Prosecution
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 265
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If the pilot in command found himself unable to complete the rescue, whilst inflight, then the emergency arose inflight, yes? The emergency wasn't the safety of the aircraft, the emergency was that a human needed rescue, and the PIC found himself unable to complete the rescue. A human life was in danger. The suspension of the licence of the prosecuted was clearly not limiting as to his capability to execute the rescue safely. Does this come down to semantics of what constitutes an in-flight emergency? Does it really matter if the human life in distress was internal or external to the aircraft?
If the prosecuted pilot was otherwise limited in capability (for example, he had a medical condition that actually limited his ability to fly safely, mentally or physically unfit, or had been under influence of alcohol/drugs) then there could be a case as he could have been jeopardising the lives of those on board the aircraft, but that is clearly not the case here.
The decision to prosecute has been made by a person of authority, and that decision is disgraceful, even though it is likely to be thrown out of court. If it is likely to get thrown out of court, then it should never have been in court in the first place. The only thing I can think of that is worse than being falsely accused of a crime, is being accused of a crime while selflessly saving another person's life.
When you get unfairly hauled before the courts, your life has changed. When you are found innocent or charges dropped, you don't even get a letter of apology. The government bureaucrat who decided to charge you goes to work the next day as if nothing happened. Your life as you knew it has changed forever.
This impacts severely on the credibility of the regulator to conduct it's duty, and has the potential to impact on future such mercy flights... lest we hear: "Let him die - I can't afford to risk my licence..."
Is this what we fought in the trenches for? He'd get a medal in a military environment. Can someone phone the PM's office? This guy deserves an honour, not a subpoena.
If the prosecuted pilot was otherwise limited in capability (for example, he had a medical condition that actually limited his ability to fly safely, mentally or physically unfit, or had been under influence of alcohol/drugs) then there could be a case as he could have been jeopardising the lives of those on board the aircraft, but that is clearly not the case here.
The decision to prosecute has been made by a person of authority, and that decision is disgraceful, even though it is likely to be thrown out of court. If it is likely to get thrown out of court, then it should never have been in court in the first place. The only thing I can think of that is worse than being falsely accused of a crime, is being accused of a crime while selflessly saving another person's life.
When you get unfairly hauled before the courts, your life has changed. When you are found innocent or charges dropped, you don't even get a letter of apology. The government bureaucrat who decided to charge you goes to work the next day as if nothing happened. Your life as you knew it has changed forever.
This impacts severely on the credibility of the regulator to conduct it's duty, and has the potential to impact on future such mercy flights... lest we hear: "Let him die - I can't afford to risk my licence..."
Is this what we fought in the trenches for? He'd get a medal in a military environment. Can someone phone the PM's office? This guy deserves an honour, not a subpoena.
If the pilot in command found himself unable to complete the rescue, whilst inflight, then the emergency arose inflight, yes? The emergency wasn't the safety of the aircraft, the emergency was that a human needed rescue, and the PIC found himself unable to complete the rescue. A human life was in danger. The suspension of the licence of the prosecuted was clearly not limiting as to his capability to execute the rescue safely. Does this come down to semantics of what constitutes an in-flight emergency? Does it really matter if the human life in distress was internal or external to the aircraft?
Derfred:
Sorry, but in Australia we are already there. The defence of "necessity" no longer exists for the most part. Its trumped by "strict liability".
This impacts severely on the credibility of the regulator to conduct it's duty, and has the potential to impact on future such mercy flights... lest we hear: "Let him die - I can't afford to risk my licence..."
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
which is why all my pilots are instructed... do NOT under any circumstances agree to carry out a mercy flight without an indemnity from prosecution signed by the CEO of CAsA or preferably by the prime minister
I have been placed in that position and encouraged to "declare the emergency" by ATC. Fortunately my rational mind overcame my emotional side and I had to think clearly and ask myself some questions.
Why are they asking me to declare an emergency? All I needed was a climb into restricted airspace.
Conclusion?, they do not want to take any responsibility leaving me to carry the can for any repercussions.
Could I trust in the probity of CAsA??
Conclusion?, based on the evidence you couldn't trust them as far as you could kick them. I have yet to find anyone in CAsA who is not a two faced lying bastard, they would all make good politicians.
Given the above if I had declared the emergency and CAsA true to form decided it was unjustified, how many other people would lose their livelihood if they decided I was not "fit and proper".
Conclusion?, too many. The life of one child against the lives of many.
This country is so screwed up now a good Samaritan is destroyed,
doubters?? ask the man from Longreach.
I have been placed in that position and encouraged to "declare the emergency" by ATC. Fortunately my rational mind overcame my emotional side and I had to think clearly and ask myself some questions.
Why are they asking me to declare an emergency? All I needed was a climb into restricted airspace.
Conclusion?, they do not want to take any responsibility leaving me to carry the can for any repercussions.
Could I trust in the probity of CAsA??
