|
NZ CAA prosecuting 'rescue' pilot
What a nonsense:
Victim pleads for mercy for 'hero' pilot prosecuted over dramatic rescue A "hero" helicopter pilot is facing possible jail-time over the dramatic rescue of an injured hunter who says he owes the pilot his life. Hunter Scott Lee was left dangling on the edge of a 50-metre drop after falling in remote bush north of Kaikoura on April 5, 2014. He suffered a broken femur, and had to be tethered to a tree with his girlfriend's clothing to prevent him from plunging further down the bluff to his death. Local pilot Dave Armstrong stepped up to complete the rescue after another helicopter had already turned back. But now he faces charges because his licence was at the time suspended, due to a medical scare from a diagnosis which had already been called into question. The prosecution is thought to be the first of its kind in New Zealand for a pilot performing a search and rescue mission. The situation has outraged some in the flying community, as well as the hunter Armstrong saved, with the Christchurch man saying he was "absolutely devastated" for the pilot. Lee has written to the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) pleading for them to drop the three charges Armstrong is facing next weekin Kaikoura District Court. In the letter he explains how he had gone after his girlfriend, Lisa McKenzie, who had tumbled down a shingle bank, before tripping and badly breaking his leg on the tree that broke his 15-metre fall. The first rescue chopper had been forced to turn back due to low fuel. Armstrong then attempted the rescue, and it is understood he sat alongside his co-pilot as a supervisor because he was suspended from flying. But his junior struggled to make the manouevre in their Robinson R44 light four-seater machine. Kaikoura Search and Rescue (SAR) alternate controller Mike Morrissey said it was cloudy, the couple were in dense bush on a steep slope, and the view was that Lee could not be left overnight in such conditions. Armstrong took the controls instead and dropped in Morrissey, a doctor, and the rest of the SAR team . "Dave knew exactly where these guys were," Morrissey said. "He's been flying to do rain gauges there every month for years. "At that time Dave had the opportunity to do it. He was the best person for it so we used him." Lee said he and his girlfriend had lost hope after hearing the first chopper turn back. He had even accepted he might die alone by the time he heard the approach of Armstrong's chopper. It took the SAR crew about six hours to stretcher Lee out of the bush, Morrissey said. A source close to the case said Armstrong's flight-logs were later seized by police on behalf of the CAA. The source said the day Armstrong flew, there was doubt about his medical issue and he had been challenging the opinion while trying to get the grounding order lifted. Lee and McKenzie both wrote to the CAA in support of Armstrong when they heard of the prosecution. "We truly believe that we owe our lives to Dave and the team that helped us, and there is no way we will ever be able to express our gratitude to them." Lee wrote: "Clearly it was a life or death situation and we are grateful that Dave made that decision as I would not be here without him." He said the pilot did not deserve such scrutiny. "He's done a heroic act in my eyes. If anything, he deserves a medal for what he's done," Lee said. "He's a hero." Wanaka pilot and Armstrong's friend, John Levy, said the cost of the prosecution and being grounded had affected the family's livelihood. A spokesman for the CAA said it was not in a position to comment on the case while the matter was before the courts. Armstrong and his lawyer also declined to comment. THE CHARGES The charges relate to alleged breaches of the Civil Aviation Act for performing search and rescue flights without a current medical licence. The Act, which is currently under review, says pilots can breach the law in life or death emergencies, but not if they are not lawfully entitled to fly. That includes for medical reasons, or if their craft is not airworthy. The maximum penalty is 12 months' jail or a $10,000 fine per offence. |
How sad,
Obviously the Authorities in NZ seem to be afflicted with the same sort of Mangled lines of thought ( NO BRAIN COMMON SENSE AREA) that all Civil servant types all over the world are afflicted with.. For Christ's sake, a guys life was saved...is that, or doe's that not justify extenuating circumstances, that Pilot was the only person on the spot who could get it done, he did it the man survived and now some Civil Law is going to try and Bin the man Hey, Authorities WAKE UP and smell reality..!! would you have walked away ?? |
So just claim the junior pilot was pic. The commander of the aircraft does not necessarily HAVE to be manipulating the controls.
|
Armstrong then attempted the rescue, and it is understood he sat alongside his co-pilot as a supervisor because he was suspended from flying. But his junior struggled to make the manouevre in their Robinson R44 light four-seater machine. On the surface it does seems like a bit of rough treatment though. |
Chopjock; My immediate thought, exactly. At what point did Mr Armstrong take command, as opposed to handling the controls. What's the offence, exactly?
