Helicopter owner awarded damages after wire-strike
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Helicopter owner awarded damages after wire-strike
Newscom (Aus)
The owner of a helicopter which crashed and killed a bride and her brother on their way to her wedding has won his damages case against an energy company.
Last year in the NSW District Court, Louis Sheather, 55, unsuccessfully sued Country Energy for damages for the loss of his helicopter in the crash near Holbrook in the state's south in February 1999.
He had lent the aircraft to his cousin, experienced naval pilot Huw Paffard, 33, who was flying his sister, Jaya, 27, to her wedding at their parents' property, Billinudgel.
Mr Paffard and his sister both died when the chopper struck an unmarked power line and exploded in flames near the property.
The NSW Court of Appeal today allowed Mr Sheather's appeal against last year's District Court judgment, awarding the Holbrook man $160,250, plus interest which could more than double the amount.
The District Court judge had concluded that the NSW government-owned Country Energy could, at minimal cost, have placed markers on the power line, which would have alerted the pilot to its existence.
He found Mr Paffard had knowingly been flying well below the minimum height permitted.
But he also concluded there was a "duty of care" owed by Country Energy to "pilots and aircraft owners, including pilots and owners of carelessly flown aircraft".
In allowing the appeal today, Justice David Hodgson noted that in 1994 Country Energy had been warned that aircraft flew low in that area and the lines constituted a danger to them.
"The probability of an aircraft or a helicopter flying as low as 30 metres over (the site) could reasonably have been seen as quite small, but the consequences of a collision with the wires would be catastrophic," Justice Hodgson said.
"In the present case, in my opinion the circumstance that what the pilot did by way of low flying was done deliberately, was irrelevant to the question of duty and to the question of breach."
Justices David Ape and Murray Tobias agreed with Justice Hodgson.
Last year in the NSW District Court, Louis Sheather, 55, unsuccessfully sued Country Energy for damages for the loss of his helicopter in the crash near Holbrook in the state's south in February 1999.
He had lent the aircraft to his cousin, experienced naval pilot Huw Paffard, 33, who was flying his sister, Jaya, 27, to her wedding at their parents' property, Billinudgel.
Mr Paffard and his sister both died when the chopper struck an unmarked power line and exploded in flames near the property.
The NSW Court of Appeal today allowed Mr Sheather's appeal against last year's District Court judgment, awarding the Holbrook man $160,250, plus interest which could more than double the amount.
The District Court judge had concluded that the NSW government-owned Country Energy could, at minimal cost, have placed markers on the power line, which would have alerted the pilot to its existence.
He found Mr Paffard had knowingly been flying well below the minimum height permitted.
But he also concluded there was a "duty of care" owed by Country Energy to "pilots and aircraft owners, including pilots and owners of carelessly flown aircraft".
In allowing the appeal today, Justice David Hodgson noted that in 1994 Country Energy had been warned that aircraft flew low in that area and the lines constituted a danger to them.
"The probability of an aircraft or a helicopter flying as low as 30 metres over (the site) could reasonably have been seen as quite small, but the consequences of a collision with the wires would be catastrophic," Justice Hodgson said.
"In the present case, in my opinion the circumstance that what the pilot did by way of low flying was done deliberately, was irrelevant to the question of duty and to the question of breach."
Justices David Ape and Murray Tobias agreed with Justice Hodgson.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Possibly.
It might also encourage owners of power lines to place markers on their power lines to avoid the risk of being sued and, much more important, save lives.
An excellent decision by the NSW Court of Appeal, IMHO.
FL
It might also encourage owners of power lines to place markers on their power lines to avoid the risk of being sued and, much more important, save lives.
An excellent decision by the NSW Court of Appeal, IMHO.
FL
Does this principle hold good if a burglar breaks in, breaks open the shotgun cabinet, loads the gun, and accidentaly shoots his foot?
This is a terrible loss, but the pilot was breaking (by UK standards) the law. Where's it going to end?
CG
This is a terrible loss, but the pilot was breaking (by UK standards) the law. Where's it going to end?
CG
Hovering AND talking
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Propping up bars in the Lands of D H Lawrence and Bishop Bonner
Age: 59
Posts: 5,705
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Does this principle hold good if a burglar breaks in, breaks open the shotgun cabinet, loads the gun, and accidentaly shoots his foot?
Nuts, I know.
Cheers
Whirls
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,957
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But at what point do you have to protect the careless/illegal from suffering the consequences of their actions?
