Lake Hume Crash

[Guest Andys@coffs]

maybe the guy was just flying along over the water enjoying himself and the boat came up from behind and started to harass him? maybe. i'll get the rope.

Good thing it wasnt an Ultralight like Ozzie flies, then the boats could have circled him rather than the other way around

 

 

[turboplanner]

Good thing it wasnt an Ultralight like Ozzie flies, then the boats could have circled him rather than the other way around

I think blow up things might even be illegal now!

 

 

[turboplanner]

VFR FG had it on Page 16. On the same page it discusses carriage of animals, non human....so 2 for the price of one. There is no legislation reference on animals and the Firearms refers CAR 143 (carriage) and CAR 144 (discharge)For those that dont know about the VFR Flight Guide it can be downloaded from here (about 23Mb in size) http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/pilots/download/vfr/vfrg-whole-high.pdf

 

Andy

Thanks Andy, the regulation has definitely changed. Carrying an animal in a container seems such a simple solution - but it took more than 50 years!

 

And I see that no longer can our Governor General cruise around potting eagles with his shotgun from an Auster.

 

The VFR Flight Guide looks promising. If guys keep this link, I suspect they'll be able to download the latest version all the time.

 

 

[kaz3g]

Hi Kaz,Out of curiosity, since these are 'Federal' Acts and Regulations, what Court has jurisdiction?

Is it the Magistrates Court, the Supreme Court or the Federal Court? and;

 

Are the prescribed penalties mandatory or a maximum that can be set by the presiding Court?

The CAA and CAR are Commonwealth Acts. Other offences such as conduct endangering life come under State Acts or Criminal Codes.

 

The States, Territories and the Commonwealth have passed cross-vesting of legislation Acts that allow, for example, the State Criminal Courts to hear Commonealth criminal matters. It depends on the seriousness of the charges as to whether they go before a Magistrate or a Judge.

 

In the hypothetical case of an unlicensed pilot flying an unregistered aircraft at extremely low altitudes in very close proximity to boats and skiers on a lake, for example, the Commonwealth DPP might file charges under the CAA, ss20AA and 20AB which are summary offences. The State police may concurrently file charges under the Criminal Code of conduct endangering which is an indictable offence.

 

All summary offences can be heard by a Magistrate. Some indictable offences can also be heard by a Magistrate (in Victoria this can happen if the maximum penalty is 10 years or less) but a Magistrate can only impose a penalty of up to 2 years gaol. Very serious indictable offences having penalties of greater tan 10 years gaol can only be heard by a Judge (County Court/District Court or Supreme Court).

 

Crimes Act 1958 - SECT 22

 

Conduct endangering life

 

22. Conduct endangering life

 

A person who, without lawful excuse, recklessly engages in conduct that places

 

or may place another person in danger of death is guilty of an indictable

 

offence. Penalty: Level 5 imprisonment (10 years maximum).

 

So, in our hypothetical case, all the charges, Commonwealth and State, could be heard concurrently by a Magistrate with the consent of the prosecution and defence and the maximum penalty that could be imposed would be a total of 2 years. If either side refuses to consent to jurisdiction, the matters will be heard upstairs and the defendent risks the higher penalties that might be imposed.

 

Penalties prescribed in legislation are maximums which would apply to the most heinous examples of the particular offence. Courts have discretion within quite narrow guidelines which allows them to set a penalty that takes into account the need for retribution (punishment) of the offender and deterrence of the offender and others from committing such a crime in the future, as well as the rehabilitaiton of the offender and any mitigating circumstances at the time the offence was committed (eg mental health, emotions, etc). Governments in recent years have begun to set mandatory sentences for some offences but these are mandatory minimums, not maximums.

 

kaz

 

 

[kaz3g]

... I drive every day but do not know all the road rules. Try to find a concise and up to date version in Victoria of the road rules it is possible but not easy. Chris

There is an old truism that ignorance is no defence... better expressed as everyone is presumed to know the law.

 

Not knowing won't save you if you are caught breaking one of those rules. Just like the CAR's, they are strict liability so your "intention" is not relevant.

 

I don't know what State you are in Chris but ...

