Barry Hempel Inquest

[Bedderseagle]

CORONER’S COURT NO 4 BRISBANE

I attended many sessions of this inquest last week – an inquest into the deaths of Barry Hempel and Ian Lovell in the YAK-52 accidentof 3rd August 2008 off Jumpin Pin, South Stradbroke Island – yes, that’s almost 4 years ago! The assembled legal teams were numerous, with coroner, barrister assisting the coroner, CASA’s QC, insurer QBE's QC, Ian Lovell's family’s QC and then various legal representations from witnesses including Hempel's Aviation CEO, Mr Hempel’s widow and a string of Mr Hempel’s doctors and others. I was beginning to think I was at a major trial and not an inquest.

I'm surprised that the media does not appear to befollowing these proceedings, especially considering the numerous previous media reports at the time of the accident and following it. This is, or certainly should be, a major public interest case. As the inquest progressed, many cover ups, incompetencies and blatant lies were exposed.

There can be little doubt that Barry Hempel, in his prime, was ranked among the best pilots in Australia. His knowledge of his aircraft and his flying skills were of a high order. I am sure that many who were trained by him found those skills impressive. Then there was an upset. Evidence has been presented that following ahead injury in 2001, he underwent a major behavioral change. As a result of a hangar door accident he had brain damage and subsequent epileptic events. It appears that following partial recovery he was involved in a string of non-aviation offences.

During this last week, numerous witnesses were called, ranging from Queensland Police representatives, Ian Lovell’s partner, eye witnesses to the crash, doctors, the Hempel's CEO, Hempel's Chief Pilot and CASA. It was clear that some witnesses had been primed by their legal representatives, for many were their stock responses of “I do not recall”. The accounts from doctors involved with MrHempel were horrendous. They revealed many instances of malpractice, including alleged loss of records or the non-existence of them.

It was alleged that Mr Hempel had over one hundred violation notices issued by CASA. Itleft one thinking of what you really had to do to be struck off for good. It appears that he had his Commercial Pilot’s Licence revoked in March 2008. That being so, on the day of the crash, 31 August 2008, he should not have been taking up fare paying passengers. (Ian Lovell was the third such passenger that day).

Hempel's CEO stated that he wasn’t really a true CEO, only acting as one so that Hempel's Aviation could get it's Air Operator's Certificate, (AOC), with CASA. He stated that he knew that CASA had cancelled Mr Hempel’s Commercial Pilot's Licence, but believed, because Mr Hempel had told him so, that because he had held a special authority before entitling him to fly the YAK-52 aerobatic warbirds aircraft, that authority was still valid. Even the company's Chief Pilot, on the stand, stated that he had no knowledge of Mr Hempel undertaking commercial flights in the Yak-52.

The court heard scarcely credible accounts of cover-ups, deceits, malpractices and blatant lies which had the coroner, the coroner's QC and most of the public gallery patently shocked. It became clear that there were many who knew of the potential hazard who could have reported the dubious operations, or otherwise alerted others.

CASA should have have charged Barry Hempel and had Hempel's Aviation shut down.

The CEO should have attempted to stop Mr Hempel from flying and failing that should have resigned, requesting the Chief Pilot to do likewise.

The Chief Pilot should have requested Mr Hempel to stop flying. Were that request ignored, his only proper recourse would have been to resign and submit a full report laying out his reasons for this to the Authority.

The Hempel's Aviation company director turned a blind eye.

Mr Hempel’s doctors turned a blind eye.

Of Mr Hempel's many ‘mates’, (apparently including PPRuNe posters following the crash) – not one was prepared to blow the whistle on their 'mate'.

Had just one done so, then this accident would in all probability not have occurred.

It seems extraordinary that CASA could have issued over one hundred violation notices yet failed to bar him from flying as pilot in command- and this from a capital city secondary airport, not out in the sticks where renegades may still be found flying and flouting the law.

One can only hope that, as the inquest proceeds this week,eventually something good will come from it all. For instance, if found necessary, that amended legislation will be enacted and effectively policed. (The whole concept of effective policing combined with fair and equitable surveillance would appear to be in need of searching reappraisal at the top and within the ranks of CASA.)

I will not in any way presume to pre-empt the coroner's findings, but will say it is encouraging to see the thoroughness of the inquest's probings. I hope that when they are handed down, the findings, the outcomes and the recommendations can be acted upon sensibly so that this type of accident is less likely or never to recur.

[Notso Fantastic]

I think if I am absolutely obliged to read about this incident, then I would rather read a slightly more unbiased report. But I don't think it will be posted here for long. You have posted this in totally the wrong place!

[effortless]

And where should it be placed?

[Notso Fantastic]

Well D & G is a good start, but take a look at the definition of Reporting Points above. A small joyride flying club with an unlicensed instructor doesn't fit, does it?

[green granite]

What makes you say that Bedderseagle's report was biased Notso Fantastic, were you also at the inquest?

[Notso Fantastic]

That report is opinionated. If that is the official result of an inquest, I would think it stepped way outside its terms of reference. Inquests are to find the cause and reason of death, not to come up with opinions like that. Or shotgun everyone within range with accusations of blame.

[Allan L]

Opinionated or not, what is to be learnt from the incident? Early days yet, as the Coroner has not yet made findings.

For those who might not be aware, this is what an inquest under Queensland law is all about (note that bolding is mine for emphasis):


An inquest is a court hearing conducted by the coroner to gather more
information about the cause and circumstances of a death. Coroners can also make recommendations about matters connected with the death, including matters related to public health and safety or the administration of justice. These recommendations are aimed at preventing similar deaths in the future. Recommendations can only be made if an inquest is held.


Edit: Sorry, should have included link to the reference:
Inquests - Queensland Courts (http://www.courts.qld.gov.au/courts/coroners-court/common-questions/inquests)

[effortless]

A coroner has the right to look at anything he or she sees relevant and comment about it. This is the point of the coronial system. Uk gov. Is trying to take away some of these powers to stop the embarrassment of coroners pointing the finger at government agencies.

[BALLSOUT]

Brain damage, Epilepsy and still had a license???

[LeadSled]

Inquests are to find the cause and reason of death,

Folks,
I note that Allan L has already picked up the fallacy of this contribution.

In most Coroner's Courts in Australia (a Coroner is usually a District Court Judge or equivalent -- there are no lay Coroners in Australia) the Coroner is not bound by the laws of evidence, and this often results into shining a light into some very dark corners, in a way that would not happen in a criminal trial.

Having an in-depth knowledge of these matters, in my opinion, Bedderseagle's post is quite reasonable, although he is obviously shocked at what has happened, the unfolding of events over a long period of time.

