Pilot probe over mystery landing
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: S08 43.33 E146 34.22
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The case deepens - the Director of the CAA is now finished and a senior flying operations inspector took the stand today. The information he provided was in direct contravention of that given by the CAA Director.
The airspace surrounding Bougainville is OCTA below FL245 - the director stated it was CTA
Traffic information os provided by HF network which is not a reliable as the Director made out.
He could not comment on the aerodrome as he has never been to Kieta.
He explained simply to the court the procedures for VFR and IFR flight and the conduct of traffic seperation OCTA and in the region in question.
He was unaware of any military activities by way of flights on Bougainville over the past 10 years
He was unaware that PNG civilian operators had used the aerodrome as many as 7 times in the past 24 months.
He could not provide any information on where these operators would have found data either on the aerodrome or any action that had been taken on these operators.
He was surprised that PNG Operators contained data about Kieta in the CAA approved operations manuals.
He stated there is no requirement for any ground aids to be displayed at an aerodrome (or peice of dirt looking like an airfield) to adequate display its serviceability or conditions.
He stated the aerdrome must be inspected by an inspector prior to every day use for the purposes of issuing a licence.
The prosecution then declared that another witness an aerodrome specialist is to be called to give evidence.
The case has the extrememly unusual preecedent of being heard on a saturday - in PNG (simply unheard of). It demonstrates the importance in this case being finalised ASAP.
We await some more gripping findings.
Clarification please: Is the case about Kieta airstrip, south of Kieta and previously used by Air Niugini; or Aropa airstrip north west of Kieta in Anewa Bay and previously used by Bougair?
Woomera
The airspace surrounding Bougainville is OCTA below FL245 - the director stated it was CTA
Traffic information os provided by HF network which is not a reliable as the Director made out.
He could not comment on the aerodrome as he has never been to Kieta.
He explained simply to the court the procedures for VFR and IFR flight and the conduct of traffic seperation OCTA and in the region in question.
He was unaware of any military activities by way of flights on Bougainville over the past 10 years
He was unaware that PNG civilian operators had used the aerodrome as many as 7 times in the past 24 months.
He could not provide any information on where these operators would have found data either on the aerodrome or any action that had been taken on these operators.
He was surprised that PNG Operators contained data about Kieta in the CAA approved operations manuals.
He stated there is no requirement for any ground aids to be displayed at an aerodrome (or peice of dirt looking like an airfield) to adequate display its serviceability or conditions.
He stated the aerdrome must be inspected by an inspector prior to every day use for the purposes of issuing a licence.
The prosecution then declared that another witness an aerodrome specialist is to be called to give evidence.
The case has the extrememly unusual preecedent of being heard on a saturday - in PNG (simply unheard of). It demonstrates the importance in this case being finalised ASAP.
We await some more gripping findings.
Clarification please: Is the case about Kieta airstrip, south of Kieta and previously used by Air Niugini; or Aropa airstrip north west of Kieta in Anewa Bay and previously used by Bougair?
Woomera
Last edited by Woomera; 27th Nov 2004 at 00:23.
PPRuNeaholic
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Cairns FNQ
Posts: 3,255
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
W... Aropa airport at Kieta is the one that used to be the Bougair base. You're showing yer age a bit though mate 
because it was used by Air Niugini (F28 and Dash-7) for many years prior to that eventful day in 1989.
It begins to look like I'm the only one in the Branch who's been to Kieta. That's probably why I won't have to make a court appearance.
Undoubtedly, nobody wants to know that there were times when people on the ground would point rifles at aeroplanes... and squeeze the trigger. 
Ozexpat. Now I'm getting confused!
There are two airstrips near Kieta - the main sealed air strip used by PX to the south east; and a short grass strip (around 800 meters?) near Arawa and the turn off to Panguna, to the north west of Kieta.
I can't imagine a C550 getting into the grass strip. Which airstrip did it allegedly land at?
Woomera
because it was used by Air Niugini (F28 and Dash-7) for many years prior to that eventful day in 1989.It begins to look like I'm the only one in the Branch who's been to Kieta. That's probably why I won't have to make a court appearance.
Undoubtedly, nobody wants to know that there were times when people on the ground would point rifles at aeroplanes... and squeeze the trigger. Ozexpat. Now I'm getting confused!
There are two airstrips near Kieta - the main sealed air strip used by PX to the south east; and a short grass strip (around 800 meters?) near Arawa and the turn off to Panguna, to the north west of Kieta.I can't imagine a C550 getting into the grass strip. Which airstrip did it allegedly land at?