Maybe it will be at the point that the power company counter sues the estate of the careless / illegal,
Which, if I follow flying lawyers comments correctly should certainly be just as fair as the aircraft owner recuperating his losses from the power company, but then why didnt he sue the careless / illegal?
It has been a subject of great discussion of recent years in OZ because of the vast network of single wire earth return power lines (SWER) that criss cross all of the eastern states, half of South Australia and the South West portion of Western Australia.
They are constructed down to about three single 16 gauge wire thicknesses twisted together, and being high tensile have immense span widths.
Those closer to that than I may care to comment, but suffice to say if all power companies in OZ decorated all power wires with balls, then the extra cost of installation of both the balls and the strengthening of the wire systems to carry them under intense wind load would increase the power cost to rural and remote regions prohibitively.
Another factor is that in Ag work many farmers are lackadaisical about telling the poor pilot about wires until too late. There are also many single wire telephone wires around dating back to the ark.
One argument against high vis balls is that there would never be enough because then the stupid pilots would assume that ALL power wires everywhere are decorated.
Giving rise to a fresh set of law suits, where do we draw a reasonable line?
They are used however in many places of expected / assumed low level traffic.
The thing is, one should never descend below the horizon line of any two hills without clearing the area first. Perhaps that bit did not get to the court room?
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Oop North
Posts: 110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This was an very strange and wrong judgement by the appeal court IMHO
The accident wouldn't have happened if the pilot had been showing due care for the safety of his passenger. The accident was caused solely by the actions of the pilot who flew below a safe and legal height along an un-recced route. The positioning of balls on the wire was irrelevant as the wire would only be hit by an a/c being piloted irresponsibly.
It is like saying that a UK bus driver who strays of his route and takes the top deck off his double decker on a low bridge is blameless as the bridge owner should have built the bridge high enough for a double decker to pass under!
It seems that the Australian Judiciary are as out of touch with reality as those in the UK who regularly put the interests of the "bad" guys ahead of the interests of the general public.
It is about time that we all took responsibility for our actions. There were no mitigating circumstances in this accident. It would not have happened if the pilot had been obeying the rules.
I have flown my wife several times and each time I am very concerned about her safety and would not put her or the thousands of passengers I have flown in danger through such reckless actions.
332M
The accident wouldn't have happened if the pilot had been showing due care for the safety of his passenger. The accident was caused solely by the actions of the pilot who flew below a safe and legal height along an un-recced route. The positioning of balls on the wire was irrelevant as the wire would only be hit by an a/c being piloted irresponsibly.
It is like saying that a UK bus driver who strays of his route and takes the top deck off his double decker on a low bridge is blameless as the bridge owner should have built the bridge high enough for a double decker to pass under!
It seems that the Australian Judiciary are as out of touch with reality as those in the UK who regularly put the interests of the "bad" guys ahead of the interests of the general public.
It is about time that we all took responsibility for our actions. There were no mitigating circumstances in this accident. It would not have happened if the pilot had been obeying the rules.
I have flown my wife several times and each time I am very concerned about her safety and would not put her or the thousands of passengers I have flown in danger through such reckless actions.
332M
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 330
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think what might be needed is more people who have been involved in the past in these types of incidents to come forward and put the arguments before a court.
It is only in court that case prescedents can be set, and thus new laws recommended, this argument needs further publicity to do two things
1.) make more people aware of what CAN happen should a helo be low level (legally or not)
2.)Make both industries (aviation and leccy board)
concerned take responsibility into their own hands and factor in an avoidance/teaching procedure further
It is only in court that case prescedents can be set, and thus new laws recommended, this argument needs further publicity to do two things
1.) make more people aware of what CAN happen should a helo be low level (legally or not)
2.)Make both industries (aviation and leccy board)
concerned take responsibility into their own hands and factor in an avoidance/teaching procedure further
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: L.D.U.
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
He found Mr Paffard had knowingly been flying well below the minimum height permitted.
Everyone loves to bash up big companies and squeeze a few dollars out of them occassionally (especially those owned by the Government), but in this case I think they (Country Energy) have been betrayed by the legal system. People will still be stupid and crash into marked wires whilst in pursuit of the low-flying adrenalin rush, outside the relative safety of "legal" aviating.
As for the pilot - that's what you get for breaking the law.......
Unfortunately for the rest of his family, stupidity will NEVER be subject to legislation.The Baffler
Hi all
I think this discusion is going into the wrong direction.
Sure, this pilot was to low.