Tootle pip!!

[Kharon]

BE - One can only hope that, as the inquest proceeds this week, something good might come from it all and legislation adopted, put in place and ‘policed’.

Alan_L - These recommendations are aimed at preventing similar deaths in the future. Recommendations can only be made if an inquest is held.

Sen Fawcett - I notice that still is not available now, nearly 10 years after the event. Does it cause you any concern that recommendations that were accepted by the coroner, and put out as a way of preventing a future accident, still have not actually eventuated ?. Estimates 23/5/12. (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/committees/estimate/ac4cc409-1146-463a-8fcb-70fbd6afc70a/toc_pdf/Rural%20and%20Regional%20Affairs%20and%20Transport%20Legisla tion%20Committee_2012_05_23_1098.pdf;fileType=application%2F pdf#search=%22committees/estimate/ac4cc409-1146-463a-8fcb-70fbd6afc70a/0000%22)

Have you noticed if any of the promised legislation which many Coroners relied on for their recommendations, is available for practical use ?.

Have you noticed if any Coroners recommendations have been adopted to produce, in any practical, meaningful way improved safety outcomes ?.

Have you noticed - in real terms, if there has been a pro active approach to reduce the self evident risks or casual factors related to the provided recommendations ?.

Does there remain a potential for the incident to be repeated ?.

History will repeat and prove, yet again that it's all remarkably predictable.

[Sarcs]

The numbers of assembled legal teams was notable with Coroner, coroners QC, CASA’s QC, insurer QBE QC, Ian Lovell's family’s QC and then various legal representations from witnesses including Hempel CEO, Barry Hempel’s widow and a string of Hempel’s doctors and others. Phew . . . . I was beginning to think I was at a major trial and not an Inquest.



One has to wonder why there is so much legal interest in what would appear to be (on the surface) a relatively straight forward case....perhaps there is a fear that this could be the firecracker that could go off in your face!:*

Sounds to me as if the legal 'clean up' crews have been dispatched...perhaps the coroner would do well to talk to Senator Fawcett before passing the findings and recommendations!:ok:

[Trojan1981]

Have you noticed if any Coroners recommendations have been adopted to produce, in any practical, meaningful way improved safety outcomes ?.

Have you noticed - in real terms, if there has been a pro active approach to reduce the self evident risks or casual factors related to the provided recommendations ?.

In the above case maybe not, but the coroner's court is the most effective forum for exposing every aspect of such tragic events; and certainly has proven effective at changing safety culture and regulation in other industries.

I have no idea of the nature of Mr Hempel's injury, but the change in behavior and nature WRT risk-taking seems consistent with frontal lobe injury. This really sounds like something that CASA should have been all over; monitoring the company in the immediate aftermath of his licence revocation and taking necessary enforcement action. If his licence was revoked due medical reasons then it sounds to me like the doctors did exactly as they were supposed to.

That said, allowing a non-licensed pilot to take fare paying passengers on commercial flights (regardless of the pilot's standing in the company and experience) constitutes criminal negligence. I wouldn't be surprised if they face a civil suit when this is all over, regardless of whether or not they are prosecuted criminally. Anyone who exposes passengers, and themselves, to such risk must be completely bloody stupid. Even if you end up having to drive a truck for a living, it's much better than ending up in this situation.

[tail wheel]

I have 'undeleted' this thread as I consider it very important and in the public interest to know how Barry Hemple was able to continue flying commercial operations without a license and why no one took any action to stop him.

I am also concerned that CASA may in some way, influence the Coroner's findings.

Bedderseagle may contact me if he believes the thread should be closed or deleted.

[Feather #3]

Well done, Tail Wheel.

If the findings from this aren't in the public and aviation interest, I'd like to know what is??:rolleyes:

G'day ;)

[blackhand]

@ Tailwheel
Tenk yu tru massa

[Sarcs]

Cheers Taily!:ok: It is an important case to be openly monitored and commented on as it evolves, keep an eye on those legalcrats spending our hard earned..do we know who the various legal players are?:rolleyes:

[mickjoebill]

Keep the thread going.
The investigation by a coroner is valuable because recommendations can be made into areas where other agencies such as ATSB and Worksafe have a narrow focus.


Mickjoebil

[Worrals in the wilds]

Thanks Tailwheel.
The Coroner would appear to be John Hutton.
http://www.courts.qld.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/92872/inquest-list-201205-FINAL.pdf

[Llevioloh8]

A good man died that day. Ian Lovell.

There's a lot of very angry people attached to this case who want justice, now and forever in the future.

The infatuation with an activity should never overtake our ultimate care to each other.

Barry Hempel lied on numerous occasions, his comercial license being cancelled in march 2008 being just one small example.

This should never have been allowed to happen and there are people out there, right now, who know in their souls that they played a part in Ian's untimely death.

No more.

[Lodown]

This really sounds like something that CASA should have been all over; monitoring the company in the immediate aftermath of his licence revocation and taking necessary enforcement action.

I would guess that if nothing untoward appeared on the paperwork, then the CASA had no compunction to intervene. In the past 35 years or so, it seems that the CASA's modus operandi has been "pro-active and pre-emptive". If the paperwork is fine, then there is nothing wrong with the company or the person. (Heavy on sarcasm.)

[Capt Fathom]

Generally speaking....

Any sort of bump to the head, brain surgery, tumor, head trauma, will disqualify you from holding a valid medical for minimum of 12 months or longer at the discretion of CASA.

[Kharon]

Trojan - In the above case maybe not, but the coroner's court is the most effective forum for exposing every aspect of such tragic events; and certainly has proven effective at changing safety culture and regulation in other industries.

Tailwheel - I am also concerned that CASA may in some way, influence the Coroner's findings.

Sarcs - perhaps the coroner would do well to talk to Senator Fawcett before passing the findings and recommendations!.

Ll@@8 - There's a lot of very angry people attached to this case who want justice, now and forever in the future. All true of so many cases.

[Tidbinbilla]

There will be no further discussion of matters relating to Mr. Hempel, apart from the inquest.

THAT IS ALL

TID

[TunaBum]

Interesting "exchange" yesterday (I understand) between the Coroner and CASA's Counsel (yes you guessed it - Ian Harvey). Tempers "appearing" to get a little frayed. Rest day today.......perhaps just as well.

Bedderseagle may be willing to elaborate with first hand account?

To fill in some other "blanks", Counsel assisting the Coroner is Ms Karen Carmody, and ATSB are not involved/represented.


TB :cool:

[Sarcs]

CASA's Counsel (yes you guessed it - Ian Harvey).

