GTA aerobatics

[photofly]

I'm not clear on this, are you suggesting that the pilot did nothing wrong?

No, I'm saying he violated various CARs and should be subject to TC enforcement action. They have a wide range of sanctions available and plenty of experience at a process for judging and applying them.

It doesn't appear that he's done something worthy of arrest, 5 years in prison, and a criminal record. That seems so obvious to me that I question the judgement of YRP.

The subject is about to come up for discussion on CBC Radio 1. I'm going to listen and see what they have to say.

[Rookie50]

Hammer the dude. There's no place for that whatsoever.

I don't know about hammering him, but buddy needs to seriously think about the dumbassedness of his flying in that particular instance for a while before he gets to touch the face of god again..

(hope he's not planning on making a career out of this, now that his name is splashed all over the news in conjunction with low-level aerobatics over a built up area....)

Heres my take on things like this. And by hammer, I mean there should be license repercussions. I have no interest in wrecking a young persons life .

However, what I don't wish to see -- would be someone using any excuse out there to ever severely restrict GA flying over built up areas. Trust me, I believe there are those in power that would. Let's not give them a reason. GA flying is a priviledge, not a right, at least to me.

[Rockie]

I don't even see CAR 602.01 ... I do see CAR 602.14(2)(a)(i)
but it was not careless or reckless.

I agree with the Colonel on this one. It was a stupid thing to do and should be treated as such which CAR 602.14(2)(a)(I) does perfectly well without ruining someone's life with a criminal conviction or long term licensing action.

Raise your hand if you've ever done something stupid in an airplane......

[CFR]

I'm not clear on this, are you suggesting that the pilot did nothing wrong?

No, I'm saying he violated various CARs and should be subject to TC enforcement action. They have a wide range of sanctions available and plenty of experience at a process for judging and applying them.

It doesn't appear that he's done something worthy of arrest, 5 years in prison, and a criminal record. That seems so obvious to me that I question the judgement of YRP.

The subject is about to come up for discussion on CBC Radio 1. I'm going to listen and see what they have to say.

Ah Now I understand your position and agree that this does not deserve the maximum penalty, but that is not likely to happen (unless he has done this before). I think some of it may stem from unfamiliarity with the CC of C. There are two ways of proceeding, by indictment (usually going to trial by jury) or by summary conviction. Summary conviction is usually for a lesser crime or for the same crime which resulted in a minor outcome. This offence can be prosecuted either way. If he had crashed and killed someone it would likely be by indictment, but in this case probably summary conviction. Wikipedia has a good explanation in the Canada section.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summary_offence

[CFR]

Maybe this is just a case of "successful outcome equals good decision" or the "no harm, no foul" doctrine.

[CFR]

The woman in the video seems rather frightened to me and is concerned about him crashing. She says she is standing behind a wall for, I assume, her protection.

There was a group protesting chemtrails at city hall YYC on Sunday. I don't want to be too mean but was the danger perceived as slightly higher than the actual risk?

Rats! I had a fairly long reply as I listened carefully to the audio of the tape and made notes and then I accidentally closed the window! Suffice to say that listening carefully to what is being said and looking at the flying on the tape AND assuming aircraft do not normally fly that low in that area, I think a reasonable person could legitimately conclude that the aircraft was going to crash and they may be in danger.

[CFR]

I don't even see CAR 602.01 ... I do see CAR 602.14(2)(a)(i)
but it was not careless or reckless.

I agree with the Colonel on this one. It was a stupid thing to do and should be treated as such which CAR 602.14(2)(a)(I) does perfectly well without ruining someone's life with a criminal conviction or long term licensing action.

Raise your hand if you've ever done something stupid in an airplane......

In the end it may work out that way, the crown can always withdraw the charge if TC wants to carry the ball.

[photofly]

There are two ways of proceeding,

There are. And they're both total overkill. This shouldn't be a criminal matter.

I think a reasonable person could legitimately conclude that the aircraft was going to crash and they may be in danger.

Clearly not. The offence is not giving the impression of danger, or pretending to be in danger, or of frightening people. The aircraft was functioning perfectly well. Was the manoeuver of itself a dangerous one? My eyes may deceive me, but all I see is a forced approach and a go-around at full power. I do that daily, sometimes at even lower alititudes, without ill effect.

[Beefitarian]

The woman in the video seems rather frightened to me and is concerned about him crashing. She says she is standing behind a wall for, I assume, her protection.

