into conjecture and/or complex evaluation exposing the [respondents] to the risk of an unfair conviction.
The above matters are made more complex and significant if, at trial, the jury accepted the prosecution evidence that the aircraft had moved along runway A, whereas it ought to have exited the terminal apron upon taxiway C before executing a 180 degree turn at the southern end of the main runway. This course would have impinged on the capacity of the pilots for observation of the IWDI. Thus even if the jury were to be satisfied, on the evidence, that the runway lights were 'off' at the time of take-off, the issues of timing, straddle, activation by transmission, and the like, remain cogent matters on 'recklessness'. The jury would be well able to consider whether the differing views of the pilots and the RFDS pilots, the position of the windsocks, the use of runways A or C for taxiing, the effects of other illumination from the terminal or apron lighting, and various inconsistencies between the evidence of observers, both inside and outside of the aircraft in their general consideration of a verdict. But the PAL related matters require a journey into conjecture and/or complex evaluation exposing the [respondents] to the risk of an unfair conviction.
These drawn out Court cases always leave me somewhat bemused....
If a Judge asked me to swear on a stack of Bibles and detail my exact actions and thoughts on a certain day .... 4 or 5 years ago ....I'd probably laugh at him.
I can't even remember that I promised my wife that I would wash up last night !
If a Judge asked me to swear on a stack of Bibles and detail my exact actions and thoughts on a certain day .... 4 or 5 years ago ....I'd probably laugh at him.
I can't even remember that I promised my wife that I would wash up last night !
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Permanently lost
Posts: 1,785
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Librarian at the Supreme Court of Tasmania has advised me as follows:
There is no published account of the trial, as yet.
My supposition is that without the missing evidence referred to in my previous post there was not sufficient evidence to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.
It has revealed one thing that I didn't know previously, that is the "straddle effect" of activating a PAL system.
Now can we draw a veil over this matter?
The case was then relisted for trial in the Supreme Court and on 10
December 2009 both defendants were found not guilty.
December 2009 both defendants were found not guilty.
My supposition is that without the missing evidence referred to in my previous post there was not sufficient evidence to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.
It has revealed one thing that I didn't know previously, that is the "straddle effect" of activating a PAL system.
Now can we draw a veil over this matter?
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Richmond Tasmania
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If Mr Griffiths and Mr Smithers had just minded there own bloody business...none of this nonsense would have seen the light of day!
No doubt they're still flying RFDS operations.
And they should stay there!!
No doubt they're still flying RFDS operations.
And they should stay there!!
Not wanting to say too much on this particular incident as I haven't really been following closely it but recently we (as in some of our flt crew) where chatting about flashing PAL when about to launch as it's sometimes easy to get distracted with checking it prior to line up especially SP Ops in our line of business but also added at the time was someone mentioned the Skipper of this said alleged incident (ref was made about this case in question) was early 60's?? at the time meaning he'd be retired now one way or another.
Not a pleasant blight (if that's what it ended up as) on ones flying career. It's obviously a mistake that such an event occurred so dog like chasing & punishment where the story is bigger than Ben Hur achieves what at the end of the day in this case?
Lets all hope that this can be put to rest sooner than latter as the amount of money spent on this one case so far could no doubt pay for a hell of a lot more safety all round!
Wmk2
Not a pleasant blight (if that's what it ended up as) on ones flying career. It's obviously a mistake that such an event occurred so dog like chasing & punishment where the story is bigger than Ben Hur achieves what at the end of the day in this case?
Lets all hope that this can be put to rest sooner than latter as the amount of money spent on this one case so far could no doubt pay for a hell of a lot more safety all round!
Wmk2
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Permanently lost
Posts: 1,785
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
justapplhere,
About the lost evidence. What was missing was the monitor list of the PAL usage and the FDR from the aircraft.
The monitor list only contains records of the last 13 activations and it was recovered two days after the alleged offence. Launceston is the RFDS base in Tassie and as well there are night freight flights. They "used up" the 13 recorded activations in the following two days.
In respect to the FDR what I didn't post earlier was that there was some delay in QANTAS being contacted in relation to the investigation. This is an excerpt from the facts as found by the High Court:
The incident in question was on 23 October. I suggest that the FDR was well and truly overwritten by that time.
I know of no appeals, which in any case, would be next to impossible as the case was apparently decided on its facts as an appeal cannot be made against a finding of fact. So, yes, the matter is closed.
Capt Fathom,
The case was not "thrown out of court". Either the judge sitting alone or the jury (I cannot remember what the Commonwealth legislation provides for in such a case as this) found the two pilots "not guilty" of the offence. There is a difference.
About the lost evidence. What was missing was the monitor list of the PAL usage and the FDR from the aircraft.
The monitor list only contains records of the last 13 activations and it was recovered two days after the alleged offence. Launceston is the RFDS base in Tassie and as well there are night freight flights. They "used up" the 13 recorded activations in the following two days.
In respect to the FDR what I didn't post earlier was that there was some delay in QANTAS being contacted in relation to the investigation. This is an excerpt from the facts as found by the High Court:
Qantas was first notified of the incident on 9 November 2001.
On 14 December 2001 CASA appointed an investigator to enquire into the incident.
On 14 December 2001 CASA appointed an investigator to enquire into the incident.
I know of no appeals, which in any case, would be next to impossible as the case was apparently decided on its facts as an appeal cannot be made against a finding of fact. So, yes, the matter is closed.
Capt Fathom,
The case was not "thrown out of court". Either the judge sitting alone or the jury (I cannot remember what the Commonwealth legislation provides for in such a case as this) found the two pilots "not guilty" of the offence. There is a difference.
Last edited by PLovett; 9th Mar 2010 at 12:15. Reason: To add a comment and to correct a wrong use of a word.
Okay "CF" lets just say the "event" wasn't proven but it cost a LOT of money to find that out. Something must have happened as I don't believe it would have gotten thus far if there was no 'event' at all.
Wmk2
Wmk2
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Queensland
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why close this thread down? There are important issues for pilots that have arisen in this discussion, not the least being the role/activities of CASA and the DPP. You may not want to know about it but others do. Don't read the thread if you don't want to know.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Abeam Alice Springs
Posts: 1,109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This type of event I suggest is not all that uncommon. Of course a pilot participating in such an event would I suggest not do it on purpose, therefore he is unlikely to know that he has in fact done it! Hence no report!!
This was the case in two such events that I am aware of elsewhere.
CASA would have been better off to address this deficiency and use its resources in an attempt to place mitigators in place to minimise re occurrence. And not to waste our money with such a charge!
(There was a jury and the court sat for the best part of 3 wks)
This was the case in two such events that I am aware of elsewhere.
CASA would have been better off to address this deficiency and use its resources in an attempt to place mitigators in place to minimise re occurrence. And not to waste our money with such a charge!
(There was a jury and the court sat for the best part of 3 wks)
Iminded there own bloody business...none of this nonsense would have seen the light of day!
How do you think pilots get away with dodgy procedures that end up flying a plane load of people into the ground? By people not saying anything.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: In a time warp
Posts: 283
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is my understanding that the RFDS pilots asked questions as they wanted to know if the PAL had gone unserviceable. They had jobs on the go & would need to make other arrangements. They were not out to dob in anyone, but rather make sure they could do there own flights.