The Pacific: General Aviation & Questions The place for students, instructors and charter guys in Oz, NZ and the rest of Oceania.

Man taxis to the Newman pub

Old 8th Nov 2014, 02:57
  #61 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 704
Roll eyes all you want, but they still don't need an ATPL!

Point is, a PPL would not have permitted him to drive down the Main Street in a wingless Aircraft anyway.
VH-Cheer Up is offline  
Old 8th Nov 2014, 08:45
  #62 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Victoria
Posts: 716
Leaves me wondering what place there will be in Australia for flying cars which seem to be on the verge of being launched, so to speak.

I won't mention float planes in case they are made illegal, too!

Kaz
kaz3g is offline  
Old 8th Nov 2014, 10:33
  #63 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: somewhere in Oz
Age: 49
Posts: 911
Originally Posted by VH-Cheer Up View Post
Point is, a PPL would not have permitted him to drive down the Main Street in a wingless Aircraft anyway.
The laws of physics wouldn't have permitted him to fly down the Main Street in a wingless aircraft either...
Andy_RR is offline  
Old 9th Nov 2014, 11:46
  #64 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Warrnambool
Age: 13
Posts: 106
CAR's 1988 DEFINITION OF AN AEROPLANE:

aeroplane means a power-driven heavier-than-air aircraft deriving its lift in flight chiefly from aerodynamic reactions on surfaces remaining fixed under given conditions of flight, but does not include a power-assisted sailplane.
Based on this definition, it is not an aeroplane because it is not in flight.
Paul O'Rourke is offline  
Old 9th Nov 2014, 15:01
  #65 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: eastcoastoz
Age: 72
Posts: 1,703
Paul,
The definition really should have read "which derives its lift.."

As it was, it was simply an unregistered vehicle.


Having said that, the owner would have already been known as the 'village idiot' in other respects.

Last edited by Stanwell; 9th Nov 2014 at 15:22.
Stanwell is offline  
Old 9th Nov 2014, 20:44
  #66 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Warrnambool
Age: 13
Posts: 106
I agree with you Stanwell.
Paul O'Rourke is offline  
Old 16th Nov 2014, 06:58
  #67 (permalink)  
caa
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Lounge
Age: 49
Posts: 35
Who said it is not registered with CASA? it is not an annual fee it needs to be cancelled. For that matter insurance too.

It is very possible it is both (not road registered I assume).

I hope the Authorities take it as a fun thing as possibly intended, but I doubt that. That said I hope it is not CASA register, penalties much higher (taxi approval/running engine x distance from building/ no STC or workpack entry for fuel system mod).
caa is offline  
Old 17th Nov 2014, 12:21
  #68 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Perth - Western Australia
Age: 70
Posts: 1,806
The point I was trying to make was the bloke has bought an incomplete/not airworthy aircraft and apparently intends to get it airworthy.

If such is the case, and he wants to fly it (or even just taxi it home) I would expect he would have some aeronautical skills and training, along the lines of a PPL at least.

However, I guess he could always bolt it all together with no knowledge, no training, and no skills - and then go for his LAME ticket and his PPL, all at once.

I await the court appearance with interest, and I would like to see the beaks comments and opinion on the offender.

I strongly suspect this bloke is one of those blokes that we all know, who manage to do everything wrong first, before they find out the right way to go about it.
onetrack is offline  
Old 17th Nov 2014, 12:45
  #69 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: on the ground
Posts: 231
Originally Posted by onetrack
I strongly suspect this bloke is one of those blokes that we all know, who manage to do everything wrong first, before they find out the right way to go about it.
In that case, it's probably a good thing that he tried operating an airplane without wings first before installing a pair?
nonsense is offline  
Old 18th Nov 2014, 11:11
  #71 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: lancs.UK
Age: 72
Posts: 1,196
Just checked it ,2780 sterling That's a lot of money for a "bit of a laugh!" That's about two month's gross wage for a minimum-pay worker in the UK Somewhat excessive for that sort of misdemeanour in an outback town....a weeks wage would have been more appropriate, IMHO.
This has somewhat altered my view of the Aussie "laid-back" culture.
cockney steve is offline  
Old 18th Nov 2014, 11:21
  #72 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Victoria
Posts: 716
Clearly the magistrate was a city man and didn't understand the law was different in remote areas.

