BIG BAY AIR MISHAP

Grey River Argus, 18 September 1937, Page 5

BIG BAY AIR MISHAP

CASE AGAINST PILOT. RE-HEARING AND VERDICT. [Per Press Association]. INVERCARGILL, September 17. The re-hearing of a case, in which Arthur John Bradshaw was convicted last Friday, by W. H. Freeman, S.M., of having, on December 30th, 1936, failed to satisfy himself before commencing a flight that his aircraft was safely loaded lor the 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, when asked if he elected to be tried by jury, or by Magistrate. Mr H. J. Mac 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 he agreed, buc asked that the objections made previously by Mr R. B. Bannerman stand in the present hearing. "The position is an unusual one,” continued Mr Hewat, addressing the 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 of either offence.” Counsel then dealt with the charge of using an unlicensed ground while plving for hire, and said the regulation under which defendant had been convicted was directed obviously at the proprietors or licensees of landing grounds, and not against pilots. A pilot was entitled to make a casual landing on any ground, and he committed an offence only if he made it a regular place of landing. Bradshaw should not have been convicted under Regulation 10. If his actions were contrary to the regulations, then he should have been charged under Regulation 7. It was the first time he had landed at Big Bay when carrying fare-paying passengers. Mr Mac Alister said the opinion of the pilot must be based on reasonable the pilot must be based on reasonable premises—that was the whole kernel of the matter—fiut the case for the Crown was that he did not do so. 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 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 Mr Hewat’s submissions were correct, it would be a most extraordinary state of affairs, for it would mean that a pilot could land anywhere in New Zealand. That was opposed to the whole intention of the Regulations. The defendant was convicted on the charge of tailing to satisfy himself that the aircraft was safely loaded. The charge of using an unlicensed landing ground was dismissed.