Reckless flying charge for pilot who ditched ultra-light plane in Bass Strait
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Oz
Posts: 331
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lead Ballon
If the cut and paste by Tail Wheel is an accurate representation of the regs, (and I would assume it would be), I agree with your interpretation.
In fact his bolding and underlining indicates that you have interpreted the requirements correctly, IMHO.
But anything to do with alcohol and aviation should also include that outlined in the DAMP regs.
If the cut and paste by Tail Wheel is an accurate representation of the regs, (and I would assume it would be), I agree with your interpretation.
In fact his bolding and underlining indicates that you have interpreted the requirements correctly, IMHO.
But anything to do with alcohol and aviation should also include that outlined in the DAMP regs.
Being respectful is not being obtuse, Eddie.
Leadie you're putting the correct construction on sub para 3. The time frame is referenced to aircraft departure, not even scheduled but actual. Another example of sloppy drafting which make lawyers a good living.
Were these the pair that were told they weren't certified to conduct a flight of this duration, decided the rules didn't apply and so an air mattress would do as a life raft, ran out of fuel, phoned mum on the way down and cost a sihtload in S&R resources?
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Victoria
Posts: 750
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
. But kaz, if my departure is 8 hours and 1 minute after the bottle, what prohibits me from doing unimpaired preparatory work as crew e.g. 1 hour before that departure?
If my departure is more than 8 hours after the bottle, the criterion on which operation of the entire prohibition in (3) depends is not satisfied.
Were these the pair that were told they weren't certified to conduct a flight of this duration, decided the rules didn't apply and so an air mattress would do as a life raft, ran out of fuel, phoned mum on the way down and cost a sihtload in S&R resources?
http://www.pprune.org/pacific-genera...-tasmania.html
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Victoria
Posts: 750
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Being respectful is not being obtuse, Eddie.
My reading is that the "prohibited" time frame is 8 hours before departure; and
The prohibition of activities undertaken includes any Preparatory work performed by a person who will be crew.
I'm not commenting on the news article or the defendants in the matter because charges have been laid but it does seem to me that, in general terms, a charge under the Reg can only apply to alcohol consumed before flight and it should be couched in the terms of the Regulation so that each of the points of proof are covered.
Kaz.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Age: 51
Posts: 931
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We all know you can still be hammered after 8 hours.
What about 'fit for duty'?
I think the intent in Sub 3 is clear, you don't go near an aeroplane inside the 8 hours, but it is so poorly written.
I guess it could be argued that putting on your uniform is preparatory work, or even taking an early look at the forecast.
...preceding departure...needs a simple rewrite to something along the lines of commencing flight related tasks.
But we can guarantee that one line that needs a lil modification to be clear, will be re-written into a harry potter sized novel.
What about 'fit for duty'?
I think the intent in Sub 3 is clear, you don't go near an aeroplane inside the 8 hours, but it is so poorly written.
I guess it could be argued that putting on your uniform is preparatory work, or even taking an early look at the forecast.
...preceding departure...needs a simple rewrite to something along the lines of commencing flight related tasks.
But we can guarantee that one line that needs a lil modification to be clear, will be re-written into a harry potter sized novel.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Oz
Posts: 331
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Admittedly it has gotten a little off topic, but relevant (and interesting) all the same.
Anyway, I would think that the points of proof would be along the lines of:
1. Identity
2. Did act as a member of the operating crew, (or performed duties and functions prepatory to acting as a member of the operating crew),
3.Of an aircraft
3. And did during the period of 8 hours immediately preceeding the departure of the aircraft
4. Consume alcoholic liquor.
The Oxford Dictionary defines "Departure" as the act of leaving, especially to start a journey.
Perhaps this is why the saying is "bottle to throttle" , not "bottle to sign on" or "bottle to walk around".
BTW, I am not advocating in the least that this should be done, just pointing out ANOTHER interpretation of the regulation.
Maybe this reg. is the thing that is obtuse, ... or perhaps it is just simply badly written..
Anyway, I would think that the points of proof would be along the lines of:
1. Identity
2. Did act as a member of the operating crew, (or performed duties and functions prepatory to acting as a member of the operating crew),
3.Of an aircraft
3. And did during the period of 8 hours immediately preceeding the departure of the aircraft
4. Consume alcoholic liquor.
The Oxford Dictionary defines "Departure" as the act of leaving, especially to start a journey.
Perhaps this is why the saying is "bottle to throttle" , not "bottle to sign on" or "bottle to walk around".
BTW, I am not advocating in the least that this should be done, just pointing out ANOTHER interpretation of the regulation.
Maybe this reg. is the thing that is obtuse, ... or perhaps it is just simply badly written..
I think your are correct, SB.
Let's assume a rule says: A person must not do X, if Y.
It follows that if Y does not exist, the rule does not prohibit the person from doing X.
