ultralight pilot convicted of reckless flying
Thread Starter
ultralight pilot convicted of reckless flying
as reported by the ABC. this bloke now has a criminal conviction. ...For stupidity.
The entire weight of CASA and the law comes down on an idiot who has already suffered enough.
what is the message CASA is sending here? Is it the same as that sent by the persecution of the hapless would be gyro pilot in the AAT?
very low hanging fruit indeed. the message seems to be that if you have an accident, any accident, then you face prosecution. under such a regime, wouldn't the sane response be to tell the authorities as little as possible about anything? how is that promoting safety?
Ultralight crash pilot Shayd Hector avoids jail over 2013 Bass Strait ordeal - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)
The entire weight of CASA and the law comes down on an idiot who has already suffered enough.
what is the message CASA is sending here? Is it the same as that sent by the persecution of the hapless would be gyro pilot in the AAT?
very low hanging fruit indeed. the message seems to be that if you have an accident, any accident, then you face prosecution. under such a regime, wouldn't the sane response be to tell the authorities as little as possible about anything? how is that promoting safety?
Ultralight crash pilot Shayd Hector avoids jail over 2013 Bass Strait ordeal - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 565
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good to see the usual suspects not missing a chance to put the boot into CASA.
Accident? I'd call it a reckless attempt to circumvent pretty clear rules, and they're lucky to be alive for the 'pilot' to be able to face up to the consequences.
CASA, damned if they do and damned if they don't.
Accident? I'd call it a reckless attempt to circumvent pretty clear rules, and they're lucky to be alive for the 'pilot' to be able to face up to the consequences.
CASA, damned if they do and damned if they don't.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Perth - Western Australia
Age: 75
Posts: 1,805
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sunfish, I don't know where you're coming from. Are you saying that any pilot can indulge in lying, in reckless behaviour, in behaviour that puts other people lives at serious risk (pax and SAR people) - and yet they should not face any court, pay any penalties, nor suffer any retribution?
Laws are in place to govern the behaviour of people in our society so that other innocent people are not inconvenienced, don't suffer loss or injury themselves, and public property is not damaged, and the families and health/other govt systems are not overloaded with major cost burdens, that are often the result of stupid behaviour and recklessness.
This bloke set out on a deliberate course of highly risky action, operating beyond his own, and his aircrafts limits, and indulged in lying and ignoring of valuable advice not to carry out his plan - and the end result was an expensive SAR effort, costing a great deal of $$$'s and also possibly putting rescuers lives at risk.
Some people are just born stupid, and have to keep learning the hard way, by doing stupid things. I'd have to opine this bloke is a member of that group.
Yes, he did incur a heavy response from authorities, and it has cost him dearly. However, there is a carrot-and-stick approach to all education in life, and when you choose to operate in highly regulated environment, you can expect resultant penalising action if you wilfully choose to disobey those laws and regulations pertaining to the area you operate in.
If I drive out along a superb new highway, running for dozens of kilometres, straight, and with seemingly no dangers, can I floor it and hit the maximum speed limit my vehicle is capable of? - and expect only some "re-education", if I'm caught doing 50kms an hour over the limit??
No, I get my vehicle seized and impounded, because it is deemed "reckless driving".
This is the way the world works, and Shayde Hector has learnt a very hard and expensive lesson, that the result of recklessness is serious penalties.
Laws are in place to govern the behaviour of people in our society so that other innocent people are not inconvenienced, don't suffer loss or injury themselves, and public property is not damaged, and the families and health/other govt systems are not overloaded with major cost burdens, that are often the result of stupid behaviour and recklessness.
This bloke set out on a deliberate course of highly risky action, operating beyond his own, and his aircrafts limits, and indulged in lying and ignoring of valuable advice not to carry out his plan - and the end result was an expensive SAR effort, costing a great deal of $$$'s and also possibly putting rescuers lives at risk.
Some people are just born stupid, and have to keep learning the hard way, by doing stupid things. I'd have to opine this bloke is a member of that group.
Yes, he did incur a heavy response from authorities, and it has cost him dearly. However, there is a carrot-and-stick approach to all education in life, and when you choose to operate in highly regulated environment, you can expect resultant penalising action if you wilfully choose to disobey those laws and regulations pertaining to the area you operate in.
If I drive out along a superb new highway, running for dozens of kilometres, straight, and with seemingly no dangers, can I floor it and hit the maximum speed limit my vehicle is capable of? - and expect only some "re-education", if I'm caught doing 50kms an hour over the limit??
No, I get my vehicle seized and impounded, because it is deemed "reckless driving".
This is the way the world works, and Shayde Hector has learnt a very hard and expensive lesson, that the result of recklessness is serious penalties.
