ultralight pilot convicted of reckless flying
Recklessness. ... Recklessness means the person knew (or should have known) that his or her action were likely to cause harm. Negligence means that the person acted in violation of a duty to someone else, with the breach of that duty causing harm to someone else.
It's not reckless as he could not have reasonably expected that the engine would fail. Would he have known that the rescue chopper might break it's winch cable and lose a crewman? No. Would he have known that the engines on the rescue chopper would have failed because of dodgey fuel? No.
Why did the charges not stack up? Probably because he was not guilty and or they couldn't be proven.
And there I was thinking that the reason Australia is on a one way path to 3rd world status was because of government over regulation and now it appears half the populous (at least by this thread) judging by the responses appear to be gleefully on the same path.
FFS!
This bloke simply undertook some risk taking behavior that went wrong whilst operating what is effectively a toy aeroplane you can sit in.
What makes flying a toy aeroplane so special?
How is it that I can race a buggy or dirt bike in a NT desert race that regularly claims lives or strap 300hp outboard to 5m ski boat and point it in the same direction as this ultralight pilot did without anything more than being called a ********. The same rescue services would still come and get me as they did for this plonker when I stuff it up.
There are literally countless ways one can legitimately hurt or kill oneself with the aid of a petrol powered vehicle all under the name of fun. I for one think it is a sad day when governments tell us what we can or can't do in the course of fun.
You nay sayers need to get over yourselves, only the dull types take you seriously.
FFS!
This bloke simply undertook some risk taking behavior that went wrong whilst operating what is effectively a toy aeroplane you can sit in.
What makes flying a toy aeroplane so special?
How is it that I can race a buggy or dirt bike in a NT desert race that regularly claims lives or strap 300hp outboard to 5m ski boat and point it in the same direction as this ultralight pilot did without anything more than being called a ********. The same rescue services would still come and get me as they did for this plonker when I stuff it up.
There are literally countless ways one can legitimately hurt or kill oneself with the aid of a petrol powered vehicle all under the name of fun. I for one think it is a sad day when governments tell us what we can or can't do in the course of fun.
You nay sayers need to get over yourselves, only the dull types take you seriously.
The difference is that this about .... deep breath and drum roll... THE SAFETY OF AIR NAVIGATION.
(Some members of the crowd genuflect, some swoon, others fall to their knees and pray: Please, oh wise bureaucracies, make air navigation risk-free.)
The amount of money spent on the investigation and prosecution in this case would have paid for a CPL and an nice twin engined aircraft for the defendant.
(Some members of the crowd genuflect, some swoon, others fall to their knees and pray: Please, oh wise bureaucracies, make air navigation risk-free.)
The amount of money spent on the investigation and prosecution in this case would have paid for a CPL and an nice twin engined aircraft for the defendant.
Thread Starter
What Lead Balloon said......
As far as I can tell, CASA has gone to town on this bloke for what I would call procedural matters that have nothing to do with the causation of the ditching.
Furthermore, there are, in my opinion, plenty of people who do insanely stupid acts who should be prosecuted but get away with it time and again. For example the idiot I watched trying to take off in a Cirrus SR? from a wet soft grass runway with a Twelve knot tailwind. He didn't make it, stalled, demolished a sign, dinged the wing and finished six feet from a power pole at the end of the strip.
The message this prosecution sends is that all aviation activity should be carried out away from prying eyes and accident, or near accident details should be suppressed where possible.
To put that another way; the " I learned about flying from that" type of article isn't going to be written much anymore.
Two I would have liked to write are: "Don't use rags or a wad of paper to temporarily block a duct during maintenance" and "Don't ever do touch and go" manoeuvres when practicing STOL".
To put that yet another way; the aircraft pilot should have been punished by being made to write an article about how he successfully ditched an aircraft in Banks Strait and lived to tell about it. Given the weather and water temperature in Bass Strait and the dearth of successful ditching in that area, I am intrigued to know how and why they survived. Guess we will never know now.
As far as I can tell, CASA has gone to town on this bloke for what I would call procedural matters that have nothing to do with the causation of the ditching.
