Nigel C
29th April 2008, 09:19 AM
Lucky lads if they accusations are correct...
www.news.com.au
Accused Qantas pilots won't stand trial
By Matthew Denholm
April 29, 2008 06:00am
Accused pilots won't stand trial for 'reckless flying'
Judge says delays with investigation prevented a fair trial
Pilots allegedly took off without runway lights
TWO Qantas pilots accused of recklessly endangering the lives of 70 passengers will not stand trial, partly because investigators were too slow, resulting in destruction of evidence.
A Tasmanian Supreme Court judge said yesterday he would grant a permanent stay on proceedings against the two Victorian-based pilots, Peter Maxwell Edwards and Stephen Sarunic.
They had both pleaded not guilty to the reckless operation of an aircraft endangering life, denying that they took off from Launceston airport on October 23, 2001, without reactivating the runway lights.
Justice Pierre Slicer ruled that delays in the start of the investigation prevented the retention of electronic records that would have shown whether the pilots had tried to reactivate the runway lights.
Combined with the passage of almost seven years and the legal and technical complexity of the case, he said this might prevent a "fair and just" trial.
Justice Slicer said the case involved "the public interest and safety", but that for the allegations to be fairly tested before a jury a more effective response would have been needed.
He said disciplinary action against the pilots, such as suspension or retraining, "might have provided a more effective response to the needs of public interest and safety than a prosecution some six years later".
"This is not to be taken as a criticism of the prosecuting authority but to show the need and purpose of more timely investigation and decision-making."
Justice Slicer said he would issue the stay as soon as the Director of Public Prosecutions had been given an opportunity to appeal.
On the night of October 23, 2001, Qantas sent a Boeing 737-400, piloted by the two accused, to Launceston to collect passengers stranded by an operational mishap.
With Launceston airport control tower unmanned after 10pm, the pilots activated the timed runway lighting system by a remote signal, as is standard in such cases, on the plane's approach.
After taking the passengers on board, the aircraft taxied and took off for Melbourne at 11.05pm, minutes after the timed lighting system was due to shut off.
Two Royal Flying Doctor Service pilots and a paramedic claim to have seen the aircraft taxiing for take-off despite the runway lighting no longer being on.
One of the RFDS pilots told investigators he expected the plane to "hold" for the reoperation of the lights, but instead the plane took off without lighting.
Two nearby residents -- another pilot with a different airline and a plane spotter -- reported there were no runway lights on as the plane took off. However, Mr Edwards, a pilot with 30 years experience, insisted "the runway lights were illuminated".
Both pilots claimed they reactivated the timed runway lights before take-off. The defence pointed to evidence suggesting that the vagaries of the system, combined with shortcomings at Launceston airport, may have caused the lights to switch off seconds after the plane took off.
However, in-flight and airport systems data that would have substantiated or disproved the pilots' version of events were wiped in the weeks after the incident.
An RFDS pilot reported the incident to the airport within five minutes and to CASA the next day, but Justice Slicer said that by November 7 it appeared "there had been no intervening steps to further the investigation, by which time the data on the flight data recorder of the aircraft had been erased".
www.news.com.au
Accused Qantas pilots won't stand trial
By Matthew Denholm
April 29, 2008 06:00am
Accused pilots won't stand trial for 'reckless flying'
Judge says delays with investigation prevented a fair trial
Pilots allegedly took off without runway lights
TWO Qantas pilots accused of recklessly endangering the lives of 70 passengers will not stand trial, partly because investigators were too slow, resulting in destruction of evidence.
A Tasmanian Supreme Court judge said yesterday he would grant a permanent stay on proceedings against the two Victorian-based pilots, Peter Maxwell Edwards and Stephen Sarunic.
They had both pleaded not guilty to the reckless operation of an aircraft endangering life, denying that they took off from Launceston airport on October 23, 2001, without reactivating the runway lights.
Justice Pierre Slicer ruled that delays in the start of the investigation prevented the retention of electronic records that would have shown whether the pilots had tried to reactivate the runway lights.
Combined with the passage of almost seven years and the legal and technical complexity of the case, he said this might prevent a "fair and just" trial.
Justice Slicer said the case involved "the public interest and safety", but that for the allegations to be fairly tested before a jury a more effective response would have been needed.
He said disciplinary action against the pilots, such as suspension or retraining, "might have provided a more effective response to the needs of public interest and safety than a prosecution some six years later".
"This is not to be taken as a criticism of the prosecuting authority but to show the need and purpose of more timely investigation and decision-making."
Justice Slicer said he would issue the stay as soon as the Director of Public Prosecutions had been given an opportunity to appeal.
On the night of October 23, 2001, Qantas sent a Boeing 737-400, piloted by the two accused, to Launceston to collect passengers stranded by an operational mishap.
With Launceston airport control tower unmanned after 10pm, the pilots activated the timed runway lighting system by a remote signal, as is standard in such cases, on the plane's approach.
After taking the passengers on board, the aircraft taxied and took off for Melbourne at 11.05pm, minutes after the timed lighting system was due to shut off.
Two Royal Flying Doctor Service pilots and a paramedic claim to have seen the aircraft taxiing for take-off despite the runway lighting no longer being on.
One of the RFDS pilots told investigators he expected the plane to "hold" for the reoperation of the lights, but instead the plane took off without lighting.
Two nearby residents -- another pilot with a different airline and a plane spotter -- reported there were no runway lights on as the plane took off. However, Mr Edwards, a pilot with 30 years experience, insisted "the runway lights were illuminated".
Both pilots claimed they reactivated the timed runway lights before take-off. The defence pointed to evidence suggesting that the vagaries of the system, combined with shortcomings at Launceston airport, may have caused the lights to switch off seconds after the plane took off.
However, in-flight and airport systems data that would have substantiated or disproved the pilots' version of events were wiped in the weeks after the incident.
An RFDS pilot reported the incident to the airport within five minutes and to CASA the next day, but Justice Slicer said that by November 7 it appeared "there had been no intervening steps to further the investigation, by which time the data on the flight data recorder of the aircraft had been erased".