Not as harsh as transportation for a loaf of bread, though

Kaz

$5k is probably not much more than a week's wages there, anyway
kaz3g is offline  
Old 18th Nov 2014, 12:15
  #73 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Richmond NSW
Posts: 1,222
Let's hope that he appeals the criminal fine, Kaz?


(And importantly, potentially more cash for his legal counsel.)


Whilst he did a very stupid and potentially dangerous thing, I'm not sure that the punishment really fits the crime. No one was hurt, after all?


And I rather doubt that a "deterrent" punishment was really needed!
gerry111 is offline  
Old 18th Nov 2014, 14:03
  #74 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Perth - Western Australia
Age: 70
Posts: 1,806
The fine was severe because the offender was charged under the Criminal Code, not the Traffic Act - specifically Chapter XXVII, section 266 - which clearly outlines that anyone in charge of a "dangerous thing" - whether living or inanimate, and whether moving or stationary - and which definition includes a source of ignition or fire - is held totally responsible for any act endangering the health and safety of anyone near the "dangerous thing".

CRIMINAL CODE ACT COMPILATION ACT 1913 - NOTES

If he had been charged under the Traffic Act with a traffic offence, or offences, the penalty/penalties would have been less.
However, he wasn't driving an unroadworthy, road-going vehicle - he was driving an aircraft on a public road.

IMHO, the Police and the Magistrate have viewed his stupid act with the gravity that is applied to serious aviation offences and criminal offences, and have applied the appropriate penalty.

If you view his offence as a trivial one and the penalty as being too severe, then you fail to understand the gravity with which aviation offences are viewed in Australia.
onetrack is offline  
Old 18th Nov 2014, 15:38
  #75 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: eastcoastoz
Age: 72
Posts: 1,703
onetrack,
Without its wings it can't be defined as an aircraft or aeroplane, I'm given to understand.


As stupid as the act was, to anybody who's spent any time in the 'bush', as cockney steve observed much earlier, the response was
'a heavy-handed over reaction'.
Stanwell is offline  
Old 18th Nov 2014, 16:30
  #76 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Oz
Posts: 247
As stupid as the act was, to anybody who's spent any time in the 'bush'....
Just because someone lives in the "bush" does not mean you are complete f*ckwit, nor does living in the "bush" justify being one.

I agree though, he didn't get what he deserved........he should have spent a little bit of time playing Momee or Dadee in the Big House!!!
Square Bear is offline  
Old 18th Nov 2014, 23:28
  #77 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: utopia
Posts: 106
A bit of a laugh and sense of humour are fast becoming a thing of the past now days in the bush.It was the last frontier of good times without much to worry about.
Pappa Smurf is offline  
Old 19th Nov 2014, 02:05
  #78 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Perth - Western Australia
Age: 70
Posts: 1,806
I'm lived in the "bush" aplenty, and I have a fairly lenient view of pranks and antics, and what I regard as a good sense of humour.
However, this event didn't occur in the "bush", it occurred in a sizeable W.A. town, with a population in excess of 4000 people, and it's properly classed as an urban environment.
Try driving your wingless aircraft up the streets of your local town and see how you go.
The reason why we have so much regulation and "nannying" today, is because too many fools think dangerous and illegal stunts that are carried out, putting others at risk, are funny.
I reckon this bloke is the sort of bloke who would reckon it's fun to dive-bomb cows, like the bloke did South of PER many years ago. We all know what happened in that incident.
onetrack is offline  
Old 19th Nov 2014, 02:13
  #79 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: over the rainbow
Posts: 93
According to a report on the midday news he was fined $5000 for his little ride,no mention of just exactly what he ended up being charged with.
LewC is offline  
Old 19th Nov 2014, 02:44
  #80 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: on the ground
Posts: 231
Anthony Whiteway, 37, was charged with committing an act likely to endanger the life, health or safety of a person, and faced Newman Magistrates Court on Tuesday.
nonsense is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.