There was a group protesting chemtrails at city hall YYC on Sunday. I don't want to be too mean but was the danger perceived as slightly higher than the actual risk?

Rats! I had a fairly long reply as I listened carefully to the audio of the tape and made notes and then I accidentally closed the window! Suffice to say that listening carefully to what is being said and looking at the flying on the tape AND assuming aircraft do not normally fly that low in that area, I think a reasonable person could legitimately conclude that the aircraft was going to crash and they may be in danger.

Hmm, somewhat fair, still my argument is the public tends to emphasize the "fear" part. "Oh noes, dat plane is gonna crash and we'll all be killed for miles arounds!"

We Poe folk CFR. We only get public defenders after we make a huge error in judgement like this kid. Therefore we confuse the lawyers with their clients and learn to hate them.

Then we avoid all things legal because law's written to keep us out of the loop. If we learn something from someone who does know, five years from now things are changed, yes?

Sorry about the window. I've done that a few times.

[Rookie50]

There are two ways of proceeding,

There are. And they're both total overkill. This shouldn't be a criminal matter.

I think a reasonable person could legitimately conclude that the aircraft was going to crash and they may be in danger.

Clearly not. The offence is not giving the impression of danger, or pretending to be in danger, or of frightening people. The aircraft was functioning perfectly well. Was the manoeuver of itself a dangerous one? My eyes may deceive me, but all I see is a forced approach and a go-around at full power. I do that daily, sometimes at even lower alititudes, without ill effect.

Hopefully not over a bunch of houses.

[Beefitarian]

Was the manoeuver of itself a dangerous one? My eyes may deceive me, but all I see is a forced approach and a go-around at full power. I do that daily, sometimes at even lower alititudes, without ill effect.

Not in Richmond Hill you don't. If you did, they would by now be annoyed instead of frightened.

[Colonel Sanders]

The kid contravened CAR 602.14 ... fine him $5,000
and suspend his licence for 30 days.

I don't see a need for a guillotine or even a noose, but
maybe I'm getting mellow in my old age.

You guys want to see something wild, come with me
south of Mexico some time. What we do down there
would blow your mind.

[Beefitarian]

You guys want to see something wild, come with me
south of Mexico some time. What we do down there
would blow your mind.

Hopefully not over a bunch of adobes.

[CFR]

The kid contravened CAR 602.14 ... fine him $5,000
and suspend his licence for 30 days.

I don't see a need for a guillotine or even a noose, but
maybe I'm getting mellow in my old age.

You guys want to see something wild, come with me
south of Mexico some time. What we do down there
would blow your mind.

Agreed that would be the appropriate penalty - now I sort of want the police charges to go through to see what he would get in the justice system, I'd be surprised if it wasn't less (1500.00 and 10 days - if he got suspended at all!)

edited to add - Here's what the penalty is for shining a laser into an aircraft (I suggest a more serious offence) http://www.edmontonsun.com/news/edmonto ... 34376.html

[CFR]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/s ... -laid.html

[JBI]

From a criminal law perspective, it appears that the Crown would have to prove:

1.that the lives or safety of others were endangered by the defendant's actions, and

2.that such jeopardizing resulted from the pilot's departure from the standard of care that a prudent pilot would have exercised having regard to what actually were or might reasonably have been expected to be the condition, nature or use of the place where he was flying.

This is amended from a Supreme Court of Canada decision considering the same section of the criminal code, but for dangerous driving. A quick look at some of the case that consider this section all have, unfortunately, an innocent bystander being injured or killed. For example, transport truck blowing through a red light and T-boning a car or a boater speeding through a known swimming area and killing a swimmer.

I think that most of here on the board would agree that the pilot's actions were a departure from the standard of care that we would expect from other pilots flying over a built up area. But the question would be, were the lives or safety of others endangered?

Even though this would likely be tried by a judge alone, Ladies and Gentlemen of the AvCanada jury, what say you? Were the lives or safety of others endangered by this stunt?

[CFR]

From a criminal law perspective, it appears that the Crown would have to prove:

1.that the lives or safety of others were endangered by the defendant's actions, and

2.that such jeopardizing resulted from the pilot's departure from the standard of care that a prudent pilot would have exercised having regard to what actually were or might reasonably have been expected to be the condition, nature or use of the place where he was flying.

This is amended from a Supreme Court of Canada decision considering the same section of the criminal code, but for dangerous driving. A quick look at some of the case that consider this section all have, unfortunately, an innocent bystander being injured or killed. For example, transport truck blowing through a red light and T-boning a car or a boater speeding through a known swimming area and killing a swimmer.

