casa and the Coroners Courts

[Up-into-the-air]

1. Toowoomba [KingAir] : Counsel Assisting: Mr Simon Hamlyn-Harris Civil Aviation Safety Authority: Mr Ian Harvey (i/b Phillips Fox)

2. Willowbank [PJOps]: Counsel Assisting Coroner: Mr Ian Harvey Civil Aviation Safety Authority: Mr Andrew Luchich (instructed by CASA Legal department)

3. Mareeba Microlight: Counsel Assisting Coroner: Mr J Tate, Crown Law No CASA

4. Hamilton Island [Fuel selector]: Counsel assisting: Mr Simon Hamlyn-Harris Civil Aviation Safety Authority: Mr Ian Harvey

5. Lockhart River [Metro]: Counsel Assisting Coroner: Mr Ian Harvey Civil Aviation Safety Authority: Mr Peter Dunning SC with Mr Andrew Luchich (instructed by Blake Dawson Waldron Lawyers)

6. Gunpowder Chopper: Counsel Assisting Coroner: Mr Ian Harvey Civil Aviation Safety Authority: Mr Joe Rule (instructed by CASA Legal department)

7. EMS Chopper: Assisting: Mr John Tate, Counsel, Crown Law, No CASA

8. What's next???


Summary: In five out of seven coronial enquiry’s, Ian Harvey appears, twice for casa and three as Counsel Assisting Coroner.

Surely this is a gross conflict of interest and not in the best interest of finding out what really happened and the best way to fix the issues underlying the cause of the incident.

We should note from the casa annual reports that in 2010-2011, Ian Harvey was paid $154,736, $219,259 in 2009-10 and $89,115 in 2008-09.

[Jabawocky]

You only just noticed that.

Shane Erqhart (sorry about the spelling) would have a lot more to say if you ask him.:sad:

[gobbledock]

Yes, another example of 'robust processes' and 'worlds best practice' in action.
No snouts in the trough in these instances is there?
Not only is it a disgrace but the persons who orchestrated this sham and hired this guy should be dragged before a royal commission.
I would imagine Shane Urqhart is trying to get on with life which must be painful enough, and probably cringes every time he hears this sort of crap.
They may as well sing karaoke and dance on the graves of those lost in these accidents.
The government should hang its head in shame at the antics of these unconscionable vermin.
And don't forget that those orchestrating, approving and accepting of this stuff get paid bonuses on top of their plump salaries!

[Kharon]

Just finished a stack of reading related to some of those incidents (courtesy of the Hume dam thing). The difference in the number of Coroner recommendations between the cases is to say the least, interesting. There is a real coincidence for you students of such things. Worth a look at. Talk about things that make you go Hmmm.

I will find and post that wonderful paragraph from the Lane report, the 'Mystique of Air Safety', sure it can be dredged up.

[Sarcs]

Googling the 'Mystique of Air Safety' brings up some interesting articles, in particular W.J.R. Hamilton's submission for the 'Development of a National Aviation Policy Statement'. Which I assume is the Aviation White (Elephant) Paper.


Hamilton's statement in regards to the Mystique thingy was:


The "Fear of Flying" &"The Mystique of Air Safety" will always weigh very heavily on the deliberations of any lay (in aviation terms) person conducting any inquiry into aviation safety or its administration.


The rest of his, very good, submission can be found here:
http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/aviation/nap/files/HAMILTON_W.pdf

......more's the pity (but typical) that the Minister obviously buried his head in the sand and chose to ignore Hamilton's recommendations.......:ugh::ugh::ugh:

Tootle Pip

[Kharon]

Hada quick 'skim' through some of the marked pages, quite disturbing how many of the recommendations of the first and second “Lane” substantive recommendations are still relevant.

When you consider the huge difference Parts 21 to 35 made (engines on condition; private IFR etc.) that they should have just continued on. Anyway, from Air Safety Regulation Review, The Legal Framework of Air Safety Regulation, 12/1988, called the “Lane” Report, (which is story for another day).

Page 35.

There is little or no tradition then of Parliamentary involvement in legislation in the area. The Act is largely ignored while ignored while real legislative (or regulatory) activity has traditionally occurred at subordinate levels, and particularly at the Authority level.

(b) The Mystique of Air Safety.
There is little that in the past air safety issues have been perceived as having a mystique. Just flying is an expert skill which few have, air safety is seen as an expert matter, in which politicians and others should not meddle. That view has been expressed to the Task Force by officers of the Authority.

With most air safety controls being in the Authority’s hands, and not made by Parliamentary scrutiny, it has been easy for officers to maintain a mystique which has been difficult to challenge. In turn, it has been alleged that this has led to an introspective and reactionary approach to rule making which is not healthy.

(c) Expediency.
Accustomed to having the power to make the rules, and without a tradition of referring to higher authority, the Authority has preferred expediency in rule making to the need to ensure a proper, formal legal base for the rules. In fairness to the Authority, the process of change of the Act or Regulations has been inappropriately slow and needs to be expedited. However, by circumventing the proper formal process for rule making, the Authority has contributed to the legal uncertainties that exist today.

[Sarcs]

The Mystique of Air Safety.
This statement probably should be widened to say 'The Mystique of Aviation'. This is the perception that the regulator and large parts of the industry have reinforced over the decades.

The reason for the regulator reinforcing this 'Mystique' is obvious, it suits their cause. The less the pollies and general public know about aviation the less oversight and scrutiny of the performance of the regulator.

The challenge for the aviation industry participants is how to break down this 'mystique'?

[Kharon]

The challenge for the aviation industry participants is how to break down this 'mystique'?

Capt Hamilton had a very good go at making some sense of it all, way back then. They must have buried that report along with all the other good sense, advice and opinion at the bottom of Gobbledocks much loved trough. Perhaps that why they keep digging away in there.

Perhaps things will improve in the New year.

[SIUYA]

Perhaps things will improve in the New year.

They won't unfortunately, until the cancer's removed, starting from the Minister, and then continuing going down through the department and the CASA (so-called) management heirarchy.

Because:

With most air safety controls being in the Authority’s hands, and not made by Parliamentary scrutiny, it has been easy for officers to maintain a mystique which has been difficult to challenge. In turn, it has been alleged that this has led to an introspective and reactionary approach to rule making which is not healthy.

Albanese is a complete and total idiot who doesn't know what he doesn't know about the continued uncontrolled civil aviation mismanagement that's occurring here in Australia under his watch. Unfortunately the same was true for the previous government, so Albanese's not a 'solo' idiot in this regard.

But until parliament realises that the bureaucracy that's running the show is so far removed from reality that it's now not funny, is an international joke insofar as regulatory 'reform' is concerned, is wasting so sh1tloads of taxpayers' funds, and is basically doing 5/8ths of fcuk-all to improve ANYTHING, then no matter what you and I as PRuNers think.......


we're 'rooned'

:ugh:.

[Up-into-the-air]

Recommendation 2 [Lockhart River Coroners Findings 17th August 2007]– Limit on multiple or conflicting roles

"I recommend that CASA consider creating firm guidelines that require consideration of workload, lines of authority, potential conflicts of interest and any other factors that impact upon the ability of “key personnel” to discharge their responsibilities within an aviation organisation when its officers are approving appointments to those positions."