Woomera
Last edited by Woomera; 27th Nov 2004 at 06:37.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Granite Belt, Australia
Posts: 841
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Air Sankamap used to operate into the non sealed airstrip - Arawa? - (it had a tank made out of a 'dozer at the end of the strip - incidentaly made by a Kiwi, so I'm lead to believe) about 1998. I don't think a small jet would fit... I'm not a pilot.
There were plenty of military operations - both fixed wing and rotary - around Kieta strip by the Australian Defence (Peacekeeping) Forces during that time.
There were plenty of military operations - both fixed wing and rotary - around Kieta strip by the Australian Defence (Peacekeeping) Forces during that time.
PPRuNeaholic
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Cairns FNQ
Posts: 3,255
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No, W, definitely not the Arawa airstrip. The following photos aren't very good - I must've jolted the camera at the last possible moment - but they'll give you a good idea of what Aropa Aerodrome at Kieta looked like in about 1988.
The overhead view :
And the view on final to RWY 32 :
Hope this helps you.
The overhead view :
And the view on final to RWY 32 :
Hope this helps you.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: S08 43.33 E146 34.22
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The alleged crime involves the landing at the Kieta AYKT aerodrome. The one that is mentioned in the Civil Aviation Act of 2000 as an aerodrome in the province, listed on the current ADCOM, denoted as a major port on the cover the of current AIP RNC and mentioned specifically in the PNG AIP RAC section 10.
But the prosecution case is that as it is not listed as a licensed aerodrome in the AIP/AGA it is not an aerodrome. Therefore there is no requirement for the operators (CAA) to display unserviceability markers, or any NOTAM information.
I am trying to get the photograph of the airstrip submitted by the defence in the case - when I do I will post it. Quite a clever act in hindsight perhaps.
The prosecution also produced a letter from the Dept of Transport of seven other civillian aircraft movements over the past two years from Kieta - naturally no action was taken againt those companies or pilots. There are questions over whether the pilot in command made any radio communications to ascertain his location, however I think all concerned with PNG would find it no surprise that the CAA is claiming none were ever received.
A no case to answer submission was made by the defence lawyers and is awaiting a ruling from the grade 5 majistrate. There are technical errors in the initial charges let alone deficiencies in the manner in which each of the summary of facts have been given.
The prosecution stated that as all aircraft are dangerous 'because of people being in a small confined space with explosions occurring outside, in combustions chamers means that any variation form any rule is more dangerous' obvoiusly a well researched man. Combined with another statement that simply 'climbing higher permits better HF communications' definately display a very competent understanding in the whole case.
From the outside observer it is starting to show that the aviation act is being hijacked by some government official in order to gain a conviction for an act which is nothing to do with aviation. The government is embarrased that people can legally fly into the country, then take people inside the country to a place that is considered 'sensitive' but not restricted then fly out again.
There are sinisiter forces at work here
any guess who is pulling the CAA directors strings ?
I am told the prosecution case has failed to establish form any first hand witnesses any information on how the flight was conducted. I.e the inverted pass down the runway with a low level stall turn has not been verified by anybody.
The aerodrome inspector bought to provide evidence of the airport was last at KIA (pre 2000 abbrveiation) in the late 1980\'s so he could not comment on the present condition.
The police man who interviewed the co pilot was in Buka at the time and has no information at all regarding the conduct of the flight.
This appears to be a test case for the CAA as the parts of the act being used for charges are CA Act 277 and CA Act 278 the first is the careless operation of an aircraft and the second operation of an aircraft causing danger to persons or property. An informed person would probably inspect the aerodrome soon after the event, perhaps bring the on duty flight service officer in as a witness. However, the prosecution case is on second and third hand information and relys heavily of the sensationalism made in the media before the trial commenced.
The outsome of this case will have serious ramifications for all operators and pilots in PNG.
On a technical note I have a bad copy of the AYKT aerodrome but don\'t know how to post it (help someone - please)
But the prosecution case is that as it is not listed as a licensed aerodrome in the AIP/AGA it is not an aerodrome. Therefore there is no requirement for the operators (CAA) to display unserviceability markers, or any NOTAM information.
I am trying to get the photograph of the airstrip submitted by the defence in the case - when I do I will post it. Quite a clever act in hindsight perhaps.
The prosecution also produced a letter from the Dept of Transport of seven other civillian aircraft movements over the past two years from Kieta - naturally no action was taken againt those companies or pilots. There are questions over whether the pilot in command made any radio communications to ascertain his location, however I think all concerned with PNG would find it no surprise that the CAA is claiming none were ever received.
A no case to answer submission was made by the defence lawyers and is awaiting a ruling from the grade 5 majistrate. There are technical errors in the initial charges let alone deficiencies in the manner in which each of the summary of facts have been given.
