Reckless flying charge for pilot who ditched ultra-light plane in Bass Strait
The only reason why this pilot got busted is more than likely because he crashed! If he didn't crash the likelyhood of him getting caught based on the alleged charges would have been very slim.
Curious to know if the previous owner of the aircraft questioned the pilot credentials, prior to realesing the aircraft - not that it's a legal requirement although there would be a regulation somewhere relating to duty of care. Bit of a long bow though.
Lessons learnt in either case.
Curious to know if the previous owner of the aircraft questioned the pilot credentials, prior to realesing the aircraft - not that it's a legal requirement although there would be a regulation somewhere relating to duty of care. Bit of a long bow though.
Lessons learnt in either case.
Bottums Up
I don't see why the reg is considered badly written.
Departure is defined as setting course overhead, or making an appropriate time adjustment as if setting course overhead.
So if we consider departure is 0800, then no alcohol can be consumed after 1200, AND, one must not have had so much to drink that one exceeds 0.02 BAC.
So, flight planning at 0700 is fine, as long as one's Ops Manual doesn't more restrictively mandate 8 hours prior to sign-on.
Departure is defined as setting course overhead, or making an appropriate time adjustment as if setting course overhead.
So if we consider departure is 0800, then no alcohol can be consumed after 1200, AND, one must not have had so much to drink that one exceeds 0.02 BAC.
So, flight planning at 0700 is fine, as long as one's Ops Manual doesn't more restrictively mandate 8 hours prior to sign-on.
Casa with metadata notices you leaving the pub at 12am.. then again arriving and checking your weather app from the airport at 7:30 am....
I don't see why the reg is considered badly written.
It does not say:
"(3) A person shall not act as, or perform any duties or functions preparatory to acting as, a member of the operating crew of an aircraft if the person has, during the period of 8 hours immediately preceding the performance of those duties or functions consumed any alcoholic liquor."
The effect of the above is that you are prohibited from doing e.g. a pre-flight inspection if you've consumed alcohol at any point in the 8 hours before the inspection.
The rule actually says:
"(3) A person shall not act as, or perform any duties or functions preparatory to acting as, a member of the operating crew of an aircraft if the person has, during the period of 8 hours immediately preceding the departure of the aircraft consumed any alcoholic liquor.
The effect of the above is that you are not prohibited from doing e.g. a pre-flight inspection if you've consumed alcohol at some point in the previous 8 hours, provided that the last drink was at least 8 hours before the aircraft's eventual departure and you're not impaired while doing the inspection.
I also note that there can be no breach of (3) if there is no departure at all.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: what should be capital of Oz
Age: 68
Posts: 183
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So, CC, I can take off and do circuits and, by that logic, I haven't departed. Extending that logic, I can have a drink up to getting airborne and fly because that action isn't within 8 hours of a "departure". I think that's not the intention.
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: In my Swag
Posts: 490
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lead Balloon, as a private pilot, I agree with your interpretation.
In commercial operations, my understanding is that you are "on duty" time from the minute you sign on for the day.
In commercial operations, my understanding is that you are "on duty" time from the minute you sign on for the day.
So what?
The timing in (3) is linked to the departure of the aircraft, not when you sign on for duty.
I realise that there are other rules about impairment and BAL on duty.
The timing in (3) is linked to the departure of the aircraft, not when you sign on for duty.
I realise that there are other rules about impairment and BAL on duty.
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: In my Swag
Posts: 490
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No argument.
A pilot that had preflighted the aircraft less that the mandated hours before departure, and in commercial operations, would not be charged under that reg; so long as their departure time was 8 hours or more.
A pilot that had preflighted the aircraft less that the mandated hours before departure, and in commercial operations, would not be charged under that reg; so long as their departure time was 8 hours or more.
Commercial operators will have a Compliance Statement, which will direct the pilot to the Operations Manual, which will spell out in words that any ten year old should be able to understand (ie written for CASA to 'accept'). Most will be more restrictive than the regulation (= management arse covering). By whatever CAR (can't be bothered looking it up), the OM becomes the over ruling document, so any pilot in breach of that would be liable for prosecution anyway. Could be that it is 12 hours and 0% bac at sign on, which could mean being on the wagon 6 days a week.