In part the Coroner said:

“….. CASA contends that under a current ‘Industry Oversight Project’ the adequacy of training and checking organisations and the standards adopted by CASA to assess those organisations is being ‘comprehensively’ addressed. However, there is no indication of when the consideration of these proposals and projects is likely to be completed or what specific regulatory measures will be introduced. …..”

The question is, has casa met these obligations???

The ‘Industry Oversight Project’ did not see light of day until January 2008, when Aviation Projects Pty Ltd were given a tender for $472,000.

Two further tenders for $240,000 and $98,000 were awarded at the same time to Aviation Consultants International and Redwand Pty Ltd t/a Thirty South Consulting for parts of the same task. [Industry Oversight Project, Industry Oversight Project - Policy & Procedures Development and Industry Oversight Project - Training Development Scope of Work.]: by June 2008, to develop an analysis and reporting system to identify risk factors and trends.

casa said in the 2008 annual report:

“The Aviation Safety Oversight Program (ASOP) is enabling CASA to assess the safety of air operators and other permission holders through a structured approach based on systems safety and risk management principles.

Status: Image of tick”
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

By 2009, 2010 and 2011, this project has “morphed” into just “Industry Oversight” in the annual report, no mention of ‘Industry Oversight Project’

Again, the question to be asked is: “Has casa met the requirements of the Coroner in Queensland” for Recommendation 2” ????

[gobbledock]

Up-Into-The Air, keep digging. ASOP cost a lot more than that. And when the Screaming Skull commenced his tenure he hit the roof when it came to his attention that this group of 'experts' making up team ASOP were nothing more than coffee drinking nupty's who did not have a flicker of an idea about anything. It was either 33 or 34 projects they undertook with NOT one actually finished! The actual cost of money spent was in the millions.
So I would probably issue the Skull a 'get out of jail free card' on this one, but take a look at the CASA bureaucrats in Canberra who sanctioned this group. Don't look too far though, the apple doesn't fall far from the tree and many of the same snouts are buried in the same CASA troughs!

http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRthiSighfOfGaGTOAVJ2689_j_jwWIYIk8T-0SIFY5KXd3k1As

[halfmanhalfbiscuit]

Were these coffee drinkers to be found at villa and hut dfo Bris or in Canberra

Gd , cmt groups will fix it all up now. The latest answer to everything.

[gobbledock]

Biscuit, there were a mixture of trough dwellers in the ASOP gang. Nupty's from Canberra, Brisbane, Sydney and Melbourne. Coffee shops across the country copped a workout from these smooth talking minions. Lots of 'working group meetings', travelling, hypothesizing, theoretical discussions and other such folly.
Return on investment in this group?? ZERO. Half of them have left the organisation, but the puppet masters remain. Same tricks, same unsuccessful outcomes, just a different year, and one thing remains certain;

http://ts1.mm.bing.net/images/thumbnail.aspx?q=1544376487272&id=9dd55f99a3ef06f92e580d794403242c

[Kharon]

Sorry, can't get the link to work, but The Australian + Robin Speed + Jan 15, 2010 got me there. If you have read the article, well done. If you have not, it's worth the 5 minutes it takes to do so. I have 'cherry picked' some paragraphs as an appetiser. This is no bar room barrister banging on tub and the implications of this article are, I believe serious.

Robin Speed is president of the Rule of Law Association of Australia.
Robin Speed is the co-founder of Speed and Stracey and senior consultant to the firm. He has over 40 years of continuous experience in practising law in Sydney. He is highly regarded for his academic knowledge and commercial advice.

The consequences are serious. The first is that Australia will cease to be a world leader in being governed in accordance with the rule of law, and instead become ruled by law (there being a fundamental difference). Secondly, the rule of law will be progressively replaced by the rule of the regulator, the antithesis of the rule of law.

For example, in the last eight years the ATO has issued more than 80,000 private rulings on what it says the law says (these rulings became law to the applicant, regardless of what the High Court might declare the law to mean for the rest of the community).

Rather, the intimidation of existing powers is believed insufficient to obtain compliance, so greater powers and harsher penalties are deemed necessary. Yet the futility of forcing compliance in this way was seen centuries ago by the penalty of hanging for stealing a loaf of bread. Further, the regulators increasingly find it difficult before an independent court to obtain a conviction.

One of the other signs of the rule of the regulator is the attempt to reverse the onus of proof so that the regulators can get convictions to send a clear message to the rest of the community. The Australian courts are a real impediment to regulators in this regard as they insist that no one is presumed to be guilty unless proved so.


Nice to know it's not just us upset, but justice as well.

Selah

[gobbledock]

Rather, the intimidation of existing powers is believed insufficient to obtain compliance, so greater powers and harsher penalties are deemed necessary. Yet the futility of forcing compliance in this way was seen centuries ago by the penalty of hanging for stealing a loaf of bread. Further, the regulators increasingly find it difficult before an independent court to obtain a conviction. Australian aviation is reverting to the 'hanging for stealing a loaf of bread' mentality at a rapid rate. And tell me, did hanging somebody for nicking a loaf of bread prevent bread being stolen? Nope. And as for 'regulators increasingly find it difficult before an independent court to obtain a conviction' this is true. But the endless pot of taxpayer money ensures the Regulator keeps pushing the punitive line. Maybe CASA should have its pot of gold limited to X amount of money? That would see an overnight halt on frivilous legal witch hunts and assist in reintroducing accountabilty.

One of the other signs of the rule of the regulator is the attempt to reverse the onus of proof so that the regulators can get convictions to send a clear message to the rest of the community. The Australian courts are a real impediment to regulators in this regard as they insist that no one is presumed to be guilty unless proved so. In CASA's eyse everybody is guilty, all of the the time. Innocent until porven guilty is not even in their vocabulary. If that was something they supported (which would ironicaly align with a just culture and a fair system) they wouldnt be continuously getting personal with people, enforcing legal action when a complaint is made about them to the ICC, bullying industry or indiduals when an Inspector's ego is bruised or when it is rasied with them that a decison they have made is merely incorrect.

Finally:

a) At an impost to industry I recomend anybody with a business that can afford to employ a permanent legal representative do so.

b) I recomend legal representation at all meetings, discussions and phone calls. I recomend all applications, submissions and requests be scrutinzed first by your legal representative.

c) I recomend the use of recording equipment, covert or otherwise, dependant upon the rules covering this in your individual state within Australia.

d) I recomend recording phone calls and absolutely KEEPING ALL EVIDENCE if you do not currently do so. Keep all emails, letters, receipts, written requests, anything and everything.

e) Manually record in a diary the time, date and details of any conversation or correspondence.

f) If you are not office based but you work in an environment such as hangar, airside, maintenance or manufacturer workshop then actually film the CASA representative at all times if you can.

Industry has to step up to the plate. Industry has to unite on this because the regulator is not a regulator anymore, rather it is a fully punitive Stasi like regime that has eroded trust and respect to the point that we must now react in a way that is commensurate with how they treat us. Fight fire with fire.