 

http://www.legislation.vic.gov.au/Domino/Web_Notes/LDMS/LTObject_Store/LTObjSt5.nsf/DDE300B846EED9C7CA257616000A3571/ED29BBF48CD0DAF3CA2577C8001AA53F/$FILE/09-94sr004.pdf

 

Happy reading

 

kaz

 

 

[Guest pookemon]

You guys are forgetting the power of the search engine. Im pretty sure that "carriage of a dog" would be laid out in all its glory within about 5 mins max of commencing a targeted search online. The CASA website www.casa.gov.au has a specific section called "Regulations and Policy", and a subheading under that "Current Rules" It also has a search function for CASA material (which can also be achieved in google if people know how to use the advanced search tags to limit domains etc)

Yes it does. However "Current Rules" will take you to the CASR 1998 page, which will then redirect you (via another page) to the Comlaw web site, which will list the amendments made to the CASR regulation in decending order of them being made with only the last being listed as "Current". So if you look at the last document in list (i.e. the current one) it is only the portions of CASR that have changed in that amendment. If you then look at the previous one, it's the amendments made in that update, and so on, and so on.... There doesn't appear to be a full, upto date version of CASR that I could find (please give me a link if you know of one).

 

If you go looking for a regulation you have to look at CAR, CASR (which is a waste of time), CAO's, CAAP's (because some of the wording in CAR make CAAP's law) and AIP ENR. And no doubt there's others. Then for RAA there's the Ops Manual, Tech Manual and the relevant CAO's. "Current Rules" on the CASA web site, should have links to all of these documents rather than having to go to CASA, COMLAW, RAA and Airservices.

 

And while the VFR Flight Guide is a very useful publication - I've been told it's not updated - so chances are you can't always trust what it says.

 

 

[kaz3g]

How would you establish beyond reasonable doubt that in this particular incident the manner of flying was a 'reckless endangerment to the public'?

 

By looking at all the circumstances... the height, the speed, the proximity to persons and property, the legality of the manouvres, the intention of the pilot at the time, the physical condition and health of the pilot at the time (eg compounded by the consumption of alcohol or drugs), the effect on those immediately impacted by the pilot's actions (distress, shock, injury), etc.

 

We know the plane eventually crashed into the water apparently some distance from boats, but what particular manoeuvre was the 'reckless endangerment'? Were the actions stupid and irresponsible? … Definitely. … Reckless? ... probably. ... Endangerment to the public? ... Would that be difficult to establish beyond reasonable doubt?

 

I would think that a Court may reasonably find that it was at least reckless (ie without having regard to the likely consequences) if not intentionally dangerous when it takes into account all the evidence.

 

Consider this in the light that we regularly travel freeways in Australia at the approaching speeds of motor vehicles in opposite directions as much as 220 kilometres per hour and we pass each other with only a few metres of separation. We have no idea if the approaching driver is under the influence of alcohol or drugs or indeed if he is about to nod off from fatigue, or perhaps be momentarily distracted by a child or insect in the car … we are only ever seconds from a potential disaster.

 

Yes, but if we are driving legally and responsibly, our actions are within the law. There is a risk to driving per se but that "risk" is very different to the risk of doing it dangerously.

 

If that other driver is involved in an accident with us and kill us, our passengers or his passengers, he will be charged with culpable driving which is up there with manslaughter.

 

Do we charge drivers for reckless endangerment to the public because we pass at speeds of more than 200kph at a separation of a few metres? What if a driver makes a mistake not involving alcohol, drugs or fatigue, is distracted momentarily and drifts off the road almost hitting opposing traffic, would he be charged with 'reckless endangerment'?

 

Probably careless driving in that case. You are not allowed to drift off the road into the path of oncoming traffic.

 

Are drunk drivers charged with reckless endangerment (they should be).

 

They may be but there are a number of charges specific to the Road Safety Act that generally cover the field and are therefore more appropriate unless there is death or injury.

 

Is flying low ‘reckless endangerment’ or is it just an offense of flying below 500’ without permission and without a low level endorsement?

 

Flying low in close proximity to people is very different to flying low over a vacant paddock.

 

What this fellow has done is indeed perplexing; if he was uncertificated and had an unregistered aircraft, why would he antic to the level he did in such a public manner. It does not even make sense. Is it possible he was acting in a diminished mental capacity at the time? Is it possible he was on a death wish? Interesting points to consider.

 

We won't know until the matter is dealt with in Court and all the facts are brought out into the light of day.

 

Maybe Kaz could give us a hypothetical scenario of how such charges could conceivably be defended.

 

Only at great expense!

 

kaz

 

 

 

[kaz3g]

Turbo, you`ve given me a laugh again............Buggered if I ever saw anything on the carriage of dogs......

 

Frank.

 

Ps, I know you couldn`t help it! I`ll forgive you.

I paid $160 for the CASA permit to carry my dog, Mandy, in the Auster. She has to sit on an absorbent mat (?), on the rear seat, wear a harness attached to the seat belt, and have her lead tied securely as well.

