Update on our recent prosecutions
Health and Safety prosecution over fatal hang gliding accident
On 16 June 2018, a student pilot died during a hang gliding training exercise at a beach in north Auckland. Following an investigation into the circumstances surrounding the accident, the CAA brought a prosecution under the Health and Safety at Work Act 2015 (HSWA) against both the company (a Person Conducting a Business or Undertaking, or PCBU) and against the instructor as the director, an officer of the PCBU.
The findings serve as an important safety message for operators to take care in avoiding accidents in similar circumstances, and as a reminder of obligations under health and safety legislation.
Most hang-gliding activity in New Zealand is recreational, with participants operating under CAA Rules Part 91: General Operating and Flight Rules, Part 106: Hang Gliding – Operating Rules and Part 149: Aviation Recreation Organisations – Certification. It’s not unusual for rated hang-gliding instructors to provide guidance and assistance to their fellow pilots on a voluntary basis. However, in this instance, as the student made payment to the instructor’s organisation for its instructional services, the PCBU and the officer/ instructor were obliged to meet the duty of care and due diligence requirements of HSWA.
On the day of the accident, shortly after being towed airborne, the student experienced a lockout. This is a condition that occurs when a glider being towed drifts sideways from the direction of the towline so far that the pilot’s control inputs can no longer overpower the turning forces caused by the towline. This causes a rapid increase in tow tension and the lockout will quickly worsen unless the tow tension is reduced quickly.
On noticing the student was turned away from the towline direction, the instructor activated the quick (tow rope) release mechanism from the interior of their vehicle. However, the vehicle tow line release system failed to operate. The hang glider went into a steep descent and crashed into the ground. The student pilot died from the injuries sustained.
The charges relate to the PCBU and officer not taking the identified reasonably practicable steps that exposed the student to a risk of death or serious injury:
- Not having a safe system of work to carry out the hang-gliding ground tow instruction safely.
- Not ensuring that effective emergency procedures specific to the operations were in place.
- Not using safe tow equipment that ensured the safety of the student during flight.
- Not providing adequate training and instruction to student pilots on the phenomenon of lockout, how to recognise and recover from lockout.
Sentencing occurred on 15 June and the Court awarded the victim’s family $115,000 for emotional harm reparation and $191,659 for consequential harm reparations.
Sentencing over fatal helicopter accident
In June 2018 a helicopter crashed during a low flying operation to inspect crops, resulting in one fatality. The company was charged with operating an aircraft in a careless manger. The charges relate to having non-essential passengers onboard during a high-risk activity, which is prohibited in the Civil Aviation Rules to minimise the consequences of a potential accident.
Sentencing for this accident occurred in early June 2020 and a fine of $6000 was imposed. Although the fine in this instance was small, the sentence highlights the importance for operators of adhering to the rules relating to non-essential passengers.
Recent sentencing over operating an aircraft without a current PPL
An individual was charged with twelve counts of operating an aircraft without holding a current PPL. The offending occurred over a seven-month period and was aggravated by the fact that he was previously investigated by the CAA for identical offending in 2016, which he had received a warning over.
In this case, Judge Edwards agreed that the aggravating factors were the deliberateness of the offending (following the pervious warning), the scale and duration of the offending, and the risk presented to the individual’s passengers. In sentencing, the Judge considered the fact that the individual had been flying without a licence for a long period of time and had been previously warned but acknowledged that he had entered an early guilty plea. Ultimately the individual was ordered to pay $7,000.
The message from this case is clear – if you’re not permitted to fly, don’t fly!
|