|
|
Post by flyjoe180 on Nov 4, 2013 13:42:49 GMT 12
Regarding alcohol, my own personal limit is 18 hours (my company rule is 12, and the regulation states 8)If you can't abide by the rules (such as they exist) So your personal views on alcohol rules when flying , are vastly different to your views on speed when driving , ie , follow the rules " such as they exist ". Guess which one is most likely to kill you ? Sorry in advance , not trying to be confrontational - just food for thought . I think you will find most pilots would share the same views as haughtney. It is an interesting argument though, flying is self regulating in so many ways, your lifestyle and income rely on not doing anything dumb, whereas the penalties for driving faster than the speed limit (increased risks of death and destruction aside) may not have such an adverse affect on a flying career if caught out. Pilots think very hard about consuming alcohol and the effects it has on judgement and orientation, yet we are prepared to have one or two drinks under our belts before driving a car even if it is under the legal limit. If everyone in society all applied the same self discipline to driving as pilots do to flying then the roads would be a much safer place to be. |
|
|
|
Post by Calum on Nov 5, 2013 13:18:39 GMT 12
So how, exactly, do you preflight drug/alcohol test at 6am an owner/operator who is about to ascend from a remote rural paddock? The testing people turn up with a breath tester. As Les said, here in Australia the DAMP program means that the testers can turn up and test mainteinance people/aircrew randomly. |
|
|
|
Post by haughtney1 on Nov 10, 2013 0:59:54 GMT 12
Yes Lumpy my views on alcohol are different, I am in favour of there being no amount of alcohol permitted or tolerated in a persons system prior too or during the operation of any vehicle/machinery etc etc, as I consider that impaired judgment and cognitive function go hand in hand with poor decision making...such as inappropriate speed.
Speed laws despite what many think are not designed to save lives, they are there to set an arbitrary limit..mostly with no scientific basis other than very basic statistical data for a region.
The biggest reduction in injury/fatal accidents has revolved around, better driver education, better road design, and greater safety margins i.e. median barriers on motorways and harbour bridges etc etc, not a reduction in speed limits/ increased enforcement (fines).
All things being equal, my experience of the closeness of everyone in GA in NZ makes me believe that at least one or two people knew of the substance use issues surrounding the PIC of the balloon, those individuals had a responsibility as we all do to protect the rest of us from individuals who flout the rules.
|
|
|
|
Post by kiwithrottlejockey on Jan 23, 2015 18:26:50 GMT 12
from The Dominion Post....Carterton balloon disaster photo sequence releasedMany victims' families in supportBy SIMON BRADWELL AND CALEB HARRIS | 6:11PM - Friday, 23 January 2015IMAGES of the final seconds of the Carterton balloon tragedy have been revealed.
The release of four photos follows a lengthy court battle supported by many of the victims' families, the coroner and media to make images taken of the January 2012 tragedy public.
“This is a victory for freedom of speech,” said lawyer Alastair Sherriff, who represented several of the victims' families at the coroner's.
“This is a victory for the media's right to publish, and the public's right to know.”
The first photograph in the series shows the moment the balloon, carrying 11 people, hit powerlines in a paddock near Carterton.
Subsequent photographs show fire breaking out in the balloon basket, which then breaks free in flames, before the balloon collapses and plummets to the ground, killing everyone on board.
Allan Still, whose teenage daughter Alexis died in the crash, said publication of the photos was important.
“We're very, very much of the mindset that publication could help prevent another tragedy, and we believe the coroner felt the same way,” he said.
“You can read about the accident, but when you see it in action, it brings it home.”
“I want people to be aware of the risks when they go on a balloon.”
The photographs are among 600 taken by Wairarapa photographer Geoff Walker as he followed the balloon's flight.
All of the images were suppressed by Coroner Peter Ryan in the immediate aftermath of the tragedy, because they might cause distress to the victims' families.
In May last year, as the coroner's inquest began in Wellington, TVNZ applied to the coroner to release four photographs showing the sequence of events.
The broadcaster argued there was a strong public interest in releasing the photographs — and that people should be able to make an informed decision about balloon industry safety.
The application was supported by most of the families of the victims of the tragedy — but strongly opposed by Walker, who claimed copyright over the photographs and refused to release them.
In July, the coroner granted the media application and said the photographs could be published.
“The grounds of decency and personal privacy no longer support forcing the principle of open justice to yield,” he said, adding that after two years families would have undergone “some degree of emotional healing”.