So Fort Fumble's "Mr Fix-it", sure sign that Albo's circus are a little concerned over this inquest....yes indeed an inquest worth monitoring!:D

Hey TB any media interest yet?:*

[Frank Arouet]

Counsel assisting the Coroner is Ms Karen Carmody. It's not Mr Harvey this time.

Search: QLDBAR Database (http://www.qldbar.asn.au/query.cgi?template=template1&PCOnly=N&PCCurrent=1&order_by=Surname&records=5&Surname=&Local=&Specialities=&CounselType=&method=all&database=db1&page=27) Carmody.

[Sarcs]

Counsel assisting the Coroner is Ms Karen Carmody. It's not Mr Harvey this time.



Well Frank at least it's not the 'enemy within' this time!

[Up-into-the-air]

My information has Nanchang and Yak's with 95% exchangeable parts and that there have been primary flight control failures in the recent past in these aircraft types.

My questions is in this are:

1. Was this a primary control failure??

2. Was this similar to the un-investigated fatal crash of a Nanchang at Moruya??

3. Are there any other failures in the past that have occurred in either Yak's or Nanchang's??

4. What other accidents have not been investigated??

5. What is the complicity in this of Warbirds??

6. Have there been any AD's issued??? [particularly regarding inspections of primary flight controls]??

Answers please

Please don't let the chance to have a really good look at what has happened and the relationship to other similar fatal's or near fatal's in these types of aircraft go by this opportunity to explore all the facts.

[Frank Arouet]

Well Frank at least it's not the 'enemy within' this time!

Quiet so, however one hopes she is up to the job. She, as junior Counsel and Harvey, the consumate Rottweiler will control the "billycart" unless she proves her worth here. If she is "trod on" with bull$hit that The Coroner doesn't understand, it may well be advisable to take the transport lawyer bit off her CV.

Pessamists are never disappointed, but in this case I hope I am, and she proves combatative enough to advise The Coroner correctly.

[Macroderma]

Frank,

she seems to be well on top of the facts, and takes no rubbish from the witnesses !!:=

[Macroderma]

Sarcs,

I believe a gentleman from the press was in attendance all day today, and took copious notes!

he represents one of the more credible news organisations, so stay tuned!!

[Kharon]

Macroderma - I believe a gentleman from the press was in attendance all day today, and took copious notes!.
There was one of them at the Lockhart River gig as well; pretty fearless, talented and he knew a bit about sorting donkey pooh (blame Grip Pipe) from pony pooh.

Ask Mr. Ben Sandilands about the perils of reporting on fatal air accidents in Australia; it's quite a story children.

Regrettably, not mine to tell, but as they say - time reveals all truths.

[Sunfish]

The problem is that legalities are more important than common sense.

"Why didn't CASA take action"? Is exactly the same question social workers get asked "Why didn't you remove that abused child from its drunken parent?"

The answer of course is that CASA, like the social worker, has to prepare a fully documented legal case, with every i dotted and t crossed, because the offended parent/aviator is going to let loose a lawyer shouting "Nazi Jackboot thugs!" , "denied natural justice!", "procedural fairness!", etc. etc.

If Mr. Hempel had successfully weathered "a hundred" rounds with CASA, I think it is unfair to blame CASA for perhaps being measured, thorough and perhaps slow in attempting to clip Mr. Hempels wings yet again.

Give CASA a break.

[Kharon]

Big ask Sunny, huge. Long answer;

DO they have a track record of fair, honest reasonable dealing with FAA ?.
DO they have a track record of fair, honest reasonable dealing with ICAO?.
DO they have a track record of fair, honest reasonable dealing with Senators ?.
DO they have a track record of fair, honest reasonable dealing with Coroners?.
DO they have a track record of fair, honest reasonable dealing with AAT ?.
DO they have a track record of fair, honest reasonable dealing with Courts ?.
DO they have a track record of fair, honest reasonable dealing with Operators ?.
DO they have a track record of fair, honest reasonable dealing with Operations ?.
DO they have a track record of fair, honest reasonable dealing with Audits ?.
DO they have a track record of fair, honest reasonable dealing with Pilots ?.
DO they have a track record of fair, honest reasonable dealing with Air Traffic Control?.
DO they have a track record of fair, honest reasonable dealing with ATSB data?.
DO they have a track record of fair, honest reasonable dealing with Reg reform?.
DO they have a track record of fair, honest reasonable dealing with Maintenance?.
DO they have a track record of fair, honest reasonable dealing with Airports?.
DO they have a track record of fair, honest reasonable dealing with Medicals ?.
DO they have a track record of fair, honest reasonable dealing with Admin?.

Perhaps, if you could tick Yes to any of the above boxes, the entire aviation community would support their (CASA) endeavours and applaud their reasoned restraint dealing with matters that affect the life and well being of the public and industry.

Little of the interest is with 'this' matter, the real story is the hope of forcing an inquiry into the regulator.

Do you imagine, for one minute that the tip of this iceberg is dragged up 'ad infinitum' on Pprune just for typing exercise ?.

Talk to the many folks affected by the erratic often bizarre antics of this, variously described as moribund, recalcitrant, arrogant, incompetent, administration. Plenty of seriously qualified people itching to step up to the mark at any form of honest inquiry or commission into any or all of these matters.

Short answer – no way Jose`.

[The Butcher's Dog]

Yes.......broken up into bits and started again!

[Torres]

With Barry Hemple operating commercial flights from his office at Archerfield, just a stone thow from the old Tower, how could CASA and everyone else on the field not know?? :confused:

[Ejector]

maybe he did not do it between 9:30am and 3:00pm M-F, the only time the CASA staff seem to do anything. :D

[jetfighter]

Tragic disaster, condolences go to all those involved.

I hope there are some decent recommendations implemented to save future innocent lives.

The general public are not aware of all the policies and procedures required to operate these companies. Even proof of licences (Company & Pilot) should be shown to the public prior to flying should be mandatory for these types of flights.

Something needs to change as we cant keep loosing innocent lives.

[TunaBum]

I believe a gentleman from the press was in attendance all day today, and took copious notes!


Will make for interesting reading - what with witnesses falling suddenly ill during examination and having to be taken by ambulance to hospital! Luckily other witnesses in attendance were ambo's (from previous attendance to Barry's seizure in 2003) who assisted....

I think the Coroner will have been convinced from yesterday's evidence that Barry was an undiagnosed epileptic who shouldn't have been (undiagnosed that is....... :suspect:).

TB

[Frank Arouet]

Two things come to mind concerning CAA intervention;

1) Hospitalisation for more than 7 days requires notification to CAA.

2) Any documented loss of consciousness means instant removal of licence.