OK, I confess. I flew a helicopter a few years ago for 30 minutes from the LH seat, when on a trip with a friend of mine who was, and remained, PIC for the whole of the flight. We went up and down, turned left and right, all sorts of things. It was a commercial flight, too. The dreadful thing is,nowhere on my licence does it mention helicopters, rotary wings, Mixmasters or anything of that ilk. Come and get me, Constable. |
At what point did Mr Armstrong take command, as opposed to handling the controls |
I suspect this case will hinge around whether Mr. Armstrong took off in the helicopter knowing that he would be required to take over the controls on arriving at the scene due to his co-pilots' inexperience.
If he went along intending merely to advise and assist but ended up taking over the controls without any intent to do so when the flight took off, then that is another matter. That would seem to fall into a similar category as to when an unlicensed pilot or passeneger lands a plane after their instructor suddenly becomes incapacitated. In genuine life or death emergencies, actions can be taken to save life which would not normally be acceptable in law. But there will need to be a court case to determine whether Mr. Armstrongs' actions were reasonable at the time taking into account all the circumstances. Even if found guilty, the court may decide to impose only a trivial penalty reflecting the successful outcome of events. |
In UK there are cases where the authorities decree that "it is not in the public interest to pursue a prosecution".
I don't know if a similar caveat exists in NZ law, but if so, this is surely something that should be considered in a case like this. |
I appreciate that it is a hypothetical question, as the flight was successful but.....
If the aircraft had an incident or accident on that flight and bearing in mind the pilot in question was grounded due to a perceived medical problem and as such, that commercial flight probably took place without valid insurance and outside of the companies AOC, then would you all agree that the pilot was right to give it a go? |
Handysnaks - exactly. You're a hero if all goes well, but strangely you suddenly have no friends when something goes very wrong.
A fickle bunch us humans - eh?:ooh: |
A couple of pertinent points from the Antipodes which may be outside the 'norm' for those posting with UK/EASA rules ingrained in their DNA.
We have a variation of commercial ops called 'airwork/aerial work' which has a lower standard of accountability. A search or a rescue would fall within the Airwork category. We also have a term 'mercy flight' where life is at risk, allowing variations in the rules and regs. Finally we are reading a news report: how accurate is that? There is little point in debating the minutiae of words used in that report since it is unlikely that the journalist has the faintest idea how his terminology can be misinterpreted by the aviation community. I see a responsible action by a pilot with a temporary (medical) licence suspension who went along in an advisory capacity on a flight with another pilot PIC, and then took over the controls to ensure that a critical part of the mission was accomplished to get essential personnel on the ground to save a life. The journo's use of 'co-pilot' should have no value since it is most likely that he (the guy in the RH seat) was the pilot for the flight. We don't use 'commander' and other such highfalutin terms down here :p |
And that is precisely why there will be a court case to determine whether Mr. Armstrong took off in the knowledge that he would probably have to fly the helicopter at some point in the rescue.
It doesn't really matter that the rescue was successful, it was that someone allowed themselves to become involved in the knowledge that they might have to undertake an activity from which they were currently banned. If something is proscribed by law, then it is up to the courts to determine whether any breech that occured is reasonable taking into account all of the circumstances. If the rescue had been unsuccessful or the helicopter had crashed, there could have been two sets of casualties stranded in a remote location in urgent need of medical assistance. The offence is not flying with a suspended licence, it is flying in defiance of a ban (for whatever reason) imposed by the authorities. They don't like that! |
Originally Posted by G0ULI
(Post 9137524)
I suspect this case will hinge around whether Mr. Armstrong took off in the helicopter knowing that he would be required to take over the controls on arriving at the scene due to his co-pilots' inexperience.