Furthermore, there are, in my opinion, plenty of people who do insanely stupid acts who should be prosecuted but get away with it time and again. For example the idiot I watched trying to take off in a Cirrus SR? from a wet soft grass runway with a Twelve knot tailwind. He didn't make it, stalled, demolished a sign, dinged the wing and finished six feet from a power pole at the end of the strip.
The message this prosecution sends is that all aviation activity should be carried out away from prying eyes and accident, or near accident details should be suppressed where possible.
To put that another way; the " I learned about flying from that" type of article isn't going to be written much anymore.
Two I would have liked to write are: "Don't use rags or a wad of paper to temporarily block a duct during maintenance" and "Don't ever do touch and go" manoeuvres when practicing STOL".
To put that yet another way; the aircraft pilot should have been punished by being made to write an article about how he successfully ditched an aircraft in Banks Strait and lived to tell about it. Given the weather and water temperature in Bass Strait and the dearth of successful ditching in that area, I am intrigued to know how and why they survived. Guess we will never know now.
What do we actually know? There are lots of rumours (which if true would make me think he was being knowingly reckless) but what is the actual story?
Only rumours or anything more substantial? If it is all just hearsay that makes debate here all pretty moot to me.
I have heard and read (but do not know if accurate) that:
1. He wasn't qualified to fly cross country
2. He wasn't flying the recommended route but instead one with longer over-water legs despite being advised against it.
3. The EPIRB was a last minute decision because a friend suggested it.
4. Prior to departure, the aircraft battery was not holding charge and the ASI was U/S - which if true would make me suspicious about the general standard of the aircraft particularly a slow one with a 2 stroke engine and poor glide ratio about to fly long stretches over water.
5. He took a passenger who thought he was qualified and appropriately experienced to do the flight when he was aware he wasn't.
6. He told local authorities he was qualified to do the flight when he knew he wasn't
7. He had been observed drinking within 8 hours of departure (and that charge was dropped as a plea deal when he agreed to plead guilty to the reckless flying charge).
Is there concrete evidence for the above? If mostly the above is not the case and just rumour then I would say it is hard to justify the effort taken to pursue him and I really could not censure him.
If most of the above is accurate however, then I would say, he deserved to be pursued and CASA turning a blind eye or getting him to write a 'I completely and unexpectedly learnt that being a reckless idiot in an aeroplane can result in problems' would not be appropriate (or much news to anyone).
If the above is mostly not the case however then that would be a different matter.
If he
1. was trained to the required standard in navigation (and just the paperwork got lost in the system),
2. if he had planned the trip according to recommended procedures,
3. had made sure the aircraft was prepared and airworthy,
4. if he had rested and avoided alcohol before the flight and
5. taken sensible precautions given the nature of the aircraft and flight
and then was unfortunate enough to have an engine failure and the only regulatory issue was a paperwork stuff up in his qualifications - he should not be censured IMO.
What do we actually know as opposed to what appears in a few newspaper articles?
Only rumours or anything more substantial? If it is all just hearsay that makes debate here all pretty moot to me.
I have heard and read (but do not know if accurate) that:
1. He wasn't qualified to fly cross country
2. He wasn't flying the recommended route but instead one with longer over-water legs despite being advised against it.
3. The EPIRB was a last minute decision because a friend suggested it.
4. Prior to departure, the aircraft battery was not holding charge and the ASI was U/S - which if true would make me suspicious about the general standard of the aircraft particularly a slow one with a 2 stroke engine and poor glide ratio about to fly long stretches over water.
5. He took a passenger who thought he was qualified and appropriately experienced to do the flight when he was aware he wasn't.
6. He told local authorities he was qualified to do the flight when he knew he wasn't
7. He had been observed drinking within 8 hours of departure (and that charge was dropped as a plea deal when he agreed to plead guilty to the reckless flying charge).
Is there concrete evidence for the above? If mostly the above is not the case and just rumour then I would say it is hard to justify the effort taken to pursue him and I really could not censure him.
