Prosecution
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Toowoomba
Posts: 120
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Prosecution
Guest
Posts: n/a
Certainly on the face of it he committed an offence in the eyes of CAA.
It would appear every effort was made to remain legal, by using an understudy who did not have the experience to carry out the task in hand.
I am sure that if the hunter had of died because the pilot refused to fly the mission because of an alleged medical problem, which obviously did not affect his flying ability,because the rescue was carried out successfully, then he would have been in an even darker place.
To expect CAA to use a bit of common sense would appear to be asking to much.
It would appear every effort was made to remain legal, by using an understudy who did not have the experience to carry out the task in hand.
I am sure that if the hunter had of died because the pilot refused to fly the mission because of an alleged medical problem, which obviously did not affect his flying ability,because the rescue was carried out successfully, then he would have been in an even darker place.
To expect CAA to use a bit of common sense would appear to be asking to much.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: `
Posts: 309
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There's a thread about this in Rotorheads.
http://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/568...cue-pilot.html
http://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/568...cue-pilot.html
Good One Fred - Although you might find that a 'Mercy Flight' has to be notified 'in advance'....
i.e. You are going to do the flight because of a 'situation' involving 'grave and imminent danger', but need to break some rule / regulation in the doing....
Or, that is how it 'used to be'.....
Cheers
i.e. You are going to do the flight because of a 'situation' involving 'grave and imminent danger', but need to break some rule / regulation in the doing....
Or, that is how it 'used to be'.....
Cheers
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Santa Barbara
Posts: 912
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From the FAA (An enlightened regulator)
Are we witnessing the dawn of a kinder, gentler Federal Aviation Administration? Saying it is seeking to challenge the safety status quo, the FAA is adopting a new "compliance philosophy" designed to cut pilots and aircraft operators a break for honest mistakes as part of what is being described as an agency-wide push to identify and correct safety issues before they lead to aircraft incidents or accidents.
"The FAA wants safe operators, not operators who inadvertently make a mistake and then hide it because they're afraid they will be punished," the agency said in a press release after FAA Administrator Michael Huerta discussed the new philosophy at a Flight Safety Foundation breakfast in Washington, D.C., yesterday.
"The FAA's compliance philosophy helps the FAA and industry to use critical thinking to work smarter and more efficiently to get to the bottom of potential safety problems," Huerta said. "It's about finding a problem, fixing a problem, and making sure it stays fixed."
Huerta stressed that the FAA will continue to have zero tolerance for intentional reckless behavior, inappropriate risk-taking, repeat offenders, falsification of records or deviation from regulatory standards. However, in cases where it is found that the pilot made an honest error remedial training, in accordance with a guidance released a few weeks ago, will be used as an alternative to certificate action.
The FAA in June adopted a national policy notice instructing agency personnel to correct simple mistakes arising from a lack of understanding or diminished piloting skills through training and education rather than enforcement action. It is unclear if those changes are being broadly implemented in the field.
"The FAA wants safe operators, not operators who inadvertently make a mistake and then hide it because they're afraid they will be punished," the agency said in a press release after FAA Administrator Michael Huerta discussed the new philosophy at a Flight Safety Foundation breakfast in Washington, D.C., yesterday.
"The FAA's compliance philosophy helps the FAA and industry to use critical thinking to work smarter and more efficiently to get to the bottom of potential safety problems," Huerta said. "It's about finding a problem, fixing a problem, and making sure it stays fixed."
Huerta stressed that the FAA will continue to have zero tolerance for intentional reckless behavior, inappropriate risk-taking, repeat offenders, falsification of records or deviation from regulatory standards. However, in cases where it is found that the pilot made an honest error remedial training, in accordance with a guidance released a few weeks ago, will be used as an alternative to certificate action.
The FAA in June adopted a national policy notice instructing agency personnel to correct simple mistakes arising from a lack of understanding or diminished piloting skills through training and education rather than enforcement action. It is unclear if those changes are being broadly implemented in the field.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: New Zealand
Age: 37
Posts: 247
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The NZ Civil Aviation Act allows rule breaches, however in the event that the emergency isn't one that arises in flight (and while the events of this SAR flight evolved during flight, it wasn't an in-flight emergency, it was still "the urgent transportation of persons or other supplies") one of the conditions is that the person must still be lawfully entitled to operator the aircraft.
Part 135 only allows flight crew members or representatives of the director to manipulate controls. So it might be an interesting legal test as to whether the PIC can breach that rule in the event of a flight like this (one operated under section 13A of the Act). Because they are still the PIC, and lawfully entitled to operate the aircraft, they are just letting another person manipulate the controls. That is, does the PIC remain the "person lawfully entitled to operate the aircraft" even when they aren't in control.