 

Not cheap but less than the $2500 fine for non-complaince.

 

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_reg/car1988263/s256a.html

 

kaz

 

[kaz3g]

I see that no longer can our Governor General cruise around potting eagles with his shotgun from an Auster.CIVIL AVIATION REGULATIONS 1988 - REG 143

 

Carriage of firearms

 

(1) A person, including a flight crew member, must not carry a firearm in, or have a firearm in his or her possession in, an aircraft other than an aircraft engaged in charter operations or regular public transport operations.

 

Penalty: 10 penalty units.

 

(2) An offence against subregulation (1) is an offence of strict liability.

 

Note For strict liability , see section 6.1 of the Criminal Code .

 

(3) It is a defence to a prosecution under subregulation (1) if the person had the written permission of CASA to have the firearm in the aircraft.

 

Note A defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to the matter in subregulation (3) (see subsection 13.3 (3) of the Criminal Code ).

[poteroo]

Reference the low flying comment above, (post #244), pilots need to be aware that the holding of a low flying 'endorsement' gives them absolutely no additional rights to indulge unless they:

 

1. are covered by the exceptions in CAR 157

 

2. have the owners written and specific permission to fly low over that property

 

3. or are iaw a company AOC which enables low flying for special purposes,eg survey,photography,mustering over the area - subject to having owners permission to do so. And, this is commercial - so outside of RAAus.

 

It's difficult to see how RAAus pilots will be able to use their 'endorsements' legally for very much at all. Yes, you will be able to legally do training in an approved low level training area - but what FTF is going to be happy with solo pilots using the low level area without notice or reference to the FTF? In any case, a smart FTF will protect their low level training area by including in the owners permission 'for dual training purposes only when the PIC is a member of xxx FTF'

 

happy days,

 

 

[Guernsey]

Well Stone the Crows, Holy Mackerel, Fried Fish and Cocoa and any other expletives I am certainly going to make sure that I do not make any mistakes, deliberate or otherwise, when I am flying. If I do something wrong I will naturally incur the wrath of CASA, RaaUs, other pilots, the general public, the ATSB and lawyers which I might be able to handle, BUT I think my biggest worry would be the hundreds of posts on this Forum.

 

My first priority will be to keep away from lakes and Ferris wheels.

 

Nervous Alan.

 

 

[kaz3g]

...It's difficult to see how RAAus pilots will be able to use their 'endorsements' legally for very much at all. Yes, you will be able to legally do training in an approved low level training area - but what FTF is going to be happy with solo pilots using the low level area without notice or reference to the FTF? In any case, a smart FTF will protect their low level training area by including in the owners permission 'for dual training purposes only when the PIC is a member of xxx FTF' happy days,

I think the main use will be by those who own large properties and want to use their Sav, Foxbat etc for mustering, windmill runs and the like, or perhaps their pilot friends who would like to help them for free.

 

kaz

 

 

[Neil_S]

Well Stone the Crows, Holy Mackerel, Fried Fish and Cocoa and any other expletives I am certainly going to make sure that I do not make any mistakes, deliberate or otherwise, when I am flying. If I do something wrong I will naturally incur the wrath of CASA, RaaUs, other pilots, the general public, the ATSB and lawyers which I might be able to handle, BUT I think my biggest worry would be the hundreds of posts on this Forum.My first priority will be to keep away from lakes and Ferris wheels.

Nervous Alan.

Well, Alan, just how low do you fly that cow in your avatar? I'm sure most members of the public would not want a pat on the head - not only is it condescending, but also very messy to clean up.......

 

 

[turboplanner]

Well Stone the Crows, Holy Mackerel, Fried Fish and Cocoa and any other expletives I am certainly going to make sure that I do not make any mistakes, deliberate or otherwise, when I am flying. If I do something wrong I will naturally incur the wrath of CASA, RaaUs, other pilots, the general public, the ATSB and lawyers which I might be able to handle, BUT I think my biggest worry would be the hundreds of posts on this Forum.My first priority will be to keep away from lakes and Ferris wheels.

Nervous Alan.

Great! you're covered for two issues now, only a few hundred to go........or are you saying we should just shut up, condone the very obvious photographic evidence and pay a few hundred more each year to cover the insurance?

 

 

[campslive]

I wonder IF there will be public / government pressure to have the ATSB look at this one??Probably not.