I was involved in this matter at a family /business level and I passed this information on to the enquirer. I know from personal experience, any head injury involving a pilot needed a minimum of eight years free of any form of epilepsy and had no initial documented loss of consciousness to even be considered fit to fly.

[Frank Arouet]

No bites so far. I guess I'll just contact the Coroner direct.

It's on record here if anyone wants to PM me for further contact information.

24 hours would be fair.

[TunaBum]

Crash inquest probes pilot's health - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-06-08/crash-inquest-probes-pilot27s-health/4061162?section=qld)

TB :sad:

[Chu Mai Huang]

umm... Frank.... CAA hasn't existed for 17 years.....

[Bedderseagle]

What a pity the journos didn't cover the inquest from Day 1 and then they could have written a decent complete report instead of just picking up a couple of bits from a short last day session . . . a bird strike . . . . highly unlikely scenario . . on what had been presented throughout the 10 days . . . . what about giving a more updated Barry photo too . . . . Anyway at least the coroner has everything at his disposal now to come up with conclusions and recommendations . . . . . ;)

[Sarcs]

CAA hasn't existed for 17 years..... ....and in that time the word safety (in the title) has never been properly upheld or justified...hence CAA!:ok:

[Frank Arouet]

Indeed;

I did not mistake my description of the dysfunctional, corrupt civil aviation, "small letters" regulator. The safety part, well, it parted 17 years ago. (if you insist).

The 24 hours I deemed reasonable is in keeping with that same regulator's insistence on issuing writs on Fridays after or just before end of business.

0900 on Monday The Inns of Court Brisbane will be aware of my concerns and I will question the independance of "ALL" parties involved in the matter.

[Dora-9]

I know from personal experience, any head injury involving a pilot needed a minimum of eight years free of any form of epilepsy and had no initial documented loss of consciousness to even be considered fit to fly. Frank, that's certainly not correct now, given the recent Hazelton case where the AAT overruled the CASA AvMed people.

[Dora-9]

Frank, see Hazelton and Civil Aviation Safety Authority [2010] AATA 693 (10 September 2010) (http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/cth/AATA/2010/693.html?stem=0&synonyms=0&query=hazelton)

[Frank Arouet]

The key words are;

and that he "seemed to be fully aware of his surroundings, makes one believe there was no documented loss of consciousness. (a Coma score of 13 is acceptable), even though the patient may be incoherent through alcohol, or any drugs be they administered post trauma, illicit or otherwise. He was obviously ambulatory and as such was vindicated by The AAT.

One wonders why it got that far in the first place, The CAA medico's should have known the rules, they made them.

A different bird from a different nest than what the Coroner is now dealing with.

[Fantome]

Note that Bedderseagle has amended his originating post. Reads more rationally and provides some clarification. Well done BE for alerting the throng to this important inquest.

[dude65]

That ABC report is a bit misleading.:=

It makes no mention of the fact Lovell was a fare paying passenger. He was sitting in that aircraft as a customer, not as a friend.

[TunaBum]

From the originating post:


Then there was an upset. Evidence has been presented that following ahead injury in 2001, he underwent a major behavioral change. As a result of a hangar door accident he had brain damage and subsequent epileptic events. It appears that following partial recovery he was involved in a string of non-aviation offences.


I'm not convinced that this version is not overly sympathetic to Barry. I'm fairly sure that a number of his problems with CASA pre dated his "head injury". Certainly the controversial "non-aviation offences" did, as they were reported in the press in the mid 1990's (as noted on another thread on this network).

Hope that's not too close to the bone Mods. I'm not trying to slander the man, but lets get the story straight........warts and all.

TB :ok:

[Macroderma]

for the record , on the first day of the the inquest the coroner asked a number of questions seeking to clarify Hempel's age at the date of the first complaint about his behaviour (apparently he was 19 yo at the time)

[Bedderseagle]

The inquest has now run it’s course and all evidence was submitted and final witnesses called last Friday 8th June. It seems the process to come up with the findings and recommendations will take at least 10 weeks. A few comments relating to some previous posts:

Ms Carmody certainly stepped up to the plate and proved to be a strong ‘barrister assisting the coroner” certainly able to ‘hold her own’ amongst the other high profile barristers.

The non-aviation offences were relevant to coronial inquiry as there was a significant criminal case (no details disclosed) pending at the time of the accident and it was implied that Barry Hempel could have been under high stress levels.

We can only hope that the coronial findings and recommendations are presented in a way that can be implemented to ensure such an accident like this could be avoided in the future. :rolleyes:

[Frank Arouet]

Lets not impede any statutory declared lynch mob from executing it's legal function.

My guess is, CASA get .05% blame and BH gets 99.95%. If these figures work out it's an indictment on CASA for being reactive instead of PRO-active.

But I've been wrong before. (once, when I admitted I was wrong).

[Sarcs]

We can only hope that the coronial findings and recommendations are presented in a way that can be implemented to ensure such an accident like this could be avoided in the future

Good sentiments to have Bedderseagle, but unfortunately history points otherwise. Franks 'frank' assessment is so true:

My guess is, CASA get .05% blame and BH gets 99.95%. If these figures work out it's an indictment on CASA for being reactive instead of PRO-active.


The regulator's legaltocracy are only ever employed when they feel they maybe exposed, as Frank points out, even if it is only .05% exposure!

History also shows, time and time again, that they (the regulator) also have this part of the legal process totally 'sussed', they even employ the same counsel 'dude' to train all possible expert witnesses in the ways of the Coroner's court or AAT hearing. There is a pile of Coroner's findings that highlight this status quo, the Lockhart River inquest was a classic example.

In the LHR Inquest the Coroner didn't apportion any responsibility to the regulator, however he did make the following observations and recommendation:


The families of the victims of this crash, understandably want someone to blame for their loss. The passengers were entirely blameless and their deaths have caused extensive and on-going suffering. The pilots are dead; the company is in liquidation and its chief pilot has left the country. It is tempting for those bereaved by the deaths to identify numerous deficiencies or departures from proper standards that Transair had been guilty of in the various operations it was conducting around the country and internationally for five or six years leading up to the crash, aggregate those issues into a cumulative list of failings and say that CASA should have detected them and acted to prevent Transair from operating. With all due respect to those families, the making of scape goats in that manner is not part of my function. I find that CASA could have done more to insist that Transair improved certain aspects of its operations but I do not believe that the evidence supports a finding that they could reasonably have stopped it from operating or prevented the crash.


Interaction between the ATSB and CASA



Finally, I wish to return to the concerns I expressed earlier about the working relationship between CASA and the ATSB. In this and previous inquests I have detected a degree of animosity that I consider inimical to a productive, collaborative focus on air safety. CASA’s submissions in this inquest suggest there was a danger of the ATSB’s recommendations being ignored and I continue to detect a defensive and less than fulsome response to some of them. I am aware that others in the aviation industry share these concerns, although I anticipate the CEO’s of the two agencies will disavow them.


