Warbird Information Exchange

Court case has started
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/420 ... res-lawyer



PDF of NZ CAA Safety Investigation Brief
https://www.aviation.govt.nz/assets/pub ... ZK-YYY.pdf

There doesn't appear to be a Transport Accident Investigation Commission underway.

Interesting approach (pun not intended) but I would hazard a guess that the pilot at least shares some of the responsibility for assuring that the place he intends to set down his aircraft is clear of obstacles. It will be interesting to see how this turns out.

_________________
A Little VC10derness - A Tribute to the Vickers VC10 - www.VC10.net

Yes, very interesting approach and I suspect the opposing counsel will bring up the last 2 paragraphs of the report -



I emphasize the fact that the CAA stated they reminded pilots that they have to exercise heightened vigilance and the need to actively scan for unexpected obstacles. That means that the pilots should have been aware of the need already and failure to do these scans may have contributed to the accident.

Reminding or cautioning pilots doesn’t remove the liability of having a dangerous obstruction on the airfield. And of course the pilot could sue if he didn’t like the brand of mustard provided for the hot dogs.

Liability law does differ from country to country. I still continue to be amazed that the OSH legislation hasn't been applied, it is straightforward to have a frangible pole rather than the machinery actually used, so it was an avoidable risk.

Don't disagree, but that's not what the pilot and his counsel are arguing. They're claiming the pilot has no liability. From the article -



That's a pretty gross misstatement of the report in my opinion because the report stressed that the flying directors were *not* ATC and what they said or didn't say should be construed as an ATC instruction or clearance and that this was the case in the briefing and accompanying standards for airshow operations in NZ.

Do I think that the cherry pickers being left in the grass was stupid? Yep. Do I think the pilot has a significant amount of liability in this accident? Yep. This is one of those cases where you can have it both ways.

What I can't figure out is there was a grass runway that was marked, and yet he elected to land in the grass between the runways. and I don't care how limited they say visibility is from a YAK-3, it is still good enough to see a runway and scan the area you are going to land in, bad visibility does not come into play until the tail is on the ground.

_________________
Matt Gunsch, A&P, IA, Warbird maint and restorations
Jack, You have Debauched my sloth !!!!!!
We tried voting with the Ballot box, When do we start voting from the Ammo box, and am I allowed only one vote ?
Check out the Ercoupe Discussion Group on facebook

He elected to land on the grass adjacent to the sealed runway, which is close to the aircraft parking areas, rather than the marked grass runway next to the airfield boundary (as far as possible from the parking). There may have been other reasons, but I imagine that that was a factor.

I agree, ultimately the pilot is responsible for ensuring the runway is clear. My question is, how knowable were these obstacles to the pilot?

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/ ... tage-plane

The Royal New Zealand Airforce and Warbirds Over Wanaka have been ordered to pay more than $616,000 to replace a vintage aeroplane damaged when it hit a cherry picker in a crash at the airshow.
...
Justice Jillian Mallon found that air force squadron leader James Patrick Rankin breached a duty of care to Dovey by directing the cherry pickers be moved without checking with flight display director Christopher Lee whether they would constitute a hazard.
Rankin did not alert pilots to the presence of the cherry pickers and relied on assumptions about where Dovey would land.
Lee, who was working for Warbirds Over Wanaka, did not check where the cherry pickers had been moved to, and the organisation substituted an F-16 opening display with a new opening display with insufficient time to carry out a proper risk assessment.
The organisation had earlier provided a briefing that the centre grass was available as a runway, Justice Mallon’s decision says.
She found Dovey should have advised the display director that he would not be able to see the runway on landing.
Justice Mallon awarded Dovey Aviation Consulting Ltd $616,500 plus GST and interest against the air force and Warbirds Over Wanaka.
She did not apportion amounts and reserved leave for the parties to apply for that apportionment if necessary.

Is there likely to be some kind of appeal?

That was my question too! I guess we will know in a few weeks. It's all on in NZ legal/warbird land, with the Gene DeMarco civil hearing in a few weeks too.

Would that be enough to fix or replace the airplane? In regards fixing it, I have heard that Yak-11 wings (or was it wing spars?) are near unobtanium.

They did a bunch of new-build Yaks some years ago. Mustn't be that hard!

All of the bunch have been used. Anything is possible if you throw enough money at it, but there is limited point if the finished article is worth a smaller pile of money.