Cheers

there is a very strong rumour or truth the PLANE IS UNREGISTERED AND PILOT NOT CURRENTLY LICENCED?

and now casa have inspected the aircraft that is sitting behind a mechanics workshop in holbrook,

 

the pilot was rather lucky the instrument panel has disappeared so they cannot check them out,

 

there is a very large cut in the boom so the motor was running well?

 

there is also alot of video footage and photos been handed in,and have appealed for more,,

 

who knows what the wraith of these guys may bear down on the pilot?

 

a good warning to us all fly safe and do not do silly things with technology today every man kid and dog has a mobile phone with a camera/video,

 

ONE LAST POINT THE PILOT STATED HIS ALT INDICATED 500 FT,,I AM JUST WONDERING HOW HE COULD MISTAKE 3FT ABOVE THE WATER TO 500 FT IS THERE REALLY THAT MUCH DIFFERENCE THAT ONE CANNOT TELL THE DIFFERENCE??????

 

I WOULD HATE TO SEE THIS GUY DOING CIRCUITS,, AND WHAT HEIGHT DOES HE DO THEM AT?

 

 

[winsor68]

Well Stone the Crows, Holy Mackerel, Fried Fish and Cocoa and any other expletives I am certainly going to make sure that I do not make any mistakes, deliberate or otherwise, when I am flying. If I do something wrong I will naturally incur the wrath of CASA, RaaUs, other pilots, the general public, the ATSB and lawyers which I might be able to handle, BUT I think my biggest worry would be the hundreds of posts on this Forum.My first priority will be to keep away from lakes and Ferris wheels.

Nervous Alan.

It's Sharia law for aviation. You could set your clock to it.

 

 

[turboplanner]

You have every right to be wild campslive, both RAA and CASA would be silly not to go over the Riverina and NE Vic with a fine tooth comb in case there are more like him.

 

Very frustrating given the history of the area.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Well Stone the Crows, Holy Mackerel, Fried Fish and Cocoa and any other expletives

You certainly dish up a tasty English-Australian breakfast there Guernsey!

 

 

[campslive]

You have every right to be wild campslive, both RAA and CASA would be silly not to go over the Riverina and NE Vic with a fine tooth comb in case there are more like him.

what worries me is one of us may actaully have an emergency and need to land asap and now may be branded the same as this tool,

also with casa linked to raa what new pressure and rule changes are going to be inforced upon us?

 

one fool makes it hard for the true avaitors of the raa who enjoy the sport stick to the rules and live and breath there sport and aircraft,,

 

it only takes one to stuff it for the rest of us,

 

he could have been smarter and removed his numbers as well ?

 

i really hope the raa and casa set a good example and punish the pilot and not the rest of us,,,,

 

if that was me i would be behind bars now some people have all the luck,

 

he will prob get banned for life from flying for life and a fine for intoxication????

 

TIME WILL TELL,

 

 

[Ben Longden]

If in fact, the aircraft wasn`t registered and the pilot certificate had expired, I fail to see why it would become an RAA issue and it shouldn`t reflect badly on the rest of us.

Frank.

I agree Frank. It should not reflect on us, but the one bad apple in the barrel can taint the reputation of all the others, no matter how competent and safe they are.

 

I fully believe the RAA should be involved with this, if it is PROVEN the AC is unregistered, or the pilot out of certificate. That means the RAA should have every right to pursue this issue through the courts.

 

But, let us not forget that we have to respect this thing called natural justice. In Austraya, a man is deemed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. He has that right, and its just one of the things my dad went through hell in WW2 to fight for.

 

Yes, Ive seen the Border Mail front pages with photos and eye witness reports of the incident, but let us do one thing; allow the RAA to complete their investigation, and disperse the kangaroo court this thread is turning into.

 

Natural Justice MUST be alowed to prevail.

 

 

[turboplanner]

campslive

"what worries me is one of us may actaully have an emergency and need to land asap and now may be branded the same as this tool,I don't think anyone would see that, an emergency is an emergency. Never hesitate to get the aircraft down safely even if it is on the Golf Club's freshly sown green.

 

I know when a helicopter low fuel light came on, and he landed in our paddock, I just went and got him a funnel and hose and enjoyed the spectacle of a 20 litre jerry can being ferried out from Moorabbin, now worth $20/litre.

 

also with casa linked to raa what new pressure and rule changes are going to be inforced upon us?

 

We were always linked to CASA. If you go back in this thread there are some good explanations of how this works. The rules are strong enough, as this guy may find out.

