NZ CAA prosecuting 'rescue' pilot
So we should still be doing aviation by the safety standards of 1903???????
Shy: the case where an S76 flew into the side of the mountain several years ago: The dead pilot responsible for doing this was successfully sued by the deceased co-pilots wife.
{Or rather the dead pilots estate was successfully sued].
Puma crash. Dead crewmans family are suing the dead pilots family.
You see, the repurcussions are enormous, here.
So here we have a hero (seemingly by several peoples views on pprune) saving the life of another (bravo). Until or unless it goes wrong.
Then we have lawyers saying....so we have the dead pilot unlawfully flying.
The family of the other innocent third (dead) party now sue both the owner of the helo and the family of the medically unfit pilot. Solely on the grounds that he flew knowingly illegally???
In addition.
Since when do we have members of the general public (and I inculde those sympathisers amongst you) deciding it is fine to ignore the rules and just get on with it because in their (very limited) view of things - it's the "right thing to do at the time".
And on what basis does society build its legal and communal infrastructure if we include rule 36: "Exception: Do what you feel is right on the day".
Aviation as black and white as this scenario, doesn't come any clearer. Those who think they have a God given right to twist the rules to fit - should be cause for concern by their associates and those who work around them.
{Or rather the dead pilots estate was successfully sued].
Puma crash. Dead crewmans family are suing the dead pilots family.
You see, the repurcussions are enormous, here.
So here we have a hero (seemingly by several peoples views on pprune) saving the life of another (bravo). Until or unless it goes wrong.
Then we have lawyers saying....so we have the dead pilot unlawfully flying.
The family of the other innocent third (dead) party now sue both the owner of the helo and the family of the medically unfit pilot. Solely on the grounds that he flew knowingly illegally???
In addition.
Since when do we have members of the general public (and I inculde those sympathisers amongst you) deciding it is fine to ignore the rules and just get on with it because in their (very limited) view of things - it's the "right thing to do at the time".
And on what basis does society build its legal and communal infrastructure if we include rule 36: "Exception: Do what you feel is right on the day".
Aviation as black and white as this scenario, doesn't come any clearer. Those who think they have a God given right to twist the rules to fit - should be cause for concern by their associates and those who work around them.
ShyTorque
Your last comment is unworthy of you. Sid said nothing to justify it.
I have watched this thread with incredulity. First the medical facts (which I can comment on with some expertise):
The pilot was IMHO lucky to have been just given a 2 year grounding. To wake confused is not typical of a TIA (mini stroke) and many neurologists would consider it far more 'risky'. No sensible neurologist would have allowed him to fly and comments that he knew better are daft
He did not save anyone's life (the casualty stayed on scene overnight and survived). It is true the doctor on scene erroneously stated a life was at risk, and in my organisation pilots dont argue with doctors on medical matters. But equally pilots have the final say as to whether a flight occurs and never put the patient before crew and bystander safety. The doctor was wrong but that is irrelevant.
Now the aviation issues:
Regardless of why this chap was on scene with no license, his skill as reported in court was that he knew where to land the R44 to insert rescuers. It does not say he had exceptional piloting skills to land there, merely that he knew the location. I dont buy the argument that the other pilot was jettisoned to insert additional rescuers but it is unlikely given the difficulty of getting extraction kit in a 44 and the question remains as to why if adequate rescuers were inserted why did they stay overnight????? So the sensible course of action would have been for him to act as unofficial navigator.
The details are also known for one of the pilot's previous illegal flights where we are told he handled the aircraft so the other pilot could look out for the missing person. I cannot construct a situation where it would not have been feasible for the other pilot to fly the aircraft and this chap to look out.
At the end of the day this chap lacks any insight. Having been almost prosecuted and escaped on a technicality he continued to break the law. He put his business and employees on the line financially. He flew people, in ignorance of the risk that he could have lost consciousness and killed them, on the flimsiest of reasons, then had the audacity to argue that he should be let off because it was a rescue mission.
What confidence can society have that he has learned from his prosecution and will not continue to break the law in future where he disagrees with them?