My suggestion for their new logo:
http://img.wikinut.com/img/1.p3.uzuqjyi6d.a/jpeg/0/Swastika.jpeg

[halfmanhalfbiscuit]

I strongly recommend keeping a record of all docs emails and the diary. I was fortunate to be able to prove my version of events and that they had lied. Like gd says getting in front of an independent court is the key.

Good lawyers are expensive though, but falling foul of casa is ........... very expensive.

[gobbledock]

Biscuit, are you certain? They lied? It was CASA who lied, right? Surely not? We are talking about the same organization aren't we? A government department in which it's officers, public servants, are legally bound to act ethically, transparently and honestly with integrity at all times!

Should I try to speak about this 'lying issue' with the former Exec of Human Resources? Or maybe i should go back even further and chat with his predecessor, who isn't 'hopping along' all that well these days (Karma can be a real bitch). Or maybe I should chat with one of the current minions or maybe the I.R guy (who is ex ASIO) and treats each employee within the organization as if they are guilty of some war crime or act of treason? Or what about the former health department HR nupty who is now sitting in the steaming seat! Yes yes the government health department is another fine example of a 'success story' isn't it? Thats actually what I find entertaining about governments in general, they usually shuffle their trash between departments, but the outcome is always the same !!!

Flush

[Kharon]

For many reasons, most of them deep, dark and twisted. The deeper the research there more convoluted and grim it appears, on the surface to a tax paying layman.

Biscuit, are you certain? They lied? It was CASA who lied, right? Surely not? We are talking about the same organization aren't we? A government department in which it's officers, public servants, are legally bound to act ethically, transparently and honestly with integrity at all times!
This is the real point. We, the travelling public and the Parliament should be able to implicitely believe the authority. But we can't can we ??. The bloody Easter bunny has more credibility.

For Saturday thinking :-
Sellers: The Affair of the Lone Banana - not a pretty story, I fear; still, the BBC will buy this cheap trash. However... The central character in this story is young Fred Nurke. His father, Lord Marks, made a fortune from the great Marks Laundry business... But then you've all heard of Laundry Marks haven't you... Ha ha ha. Oh dear oh dear. But let's start the story from the beginning.
Sellers: The Affair of the Lone Banana, Chapter Three. In the grounds of the British Embassy, our heroes are dug in around the lone banana tree - the last symbol of waning British prestige in South America. They all anxiously await the return of Fred Nurke. Around them, the jungle night is alive with revels - and nocturnal sounds. Rain in places, fog patches on the coast. Arsenal 2 - Chinese Wanderers 500And one for GD:-MORIARTY: But Grytpype it's all these little pigs. They keep biting me. I don't look like a pig. I don't sound like a pig. (Raves) :D :D

[Up-into-the-air]

This report was released late last year and makes interesting reading.

As you all remember, there was a lot of discussion about it and issues of AirServices (I note, Represented by Ian Harvey)

A full read at:

http://www.coronerscourt.vic.gov.au/resources/2/a/2a702e8048b782a6a5d9b5f1df885cf8/kerrydavidendicottupdated_263904.pdf

[Up-into-the-air]

:confused: Just a bit of published information on these two people. Have a careful read of the places they both have been and the timing.

Interesting read??? :

Ian Harvey Late 2011

Biography: Ian Harvey is a barrister at the private Bar practising from 3rd Floor, Wentworth Chambers, 180 Phillip Street, Sydney. He graduated LLB (Hons) from the Australian National University in 1974 and completed a Master of Laws (LLM) degree from Osgoode Hall Law School, York University, Toronto, Canada in 1981. He was a Research Student at the London School of Economics in 1986.

Ian was a lawyer with the Commonwealth Attorney-General's Department and the Australian Government Solicitor in Canberra from 1975 to 1989. In 1982/83 he was seconded to the law firm Stephen Jaques Stone James in Sydney. He joined the Sydney Bar in 1989 and practiced as a barrister in Sydney and Canberra before accepting a position for 12 months as Corporate Counsel of the Civil Aviation Authority in Canberra in 1992. He returned to the Sydney Bar in 1993. He took a short-term appointment as Corporate Counsel of the Roads and Traffic Authority of NSW in March 1997 and returned to the private Bar in Sydney in1998. His main areas of practice are in administrative and public law, transport law, aviation regulation and tort law generally. He has represented various parties at Inquiries and Inquests and has assisted the Queensland State Coroner [and casa - my addition] in a number of aviation related inquests.

Jonathan Aleck

Jonathan Aleck earned his law degree (JD) at Loyola Marymount University in Los Angeles. He holds a Bachelor of Arts degree in psychology and a Master of Arts degree in political science from the University of Oregon and a Doctorate of Philosophy in law from the Research School of Social Sciences at the Australian National University. [Title: Law and sorcery in Papua New Guinea: a reconsideration of the relationship between law and custom - Published 1996.]

Before and since arriving in Australia in 1988, Dr Aleck has combined a professional and academic career as a lawyer, a legal consultant and a university lecturer. He has taught law and politics at the Australian National University (in both the Faculty of Law and the Public Policy Programme), the University of Canberra, the University of Hawaii and the University of Oregon in the United States, and the University of Papua New Guinea.

Jonathan Aleck started work with the then Civil Aviation Authority in 1993 as a legal officer, then Chief Legal Officer and Executive Manager of CASA’s Legal Services Division. Before joining CASA, he lectured in law and politics at universities in Australia, Papua New Guinea and the United States, and for many years was the director of a private legal research and consultative organisation.

From 1998 until 2003, he was the Australian representative to the International Civil Aviation Organization, based in Montreal. During that time, he also lectured on an occasional visiting basis at the Institute of Air and Space Law at McGill University [Montreal, Quebec, Canada]. Immediately prior to his appointment to the ICAO Council, he served as General Manager of CASA’s Aviation Safety Compliance Division, and before that as Regional Manager of the Authority’s West Region.
Dr Aleck is currently a member of the National Executive Committee of the Australian Institute of Administrative Law.
Jonathan Aleck now is Associate Director of Aviation Safety of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA).

:ugh::ugh::ugh:

[Selcalmeonly]

Interesting! JA is obviously a cleaver lawyer (or at least well versed in administrative law); but how does this make him a good aviation safety regulator?

I guess that I'm one of a number of 'moderates' who think that there is too much CASA emphasis on LAW these days, and not enough on SAFETY. Whilst there may be cross-overs between the two concepts; absolute compliance does not assure safety - is not that SMS lesson 101?

[Kharon]

Not totally, that the voodoo that he do is the hoodoo we know so well. Seems he is in a cleft stick, no juice to affect the change and hamstrung by a total and utter non comprehension of anything not completely academic (like aircraft). There is course the 'gruesome twosome' to contend with.

Or, perhaps "the book" has become the Bible of the CASA mantra, you know all the psychic stuff they do nowadays. Perhaps the regs have been changed, we just didn't read "the book".

Quick ring Dymocks before they get sold out.

[Up-into-the-air]

Here is a question for those in the "Legal Eagle" area.

In NSW, how many aviation accidents, leading to a fatality do not go to a full coroners inquiry??

If some accidents do not go to a full inquiry, what are the reasons??

Why, in NSW are only some inquiries made public??

Interesting and Interesting??

