NZ CAA prosecuting 'rescue' pilot
Purveyor of Egg Liqueur to Lucifer
rantanplane;
Oh dear, I have been a SillySid as well!
Of course the bin lorry driver wasn't driving his lorry every day either.
But he drove on a regular weekly schedule. Same with the prosecuted pilot?
Oh dear, I have been a SillySid as well!
Of course the bin lorry driver wasn't driving his lorry every day either.
But he drove on a regular weekly schedule. Same with the prosecuted pilot?
nonsense, the lorry driver drove every day, certainly not for rescue missions.
different with the pilot, who wasn't flying every day
different with the pilot, who wasn't flying every day
The pro-Armstrong lobby are really clutching at straws now - petty references to either the character or the history of those posting here are irrelevant and show the real argument has already been lost.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: 'oop North
Posts: 156
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chop Jock - who knows why the bin man took the risk - maybe his "good reason" was a fear of being unemployed / unemployable with a family to provide for? The point is, he made a conscious decision to drive even though he shouldn't have been doing it, as Dave did to fly, when both in reality had other options.
This case wasn't just about this one incident of risk-taking though, was it? At least four illegal flights, (most of which did not involve immediate threat to life) document falsification, flying without a medical which invalidated his licence and therefore insurance and trying to hide the facts from the CAA ( sorry "playing down his role").
Even Dave said the prosecution " had to happen". For me, IF he had been the only pilot available on the day, and IF he had no previous, and IF he had been told implicitly that this casualty will die if you don't fly then he might have (should have) come out of this relatively unscathed. As it was .......
This case wasn't just about this one incident of risk-taking though, was it? At least four illegal flights, (most of which did not involve immediate threat to life) document falsification, flying without a medical which invalidated his licence and therefore insurance and trying to hide the facts from the CAA ( sorry "playing down his role").
Even Dave said the prosecution " had to happen". For me, IF he had been the only pilot available on the day, and IF he had no previous, and IF he had been told implicitly that this casualty will die if you don't fly then he might have (should have) come out of this relatively unscathed. As it was .......
Purveyor of Egg Liqueur to Lucifer
Hughes 500;
So SS and TC and those who said he did wrong you have never ever broken the law and put peoples lives at risk ?
So SS and TC and those who said he did wrong you have never ever broken the law and put peoples lives at risk ?
I've done both, but not both at the same time, so to answer your question ...No.
SS
The point is that you have for instance, probably broken the speed limit,intentionally or not, but by doing so you have put other lives at risk. Now yes the risk maybe small but you are guilty of breaking a law and serially. So you would be in a very hypocritical position.
This all comes back to the circumstance on the day and the impossibility of anyone here weighing up the risk probability. Yes he broke the law, no one disagrees, the question is should he have done. I certainly can't weigh up the probability of him having a heart attack while flying, I doubt anyone could.
Now agreed if he has serially broken the law yes he should be prosecuted, but we have to look at this case in isolation. If we don't then what message does it send to everyone.
To go to the logical conclusion let us take an EASA example, I am told that the only chance someone has of living is to use a single engine heli when flight viz is say1000m. If I say no which is the correct legal thing to do then he dies. If I say yes than I am prosecuted for busting the 1500 m flight viz law.
So please correct me if I am wrong here are you saying that I shouldn't go ?
The point is that you have for instance, probably broken the speed limit,intentionally or not, but by doing so you have put other lives at risk. Now yes the risk maybe small but you are guilty of breaking a law and serially. So you would be in a very hypocritical position.
This all comes back to the circumstance on the day and the impossibility of anyone here weighing up the risk probability. Yes he broke the law, no one disagrees, the question is should he have done. I certainly can't weigh up the probability of him having a heart attack while flying, I doubt anyone could.
Now agreed if he has serially broken the law yes he should be prosecuted, but we have to look at this case in isolation. If we don't then what message does it send to everyone.
To go to the logical conclusion let us take an EASA example, I am told that the only chance someone has of living is to use a single engine heli when flight viz is say1000m. If I say no which is the correct legal thing to do then he dies. If I say yes than I am prosecuted for busting the 1500 m flight viz law.
So please correct me if I am wrong here are you saying that I shouldn't go ?
