NZ CAA prosecuting 'rescue' pilot
Shy - that's because you are much older than me
When I joined in 82 the Whirlwind had gone and the Wessex and Sea King were the only SAR options - it must have been different in the 50s
Nigel - your viewpoint only works if the rescue is successful - if it isn't, or worse there are more casualties as a result, then the brave hero becomes the foolhardy idiot.
If you had a choice between waiting a few hours in pain for a fully equipped and crewed rescue helicopter or letting a 'have-a-go-hero' in a flimsycopter try to get you, who might well total himself and you in the process.
Just because the Kiwis don't have proper SAR cover for their A-level scenery doesn't mean it is best practice.
When I joined in 82 the Whirlwind had gone and the Wessex and Sea King were the only SAR options - it must have been different in the 50sNigel - your viewpoint only works if the rescue is successful - if it isn't, or worse there are more casualties as a result, then the brave hero becomes the foolhardy idiot.
If you had a choice between waiting a few hours in pain for a fully equipped and crewed rescue helicopter or letting a 'have-a-go-hero' in a flimsycopter try to get you, who might well total himself and you in the process.
Just because the Kiwis don't have proper SAR cover for their A-level scenery doesn't mean it is best practice.
Purveyor of Egg Liqueur to Lucifer
Is this really such a simple case of someone who effectively is just a passenger, being asked to take over control for the shortest of times in order to land an R44 at a field location that was a bit tricky for the pilot?
Makes me wonder that if the passenger was any old Joe Soap and the pilot said, "This is a bit tricky, I know you have a few hours under your belt can you give it a try", would anything have come of it?
Are there no news reports from the time of the rescue itself?
Makes me wonder that if the passenger was any old Joe Soap and the pilot said, "This is a bit tricky, I know you have a few hours under your belt can you give it a try", would anything have come of it?
Are there no news reports from the time of the rescue itself?
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: UK
Age: 66
Posts: 919
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
sid
Don't be so bl00dy stupid.
Makes me wonder that if the passenger was any old Joe Soap and the pilot said, "This is a bit tricky, I know you have a few hours under your belt can you give it a try",
Purveyor of Egg Liqueur to Lucifer
Exactly, so who decided Mr A was going to fly?
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Domaine de la Romanee-Conti
Posts: 1,691
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
1 Post
FFS you lot are no better than the CAA, getting all twisted up in intents and terminology and meanings of words, and gray areas of who was the intended PiC.
A guy was in imminent life threatening danger, somewhere up in the deep bush, literally hanging off a tree by the seat of his pants over a 50 metre cliff drop, with a broken leg, in sh!tty weather, with darkness setting in. There was only pilot on the scene, who was willing and able and confident and experienced enough, to do the job of rescuing this poor bugger. He assessed ALL the risks, of which I presume his medical issue and the legal consequences was one of them, and then he chose to do the right thing.
Hope the judge can see the big picture and kick this out of court after about one millisecond.
A guy was in imminent life threatening danger, somewhere up in the deep bush, literally hanging off a tree by the seat of his pants over a 50 metre cliff drop, with a broken leg, in sh!tty weather, with darkness setting in. There was only pilot on the scene, who was willing and able and confident and experienced enough, to do the job of rescuing this poor bugger. He assessed ALL the risks, of which I presume his medical issue and the legal consequences was one of them, and then he chose to do the right thing.
Hope the judge can see the big picture and kick this out of court after about one millisecond.
Hear Hear.....
Well said Luke. The vast majority of the armchair critics in this thread are the very reason we're all going to hell in a handcart. Political Correct cobblers
Well said Luke. The vast majority of the armchair critics in this thread are the very reason we're all going to hell in a handcart. Political Correct cobblers
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: UK
Age: 66
Posts: 919
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
so who decided Mr A was going to fly?
Either way, if the commander gives his permission, then that's all that's needed, right?
Purveyor of Egg Liqueur to Lucifer
PiC, Boss, Supervisor, Commander. Lots of titles flying around in that cockpit.
So who is the Commander if the pilot is under supervision?
Lets not forget that there is a commercial helicopter company involved here, not just a good willed private pilot doing what they see as the right thing to do.
Anymore facts, or are we still going on opinions?
So who is the Commander if the pilot is under supervision?
Lets not forget that there is a commercial helicopter company involved here, not just a good willed private pilot doing what they see as the right thing to do.
Anymore facts, or are we still going on opinions?
Thread Starter
None of those terms/titles would have been 'flying around in that cockpit', since they are all UK terms and generally unused down here. There was a pilot who signed for the flight, and his CP who was along for the ride in an advisory capacity which turned in to a decision to complete part of the flight on Mercy Flight grounds.
