A lawyer for the Civil Aviation Authority said offending "can't get much worse than this" after a Ranfurly helicopter pilot admitted crashing while unlawfully carrying out commercial work, then repaired the helicopter himself and covered up the cause of the crash.
Daniel James Parker (22) appeared for sentencing in the Alexandra District Court yesterday on five charges laid under the Civil Aviation Act. Judge Michael Crosbie remanded him to the Dunedin District Court on December 12 to look into the possibility of an electronically-monitored sentence.
Parker had admitted operating a Robinson 22 helicopter on a commercial agricultural aircraft operation at Lochar Downs Farm, Cromwell, on March 16 last year without having a commercial pilot's licence, an agricultural aircraft operator certificate or an agricultural rating.
He had also pleaded guilty to operating a helicopter in a manner that caused unnecessary danger to property - colliding with a centrepoint irrigation system on the farm that day.
The other charges related to his actions after the crash. Parker admitted operating a helicopter carelessly, by flying it on and off a truck when it was not in an airworthy condition and carrying out repairs without having an aircraft maintenance engineer licence.
He admitted making a false statement to the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA), saying the crash was caused by a "heavy landing" while ferrying a passenger, rather than a collision with the irrigator.
"As far as offending is concerned, it can't get much worse than this," lawyer Fletcher Pilditch said, who was appearing for the CAA.
Parker held a private pilot's licence but did not have a commercial pilot's licence.
He had been doing low-level flying, spraying a crop, and was flying into the sun when he collided with the irrigator, Mr Pilditch said.
Pilots seeking commercial pilot's licences and agricultural rating received training, information about protocols and safety regulations before carrying out "high-risk" operations such as this.
After the crash, Parker had flown the damaged helicopter on and off a truck "when it shouldn't have been flown at all," Mr Pilditch said.
To save money, the defendant, who co-owned the helicopter, had carried out the repairs himself, removing the tail boom, fitting stabilizers and removing and re-installing the tail rotor.
"This is not just pushing out a ding ... this is an aircraft ... these were safety-critical parts that were being repaired."
If another pilot had later flown the helicopter, unaware of the repair, it may have posed a serious safety risk, Mr Pilditch said.
It was unfair on legitimate agricultural commercial operators, who were properly-trained and complying with the rules, to be placed at a disadvantage and undercut by "people like this entering the market".
Questioned about the incident by the authorities three times, Parker had repeated the crash was due to a "hard landing".
"This was an orchestrated attempt to create subterfuge or misrepresentation to avoid the true nature of the incident," Mr Pilditch said.
The risk of re-offending was "quite high", he believed.
Counsel for the defendant, Brett Cooper said the matter was "an illustration of youth and inexperience" .
Parker had passed the practical test for a commercial pilot's licence twice but failed one written paper and was "close to getting his credits".
"Mr Parker has already put himself to huge personal cost - the aircraft was not insured," Mr Cooper said.
Parker had voluntarily stood down from flying since May last year "until these matters are concluded".
He still wanted to gain a commercial pilot's licence, Mr Cooper said.