The prosecution stated that as all aircraft are dangerous 'because of people being in a small confined space with explosions occurring outside, in combustions chamers means that any variation form any rule is more dangerous' obvoiusly a well researched man. Combined with another statement that simply 'climbing higher permits better HF communications' definately display a very competent understanding in the whole case.
From the outside observer it is starting to show that the aviation act is being hijacked by some government official in order to gain a conviction for an act which is nothing to do with aviation. The government is embarrased that people can legally fly into the country, then take people inside the country to a place that is considered 'sensitive' but not restricted then fly out again.
There are sinisiter forces at work here
any guess who is pulling the CAA directors strings ?I am told the prosecution case has failed to establish form any first hand witnesses any information on how the flight was conducted. I.e the inverted pass down the runway with a low level stall turn has not been verified by anybody.
The aerodrome inspector bought to provide evidence of the airport was last at KIA (pre 2000 abbrveiation) in the late 1980\'s so he could not comment on the present condition.
The police man who interviewed the co pilot was in Buka at the time and has no information at all regarding the conduct of the flight.
This appears to be a test case for the CAA as the parts of the act being used for charges are CA Act 277 and CA Act 278 the first is the careless operation of an aircraft and the second operation of an aircraft causing danger to persons or property. An informed person would probably inspect the aerodrome soon after the event, perhaps bring the on duty flight service officer in as a witness. However, the prosecution case is on second and third hand information and relys heavily of the sensationalism made in the media before the trial commenced.
The outsome of this case will have serious ramifications for all operators and pilots in PNG.
On a technical note I have a bad copy of the AYKT aerodrome but don\'t know how to post it (help someone - please)
PPRuNeaholic
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Cairns FNQ
Posts: 3,255
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
KK... If it's in a format other than Bitmap, e-mail it to me and I'll upload it to my FotoTime site and post the URL for you.
Oops... editted to add my e-mail address
Oops... editted to add my e-mail address
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: S08 43.33 E146 34.22
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It would seem the majistrate does not know the difference between a licenced, unlicenced and closed aerodrome.
The no case to answer has been overturned and the trial is to continue. It was surprising to see that no witnesses for the defence are to be called - the trial will enter the final day tomorrow that is the prosecution and defence to finalise the case.
The fact that the court believes there is a case to answer does not mean a conviction will be definite - the court has to ensure that it makes the correct decision otherwise the next court up will have a field day if appeal is to be made.
The prosecution case is shaky - however the prosecution lawyer is openly upset about not having any chance to strengthen his case through cross examination. Perhaps this is the defence ploy ??
The trial has become one of the longest ever played out at grade 5 majistrates circuit in Waigani. As was expected the 'starvation' policy is fully at work - those sinister forces
I see the aircraft in question is still being held by the CAA - despite it not being used as evidence for the case. Perhaps this is what the government have their eyes on. Perhaps the nature of the business in Bougainville.
One thing for sure it looks like an experienced PNG pilot is about to be no more. I am told though he is not going down without a fight perhaps there is more to follow.
The no case to answer has been overturned and the trial is to continue. It was surprising to see that no witnesses for the defence are to be called - the trial will enter the final day tomorrow that is the prosecution and defence to finalise the case.
The fact that the court believes there is a case to answer does not mean a conviction will be definite - the court has to ensure that it makes the correct decision otherwise the next court up will have a field day if appeal is to be made.
The prosecution case is shaky - however the prosecution lawyer is openly upset about not having any chance to strengthen his case through cross examination. Perhaps this is the defence ploy ??
The trial has become one of the longest ever played out at grade 5 majistrates circuit in Waigani. As was expected the 'starvation' policy is fully at work - those sinister forces
I see the aircraft in question is still being held by the CAA - despite it not being used as evidence for the case. Perhaps this is what the government have their eyes on. Perhaps the nature of the business in Bougainville.
One thing for sure it looks like an experienced PNG pilot is about to be no more. I am told though he is not going down without a fight perhaps there is more to follow.
PPRuNeaholic
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Cairns FNQ
Posts: 3,255
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And it's a HUGE court isn't it KK! By the time the lawyers and their parties are there, plus the media... I've seen bigger postage stamps!
Anyway, here's the photo that KK wanted to post...
For those who may not know, this is looking south-east, with the threshold of RWY 14 closest. This is a much better photo than either of mine, but I promise not to ask how he got into THAT position for it...
I see that the runway and the apron are still as clearly defined as ever but am wondering about the taxyway to the apron! I can see it there, but... 