Overall, in cases like this I wonder what we don't know. I'd bet a small amount that there's plenty of history leading up to the decision to take this to court, history beyond just the simple suspension of a medical and a single illegal flight.
Part 135 only allows flight crew members or representatives of the director to manipulate controls. So it might be an interesting legal test as to whether the PIC can breach that rule in the event of a flight like this (one operated under section 13A of the Act). Because they are still the PIC, and lawfully entitled to operate the aircraft, they are just letting another person manipulate the controls. That is, does the PIC remain the "person lawfully entitled to operate the aircraft" even when they aren't in control.
Overall, in cases like this I wonder what we don't know. I'd bet a small amount that there's plenty of history leading up to the decision to take this to court, history beyond just the simple suspension of a medical and a single illegal flight.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: New Zealand
Age: 37
Posts: 247
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From the FAA
It only takes one bad prosecution to make people lose faith in that system though. It seems FAA do a pretty good job with most aspects of their system, and I'm always glad when I see NZCAA following the FAA. CASA seem to think they know better though from what I've seen.
Overall, in cases like this I wonder what we don't know. I'd bet a small amount that there's plenty of history leading up to the decision to take this to court, history beyond just the simple suspension of a medical and a single illegal flight.
If you get your publicity right you should embarrass the CAA enough to cause them to drop the case.
Basically they are arguing that the guy should have been left to die just to fulfill their rules.
And if that is the case and they did as the CAA requires are they then guilty of failing to render assistance?
Might be an interesting argument. Just because your license is suspended doesnt mean he wasnt capable of rescuing the guy as has been shown.
Basically they are arguing that the guy should have been left to die just to fulfill their rules.
And if that is the case and they did as the CAA requires are they then guilty of failing to render assistance?
Might be an interesting argument. Just because your license is suspended doesnt mean he wasnt capable of rescuing the guy as has been shown.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 265
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So if both pilots on a jet become incapacited and the cabin crew make the hollywood famous PA: "Does anyone know how to fly a plane?"' then the retired jet pilot down the back should keep quiet because he'll go to jail if he tries to save the day...
Guest
Posts: n/a
To my way of thinking, the pilot in question, even though he was potentially knowingly breaking the regulations, was the only one who had the local knowledge to successfully carry out the rescue. The outside helicopter had to abort because of weather, and no doubt lack of intimate local knowledge of the area the hunter was cast in.
It was stated in one of the reports that the pilot in question knew this area exceedingly well, having made many flights for DOC emptying rain gauges etc etc.
To then be charged after successfully carrying out a difficult rescue, because of a potential medical factor, which obviously had no affect on his flying ability, certainly makes one wonder as to CAA motives in bringing a prosecution
It was stated in one of the reports that the pilot in question knew this area exceedingly well, having made many flights for DOC emptying rain gauges etc etc.
To then be charged after successfully carrying out a difficult rescue, because of a potential medical factor, which obviously had no affect on his flying ability, certainly makes one wonder as to CAA motives in bringing a prosecution
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: New Zealand
Age: 37
Posts: 247
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Neville, as per the act, in NZ if the emergency arises in flight the requirement to be lawfully entitled to operate the aircraft doesn't apply. More importantly though, do you get to log the time?
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's been written elsewhere: Had this happened in Oz, and his name been Hemple, he would not have been subject to any scrutiny or intervention let alone prosecution. Probably given a medal while waiting for the canonization.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Sector C
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think this is due process, on face value rules have alleged to have been broken, and a human life has been saved. The court will take into account mitigating circumstances and the intent of the the rules.
Judges tend to have the appropriate amount of words to when red tape comes in the way of saving a human life. The embarrassment to the CAA will be entertaining to read.
The CAA is just being the headmaster administrating a fatal beating. http://youtu.be/3Q-2TAfM3Fg
Judges tend to have the appropriate amount of words to when red tape comes in the way of saving a human life. The embarrassment to the CAA will be entertaining to read.
The CAA is just being the headmaster administrating a fatal beating. http://youtu.be/3Q-2TAfM3Fg
I think this is due process, on face value rules have alleged to have been broken, and a human life has been saved. The court will take into account mitigating circumstances and the intent of the the rules.
The CAA is just being the headmaster administrating a fatal beating. http://youtu.be/3Q-2TAfM3Fg
Neville, as per the act, in NZ if the emergency arises in flight the requirement to be lawfully entitled to operate the aircraft doesn't apply.
Neville, as per the act, in NZ if the emergency arises in flight the requirement to be lawfully entitled to operate the aircraft doesn't apply.
That aside I'd say it's a very silly situation.