Your last comment is unworthy of you. Sid said nothing to justify it.
I have watched this thread with incredulity. First the medical facts (which I can comment on with some expertise):
The pilot was IMHO lucky to have been just given a 2 year grounding. To wake confused is not typical of a TIA (mini stroke) and many neurologists would consider it far more 'risky'. No sensible neurologist would have allowed him to fly and comments that he knew better are daft
He did not save anyone's life (the casualty stayed on scene overnight and survived). It is true the doctor on scene erroneously stated a life was at risk, and in my organisation pilots dont argue with doctors on medical matters. But equally pilots have the final say as to whether a flight occurs and never put the patient before crew and bystander safety. The doctor was wrong but that is irrelevant.
Now the aviation issues:
Regardless of why this chap was on scene with no license, his skill as reported in court was that he knew where to land the R44 to insert rescuers. It does not say he had exceptional piloting skills to land there, merely that he knew the location. I dont buy the argument that the other pilot was jettisoned to insert additional rescuers but it is unlikely given the difficulty of getting extraction kit in a 44 and the question remains as to why if adequate rescuers were inserted why did they stay overnight????? So the sensible course of action would have been for him to act as unofficial navigator.
The details are also known for one of the pilot's previous illegal flights where we are told he handled the aircraft so the other pilot could look out for the missing person. I cannot construct a situation where it would not have been feasible for the other pilot to fly the aircraft and this chap to look out.
At the end of the day this chap lacks any insight. Having been almost prosecuted and escaped on a technicality he continued to break the law. He put his business and employees on the line financially. He flew people, in ignorance of the risk that he could have lost consciousness and killed them, on the flimsiest of reasons, then had the audacity to argue that he should be let off because it was a rescue mission.
What confidence can society have that he has learned from his prosecution and will not continue to break the law in future where he disagrees with them?
Homonculus -
RVDT - they are still going in the Falklands
RVDT - they are still going in the Falklands
What confidence can society have that he has learned from his prosecution and will not continue to break the law in future where he disagrees with them?
UK 2012 and the law was changed accordingly.
the question remains as to why if adequate rescuers were inserted why did they stay overnight?????
except the people that were actually there?
The 20/20 hindsight goggles and an armchair added to the mix - still priceless.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,573
Received 421 Likes
on
222 Posts
TC, Those who know me (and you don't) might well think very different to what you're implying, trying to tar me with a certain brush.
I have been very careful to make no reference to alleged previous examples of rule breaking by this pilot. My reaction is based purely on the incident in question, i.e. the one for which he was prosecuted. He made his decision to fly on the facts as presented to him at the time, not in the comfort of an armchair after the event. Westpac had failed to reach the casualty. He did better. He undoubtedly knew he was going to be held to task but still did the job, as he saw it, to try to save a life.
He did not have an accident and reference to other pilots being sued by dependants because they did is a red herring. He broke the law to save a life, that is the only relevant fact.
I have to say that I'm 100% certain I wouldn't have flown that particular mission in the circumstances. In fact, in my fairly distant past, as a fully qualified SAR pilot, I've been obliged to turn down (thankfully a very small number of) very urgent missions on safety grounds. I was taken to task on all of them to explain why. Although I was legally justified, one small part of me will always wish I'd gone.
It could be argued that this pilot just has bigger balls than all of us. My donation to the fund set up for him by the person rescued was for that reason, not that I condone rule breaking. As part of the donation process, one is invited to make a comment on the website. I asked Dave not to do it again without a medical.
My final comment on the matter.
I have been very careful to make no reference to alleged previous examples of rule breaking by this pilot. My reaction is based purely on the incident in question, i.e. the one for which he was prosecuted. He made his decision to fly on the facts as presented to him at the time, not in the comfort of an armchair after the event. Westpac had failed to reach the casualty. He did better. He undoubtedly knew he was going to be held to task but still did the job, as he saw it, to try to save a life.
He did not have an accident and reference to other pilots being sued by dependants because they did is a red herring. He broke the law to save a life, that is the only relevant fact.
