Man In Trouble For Using Helicopter to Water Ski

An Australian man spending the afternoon water-skiing with his son can't figure out what all the fuss is about. After all, he wasn't piloting the helicopter towing his son recklessly. "It's a witch-hunt," Milton Jones says. "He was home from boarding school. I only see him for a few weeks each year and we were just having a bit of fun. It was perfectly safe. I've been flying for 20 years and am very experienced. All the yahoo has gone out of me by now." Unfortunately the Civil Aviation Authority doesn't think helicopter skiing is a wholesome father-son activity and has threatened legal action.

Comments

Stupid Aussie Nannies

[FutureDomain]

If it was his helicopter on his land, then I don't see what the problem is. The dang government is filled with too many control freaks who want to dictate what everyone else can do. This guy should just tell them to go eat a lemon.

Re:Stupid Aussie Nannies

[FatLittleMonkey]

The dang government is filled with too many control freaks who want to dictate what everyone else can do.

The Civil Aviation Authority received multiple complaints from viewers. They have a statutory requirement to "adequately investigate" complaints. So they asked the Ten network for the entire unedited footage (after all, the broadcast footage was likely edited to make it look more "daring" than it really was, so it wouldn't be fair to the pilot to go off of that), the network refused, the CAA got a search warrant. The father then applied for a court order to seal the footage, and then went whining to the local press like a spoilt little brat.

Note that the CAA hadn't said the pilot did anything wrong. They are just following up on complaints. Everything else has come from the TV network and the father playing legal games. Likely this will end up costing the tax payer a fortune in legal fees. But it didn't have to. In all likelihood it could have gone: CAA asks for footage, network emails video file, CAA investigator spends half an hour going over footage, double checks regulations, licences, etc, and says, "No case to answer". Done. Whole thing could have been over with in an afternoon. But now, the Authority will almost certainly have to follow the absolute strictest letter of the law, just to send a message to other pilots/operators/owners, don't play with us.

Re:Stupid Aussie Nannies

[bill_mcgonigle]

In all likelihood it could have gone ... "was anybody hurt here? No? OK, there's nothing to worry about. Next."

But now, the Authority will almost certainly have to follow the absolute strictest letter of the law, just to send a message to other pilots/operators/owners, don't play with us.

Great, they're butthurt so they'll reign down with all their terror. And you think the father is the spoiled brat?

Re:Stupid Aussie Nannies

[FatLittleMonkey]

Great, they're butthurt so they'll reign down with all their terror. And you think the father is the spoiled brat?

I didn't mean they'd do it out of spite. I mean they can't allow a precedent to be set that when they are investigating a complaint, a wealthy owner can say, "Nope", and they have to stop. If you throw lawyers at them, that kills any flexibility they might have had.

A lot of operators are cowboys, and they hate the CAA. But more light aircraft accidents in Australia have come down to company/owner error than pilot error. But if the CAA investigate complaints, they're bastards, if they don't, they're bastards.

(Someone else pointed out they were renamed CASA in the '90s, after an agency reshuffle I think. But both TFS and TFA use CAA, so I've kept using that.)

Re:En Garde! I nitpick you!

[JouleThief]

Burn the land and boil the sea. You can't take the sky from me.

Re:The lad

[FatLittleMonkey]

I bet his pals didn't believe him when he got back from his holiday.

He lives in the Northern Territory. His friends would rag on him if he hadn't done something stupid and dangerous.