Purveyor of Egg Liqueur to Lucifer
H500;
SS
The point is that you have for instance, probably broken the speed limit,intentionally or not, but by doing so you have put other lives at risk.
SS
The point is that you have for instance, probably broken the speed limit,intentionally or not, but by doing so you have put other lives at risk.
Now yes the risk maybe small but you are guilty of breaking a law and serially.
So you would be in a very hypocritical position.
Purveyor of Egg Liqueur to Lucifer
H500;
To go to the logical conclusion let us take an EASA example, I am told that the only chance someone has of living is to use a single engine heli when flight viz is say1000m. If I say no which is the correct legal thing to do then he dies. If I say yes than I am prosecuted for busting the 1500 m flight viz law.
So please correct me if I am wrong here are you saying that I shouldn't go ?
To go to the logical conclusion let us take an EASA example, I am told that the only chance someone has of living is to use a single engine heli when flight viz is say1000m. If I say no which is the correct legal thing to do then he dies. If I say yes than I am prosecuted for busting the 1500 m flight viz law.
So please correct me if I am wrong here are you saying that I shouldn't go ?
Civil Aviation Act 1990 as at 1 July 2014
Quote:
13A Duties of pilot-in-command and operator during
emergencies
(1) Subject to subsections (2) and (6), in an emergency that arises
in flight, the pilot-in-command may breach the provisions of
this Act or of regulations or rules made under this Act.
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), a breach of any prescribed
requirement is permitted only if the pilot-in-command is satisfied
that—
(a) the emergency involves a danger to life or property; and
(b) the extent of the breach of the prescribed requirement
goes only as far as is necessary to deal with the emergency;
and
(c) there is no other reasonable means of alleviating, avoiding,
or assisting with the emergency; and
(d) the degree of danger involved in complying with the
prescribed requirement is clearly greater than the degree
of danger involved in deviating from it.
(3) Subject to subsections (4) to (6), where an emergency (not being
an emergency that arises in flight) necessitates the urgent
transportation of persons or medical or other supplies for the
protection of life or property, the pilot-in-command of the aircraft
or the operator of the aircraft may breach the provisions
of this Act or of regulations or rules made under this Act.
(4) For the purposes of subsection (3), a breach of any prescribed
requirement is permitted only if—
(a) the emergency involves a danger to life or property; and
(b) the extent of the breach of the prescribed requirement
goes only as far as is necessary to deal with the emergency;
and
(c) there is no other reasonable means of alleviating, avoiding,
or assisting with the emergency; and
(d) the degree of danger involved in deviating from the prescribed
requirement is clearly less than the degree of
risk in failing to attend to the emergency.
(5) Nothing in subsection (3) permits—
(a) the operation of an aircraft that is not registered in New
Zealand or elsewhere; or
(b) the breach of any prescribed requirement as to the airworthiness
of an aircraft; or
(c) the operation of an aircraft by a person who is not lawfully
entitled to operate that aircraft.
(6) Where, in any emergency described in this section, a pilot-incommand
or an operator breaches this Act or regulations or
rules made under this Act in accordance with the provisions
of this section, the pilot-in-command or the operator, as the
case may be, shall—
(a) immediately notify the relevant air traffic control service
of the action; and
(b) as soon as practicable, notify the Director of the action
and the circumstances that necessitated it, and, if requested
by the Director, provide to the Director a written
report in respect of the action.
Quote:
13A Duties of pilot-in-command and operator during
emergencies
(1) Subject to subsections (2) and (6), in an emergency that arises
in flight, the pilot-in-command may breach the provisions of
this Act or of regulations or rules made under this Act.
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), a breach of any prescribed
requirement is permitted only if the pilot-in-command is satisfied
that—
(a) the emergency involves a danger to life or property; and
(b) the extent of the breach of the prescribed requirement
goes only as far as is necessary to deal with the emergency;
and
(c) there is no other reasonable means of alleviating, avoiding,
or assisting with the emergency; and
(d) the degree of danger involved in complying with the
prescribed requirement is clearly greater than the degree
of danger involved in deviating from it.
(3) Subject to subsections (4) to (6), where an emergency (not being
an emergency that arises in flight) necessitates the urgent
transportation of persons or medical or other supplies for the
protection of life or property, the pilot-in-command of the aircraft
or the operator of the aircraft may breach the provisions
of this Act or of regulations or rules made under this Act.