I have to say that I'm 100% certain I wouldn't have flown that particular mission in the circumstances. In fact, in my fairly distant past, as a fully qualified SAR pilot, I've been obliged to turn down (thankfully a very small number of) very urgent missions on safety grounds. I was taken to task on all of them to explain why. Although I was legally justified, one small part of me will always wish I'd gone.
It could be argued that this pilot just has bigger balls than all of us. My donation to the fund set up for him by the person rescued was for that reason, not that I condone rule breaking. As part of the donation process, one is invited to make a comment on the website. I asked Dave not to do it again without a medical.
My final comment on the matter.
It doesn't come much better than support from homonculus in this matter. Support, not for my views or Crabs but for the fact that this man was reckless in the extreme.
Shy - I'm disappointed in you , your argument is feeble and lacks credibility.
RVDT - another disappointment. Trying to find any excuse to defend this pilot.
I can only hope that those who haven't bothered to respond to this thread - understand the situation and agree wholeheartedly with the findings of the court otherwise I fear for this industry.
Shy - I'm disappointed in you , your argument is feeble and lacks credibility.
RVDT - another disappointment. Trying to find any excuse to defend this pilot.
I can only hope that those who haven't bothered to respond to this thread - understand the situation and agree wholeheartedly with the findings of the court otherwise I fear for this industry.
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: UK
Age: 66
Posts: 919
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can only hope that those who haven't bothered to respond to this thread - understand the situation and agree wholeheartedly with the findings of the court otherwise I fear for this industry.
RVDT
I am an individual not a country! There is a vast difference between expecting an individual to have insight and expecting a government to change complex legislation. Of course we want more common sense in health and safety but the two situations have little in common.
I regret your explanation for leaving the casualty overnight because it was dark and he was on the edge of a drop is rather an own goal. That means there was never any suggestion of evacuation that evening and the claim that six rescuers were needed cannot be sustained
Chopjock
The patient didn't die. In fact looking at the evidence available to us there is no evidence he was going to die or even that anyone thought he might die. We simply don't know what the doctor said, nor how he might have gained the evidence to make any assertion. But my concern is that the other pilot could have legally flown in the rescuers guided by this chap avoiding risk to the rescuers and illegality
I am an individual not a country! There is a vast difference between expecting an individual to have insight and expecting a government to change complex legislation. Of course we want more common sense in health and safety but the two situations have little in common.
I regret your explanation for leaving the casualty overnight because it was dark and he was on the edge of a drop is rather an own goal. That means there was never any suggestion of evacuation that evening and the claim that six rescuers were needed cannot be sustained
Chopjock
The patient didn't die. In fact looking at the evidence available to us there is no evidence he was going to die or even that anyone thought he might die. We simply don't know what the doctor said, nor how he might have gained the evidence to make any assertion. But my concern is that the other pilot could have legally flown in the rescuers guided by this chap avoiding risk to the rescuers and illegality
Homonculous - he didn't die but the fact he was secured and attended to and wrapped up and given general medical assistance rather than being left exposed to the elements on a mountain cliff tied to a tree may have had some effect.
There have been plenty of "expert" opinions from the rescuers that he could easily/probably been a goner if just left there overnight. I'd trust them over the "experts" commenting here any day.
There have been plenty of "expert" opinions from the rescuers that he could easily/probably been a goner if just left there overnight. I'd trust them over the "experts" commenting here any day.
Lets play the Devils Advocate -
The "rescue" helicopter that normally does this job has failed to find the casualty and has become unavailable for whatever reason.
It has been established to the best knowledge available and interpretation that the situation is life threatening.
There are two pilots available - one inexperienced yet fully "qualified" and one highly experienced and with a restricted medical yet a huge amount of local knowledge gained over the years in this particular area. To the point that if the position was described to him over the phone he could fly there without a map or GPS in marginal weather yet above helicopter VFR VMC.
There is only so much time available before nightfall.
The area where the victim is happens to be below ~5500' so in that area it is under the beech forest canopy.