Recommendation 4 – Ministerial assessment of interagency relations



Accordingly I recommend that the Federal Minister for Transport, consider engaging an external consultant to assess whether high level intervention is warranted.



However it appears it isn't all doom and gloom, as the recent Senate Estimates highlighted:


Senator FAWCETT: I notice CASA is often another player in the coronial inquests and often you will highlight something, the coroner will accept it and basically tick off in his report on the basis that a new CASR orsomething is going to be implemented. Do you follow those up? I have looked through a few crash investigations, and I will just pick one: the Bell 407 that crashed in October '03. CASR part 133 was supposed to be reworked around night VFR requirements for EMS situations. I notice that still is not available now,nearly 10 years after the event. Does it cause you any concern that recommendations that were accepted by the coroner, and put out as a way of preventing a future accident, still have not actually eventuated? How do you track those? How do we, as a society, make sure we prevent the accidents occurring again?

Mr Dolan: We monitor various coronial reports and findings that are relevant to our business. We do not have any role in ensuring that coronial findings or recommendations are carried out by which ever the relevant party may be. I think that would be stepping beyond our brief.

Senator FAWCETT: Who should have that role then?

.........so maybe the tide is turning!:ok:

[crystalballwannabe]

Thank-you for the "thread".

It would have otherwise not come to my attention.

I will be reading the findings with interest.

Without hijacking the thread, can anyone direct me to the findings of a jet that also crashed on a joy flight in Katoomba a few years ago. I think this happened, maybe I'm getting confused?

[Bedderseagle]

Interesting account here of an inquest attendee:

Contempt for authority and the rule of law : The Ramble (http://theramble.com.au/2012/06/contempt-for-authority-and-the-rule-of-law/)

and this only 1 1/2days 'actions' . . . . .

[Old Fella]

Think this may be the crash to which you refer crystalballwannabe. Strikemaster wing failure as I recall around October 2006.

[Kharon]

Apples.
CASA - Hemple realised there needed to be a significant change in action and attitude or his licence would be removed for the duration,’ John said.

CASA is not in a position to stop anybody from wilfully doing something,’ John said. ‘The potential is there for any pilot to act above their licence. The Ramble – Watson.
Oranges.
However, because it had effectively achieved John’s grounding in a single meeting from which he was excluded, CASA certainly appeared to be in no hurry to meet the challenges it still faced.

Instead, on June 30 2009 CASA sent John a Notice of Cancellation of your commercial Pilot (Helicopter) Licence. Signed by CASA Group General Manager Of General Aviation Operations Group, Greg Hood, the letter repeated the earlier three allegations, but with the addition of: Birds - What Birds -Phelan AA.
Fruit Salad ?.
CASA Director John McCormick replied that Mr Butson was “a bit delusional if that is what he thinks the outcome of the court cases has been so far.” Taxi for the Minister ?.

[601]

Just a few of questions.

Was Barry a Director or had any legal association with Hempel Aviation other than the same name?
Was the aircraft owned by Hempel Aviation?
Was the aircraft on Hempel Aviation AOC and operated under the supervision of the CP?
Was the aircraft operated under the Warbirds Association?

I think you will find the answer to all the above is "no"

I also think you will find that the A/C and surveillance (if there is such an animal) over its operation will fall between the crack between CASA and the Warbirds Association.

Nothing much of benefit will eventuate from this exercise.

[Macroderma]

601 asks some very good questions

i.e.

Was Barry a Director or had any legal association with Hempel Aviation other than the same name?

I am not sure, but he did use the credit card faciltiies and EFTPOS terminal of Hempel Aviation Pty Ltd to accept payment for the joyflight in which Ian Lovell was killed, and the website (at the time of the crash, it has since been changed, but copies were taken at the time and tabled in evidence to the inquiry)) showed the Yak as being operated by Hempel Aviation Pty Ltd.

I am not a lawyer, but does this not suggest some type of linkage, or am I being naive ???????:ugh:

[jetfighter]

601 thats a bit of a harsh post and very bias.

Official documents from CASA might prove the answers to your questions were "NO" but was this to cover up the actual operations being carried out.

What about the following questions.

Did the YAK 52 have Hempels Aviation written on the tail?
Did the Joy Filght certificates for the YAK52 have Hempel Aviation Written on it?
Was the receipt of payment from Hempels Aviation?
Was the Publics view of the YAK 52 that it was operated out of Hempels Aviation?
Were people aware that BH had his CPL revoked, however still flying his YAK 52 with paying passengers?

As you might have already guessed the answers to all of the above is YES.

However, an inquest in not to point fingers to determine who is at fault. An inquest is to find out the "TRUTH" of how these businesses/operations are run and to put forward recommendations to assist preventing this happen in the future. Whether it is CASA or the War Birds Assoc who take these recommendations on board it doesnt really matter.

I dont know why people are trying to cover up what has happened. Take a step back and just think if it was your child, husband/wife, grand parents, friends etc that passed away when there could have been a prevention, what would you choose Accident/incident prevention or promotion of accident/incidents.

[TunaBum]

Was Barry a Director or had any legal association with Hempel Aviation other than the same name?



Yes - Barry was a joint director and secretary of Shannon Nominees No 168 Pty Ltd which was(is?) the Ultimate Holding Company of Hempel Aviation (source ASIC records - publicly available). So in a round about way - he did have an association with Hempel Aviation.

Of course he was also married to the sole Director of Hempel Aviation.......


Was the aircraft owned by Hempel Aviation?


Yes - it was owned by Hempel Flying School and Barry was the sole shareholder of Hempel Flying School. So in a roundabout way......... :rolleyes:

Of course he was also married to the sole Director of Hempel Flying School.......


TB :E

(more than one way to skin a cat)

[Macroderma]

and would this be the same sole Director of Hempel Aviation (and the same person is the sole Director of Hempel Flying Training) who does not actually hold a pilot's licence? How did CASA allow that to happen ??

[LeadSled]

Was the aircraft operated under the Warbirds Association?
I think you will find the answer to all the above is "no"

601,
The aircraft was on a Limited Cat. certificate, and, therefore, administered by AWAL.

The aircraft could not do "joy rides", (ie: a charter) but could do "Adventure Flights", for which no AOC is required, but must be operated to the standards of the AWAL manual, which includes a suitably experienced CPL as the pilot.

Tootle pip!!