[Kharon]

Those that are able - do your own research; it's all there, free gratis and 'por nada'. Interesting statistics.

I zay nutthink. (Sounds like; oh, whats his name- I forget).

[VH-XXX]

Sgt Schultz, Hogans Heroes.

I know nuffink!

[Sunfish]

According to an alleged coroners report, CASA ignored neighbours multiple complaints about an allegedly low flying cowboy pilot who eventually killed himself in powerlines.

...With apologies to John Quadrio and Paul Phelan, one wonders if CASA would have ignored a YouTube video?


Watchdog 'ignored complaints' on dangerous flying
Andrew Heasley
March 9, 2012

Wreckage from the light plane crash that killed Robert How.



AUSTRALIA'S aviation safety watchdog failed to act against a pilot who terrified his neighbours with low-flying sweeps, before he was ultimately killed in a crash, the state Coroner has found.

Judge Jennifer Coate found the Civil Aviation Safety Authority might have averted the ''sad'' episode if it had acted on three years of complaints from neighbours whose houses were buzzed. Robert Alan How, 62, of The Gurdies near Gippsland, was killed on Christmas morning, 2008, when he flew his Cessna low over a neighbour's house and seconds later into power lines strung 25 metres above the ground. The plane burst into flames on impact in a paddock, missing the house by just 600 metres.

The Coroner's report on the inquest, which has just been made public, catalogued a litany of neighbours' complaints to CASA over three years. Yet the safety regulator never acted to suspend How's basic pilot's licence. CASA received at least eight complaints from two sets of neighbours from January 2006 to March 2008 covering Mr How's antics, including flying as low as house windows and banking so hard the wings were perpendicular to the ground. The neighbours complained to CASA variously in calls, emails, in statutory declarations, even submitting photographs.
Advertisement: Story continues below

CASA deemed the complaints ''difficult to investigate and considered [to be] at the low level of safety risk'', the Coroner said. But there was a ''considerable'' amount of evidence that CASA could have gathered ''without expending that much effort'', Judge Coate said. CASA told the neighbours it had a shortage of flying inspectors.

CASA told the court it was overstretched and that none of the complainants had given sufficient evidence to proceed with any action against Mr How.

But the Coroner unearthed a telling internal email from January 2009 between two CASA officers, which reads: ''Looking back, it seems that we may have been able to prevent this. However, there were probably higher priorities at the time.''

CASA told the Coroner its complaints and enforcement processes and resourcing has since improved significantly.

In response to The Age's inquiries, CASA conceded the complaints ''could have been better managed'', but said it now had a larger budget to cover more front-line staff and ''has put in place far more robust systems and procedures to manage complaints''.

''Members of the public who witness flying they believe is dangerous or unsafe should report it,'' a spokesman said.

Read more: Watchdog 'ignored complaints' on dangerous flying (http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/watchdog-ignored-complaints-on-dangerous-flying-20120308-1un8g.html#ixzz1oYgyFn67)

[thorn bird]

Government new direction to CASA?
25 Rules of Disinformation

Sunny you havnt taken a page out of Franks manual have you?

[gobbledock]

In response to The Age's inquiries, CASA conceded the complaints ''could have been better managed'', but said it now had a larger budget to cover more front-line staff and ''has put in place far more robust systems and procedures to manage complaints''. And there you have it, not a single reponse from CASA goes by without their favourite wank word 'Robust' appearing in it!
They don't have time to follow up leads on pesky pilots buzzing neighbors houses, too many ICAO seminars or 'Law Tug Fests' to attend and consume canopes rather than chase naughty pilots.

I wonder what Flyingfiend thinks about CASA's inadequate actions in this case? Surely Flyingfiend could provide some legal spin on this matter or is he busy attending another jolly somehwere around the globe?

[Jabawocky]

This really should make the Quadrio case even more significant, when CASA spend millions and trash a career of a guy doing the right thing, all based on a dodgy video by a criminal and pathelogical lier, yet they do nothing about a complete and utter cowboy.

These folk are needing a massive overhaul.

[Up-into-the-air]

The Age article is at:

Watchdog 'ignored complaints' on dangerous flying (http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/watchdog-ignored-complaints-on-dangerous-flying-20120308-1un8g.html)

and for further reading, the Victorian Coroners Court:

http://www.coronerscourt.vic.gov.au/resources/5/b/5bd064804a694838b734ffe0da39b3cc/robertalanhow_577308.pdf

casa again??

see casa and the coroners courts for further:

http://www.pprune.org/dg-p-general-aviation-questions/473825-casa-coroners-courts.html

[Up-into-the-air]

Just released is the following:

http://www.coronerscourt.vic.gov.au/resources/5/b/5bd064804a694838b734ffe0da39b3cc/robertalanhow_577308.pdf

From the Age report and reading the Coroners report:

".... But the Coroner unearthed a telling internal email from January 2009 between two CASA officers, which reads: ''Looking back, it seems that we may have been able to prevent this. However, there were probably higher priorities at the time.''

CASA told the Coroner its complaints and enforcement processes and resourcing has since improved significantly. ...."


Question is - Did casa do their work properly???

[Oakape]

But the Coroner unearthed a telling internal email from January 2009 between two CASA officers, which reads: ''Looking back, it seems that we may have been able to prevent this. However, there were probably higher priorities at the time.''

"higher priorities at the time" just about sums it up. Not carrying passengers, particularly fare paying ones & they aren't that interested. The people on the ground are just not that important, because CASA can more easily duck it's responsibility towards them with the appropriate spin. It is much harder to deflect criticism when there are 'innocent', fare paying people on board the aircraft.

[Slippery_Pete]

What a disgrace.

I previously (many years ago) reported an operator to CASA whose pilots were involved in a dangerous d*** swinging contest amongst themselves which was breaking the rules and placing their passengers at risk.

When I reported it a second time, I was told it had been dealt with and I must be mistaken, even though the nearest CASA office was over 1000km away and they hadn't so much as left the office.

The following week, for two days IN A ROW, I was ramp checked by said FOI - which I can only assume was revenge for rocking the boat.

Tried to pin me for not carrying life jackets, until I retrieved the CAOs from the office and explained to him the legislation. Regretably, I didn't go so far as to suggest he should be familiar with rules he is supposed to enforce. :D

Unfortunately CASA is made up of a large contingent of experienced, genuine and nice people who do the right thing. It's the 10% of idiots that ruin it for everyone.

[VH-XXX]

This really should make the Quadrio case even more significant, when CASA spend millions and trash a career of a guy doing the right thing, all based on a dodgy video by a criminal and pathelogical lier, yet they do nothing about a complete and utter cowboy.



Oakape is right, there were no passengers so they didn't care.

When he crashed he was supposedly "under investigation." I wonder how far that investigation had actually progressed.

I wonder if they also looked at the owner maintenance that was taking place on his aircraft.

Taking the licence off this chap probably wouldn't have mattered though; I suspect he would have kept flying.

For those that talk about peer-pressure and dobbing people in - it didn't matter for this guy either. He had been kicked out of most of his local flying fields, but just kept finding new ones. He once struggled to land in a cross-wind and struggled, then re-positioned for the cross strip. Taxiied past the club-house with his rudder chock in place - blamed his wife for not removing it even though she wasn't even in the aircraft.