Had the journo referred to 'the other pilot' would there be such mock outrage? Are we living in such a rules dominated/risk averse culture that saving a life takes second place to doing what is morally right and logistically achievable? I don't know what the medical grounding was for, but on the assumption that it was to guard against Mr Armstrong collapsing at the controls then the presence of the other (in command) pilot would have been more than enough to cover that issue for the few minutes needed to complete the task of landing in adverse conditions. If only to pull power and fly out of the landing. |
John
I used the term co-pilot in the literal sense. That there was another pilot sitting in the helicopter, not to imply that the co-pilot was not actually the captain of the flight. The other pilot might have been a more correct way of putting it, but it just didn't seem right when I was typing. |
Totally agree with handy, this time he got away with it.
Colin McRae & Mark Weir are two names that immediately come to mind when this topic of conversation crops up! As Mr A. was company director, that cockpit gradient must have been interesting; and the question must arise, how many other occasions has this guy been flying around while suspended? I would wonder if one should ask the question, 'what would happen if a pilot phones in sick one morning, there is a booking to be flown and no-one else is available!' How long has Mr Armstrong been suspended as it would seem that he is no stranger to being available when there's a bit of search and rescue on the side! Jan 28 2015 - Grateful brothers praise rescuers | Stuff.co.nz :ok: http://www.aatravel.co.nz/travel-dea...ers/392110.jpg |
On a different day ....
Pilot in court for crashing helicopter | News24
Pilot in court for crashing helicopter Johannesburg - A helicopter pilot appeared in the Pretoria Magistrate's Court on Wednesday for flying and crashing a helicopter while his licence was suspended, police said. On December 2 last year Rainier Prinsloo, whose licence had been suspended by the SA Civil Aviation Authority, allegedly crashed a helicopter at Baltimore in Limpopo, Colonel McIntosh Polela said. He and two other occupants, including a young trainee pilot, survived the crash, after Prinsloo made a steep turn to the left, and the helicopter went into a spin. He was arrested on Monday, while consulting with the Civil Aviation Authority to lift the suspension of his licence. He faces charges of attempted murder and reckless operation of a helicopter. |
Originally Posted by SilsoeSid
(Post 9138295)
As Mr A. was company director, that cockpit gradient must have been interesting; and the question must arise, how many other occasions has this guy been flying around while suspended? I would wonder if one should ask the question, 'what would happen if a pilot phones in sick one morning, there is a booking to be flown and no-one else is available!'
Originally Posted by SilsoeSid
(Post 9138295)
How long has Mr Armstrong been suspended as it would seem that he is no stranger to being available when there's a bit of search and rescue on the side!
I find the mean spirit being shown here to be amazingly disappointing, quite frankly. As I opined earlier, there seems to be a risk averse attitude that prefers to demonise a pilot for his actions rather than offer the appropriate praise; along with a determination to beat the Daily Mail for twisting facts to suit the demonisation. |
Fair enough John and I understand the different mindsets we all have about this situation. Of course the prosecution may be a bit harsh given the outcome, after all someone's life has been saved. But there's always a little something else behind these stories isn't there.
Apart from the question about him flying while suspended prior to this incident, I'd like to know a bit more detail as to why the professional SAR aircraft couldn't go back to the search area. Was the weather that bad? Mr A must have known they had turned back because of weather/fuel, was he listening to the event on the radio? Also, the report says that he apparently knew where the injured person was. Why couldn't the SAR aircraft refuel at Mr A's facility? Pick him up and go back to the search area fully equipped for the subsequent rescue? |
Originally Posted by SilsoeSid
(Post 9138490)
snip
But there's always a little something else behind these stories isn't there.
Originally Posted by SilsoeSid
(Post 9138490)
Apart from the question about him flying while suspended prior to this incident, I'd like to know a bit more detail as to why the professional SAR aircraft couldn't go back to the search area. Was the weather that bad?
Originally Posted by SilsoeSid
(Post 9138490)
Mr A must have known they had turned back because of weather/fuel, was he listening to the event on the radio? Also, the report says that he apparently knew where the injured person was.
