|
Interesting artcile in the RAAF newspaper about the subsequent search and rescue after the aircraft ditched.
Defence Newspapers | Air Force RAAF Newspaper, 21 October 2013, Page 6. |
Update from ABC
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-04-12/pilot-who-ditched-in-bass-strait-denies-flying-recklessly/7319480 Pilot who ditched ultra light plane in Bass Strait denies flying recklessly By Laura Beavis Updated about an hour ago Newcastle pilot Shayd Hector stands in front an ultralight plane owned by instructor Eugene Reid. PHOTO: Shayd Hector and his passenger were rescued after ditching in Bass Strait. (Facebook) MAP: Launceston 7250 The pilot of an ultra-light plane that ditched in Bass Strait in 2013 has denied flying recklessly and endangering his passenger. Shayd Hector, of Tingira Heights in New South Wales, pleaded not guilty to the reckless operation of an aircraft, flying without a licence and piloting an aircraft after having consumed alcohol within eight hours before departure. Launceston magistrates court heard the offences allegedly took place near Bridport on October 28, 2013, endangering the life of Hector's passenger, Joel Nelson. The pair were rescued from the ocean near Waterhouse Island off the coast of north-east Tasmania in the hours after their plane crashed into the sea. They had been en route to Newcastle and told the media at the time that engine trouble forced them to ditch the plane. They said they felt lucky to be alive after surviving in the water for two hours by clinging to an inflatable mattress. The men also feared they would be attacked by sharks. They were uninjured apart from cuts and were treated for hypothermia. Hector was not in court and entered the pleas through his lawyer. He was ordered to return to court on June 17. |
Update from ABC
http://http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-01-27/warrant-issued-for-arrest-of-pilot-on-reckless-flying-charge/8219054 An arrest warrant has been issued for the pilot of an ultra-light aeroplane that ditched in Bass Strait off Tasmania's north-east in 2013. |
So CASA is reduced to prosecuting the unfortunate owners of crashed ultralights and Gyrocopters?
How the mighty have fallen, read the AAT BS and see how far CASA is prepared to go to criminalise the conduct of a perhaps unwise Gyro enthusiast. Despite Mr Bellamy having had a very unfortunate experience in his attempt at restoration and testing his J2 gyroplane, I have found that was no evidence upon which CASA can soundly base a suspension of his PPL. All of the difficulties which Mr Bellamy encountered, including his conviction in the Magistrates’ Court, stemmed from his gyroplane involvement. I had no evidence before me that similar circumstances would arise in the future as far as his fixed-wing operations are concerned. Mr Bellamy did not blatantly ignore the advice given to him by CASA and he appeared to have made significant attempts to comply with all legislative requirements as they existed at the time, which were not as clear as perhaps they could have been. I have found that he is a fit and proper person to hold the PPL – aeroplane. I find that the decision made by CASA on 16 March 2016 cancelling Mr Bellamy’s PPL– aeroplane was not the preferable decision. I set aside that decision. Therefore, Mr Bellamy’s PPL – aeroplane remains valid and should be treated as never having been cancelled. CASA’s records regarding Mr Bellamy should be amended accordingly. Cue "The Bold Gendarmes"... [G]We're public guardians, bold but wary, And of ourselves, we [C] take [Am] good [G]care, To risk our precious lives, we're chary, When danger looms, we're [C] ne- [Am]-ver [G] there But when we [C] meet some helpless [G] woman, Or little [C] boys that do no [G] harm Chorus [G]We run them [D] in, We run them in, We run them [G] in, We run them in, We show them, we're [D] the bold [C] gen- [G] -darmes, We run them [D] in, We run them in, We run them [G] in, We run them [C] in, We show them,[G] we're the bold [D] gen- [G] -darmes, |
Update on this episode - Shayd Hector initially pleaded not guilty to the charge of "reckless operation of an aircraft", but later changed his plea to guilty.
He was due to front court on the afternoon of Friday the 27th January 2017, to be sentenced - but he failed to show up and a warrant for his arrest has now been issued. Seems like Mr Hector has the same cavalier attitude to the law, as he has to his flying operations. He's probably going to find out that you can't adopt a cavalier approach to either area. Arrest warrant issued for pilot on reckless flying charge |
the way he is going, CASA might issue him a AOC! :}
|
Yet another classic example of how CAsA uses their sledgehammer powers to flatten a flea.
On the serious scale of safety issues that really need addressing , this hardly moves the needle. Come major issues, CAsA files into the Too Hard basket or goes missing in action...see the recent Mt Isa debacle. You do have to wonder at their priorities in pissing away the taxpayer dollar. |
Another update
http://http://www.abc.net.au/news/20...l-saga/8351552 |
Sunny surely you don't think that these actions do not warrant a court visit?
