Jump to content

Ultralight puts down in Banks Strait, Tasmania


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 222
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • 3 months later...

More on this story today

 

Pilot who ditched ultra light plane in Bass Strait denies flying recklessly

 

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-04-12/pilot-who-ditched-in-bass-strait-denies-flying-recklessly/7319480

 

The pilot of an ultra-light plane that ditched in Bass Strait in 2013 has denied flying recklessly and endangering his passenger.

 

Shayd Hector of Tingira Heights in New South Wales pleaded not guilty in the magistrates court in Launceston to the reckless operation of an aircraft, flying without a licence and piloting an aircraft after having consumed alcohol within eight hours before departure.

 

The offences are alleged to have taken place near Bridport on October 28, 2013, endangering the life of Hector's passenger, Joel Nelson.

 

The pair were rescued from the ocean near Waterhouse Island off the coast of north-east Tasmania that afternoon after their ultra-light plane crashed into the sea.

 

They told the media at the time that engine trouble forced them to ditch the plane and they survived in the ocean for two hours by clinging to an inflatable mattress.

 

Hector was not in court and entered the pleas through his lawyer.

 

He was ordered to return to court on the June 17.

 

(Note the Jabiru photo next to the engine failure story ....)

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Love the pic in the story - they have definitely upgraded that Thruster T500 somewhat 008_roflmao.gif.692a1fa1bc264885482c2a384583e343.gif

 

And doesn't Eugene look small holding up that wing?

 

 

  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 11 months later...
Latest court appearance. Ridiculous how this can drag on for so long.Ultralight crash survivor cries poor after four-year legal 'saga'

It dragged on so long because he didn't turn up to court and warrants were issued but as it was minor and he remained interstate, it just continued on, and on (he wasn't extradited). I guess he hoped Tassie would just give up trying. Unfortunately for him, the event was "newsworthy" and continued to be reported every time he didn't front court. Now he finally fronts court with his new lawyer & says he's not prepared ..... So now he has another date to keep ..... May 2017.

 

 

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

He didn't front up in Jan 2017. The offence happened in 2013. He has pleaded guilty to the one remaining charge of reckless operation of an aircraft. Not the most complex case. The magistrate should just have sentenced him. He had his opportunity to state his case but again it is adjourned to get legal aid and advice. We give these people too much leeway.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

His various briefs have managed to get several of the charges, including those related to alcohol consumption withdrawn. The hamburger has shrunk to a weeny without sauce.

 

It will be interesting to see the magistrates' sentence when finally handed down.

 

Kaz

 

 

  • Agree 4
  • Informative 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
His various briefs have managed to get several of the charges, including those related to alcohol consumption withdrawn. The hamburger has shrunk to a weeny without sauce.It will be interesting to see the magistrates' sentence when finally handed down.

 

Kaz

I think he'll probably get slapped on the wrist with a wet lettuce leaf. You have to ask yourself if it was worth it, and also why they dropped the unlicenced charge.

 

 

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Anything's possible isn't it. You don't fly that type of aircraft with a licence either. Nev

Hi Nev, we all fly raa registered aircraft without a licence . The polite did have an raa certificate. My understanding is that as a raa certificate holder you breach any aviation rule or fly an aircraft that is not airworthy then you lose your privledge to fly under the exception that allows the raa certificate. So the fact that he drank even one mouthful and flys this renders his certificate invalid. I understand any fault in your aircraft can have the same result. maybe a fuel gauge doesn't read correctly or door latch is lose or maybe a bald tyre etc .This is how he was charged with flying without a licence. If the drinking charge is dropped because it can't be proven then the flying without a licence will be dropped as well because one is the result of the other.

 

 

  • Agree 1
  • Helpful 1
  • Informative 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...

from the ABC website: Ultralight crash pilot avoids jail over 2013 Bass Strait ordeal

 

--------------------------------

 

Ultralight crash pilot Shayd Hector avoids jail over 2013 Bass Strait ordeal

 

By Sallese Gibson

 

Updated Tue at 3:59pm

 

PHOTO: The Thruster ultralight that ditched into Bass Strait (Supplied)

 

RELATED STORY: Rescued men 'lucky to survive' crash off Tasmania's north-east

 

MAP: TASuntil they were winched to safety hours later, telling media they had feared shark attacks due to the fact they were bleeding from cuts and abrasions sustained in the crash.

 

The court yesterday heard, at the time of the crash, Hector held a pilot's certificate - and not a pilot's licence - which only permitted him to fly less than 25 nautical miles from his departure point.

 

At today's sentencing, Magistrate Sharon Cure described Hector's approach as "cavalier".

 

"Taking the risk was unjustified," she said.

 

"An extremely high level of responsibility is attached to the right to fly.

 

"It's important a clear message is sent that reckless conduct leads to punishment."

 

Magistrate Cure took into account Hector's guilty plea, his prospect for rehabilitation, the financial burden of the incident, the subsequent court action and his young family in sentencing him to six months' imprisonment, wholly suspended.

 

"[You] only just avoided an actual term of imprisonment," she said.

 

VIDEO: Two rescued after ultralight ditches into Bass Strait (7pm TV News TAS)

 

Novice pilot disregarded expert advice, court told

 

Prosecutors said Hector lied to two aviation experts in Tasmania, who questioned his qualifications for the journey.

 

PHOTO: Shayd Hector said he is still mates with Joel Nelson. (ABC News: Sallese Gibson)

 

The court heard the experts also advised Hector to fly near Tasmania's northern islands, so that if he encountered problems, he would not land in the sea, and that he did not submit a flight path "via the islands" as recommended.