[Macroderma]

I am confused, can someone please explain the difference between a "joyflight" and an "Adventure Flight" ??:ugh:

[VH-XXX]

Joy Flight = Normal AOC / Charter Company / Flying school or whatever. Requires Certified aircaft with Civillian C of A.

Adventure Flight = Aircraft operated under Warbirds Assicoation AOC equivalent. Potentially a single aircraft, single man operator. Limited Category aircraft, usually an ex-military C of A. Limited responsibility, you fly at your own risk by default.

[Frank Arouet]

the same person is the sole Director who does not actually hold a pilot's licence? How did CASA allow that to happen

CAA generally have a peculiar dislike of Female operatives of any kind unless they employ them.

You may like to read up on the Ord Air matter to see how jaundiced they can get with some and yet allow others operational rights. I think its a mutation of "Stockholm Syndrome" that runs rampart through parts of the existing/ remaining industry.

[Macroderma]

thanks VH-XXX.

does

"Joy Flight = Normal AOC / Charter Company / Flying school or whatever. Requires Certified aircaft with Civillian C of A."

mean that if the journey (call it what you will) in the YAK-52, which was advertised on the website of Hemple Aviation Pty Ltd, and paid for via an EFTPOS machine registered to Hempel Aviation Pty Ltd, is a normal AOC and the pilot must hold a commercial licence?

just trying to get my head around it all :ugh:

[TunaBum]

I wonder whether the Coroner or his Counsel Assisting have their respective heads around these sort of issues ......... not sure these issues came up during the Inquiry?

:sad:

[Bedderseagle]

TB: I can confirm these issues were tabled during the inquest so the Coroner and Council assisting were aware . . . . .

[VH-XXX]

does

"Joy Flight = Normal AOC / Charter Company / Flying school or whatever. Requires Certified aircaft with Civillian C of A."

mean that if the journey (call it what you will) in the YAK-52, which was advertised on the website of Hemple Aviation Pty Ltd, and paid for via an EFTPOS machine registered to Hempel Aviation Pty Ltd, is a normal AOC and the pilot must hold a commercial licence?


- The flight needed to be advertised as an adventure flight to be legal under Warbird arrangement.
- The "operation" could have had both a normal AOC and a Warbird "AOC," however the Yak would have been operating under the Warbird "AOC."
- The pilot regardless of the operation type (AOC / Warbirds) requires a CPL.

Let us know if that's not clear still.

One of the primary benefits of the Warbird operations is that you don't have to have a full-blown CASA AOC with Chief Pilot, massive operations manuals and reams of paperwork costing many thousands of dollars and great effort. With the Warbird category practically any CPL can apply for an Warbird AOC equivalent and start flying. Great for one-man operations / as a hobby etc.

[TunaBum]

One of the primary benefits of the Warbird operations is that you don't have to have a full-blown CASA AOC with Chief Pilot, massive operations manuals and reams of paperwork costing many thousands of dollars and great effort. With the Warbird category practically any CPL can apply for an Warbird AOC equivalent and start flying. Great for one-man operations / as a hobby etc.


And then there's the downside - no Act Liability insurance coverage to fall back on if no insurance available due to breach of policy conditions by rogue operator .......

TB :{

[Bedderseagle]

This is a cut and paste from just one page of Hempel Website before it was taken down in Sept 2008 (I have all original htmls):

Hempels Joy and Scenic Flights


Russian YAK 52's
Tiger Moth DH-82A
Skipper BE77

Gift Certificates Available

Experience the exhilaration of an aerobatic joyflight in our YAK 52 or from the open cockpit of our Tiger Moth over our magnificent Queensland coastline.Our aircraft are immaculately restored and piloted by our team of highly experienced pilots with many years of commercial and military flying experience. We can tailor your flight experience to include aerobatic manoeuvres to highly advanced levels at your request.


For a pace that's a little more sedate but no less breathtaking, our scenic flights over the magnificent Bay Islands, Gold Coast, Sunshine Coast or Hinterlands is an experience you will want to repeat. Choose from our Beechcraft Skipper BE77 for one passenger, our Cessna 172 for up to 3 passengers or our Beechcraft Baron or Bonanza for up to 5 passengers. Click on the following link for Joy and Scenic Flights price information.

[VH-XXX]

Not that it is entirely relevant, however if the Warbird association had picked that up during their audit (and they do check websites) they would have been advised modify the website to call them Adventure Flights before re-issuing their Warbird paperwork.

[BronteExperimental]

phew...
"adventure" instead of "joy" should mean the punters are fully informed and know exactly what it is they are jumping into when they part with their cash:ugh::ugh:

[Sarcs]

"adventure" instead of "joy" should mean the punters are fully informed and know exactly what it is they are jumping into when they part with their cash:ugh::ugh:

Again the semantics of words in relation to classifying an operation...may seem trivial to the average Joe Bloggs but to the regulator and insurance companies...it is all about 'the words' and how those words pigeon hole an operation!

A classic example was highlighted in the Willowbank Coroner's report, from about page 15 onwards....yes it is the old chestnut Car 206 but it does highlight the regulator's reactive approach to Coroners Inquests:

http://www.courts.qld.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0011/86726/cif-willowbank-aircrash-20081124.pdf

[Macroderma]

thanks VH-XXX and others, I now apprecate the distinction, but if there is NO CPL, it is a little academic is it not?

Ian's partner purchased him a "joyflight" from a company which apparently had a pilot (who was NOT a Director, but was married to the sole (and non-flying) Director) with NO CPL, or have I missed something ?????:=:rolleyes:

[VH-XXX]

or have I missed something??

Sounds like you have a perfect understanding! Do you work for the media?

No CPL then no flying, regardless of the operation type, unless the aircraft was privately owned and flown by a Private Pilot Licencr holder (PPL) and if the flight was equally cost shared between the pilot and passenger. If this was the case it would also be a moot point because it sounds like he didn't have a medical anyway, so no PPL either. You also essentially can't run a private flight with a random passenger who is paying as that would require an AOC or Warbird approval.

[Macroderma]

VH-XXX

No, not the media, but I have a few mates who do, and they are watching this thread with great interest. I am just trying to get my head around the facts, and understand why Hempel was allowed to advertise flights, for many years, via his company, when he did not have a CPL. What do CASA actually do? Anything at all?

on a not-unrelated matter, it would appear that a CASA witness at the Hempel/Lovell inquiry (who apparently is also a pilot) had some sort of seizure or fit whilst in the witness box and was carted off to hospital. I wonder if CASA has done anything about his medical??

(note sarcasm switched "on")

or is it one rule for CASA and its mates, and another for the great unwashed mass of pilots out there ?