...behaviour that puts other people lives at serious risk (pax and SAR people) - and yet they should not face any court, pay any penalties, nor suffer any retribution?...
gilLard and rudd are directly responsible for the deaths of over 1000 drowned and yet they still walk the streets...
..... lets dwell on that number - ONE THOUSAND dead.
.
Sunfish, I don't know where you're coming from. Are you saying that any pilot can indulge in lying, in reckless behaviour, in behaviour that puts other people lives at serious risk (pax and SAR people) - and yet they should not face any court, pay any penalties, nor suffer any retribution?
Laws are in place to govern the behaviour of people in our society so that other innocent people are not inconvenienced, don't suffer loss or injury themselves, and public property is not damaged, and the families and health/other govt systems are not overloaded with major cost burdens, that are often the result of stupid behaviour and recklessness.
This bloke set out on a deliberate course of highly risky action, operating beyond his own, and his aircrafts limits, and indulged in lying and ignoring of valuable advice not to carry out his plan - and the end result was an expensive SAR effort, costing a great deal of $$$'s and also possibly putting rescuers lives at risk.
Some people are just born stupid, and have to keep learning the hard way, by doing stupid things. I'd have to opine this bloke is a member of that group.
Yes, he did incur a heavy response from authorities, and it has cost him dearly. However, there is a carrot-and-stick approach to all education in life, and when you choose to operate in highly regulated environment, you can expect resultant penalising action if you wilfully choose to disobey those laws and regulations pertaining to the area you operate in.
If I drive out along a superb new highway, running for dozens of kilometres, straight, and with seemingly no dangers, can I floor it and hit the maximum speed limit my vehicle is capable of? - and expect only some "re-education", if I'm caught doing 50kms an hour over the limit??
No, I get my vehicle seized and impounded, because it is deemed "reckless driving".
This is the way the world works, and Shayde Hector has learnt a very hard and expensive lesson, that the result of recklessness is serious penalties.
Laws are in place to govern the behaviour of people in our society so that other innocent people are not inconvenienced, don't suffer loss or injury themselves, and public property is not damaged, and the families and health/other govt systems are not overloaded with major cost burdens, that are often the result of stupid behaviour and recklessness.
This bloke set out on a deliberate course of highly risky action, operating beyond his own, and his aircrafts limits, and indulged in lying and ignoring of valuable advice not to carry out his plan - and the end result was an expensive SAR effort, costing a great deal of $$$'s and also possibly putting rescuers lives at risk.
Some people are just born stupid, and have to keep learning the hard way, by doing stupid things. I'd have to opine this bloke is a member of that group.
Yes, he did incur a heavy response from authorities, and it has cost him dearly. However, there is a carrot-and-stick approach to all education in life, and when you choose to operate in highly regulated environment, you can expect resultant penalising action if you wilfully choose to disobey those laws and regulations pertaining to the area you operate in.
If I drive out along a superb new highway, running for dozens of kilometres, straight, and with seemingly no dangers, can I floor it and hit the maximum speed limit my vehicle is capable of? - and expect only some "re-education", if I'm caught doing 50kms an hour over the limit??
No, I get my vehicle seized and impounded, because it is deemed "reckless driving".
This is the way the world works, and Shayde Hector has learnt a very hard and expensive lesson, that the result of recklessness is serious penalties.
That description could apply to any of those 'around the world' yacht races.....remember the famous rescue of one Mr Bullimore waaay down in the Southern Ocean by the RAN..??
These people did not even have insurance to cover such rescue costs, so it was reported at the time.....
And yet......"the end result was an expensive SAR effort, costing a great deal of $$$'s and also possibly putting rescuers lives at risk."
As you so eloquently stated......And there were NIL 'penalties'........
Cheers
Thread Starter
drive a car with a bald tire, on P plates and stuff it into a tree with no injuries to you and your passenger and you will will not be prosecuted unless you are stupid enough to incriminate yourself.
not so some poor stupid sod in an aircraft. That CASA and the courts think there is some safety benefit in prosecution beggars belief.
to put that another way, on mike smiths circumnavigation by sea rey, he describes:
landing at an abandoned airbase on the Aleutians. then refuelling. then waiting till about 11.00. pm. then taking off in the rain by the light of judiciously placed laser torches, flying blind on (uncertified ) MGL instruments till he achieved night vfr conditions, then flying 16 hrs over water to japan, in a light sport aircraft........
and some guy tries to cross banks strait ditches it and is now a felon for his trouble?
to put that yet another way, if all the people caught driving without licences were jailed, there wouldn't be an empty cell in Australia.
not so some poor stupid sod in an aircraft. That CASA and the courts think there is some safety benefit in prosecution beggars belief.
to put that another way, on mike smiths circumnavigation by sea rey, he describes:
landing at an abandoned airbase on the Aleutians. then refuelling. then waiting till about 11.00. pm. then taking off in the rain by the light of judiciously placed laser torches, flying blind on (uncertified ) MGL instruments till he achieved night vfr conditions, then flying 16 hrs over water to japan, in a light sport aircraft........
and some guy tries to cross banks strait ditches it and is now a felon for his trouble?
to put that yet another way, if all the people caught driving without licences were jailed, there wouldn't be an empty cell in Australia.
