Jabiru Fire at Bundaberg

[Guest sceadu52jr]

.....Jabiru caught fire in the air and was quickly landed by the Instructor at Bundaberg yesterday. The Instructor and aircraft owner got out just as the fire caught hold and burnt to the ground.

 

The local TV News made the mention that the Local fire service were delayed getting to the fire due to the airport security!

 

Wayne

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

airport gates are required to have a weak link on the chain so they can be 'crashed'. has this changed?

 

 

[tvaner]

Yep. The weak link is higher up the chain.

 

 

[Guest watto]

I spoke to Barry this morning when I flew down to Jabiru and he said they were on base leg when smoke appeared from under the dash and by the time they turned final it was getting pretty hot and flames had appeared and by touch down flames had come through the floor under his feet!!!

 

They ran it onto the grass and bailed out and it erupted into flames, it was a Jabiru Sp with a 6 cylinder engine and it had 80litres of fuel behind the seat and even though the AC was burnt to a sinder and had fallen in half across the middle the fuel tank remained in tact! only the burnt out engine and the fuel tank and ashes are practically all that remained.

 

I saw the engine this morning and even several parts are melted due to the intense heat.

 

But Barry is ok and his experience as a pilot has saved his life and that of his passenger and the owner of the ac which had just been purchased second hand, good onya mate.

 

 

[Guest watto]

Yes Donkey, Barry said it burnt out very quickly and that it took 15 minutes for emergency services (fire trucks) to arrive and by that time there was nothing left to salvage.

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

any clue as to how the fire started? engine still running on landing?

 

 

[Guest watto]

Barry said he smelt a hot electrical related burning smell when the smoke started and there seemed to be a lot of heat around where the battery was located, the AC was six or seven years old and apparently had four or five owners so I guess it is just like a used car, you would never know really who has worked on it and what wiring mods and so forth or even if it was as simple as wiring chafing through and shorting out on somtheing, I have a new Kawasaki motorcycle and it has had wiring rub through twice and the first time less than 5000 km and again at 28000 km so anything is possible.

 

I am amazed though at the integrity of the fuel tank! to remain in tack even after that fire was amazing, gives you a little faith that the methods of manufacture are good and that the research into these types of tanks has been very credible.

 

 

[eastmeg2]

The local TV News made the mention that the Local fire service were delayed getting to the fire due to the airport security!Wayne

What happened to the Emergency Powers that the Emergency Services possess? My understanding if that they're legally indemnified against assault and property damage they cause while responding reasonably to an emergency . . . and they're usually equipped to break or cut their way in.

 

Though they may have already determined there wasn't any life or property hanging in the balance (occupants already clear of fire and Jab already well alight) to justify that approach.

 

 

[ahlocks]

What happened to the Emergency Powers that the Emergency Services possess? My understanding if that they're legally indemnified against assault and property damage they cause while responding reasonably to an emergency . . . and they're usually equipped to break or cut their way in.

There never has been an indemnity for assault. If anything, the penalty for assault is harsher for an ES worker.

 

Damage caused when investigating or extinguishing a reported fire and is deemed to be damage caused by fire in NSW, however there still has to be a justifiable reason to cause such damage. i.e. savable lives, savable property.

 

 

[eastmeg2]

I have to admit I was too vague in my description. What we've been taught as fire wardens in the office environment is that Emergency Services, namely Fire Brigade and Police can legally use force to remove persons from a hazardous situation, whereas us regular Joe's could face assault charges for attempting the same.

 

 

[ahlocks]

I was more concerned that an impression could be gained that a thug in a uniform could smack anyone or anything around with impunity.:ah_oh:

 

In NSW, the respective emergency service's acts are quite powerful pieces of legislation. Fortunately, there are checks and balances to ensure that both the officers and the public are protected. The key part is reasonable force. Joe Public is protected in the same manner under some circumstances.

 

I don't know the QLD act(s) or what actually happened at Bundy, so can't really comment there.