No more facts than those that SS has been applying to his suppositions, but a lot more understanding of how the system works holding both NZ, Australian and UK licences upon which to base my posts. And a lot less inflammatory criticism of the pilot based on 'wotifs'
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: On the Rump of Pendle Hill Lancashi
Posts: 614
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gentlemen,
I still say, this action by saving a man's life, give's the Pilot a lot of credit, and any sane person would do similar things, would any of you here use the excuse I am not trained to save life, so I cannot even attempt it...!!!
The pilot concerned may have done wrong in a perfect world, but a heart is still pumping and a family still have that man, through this Illegal action..
GOOD ON HIM..!
I still say, this action by saving a man's life, give's the Pilot a lot of credit, and any sane person would do similar things, would any of you here use the excuse I am not trained to save life, so I cannot even attempt it...!!!
The pilot concerned may have done wrong in a perfect world, but a heart is still pumping and a family still have that man, through this Illegal action..
GOOD ON HIM..!
Purveyor of Egg Liqueur to Lucifer
In the same vein as to when I said earlier to nighelh "Where did I say that anything was unsafe or unskillful? I have said nothing of the sort.", I would say to John, where have I laid 'inflammatory criticism' of the pilot?
"None of those terms/titles would have been 'flying around in that cockpit', since they are all UK terms and generally unused down here." - Maybe that is because that conversation was between two Brits
I find it strange that back in April 2014 there isn't a thread or any online news report singing any praises and I'm sure those of you in the business over there must have heard of it, so why do we only have a couple of very recent news reports about this?
The only things I mention are those reported in the same articles that we are all basing our opinions on. Why no mention of bad weather or airworthiness as also mentioned in the articles?
"None of those terms/titles would have been 'flying around in that cockpit', since they are all UK terms and generally unused down here." - Maybe that is because that conversation was between two Brits
I find it strange that back in April 2014 there isn't a thread or any online news report singing any praises and I'm sure those of you in the business over there must have heard of it, so why do we only have a couple of very recent news reports about this?
The only things I mention are those reported in the same articles that we are all basing our opinions on. Why no mention of bad weather or airworthiness as also mentioned in the articles?
Purveyor of Egg Liqueur to Lucifer
The pilot concerned may have done wrong in a perfect world, but a heart is still pumping and a family still have that man, through this Illegal action..
GOOD ON HIM..!
GOOD ON HIM..!
This has been in the Act forever.
Civil Aviation Act 1990 as at 1 July 2014
Personally I think that there is more to it of course or someone is barking up the wrong tree.
Commercial interests??
As to the SAR and rescue coverage - in NZ in any town with more than 2 dogs there is a "rescue helicopter" of some sort.
Civil Aviation Act 1990 as at 1 July 2014
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.
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.
Commercial interests??
As to the SAR and rescue coverage - in NZ in any town with more than 2 dogs there is a "rescue helicopter" of some sort.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry if this is going to seem simplistic but I reckon it all boils down in the end to whether you can sleep soundly at night and then look yourself in the mirror the next morning and be proud of what you see.
The guy in question can ... and good luck to him for that, whatever the paper-pushers conclude.
The guy in question can ... and good luck to him for that, whatever the paper-pushers conclude.
There are many unknowns which will undoubtedly be aired in court, including who squealed on the defendant and why was a 44 sent to do a man's work.
However, it seems from my armchair that the authorities decided to request a commercial operator to launch a rescue flight. There was an onus surely to ensure the pilot of that flight was capable of undertaking the mission. It was a single pilot aircraft not rated for multi pilot operations.
So along comes a chap who is not licensed to act as a pilot in any shape or form. Why did he get in the aircraft?? If a grounded fixed wing pilot strolled onto the flight deck I suspect he would get short shrift.
This chap then took command of the aircraft. The suggestion that he could assess the risk from his medical condition is farcical. Whatever the risk, any accident would have presumably have been uninsured. Any loss of life such as to the pilot would have resulted in financial catastrophe for his widow.
I am not sure what the Authorities are supposed to do other than prosecute. This wasnt a chance situation but a deliberate set of decisions. Nobody likes losing their license but we cant allow pilots without a medical to decide they can fly.
However, it seems from my armchair that the authorities decided to request a commercial operator to launch a rescue flight. There was an onus surely to ensure the pilot of that flight was capable of undertaking the mission. It was a single pilot aircraft not rated for multi pilot operations.
So along comes a chap who is not licensed to act as a pilot in any shape or form. Why did he get in the aircraft?? If a grounded fixed wing pilot strolled onto the flight deck I suspect he would get short shrift.