You just can't help some people no matter what you do!!! Any money spent on this chap was a waste of my taxes.

[blackhand]

missing the house by just 600 metres.
Why is over half a kilometer away " missing by JUST......."?
Oakape is right, there were no passengers so they didn't care.
CASA's regulatory paradigm is to ensure safety for fare paying passengers, don't think this encompasses preventing dropkicks from killing themselves.
There are some differences between this and the Cairns incident that Sunfish talks about, especially the fare paying passengers. Not that I am condoning CASA's action with John Q.

[Sarcs]

Well BH this dudes antics (before his demise) was definitely in contradiction to CAR 157 for starters,including flying as low as house windows !:sad: (represents unhappy neighbour)

CIVIL AVIATION REGULATIONS 1988 - REG 157 Low flying (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_reg/car1988263/s157.html)

Definitely meets all the criterior for a Darwin Award nomination!:D:D

BH is that one better?:ok:

[aroa]

I believe that there had been some compliants about the guy doing the Wilga jollies at Straddy.
After a tragic accident killing 4 kids, I guess CASA's interest would now be..how do we keep our arse out of the media fire and avoid any bad PR.?
As for the safety of the fare paying passenger, well that's an advertising jingle, not of major interest or importance really.
CASA s punitive approach to "safety" cant take any action against a pilot who's no longer with us.
But CASA does go reactive/punitive/toxic for an operator who has had the misfortune of an accident in their operation, thru no fault of their own.. eg Whyalla Air, a classic example

And I'll give you a definition of "robust" a la CASA.
An "investigation" into an incident in FNQ which may have led to a criminal conviction....consisted of the "investigator" writing up a version of events based on the AWIs statements (false)...AND THATS IT.!! ffs!
No matter... they wanted A 'bust'. But alas...it all went tits up, excuse the pun.
Oh dear! .Another $300,000 of taxpayers hard earned bites the dust.
Well beyond time for a judicial inquiry into the whole sh*tshow.:mad:

[blackhand]

So why the headbutting a wall SARCS?
Most are aware of the Low Flying Regulation, some choose to ignore it and then die.
I would imagine you are a pilot of the real world and would be aware of GA operations that "bend" the rules to stay afloat. Scud running down the road to find the strip is not much different to the accident sequence here.

Agree with the Darwin Award. You should go online to the site and nominate him, although he may have already procreated.

As an aside, I do work for a bloke who has his helipad in semirural area, and two neighbours make all sorts of claims of low flying, untrue by the way, so I treat unsubstantiated claims of such with some scepticism. I am not surprised that CASA wanted photographic/video evidence prior to proceeding - or else Kharon would have started another eloquent thread about Nazi, pony pooh collecting, CASA harrassing an innocent pilot.

BH

[LeadSled]

----- a cleaver lawyer

Now, Folks, that's an interesting concept, maybe one of those native lawyers from PNG Highlands.

I am a bit on CASA's side one this one, they would need a cast of thousands to respond to every ratbag complaint from Joe Public, particularly when Joe is a well known local axe grinder.

Inevitably, or as we say in the trade, Murphy's Law, guarantees that, amongst the thousands of spurious complaints, there will the occassional real one, and aren't we all, especially Coroner's Courts, possessed of 20/20 hindsight.

Tootle pip!!

[Creampuff]

I agree with Leaddie’s and BH's comments. But I’m more your clover morer than your cleaver lawyer.

[Kharon]

LS - I am a bit on CASA's side one this one, they would need a cast of thousands to respond to every ratbag complaint from Joe Public, particularly when Joe is a well known local axe grinder. Me too. There was one company I know of which was copping about 3 serious complaints a week, all from the same source, directly to CASA. Anyway, over a beer one night, this fellah told me a yarn about how CASA and Police guys were getting dragged out bed in the small hours to respond to hysterical, half arsed (his words) claims about this and that.

The CASA manager (Team leader ? uncertain) at the time competently, impartially, quickly and perhaps more to point, accurately dealt with every single one; even when he was certain they were a beat up. Quality service from a first class FOI. And, no it's not ancient history. Just the regulator performing design function, coolly, accurately, calmly and fairly.

This episode only serves to emphasise just how poorly the resources are now deployed. Bet a dollar there was a local FOI who could, without the current micro management, sorted this fool out in about 5 minutes, tea and biccy's included. Nope, no problems with one.

Steam off – beer o'clock.

[Frank Arouet]

A wise man once told me of an experience he had of a past CASA very senior functionary which went along the lines of;

Aviation in the US is too large to micro-manage, so they don't.

Aviation in Australia is so small it can be micro-managed, so we do;

Why!

because we can.

I'm glad we brought Murphy's Law into this, because it emphasises the above point;

If it can happen, it will.:oh:

[PLovett]

Frank, your friend may be a very wise man but on this matter I think he is wrong. There is a fundamental difference between the two countries which is reflected by their comparative legislation and approach to legislation.

Australia has always been a fundamentally regulated country with legislation prescribed for various situations, whereas, in the US legislation has lagged well behind the fact. For example, look at the banking industry if you are sick and tired of comparing aviation legislation. I really think the image of the bronzed independent larrikin Ozzie is a myth - we like to be told what to do and need the guidance. Try that in the US and see what you get.

[Frank Arouet]

probably got a lot to do with our convict heritage.

Didn't the Yanks beat the Pommies in a war of some sort?

[thorn bird]

and Frank, of course OUR safety record is much better than theirs.
and in a few more years will be perfect as nothing will be flying.

[gobbledock]

I heard a rumour today that the current Reg Implementation Manager wants around $45 million additional neddies from the taxpayer to complete the '23 year $200 million' incompetent project! He was told NO.
So the current EM Operations (ex Air Services from some time ago and the only half switched on or even capable exec in the VH-CASA fleet) will be taking over the RIM job. (sounds appropriate!) Question is, will an external candidate take on the soon to be vacated EM Ops role, or will one of the current internal dinosaurs take it on, creating a bigger poo pile?
I'm guessing they would appoint an ass kissing government tainted bureaucrat into the role rather than find fresh blood, unpolluted by spin and wankery and aged under 60, but who knows?

Perhaps Flyingfiend will be instrumental in this bold internal reshuffle and will himself receive a highly sort after 'CASA Internal Knighthood' and join the ranks of the very well remunerated executive management club?
Or maybe the CASA board, itself a labyrinth of veteran bureaucratic trough dwellers and lawyers will seek out a former member of CASA's history pages - Quinn, Vaughan, Murray, Collins, Harbor, Whyte, Adams, or even a Smith, AyaToller or Byron!

[LeadSled]

Quinn, Vaughan, Murray, Collins, Harbor,-----
Folks,
All for very different reason, it will not be any of the above.
Of that lot, in my opinion, Greg Vaughan was the only one worth feeding, which probably explains why he didn't consider renewing his contract.
Tootle pip!!

[LeadSled]

A wise man once told me of an experience he had of a past CASA very senior functionary which went along the lines of; ----
Folks,
Actually, it was Kim Beazley, who had been a Minister for Aviation, and had a very frustrating time headbutting his bureaucrats ----- and he is right, Australian aviation has never recovered from the effects of the Labor governments after WWII, government that were fundamentally opposed to any significant aviation being in private hands.