Coroner Ryan chose four photographs which were admitted as exhibits.
“The photographs do not portray anything that could be said to be indecent,” he said.
Walker then applied to the High Court for a judicial review of the decision, because he said he owned the images and they should not be released to media without his permission.
Walker said today that his fight wasn't about money, but because publication “didn't do anyone any good”.
“If I was interested in money I would have published them the same day,” he said.
“I had plenty of offers.”
“I've made no money out of the crash photos and have had no desire to.”
In October, Justice Alan MacKenzie dismissed the review.
Walker then sought to have that overturned by the Court of Appeal — but today the coroner said Walker had abandoned his action.
Walker said he was disappointed the pictures would be published, and highly critical of the coroner.
“The coroner had already made up his mind,” he said.
“They're my photos — who's he to play censor? There was no consultation.I think he's got an arrogance. The decider of public decency, I thought, was the censor [not the coroner].”
Walker did not accept publication of the photographs would prevent another tragedy.
“Rubbish. There's pictures like that already out there — there are worse photos,” he said.
“Do photos of car crashes stop car crashes?”
Walker was supported by Martyn Stacey, Ballooning Aviation Association of NZ president, who said Walker had the right to withhold the pictures.
“It's the guy's personal property,” he said.
He also doubted the pictures would prevent another tragedy.
“It illustrates what happens when a balloon hits a powerline and things go wrong,” he said.
“If a balloon hits a powerline and the pilot does what he should have done, which is the emergency release [to descend], you've got a much greater chance of survival.”
Stacey said the risk of hitting powerlines had been at the front of the minds of balloon pilots since the tragedy.
The coroner has not yet released his findings on the accident.
Much of the inquest — and investigations by the Transport Accident Investigation Commission (TAIC) — focussed on pilot Lance Hopping, who was found to have had traces of cannabis in his body.
TAIC also found Hopping had made mistakes by flying below the level of the powerlines despite not trying to land.
He also tried to out-climb the power-lines, when accepted practice was to descend.
Also killed were Howard and Diana Cox, 71 and 63, of Wellington; Desmond and Ann Dean, 70 and 65, of Masterton; cousins Valerie Bennett, 70, of Masterton, and Denise Dellabarca, 58, of Paraparaumu; Stephen Hopkirk, 50, and Belinda Harter, 49, of Lower Hutt; and Chrisjan Jordaan, 21, and Alexis Still, 19, of Wellington.• If you wish to view the photographs, click on the link below.www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/65364772/Carterton-balloon-disaster-photo-sequence-released
|
|
|
|
Post by suthg on Jan 23, 2015 19:33:07 GMT 12
On the photo with the bright light explosion, to the right by the building, you can see there are two layers of cables pole to pole. The bottom level is the normal 3 Phase 11,000vac cross country supply, transformer to transformer. Above that is the rural transfer of 33,000vac which is what they ran into. This is a feeder from the main Masterton substation on Cornwall Rd directly north of the accident and at right angles to Somerset Rd where the final resting place was for the tragic accident. They were 33,000vac lines connecting to Clareville Substation from the supply at Cornwall Rd in a straight line south which then at some stage, turned west to reach the Clareville substation for Carterton. The lines in the lower photo travelling along Somerset Rd are 3 phase 415VAc that gives 240vac per phase between two lines for household supply. There is a story of details here at Wikipedia - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Carterton_hot_air_balloon_crash |
|
|
|
Post by ErrolC on Jan 24, 2015 6:50:26 GMT 12
WTF!!!
These photographs have been released to the public, against the express wishes of the copyright holder.
Has the possible impact of photographs of future incidents not being made available to investigators not been considered!?
|
|
|
|
Post by suthg on Jan 24, 2015 8:26:41 GMT 12
Yes, the photos were specifically shared to aid the investigation, not for public use. The Judge can subpoena the photographer to provide evidence but that is within the judicial system and not for public disclosure. He should still have copyrights over the release to the public.
|
|
|
|
Post by mumbles on Jan 24, 2015 8:32:11 GMT 12
WTF!!! These photographs have been released to the public, against the express wishes of the copyright holder. Has the possible impact of photographs of future incidents not being made available to investigators not been considered!? Agreed. Copyright has been ruled not to apply in this instance but it's not a good precedent. |
|
|
|
Post by mumbles on Jan 24, 2015 8:37:41 GMT 12
from The Dominion Post....In May last year, as the coroner's inquest began in Wellington, TVNZ applied to the coroner to release four photographs showing the sequence of events. The broadcaster argued there was a strong public interest in releasing the photographs — and that people should be able to make an informed decision about balloon industry safety. Oh and exploiting ghoulishness for ratings had nothing to do with it . . . This incident has been well reported enough that "an informed decision" is readily available. The public may have a right, but I would argue there is no need to see these images. |
|
|
|
Post by The Red Baron on Jan 24, 2015 9:53:07 GMT 12
Balloon wicker baskets have been bursting into flames after hitting power lines for years,with the same tragic results.
