Helicopter pilot charged after landing in middle of Sask. town to buy ice cream cake

[oldyellr]

Here is a link to a news story I've been seeing for a couple of days,
https://globalnews.ca/news/8103817/heli ... HCzj5Z4sPk
Back when I took flying lessons 40-odd years ago, we learned the pilot decided what was a good landing place. Obviously, safety factored into it. So, maybe picking up an ice cream cake was not an emergency. What are your thoughts?

[PilotDAR]

I'm guessing that it is this reg which caught the authorities eye:

Take-offs, Approaches and Landings within Built-up Areas of Cities and Towns

602.13 (1) Except if otherwise permitted under this section, section 603.66 or Part VII, no person shall conduct a take-off, approach or landing in an aircraft within a built-up area of a city or town, unless that take-off, approach or landing is conducted at an airport, heliport or a military aerodrome.

The RCMP and I discussed this reg once. They threatened me, I apologized. Then I pointed out that where I had landed was not actually in a built up area, and we agreed to not meet again....

[EPR]

I think it's awesome, only maybe be a little more discreet.. and land at the local ball field..lol...otherwise, in a field on the outskirts!

[photofly]

Assuming the news report is correct (and that's a big assumption, I concede...)

CAR602.13 cannot be enforced by the RCMP, and isn't a criminal offence. It's a regulation under the authority of the Aeronautics Act the sanction for the breaking of which is an administrative monetary penalty (up to $5000 for an individual, probably). That's up to Transport Canada to enforce.

It's hard to get a criminal conviction for flying offences. That was the whole schtick for introducing the CARs, because it shifted the burden of proof from the prosecutor having to prove "beyond reasonable doublt" in front of a magistrate to merely "balance of probabilities" in the Minister's opinion, in the first instance.

"Dangerous operation of an aircraft" ceased to be a criminal offence I think about 10 years go, and was replaced by "dangerous operation of a conveyance" (Section 320.13 of the Criminal Code) and is waaaay harder to prove.

[Bede]

Strange decision to proceed criminally.

Reminds me of https://decisions.tatc.gc.ca/tatc/tatc/ ... ocument.do

[Inverted2]

Already been done. Seems like the rules don’t apply to everyone though.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/military ... s-1.845750

[FurHat]

Strange decision to proceed criminally.

Reminds me of https://decisions.tatc.gc.ca/tatc/tatc/ ... ocument.do

I find it concerning that two TC inspectors would rather photograph and videotape this so-called reckless act, than instead speak to the pilot prior to taking off to hopefully avoid the feared danger to life or property. Sounds like reactive safety instead of proactive.

[SAR_YQQ]

Already been done. Seems like the rules don’t apply to everyone though.

To be fair - the military doesn’t follow TC regs (ie CARS) - so yeh, those rules don’t apply…

[Bede]

Strange decision to proceed criminally.

Reminds me of https://decisions.tatc.gc.ca/tatc/tatc/ ... ocument.do

I find it concerning that two TC inspectors would rather photograph and videotape this so-called reckless act, than instead speak to the pilot prior to taking off to hopefully avoid the feared danger to life or property. Sounds like reactive safety instead of proactive.

It’s difficult to argue that something is endangering life when you are in a position of authority and don’t bother to intervene.

[Schooner69A]

The two inspectors called their respective supervisors and asked for direction: they were told to stay and take photos/video. It is unfortunate that those two weren't called to give testimony...

The whole thing would have turned out differently and not incurred thousands of dollars of money - both on the part of Murray and the taxpayer - had the two inspectors approached Murray, expressed their concerns, indicated that they would keep people clear until he departed, and then asked "...if they could call him the following week..." Not with possible charges in mind, but just to air their concerns and to hear his side.

That's what I would have done...

It was a foxtrot uniform from the get-go...

[karmutzen]

Looks like he landed in a large open field, devoid of any bystanders, across from the DQ. Field and area selected in accordance with TC's guidance on the 6-S, no persons endangered. RCMP playing politics for the "calamity jane" mayor, soothing his snowflake indignation by charging the pilot with an infraction that will get tossed in court.

And yeh, I've landed beside a few restaurants and conveniences in my time. All helicopter pilots in Canada have, and will continue to do so.

[The Mole]

Dollars to donuts the mayor of rape and honey probably has an axe to grind with the heli's owner.
.
.
.
Tisdale's slogan was the The land of Rape and Honey.

[goldeneagle]

Tisdale's slogan was the The land of Rape and Honey.

Yes, and for the uninformed and ignorant who dont know what it is, rape seed crops are a huge producer of nectar which honeybees use to make honey.

Canola is a variant of rape bred for the Canadian praries, and the single largest crop planted out there. Prairie beekeepers produce millions of pounds of honey during the short period when that crop is blooming.

[Bede]

And yeh, I've landed beside a few restaurants and conveniences in my time. All helicopter pilots in Canada have, and will continue to do so.

Landing a helicopter in a built up area is still a CAR's violation, no?

[Schooner69A]

"Landing a helicopter in a built up area is still a CAR's violation, no?"


No, you can still do it, but the conditions under which it would be legal just aren't worth the effort if all you're doing is going for an ice cream.

In my previous employment, I did it all the time, but - and this is important - nobody complained. Even passed the time of day with an inquisitive RCMP constable who saw me setting up for the landing.

[CpnCrunch]

"Landing a helicopter in a built up area is still a CAR's violation, no?"


No, you can still do it, but the conditions under which it would be legal just aren't worth the effort if all you're doing is going for an ice cream.

In my previous employment, I did it all the time, but - and this is important - nobody complained. Even passed the time of day with an inquisitive RCMP constable who saw me setting up for the landing.

I assume you're talking about applying for an SFOC.

In the Auld case, why did the inspector write it up under the "reckless manner" CAR rather than landing in a built-up area? It seems like that would have been a more slam-dunk case.

[notwhoyouthinkIam]

Dangerous operation
320.13 (1) Everyone commits an offence who operates a conveyance in a manner that, having regard to all of the circumstances, is dangerous to the public.

That's going to be one tough case to prove. The prosecutor won't have any trouble proving that the pilot landed in a parking lot, but to prove that a trained and licensed pilot landing in an empty parking lot is dangerous to the public is going to be difficult to say the least. I cannot see any argument that they would make being anything other than circumstantial. For one, to be dangerous to the public, the public would have to be there to be endangered.

Can a lawyer confirm or reject my opinion?

[Cessna 180]

I'm not a lawyer, but this case is unlikely to go anywhere.

[RatherBeFlying]

The pilot's lawyer gets to make some money.

[Schooner69A]

CpnCrunch"

He was charged under 601.02 and 'landing within a built up area was part of the charge...

J