But if the allegations against this goose in the bugsmasher are true, whether he was impaired by alcohol or merely a retard, is moot. At the very least he should have to pay for his rescue. Suspending whatever certificate he has won't be much of a deterrent because people like that probably drive unregistered, uninsured and unlicensed anyway.
But if the allegations against this goose in the bugsmasher are true, whether he was impaired by alcohol or merely a retard, is moot. At the very least he should have to pay for his rescue. Suspending whatever certificate he has won't be much of a deterrent because people like that probably drive unregistered, uninsured and unlicensed anyway.
Should they have to pay for the rescue?
Does an 2 day out of date AFR and an engine failure mean that someone should have to pay thousands for a rescue?
Should a yachtie that had too much sail up after a couple of beers be made to pay for his rescue when his mast breaks in wind?
Does an 2 day out of date AFR and an engine failure mean that someone should have to pay thousands for a rescue?
Should a yachtie that had too much sail up after a couple of beers be made to pay for his rescue when his mast breaks in wind?
At the very least he should have to pay for his rescue
If the cost is to the taxpayer then I am happy paying.
It is fair enough that the taxpayer should fund the rescue of those who take proper safety measures in pursuit of their trivial adventures, as when properly conducted most adventures are not illegal - indeed some would say good character builders.
My boat is properly equipped, regularly maintained, in survey and insured. I am properly qualified and apply caution with regard to weather and choice of route, anchorages etc, but even so I could be held liable, for example, for towing costs, salvage etc if I was found lacking by my insurers, who would presumably consult with the authorities to see whether I had missed something or taken unnecessary risk. If alcohol was implicated, I would be rooted.....
If people blatantly disregard the rules and go out on a stupid, high risk exercise, not even heeding the poor advice re air mattresses as buoyancy aids, why should we not charge them when costs are incurred saving them ?
If Charles Darwn was alive, I bet he would say let natural selection prevail!
My boat is properly equipped, regularly maintained, in survey and insured. I am properly qualified and apply caution with regard to weather and choice of route, anchorages etc, but even so I could be held liable, for example, for towing costs, salvage etc if I was found lacking by my insurers, who would presumably consult with the authorities to see whether I had missed something or taken unnecessary risk. If alcohol was implicated, I would be rooted.....
If people blatantly disregard the rules and go out on a stupid, high risk exercise, not even heeding the poor advice re air mattresses as buoyancy aids, why should we not charge them when costs are incurred saving them ?
If Charles Darwn was alive, I bet he would say let natural selection prevail!
Last edited by Mach E Avelli; 12th Dec 2015 at 02:56.
Nothing wrong with using air mattresses as additional buoyancy aids, the idea being that they will keep the wings at or above water level and give the hapless former aviators something to sit on more or less out of the water. Easier to spot a floating aircraft than two little heads bobbing about in Bass Strait too. Using them instead of approved life jackets, now that would qualify for Uncle Charles' award.
Thanks for the reply Mach, but:
Um, this has yet to go to court, aren't you playing judge, jury and executioner? For the record; quite a few of these high risk exercises are conducted across Bass Strait each year. We never hear about the vast majority. But I do agree with you, on the face of it, it seems reckless and foolhardy.
If people blatantly disregard the rules and go out on a stupid, high risk exercise, not even heading the poor advice re air mattresses as buoyancy aids, why should we not charge them when costs are incurred saving them ?
In my first post I did qualify my statement with "But if the allegations...."etc.
For the record, I crossed the Bass Strait three times in my Sonex. On the last occasion weather forced me down to 500 feet for much of it and I was not a happy chappie, I can tell you. With 20:20 hindsight, I should have turned back or not gone at all, but at least I had all the right gear with me including proper flotation. Although even with this, the sea was so rough I doubt I would have been conscious to deploy it.
Many pilots don't realise that hitting rough water at 50 knots (or even 25 knots in an ultra light bugsmasher) is potentially more life threatening than going into a jungle canopy.