Now:
- substitute for X: "act as, or perform any duties or functions preparatory to acting as, a member of the operating crew of an aircraft", and
- substitute for Y: "if the person has, during the period of 8 hours immediately preceding the departure of the aircraft consumed any alcoholic liquor".
It follows that if a person has not, during the period of 8 hours immediately preceding the departure of the aircraft consumed any alcoholic liquor, the person is not prohibited by (3) from acting as, or performing any duties or functions preparatory to acting as, a member of the operating crew of that aircraft, even if, for example, the preparatory act is 1 hour before departure and only 7 hours and 1 minute after the bottle.
Examples:
Bob consumes 1 beer at 2200 local. Bob departs in his aircraft at 0601 local the next day. (3) did not prohibit Bob from doing anything preparatory to the flight or otherwise at any time.
Bob consumes 1 beer at 2200 local. Bob depart in his aircraft at 0559 local the next day. (3) prohibited him from performing all duties and functions preparatory to and and departing on that flight.
Bob consumes 27 beers, the last of which was downed at 2200 local. Bob departs in his aircraft at 0601 local the next day. (3) did not prohibit Bob from doing anything preparatory to the flight or otherwise at any time. (However, Bob would be in breach of the general impairment rule.)
Let's assume a rule says: A person must not do X, if Y.
It follows that if Y does not exist, the rule does not prohibit the person from doing X.
Now:
- substitute for X: "act as, or perform any duties or functions preparatory to acting as, a member of the operating crew of an aircraft", and
- substitute for Y: "if the person has, during the period of 8 hours immediately preceding the departure of the aircraft consumed any alcoholic liquor".
It follows that if a person has not, during the period of 8 hours immediately preceding the departure of the aircraft consumed any alcoholic liquor, the person is not prohibited by (3) from acting as, or performing any duties or functions preparatory to acting as, a member of the operating crew of that aircraft, even if, for example, the preparatory act is 1 hour before departure and only 7 hours and 1 minute after the bottle.
Examples:
Bob consumes 1 beer at 2200 local. Bob departs in his aircraft at 0601 local the next day. (3) did not prohibit Bob from doing anything preparatory to the flight or otherwise at any time.
Bob consumes 1 beer at 2200 local. Bob depart in his aircraft at 0559 local the next day. (3) prohibited him from performing all duties and functions preparatory to and and departing on that flight.
Bob consumes 27 beers, the last of which was downed at 2200 local. Bob departs in his aircraft at 0601 local the next day. (3) did not prohibit Bob from doing anything preparatory to the flight or otherwise at any time. (However, Bob would be in breach of the general impairment rule.)
The wording "bottle to throttle" shouldn't be used in a legal context.
The term is just an easy to remember saying to help people remember.
The term is just an easy to remember saying to help people remember.
File a flight plan on NAIPS while quaffing a glass of red at 2100 and not intending to fly till 0500? By definition filing the flight plan is an aviation activity. You are therefore guilty of a felony.
..so don't do any preplanning for a flight within 8 hours of consumption.
Better still file the flight plan, then get stupidly drunk but meet the 8 hour limit and 0.02 the next morning and you are OK!
And CASA will use your metadata to convict you if they can!
..so don't do any preplanning for a flight within 8 hours of consumption.
Better still file the flight plan, then get stupidly drunk but meet the 8 hour limit and 0.02 the next morning and you are OK!
And CASA will use your metadata to convict you if they can!
Folks,
All the concentration has been on matters of booze rules?
What is not obvious to me is the grounds for a charge of negligence, does anybody actually know?
And, does anybody know whether the pilot had an RAOz pilot certificate? Or had he just neglected to do a AFR?
Tootle pip!!
All the concentration has been on matters of booze rules?
What is not obvious to me is the grounds for a charge of negligence, does anybody actually know?
And, does anybody know whether the pilot had an RAOz pilot certificate? Or had he just neglected to do a AFR?
Tootle pip!!
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Victoria
Posts: 750
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The ABC would have us believe the charge was reckless operation.
"Reckless" is a particular category of negligence and generally requires an indifference as to whether or not injuries/damage occurs, rather than it actually occurring.
Another site has alleged the pilot had a PC from RA and has already been dealt with by that organisation via a suspension of privileges.
Will all come out in the wash I guess.
Kaz
"Reckless" is a particular category of negligence and generally requires an indifference as to whether or not injuries/damage occurs, rather than it actually occurring.
Another site has alleged the pilot had a PC from RA and has already been dealt with by that organisation via a suspension of privileges.
Will all come out in the wash I guess.
Kaz
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Aggregating some marginal gains.
Age: 45
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They can do that already without bothering with meta data. Just need to have EFTPOS and credit card details released to the courts detailing expenditure at the pub over the time in question. Simples.
Some say the law is an Ass.
I say Asses have great hearing and a nasty bite.
Some say the law is an Ass.
I say Asses have great hearing and a nasty bite.