If most of the above is accurate however, then I would say, he deserved to be pursued and CASA turning a blind eye or getting him to write a 'I completely and unexpectedly learnt that being a reckless idiot in an aeroplane can result in problems' would not be appropriate (or much news to anyone).
If the above is mostly not the case however then that would be a different matter.
If he
1. was trained to the required standard in navigation (and just the paperwork got lost in the system),
2. if he had planned the trip according to recommended procedures,
3. had made sure the aircraft was prepared and airworthy,
4. if he had rested and avoided alcohol before the flight and
5. taken sensible precautions given the nature of the aircraft and flight
and then was unfortunate enough to have an engine failure and the only regulatory issue was a paperwork stuff up in his qualifications - he should not be censured IMO.
What do we actually know as opposed to what appears in a few newspaper articles?
COMPARE.....
CAsA has spent untold amounts of time and money flogging the UL pilot,( who lost his aircraft in the exploit to boot), into the ground. Bass Strait etc.
CAsA spent untold amounts of time and money doing a half-arsed "investigation" into the flying of, falsified MR etc, and damage to R 22 and subsequent false allegations made by the pilot/owner.
There were many serious breaches of the regs by this person..and what happened at the end of day. The subject damaged chopper..the evidence..was allowed to be 'parted out' and scattered. After all the engineering folk who had little or nothing to do with the case had been relieved of tens of thousand on legal dollars...NOTHING for the perp.
Not one charge !!
When asked why that was so the "investigator" (sic) stated...'dont you think he's been hurt enough, he lost this helicopter.' !!
Why was this so??
Mind boggling !!!!
A classic example of the monumentally stupid inconsistency of CAsAs "safety" approach.
And in reality... serious non-feasance/misfeasance by those CAsA persons involved, I'd posit.
Was it ever thus. And will continue to be so.
CAsA has spent untold amounts of time and money flogging the UL pilot,( who lost his aircraft in the exploit to boot), into the ground. Bass Strait etc.
CAsA spent untold amounts of time and money doing a half-arsed "investigation" into the flying of, falsified MR etc, and damage to R 22 and subsequent false allegations made by the pilot/owner.
There were many serious breaches of the regs by this person..and what happened at the end of day. The subject damaged chopper..the evidence..was allowed to be 'parted out' and scattered. After all the engineering folk who had little or nothing to do with the case had been relieved of tens of thousand on legal dollars...NOTHING for the perp.
Not one charge !!
When asked why that was so the "investigator" (sic) stated...'dont you think he's been hurt enough, he lost this helicopter.' !!
Why was this so??
Mind boggling !!!!
A classic example of the monumentally stupid inconsistency of CAsAs "safety" approach.
And in reality... serious non-feasance/misfeasance by those CAsA persons involved, I'd posit.
Was it ever thus. And will continue to be so.
What do we actually know? There are lots of rumours (which if true would make me think he was being knowingly reckless) but what is the actual story?
That this bloke was prosecuted should ring warning bells to anyone unlucky enough to have an engine failure.
Plus what Obidiah says at#23
Another Number, thanks for clarifying, I respect your opinion (but don't necessarily agree with all of it)
Thread Starter
Jonkster, in what jurisdiction, other than Australia, can you be prosecuted for the "crime" of not following "advice" or "recommendations"???? By definition , advice or recommendations do not have the force of law. Even CASA makes this point in its advisory papers.
The entire edifice of aviation regulation in Australia is deliberately designed with so many loopholes and opportunities for CASA staff to make their own interpretations of the regulation makes the concept of "reckless" behaviour moot in my opinion. Next thing we will be told is that flying a single engined aircraft is "reckless".
The entire edifice of aviation regulation in Australia is deliberately designed with so many loopholes and opportunities for CASA staff to make their own interpretations of the regulation makes the concept of "reckless" behaviour moot in my opinion. Next thing we will be told is that flying a single engined aircraft is "reckless".
Similarly, if he simply didn't have navigation privileges (but did have training) and did everything else by the book (ie flew a recommended route, planned carefully, carried appropriate gear and ensured the aircraft was in suitable condition) I probably would think - the bloke maybe should be counseled about not having the appropriate privileges and warned and required to get the endorsement rather than prosecuted.
If however many of the rumoured issues are true (and again - which issues are rumour and beat up? Hard to know other than what I can find in media articles), it points to someone who was knowingly reckless as well as breaching regulations as well as bringing another person unwittingly into the situation and who got caught when the Swiss Cheese all lined up. In that case - I would say - how can CASA turn a blind eye? A journalist could have a field day if the safety regulator just ignored it when the incident had become well known in the media.
I am a little torn here. Yes I agree if you make a couple of dud decisions, much better to be counseled and the incident be used to educate others about what can go wrong however there comes a point when someone is not just making some poor decisions, they are knowingly pushing their luck and that does concern me because it doesn't just impact him (or his poor passenger).
I would hope (and think it is a well founded hope) that most recreational/LSA pilots do follow the rules and do try to uphold high standards of airmanship but when someone does stupid and reckless stuff and ends up in the drink in a high profile way and then other things come to light about their lack of proper airmanship, of course the media will love it. It is juicy and salacious and feeds our love of pointing out stupidity to each other.
The problem then is everyone flying such aircraft gets painted with the same brush as the cowboy. No matter how many similar aircraft and pilots have safely done the trip using common sense and good practices.
When the public get fed salacious details about reckless behaviour (whether the person is prosecuted or not) lots of others get maligned as well and it makes it likely government will act when there are high profile incidents of reckless behaviour by cowboys.
If most of what was said about his actions are true (and *again I don't know how much is accurate hence why I asked*), then thank that bloke for nothing - he would have, through his poor airmanship, dragged the reputation of recreational aviation/LSA down (and potentially making it easier for government policy to become more restrictive rather than less
)All that said - what do we know about what happened and what he did? All of this for me would be moot if it was just a failure to get an endorsement signed off, which may well be the case, in which case I would line up with you and say that is a total waste of taxpayers money and heavy handed.
What do we actually know?
(And where there have been incidents and operators that CASA doesn't pursue that were worse cases of breaches, I agree that is wrong too)
What do we actually know?
Also did you know it's a crime for your aircraft registration markings to have letters where the length of the horizontal bits aren't 2/3 of the height of the letters? True story.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Queensland
Posts: 686
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Also did you know it's a crime for your aircraft registration markings to have letters where the length of the horizontal bits aren't 2/3 of the height of the letters? True story.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is it any wonder that the GA industry is in such a state in Australia?
Reading through all the "Opinions" expressed on this thread one could come to the conclusion that the greatest "risk" when committing aviation is the risk of prosecution.
Fifty years or so ago, as part of what we called then a "Navex", I flew a tiger moth across bass strait, instructor in the back, no room for a raft, and EPERBS hadn't been invented then and we had no radio.
"Risky"? I was sucking up leather the whole way, but it was a hell of an experience for a young aspiring pilot, but in todays risk free environment I'd be branded as reckless.
Consider another ditching off Norfolk Island
I'm lead to believe as part of CAsA's investigation FOI's were asked to examine which regulations the pilot had breached, apparently the majority answer was NONE, a majority decision. The fact that some said he did indicates just how screwed up our regulations are, completely lacking clarity, even the "Experts" can't agree on interpretation.
Didn't much matter that they didn't prosecute, they still managed to destroy the pilots career "administratively".
Then there's the guy who got hauled into court for not providing his log book in a timely manner, he was interstate at the time working, his logbook at his place of residence.
The attempt to give someone a criminal record,the ramification of which, could have severely impacted on his career thereafter for such a trivial breach boggles the mind. CAsA's band of QC lawyers ranged against a bloke defending himself, tried to paint him as a risk to air safety, fortunately the judge saw through the boondoggle and threw it out.
It is not possible to regulate risk away, yet CAsA continues to try, tens of thousands of pages of gobbledegook regulation expressly designed to be obtuse,confusing, and wide open to interpretation, it would be far less costly to just ban aviation altogether, save us all from ourselves, but then think of all the other "risky" leasure activities that carry "risk", ban them as well? or just legislate to censure anyone who pushes the "Risk" past certain boundaries, the limits of those boundaries decided by committees of "experts", the title "Expert" given because of their employment in the bureaucracy, rather than any experience, knowledge or competency in the field of risk, hell why bother with courts at all, just deal with everything "administratively", save a lot of money on bottom feeding lawyers.
Reading through all the "Opinions" expressed on this thread one could come to the conclusion that the greatest "risk" when committing aviation is the risk of prosecution.
Fifty years or so ago, as part of what we called then a "Navex", I flew a tiger moth across bass strait, instructor in the back, no room for a raft, and EPERBS hadn't been invented then and we had no radio.
"Risky"? I was sucking up leather the whole way, but it was a hell of an experience for a young aspiring pilot, but in todays risk free environment I'd be branded as reckless.
Consider another ditching off Norfolk Island
I'm lead to believe as part of CAsA's investigation FOI's were asked to examine which regulations the pilot had breached, apparently the majority answer was NONE, a majority decision. The fact that some said he did indicates just how screwed up our regulations are, completely lacking clarity, even the "Experts" can't agree on interpretation.
Didn't much matter that they didn't prosecute, they still managed to destroy the pilots career "administratively".
Then there's the guy who got hauled into court for not providing his log book in a timely manner, he was interstate at the time working, his logbook at his place of residence.
The attempt to give someone a criminal record,the ramification of which, could have severely impacted on his career thereafter for such a trivial breach boggles the mind. CAsA's band of QC lawyers ranged against a bloke defending himself, tried to paint him as a risk to air safety, fortunately the judge saw through the boondoggle and threw it out.
It is not possible to regulate risk away, yet CAsA continues to try, tens of thousands of pages of gobbledegook regulation expressly designed to be obtuse,confusing, and wide open to interpretation, it would be far less costly to just ban aviation altogether, save us all from ourselves, but then think of all the other "risky" leasure activities that carry "risk", ban them as well? or just legislate to censure anyone who pushes the "Risk" past certain boundaries, the limits of those boundaries decided by committees of "experts", the title "Expert" given because of their employment in the bureaucracy, rather than any experience, knowledge or competency in the field of risk, hell why bother with courts at all, just deal with everything "administratively", save a lot of money on bottom feeding lawyers.
Last edited by thorn bird; 6th May 2017 at 22:40.
Thread Starter
Thornbird:
Because it is exceedingly profitable and risk free from a career perspective to purport to try.
The latest example is the application of draconian conditions on a victims medical certificates when CASA Avmed discovered he had been taking Panadiene Forte by prescription for chronic pain syndrome since 1993.
CASA used the O - word; "Opiates" and the good AAT commissioner stood to attention and saluted. I am particularly drawn to his revealing last sentence in his decision:
The FAA considers use of Panadiene Forte is not reason to prevent the issue of a medical certificate. They require abstaining from use for Twelve hours. Panadiene Forte has 30mg of codeine, the threshold for sustained use of controlled substances, which preclude FAA medical certificate issue, is 90mg. It seems that Australia is different and stupid.
How did the commissioner decide that his paramount consideration was air safety? If that is true, then he is merely an extension of CASA. I would have thought his paramount consideration was the application of the law, equity, natural justice and procedural fairness.
How does the Commissioner think that "an extensive and impressive flying record" entitles the victim to special consideration under the law? I was of the impression that the law applies to all equally*, skygod and ab initial student alike. Then there is the logical problem of how and why there is a connection between a purely medical matter and experience at all. Doesn't this imply one law for the (presumably) old and wise and different standard for the young and inexperienced?
Isn't this an example of the same warped thinking that saw our RAA pilot prosecuted?
On a technical note, I have had something to do with the commercialisation of anaesthetics in a former life and I seem to recall that a small dose of an opiate will be tied up to gaba receptors in the spine in cases of genuine pain pretty quickly and produce no side effects at all.
