BIG BAY AIR CRASH

Hokitika Guardian, 18 September 1937, Page 3

BIG BAY AIR CRASH

CHARGE 'AGAiNST PILCT. VERDICT OF RE-HEARING. (Per Press Association—Copyright). INVERCARGILL, Sept. 17. The re-heaiing of a case, in wine Arthur John Bradshaw was convicted last Friday, by W. H. Freeman, S.M., or having, on Becenmer 3uth, ltiid, tailed to satisfy himself before commtnc ing a flight that his aircraft was safely loaded for the flight, and that he use*., an unlicensed landing ground, was completed in the Magistrate’s Lourt this morning. Defendant, who was lepre seated by Mr 13. W. Hewat, pleadea not guilty, and elected to be dealt with summarily, when asked if he elected to be tried by jury, or,by Magistrate. Mr H. L. Mae Alister, who prosecuted said that, by agreement, evidence taken in the previous proceedings was admitted and deemed to have been .taken in the present proceedings. Mr Hewat said be agreed, but asked that the objections made previously by Mr R. 13. Bannerman stand in the present hearing. “The position is an unusual one,’ continued Mr Hewat, addressing tin Court. “Your pronouncement was , made at an earlier hearing, and the defendant is in the position of an appellant from that pronouncement. i submit that Your Worship mis-direct ed yourself in the interpretation of the regulations. On the merits of the case defendant should not be convicted o ' either offence.” Counsel then dealt with the charge of using an unlicensed ground while J flying for hire, and said tfle regulatio. under which defendant had* been eon vict-ed was directed obviously at tin proprietors or licensees of landin' ' grounds, and not against pilots. A pilot was entitled to make a easua ' | landing on any ground, and he commit ted an offence only if he made it a re gular place of tandil.g, Br/.dshaw should not have been convicted undei Regulation 10. If his actions were con trary to the regulations, then In should have been charged under Re gulation 7. ft was the first time In had landed at Big Ray when carrying fare-paying passengers. Mr Mae Alister said the opinion cl the pilot must he based on reasonably, premises—that was the whole kerne of the matter—but the case for the Crown was that he did not do so. Defendant had failed to satisfy liimseh 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 defendant knew” the load was up near the maximum, for he took out a can of petrol. There was no room for argument that the proper step to take was to weigh every item. As. to the other charge, if Mi Hewat’s submissions were correct, i would be a most extraordinary state o' affairs, for it would mean that a pilof could land anywhere in New Zealand. That was opposed to the whole intention of the Regulations. The defendant was convicted on tin charge of failing to satisfy hilnselt 1 that the aircraft was safely loaded, j The charge of using an unlicensor' I landing ground was dismissed.