Another thought - if he HAD fitted air mattresses inside the wing as one 'expert' advised, would he not have required a modification approval? Where did this expert guru get the idea that an air mattress would survive an impact with water at 25 knots wth some 450 kg of weight behind it? The survivors described the aircraft as 'exploding' on impact which is not surprising given the type of construction. Maybe as well that he did not put the air mattresses inside the wing, or CASA would have added that one to their list of allegations.
For the record, I crossed the Bass Strait three times in my Sonex. On the last occasion weather forced me down to 500 feet for much of it and I was not a happy chappie, I can tell you. With 20:20 hindsight, I should have turned back or not gone at all, but at least I had all the right gear with me including proper flotation. Although even with this, the sea was so rough I doubt I would have been conscious to deploy it.
Many pilots don't realise that hitting rough water at 50 knots (or even 25 knots in an ultra light bugsmasher) is potentially more life threatening than going into a jungle canopy.
Another thought - if he HAD fitted air mattresses inside the wing as one 'expert' advised, would he not have required a modification approval? Where did this expert guru get the idea that an air mattress would survive an impact with water at 25 knots wth some 450 kg of weight behind it? The survivors described the aircraft as 'exploding' on impact which is not surprising given the type of construction. Maybe as well that he did not put the air mattresses inside the wing, or CASA would have added that one to their list of allegations.
Last edited by Mach E Avelli; 12th Dec 2015 at 03:02. Reason: Expert advice.....harumphhh!
CIVIL AVIATION ACT 1988 - SECT 20A
Reckless operation of aircraft (1) A person must not operate an aircraft being reckless as to whether the manner of operation could endanger the life of another person.
(2) A person must not operate an aircraft being reckless as to whether the manner of operation could endanger the person or property of another person.
Reckless operation of aircraft (1) A person must not operate an aircraft being reckless as to whether the manner of operation could endanger the life of another person.
(2) A person must not operate an aircraft being reckless as to whether the manner of operation could endanger the person or property of another person.
All the chatter has been about whether the PIC committed an offense against the booze rules, max. 50 penalty points.
To my mind, reckless operations is a far more important charge, as the penalty can include time as a guest of the government, something with serious long term ramifications for anybody who commits aviation, quite apart from the lousy accommodation provided by the government (or, increasingly, contractors) for the duration of the sentence.
Again I ask, what was it that the PIC did that was considered so serious that a charge of recklessness was warranted?
Does anybody on this thread factually know what "motivated" CASA.
Tootle pip!!
CASA's motivation could range from making an example in an endeavour to prevent others from acting irresponsibly (sometimes commendable if done right) to downright nasty vindictive meting out of punishment - simply because they can. All in the name of safety of course.
But how do the legal eagles define 'reckless' - as in the rule and penalty quoted above?
Surely 'reckless' is subjective. If I tried to lap Phillip Island at 200 kph on my motorbike that would definitely be reckless. But if Casey Stoner did the same thing it would be a non event. On the other hand if I shot an approach to Cat One minima in an IFR multi that I was current on, it would unlikely be considered reckless, but if a non IFR PPL tried the same stunt in his basic single, which just happened to have an old Narco VHF nav, they could trot out this reckless charge on top of a bunch of other breaches.
As well as being potentially still under the influence, or possibly hung over, our man in the two stroke rag wing is alleged to have been no longer certified (by virtue of his BFR being overdue) and therefore would not have had liability insurance cover which every current member of RA Aus enjoys. In such circumstances carrying a passenger would surely be defined as 'reckless'.
Add the obvious inability to glide to land in the event of an engine failure and one can see where CASA will be coming from with this case.
But how do the legal eagles define 'reckless' - as in the rule and penalty quoted above?
Surely 'reckless' is subjective. If I tried to lap Phillip Island at 200 kph on my motorbike that would definitely be reckless. But if Casey Stoner did the same thing it would be a non event. On the other hand if I shot an approach to Cat One minima in an IFR multi that I was current on, it would unlikely be considered reckless, but if a non IFR PPL tried the same stunt in his basic single, which just happened to have an old Narco VHF nav, they could trot out this reckless charge on top of a bunch of other breaches.
As well as being potentially still under the influence, or possibly hung over, our man in the two stroke rag wing is alleged to have been no longer certified (by virtue of his BFR being overdue) and therefore would not have had liability insurance cover which every current member of RA Aus enjoys. In such circumstances carrying a passenger would surely be defined as 'reckless'.