If you had a winch capable aircraft it would be of no use anyway.
The landing area is at the limits of the aircraft performance with respect to altitude and that steep it requires a "hover exit" so 3 pax is the limit. No place for superfluous "observers" and "navigators" or a pilot not experienced in these types of operation.
Time allows for 6 ground SAR folks to be positioned and thats all before darkness.
They know that he will possibly need to be carried out and 4 folks is not adequate as they have done this before.
The "doctor" is aware of the pilots restricted medical as are the other occupants of the aircraft.
As the pilot in question you are fully aware that rules will be broken to the extent necessary.
There are no other "resources" available. This is not the UK. The South Island of New Zealand is ~ 20,000 sq km larger than England
and has approximately 1 million people in it. It is mountainous and with very few roads it can be "remote" away from the urban areas.
You decide not to go as you would be "breaking the law".
The casualty succumbs overnight.
I hope you sleep well at nights with your 20/20 hindsight goggles on.
The "rescue" helicopter that normally does this job has failed to find the casualty and has become unavailable for whatever reason.
It has been established to the best knowledge available and interpretation that the situation is life threatening.
There are two pilots available - one inexperienced yet fully "qualified" and one highly experienced and with a restricted medical yet a huge amount of local knowledge gained over the years in this particular area. To the point that if the position was described to him over the phone he could fly there without a map or GPS in marginal weather yet above helicopter VFR VMC.
There is only so much time available before nightfall.
The area where the victim is happens to be below ~5500' so in that area it is under the beech forest canopy.
If you had a winch capable aircraft it would be of no use anyway.
The landing area is at the limits of the aircraft performance with respect to altitude and that steep it requires a "hover exit" so 3 pax is the limit. No place for superfluous "observers" and "navigators" or a pilot not experienced in these types of operation.
Time allows for 6 ground SAR folks to be positioned and thats all before darkness.
They know that he will possibly need to be carried out and 4 folks is not adequate as they have done this before.
The "doctor" is aware of the pilots restricted medical as are the other occupants of the aircraft.
As the pilot in question you are fully aware that rules will be broken to the extent necessary.
There are no other "resources" available. This is not the UK. The South Island of New Zealand is ~ 20,000 sq km larger than England
and has approximately 1 million people in it. It is mountainous and with very few roads it can be "remote" away from the urban areas.
You decide not to go as you would be "breaking the law".
The casualty succumbs overnight.
Humanity differs from mere justice in that there is a level of altruism towards individuals included in humanity more so than the fairness found in justice.
RVDT
You have my vote.
TC, many years ago while guiding on Mt Blanc a friend took a major leader fall that broke his ankle in 3 places. A long night with no rescue on a 9 inch ledge 400m above the bergschrund. We had to abseil 400m both back to The Mer de Glace . Then carry drag him 3 km to a mountain hut. We were picked up by a Lama helicopter. Question to you would you have got in the helicopter ??
You have my vote.
TC, many years ago while guiding on Mt Blanc a friend took a major leader fall that broke his ankle in 3 places. A long night with no rescue on a 9 inch ledge 400m above the bergschrund. We had to abseil 400m both back to The Mer de Glace . Then carry drag him 3 km to a mountain hut. We were picked up by a Lama helicopter. Question to you would you have got in the helicopter ??
I really dont want to flog a dead horse but the last three posts miss the point. We agree the casualty needed medical assistance that night. I would have put in a team of two to carry in the kit to make the position safe, give shelter and provide medical support ready to evac the next day.
That needed one legal flight with pilot, unofficial navigator and medical team of two.
Any further medical crew were a luxury - OK insert them if it is safe and legal - but they were not needed that night
I think the facts we know are adequate to be confident this casualty did not need anyone to break the law.
That needed one legal flight with pilot, unofficial navigator and medical team of two.
Any further medical crew were a luxury - OK insert them if it is safe and legal - but they were not needed that night
I think the facts we know are adequate to be confident this casualty did not need anyone to break the law.