(4) For the purposes of subsection (3), a breach of any prescribed
requirement is permitted only if—
(a) the emergency involves a danger to life or property; and
(b) the extent of the breach of the prescribed requirement
goes only as far as is necessary to deal with the emergency;
and
(c) there is no other reasonable means of alleviating, avoiding,
or assisting with the emergency; and
(d) the degree of danger involved in deviating from the prescribed
requirement is clearly less than the degree of
risk in failing to attend to the emergency.
(5) Nothing in subsection (3) permits—
(a) the operation of an aircraft that is not registered in New
Zealand or elsewhere; or
(b) the breach of any prescribed requirement as to the airworthiness
of an aircraft; or
(c) the operation of an aircraft by a person who is not lawfully
entitled to operate that aircraft.
(6) Where, in any emergency described in this section, a pilot-incommand
or an operator breaches this Act or regulations or
rules made under this Act in accordance with the provisions
of this section, the pilot-in-command or the operator, as the
case may be, shall—
(a) immediately notify the relevant air traffic control service
of the action; and
(b) as soon as practicable, notify the Director of the action
and the circumstances that necessitated it, and, if requested
by the Director, provide to the Director a written
report in respect of the action.
Whereas Mr Armstrong was not lawfully entitled to operate the aircraft, in your example you would be, and therefore able to complete your task should you make the decision to do so..
SS
Got me there on my example, some how had missed RVDT's post
I beg to differ on the speed limit you are putting people lives at risk otherwise why have a speed limit ? The point being you would seem to be happy to break the law yourself which is there for everyone's safety ( now I don't know if you are a serial speeder, lets hope not ) and so would the majority of motorists. I am not saying that we should, but lots have been arguing from a higher morale ground than they should perhaps be on. The law is the law as I was once told !
Again in isolation from his other offences it comes down to the risk of him carrying out the flight and more interestingly the 2 questions the legal and the morale one, in which there maybe differing answers.
Well as a side note this is killing an awful lot of time in some really ****e weather ( days of it now ) and I just love playing the devil's advocate
Got me there on my example, some how had missed RVDT's post
I beg to differ on the speed limit you are putting people lives at risk otherwise why have a speed limit ? The point being you would seem to be happy to break the law yourself which is there for everyone's safety ( now I don't know if you are a serial speeder, lets hope not ) and so would the majority of motorists. I am not saying that we should, but lots have been arguing from a higher morale ground than they should perhaps be on. The law is the law as I was once told !Again in isolation from his other offences it comes down to the risk of him carrying out the flight and more interestingly the 2 questions the legal and the morale one, in which there maybe differing answers.
Well as a side note this is killing an awful lot of time in some really ****e weather ( days of it now ) and I just love playing the devil's advocate
Purveyor of Egg Liqueur to Lucifer
Ah, the old, "I was only playing Devils's Advocate" response once the hole gets to a certain depth
So how come in your last post you say" The law is the law as I was once told!" ... yet you are still defending the premeditated illegal actions of Mr A.
I'm not happy breaking the law, should the case ever be that I may inadvertantly exceed the posted speed limit for the briefest of time, but I must say that I'm even unhappier when I get caught .. should I ever do such a thing.
To lighten up your weather situation;
47 seconds of comedy classic
All the best
So how come in your last post you say" The law is the law as I was once told!" ... yet you are still defending the premeditated illegal actions of Mr A.
I'm not happy breaking the law, should the case ever be that I may inadvertantly exceed the posted speed limit for the briefest of time, but I must say that I'm even unhappier when I get caught .. should I ever do such a thing.
To lighten up your weather situation;
47 seconds of comedy classic
All the best
Hughes - I have broken the speed limit, and been caught, and faced the consequences of my actions without bleating, without trying to justify my actions, without excuses. Perhaps Mr Armstrong would like to do the same.
Civil Aviation Act 1990 as at 1 July 2014
Quote:
13A Duties of pilot-in-command and operator during
emergencies
(1) Subject to subsections (2) and (6), in an emergency that arises
in flight, the pilot-in-command may breach the provisions of
this Act or of regulations or rules made under this Act.