And I don't see any other facilities around the apron so it seems that nothing has been done about the destruction of the terminal or refuelling facilities...
Ples balus nating...
It just occurred to me that I probably should've cropped it to remove the date.
By the time the lawyers and their parties are there, plus the media... I've seen bigger postage stamps! Anyway, here's the photo that KK wanted to post...
For those who may not know, this is looking south-east, with the threshold of RWY 14 closest. This is a much better photo than either of mine, but I promise not to ask how he got into THAT position for it...
I see that the runway and the apron are still as clearly defined as ever but am wondering about the taxyway to the apron!
I can see it there, but... And I don't see any other facilities around the apron so it seems that nothing has been done about the destruction of the terminal or refuelling facilities...
Ples balus nating...
It just occurred to me that I probably should've cropped it to remove the date.
Grandpa Aerotart
Who is the 'experienced PNG pilot'....if he's defending himself in public court then his name is public record....just not where I'm at...if he's THAT expereinced then I almost certainly know him...PM me if that's better for you.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Dunnunda & Godzone
Age: 74
Posts: 4,275
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Remember it well. Interesting - the terminal and Bougair hangar completely gone.
From the original press reports I thought the airstrip being referred to was the shorter, unsealed Aropa strip - which would be an interesting adventure in a C550!
Interesting date.........
From the original press reports I thought the airstrip being referred to was the shorter, unsealed Aropa strip - which would be an interesting adventure in a C550!
Interesting date.........
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: S08 43.33 E146 34.22
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ozexpat - I am sending you some additional pictorials we may be interested in. It took a while but I finally received them yesterday my source is somewhat cautious to say nonetheless.
The aerodrome information contained in the ADF AIS publication is provided by the CAA under the terms of a foreign military power operating into the PNG state. They are required to abide by the Civil Aviation Act as stated in Section 4. Hence this document has the place well and truly mentioned.
Surely reliance on the PNG/AIP alone for operational information could be considered dangerous given the quality or lack thereof of the document and control resources available to the CAA.
In no less than 3 places in the current AIP is there a reference to Kieta - the ADCOM, Major airports on the cover of the RNC, Section RAC 10.4.2.8 specifically - delaing with radio communications at Kieta.
Perhaps the instructions to remove it from the documents was not done so carefully when the instruction came out - hey Ozexpat.
The aerodrome in question appears in at least two present companies operations manual approved under the CAR 119 process (very recently !!). Even the fact that 7 civilian operators have flown there by the Dept of Transports own correspondence. We are all very aware there is no action against them for danger or careless operation.
The questions will arise - if it is considered by a court that it is an offence to operate from an unlicensed aerodrome - then all unlicenced aerodromes under CAR 139.5 must be deemed unserviceable. This would put over 300 airstrips in the country into a categories of doubt - let alone pilots openly flying to them. Has this aspect been tought about by the CAA powers that be ? close all PNG ports because the aerodrome operating certificates have not been issued.
Some advice had better be sought on this issue prior to operating any aircraft in PNG - because those sinister forces could be lurking in the shadows for anybody with the crosshairs trained on them.
The aerodrome information contained in the ADF AIS publication is provided by the CAA under the terms of a foreign military power operating into the PNG state. They are required to abide by the Civil Aviation Act as stated in Section 4. Hence this document has the place well and truly mentioned.
Surely reliance on the PNG/AIP alone for operational information could be considered dangerous given the quality or lack thereof of the document and control resources available to the CAA.
In no less than 3 places in the current AIP is there a reference to Kieta - the ADCOM, Major airports on the cover of the RNC, Section RAC 10.4.2.8 specifically - delaing with radio communications at Kieta.
Perhaps the instructions to remove it from the documents was not done so carefully when the instruction came out - hey Ozexpat.
The aerodrome in question appears in at least two present companies operations manual approved under the CAR 119 process (very recently !!). Even the fact that 7 civilian operators have flown there by the Dept of Transports own correspondence. We are all very aware there is no action against them for danger or careless operation.
The questions will arise - if it is considered by a court that it is an offence to operate from an unlicensed aerodrome - then all unlicenced aerodromes under CAR 139.5 must be deemed unserviceable. This would put over 300 airstrips in the country into a categories of doubt - let alone pilots openly flying to them. Has this aspect been tought about by the CAA powers that be ? close all PNG ports because the aerodrome operating certificates have not been issued.
Some advice had better be sought on this issue prior to operating any aircraft in PNG - because those sinister forces could be lurking in the shadows for anybody with the crosshairs trained on them.
