Light plane crash at Ball Bay, north of Mackay Qld 24/12/2021

[440032]

As a couple others have correctly stated, SAAA is not a self administering sport aviation org. We don’t do aircraft registration, pilot training and licensing. CASA administers VH activity. The pilot of this aircraft was not even an SAAA member. It has nothing nil and nought to do with us.

Cowboys give all us recreational aviators a bad name. So many holes in this Swiss cheese lined up perfectly.

[FlyingVizsla]

66yo man charged with manslaughter over plane crash on Ball Bay beach

66yo man charged with manslaughter over plane crash on Ball Bay beach - ABC News

A 66-year-old man has been charged more than a year after his light plane crashed on a North Queensland beach and killed his 83-year-old passenger. 

The crash occurred on Christmas Eve 2021, shortly after the plane took off for a private leisure flight around nearby islands from the Ball Bay airstrip. 

The two-seater plane made an emergency landing and crashed on Ball Bay beach. 

Ball Bay is a tiny coastal town located 35 kilometres north of Mackay. 

The passenger, from Kuttabul, died at the scene, while the pilot, a man from Halliday was discharged from hospital later that day. 

The pilot is due to face court today in Mackay charged with one count of manslaughter, as well as flying an aircraft without a licence, and failing to carry out maintenance and satisfy safety requirements. 

Yesterday, Mackay Detectives and the Civil Aviation Authority executed a search warrant at a Halliday Bay residence and finalised their 14-month investigation. 

More to come. 

[old man emu]

Let's keep an eye on this one. However, I don't see much more of it appearing in the Court List for a few months, and any Trial won't be unit at least this time next year.

 

Just to answer the question, "Why manslaughter? " The elements of manslaughter in Queensland are: (1) the deceased is dead; (2) the defendant caused the deceased's death; (3) the defendant did so unlawfully, ie any defences are excluded beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

The unlawful acts would relate to licensing and maintenance, and since those matters are of the "strict liability" type, a finding of guilt can be the only outcome.

 

[facthunter]

Civil Aviation  (Safety) Authority executed a search warrant?   OME you wouldn't achieve a murder charge. Intent maybe needed and he was also subject to the same risks.   The licencing and maintenance are separate issues  that would have been there regardless of any event .  Nev

Edited March 1, 2023 by facthunter

[old man emu]

A Search Warrant can be issued to a CASA investigator by virtue of the Civil Aviation Act 1988, Part IIIA Division 2 Paragraph 32 (AF)

[facthunter]

How Nice.  and it's a Law of strict liability. Why does anyone fly Here?  Nev

[old man emu]

1 hour ago, facthunter said:

How Nice.  and it's a Law of strict liability. Why does anyone fly Here?  Nev

It's to express the bushranger spirit by flaunting the Law!

[facthunter]

It's got to be something DUMB or you are a Sado-masochist. Nev

[onetrack]

I can't see what the problem is here. This pilot apparently flew unlicenced, apparently flew with without adequate maintenance as required by regulations, and apparently displayed no duty of care towards his passenger, who he subsequently killed as the result of the pilots failure to follow even basic legal requirements. He's now looking at time in the slammer, and I trust he's never allowed within arms reach of an aircraft, ever again.

 

This type of lawless person is the exact reason why the majority of law-abiding, careful and conscientious people get stifling, over-reaching laws and regulations.

At the end of the day, he's got the death of his mate on his conscience - but I fear that a lack of a conscience is quite likely a trait of this type of personality, too.

[RFguy]

The manslaughter wont get up. it wasnt charter, pax tasks own risk in light airplane.  

The CASA  admin charges will get up and they will throw the book at him.. aggrevated. he'll have to plead guity to all of them , since there is no contest. 

 

 

Edited March 1, 2023 by RFguy

[onetrack]

Quote

The manslaughter wont get up. it wasnt charter, pax tasks own risk in light airplane.

I wouldn't be so sure on that. The Police must consider that they have an adequate case, to proceed with a manslaughter charge. A passenger does accept a higher risk of crashing in an experimental aircraft - but it's not unreasonable to expect that that passenger is flying with the knowledge that the aircraft has been properly maintained, and the pilot is licenced, and has been tested to qualify for that licence.