This chap then took command of the aircraft. The suggestion that he could assess the risk from his medical condition is farcical. Whatever the risk, any accident would have presumably have been uninsured. Any loss of life such as to the pilot would have resulted in financial catastrophe for his widow.
I am not sure what the Authorities are supposed to do other than prosecute. This wasnt a chance situation but a deliberate set of decisions. Nobody likes losing their license but we cant allow pilots without a medical to decide they can fly.
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: UK
Age: 66
Posts: 919
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
homo
Manipulating the controls does not put him in command.
It has dual controls as standard for a reason.
This chap then took command of the aircraft
It was a single pilot aircraft not rated for multi pilot operations.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: New Zealand
Age: 52
Posts: 395
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We actually have a term in NZ, im sure the rest of you have heard, PICUS, Pilot in Command Under Supervision.
Someone has to supervise the PIC, especially young or junior pilots. There is nothing to stop the CEO, CP, Director of the company from going onboard every flight of a junior pilot, until he is happy with how that pilot is flying. Then as the Junior pilot gets to undertake more "difficult" jobs, a good CP will then go with the junior pilots to ensure that they dont do anything stupid and end up dead.
That is actually what "should" happen in a good company. Therefore both pilots are allowed to be onboard a single pilot helicopter at the same time. And yes, you can supervise without a medical, and we get our license for a lifetime in NZ. and no we don't have to have type checks every couple of years like the UK. you have a license, if you have done a BFR within the previous 2 years then you can fly any machine that you are rated for.
Yes you need a medical. we also have different levels of medicals for different operations.
And as for saying they should let the "professional SAR crew" do the operation, here in New Zealand there is every possibility that the Junior pilot that was flying the 44 has as much experience as the SAR pilot. They are just flying different machines. Our local SAR helicopter gets these "highly experienced" pilots with 1500-2000 hrs.
Around here that still makes you a junior pilot...
Maybe there is more to this story than what the newspapers reported??? It wouldn't be the first time that the reporters didn't get all the relevant facts...
Someone has to supervise the PIC, especially young or junior pilots. There is nothing to stop the CEO, CP, Director of the company from going onboard every flight of a junior pilot, until he is happy with how that pilot is flying. Then as the Junior pilot gets to undertake more "difficult" jobs, a good CP will then go with the junior pilots to ensure that they dont do anything stupid and end up dead.
That is actually what "should" happen in a good company. Therefore both pilots are allowed to be onboard a single pilot helicopter at the same time. And yes, you can supervise without a medical, and we get our license for a lifetime in NZ. and no we don't have to have type checks every couple of years like the UK. you have a license, if you have done a BFR within the previous 2 years then you can fly any machine that you are rated for.
Yes you need a medical. we also have different levels of medicals for different operations.
And as for saying they should let the "professional SAR crew" do the operation, here in New Zealand there is every possibility that the Junior pilot that was flying the 44 has as much experience as the SAR pilot. They are just flying different machines. Our local SAR helicopter gets these "highly experienced" pilots with 1500-2000 hrs.
Around here that still makes you a junior pilot...
Maybe there is more to this story than what the newspapers reported??? It wouldn't be the first time that the reporters didn't get all the relevant facts...
Purveyor of Egg Liqueur to Lucifer
So, if a PICUS does something dangerous, or is doing something leading to a dangerous situation, who on board the ac has authority to take control from them?
Well said JerryG.
We so quickly lose sight of "do the right thing"
Read some of the adventures of a true flying doctor Dr Clyde Fenton in the NT in the 1930s. He was the bane of the then CAA but he saved people first then worried about the CAA.
We so quickly lose sight of "do the right thing"
Read some of the adventures of a true flying doctor Dr Clyde Fenton in the NT in the 1930s. He was the bane of the then CAA but he saved people first then worried about the CAA.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: New South Wales
Posts: 1,794
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Crab,
You're completely wrong. Fractured femur, lying in the cold and wet on a mountainside, is always a dire emergency.
Firstly, they could have significant blood loss from the femur.
Secondly, they may well have other, as yet undiagnosed, life-threatening injuries.
Thirdly, they are at significant risk from hypothermia.
You don't leave this person waiting hours for a better equipped helicopter.
David
You're completely wrong. Fractured femur, lying in the cold and wet on a mountainside, is always a dire emergency.
Firstly, they could have significant blood loss from the femur.
Secondly, they may well have other, as yet undiagnosed, life-threatening injuries.
Thirdly, they are at significant risk from hypothermia.
You don't leave this person waiting hours for a better equipped helicopter.
David