Aerobatic Display Pilot Charged

[Dave Homewood]

Is this still technically illegal today, to do that low pass and pull up? From the Press, 26 September 1970:

Pageant pilot fined

(N.Z. Press Association)

WELLINGTON, Sept. 25.

A flying instructor who performed aerobatics at an air pageant was fined $lOO by Mr W. McAlevey, S.M., today on a charge laid under the Civil Aviation Regulations, 1953.

Robert Noel Winiata, aged 31, was convicted in the Wellington Magistrate’s Court on a charge which alleged that when he was a pilot in command of an aircraft he failed to comply with regulation 36 of the Civil Aviation Regulations, in that he operated an aircraft in a manner whereby avoidable danger to life or property was likely to ensue.

Winiata, who was represented by Mr M. J. Neville, pleaded not guilty.

The Magistrate dismissed a charge which alleged that Winiata, when a pilot in command of an aircraft, failed to comply with regulation 69 in that he altered course after take-off before a height of at least 500 ft above the ground had been attained.

Mr K. G. Stone, prosecuting for the Civil Aviation Division of the Ministry of Transport, said that the two charges related to two alleged incidents at an air pageant at Whiteman’s Valley (off the Hutt Valley), earlier this year.

The case for the prosecution was that Winiata, after performing his aerobatics, made a low dive toward the aerodrome, and while climbing, performed a fast upward roll very close to the ground.

Shortly after the previous incident, when taking off from the aerodrome—possibly to return to Wellington —Winiata, instead of flying straight up, commenced a sharp turn well below the 500 feet limit imposed by the regulation.

Mr Stope said that under the regulations, aerobatics could only be performed at a height above 3000 ft. But this could be reduced to a lower level by the department. In this case Winiata had been granted permission to perform aerobatics at 1000 ft. The Magistrate heard evidence from Winiata and witnesses called by him, including pilots. He said that he would dismiss the charge which alleged that Winiata altered course after take-off, because of evidence that Winiata did not fly back to Wellington, but drove there.

The Magistrate said he found that the other charge had been proved beyond all reasonable doubt. He accepted that Winiata gave his evidence honestly, and he believed he was an experienced and able pilot.

He said: “But on this particular day, you decided to do something you had no right to do.

“That was to scream down to a height, according to your calculation, of some 50ft from the ground, run along the airstrip, which was lined with spectators, and pull the nose of your machine up, though you were much too low to do it.”

[oj]

Some nameless CAD bar-steward potted him to enhance their career prospects. There is always some kill-joy out to stop boys having fun!

[thomarse]

This is the same incident, with reference to the DCA Navajo...


On 22 February 1970 (i.e. just after DCA got her) there was an airshow at the Wallaceville strip, Upper Hutt, then home to the Upper Valley Gliding Club. It was very well-run, and attended - AFAIK there was never a repeat of the occasion.

One of the highlights was to be a fly-by of this aircraft, but in a spirited flash of enthusiasm by the (nameless) pilot, a very well-known DCA figure at the time, this turned into a touch-and-go landing. Being mid-Summer and very dry - plus the strip surface was rather uneven to say the least - dry grass and dust flew in every direction - it was quite memorable!

Although I didn't see it, I seem to recall that a Wellington Aero Club Instructor performed a roll on climb-out in a Victa and the two events drew some attention from DCA

[Dave Homewood]

Oh right, as discussed very recently. Thanks.

[Dave Homewood]

Here is another incident at a different air pageant. From The Press, 10 July 1971.

Charges after air pageant

(N.Z. Press Association)

WELLINGTON, July 9.

An aviation inspector today was convicted and fined $lOO on a charge of altering course in an aircraft, after take-off before a height of at least 5OO feet had been attained.

George Cockburn Arkley was appearing before Mr D. J. Sullivan, S.M., in the Wellington Magistrate’s Court. Mr N. R. Taylor appeared for Arkley, and Mr B. J. Catheroe prosecuted for the Ministry of Transport.

Charges of operating an aircraft in a manner whereby avoidable danger to life or property was likely to ensue, and of manoeuvring an aircraft in a manner whereby avoidable danger to life or property was likely to ensue, were dismissed.

The prosecution arose from events during an air pageant at the Nelson Airport on February 26.

In his summary, the Magistrate said members of the pageant staff had heard suspected Mayday (distress) calls and there was some discussion as to what measures would be taken when it was found that one plane was missing.

Arkley had gone out to look for this plane. There was a lot of conflicting evidence from the defence and prosecution and “it is apparent to this court that there is some sense of conflict between pilots and controllers.” he said.

Mr Sullivan accepted that Mr R. M. King, the aerodrome superintendent at Nelson, had been in charge at the time and he had decided “the panic button should not yet be pressed.”

“It was not for the defendant to take it upon himself as a pilot to ignore the direction on the situation as Mr King had decided,” he said.

On the charge relating to dangerous taxi-ing of the plane, the Magistrate said the prosecution had failed to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that there had been an element of danger involved.

On the dangerous operating charge, he said that in the circumstances he accepted that decisions made must have been one’s relying on the pilot’s own guidance.

“With regard to the third charge, I have no hesitation in finding on the evidence before me that the plane did take off and had not attained a height of 500 feet before a turn was made.

“The defendant himself, when put to it, didn’t know at what height he had turned. I find that charge proved,” the Magistrate said.

In addition to the $lOO fine, Arkley must pay witnesses’ expenses of $45, solicitors’ fees, and court costs of $5.