 

A passenger needs to be fully informed as to the risks involved, and I believe that is not the case here. The trial result will certainly be interesting.

[FlyBoy1960]

let's say in the UBER turns up to take you somewhere. You don't get in and ask to see their licensse or their maintenance records for the vehicle.

 

There are risks you must take in everyday life, your bus driver today could have chest pain but he won't tell you this when you get on the bus, he thinks it is heartburn.

 

At some point you have to take responsibilitty  for living.

[RFguy]

I dont agree that the UBER example is relevant to this. The airplane SHOULD have had EXPERIMENTAL plastered everywhere,. 

Maybe the manslaughter charge  is just pressure to get a plead of  guity on everything else.

[Student Pilot]

What if the passenger was aware of all the issues and flew knowingly?

[old man emu]

Who said the airplane was EXPERIMENTAL? I can clearly see "VH-" on the fuselage. Unless someone knows the airplane from Serpentine in WA.

 

3 hours ago, RFguy said:

The manslaughter wont get up. it wasnt charter, pax tasks own risk in light airplane.  

Sorry, you are wrong. It doesn't matter if it was charter, RPT or private. The onus is on the operator of a vehicle (in this case and airplane) to ensure it is safe for use. If the pilot was the owner, then it is his responsibility to ensure the vehicle is maintained to the expected levels of safety. If CASA has gone him for being unlicensed, to me that means he never was issued with a licence. I was issued with a licence way back when, and it is still live, but it would be foolish of me even to undertake a solo flight right now as I'm way, way out of currency. In CASA's eyes, being unlicensed means never having passed a theory and practical examinations. 

 

There's been lots of discussion about pilots failing to make broadcasts in the vicinity of aerodromes. Ever thought it might be because the pilots are not licensed and are trying to avoid detection?

[RFguy]

The ATSB report has a fair chunk of info in it. 

[onetrack]

The ATSB declined to continue their investigation into the crash, as no safety benefits could be derived from a continued investigation.

 

https://www.atsb.gov.au/media/news-items/2022/discontinuation

[facthunter]

IF  you BUY a seat on an Airline you expect a certain standard and rightly so.  There are some instructors I would NOT fly with because I don't trust their judgement attitude or demonstrated skills.  There are planes I would not fly  either because of design, built quality or general appearance etc. If you have a mate who flys you make a decision on your own bat.. You pick your bed and lie in it.  Private operations have a wide variability of safety Nev.

[old man emu]

I see no difference in my Duty of Care to a passenger, or other people in the vicinity, if I was driving a ground vehicle, navigating a boat or flying an aircraft. That is what is the crux of any offence resulting an any degree of harm to another person, ranging from a simple slap on the face to murder. It is simply that the Law has set a scale based on the degree of harm and the circumstances leading to the infliction of that harm.

 

10 hours ago, facthunter said:

You pick your bed and lie in it.

That is the basis of 'contributory negligence'. Contributory negligence occurs when the injured person themselves is found to have contributed to the cause of their loss or injury. If an applicant has failed to take reasonable care for their own safety or loss then they will be found contributorily negligent. But that only applies in Civil litigation. In Criminal litigation, the onus is always on the actions or inactions of the accused.

[turboplanner]

19 hours ago, onetrack said:

I can't see what the problem is here. This pilot apparently flew unlicenced, apparently flew with without adequate maintenance as required by regulations, and apparently displayed no duty of care towards his passenger, who he subsequently killed as the result of the pilots failure to follow even basic legal requirements. He's now looking at time in the slammer, and I trust he's never allowed within arms reach of an aircraft, ever again.

 

This type of lawless person is the exact reason why the majority of law-abiding, careful and conscientious people get stifling, over-reaching laws and regulations.

At the end of the day, he's got the death of his mate on his conscience - but I fear that a lack of a conscience is quite likely a trait of this type of personality, too.

I agree, OME pointed out the reasons; it doesn't have much to do with the endless war between some dissidents and CASA.

[turboplanner]

18 hours ago, RFguy said:

The manslaughter wont get up. it wasnt charter, pax tasks own risk in light airplane.  

The CASA  admin charges will get up and they will throw the book at him.. aggrevated. he'll have to plead guity to all of them , since there is no contest. 