I think that most of here on the board would agree that the pilot's actions were a departure from the standard of care that we would expect from other pilots flying over a built up area. But the question would be, were the lives or safety of others endangered?

Even though this would likely be tried by a judge alone, Ladies and Gentlemen of the AvCanada jury, what say you? Were the lives or safety of others endangered by this stunt?

Might be neat to post it as a summation to the judge as to why he is a) guilty - Crown Attorney summation b) innocent - Defence Counsel summation

[CFR]

duplicate post removed

[Big Pistons Forever]

Stupid is forever. He should never fly again.

[AirFrame]

Really? That video is lame. Planes fly that low over my house every week, and i'm a 20 minute walk from the closest airport. We're on the flight path, and training aircraft fly low sometimes. It's no big deal. It's unusual for that area (Richmond Hill) apparently, so that's what's caught him out.

I agree that he chose a bad place to show off to his friends/family/whatever. But apart from violating a CAR on flying low, I don't see an issue. The video couldn't even "prove" a bank beyond 60 degrees... The camera was looking up along the wing at one point, but without a ground reference. He could have been 30, 45, 60, 90 degrees and you'd never know.

Fine, suspension, have a nice day. Yawn.

[Colonel Sanders]

From a criminal law perspective, it appears that the Crown would have to prove:

1.that the lives or safety of others were endangered by the defendant's actions

Pretty hard to prove that in this case. Is there anyone
in Canada that can actually recall events from 11 years
ago?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_Tampa_plane_crash

This nutbar intentionally crashed a C172 into an office
building - with a far higher population density than the
suburbs - to kill himself and others, so he could to go
Valhalla or wherever else nutbars go.

The result?

The impact killed the teenager and damaged an office room. There were no other injuries.

As I said before, I don't even see CAR 602.01 here.

Proof: ever tried to land at Guelph out of the north?
You have to time your approach between the vehicles
on the road across the threshold. Now, try it at night.
And, when you are unfamiliar with the airport.

What I describe is far more wild than what that stupid
kid did, yet it is perfectly legal - see CAR 602.12 for
the exemption.

Bottom line: he contravened CAR 602.14. A fine or
suspension (or both) is heading his way from TC
Enforcement. A criminal charge is simply not going
to stick, regardless of the emotional outrage.

[Shiny Side Up]

Kids are just so disappointing these days. I'd be more impressed if he did what he did without getting on someone's camera, but nooooo, he violates one of the cardinal rules of doing stupid things when you're young - returns to the scene of the crime, repeatedly as it happens.

Stuff like this just lends to my theory that lots of people needed to be beaten more as children. That way they learn about consequences, think twice about doing stupid things, and if they really must do stupid things, they are at least fast thinking, fast moving, quiet and above all; take precautions not to get caught.

We were like ninjas!

Maybe at the very least more instructors need to give lessons on "how to buzz things". I took notes when my instructor showed me. "You gotta think where they might have guns down there," he said as we came over the ridge, "Like a flasher, you can't expose yourself for too long, and you gotta know where you're going to escape to." That last bit I try not to think about its implications. "Remember, you got one pass, then they know you're here so the guns (cameras) will be ready after that."

[RatherBeFlying]

He's doing nothing worse than the pipeline flyers.

Plus he's not circling at low level trying to take a picture with a handheld camera.

Now yes there's some infinitesimal chance of sudden engine failure, even with the carb heat out; but you don't have Crowns arguing that exposure of the public to the equivalent probability of a wheelnut coming loose qualifies as dangerous operation going around a corner at speed.

Anyway his legal fees will eat into his flying budget. Once his lawyer is finally paid, he's going to find it hard to find an owner that will rent to him. So even if TC does not nail him, his license is effectively suspended

My advice to the Crown is to turn his sorry rear over to TC enforcement.

[Rookie50]

The kid contravened CAR 602.14 ... fine him $5,000
and suspend his licence for 30 days.

I don't see a need for a guillotine or even a noose, but
maybe I'm getting mellow in my old age.

You guys want to see something wild, come with me
south of Mexico some time. What we do down there
would blow your mind.

CS, after the 30 days give him a free solo checkout in the Pitts, seeing as he is such a great low altitude stick.

[Colonel Sanders]

I thought what he did was pretty lame, but if
you think he's a lot better than you, who am
I to argue with you?