Purveyor of Egg Liqueur to Lucifer
So, if another professional, let's say a doctor, is struck off yet continues to practise, as long as nobody dies because of their actions that's all ok then is it?
The situation is either critical or not.
If this patient was definitely going to die without the rescue by helicopter AND it needed not just any old helicopter pilot to carry out this mission (who incidentally was available) but one who was capable of conducting such a treacherous rescue - I would suggest that the adrenaline would be pumping and that pilot would be under severe stress conditions during the actual rescue.
So here we have the conditions present at the time of the 'lift'.
Now let's invite a pilot with these capabilities to attend the rescue - one who has a medical problem, severe enough for the AME's to ground him.
So we insert a pilot with either previous TIA or similar medical concern into a seriously stressful scenario with total disregard for the outcome.
Is this the thought process of a sane person(s)?
IF (and of course it is a big IF)...IF he had suffered a relapse and an accident resulted in the loss of one or more individuals. Where would you armchair judges be then?
Half a mile away no doubt, walking in the opposite direction and washing your hands of the fact that you knew him and supported his actions.
In summary, just so I get this clear: You identified a risk (it being an injured person (ONE PERSON) on a mountain side) and your solution to this risk was to throw another risk at it.
God help us all.
If this patient was definitely going to die without the rescue by helicopter AND it needed not just any old helicopter pilot to carry out this mission (who incidentally was available) but one who was capable of conducting such a treacherous rescue - I would suggest that the adrenaline would be pumping and that pilot would be under severe stress conditions during the actual rescue.
So here we have the conditions present at the time of the 'lift'.
Now let's invite a pilot with these capabilities to attend the rescue - one who has a medical problem, severe enough for the AME's to ground him.
So we insert a pilot with either previous TIA or similar medical concern into a seriously stressful scenario with total disregard for the outcome.
Is this the thought process of a sane person(s)?
IF (and of course it is a big IF)...IF he had suffered a relapse and an accident resulted in the loss of one or more individuals. Where would you armchair judges be then?
Half a mile away no doubt, walking in the opposite direction and washing your hands of the fact that you knew him and supported his actions.
In summary, just so I get this clear: You identified a risk (it being an injured person (ONE PERSON) on a mountain side) and your solution to this risk was to throw another risk at it.
God help us all.
TC
I think ALARP is what you are looking at. The pilot would be more likely to have a heart attack while driving (didn't have his driving licence pulled ), so that is driving at 60 mph on a single carriage way road less than 6 ft from another vehicle doing 60 mph the other way. What is the greater risk to human life ?
You are looking at everything with rose tinted hindsight, so it is easy to be critical.
I think ALARP is what you are looking at. The pilot would be more likely to have a heart attack while driving (didn't have his driving licence pulled ), so that is driving at 60 mph on a single carriage way road less than 6 ft from another vehicle doing 60 mph the other way. What is the greater risk to human life ?
You are looking at everything with rose tinted hindsight, so it is easy to be critical.
Doesn't the fact that the doctor climbed in knowing about the pilots medical show us that the "risk" of the pilot keeling over was absolutely minimal ?
If I believed that I could SAFELY carry out a rescue in , and ONLY in , a real life and death situation ... Would I fly ? Absolutely yes . Would I fly if my licence or medical had just run out and make the flight illegal ...yes again . I really honestly don't believe that if any of you were having a cuppa at my house and we knew , with requests from the emergency services , that a life could be saved if we flew ....we would not sit on our hands . We would make a decision which we would have to live with .... Can we do this safely ? Are we sure ? I don't think we would spend time discussing if it broke a rule !!!!!!
If I believed that I could SAFELY carry out a rescue in , and ONLY in , a real life and death situation ... Would I fly ? Absolutely yes . Would I fly if my licence or medical had just run out and make the flight illegal ...yes again . I really honestly don't believe that if any of you were having a cuppa at my house and we knew , with requests from the emergency services , that a life could be saved if we flew ....we would not sit on our hands . We would make a decision which we would have to live with .... Can we do this safely ? Are we sure ? I don't think we would spend time discussing if it broke a rule !!!!!!