 

 

You can't hand off a Tort, so what the passenger might do or think doesn't come into it. And when the passenger or his/her estate decides to sue, a succesful manslaughter conviction can be a strong indicator to help the passenger show that the pilot breached his or her duty of care. Pilot in Command has consequences.

[MattP]

I don't see what the debate is here if I'm being honest. 

If the pilot wasn't licensed, I can think of three scenarios:
1. Never got a license but somehow "learned"to fly, be it having lessons but never doing a test or some other way
2. Once had a valid PPL but lapsed medical / AFR
3. Did not have a valid Aus PPL to demonstrate competence to part 61 MOS for the aircraft type he was flying (e.g. held an RPC / foreign license).

In all of these cases, the pilot certainly knew they weren't licensed correctly and made a choice to conduct the flight. Arguably 2 and 3 are "worse" in that the pilot would have known the regs to some extent and chosen to violate them, in point 1 they could possibly argue they didn't know the rules, but that won't wash.

 

In all these cases the statement that holds true is that the pilot was not in a position to legally operate the aircraft for that flight.

 

As for the aircraft, even if its VH - Experimental there is a minimum set of obligations on the owner / maintainer (assuming again the best case scenario that the "pilot" who owned the aircraft could maintain it).

 

Finally, is it reasonable to expect that as a passenger, even on reading the experimental placard and warning, that before flying:

a) your pilot is licensed and able to undertake the flight

b) the aircraft is maintained to the standard required for its operation (even if thats experimental)

 

I'd argue yes to both those, and that this guy made a conscious choice to fly un-licensed and in an un-maintained aircraft. Its a shame that he also decided to take a mate along. Doing this by yourself is bad enough, but roping someone else in to it is even worse.

 

Strict liability offences and our interesting wording of the rules don't remove the stink from this and if I'm applying the pub test, most reasonable people would agree this guy did the wrong thing and deserves to be held accountable for it. 

Edited March 1, 2023 by MattP

[old man emu]

We, as people knowing more than the average persons about the legal side of flying, will come to the conclusion that the elements of the offence have been proved. However, a jury will be made up of people most likely not having that knowledge. Juries bring a lot of "There but for the Grace of God go I" to this sort of trial. They simply don't look at the elements of the offence and come to a decision that the allegation has been proved if all the elements have been proved. 

 

Guidelines for Judges say in relation to Manslaughter by criminal negligence "In order to establish manslaughter by criminal negligence, it is sufficient if the prosecution shows that the act which caused the death was done by the accused consciously and voluntarily, without any intention of causing death or grievous bodily harm but in circumstances which involved such a great falling short of the standard of care which a reasonable man would have exercised and which involved such a high risk that death or grievous bodily harm would follow that the doing of the act merited criminal punishment." Before the offence can be committed the accused must owe a legal duty of care to the deceased, such a duty having been recognised by the common law. It is essential that the act or omission that amounts to a breach of duty is the act or omission that causes death. 

 

Amongst other elements, the Crown must prove beyond reasonable doubt:

The accused’s act/omission amounted to criminal negligence and merited criminal punishment for the offence of manslaughter because:

(a) it fell so far short of the standard of care which a reasonable person would have exercised in the circumstances; and

(b) involved such a high risk that death or really serious bodily harm would follow as a result of the act/omission.

 

You've got to watch that "and". "Such a high risk" is another hurdle.

 

Looking at this, I wonder if the Crown will get up.

 

 

 

[facthunter]

So Turbs, anyone who doesn't like the ways CASA works is a dissident??. That would include a large% of their own staff and most "Thinking" people who operate under their rules.  Every Lawyer will tell you absolute Liability is a crock and denies the process of natural justice.   Nev

[turboplanner]

2 hours ago, facthunter said:

So Turbs, anyone who doesn't like the ways CASA works is a dissident??. That would include a large% of their own staff and most "Thinking" people who operate under their rules.  Every Lawyer will tell you absolute Liability is a crock and denies the process of natural justice.   Nev

The case is about a passenger being killed, not some technical infraction of a rule.  It’s as per OME’s explanation and possibly precedes a civil suit along the same lines.