 

Cheers!

 

 

[Guest watto]

In Qld and I believe all of Australia, emergencies services and even persons administering first aid are covered under a piece of legislation called the good samaritan act which does not prohibit them from prosecution but provides an excuse under the law for that person to commit acts such as CPR etc, however in saying that if a person is able to consent then consent must be gained or no action can be taken.

 

The same applies to Es workers they have an excuse under law to force entry where they believe persons or property could be at risk however when you have knowledge such as that no person where on board and there was no hope of saving the aircraft etc then the excuse under the legislation becomes weak (enters a grey or arguable area) and most people feel little need to apply themselves to a situation that could see an attempt at prosecution or be argued as unnessessary force!!

 

That be it your honour!!

 

Watto

 

 

[ahlocks]

Yup. 'good samaritan' clauses were introduced or added because people were becoming reluctant to assist injured parties owing to fear of liability. A 'casual volunteer' mentioned in another NSW act is another means to the same.

 

Occupants confirmed as safe and the aircraft all but stuffed... It'd be difficult to justify killing the security fence to gain access.

 

 

[Guest watto]

Exactly Ahlocks, at the end of the day everybody is safe and happy except of course the owner of the AC but not much can be done to change that except a nice insurance payout to buy another!!

 

Watto

 

 

[Guest Cloudsuck]

Wow! a legal arguement in Rec Flying.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



In Queensland you can do anyting to anyone (even assault them) in an estraordinary emergency (but you will need to justify it and it needs to be reasonable in the circumstances). The section below is from the Crim Code.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



There is no such thing as a 'good samaritan act' in Qld although it did exist in Seinfeld.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



Police powers in general come from the 'Police Powers and Responsibilities Act' and police have a range of special powers in various situations.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



If I was rocking up to a job where an aircraft was on fire and it was not known if the occupants were within, I would bust down the fence. If I knew that everyone was safe and the aircraft was not likely to ignite any other property etc, I would wait for the key and the firies. It's all about what info you have at the time.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



Criminal Code Act 1899

 

 

 

 

 



Chapter 5, Section 25

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



25 Extraordinary emergencies

 

 

 

 

 

 

Subject to the express provisions of this Code relating to acts

 

 

 

 

 



done upon compulsion or provocation or in self-defence, a

 

 

 

 

 



person is not criminally responsible for an act or omission

 

 

 

 

 



done or made under such circumstances of sudden or

 

 

 

 

 



extraordinary emergency that an ordinary person possessing

 

 

 

 

 



ordinary power of self-control could not reasonably be

 

 

 

 

 

expected to act otherwise.

 

 

 

[ahlocks]

If I was rocking up to a job where an aircraft was on fire and it was not known if the occupants were within, I would bust down the fence.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If only life was so clear cut.....i_dunno

 

 

 

Think you'll find that Section 25 isn't as simple as it appears either.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Cheers!

 

 

 

[Guest Cloudsuck]

If only life was so clear cut.....i_dunnoThink you'll find that Section 25 isn't as simple as it appears either.

Cheers![/left]

No you are right, it is never clear cut, and you are expected to make decisions in a split second so that others (courts, ethical standards, members of the public, media etc) can investigate them for months and criticise them for years after the fact.

 

 

Section 25 is a defence so the onus of proof is reversed.

 

 

[ahlocks]

Ahh, I think I've twigged to the basis of your point of view. ;)

 

There's some interesting arguement and interpretation in case law re section 25, but I still don't think it could be relied on as a get out of jail free card.

 

If I've sussed what you do for a crust correctly, there's no way either you or I would get away with it. There would be a reasonable expectation that an emergency similar to the one described in this thread would not be all that extraordinary.

 

Cheers!

 

 

[turboplanner]

Well, learned fire watchers, you touch opn some interesting ground.

 

The most classic case I can remember is where a fire marshal who saved a driver's life was sued for incorrectly using a fire extinguisher.