Unless you were around at the time, it is very hard to appreciate just how deep bureaucratic fingers delved into aviation.

In the airline field ( and not juts the Two Airline policy) DCA dictated what, where and how you flew, how many seats the aeroplane would have, and what you could charge for the seat.

Some of the grovelling correspondence from East-West Airlines to DCA, when they wanted to move up from Ansons to Hudsons makes sad reading.

The bureaucrats were officially/legislatively designated the fount of all aviation knowledge and wisdom, and that is the histeric (sic) (and historic) basis of the overweening "CASA Culture".

Tootle pip!!

[gobbledock]

Vaughan is not as innocent or amicable as one might think. However he was on 'The Drunks' hitlist and an interesting game of power play unfolded in a game where Vaughan lost, returned to Canberra and eventually pulled the pin.

Tsk tsk I bet Albo's 'advisers' are now wishing they they could reverse the decision to overlook Carmody and hiring the Skull?

[LeadSled]

Vaughan is not as innocent or amicable as one might think -----

Folks,
The only thing Vaughan was guilty of was getting on with the job.

Something the jobsworths really don't like, and reacted strongly against.

Likewise the same suspects reacted strongly against the directions Byron was taking, his policies were upsetting too many rice-bowls and happy little sinecures.

The experiences of Byron and Vaughan in their last year in their jobs showed just how the jobsworths in Canberra can stymie any real change.

Tootle pip!!

[LeadSled]

--employed trained professional Investigators.---

Ain't that the truth, nothing but the truth, but not the whole truth.

In all too many cases the "trained investigators" were defrocked state police, relieved of their state police jobs as the results of everything from Internal Affairs/PIC type inquiries, to Royal Commissions.

Apparently such "credits" on a CV were not impediments to employment with CASA or its predecessors. Indeed, the main qualification seemed to be a belief that "Guilty until proven innocent" was the preferred legal doctrine.

After all, a previous head of whatever the legal branch was called at the time stated (before plenty of witnesses --- meeting the criminal standard of proof --- beyond a reasonable doubt) that: "Pilots and engineers are just criminals who haven't been caught yet".

Sadly, the aviation law in Australia, does, and has done for many many years, create "Inadvertent criminals".**

It is a very old problem in Australian aviation.

Tootle pip!!

** Page 59, Air Safety Regulation Review, first report, The Legal Framework of Air Safety Regulation, 05 December 1988.

[aroa]

Heres a little story about the quality of a CASA "investigator"... not actually yet legally appointed as one until after his "investigation"

I'll quote what the LAME said about him..."new to CASA, ex-pig, didnt know jack-sh*t about aviation, what pilot maintenance sched 8 was, what an MR was, or an AD, or what a particular aircraft looked like.":eek:

When the LAME stated that there was no case to answer, because no MR his response was "I dont know about that ( and he obviously didnt), but there are people in Canberra who think they can make this stick.":ok:

The "investigator's" statement of (his) facts for the court are a litany of falsehoods, but when one is tasked to get the required result ...so what?

Two other proper investigations found 3 folk in my favour.. this mother found /mentions none... because he wasnt looking.!
At least the citizens of NSW gained a benefit when this verballing SOB joined CASA... to aviation's detriment. Their gain, our loss.
I see he gets a mention in NSW Hansard re an investigation into NSW Police.
So you can see that CASA's "Mission Statement" and "Code of Conduct" are just bureaucratic tripe, not worth the paper they're written on.

And Leady is absolutely correct....I was guilty ...and penalised, until I could prove myself innocent. But only when the Prosecution brief turned updid I know the deatils of the allegations (false) made against me.
CASA has it all together OK, Justar$e for sure :mad::mad:
And the SS is happy to preside over this lot and protect them as well.
Holy sh*it!!!!!

[LeadSled]

aroa,
Even back in "The Golden Era Of Australian Aviation Safety" under Sir Donald Anderson --- that description was from a well known "and loved" journalist --- who didn't seem to know about any of the airline crashes of the era ------??

The DCA investigators were known as the AIRSTAPO ---

Interestingly one of their main interests in those day were minor ( and I mean minor, they wouldn't know a major error if it hit them between the eyes) errors by pilots or ATC staff.

Many hours used to be consumed listening to tapes, hoping to find minor lapses in "radio procedures" by pilots or ATC. I still have my very first Form 225 (incident report for you young blokes and blokesses) and the major crime I committed --- at the end of a night flying session, and only very new to the intricacies and manifest difficulties of committing aviation in Australia, and being the only aircraft on the aerodrome ASBK, clearing 29, I said "g'night, thanks, finished for the day"'.

Quelle Horreur --- just imagine the threat to life, the potential bodies raining from the sky!!!

And the hours and days of bureaucratic paper-shuffling before the slap across the wrist arrived registered mail (no Friday night fax in those days) about seven months after the alleged crime. As I found out afterwards, nobody ever asked an Examiner of Airmen (FOI) whether it was important --- a crime is a crime, and must be dealt with !!

Just gotta keep all those files tidy, just gotta keep up the enforcement action statistics.

Tootle pip!!

[blackhand]

When the LAME stated that there was no case to answer, because no MR

The issue is whether a machine has current registration and certificate of airworthiness, not whether it has a current MR. A lapsed MR doesn't mean that an unlicenced person can now perform maintenance.

[aroa]

justappl... no idea how this "investigator" (not!) came to leave the NSW plods. To CASA, less work, more $$s, and no accountability or oversight.

bh....is that so.? Then there are many workshops, vintage and warbird rebuilders and ppls that have a problem then... along with CASA, who have never apprised the industry otherwise.
If you have no MR ..is your CoA valid? No MR the a/c is not a legally flyable entity.
And the LAME made that statement because he had in the past a "conversation" with an AWI about that very issue.... and won.!
Not more inconsistency for Christs sake!? :{
And anyway....who said I was doing "maintenance"...that was something made up by CASA persons.:mad::mad::mad:

[blackhand]

No MR the a/c is not a legally flyable entity.

MMmmm, perhaps is still a legal entity that can be flown once a fresh MR is issued.
As a maintainer, the issue to me is that once it is repaired it is going to fly. If a non authorised/licenced person has worked on it unsupervised, I am obliged to redo that work.
It is a huge can of worms to get involved with.
I would probably not release it to service.

As far as your statement about owner maintenance, anecdotal evidence from your "peers" at Mareeba suggest that you were not adverse to putting spanner to Wilga.

"Pilots and engineers are just criminals who haven't been caught yet".

Perhaps you need to adjust your Sarcasm Meter, the same thing has been said in my presence, tongue firmly in cheek.
Cheers
BH

[aroa]

With all that "inside" anecdotal (sic) evidence from the "peers".... all true? of course
And all those "peers" are as pure as the driven snow...????

Show me an AME or an LAME or a CASA AWI who reckons they have NEVER slipped a breach however minor, deliberately or inadvertantly, some place in their history, and I'll show you a ?????..insert any word you would chose to use.