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), a breach of any prescribed
requirement is permitted only if the pilot-in-command is satisfied
that—
(a) the emergency involves a danger to life or property; and
(b) the extent of the breach of the prescribed requirement
goes only as far as is necessary to deal with the emergency;
and
(c) there is no other reasonable means of alleviating, avoiding,
or assisting with the emergency; and
(d) the degree of danger involved in complying with the
prescribed requirement is clearly greater than the degree
of danger involved in deviating from it.
(3) Subject to subsections (4) to (6), where an emergency (not being
an emergency that arises in flight) necessitates the urgent
transportation of persons or medical or other supplies for the
protection of life or property, the pilot-in-command of the aircraft
or the operator of the aircraft may breach the provisions
of this Act or of regulations or rules made under this Act.
(4) For the purposes of subsection (3), a breach of any prescribed
requirement is permitted only if—
(a) the emergency involves a danger to life or property; and
(b) the extent of the breach of the prescribed requirement
goes only as far as is necessary to deal with the emergency;
and
(c) there is no other reasonable means of alleviating, avoiding,
or assisting with the emergency; and
(d) the degree of danger involved in deviating from the prescribed
requirement is clearly less than the degree of
risk in failing to attend to the emergency.
(5) Nothing in subsection (3) permits—
(a) the operation of an aircraft that is not registered in New
Zealand or elsewhere; or
(b) the breach of any prescribed requirement as to the airworthiness
of an aircraft; or
(c) the operation of an aircraft by a person who is not lawfully
entitled to operate that aircraft.
(6) Where, in any emergency described in this section, a pilot-incommand
or an operator breaches this Act or regulations or
rules made under this Act in accordance with the provisions
of this section, the pilot-in-command or the operator, as the
case may be, shall—
(a) immediately notify the relevant air traffic control service
of the action; and
(b) as soon as practicable, notify the Director of the action
and the circumstances that necessitated it, and, if requested
by the Director, provide to the Director a written
report in respect of the action.
Quote:
13A Duties of pilot-in-command and operator during
emergencies
(1) Subject to subsections (2) and (6), in an emergency that arises
in flight, the pilot-in-command may breach the provisions of
this Act or of regulations or rules made under this Act.
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), a breach of any prescribed
requirement is permitted only if the pilot-in-command is satisfied
that—
(a) the emergency involves a danger to life or property; and
(b) the extent of the breach of the prescribed requirement
goes only as far as is necessary to deal with the emergency;
and
(c) there is no other reasonable means of alleviating, avoiding,
or assisting with the emergency; and
(d) the degree of danger involved in complying with the
prescribed requirement is clearly greater than the degree
of danger involved in deviating from it.
(3) Subject to subsections (4) to (6), where an emergency (not being
an emergency that arises in flight) necessitates the urgent
transportation of persons or medical or other supplies for the
protection of life or property, the pilot-in-command of the aircraft
or the operator of the aircraft may breach the provisions
of this Act or of regulations or rules made under this Act.
(4) For the purposes of subsection (3), a breach of any prescribed
requirement is permitted only if—
(a) the emergency involves a danger to life or property; and
(b) the extent of the breach of the prescribed requirement
goes only as far as is necessary to deal with the emergency;
and
(c) there is no other reasonable means of alleviating, avoiding,
or assisting with the emergency; and
(d) the degree of danger involved in deviating from the prescribed
requirement is clearly less than the degree of
risk in failing to attend to the emergency.
(5) Nothing in subsection (3) permits—
(a) the operation of an aircraft that is not registered in New
Zealand or elsewhere; or
(b) the breach of any prescribed requirement as to the airworthiness
of an aircraft; or
(c) the operation of an aircraft by a person who is not lawfully
entitled to operate that aircraft.
(6) Where, in any emergency described in this section, a pilot-incommand
or an operator breaches this Act or regulations or
rules made under this Act in accordance with the provisions
of this section, the pilot-in-command or the operator, as the
case may be, shall—
(a) immediately notify the relevant air traffic control service
of the action; and
(b) as soon as practicable, notify the Director of the action
and the circumstances that necessitated it, and, if requested
by the Director, provide to the Director a written
report in respect of the action.
If the type of emergency was in flight he would have been within the law as Subsection 5 only applies in the condition of Subsection 3.
Seems like not all actually understand the regulations as written just like Mr Armstrong possibly?
