Is a paraglider an aircraft?
Create a free account to read this article
or signup to continue reading
That was the question Katoomba Local Court grappled with on November 23 in a case that could set a precedent in Australia.
Blackheath resident Kurt Pudniks, 40, has been charged with 16 counts of performing a duty essential to the operation of an Australian aircraft during flight time, without the required authorisation.
The offences allegedly took place when Pudniks flew a paraglider in Blackheath and elsewhere in NSW between September 2020 and May 2021. The offence carries a maximum penalty of two years imprisonment.
While Pudniks accepts that he did not have authorisation, he is contesting whether a paraglider constitutes an aircraft.
The prosecution said they couldn't find any past case law on the issue.
Pudniks brought along a new paraglider to the hearing and testified to his experience in using a paraglider.
Dr Sonya Brown, a senior lecturer in aerospace design at UNSW, was called to give evidence about the physics of flight, structure of paragliders, and semantic distinctions such as "action" vs "reaction" of air against a paraglider.
There were also multiple practical examples given, with Dr Brown moving her hand around in court to demonstrate how it interacted with the air.
The testimony was so technical that at one point Magistrate Clare Farnan said that Dr Brown's report took her "straight back to Year 12 physics".
The prosecution's case focused on Dr Brown's evidence and the different volumes of acts and regulations relevant to the case, such as the use of "flight time" in the Civil Aviation Act 1988.
The defence's case focused on the practicalities of operating a paraglider and the definitions of key words in the regulations, such as an aircraft deriving "support" in the atmosphere from the "reactions" of the air.
Magistrate Farnan adjourned the matter to December 15 when she will hand down her decision. Her finding may set precedent for similar future cases in Australia.