 

The court was also told Hector had to jump start the aeroplane in Bridport and was advised to delay the flight to give the battery time to recharge. He ignored the suggestion and departed soon after.

 

The air speed indicator on the plane was also not working at the time of take-off.

 

Magistrate Cure told the court Hector's dishonesty and recklessness were aggravating factors in the incident.

 

"It's obvious to me that this offence shows a level of dishonesty about what he was doing," she said.

 

"He knew that he shouldn't take the risk but did it anyway.

 

"He didn't tell the truth about his training, and did it nonetheless."

 

PHOTO: Shayd Hector and Joel Nelson clung to air mattresses after ditching their ultralight plane in Bass Strait. (ABC)

 

Pilot, passenger still mates, court told

 

The court heard Hector was extremely distressed when he made the mayday call, and was heard saying he "didn't want to die".

 

Magistrate Cure described the call as "chilling".

 

"He was distressed and didn't want to die but that clearly could have happened," she said.

 

"I doubt they could have lasted much longer."

 

Hector's lawyer Evan Hughes told the court Hector was "extremely grateful" to his rescuers.

 

The court heard the incident and subsequent court case had "drained [him] financially", with debts estimated at more than $30,000.

 

Mr Hughes said Hector and Mr Nelson remained good friends and neither suffered long-term injuries.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

In my opinion,overall, Hector, certainly wasn`t hit with a feather! by the Magistrate? Possibly! but would further punishment make the situation any better?

 

Unfortunately! a lot of lessons in life are learnt the hard way, by experience! ......Hands up all those who have never done anything stupid!!!

 

Frank.

 

 

  • Like 2
  • Agree 8
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest pookemon
In my opinion,overall, Hector, certainly wasn`t hit with a feather! by the Magistrate? Possibly! but would further punishment make the situation any better?Unfortunately! a lot of lessons in life are learnt the hard way, by experience! ......Hands up all those who have never done anything stupid!!!

 

Frank.

There's "Stupid" and there's "Illegal". What you're basically saying is "It's OK to break the law because you'll learn from it". And what a lot of people on this forum will think is that another jerk is making our hobby look bad.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think what prosecutors allege at a trial should be just accepted as fact by the lay readers as it's not necessarily accepted by the magistrate or a jury (where applicable) They have been known to hold back information (evidence) that would clear or aid the accused. They are there to get the accused convicted, in our system. The magistrate CONSIDERS What is before him/her and decides an outcome. The magistrate may have NO aviation Knowledge whatever. None of us know the details. If it was alleged HE had NO pilot's licence that would be correct but he could have had a CERTIFICATE. People advising him not to fly the overwater op. Well THAT wouldn't be hard to find. I wouldn't have advised him to do it either, but people do it all the time. I wasn't there either but just point out a few angles. I haven't observed much JUSTICE in any court I've been in. Even a court official commented once, to a relative of mine . "You won't get justice in Here. Only LAW". AND the more money you have the more justice you are likely to get. Nev

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 2
  • Winner 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that Forum members at large will take a serious message from this example of stupidity. They will have seen the extreme consequences of a pilot taking a foolhardy attitude to the very serious activity of manned flight. I have cautioned on a number of occasions, against flight over terrain that will not support a survivable landing. I see this as the "take-home" message here, not that it maybe, " that another jerk is making our hobby look bad". Let's keep it positive and as FH has it,"Never stop learning."

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
There's "Stupid" and there's "Illegal". What you're basically saying is "It's OK to break the law.

Take it any way you please! Doesn`t really matter much! Not what I`m saying at all and that doesn`t really matter much either....Cheers.

 

Frank.

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

There were clearly some mechanical issues that were potentially disastrous. Hector seems to have ignored these matters: stultus stultus facit est.

 

I hope that this won't bring in further rule tightening.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I prefer to see jail terms for violent crimes and serious offences.

 

Others can be punished in other ways.

 

I agree it was foolhardy to take the flight, but don't see it as a malicious intent against something or someone.

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

................ not a good look for our sport, but

 

they lived to tell the tale ........... lets not stone them to death by social media

 

 

  • Agree 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not conversant with the regulations here, so hopefully others with better knowledge can elucidate.

 

If the ASI was non-functional, then this pilot continued a flight with a primary instrument out of commission. Is that an offence under the regs?

 

Even in a Thruster, the ASI is necessary. To fly without that working with any conceivable degree of safety, you would need to have at least very, very good knowledge of the thing - sufficient to be able to feel through the controls the incipient stalling characteristics of all control surfaces. Hell, in a Thruster, you could fly without the altimeter and maintain a respectable safety envelope by eye, but flying with no operating ASI is just Russian Roulette.

 

I do NOT join with those who suggest that this was not an example of culpable stupidity on the part of the pilot. There is a bigger picture here.

 

If we as Recreational pilots are to be considered as socially-acceptable - and that has huge ramifications in terms of holding on to access to airfields etc, within reasonable distance of populated areas - then we do NOT need to have self-evident [email protected] amongst our ranks. To allow these intellectually-compromised cowboys to continue to fly is to hand to those who would joyfully restrict our privileges to airspace, airfields etc. ammunition that would amount to suicide for the decent enjoyment of Recreational flying.

 

Every report about this flight shows an egregious level of lack of respect for safety, common-sense and respect of the regulations. To use a pop-culture phrase, this person needs to be cut from the herd for the common good. That they lived to tell the tale is good for them - but the lack of a decent penalty is NOT good for Recreational aviation.

 

 

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
but flying with no operating ASI is just Russian Roulette.

It can be done, pilots are not supposed to crash if their ASI stops working, I used to instruct from the back seat of drifters with no instruments.

One thing for sure I would never have attempted what this bloke did.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...