TWO CONVICTIONS AGAINST PILOT

Press, Volume LXXIII, Issue 22195, 11 September 1937, Page 23

TWO CONVICTIONS AGAINST PILOT

CHARGES ARISING FROM BIG BAY ACCIDENT tTSBM ABSOCUTIOH TKLZOBAX.) INVERCARGILL, September 10 Convictions on two charges and costs totalling £l3 15s were entered in the Magistrate's Court to-day against Arthur John Bradshaw, pilot of the aeroplane which crashed when about to land at Big Bay on December 30. 1930 The charges against Bradshaw were (1) that, on December 30, 1936. «t Invercargill, he failed to satisfy himself before commencing a flight that the aircraft was satisfactorily loaded for flight; (2) that the conditions governing the certificate o* airworthiness for the DH Fox Moth aeroplane, registered as ZK —ADC, had not been complied with, in that the maximum commercial load was exceeded: (3) that he flew an aeroplane in which the maximum total weight exceeded 21181 b, as laid down in the certificate of airworthiness; and, (4), that he used an unlicensed landing place (Big Bay), while carrying passengers for hire. The defendant, who pleaded not I guilty to all four charges, was con- % victed on the first and fourth. Mr H J. Mac Alister conducted the prosecution for the Air Department, Mr R. B Bannerman appeared for the defendant, and Mr N. L. "Watson for the Southland Aero Club. Mr Mac Alister said the four informations laid against Bradshaw and on«» laid against the Southland Aero Club arose out of the accident to the Fox Moth aeroplane, while it was under hire to Bradshaw on December 30 1836. It was being used for a flight over Big Bay when it crashed and one passenger was killed and others injured, xhe main charge arose out of the loading of the machine when tho Wot left Invercargill. It was not suggested that the load was directly reiponsible for the accident, for there was little doubt that when it occurred the total weight was within the maximum. Counsel then discussed the regulations Governing civil aviation, and the grounds on which the prosecution contended they had not been observed. Mr Bannerman said that Bradshaw was an experienced pilot, and as &n experienced pilot he knew how to load his machine. He did not think there would be any question of the machine not being properly loaded. If there | had not been the question of weight, there was no evidence that the load was not properly distributed, or that it was exceeded. Counsel's interpretation of the regulations was that the pilot could land anywhere in New Zealand; provided he did not make a practice of it. „ xl _, J The charge against the Southland Aero Club, as owner of the aeroplane, of failing to notify the accident by telegram to the Controller of Civil Aviation at Wellington as soon as possible was dismissed. = ="