Add the obvious inability to glide to land in the event of an engine failure and one can see where CASA will be coming from with this case.
------- and therefore would not have had liability insurance cover
which every current member of RA Aus enjoys.
In such circumstances carrying a passenger would surely be defined as
'reckless'.
Add the obvious inability to glide to land in the event of an engine failure and one can see where CASA will be coming from with this case.
which every current member of RA Aus enjoys.
In such circumstances carrying a passenger would surely be defined as
'reckless'.
Add the obvious inability to glide to land in the event of an engine failure and one can see where CASA will be coming from with this case.
The insurance issue is no business of CASA, there is no law requiring insurance in this case. Mandatory insurance only comes in for passengers in public transport flights.
Again, I ask, which circumstances are reckless at law? Below is one simplistic definition.
Recklessness
Rashness; heedlessness; wanton conduct. The state of mind accompanying an act that either pays no regard to its probably or possibly
injurious consequences, or which, though foreseeing such consequences, persists in spite of such knowledge.
Recklessness transcends ordinary Negligence. To be reckless, conduct must demonstrate indifference to consequences under circumstances involving peril to the life or safety of others, although no harm is intended.
Rashness; heedlessness; wanton conduct. The state of mind accompanying an act that either pays no regard to its probably or possibly
injurious consequences, or which, though foreseeing such consequences, persists in spite of such knowledge.
Recklessness transcends ordinary Negligence. To be reckless, conduct must demonstrate indifference to consequences under circumstances involving peril to the life or safety of others, although no harm is intended.
CASA can't just invent "reckless" to make an example of somebody --- or can they, do CASA think they could get away with it in court??? ---- the pilot is well represented, as I understand from newspaper reports.
What happened to "just culture", from what has been published so far, I can't see any action that would justify the charge of recklessness --- and the possible jail time.
Tootle pip!!
Personally, I hope the guy gets off Scott free.
Let's see, he has already lost an uninsured aeroplane, made a fool of himself, as judged by his "peers" and will, in all likelihood, never commit the offence again. No doubt he has also learned the lesson, "don't verbal yourself", or in plain English, don't become a victim of your own big mouth.
Making an example of him will be no deterrent to anyone else either. We all do or have done stupid stuff at sometime.
And, no, I don't know him at all.
Let's see, he has already lost an uninsured aeroplane, made a fool of himself, as judged by his "peers" and will, in all likelihood, never commit the offence again. No doubt he has also learned the lesson, "don't verbal yourself", or in plain English, don't become a victim of your own big mouth.
Making an example of him will be no deterrent to anyone else either. We all do or have done stupid stuff at sometime.
And, no, I don't know him at all.
Reckless...
The word used in the crucifiction of John Quadrio, and look where it went with CAsA in the AAT.
Trouble is as many folk know, CAsA is somewhat reckless with the truth itself if it fits their cause.
" There are people in CB who think they can make this stick".. true quote...and a scary one !
I can give you a couple of serious RAAus issues that CAsA walked away from on the basis it was for RAAus to deal with it.
The Bass Strait paddler has had his RAAus penalty. Now the take-over merchants/experts (self proclaimed) in CAsA want to urinate another $100K or so of taxpayers money away.
The nett result for "safety" will be, as usual ZERO.
But CAsAs lawyers will love the dosh. Ours.
One sunken Drifter....surely CAsA has more important things to deal with.
Alas..
Trouble is as many folk know, CAsA is somewhat reckless with the truth itself if it fits their cause.
" There are people in CB who think they can make this stick".. true quote...and a scary one !
I can give you a couple of serious RAAus issues that CAsA walked away from on the basis it was for RAAus to deal with it.
The Bass Strait paddler has had his RAAus penalty. Now the take-over merchants/experts (self proclaimed) in CAsA want to urinate another $100K or so of taxpayers money away.
The nett result for "safety" will be, as usual ZERO.
But CAsAs lawyers will love the dosh. Ours.
One sunken Drifter....surely CAsA has more important things to deal with.
Alas..
One sunken Drifter....surely CAsA has more important things to deal with.