He may easily have misinterpreted it just as easily in hindsight.
And if he was never examined about the actual regulation beforehand which is highly likely how would his grasp of the regulation been tested prior?
Ignorance has not been an excuse for a long time. He was charged found guilty and convicted and fined.
Nothing to see here.
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: between sun and sand
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I recall a funny situation: volunteer fire brigade had a little party on Friday afternoon but then had to drive drunk to a fire as the only sober driver in that small village could not get in time to the fire station. Police was on the scene, knew the sober driver wasn't there and the others had a couple of beers already. The little drunk fire brigade did what they had to do and all went home when the sober driver eventually arrived on the scene.
All completely illegal but nobody was tempted to blame or even prosecute the fire brigade for helping in a situation requiring immediate response.
Oh yes they could have waited a couple of hours for the guys from the next village some 50 miles away.
In the remote areas I got to know plenty people did not even have a driving license, however they offered me a lift all the time, just willing to help, be friendly. They were not always good drivers. For me I decided I was much safer in their car than on the road and chased by them!
This is deep countryside living. You simp'y can't apply the rules ( usually made for the part of a country filled up with a lot more people, industry and roads than remote wilderness areas ) exactly as they have been written down.
People in these areas grow up with that understanding and the great thing is they know their own limits a lot better than somebody obeying just rules superimposed by others far away from their actual situation.
I suggest Silly Sid, crabby Et all should spent some time like 2-3 years in a very remote place, earning their money from the daily jobs available, no monthly paycheck via HMS government - but basically from the ordinary taxpayer like Mr Armstrong.
Oh dear do I really know if Mr. Armstrong has payed his tax bill?
All completely illegal but nobody was tempted to blame or even prosecute the fire brigade for helping in a situation requiring immediate response.
Oh yes they could have waited a couple of hours for the guys from the next village some 50 miles away.
In the remote areas I got to know plenty people did not even have a driving license, however they offered me a lift all the time, just willing to help, be friendly. They were not always good drivers. For me I decided I was much safer in their car than on the road and chased by them!
This is deep countryside living. You simp'y can't apply the rules ( usually made for the part of a country filled up with a lot more people, industry and roads than remote wilderness areas ) exactly as they have been written down.
People in these areas grow up with that understanding and the great thing is they know their own limits a lot better than somebody obeying just rules superimposed by others far away from their actual situation.
I suggest Silly Sid, crabby Et all should spent some time like 2-3 years in a very remote place, earning their money from the daily jobs available, no monthly paycheck via HMS government - but basically from the ordinary taxpayer like Mr Armstrong.
Oh dear do I really know if Mr. Armstrong has payed his tax bill?
SS
Lets keep this going as another ****e windy day. The reason I am playing devils advocate with you reference risk and speeding is very close to home. This time last year my 23 year old niece 6 weeks before her wedding was decapitated in an RTA. The other vehicle in the words of the police was travelling too fast round a bend and had a head on collision. That other driver could have been you speeding, could have been me speeding. That other driver could have been anyone who is prepared to speed and brake the law. So all you guys sitting there being hypocritical about legal matters are being very hypocritical as you all break the law, thankfully the risk of killing someone is slim, but you increase the risk by doing so, so why do you ? In Mr A's case yes he broke the law ( remember we are JUST looking at this flight only ), yes he was a serial offender and should be prosecuted for his general actions. Should he have flown that particular flight, well given the information I have seen and if he was told by a doctor that this was a life threatening situation then yes he should have flown it.
I was shot down by TC in a comparison which was to show life is always a risk. ( The flip side of the military example I gave was the situation shown in lone survivor, a rescue mission that ended with a whole seal team killed in the CH 47, yes I know it is combat and they accepted the risk BUT they were going to try and help a fellow human being as Mr A was) Yes we try to minimise risk where we can, hence there are laws, medicals etc etc but we are human and infallible and Thankfully so otherwise where do we go as a race. We would have the situation where persons will not try and rescue a drowning person because they are not trained as happened over here !
Unfortunately there will not always be a successful outcome
As for the crass part of being a hero and getting medals post, that never even crossed my mind before or after I had to rescue a body boarder who was drowning. If I hadn't swum him back to shore ( the physically most demanding thing I have ever done )then he would have drowned.