Hector was charged with reckless operation of an aircraft, flying without a licence and piloting an aircraft after having consumed alcohol within eight hours before departure. The DPP wouldn't have taken it to court if they didn't think there was a case to answer surely. Because the DPP take people to court not CASA. They make the decision to prosecute, based on a brief of evidence. Or am I completely wrong? Mind you using an air mattress as a life raft to cross Bass Straight and telling your passenger to undo your seatbelt prior to the crash, could easily qualify for a Darwin Award. |
Originally Posted by Dangly Bits
(Post 9705333)
Sunny surely you don't think that these actions do not warrant a court visit?
Hector was charged with reckless operation of an aircraft, flying without a licence and piloting an aircraft after having consumed alcohol within eight hours before departure. The DPP wouldn't have taken it to court if they didn't think there was a case to answer surely. Because the DPP take people to court not CASA. They make the decision to prosecute, based on a brief of evidence. Or am I completely wrong? Mind you using an air mattress as a life raft to cross Bass Straight and telling your passenger to undo your seatbelt prior to the crash, could easily qualify for a Darwin Award. A question specifically to do with ultralights, in a relatively low speed impact into water and if wearing a helmet, is it a reasonable gamble to undo seatbelts? One less thing to fumble with if inverted underwater? You head will impact something anyway even with seatbelts. Yes, I've done a HUET and also suffered a burst eardrum underwater. Mickjoebill |
I can't get your today's link to work, Rotor Work.
|
As this wends its way to the almost inevitable slap on the wrist for the offence to which the accused has pled guilty, we should ask: What will have been achieved?
Will we all decide to fly an ultralight, unlicensed, across the Bass Strait with an inflatable 'lilo' as emergency floatation equipment and a few drinks under our belts in the previous 8 hours? Nope. Will the people with a propensity to fly an ultralight, unlicensed, across the Bass Strait with an inflatable 'lilo' as emergency floatation equipment and a few drinks under their belts in the previous 8 hours, decide not to do so? Nope. Other than the occasional amusing headline, what will have been achieved? |
|
Other than the occasional amusing headline, what will have been achieved? As has been outlined many times, laws are only there for the law-abiding to take notice of. Fools and idiots ignore every law made, that tries to stop their foolishness and idiocy. |
Well, at least one offender will have been rendered moneyless, and unable to carry out such a stupid act again! |
Hmmm... ah suppose being "moneyless" is the reason ol mate set off to fly an ultralight across Bass Strait... rather then the twin turbine whatever that 'sensible' people fly across the strait..:hmm:
Not that long ago that it were against the law for women to drink in a public bar in Oz pubs. So, i'm thinkin using non compliance to 'law' to define stupidity is probably the wrong way to look at this incident. When yer consider that the books of 'law' that governs aviation in the USA is a far smaller document then the documents that defines aviation 'law' in Australia, i suspects many would say that stupid is found at the be-gets of the 'law' rather then the be-done by the 'laws'. . |
Folks,
Flying Binghi has it right, in the end this poor sod was broke, could not afford legal representation, couldn't even raise the cash to get to and appear in court in Tasmania, resulting in an arrest warrant due to his non-appearance at one stage. Those of you who are quick to condemn should note that, of the usual CASA laundry list of charges, all but one were were dropped, including the allegation that he consumed alcohol contrary to law --- in that one the only witness was a QF cabin crew member who served the traveling pair, there was no evidence that the alcohol served in flight was consumed by the accused, as opposed to his traveling companion. Note that the allegation of flying unlicensed was also dropped, does that suggest to any of you that he might have, in fact, been "licensed", as he believed, having completed all the necessary training and having the paperwork signed off by the former President of RAAus to delete the nav. restriction on his perfectly valid RAAus pilot certificate ----- which is not of course, a "licence", but a "certificate". He was finally confronted with a single charge. I believe he was financially in no position but to plead guilty to bring the ordeal to a close. Knowing what I know in detail about the case, he is demonstrably not an idiot, I do not believe he committed any offence. This poor sod, of very modest means, is now so far behind the 8-Ball financially that he will, as a wage slave, take years (if ever) to recover. And what has this CASA action/persecution contributed to air safety in the future -- NIL!! Tootle pip!! |
What emergency gear did he intend to carry, what emergency gear was he convinced to carry, and what emergency gear would someone with a grip on reality have carried?
I agree that the outcome of the prosecution action will have almost nil safety benefit and is therefore very difficult to understand on a cost/benefit basis. But I'm still not convinced that it would have been a loss to the gene pool if the noahs had nibbled on this guy. |
Thanks Lead Sled for putting this into perspective.
Lead Balloon, in case you can't read, the guy carried an inflatable mattress. One could argue that: A. This is more effective than an "approved" life jacket in Bass Strait B. The effectiveness of said air mattress was proven. Question for you L.B.: Do you think the noahs would be more likely to find a human 3/4 submerged in an "approved" orange life jacket an easy target, or would you think humans on an air mattress would be more tempting and an easier prey? |
One could argue that but one would, I would argue, be wrong.
However, I could be wrong. Perhaps you should be pressing for compulsory life jacket carriage to have an alternate means of compliance: Lilos. :ok: |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 17:13. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.