Why not use your contacts and let us know here why R Clark TVL SAWI, bolted, or got the push after the Wilga episode. Que?
:ok: One down, one 'retired'..one to go.

Here's an example how it works. I am asked to go for a few circuits with a guy in his Jabiru, which I do. All I do is sit in the RH seat, never touch the controls, but pass a couple of comments about his landing technique as I see it, because he has a problem, which he admits.
Next week I'm accused by xxxxxx,a local fwit that I have been seen to be doing illegal instructing.!!!
Really? What it means if you weren't there and dont know...YOU DONT KNOW.
But of course ...there goes the story.

How about this one. Last week the local workshop of xxxxxx sent their unqualified hangar helper off in an illegal charter to go fix a helicopter out bush. Said "helper" trying to lie down out of sight during taxi..!
Told to me by 2 seperate persons... anecdotal of course.
Wont be any repercusssions there, unless they score another :mad:... but even then, maybe not.
Different strokes for different folks. Inconsistency Rules OK :D

[Sunfish]

Blackhand, are you going to tell me that if I walk into a hangar and a friendly LAME inside asks me to help him fit a propeller, and I do, then one, or both of us, has committed an offence?


Isn't there a concept of being "under instruction" or "under supervision"?

If there isn't, then the jails are going to be full to overflowing.

[blackhand]

SUNFISH, that is working under supervision, and your scenario fulfils that definition.
Is a different matter if an unlicenced person fits the propellor without direct supervision.

In fact I have been "pinged" for something similar, wasn't in the vicinity of the work being done.

A more complex issue is sheet metal work
In large MROs the sheeties complete the job, sometimes in stages, and is then inspected and certified by LAME. In a small organisation CASA say that the LAME has to be there on the job all the time the sheetie is working.
Am still arguing that one with them.

[Frank Arouet]

Aviation welders are reluctant to allow anyone to look over their shoulder at work. Some, perhaps deserved, have had same, put a shotgun to the head if you cross them.

But that's only anectdotal from my peers.

Oh! and only some people use the term "pinged".

[blackhand]

Yes FRANK, and some say anecdotal whilst others say anecTdotal.
Most don't look over welder's shoulders.Why?
They have there own Authorisation, no need for supervision, as well as the reason you say.

[halfmanhalfbiscuit]

Taxpayers take cover
I heard a rumour today that the current Reg Implementation Manager wants around $45 million additional neddies from the taxpayer to complete the '23 year $200 million' incompetent project! He was told NO.
So the current EM Operations (ex Air Services from some time ago and the only half switched on or even capable exec in the VH-CASA fleet) will be taking over the RIM job. (sounds appropriate!) Question is, will an external candidate take on the soon to be vacated EM Ops role, or will one of the current internal dinosaurs take it on, creating a bigger poo pile?
I'm guessing they would appoint an ass kissing government tainted bureaucrat into the role rather than find fresh blood, unpolluted by spin and wankery and aged under 60, but who knows?

GD, any more news on shuffling the EM at .

I'll hav a guess at the Bris gm ops taking over from gh?

[Kharon]

Fellahin; (that includes the girls). I know it’s hard after a couple of Coop’s (or whatever) to stay on track; but this thread is rapidly becoming about issues which are not worth the electrons.

This thread is, or will eventually be (trolls excluded) about the ways and means by which a Coroners court can be swayed, distracted and /or led astray by their own precept of a generally superior, all-powerful, ‘expert’ aviation (legal) opinion on matters aeronautical; which is not (nor precludes) it being weighed and measured against their own native ability to sort the wheat from the chaff.

Aside?. (For reference) how much ‘bull’ do you think a Magistrate hears in a week??. These folk are not employed for being anywhere near ‘dopey’.

The numbers are crystal clear; the ratio of non CASA influenced requests, recommendations and ‘clarification’ requests of CASA (pony pooh for GD), based against their own innate ‘common sense’ is running at a very high, scary 35:1. That’s a verifiable number.

The required, returned answers from CASA are of such a very much lower ratio it almost beggars belief. Try 94 :1 not responded to. Prove it? – can do.

It begs a lot of high profile questions which must be asked and answered about the culture of fear and the 'Myth’ of aviation safety against, dare I say it; common bloody sense.

Ignore all troll distractions; some would happily, for 30 pieces of silver happily lead you on the road to perdition.

Selah.

[blackhand]

Ignore all troll distractions; some would happily, for 30 pieces of silver happily lead you on the road to perdition

So speaks he that hijacks all threads to become an "I hate CASA" diatribe.:ok:

[Sarcs]

So speaks he that hijacks all threads to become an "I hate CASA" diatribe
BH with all due respect the thread was drifting, isn't there a ginger beer forum (with a CASA compliance stamp on it) that is sadly missing your contributions?:ok:

"Hate" is a strong word and I feel you need to read K's posts more closely and in context with the applicable thread to understand his true concerns (unless of course your vying for semi-retirement within the ranks of CASA) !:rolleyes:

[blackhand]

The numbers are crystal clear; the ratio of non CASA influenced requests, recommendations and ‘clarification’ requests of CASA (pony pooh for GD), based against their own innate ‘common sense’ is running at a very high, scary 35:1. That’s a verifiable number.

The required, returned answers from CASA are of such a very much lower ratio it almost beggars belief. Try 94 :1 not responded to. Prove it? – can do.


SARCS, try to decipher this convoluted crap about CASA.

[T28D]

BH it simply means CASA are in steath mode as usual and simply don't respond to the annoying questions and requests for information from the pesky industry at large.

They are consistent at least , don't want to start a service precedent.

[LeadSled]

Please though remove the obvious chip on your shoulder and provide us with (admissable) evidence of CASA Investigators being "defrocked State police relieved of their duties as the result of everything from Internal Affairs/PIC type enquiries, to Royal Commissions".

Justappleshere,
Nothing to do with any chips on shoulders, just a matter of long experience, including matters that are within the transcripts of the "Morris" inquiry.
I most certainly will not be naming names, we might gave reformed (sort of ) defo. laws, but I am certainly not going to accede to your requests.
There will be a few of my peers who will remember well.
Tootle pip!!

[Creampuff]

A trifle touchy there, justapplhere. Careful, your identity’s showing…

[blackhand]

T28D, there you go, I thought K talking about how the Coroner had asked questions and CASA gave the wrong answer.
As K intimated, the Coroner believes they know all about the subject to hand and makes ludicrous statements relating not only to CASA, but the police force and other authorities. But then again, he may not have been intimating that at all, his sentence construction is foreign to me.

[gobbledock]

Mr Biscuit,
GD, any more news on shuffling the EM at .I'll hav a guess at the Bris gm ops taking over from gh?
Yes indeed my friend. Taken from another post I made earlier but still apropriate here, as follows;
Latest rumoured CASA chess move. The EM Safety Oversight Branch (which reports directly to the Director's office) has pulled the pin, effectively immediately. Rumour that I am now hearing is that he was actually one of the 'nice blokes' and fell out with the penisoners, particularly Farqwitson. He had a huge blow up with Farqwitson and walked out the building. He had only been there 2 years. Also heard that Gestapo tactics and Stasi like activity is on the increase particularly among the pensioner group in the upper echelon. Another bully has been rising up through the ranks (no name but he is angry, bald and famous in the NT before taking up office in Brisvegas) and he too enjoys beating up industry. (These sorts of people usually have a tiny weener and are battered henpecked husbands at home).
If the rumour is true it makes you wonder yet again about how capable and effective the Skull , Minister and Board are ??