Read it and weep:
Morey-Hype and Civil Aviation Safety Authority [2017] AATA 125 (6 February 2017)
* Perhaps the good commissioner was impressed that the victim was a former RAAF pilot and therefore "one of us"? (sorry, couldn't resist)
It is not possible to regulate risk away, yet CAsA continues to try,
The latest example is the application of draconian conditions on a victims medical certificates when CASA Avmed discovered he had been taking Panadiene Forte by prescription for chronic pain syndrome since 1993.
CASA used the O - word; "Opiates" and the good AAT commissioner stood to attention and saluted. I am particularly drawn to his revealing last sentence in his decision:
The safety of air navigation is my paramount consideration. It is only a result of the applicant’s extensive and impressive flying record and his current working conditions that I consider the issuing of the applicant’s Class 1 and Class 2 Medical Certificate with conditions is warranted over refusal.
How did the commissioner decide that his paramount consideration was air safety? If that is true, then he is merely an extension of CASA. I would have thought his paramount consideration was the application of the law, equity, natural justice and procedural fairness.
How does the Commissioner think that "an extensive and impressive flying record" entitles the victim to special consideration under the law? I was of the impression that the law applies to all equally*, skygod and ab initial student alike. Then there is the logical problem of how and why there is a connection between a purely medical matter and experience at all. Doesn't this imply one law for the (presumably) old and wise and different standard for the young and inexperienced?
Isn't this an example of the same warped thinking that saw our RAA pilot prosecuted?
On a technical note, I have had something to do with the commercialisation of anaesthetics in a former life and I seem to recall that a small dose of an opiate will be tied up to gaba receptors in the spine in cases of genuine pain pretty quickly and produce no side effects at all.
Read it and weep:
Morey-Hype and Civil Aviation Safety Authority [2017] AATA 125 (6 February 2017)
* Perhaps the good commissioner was impressed that the victim was a former RAAF pilot and therefore "one of us"? (sorry, couldn't resist)
The - in this case, Senior Member of the - Tribunal steps into the original decision-maker's shoes. The original decision-maker (and therefore the Tribunal) was bound by the Civil Aviation legislation. From the decision at the link:
The remarkable thing to me is that such a 'dangerous' pilot was able to survive for 20 + years before the discovery by CASA of his 'dangerous' levels of pain-killing medication.
It must be that the same level of medication in Australia has a more deleterious effect on pilots in Australia than in the USA, and even moreso if CASA finds out about it.
Remarkable.
By section 9A of the Act, CASA and therefore this Tribunal, is required to regard the safety of air navigation as the most important consideration in the exercise of its powers under the Act.
It must be that the same level of medication in Australia has a more deleterious effect on pilots in Australia than in the USA, and even moreso if CASA finds out about it.
Remarkable.
Jonkster Que ? So if its a media thing...CAsA has to prosecute.? Trail initiated by the amount of media then, PR and all that...whatever the cost and benefit to "safety".
And of course if they dont have something ;solid' then they can always made something up, ..'to see if they can make it stick'.
Been there, and done by that.!!
How can they turn a blind eye ? How indeed. Re-read #27.
They have the upper hand, mate ..they can do what they like, as suits.
In that case ...what was the reason for the 'turning of the eye' away from prosecutions,
Incompetancy 101?... corruption and cronyism? or just blatant sloth and laziness?
We'll never know, because CAsA is also well versed in CYA big time
Until there is an oversighting agency with REAL TEETH to deal with these sorts of events then injustices will continue to be done, the CAsA perps couldnt care less about the victim, and just move on to the next fcuk-up.
And it will continue to be so.
And of course if they dont have something ;solid' then they can always made something up, ..'to see if they can make it stick'.
Been there, and done by that.!!
How can they turn a blind eye ? How indeed. Re-read #27.
They have the upper hand, mate ..they can do what they like, as suits.
In that case ...what was the reason for the 'turning of the eye' away from prosecutions,
Incompetancy 101?... corruption and cronyism? or just blatant sloth and laziness?
We'll never know, because CAsA is also well versed in CYA big time
Until there is an oversighting agency with REAL TEETH to deal with these sorts of events then injustices will continue to be done, the CAsA perps couldnt care less about the victim, and just move on to the next fcuk-up.
And it will continue to be so.