So why no calls to replace them with fibreglass,carbon fibre or some other lightweight flame proof and insulated material baskets to stop this happening,or at least treating the basket with some sort of flame retardent treatment?.
|
|
|
|
Post by kiwithrottlejockey on Jan 24, 2015 10:10:39 GMT 12
WTF!!! These photographs have been released to the public, against the express wishes of the copyright holder. Has the possible impact of photographs of future incidents not being made available to investigators not been considered!? Yep....I guess the moral of the story for many people now will be, if they happen to be in the right place at the right time and get photographs of a tragedy as it unfolds, one could hardly criticise people if they decide to keep quiet about and withhold the existence of their photographs from investigators. I guess also that TVNZ can hardly complain now if people pinch THEIR photographs or video/film footage and use it as they see fit. |
|
|
|
Post by suthg on Jan 24, 2015 11:08:56 GMT 12
As I said, a Judge can subpoena the photos from the photographer and he would then be charged with either "witholding evidence" or "Contempt of Court", but that does not mean that they could be made public... caught in a sticky place.
|
|
|
|
Post by kiwithrottlejockey on Jan 24, 2015 11:28:25 GMT 12
As I said, a Judge can subpoena the photos from the photographer and he would then be charged with either "witholding evidence" or "Contempt of Court", but that does not mean that they could be made public... caught in a sticky place. That is presuming that a judge (or investigators) even knows about the photographs. I'm guessing that many photographers will simply keep quiet about images or video footage they have taken following future incidents. |
|
|
|
Post by phil82 on Jan 24, 2015 18:48:41 GMT 12
Whoever said what to whom, the decision to publish these photographs is utterly fascile and oh so offensive from any one of a thousand points of view!
|
|
|
|
Post by suthg on Jan 24, 2015 20:49:43 GMT 12
The photographer was planned and was part of the flight so folks could request photos after the event. It was known that he was working.
|
|
bounce
Warrant Officer
Posts: 32 
|
Post by bounce on Jan 24, 2015 21:51:05 GMT 12
I have a very low opinion of the value of the coroner with regards to aviation accidents, and his doesn't help. For TVNZ to suggest that it was in the interest of safety and informed decisions is certainly humorous. Especially considering the photos had been used by the CAA for AvKiwi, a usage that might actually have a genuine safety benefit.
In my limited memory the Fox Fu24 accident was the only time I saw a benefit from an inquest in that it highlighted existing concerns about the TAIC investigation.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gavin Conroy on Jan 24, 2015 22:32:21 GMT 12
I know this accident is aviation related but out of respect to those involved I don't think the photos should even be posted on this forum.
I guess a few people are interested but seeing the burning balloon and the loss of life in real time through photos is not pleasant to look at and not what the forum is all about.
Mind you that's just my view, others will disagree no doubt.
|
|
|
|
Post by scrooge on Jan 25, 2015 7:14:26 GMT 12
So if you quote "public interest" cpoyright doesn't apply? It's a pity this didn't go further in court.
|
|
|
|
Post by craig on Jan 25, 2015 7:50:01 GMT 12
This Coroner needs taken to task. Clearly they should (and do) have the ability to suppress, release of photos while the investigation is carried out. But surely after that they should revert to the owner and the media should then have to enter negotiations with the said owner. If another form of personal property (say a car) was held as evidence it would naturally revert to the owner once the investigation was over. Not given away to the first person who asked for it!!!! Where is the accountability in these bloody govt departments.
|
|
|
|
Post by camtech on Jan 25, 2015 13:05:39 GMT 12
I wonder if TVNZ or the papers using the photos paid a commercial rate for their use.
Even if the Coroner released them, surely the media still need to obtain permission from the owner of the photos.
As commented above, TVNZ and media can't claim copyright of any of their material if this is the way the treat other photographers.
|
|