Its time for all these old farts who have no accountabilty,
are losing their marbles and certainly couldnt even fly a remote controlled
plane anymore to be shown the door. Australian aviation is being ruined and wrecked by a few geriatric has-beens. Time to give them the golden handshake, panama hat, viagra and Volvo and tell them to never come back.

Now, where is Flyingfiend? A deafening silence? What, no comment out of Canberra? Perhaps a little busy responding to Ministerials, or back in Montreal for some adhoc wankery, or maybe busy putting the final touches to some glossy spin to pass over to the Ministers office, busy putting out some flames in the kitchen?

[Up-into-the-air]

Here is more detailed support, remembering by the end of June 2008, in AusTender documents, Ian Harvey had tendered for specialist legal services some $50.000 as follows:

HARVEY, IAN13749696787 Specialist Legal Barrister FY2007/2008 (GAPS ID: 1691414) Legal services 6-Aug-07 16-Jul-07 30-Jun-08 50,000.00

The forward tender quote for Mr. Harvey is some $200 000 for 2011-2012 [see the aus tender docs]

Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ON NOTICE

Budget Estimates May 2006
Transport and Regional Services
Question: CASA 15
Division/Agency: Civil Aviation Safety Authority

Topic: Mr Ian Harvey QC
Hansard Page: 39 (23/05/06)
Senator McLucas asked:

Senator McLUCAS—My next question is tangentially related to this issue. Can you tell me what work CASA has employed Mr Ian Harvey QC to undertake over the last, say, five to seven years?
Mr Gemmell—We can. Mr Harvey has done quite a bit of work for CASA. He very commonly represents us. I have come across him representing us in the Federal Court and indeed in coronial inquiries and various things. So he has done quite a bit, be we would have to check all the details of that.
Senator McLUCAS—If you could just give me a list. I hope that is not too difficult to find.
Mr Gemmell—No, we could find that.

Answer:

Over the past 5 years, Mr Ian Harvey QC has appeared for CASA in the following matters:

In the Administrative Appeals Tribunal

• Cole v CASA
• Brazier v CASA
• Aerolink v CASA
• Schutt Flying Academy v CASA
• McWilliam v CASA
• Polar Aviation v CASA
• Mulligan v CASA
• Heavylift v CASA

In the Federal Court

• Layton v CASA
• CASA v Boatman (led by P. Brereton QC)
• Byers v CASA
• McWilliam v CASA (led by R. Tracey QC)
• CASA v Hotop (led by P. Brereton QC)

Coronial Inquests

• Police Air Wing (Western Australia)
• Toowomba (Queensland)
• Hamilton Island (Queensland)

Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ON NOTICE

Budget Estimates May 2006
Transport and Regional Services
Other Court Proceedings
• Sydney Heli-Scenic v CASA (NSW) (led by G. Hilton SC)
Mr Harvey has also provided training for CASA on five occasions.
Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee
ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ON NOTICE
Budget Estimates May 2006
Transport and Regional Services
Question: CASA 16
Division/Agency: Civil Aviation Safety Authority

Topic: Mr Ian Harvey QC – CASA’s Preferred Barrister

Hansard Page: 39 (23/05/06)
Senator McLucas asked:
Senator McLUCAS—It would be quite simple to find. Would you describe
Mr Harvey as CASA’s preferred barrister?
Mr Gemmell—No. My understanding is that we have a contractual arrangement with a panel of suppliers who we roll around with. Mr Harvey on occasions would be representing our insurers. It would be a decision about representation coming from both CASA and our insurers, and it depends on who our insurers are. I am not sure the description ‘preferred’ would be correct, but I can check that to see if any part of the contract does indicate that.

Answer:

Mr Ian Harvey QC is one of a small number of barristers with demonstrable experience and expertise in aviation-related matters of the kind in which CASA tends to become involved. In litigation before the courts and before coronial inquests, CASA’s insurers and external solicitors determine who will appear on CASA’s behalf. In many of those cases, Mr Harvey is their choice on the basis of his recognised ability and expertise.
Before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, CASA’s own in-house counsel appears for CASA in about half of all matters brought. Mr Harvey has appeared in a majority of the remainder of those matters in recent years.
As is customary with barristers, Mr Harvey is self-employed and is engaged on a fixed daily rate in each matter briefed.Not quite true Mr Gemmell

The question is, how many answers by casa to the Senators are "Not quite true"

Bring on the next Budget Estimates please.

[gobbledock]

Yes indeed the air is thick with the smell of rotting fish and pony poo.

[Up-into-the-air]

CASA, Coroner's Courts and the Ombudsman
Here's the latest investigation into casa, this time by the Ombudsman, with a report released on 15th April 2015.

Report released by Australian Ombudsman - casa and the coroner courts (http://vocasupport.com/ombudsman-hits-casa-over-inaction-on-coroners-courts/)


The comment by Fantome is relevant:

There's a bit to wade through if you go to the above.

A couple of extracts point to the general drift though -

THE aviation watchdog has been chastised for failing to respond to past coronial recommendations. (from 'The Australian')

COMMONWEALTH Ombudsman Colin Neave says the Civil Aviation Safety Authority needs to lift its game.

Mr Neave made eight recommendations in a report released on Wednesday, including improved links between CASA and state and territory coroners offices, as well as annual reporting on the progress of implementing recommendations.

Between 2009-2013, 153 people died in 120 general aviation crashes...

from Ombudsman's website -

Ombudsman says CASA needs to be more transparent

A report released today by the Commonwealth Ombudsman says the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) needs to be more publicly accountable in responding to coronial recommendations.

“Between 2009 and 2013, 153 people in Australia died in 120 general aviation aircraft accidents,” Commonwealth Ombudsman Colin Neave said.

“Many of these accidents were the subject of coronial inquests, which perform an important function in publicly examining questions around public safety and making recommendations aimed at preventing similar deaths in the future.

“Yet a lack of public response or visible action by CASA to these inquests made it difficult for the public – and other coroners considering similar matters – to establish whether CASA had considered or acted on the coroners’ recommendations.”

Mr Neave said his report made eight recommendations.


and a comment from Jim Davis, longtime commercial pilot and writer

"The old guard at CASA remains in place with no changes to senior management foreshadowed and no changes to the CASA board leadership until 30 June 2015. Most of the Aviation Safety Regulation Review ( ASRR) recommendations relate to CASA and will need CASA’s active involvement and support to implement them. It defies logic to have the management team that created the problems highlighted by the ASRR report to be charged with fixing those very same problems."

[Lookleft]

Jim Davis sums up the situation quite well. If CASA thumb their nose at the Senate, at the TSBC, at ICAO, at the FAA why would the Ombudsman have any greater sway over BAU?

A nice blast from the past though UITA, always a great reminder of the insight and clarity of the gobbledick mind.:ok: Where did the bully boys from the BRB go? Thats right :yuk: