CHARGES AGAINST PILOT

Press, Volume LXXIII, Issue 22201, 18 September 1937, Page 8

CHARGES AGAINST PILOT

I ONE DISMISSED ON REHEARING I SEQUEL TO ACCIDENT AT I BIG BAY ! (FIiESS ASSOCIATION- TELEGBA*-) INVERCARGILU September 17. A rehearing of the case in which Arthur John Bradshaw was convicted last Friday by Mr W. H. Freeman, S.M, of hiving on December 30,1936 failed to satisfy himself before cemmenem 'flight that the aircraft was safely | Wed for flight and that he used an (unlicensed landing ground was completed in the Magistrate's Court this morning. Defendant, who was represented by Mr B W. Hewat, pleaded not guilty and elected to be dealt with summarily. Mr H J. Macalister, who prosecuted, said that by agreement the evidence I taken in the previous proceedings uas i admitted and deemed to have been taken in the present proceedings. I Mr Hewat said he agreed, but asked that the objections made previously by : Mr R. B. Bannerman stand in the pre- | sent hearing. ~ ! "The position is an unusual one, i continued Mr Hewat, addressing the • r Court. "Your pronouncement was mada at the earlier hearing, and the defendant is in the position of an appellant from that pronouncement. 1 submit that your Worship misdirected vourself in the interpretation of the i regulations. On the merits of the case ! defendant should not be convicted of i either offence." Counsel then disi cussed the charge of using an uni licensed ground while plying for hire, and said the regulation under which the defendant had been convicted was directed obviously at proprietors or licensees of landing grounds and not against pilots. A pilot was entitled to j make a casual landing on any ground, j and committed an offence only if he I made it a regular place of landing. | Bradshaw should not have been conj victed under Regulation 10. If his I actions were contrary to the regula- | tions. then he should have been charged j under Regulation 7. It was the first time he had landed at Big Bay when I carrying fare-paying passengers. ! Mr Macalister said the opinion of the pilot must be based on reasonable premises. But the case for the Crown was that he did not do so. The defendant had failed to satisfy himself that the machine was satisfactorily loaded. !He did not weigh or take adequate ! steps to find the true weights of the | passengers. He had also estimated the weight of the luggage. He submitted that the defendant knew the load was near the maximum for he took out a can cf petrol. There was no room for argument that the proper step to I take was to weigh every item. As to ' the other charge, if Mr Hewat's subi missions were correct it would be a j most extraordinary state of affairs, for j it would mean thaf a pilot could land ; anywhere in New Zealand. That was opposed to the whole intention of the ! regulations. j The defendant was convicted on a charge of failing to satisfy himself that the aircraft was safely loaded, and the charge of using an unlicensed landing ground -was dismissed.