Conclusion?, based on the evidence you couldn't trust them as far as you could kick them. I have yet to find anyone in CAsA who is not a two faced lying bastard, they would all make good politicians.
Given the above if I had declared the emergency and CAsA true to form decided it was unjustified, how many other people would lose their livelihood if they decided I was not "fit and proper".
Conclusion?, too many. The life of one child against the lives of many.
This country is so screwed up now a good Samaritan is destroyed,
doubters?? ask the man from Longreach.
Thornbird, without trust a society, and a country, cannot function and eventually descends to Third world conditions because people are too untrusting of each other to cooperate to achieve a shared good. There are no win/win outcomes any more because people automatically are afraid of entering actions where win/lose is a possibility. Francis Fukuyama wrote a book about the economic value of trust in Society.
What the NZ prosecution will do is feed through to Two sorts of pilot behaviour:
(1) Pilots refraining from "Good Samaritan" behaviour, as you suggested, if it involves the possibility of the slightest infringement of the rules.
(2) Risky behaviour and unreported incidents away from the prying eyes of the regulator.
As far as CASA is concerned, lack of trust feeds through to exactly the same behaviour.
For example, there is no way in hell I'm fitting ADS-B out because I don't trust Air Services Australia and CASA not to turn it into both an automatic infringement generator and a means of harassment of targetted individuals.
To put that another way; if the power exits to exactly track individual aircraft, it will ultimately be misused, unless there are ironclad safeguards and even then all some regulator has to do is yell "Terrorism!" and we are all monitored by CASA.
While I may fit a video camera (Virb youtube videos of some flights are stunning) there is no way I'll be sharing them with anyone lest I get Quadrio'd.
I was thinking of a high visibility colour scheme for the beast, but I may instead opt for ubiquitous white, less recognisable and hence less likely to attract the attention of stickybeaks.
I already know I have a paranoid/schizophrenic "deep green" neighbour Two doors away who will automatically report me for low flying and excessive noise to the council and CASA if I land/takeoff from my place, furthermore, I expect exactly the same behaviour from bushwalkers around here and I will log all flight data against that occurrence.
The transponder? Radio calls? The bare, legal, minimum.
I will treat my flying as surreptitious, shameful, behaviour of an "uncaught criminal" as it is in the eyes of CASA because that it appears is what they want.
What the NZ prosecution will do is feed through to Two sorts of pilot behaviour:
(1) Pilots refraining from "Good Samaritan" behaviour, as you suggested, if it involves the possibility of the slightest infringement of the rules.
(2) Risky behaviour and unreported incidents away from the prying eyes of the regulator.
As far as CASA is concerned, lack of trust feeds through to exactly the same behaviour.
For example, there is no way in hell I'm fitting ADS-B out because I don't trust Air Services Australia and CASA not to turn it into both an automatic infringement generator and a means of harassment of targetted individuals.
To put that another way; if the power exits to exactly track individual aircraft, it will ultimately be misused, unless there are ironclad safeguards and even then all some regulator has to do is yell "Terrorism!" and we are all monitored by CASA.
While I may fit a video camera (Virb youtube videos of some flights are stunning) there is no way I'll be sharing them with anyone lest I get Quadrio'd.
I was thinking of a high visibility colour scheme for the beast, but I may instead opt for ubiquitous white, less recognisable and hence less likely to attract the attention of stickybeaks.
I already know I have a paranoid/schizophrenic "deep green" neighbour Two doors away who will automatically report me for low flying and excessive noise to the council and CASA if I land/takeoff from my place, furthermore, I expect exactly the same behaviour from bushwalkers around here and I will log all flight data against that occurrence.
The transponder? Radio calls? The bare, legal, minimum.
I will treat my flying as surreptitious, shameful, behaviour of an "uncaught criminal" as it is in the eyes of CASA because that it appears is what they want.
Hey Sunny,
Enjoy yr posts.
Re 'but I may instead opt for ubiquitous white, less recognisable ...'
Consider light matt grey, with corresponding matt rego numbers or whatever.
The Military Guys /Gals seem to use it OK.......
'Barely Visible' at twenty paces in the morning / afternoon haze......
Whatever is the bare 'legal minimum'......
Cheers
Enjoy yr posts.
Re 'but I may instead opt for ubiquitous white, less recognisable ...'
Consider light matt grey, with corresponding matt rego numbers or whatever.
The Military Guys /Gals seem to use it OK.......
'Barely Visible' at twenty paces in the morning / afternoon haze......
Whatever is the bare 'legal minimum'......
Cheers
FSO Grifo:
Thought about that, but I think a better idea is to stencil "black rotor shapes" under the wings and tail. Then people on the ground will think its a drone.
Consider light matt grey, with corresponding matt rego numbers or whatever.
The Military Guys /Gals seem to use it OK.......
'Barely Visible' at twenty paces in the morning / afternoon haze......
The Military Guys /Gals seem to use it OK.......
'Barely Visible' at twenty paces in the morning / afternoon haze......