If I drive out along a superb new highway, running for dozens of kilometres, straight, and with seemingly no dangers, can I floor it and hit the maximum speed limit my vehicle is capable of? - and expect only some "re-education", if I'm caught doing 50kms an hour over the limit??
No, I get my vehicle seized and impounded, because it is deemed "reckless driving".
No, I get my vehicle seized and impounded, because it is deemed "reckless driving".
This bloke set out on a deliberate course of highly risky action, operating beyond his own, and his aircrafts limits, and indulged in lying and ignoring of valuable advice not to carry out his plan - and the end result was an expensive SAR effort, costing a great deal of $$$'s and also possibly putting rescuers lives at risk.
Ask the blokes who fly the missions if they put their life at risk next time you see one. That they do is without dispute but they never say that or even think it.
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Geosynchronous
Posts: 159
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wish you folk would stop quoting the SAR cost. It is zero. Yep, nadda, nothing. What you are saying is we should have no SAR service at all. The service we do have is paid for in advance and if there are no rescues there is a budget for simulating them.
Ask the blokes who fly the missions if they put their life at risk next time you see one. That they do is without dispute but they never say that or even think it.
Ask the blokes who fly the missions if they put their life at risk next time you see one. That they do is without dispute but they never say that or even think it.
{And Binghi ... time for some counselling, and new some meds ... to replace the toxic combo of Bolt, Jones, et al..
}
It is presumably not their fault that the engine failed, regardless of pilot qualifications.
Fly Bingi said:
gilLard and rudd are directly responsible for the deaths of over 1000 drowned and yet they still walk the streets...
You are correct. They should have used an humanitarian Harpoon missile to save the suffering. The CES could have claimed the expense as a legitimate business tax deduction.
Nuff said.
gilLard and rudd are directly responsible for the deaths of over 1000 drowned and yet they still walk the streets...
You are correct. They should have used an humanitarian Harpoon missile to save the suffering. The CES could have claimed the expense as a legitimate business tax deduction.
Nuff said.
That "creative accounting" aside, (one of) my problems with the ever-growing social-media-fueled "entitled" would-be-adventurers is that some poor bastard may be requiring LEGITIMATE services/rescue, when its being deployed on behalf of some cretin. (Then again, I also ask emergency-room staff what they say to the families of people who croaked while de-prioritised in favour of rushed-in high-speed-chase survivors...)
{And Binghi ... time for some counselling, and new some meds ... to replace the toxic combo of Bolt, Jones, et al..}
{And Binghi ... time for some counselling, and new some meds ... to replace the toxic combo of Bolt, Jones, et al..
}In any event, the two buffoons in this case were picked up by a passing police boat that just happened to be in the area.
via Another Number: ...And Binghi ... time for some counselling, and new some meds ... to replace the toxic combo of Bolt, Jones, et al..
And what do Bolt and Jones have to do with the rudd-gilLard caused drownings ?.....
.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 133
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The people defending this guy on here have no idea about safety and risk management or any appreciation of what 'Just Culture' is and should be kept as far away from aircraft and aviation as possible. The guy was wilfully reckless and negligent, failed to comply with regulations, lied to authorities and endangered several lives in the process including his own. If you understand and believe in Just Culture, he deserved to have the book thrown at him, no ifs, and or buts. End of. Well done CASA.
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Geosynchronous
Posts: 159
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Clearly I lack your social media experience, so tell me; how is it that whoever is deserving of help (in your view expressed above) gets chosen? I think you will find your "cretin" will have a family who loves him/her too.
In any event, the two buffoons in this case were picked up by a passing police boat that just happened to be in the area.
In any event, the two buffoons in this case were picked up by a passing police boat that just happened to be in the area.
I give a damn about someone who has, despite good planning and risk-management, come to grief due to an unforeseeable accident at the same time that everyone is:
- out searching for a fool Facebook Hero, off to gather some "likes", who's come a cropper
- out searching for a selfish "but its for charity" 'Legend' who's paddling to Antarctica - with the usual token part proceeds to the charity of your choice
- recovering some moron who sees 30m waves and thinks "I'm da King of the World!", before disappearing into the surf
- spending hours risking rescuers' lives trying to recover yet another bloody "rock fisher" wannabe
Obviously, the cretins are "chosen" by default, because they've ended up in the drink first, while our poor bastard has the misfortune to have come to grief a bit later on.