(note sarcasm switched "off")


please understand that I am not casting any aspersions on the "Warbirds" owners and operators, just trying to get some sense of how CASA did what they did, :oh: or didn't, :zzz: in terms of protecting the rights, and safety, of the uninformed public, epescially Ian Lovell.!:ugh::ugh:


speaking of which, and possibly off-thread (Dear Mod: mea culpa mea culpa), have you had a look at the Rob Weaver Ferry thread elsewhere on the PPRune (sorry I do not yet know how to set up a link), it is fascinating reading (over 170 pages as of last night), and there appear to be some similarities of behaviour, even though Wobert :eek: is much much younger than Hempel was at the time of the crash. At least one Australian (he reveals his name himself in the thread) has reported being ripped off by Ruprecht for non-existent ferry services.

[PinkusDickus]

I have to agree that CASA have different rules for different people. They were give irrefutable evidence in 2008 concerning deliberate and serious safety breaches by a well known charter/training/????? operator from NSW.

The outcome? An enforceable undertaking which means that nobody outside of that organisation knows they have been and probably still are shonky operators, and they continue offer their services to unwitting customers in the same manner as Hempel did.

When this crowd in NSW come unstuck as they surely will, I will be able to say "I told you so", but that will be cold comfort to the family and friends of their future victims.

Here is a link to Rober Weaver. Where Hempel may have been a highly qualified and skilled pilot, Weaver shows out to be a more than incompetent pilot, but highly a skilled scam artist.

http://http://www.pprune.org/biz-jets-ag-flying-ga-etc/474005-robert-weaver-sky-ferry-ferry-bad-experience.html

[Sarcs]

What do CASA actually do? Anything at all?



Good question and one that a lot of individuals on pprune have a lot of opinions on and have in the past voiced quite openly!!

In the area of 'high risk' recreational aviation activities the regulator wishes to keep such risk taking at arm's length, hence the philosophy of self regulation for groups like the RAA, Warbirds and the APF.

Is this mentality working??..I'll let you be the judge of that. However in one sense it is working for the CAA as they have a 'no care', 'no responsibility', which takes care of their biggest fear...'liability'!

[blackhand]

What do CASA actually do? Anything at all?Are you actually part of Australian Aviation or just another one of Kharon" dopplegangers. Warbirds, and other recreational aviation type enterprises lobbied to be separate from CASA. They took on the role that CASA used to provide.
Again, we have a pilot being an absolute pillock, then killing himself and passenger, and somehow you blame the regulator.
I doubt that you would actually want the level of "policing" that you are suggesting, but then again some like the nanny state.

[jetfighter]

I wonder how many operators running Adventure flights adhere to the following, and how does the Warbird Associsation control this:

7.2.6. each passenger must be told that:
“(a) the design, manufacture, and airworthiness of the aircraft are not required to meet any standard recognised by CASA; and
(b) CASA does not require the aircraft to be operated to the same degree of safety as an aircraft on a commercial passenger flight; and
(c) the passenger flies in the aircraft at his or her own risk”; and

7.2.7. each passenger must be told about those matters
(a) before boarding the aircraft; and
(b) before the passenger pays for the flight; and
7.2.8. each passenger must have acknowledged in writing that the passenger has been told about those matters; and
7.2.9. the aircraft operator must keep those written acknowledgments for at least three months; but the acknowledgements may not be kept in an aircraft.
7.3. Along with those conditions specific to adventure flights, the aircraft must be fitted with a placard or placards bearing a specific warning, displayed inside the aircraft in a way that is conspicuous to, and can be easily read by each person when seated in the aircraft. That placard must state:

“WARNING PERSONS FLY IN THIS AIRCRAFT AT THEIR OWN RISK THIS AIRCRAFT HAS BEEN DESIGNED FOR SPECIAL OPERATIONS AND IS NOT OPERATED TO THE SAME SAFETY STANDARDS AS A NORMAL COMMERCIAL PASSENGER FLIGHT”.

7.4. Additionally, the word “LIMITED” must be displayed on the outside of the aircraft near each entrance to the cabin or cockpit, in letters not less than 5 cm in height. The letters should be in block capitals of a style that is conspicuous and legible, so the sign/s may be easily read by each person entering the aircraft.

http://www.australianwarbirds.com.au/uploads/AWAL_AF_GM_vers1.0.pdf

[Sarcs]

Blackie not sure if that was aimed at me but if it is it seems (by your definition) that we have a few things in common:

Doppelganger:
In fiction and folklore, a doppelgänger is a paranormal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paranormal) double of a living person, typically representing evil or misfortune. In modern vernacular it is any double or look-alike of a person.


Troll:
A troll is a supernatural being in Norse mythology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norse_mythology) and Scandinavian folklore (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scandinavian_folklore). In origin, one of the meanings of the term troll was a negative synonym for a jötunn (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J%C3%B6tunn) (plural jötnar), a being in Norse mythology, although the word was also used about witches, berserkers and various other evil magical figures. In Old Norse (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Norse) sources, beings described as trolls dwell in isolated rocks, mountains, or caves, live together in small family units, and are rarely helpful to human beings.


....however that's where the love-in stops as you also have an internet definition:

Troll: In Internet slang (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_slang), a troll is someone who posts inflammatory,[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)#cite_note-1) extraneous (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/extraneous#Adjective), or off-topic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Off-topic) messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotion) response[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)#cite_note-PCMAG_def-2) or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.




http://i1238.photobucket.com/albums/ff498/004wercras/5705741267_e28a7062f3_m.jpg

Unfortunately I've kind of broken this rule...oh well!

http://i1238.photobucket.com/albums/ff498/004wercras/161524891_dont_feed_troll_122_450lo.jpg

[Macroderma]

blackhand

no, I am definitely not part of the aviation establishment, nor am I a doppelganger for anyone.

I do personally know the lady who purchased the so-called "joyflight " for her partner Ian Lovell, after she had made inquiries at the Archerfield aerodrome office and specifically asked them if they could reccomend someone who was reliable and safe.

Apparently the Aerodrome office person told her that Barry Hempel was the pilot for her, and well qualified too.

unfortunately, on the third paid-for joyflight of the day, the one in which Ian Lovell was a passenger, the plane flew or crashed into the ocean killing all on board.

I wonder how the person in the Archerfield Aerodrome office feels about this matter niow?

If I can help to stop this happening again, then so be it.

As you say, "we have a pilot being an absolute pillock, then killing himself and passenger" !

CASA had the power to prevent him flying, I am thinking, but this did not happen?
I am entitled to ask why, especially as he had apparently been reported to CASA more than a few times?

again, I say clearly, I am not attacking or criticising Warbirds or any operators or operator groups in any way.