 

one fool makes it hard for the true avaitors of the raa who enjoy the sport stick to the rules and live and breath there sport and aircraft,,

 

it only takes one to stuff it for the rest of us,

 

I think all of us - pilots, CASA and RAA will see this as an unwelcome exception - he's certainly on his own though.

 

he could have been smarter and removed his numbers as well ?

 

He could have been smarter and paid for his licence and registration, he could have been smarter and enjoyed some of the most beautiful flying country in Australia at a legal height too.

 

i really hope the raa and casa set a good example and punish the pilot and not the rest of us,,,,

 

I think that's what will happen, particularly with the condemnation on this site and others, shows we certainly aren't condoning it.

 

if that was me i would be behind bars now some people have all the luck,

 

He won't be treated any differently than you, or for that matter a GA pilot who was unlicensed and unregistered.

 

he will prob get banned for life from flying for life and a fine for intoxication????

 

Well that's speculation, not proven.

 

 

[hendonguy]

if you want to use your light aircraft to travel to an area where you have permittion to shot and you have the correct shooters licence and a member of the correct shooter feberation , how do you transport a firearm , if the firemarm is dismantled is it still a fireman or dose it then become a piece of wood and a pipe , and what about ammo?

how can you ban someone for life when he didnt have the right to fly in the first place seems if he continued to fly after going to court hed be commiting the same offence as he had already proven he had no problem commiting in the first place ,

 

im , in the paper , he says he had been flying over that area many times , has he been flying from a airstrip with other aircraft/pilots or just from his back yard , cant beleive some body didnt grass him up ,

 

 

[turboplanner]

let us do one thing; allow the RAA to complete their investigation, and disperse the kangaroo court this thread is turning into.Natural Justice MUST be alowed to prevail.

RAA is not investigating Ben (see earlier news reports), just us kangaroos commenting. We can't investigate or convict him either, so he's safe from us.

 

He's not a member of RAA and his aircraft is not RAA registered.

 

 

[turboplanner]

if you want to use your light aircraft to travel to an area where you have permittion to shot and you have the correct shooters licence and a member of the correct shooter feberation , how do you transport a firearm , if the firemarm is dismantled is it still a fireman or dose it then become a piece of wood and a pipe , and what about ammo?how can you ban someone for life when he didnt have the right to fly in the first place seems if he continued to fly after going to court hed be commiting the same offence as he had already proven he had no problem commiting in the first place ,

im , in the paper , he says he had been flying over that area many times , has he been flying from a airstrip with other aircraft/pilots or just from his back yard , cant beleive some body didnt grass him up ,

Firearm

 

is still a firearm if it is dismantled. After ensuring you are a reasonable person to own a firearm, the next intent of the legislation is to make sure some nasty can't steal it and misuse it. That's why the bolt has to be removed and it and the ammunition has to be stored separately from the gun which also has to be securely stored.

 

Trip to the airfield (Firearm regulations)

 

So, you take your gun and ammunition out of the safe.

 

While you are in the car, the gun is under your control.

 

However, if you decide to get out for a McDonald's breakfast the ammunition and bolt, and the gun must be securely stored.

 

This was brought home to me when some friends stopped up on a remote alpine deer country track to relieve themselves, leaving their rifles on the back seat.

 

A cop rode up on a trail bike (looking for unlicensed trail bikers) saw the guns, confiscated them and charged the two with firearms offences.

 

Since then what I do is carry a steel box in the ute, and the guns go in there and are locked up before I leave home. If I'm not using them they're in the safe or the box.

 

So far not too hard to fix.

 

At the airfield

 

For flying, I would probably make the safe up from aluminium with covering material which wouldn't hurt the upholstery and built in lashing straps

 

So that gets the gun ready for loading into the aircraft, and it's factored into the W&B calculations which you all do.......do you?

 

If you are in a public area, and not using the gun, the bolt must be removed, or a shotgun broken while you are carrying it.

 

Flying Regulation

 

If you go back to Page 12, Post #237 on this thread, AndyS kindly gave us a link to the Visual Flight Guide which tells us:

 

Page 15 CAR 143 Carriage of firearms:

 

"A person, including a flight crew member, shall not, except with the permission of CASA, carry a firearm in, or have a firearm in his or her possession in, an aircraft other than an aircraft engaged in charter operations or regular public transport operations."

 

CAR 144 says that you can also discharge a firearm from an aircraft provided you have permission of CASA.

 

So if you want to do some culling or moving ducks off ricefields etc. it's just a matter of making a portable safe and getting written permission from CASA to carry the firearm, and if necessary shoot.

 

Not too complicated or hard to set up.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

RAA dodges another bullet.