BUT there are helicopters around which go leagaly low and donīt have the time to do a recce first.
Take police, rescue or ambulance flights, underway day and night and very low in bad conditions.
Itīs about time, that the power companys donīt paint the mast in camouflage to make them fit with sourroundings.
Retoreflective paint every couple of meters on the line itself would also make it more visible against the background and wonīt bring high windloads.
Wires have killed just to many helicopter pilots and will continue to do so, unless something is done.
The decission from the court is going in the right way, even if this time the pilot was flying to low without permission.
Greetings Flying Bull
I think this discusion is going into the wrong direction.
Sure, this pilot was to low.
BUT there are helicopters around which go leagaly low and donīt have the time to do a recce first.
Take police, rescue or ambulance flights, underway day and night and very low in bad conditions.
Itīs about time, that the power companys donīt paint the mast in camouflage to make them fit with sourroundings.
Retoreflective paint every couple of meters on the line itself would also make it more visible against the background and wonīt bring high windloads.
Wires have killed just to many helicopter pilots and will continue to do so, unless something is done.
The decission from the court is going in the right way, even if this time the pilot was flying to low without permission.
Greetings Flying Bull
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Perth, Australia
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
While it is very sad for the pilot and his sister (RIP) to be killed in this way, as has been said, if he wasn't flying along the road low level illegally, it wouldn't have happened. For those of us who can low fly legally, wires are our number 1 killer and I treat them with great respect. If I can't do a wire recce, I make darn sure that I fly in the area they can't possibly be.
The electric company cannot be held responsible if the height of the towers are below regulation height (and I'm pretty sure in Aus that anybody can build a structure unlit/unmarked up to 359 ft tall without notifying CASA-which is why our LSALTs are now adding 1360ft).
People are responsible for their own actions and should be the ones held accountable. The court decision is another against common sense and leading us further down the path of "I'm not responsible for this, it's always someones else's fault!"
Anyway, the greenies would object to little orange balls hanging off everywhere.
The electric company cannot be held responsible if the height of the towers are below regulation height (and I'm pretty sure in Aus that anybody can build a structure unlit/unmarked up to 359 ft tall without notifying CASA-which is why our LSALTs are now adding 1360ft).
People are responsible for their own actions and should be the ones held accountable. The court decision is another against common sense and leading us further down the path of "I'm not responsible for this, it's always someones else's fault!"
Anyway, the greenies would object to little orange balls hanging off everywhere.
It is like saying that a UK bus driver who strays of his route and takes the top deck off his double decker on a low bridge is blameless as the bridge owner should have built the bridge high enough for a double decker to pass under
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: By the A&P
Posts: 147
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is not accurate to say that ambulance/HEMS pilots don't have time to do a wire recce before flying at low level (for example to an unprepared landing site). Those who work in the emergency medical business ought to know that their own safety comes far before the patient's well-being. This is drilled into them constantly. A HEMS pilot helps nobody by making an uninformed approach into wires in the effort to save a patient.
This was a tragic occurrence, and it's hard to begin to imagine how the families must have felt under the circumstances.
I worked with the pilot briefly, and it's a sad, sad story.
However, I don't agree with the judge's logic that the powerline company was at fault - he took a grave risk flying low as he did, and he and his sister paid as dearly as you can for it.
Unless there's a clear legal requirement for all power lines that may be hazardous to aircraft to be marked, and I'm sure there's not, then the power company did nothing wrong and shouldn't have had to pay.
I worked with the pilot briefly, and it's a sad, sad story.
However, I don't agree with the judge's logic that the powerline company was at fault - he took a grave risk flying low as he did, and he and his sister paid as dearly as you can for it.
Unless there's a clear legal requirement for all power lines that may be hazardous to aircraft to be marked, and I'm sure there's not, then the power company did nothing wrong and shouldn't have had to pay.
Originally Posted by johe02
I agree. I am also concerned that Flying Lawyer is actually a Lawyer and we will therefore see more of this stupidity in the future.
Your post is vaguely insulting, especially looking at the assistance that Flying Lawyer gives to your industry in the UK
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Australia
Age: 52
Posts: 698
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BUT there are helicopters around which go leagaly low and donīt have the time to do a recce first.
Take police, rescue or ambulance flights, underway day and night and very low in bad conditions.
Take police, rescue or ambulance flights, underway day and night and very low in bad conditions.
but it wasn't - it was a pilot breaking the law being a hoon and having fun. Albeit shortlived.
Lest we should all learn from this - if we haven't already.