 

The race car had an illegal lightweight diff, which became hot and seized, throwing the car into the safety fence, splitting the sub standard fuel tank which dropped its contents on to the red hot diff resulting in a ball of flame several metres high.

 

We believed at the time that a race suit would keep you alive for about 25 seconds, and I recall watching the news video, counting to about 35 and figuring he was dead.

 

The reason he was sitting there was that his harness release was stuck, and the reason it was stuck was that it was a non standard cheap unit, well known for sticking, not the correct harness.

 

The fire marshal had grabbed a hand held extinguisher immediately the fireball occurred, run to the car, and realising he had no chance of extinguishing the fire, ran up to the flames and aimed around the drivers head area to allow him to keep breathing, knowing the foam truck would be there to knock the fire down within seconds.

 

You can imagine the pre-trial exchange:

 

Plaintiff Lawyer: "Mr Fireman, what is the correct procedure for using a fire extinguisher?"

 

Fireman: "You aim it at the seat of the flames"

 

Plaintiff Lawyer: "Did you aim the extinguisher at the seat of the flames?"

 

Fireman: "No, but....."

 

Plaintiff Lawyer (quickly): "Thank you"

 

And the very slightly injured plaintiff became a rich man.

 

In the case you've been describing, there could be mitigating circumstances, such as the Pilot's $30,000 Pilot Watch still inside, or, something which has occurred in many accidents, the occupants, in shock assuring everyone they are OK, but a baby either still in shock, or in the grass nearby.

 

Don't envy your decision making, because we all have hindsight to criticise you.

 

 

[Guest brentc]

The regs for the safety aircraft itself in general are a different story completely. Did you know that as the pilot you have the powers of a constable to remove / detain any legitimate threats to the safety of the aircraft?

 

On a commercial flight pretty much anyone can use any means necessary to remove or eliminate a threat to the safety of the aircraft!

 

 

[Guest watto]

I believe that sec 25 of the criminal code is not the correct sec to be using for this arguement and as for no good samaritan act I will have to tell the guy that trains us from emergency services that it does not exist or maybe he is correct that it does and suck is misinformed!!

 

Watto

 

 

[Guest Cloudsuck]

I believe that sec 25 of the criminal code is not the correct sec to be using for this arguement and as for no good samaritan act I will have to tell the guy that trains us from emergency services that it does not exist or maybe he is correct that it does and suck is misinformed!!Watto

Sorry Watto, I do this stuff for a living. There is no good Samaritan act. But don't believe me go to www.qld.gov.au and follow the link to legislation. Click on 'G' (for Good Samaritan Act) and guess what, no such thing. You can go back to your Emergency Services guy and tell him he is wrong.

 

The argument in this case is hypothetical. Lets say you (John Citizen) roll up at a plane crash (in Queensland) and people are inured/dying or what ever. If you don't help them they will die. There is a great big fence between you and them, you can commit the offence of 'Wilful Damage' by smashing down the gate and you will have a defence under Sect 25 CCA.

 

When you get pulled over for speeding, drink driving, unlicensed driving etc, the police officer will ask you if you "have any emergent reason to be driving today". This is a standard question and is designed to negate a defence under section 25 CCA should you later come up with a story that you were about to give birth etc.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Funny you should say that Cloudsuck, I've tried every story known to man, but maybe about to give birth will do it, particularly if I ask the Officer to wait with me just in case.

 

 

[ahlocks]

Cloud sucker is correct. There is no Good Samaritan "act" as such in QLD or NSW. It is a section of the Civil Liability acts of those states.

 

I don't think we're actually arguing the Jab matter though, merely discussing legislation

 

==========

 

Argh! beat to the send button by cloudster

 

 

[turboplanner]

While it's true about the off-thread discussion, it's very informing.

 

Doesn't take anything away from the presence of mind of the guys and successful outcome of the flight which would have taken some courage to complete. Bet they don't turn on the Jab's "in-flight entertainment in 3D" again in a hurry