Why couldn't the SAR aircraft refuel at Mr A's facility? Pick him up and go back to the search area fully equipped for the subsequent rescue? |
"What professional SAR aircraft?"
The one mentioned here; Hero chopper pilot in court | Radio New Zealand News Amazing that so far all the discussion and opinion about this are based on a single online news report. Now there's another to read. |
Absolutely, SS: but you weren't basing your previous comments on that, were you? Again we don't know the circumstances why the Westpac 117 turned back nor why the Rescue Co-ord chose to call Kaikoura Helicopters instead. But they did, and this is the result after a successful insertion of medical personnel; a witch-hunt.
This is becoming a broken record and if you are still determined to Monday morning umpire the decisions made at the time then there is no point in further discussion. |
As it happens John, when I read a thread such as this I have a little look around to see what other articles there are around about the subject. The report I linked to was available since way before the beginning of this thread so I knew about the Westpac cab from the start. I'm surprised that those of us 'over there' didn't!
You say that the Westpac controllers called Kaikoira helicopters, where did you get that information and why do you think they would ask a R44 to do the job that a fully equipped 117 couldn't? There is actually very little coverage about this considering it happened last year. Is Mr A still suspended? |
If the R44 had been flying with Armstrong purely as a passenger and the PIC had become incapacitated, does the fact Armstrong was currently suspended preclude him from effecting a safe landing using his skills, or is he expected to say 'oh shoot, guess we're going to have to die cos I cannot touch the controls as I'm suspended'?
As the most experienced pilot in that area of flying surely he was right to tag along to offer experience and advice. When he saw that the PIC didn't have the required skills to effect the rescue he had two choices, leave someone to die, or to help them. Well done that he chose the right course of action and hopefully the powers that be will also recognise that he took appropriate action. If he had been on his own then it is more contentious, but he wasn't, he had another pilot there to help. |
Originally Posted by SilsoeSid
(Post 9138586)
You say that the Westpac controllers called Kaikoira helicopters, where did you get that information and why do you think they would ask a R44 to do the job that a fully equipped 117 couldn't?
However, since it was overland it was probably the NZ Police doing the tasking as they have authority for overland SAR. I thought previous comments to you may have got the message across that this ain't the pommy set up and UnZud looks after its own? If Kaikoura Helicopters were tasked it was for a good reason, and knowing the area may have been an important factor. |
Squeaks, you seem a little mixed up.
It was John that said, "Again we don't know the circumstances why the Westpac 117 turned back nor why the Rescue Co-ord chose to call Kaikoura Helicopters instead. But they did .... " All I asked is where he obtained that information. |
Sid
Why couldn't the SAR aircraft refuel at Mr A's facility? |
surely_not, yea right! Just like if you're flying to see us here in pommy land and the flight crew become incapacitated and you as a professional pilot do nothing but carry on munching your peanuts and swilling your lager :ugh:
I fully understand what we are saying here and of course the feeling that he shouldn't be prosecuted given the circumstances, but what really is the 'full story' here? What do we know from the media, or in other words what information do any of us have on which to base our opinion? 1. Westpac 117 leaves the search area due to fuel or weather issues. (Can't get fuel at Kaikoura base? Weather too bad for a fully equipped & crewed 117?) 2. Kaikoura R44 launches with an inexperienced pilot and the highly experienced yet suspended company director as pax. (We don't know if they were asked to) 3. Casualty located in dense bush on a steep slope. (Then what happens?) Purely hypothetical and merely an opinion; Given the dire circumstances, wouldn't you drop off the inexperienced pilot and have the extra capability to get the expert rescuers to the scene asp? Could it be that the R44 found the casualty, the pilot had difficulty landing so the suspended pax took control and landed. Now what? Was the inexperienced pilot left to care for the casualty while the experienced yet suspended pax flew in the rescue team, after all, if the suspended pax had stayed with the casualty it wouldn't be certain that the inexperienced pilot would be able to get them back in. Spot the difference; Helicopter pilot admits aviation breaches | Stuff.co.nz |
chopjock
Sid Why couldn't the SAR aircraft refuel at Mr A's facility? About Us |
From the AIP:
Fuel: Air BP Avgas 100, Swipecard Mobil Jet A1 available on request to Kaikoura Helicopters, Tel (03) 319 6609. (Not located on Kaikoura aerodrome) Morally this pilot should not be prosecuted, of course. I think that slapping him right and left (a verbal warning!) would be sufficient. |
One problem with this case is that the urgency and severity of the injury (ie the amount of jeopardy the casualty was in) has only been reported by the injured party himself to support the actions of the pilot.
