Sydney Airport Message Board Sydney Airport Message Board  

Go Back   Sydney Airport Message Board > Aviation Industry News and Discussion > Australia and New Zealand Industry
Register FAQ Calendar Today's Posts Search


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old 29th April 2008, 09:19 AM
Nigel C Nigel C is offline
Prolific Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: The farm
Posts: 4,022
Default Qantas pilots avoid trial

Lucky lads if they accusations are correct...

www.news.com.au

Quote:
Accused Qantas pilots won't stand trial

By Matthew Denholm
April 29, 2008 06:00am


Accused pilots won't stand trial for 'reckless flying'
Judge says delays with investigation prevented a fair trial
Pilots allegedly took off without runway lights

TWO Qantas pilots accused of recklessly endangering the lives of 70 passengers will not stand trial, partly because investigators were too slow, resulting in destruction of evidence.

A Tasmanian Supreme Court judge said yesterday he would grant a permanent stay on proceedings against the two Victorian-based pilots, Peter Maxwell Edwards and Stephen Sarunic.

They had both pleaded not guilty to the reckless operation of an aircraft endangering life, denying that they took off from Launceston airport on October 23, 2001, without reactivating the runway lights.

Justice Pierre Slicer ruled that delays in the start of the investigation prevented the retention of electronic records that would have shown whether the pilots had tried to reactivate the runway lights.

Combined with the passage of almost seven years and the legal and technical complexity of the case, he said this might prevent a "fair and just" trial.

Justice Slicer said the case involved "the public interest and safety", but that for the allegations to be fairly tested before a jury a more effective response would have been needed.

He said disciplinary action against the pilots, such as suspension or retraining, "might have provided a more effective response to the needs of public interest and safety than a prosecution some six years later".

"This is not to be taken as a criticism of the prosecuting authority but to show the need and purpose of more timely investigation and decision-making."

Justice Slicer said he would issue the stay as soon as the Director of Public Prosecutions had been given an opportunity to appeal.

On the night of October 23, 2001, Qantas sent a Boeing 737-400, piloted by the two accused, to Launceston to collect passengers stranded by an operational mishap.

With Launceston airport control tower unmanned after 10pm, the pilots activated the timed runway lighting system by a remote signal, as is standard in such cases, on the plane's approach.

After taking the passengers on board, the aircraft taxied and took off for Melbourne at 11.05pm, minutes after the timed lighting system was due to shut off.

Two Royal Flying Doctor Service pilots and a paramedic claim to have seen the aircraft taxiing for take-off despite the runway lighting no longer being on.

One of the RFDS pilots told investigators he expected the plane to "hold" for the reoperation of the lights, but instead the plane took off without lighting.

Two nearby residents -- another pilot with a different airline and a plane spotter -- reported there were no runway lights on as the plane took off. However, Mr Edwards, a pilot with 30 years experience, insisted "the runway lights were illuminated".

Both pilots claimed they reactivated the timed runway lights before take-off. The defence pointed to evidence suggesting that the vagaries of the system, combined with shortcomings at Launceston airport, may have caused the lights to switch off seconds after the plane took off.

However, in-flight and airport systems data that would have substantiated or disproved the pilots' version of events were wiped in the weeks after the incident.

An RFDS pilot reported the incident to the airport within five minutes and to CASA the next day, but Justice Slicer said that by November 7 it appeared "there had been no intervening steps to further the investigation, by which time the data on the flight data recorder of the aircraft had been erased".

Last edited by Nigel C; 29th April 2008 at 09:43 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 29th April 2008, 09:53 AM
Greg F Greg F is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Victoria
Posts: 210
Default

Wasn't this originally published 'at the time, of incident' as JetStar Pilots?
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 29th April 2008, 09:58 AM
Andrew McLaughlin's Avatar
Andrew McLaughlin Andrew McLaughlin is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 623
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg F View Post
Wasn't this originally published 'at the time, of incident' as JetStar Pilots?
No Jetstar in 2001. I think similar incident allegedly occurred recently with Jetstar.
__________________
Click Here to view my aircraft photos at JetPhotos.Net! http://www.jetphotos.net/showphotos.php?userid=30538
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 29th April 2008, 10:10 AM
Greg F Greg F is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Victoria
Posts: 210
Smile

Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew McLaughlin View Post
No Jetstar in 2001. I think similar incident allegedly occurred recently with Jetstar.
Ooops, I missed the 2001 bit
__________________
..... up up and away with TAA
Reply With Quote
Reply


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +10. The time now is 11:01 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Copyright © Sydney Airport Message Board 1997-2022
Use of this web site constitutes acceptance of the Conditions of Use and Privacy Statement