NZ Transport Minister fined for mobile use.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: expat
Posts: 129
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NZ Transport Minister fined for mobile use.
I had a close look at the NZ CARs regarding PEDs and I think you could say he didn't actually break any CAA rules. However he may have been guilty under the Aviation act of non-compliance with a crew instruction.
Now I could be wrong about the legalistic interpretation of an IFR flight vs a flight operating under IFR...but if the NZ CAA did issue a rule infringement fine when no infringement took place it does raise questions. And perhaps he should have been prosecuted under the Aviation Act?
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/national-...lery_id=195586
Now I could be wrong about the legalistic interpretation of an IFR flight vs a flight operating under IFR...but if the NZ CAA did issue a rule infringement fine when no infringement took place it does raise questions. And perhaps he should have been prosecuted under the Aviation Act?
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/national-...lery_id=195586
Last edited by HPSOV L; 9th Jul 2018 at 08:06. Reason: Add link
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: expat
Posts: 129
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I’m being a bit of a bush lawyer here...
The distinction I see is that while a planned flight may be classed as either VFR or IFR, by definition the only time it is “operating under Instrument Flight Rules” is from takeoff to landing.
It is axiomatic that the taxi phase of flight, up till now at least, is a visual procedure that does not rely on instruments for navigation.
The wording of the PED rules seem to support this interpretation as they refer to preventing flight deviations due to electromagnetic interference. This is not applicable to taxiing. If it were surely the same rules would be applied to VFR flights taxiing.
Of course none of the above prevents airlines from making a more restrictive rule for practicality. But that is covered by the Aviation Act not CARs.
A bit pedantic and I’m not really a lawyer but hey...they are supposed to know this stuff and so is the minister.
NZ CAR 91.7
AC 91.5
Av Act 65J
The distinction I see is that while a planned flight may be classed as either VFR or IFR, by definition the only time it is “operating under Instrument Flight Rules” is from takeoff to landing.
It is axiomatic that the taxi phase of flight, up till now at least, is a visual procedure that does not rely on instruments for navigation.
The wording of the PED rules seem to support this interpretation as they refer to preventing flight deviations due to electromagnetic interference. This is not applicable to taxiing. If it were surely the same rules would be applied to VFR flights taxiing.
Of course none of the above prevents airlines from making a more restrictive rule for practicality. But that is covered by the Aviation Act not CARs.
A bit pedantic and I’m not really a lawyer but hey...they are supposed to know this stuff and so is the minister.
NZ CAR 91.7
AC 91.5
Av Act 65J
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: Canberra
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What a refreshing attitude from a public servant/politician.
If that happened in Australia, the minister would (in typical "Don't you know who I am" mode) deny (s)he did anything wrong, have the fine revoked, change the law retrospectively, and have anyone associated with the fine being issued, sacked, and forced to publicly apologise to the Minister.
If that happened in Australia, the minister would (in typical "Don't you know who I am" mode) deny (s)he did anything wrong, have the fine revoked, change the law retrospectively, and have anyone associated with the fine being issued, sacked, and forced to publicly apologise to the Minister.
I’m being a bit of a bush lawyer here...
The distinction I see is that while a planned flight may be classed as either VFR or IFR, by definition the only time it is “operating under Instrument Flight Rules” is from takeoff to landing.
It is axiomatic that the taxi phase of flight, up till now at least, is a visual procedure that does not rely on instruments for navigation.
The distinction I see is that while a planned flight may be classed as either VFR or IFR, by definition the only time it is “operating under Instrument Flight Rules” is from takeoff to landing.
It is axiomatic that the taxi phase of flight, up till now at least, is a visual procedure that does not rely on instruments for navigation.
Personally, I reckon he/she is a bit stiff. Given the number of passengers observed to be obviously using their mobile device from boarding to 20000ft and 20000ft to disembarkation, I'd suggest the Minister is simply doing what the majority of travellers do. The only difference is the Minister was shown to be in breach of the regs and fined.
Why do we continue to broadcast announcements about mobile device usage and then (usually) completely ignore the abuse of the regulation?
If we aren't going to strictly police the requirement, why continue to make the announcement?
Why are we then surprised when passengers take every personal possession they have with them when the words "evacuate evacuate" are announced?
Why do we continue to broadcast announcements about mobile device usage and then (usually) completely ignore the abuse of the regulation?
If we aren't going to strictly police the requirement, why continue to make the announcement?
Why are we then surprised when passengers take every personal possession they have with them when the words "evacuate evacuate" are announced?
Curiously, as one who DOES use an instrument (a 20yo GPS with many preprogrammed waypoints for my area) to navigate a yacht at 6 knots on water, when I read of a misidentified runway incident such as Lexington (2006) or Singapore (2000), I am left wondering how on earth this is possible with GPS. The answer of course is that GPS is completely unnecessary when you can look out the window and see where you are.
Right?...
Last edited by nonsense; 10th Jul 2018 at 09:56.
It’s a bit off topic but I would say that lining up on the wrong runway has more to do with the way human brains work than with the accuracy of GPS. Expectations, workload, distraction etc etc
You’ve probably made similar errors on the yacht and never been aware of it. When you make those kind of errors it is not apparent until a consequence is seen. More often than not, in jets as well as yachts, there is no consequence and unless your mate points it out to you, you never know.
You’ve probably made similar errors on the yacht and never been aware of it. When you make those kind of errors it is not apparent until a consequence is seen. More often than not, in jets as well as yachts, there is no consequence and unless your mate points it out to you, you never know.