Quite understandable that the casualty should be enormously grateful for having a doctor delivered to him when he is in pain and shock but he didn't die in the 6 hours it took to stretcher him off and broken femurs (unless accompanied by femoral bleeding) aren't usually fatal. So the pilot took a big risk with his life, the co-pilots life, the medical teams lives and that of the casualty, in a single engine piston aircraft in very challenging terrain and weather conditions. Was it a skillful piece of flying? Yes. Did it need to be carried out? Perhaps not - if the casualty was carried out, a team could walk in so it may just have saved some time and discomfort for the casualty. Had anything else gone wrong it could have been a multiple-fatality accident with a much bigger witch hunt then there now is. Experienced SAR operators know when to say NO - I don't blame the pilot for trying to help but I don't think he did much of a risk/reward assessment before acting. |
crab
So the pilot took a big risk with his life, the co-pilots life, the medical teams lives and that of the casualty, in a single engine piston aircraft in very challenging terrain and weather conditions. |
IIRC 22 Sqn. used to operate piston engine Whirlwinds for years without too much trouble even though the old Leonides was prone to throwing pots.
As with others I feel that this is some jobsworth making a name for himself in todays PC/HS world. A few years ago this would have got the plaudits it deserved for making the best of a difficult situation. Does the modern SAR crew know how long the survivor has the potential to live before he/she is picked up? |
Does the modern SAR crew know how long the survivor has the potential to live before he/she is picked up? The Whirly was used because we didn't have a choice - once the Wessex was available, the Whirlwind soon went out of service. Perhaps not such a big a risk as you may think though since the biggest risk factor in accidents is the pilot, not the number of engines! |
Meanwhile, back in the UK........
Simon Burgess drowned after firemen refused to wade in 3ft deep lake due to health and safety rules | Daily Mail Online |
Another meanwhile,
Barnet police swim to save car plunge woman - BBC News Hero police officer saves drowning man | News | London Evening Standard Police officer saves woman who had fallen into the River Trent | Central - ITV News Perhaps at a more sober time, you may like to remember these police officers; Blackpool police officers' drowning tragedy recalled - BBC News On a winter morning 30 years ago, one man's efforts to rescue his pet from the sea set off a chain of events which cost his own life and those of three police officers. |
Back on thread, does anyone have any actual details that are not taken from the media?
|
The Whirly was used because we didn't have a choice - once the Wessex was available, the Whirlwind soon went out of service. |
Silsoe .....if you were hanging off a rock I wouldn't come and save you in case you did a ramp check on me afterwards !!! You really really are a sad old jobsworth ..... His suspended medical did not effect his skill , or otherwise as a pilot . In an emergency I would like someone with no medical and licence out of date rather than being left !! Don't forget in this country ,not having a type rating for the heli you are flying would ( in your book ) make you unsafe .
Well I haven't got any type ratings and fly about 7 different types quite happily !! Give the man a medal :ok: |
Thanks for that Nigel, going back to page 1 you'll see that I wrote;
"Of course the prosecution may be a bit harsh given the outcome, after all someone's life has been saved." but you just couldn't resist it could you :rolleyes: Nigelh Silsoe .....if you were hanging off a rock I wouldn't come and save you Where did I say that anything was unsafe or unskillful? I have said nothing of the sort. Please don't make things up to support your twisted personal agenda. |
Anyone know what three charges he is facing?
Stuff.co reported Monday that police seized Dave Armstrong's logbooks after the flight in April of 2014 and now he's facing three charges relating to the incident |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 11:53. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.