Was I a qualified life saver/ life guard NO but I was not prepared to see someone drown in front of me.
I am afraid in my eyes there is a risk to everything we do, but to sit there and do nothing is wrong. To pontificate about someone breaking the law when we all do is laughable.Mr A weighed up the risk and went for it. In that case he shoulnt be prosecuted. He should be prosecuted for breaking the laws in the other none humanitarian flights he flew.
Think I will go back to the looking at the trees bending over
Lets keep this going as another ****e windy day. The reason I am playing devils advocate with you reference risk and speeding is very close to home. This time last year my 23 year old niece 6 weeks before her wedding was decapitated in an RTA. The other vehicle in the words of the police was travelling too fast round a bend and had a head on collision. That other driver could have been you speeding, could have been me speeding. That other driver could have been anyone who is prepared to speed and brake the law. So all you guys sitting there being hypocritical about legal matters are being very hypocritical as you all break the law, thankfully the risk of killing someone is slim, but you increase the risk by doing so, so why do you ? In Mr A's case yes he broke the law ( remember we are JUST looking at this flight only ), yes he was a serial offender and should be prosecuted for his general actions. Should he have flown that particular flight, well given the information I have seen and if he was told by a doctor that this was a life threatening situation then yes he should have flown it.
I was shot down by TC in a comparison which was to show life is always a risk. ( The flip side of the military example I gave was the situation shown in lone survivor, a rescue mission that ended with a whole seal team killed in the CH 47, yes I know it is combat and they accepted the risk BUT they were going to try and help a fellow human being as Mr A was) Yes we try to minimise risk where we can, hence there are laws, medicals etc etc but we are human and infallible and Thankfully so otherwise where do we go as a race. We would have the situation where persons will not try and rescue a drowning person because they are not trained as happened over here !
Unfortunately there will not always be a successful outcome
As for the crass part of being a hero and getting medals post, that never even crossed my mind before or after I had to rescue a body boarder who was drowning. If I hadn't swum him back to shore ( the physically most demanding thing I have ever done )then he would have drowned.
Was I a qualified life saver/ life guard NO but I was not prepared to see someone drown in front of me.
I am afraid in my eyes there is a risk to everything we do, but to sit there and do nothing is wrong. To pontificate about someone breaking the law when we all do is laughable.Mr A weighed up the risk and went for it. In that case he shoulnt be prosecuted. He should be prosecuted for breaking the laws in the other none humanitarian flights he flew.
Think I will go back to the looking at the trees bending over
Purveyor of Egg Liqueur to Lucifer
Sorry to hear about your niece H500, an awful time of year for something like that to happen and even more compounded by the forthcoming occasion. 
An observation; with that unfortunate incident in the family, you're not really playing Devil's Advocate though are you?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devil%27s_advocate
Imho this thread has reached a point where it can simmer until the New Year.
Have a good Christmas everyone.
Enjoy your family, enjoy your friends, enjoy your work colleagues (if they're not your friends), enjoy the friends that you've just met, enjoy the time together.
And for those of us working over the festive season, fly safe and as always, the kettle's on at 'our place' if you're popping by
An observation; with that unfortunate incident in the family, you're not really playing Devil's Advocate though are you?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devil%27s_advocate
Imho this thread has reached a point where it can simmer until the New Year.
Have a good Christmas everyone.
Enjoy your family, enjoy your friends, enjoy your work colleagues (if they're not your friends), enjoy the friends that you've just met, enjoy the time together.
And for those of us working over the festive season, fly safe and as always, the kettle's on at 'our place' if you're popping by
... but was she certified for water deeper than 3 feet?
As I understand it, emergency workers in the UK without this "special training" would have just looked on.
Off-duty cop races to rescue - National - NZ Herald News
Off-duty cop races to rescue - National - NZ Herald News
As I understand it, emergency workers in the UK without this "special training" would have just looked on.
Note that your heroic policewoman (and she did an excellent job) was off-duty and may have been constrained by professional protocols had she been on-duty on the beach.
If you don't understand the dangers posed by swift-water (and by this I mean inland flooding not coastal tides) then you should try standing up in 2 feet of water moving at 5 mph - some of the 'special training' you dismiss so readily.
Surely even in NZ you understand the first rule of first aid is not to become another casualty????