KK, I don't know what's going on up there but just a thing on the unlicensed aerodrome. Is it listed as licensed or unlicensed? If unlicensed, I believed "information is subject to change without prior notice. Pilots and operators must contact the airport operator directly to ensure currency and accuracy of airport information." Was this done?
If this was "a very experienced PNG pilot", would he not be aware of the local situation before he landed?
Good luck anyway to the pilot involved.
If this was "a very experienced PNG pilot", would he not be aware of the local situation before he landed?
Good luck anyway to the pilot involved.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: S08 43.33 E146 34.22
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Magistrate Ivo Cappo found the defendents guilty on all counts. This is that the Pilots, and the alleged owner of the aircraft by landing on the decommssioned aerodrome at Kieta have breeched act # 277 & 278 (carelss & dangerous).
It will probably be appealed so real judges can have a look at the decision - round one to the CAA
More to follow - stop
It will probably be appealed so real judges can have a look at the decision - round one to the CAA
More to follow - stop
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: S08 43.33 E146 34.22
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Grade 5 court Magistrate Ivo Cappo handed down the following sentence in the matter today 10th December at 1147 am:
On the matter of Section 277 (careless operation) Tasman Australia Airlines was convicted and fined PGK 150 000
On the matter of Section 278 (Dangerous use) Tasman Australia Airlines was convicted and fined PGK 100 000
On the matter of Section 277 (careless operation) Mr McGee and Mr Reid were not convicted.
On the matter of Section 278 (Dangerous use) Mr McGee was convicted and fined PGK 30 000 and Mr Reid convicted and fines PGK 50 000. These fines were to be paid in full by 1600 hrs on 10th December or default would lead to arrest and detention at the Bomana Correctional Institute with forced hard labour for 12 months.
Additionally, Mr. McGee's (Commander) PNG Licence has been revoked for a period of 12 months.
This is a total of PGK 330 000
Furthermore the aircraft VH-WNZ is not permitted to leave the custody of the PNG CAA until the matter of costs under Section 306 have been determined or the 'commercial gain' under section 279 has been established - there is still the matter of what business activities took place in Bougainville.
An appeal has been lodged and a stay in place whilst the appeal process is heard. This is set for mentioning in court with specific conditions on Tuesday 14th Dec 04.
May I suggest closure of this thread as a new thread called (perhaps ) the 'House of cards' is more appropriate.
On the matter of Section 277 (careless operation) Tasman Australia Airlines was convicted and fined PGK 150 000
On the matter of Section 278 (Dangerous use) Tasman Australia Airlines was convicted and fined PGK 100 000
On the matter of Section 277 (careless operation) Mr McGee and Mr Reid were not convicted.
On the matter of Section 278 (Dangerous use) Mr McGee was convicted and fined PGK 30 000 and Mr Reid convicted and fines PGK 50 000. These fines were to be paid in full by 1600 hrs on 10th December or default would lead to arrest and detention at the Bomana Correctional Institute with forced hard labour for 12 months.
Additionally, Mr. McGee's (Commander) PNG Licence has been revoked for a period of 12 months.
This is a total of PGK 330 000
Furthermore the aircraft VH-WNZ is not permitted to leave the custody of the PNG CAA until the matter of costs under Section 306 have been determined or the 'commercial gain' under section 279 has been established - there is still the matter of what business activities took place in Bougainville.
An appeal has been lodged and a stay in place whilst the appeal process is heard. This is set for mentioning in court with specific conditions on Tuesday 14th Dec 04.
May I suggest closure of this thread as a new thread called (perhaps
) the 'House of cards' is more appropriate.
PPRuNeaholic
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Cairns FNQ
Posts: 3,255
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
House of Cards
I really think that this thread should stay open because the story of the appeal is related to the original "alleged transgressions". If another thread is to be opened with the suggested title, it might not be immediately obvious to all those who have a vested interest in the topic. And mate, after all, isn't it true that there's no way that new evidence can be introduced in the appeal?
I'm bloody amazed that the appeal will be held so quickly, but that's surely another reason to keep this topic going? I've not been to the appeal court yet and it is now certain that I won't be called, so we all need your continued input here, Mr. Court Reporter!
I'm going to try to take "morning tea" at Boroko Foodworld on Monday (with a mutual mate who recently got a jet rating), so I hope to see you there mate... around 10:30 hours (local, o' course!).
I'm bloody amazed that the appeal will be held so quickly, but that's surely another reason to keep this topic going? I've not been to the appeal court yet and it is now certain that I won't be called, so we all need your continued input here, Mr. Court Reporter!
I'm going to try to take "morning tea" at Boroko Foodworld on Monday (with a mutual mate who recently got a jet rating), so I hope to see you there mate... around 10:30 hours (local, o' course!).