If we leave aside completely the issue of plane type, Warbirds, operators groups etc, it is still the case that CASA has a role (and I suggest a responsibility) in relation to licencing of pilots and related medical issues.

I am simply saying that if the customer (Ian Lovell's partner) had been informed that Barry Hempel did not hold a CPL, and therefore possibly (?) was not licenced to carry paying passengers, she might well have made a very different decision, and perhaps sought the services of another, licenced operator, or maybe even not have purchased a joyflight at all.

:)

[Sarcs]

Well said Macroderma and from the heart I would suggest!

I am simply saying that if the customer (Ian Lovell's partner) had been informed that Barry Hempel did not hold a CPL, and therefore possibly (?) was not licenced to carry paying passengers, she might well have made a very different decision, and perhaps sought the services of another, licenced operator, or maybe even not have purchased a joyflight at all.



Hence my previous post #80 on the Willowbank jump plane crash. The two ladies, although signing all the waivers etc for the tandem jump, were never informed that the jump aircraft wasn't operating under an AOC and hence more heavily scrutinised by the regulator, otherwise they may not have decided not to jump!

[VH-XXX]

As a matter of interest, I've been witness to an Adventure Flight operator with a number of aircraft for quite a few years and to date I have NEVER seen the passenger choose to not sign the waiver before the flight, even when offered a full refund if they choose not to fly. The usual response is, "oh so I'm signing my life away," or "it seems necessary these days for these sorts of things."

I do seriously question if a tandem jumper would choose not to fly if the aircraft was not operated under an AOC. Hindsight is a great thing.

[blackhand]

CASA had the power to prevent him flying, I am thinking, but this did not happen?


First, apologese for being terse.
CASA revoked his commercial licence (CPL), He choose to fly illegally.
They are not able to physically restrain him from flying.
His Chief Pilot claimed ignorance of the regulations.
In the industry most pilots are professional and would not do this.

[Macroderma]

Sarcs

reading the Willowbank report made me really angry.:(

Again and again history repeats itself .

How long will CASA continue to wash its :mad: hands!!

[VH-XXX]

In the industry most pilots are professional and would not do this.


The airline industry perhaps? Some people have blinkers on!

They are not able to physically restrain him from flying.

Not true. Jail will usually stop you from flying an aircraft.

[blackhand]

Not true. Jail will usually stop you from flying an aircraft.
I didn'tr know they had that power.

[Macroderma]

BH,

apology accepted.

with apologies to VH-XXX,

"jail will usually stop (someone) from flying (in) an aircraft."

so will dying, especially if Barry Hempel has killed you.

excuse my ire, it is not aimed at you or other posters on this thread.

[gobbledock]

Doppelganger:
In fiction and folklore, a doppelgänger is a paranormal double of a living person, typically representing evil or misfortune. In modern vernacular it is any double or look-alike of a person.
Sounds like something that happens to those who sniff moped fumes, drink too much jungle juice and read voodoo witchdoctor sorcery books?

[Kharon]

For our esteemed regulator, the classic Rhyme of the Ancient Mariner although long, oft tedious has a modern, haunting and history repeating application; much as Macbeth and Hamlet do. Without apology selected verses from the Rhyme of the Ancient Mariner - S. T Coleridge.

God save thee, ancient Mariner,
From the fiends that plague thee thus! –
Why look'st thou so?' -"With my crossbow
I shot the Albatross."

Ah! well-a-day! what evil looks
Had I from old and young!
Instead of the cross, the Albatross
About my neck was hung."


Phelan AA. It’s also true that Federal Court Justice Kenny struck out the claim against CASA and its Deputy Director Terry Farquharson (and others) on the basis, in broad terms, that CASA and its officers owe no duty of care to the public in the performance of their duties.

King: O, my offence is rank, it smells to heaven,
It hath the primal eldest curse upon't—
A brother's murther. Pray can I not,
Though inclination be as sharp as will. - Hamlet.

No folks – it's not all Bollocks, not this time. Taxi Minister ??.

[blackhand]

@Macroderma
I have had the opportunity to work under four different countries regulations.
The issues with very small organisations is the same in all of those countries.
You would be stunned at the going ons in the deer harvesting industry in New Zealand some years ago.
Same with the mustering industry and the psuedo RPT in Torres Strait in the late 1990s
In Fiji and PNG, the National Aviation Authority has to micro manage their aviation industry to ensure safe outcomes are achieved.
The RCAs (Request for Corrective Action) that I have answered on behalf of clients in Australia, are in the main related to sloppy documentation. Rarely have I seen a show cause for a major breech. This I think points to the maturity of the General Aviation companies in Australia.
As you have seen from the Hempel Inquest as well as from the skydiver crash near Willowbank, there are a minority that do things their own way. Compliance with the regulations ensures the least risk in aviation.
Cheers
BH

[PinkusDickus]

Not true. Jail will usually stop you from flying an aircraft.

It would appear that Hempel was in contravention of the Civil Aviation Act 20AB Flying Aircraft without a Licence and in particular Part 1 that states:

"A person must not perform any duty that is essential to the operation of an Australian aircraft during flight time unless:

"(a) the person holds a civil aviation endorsement that is in force and authorises that person to perform that duty"

<snip>

Penalty: Imprisonment for 2 years.

It appears that Hempel had a PPL but did not have a CPL and at the time of the accident was conducting a flight that required a CPL. Hempel was (apparently) aware of his disqualifying condition, and so his actions would be a deliberate breach. Further, CAA 20A (1) and (2) refer to "reckless operation" and it could be proven that to carry a paying passenger knowing of his suspended CPL AND a disqualifying medical condition would meet that description.

The real issue here is what CASA knew about Hempel, and what they did or didn't do about it. Being the safety regulator, they have a responsibility to enforce all regulations diligently and impartially, and Hempel being a larger than life character would not have escaped their notice.

A good lawyer would have CASA squarely in the frame for negligence in allowing Hempel to continue to operate, which is why CASA has their representation at the inquest.

[Macroderma]

pinkus,

no doubt the reason why CASA had barristers and a QC at the inquest.

BTW, how is the poor CASA chappie who fell ill whilst in the witness box, does anybody know?

:cool:

[dude65]

Pick up a copy of todays Weekend Australian if you want to know where this is heading. An absolutely scathing article.

Anyone who has flown in SEQ during the last 25 years has heard the stories about Barry but reading this left me shaking my head in disbelief. If even only 20% is true, there's a hell of a lot of people who need to stand in front of a mirror and have a good look at themselves.

Front page headline, "CASA knew dark truth about rogue aviatior" pretty much says it all.

[Sarcs]

And here is the expected response from the regulator...

http://i1238.photobucket.com/albums/ff498/004wercras/ostrich20ignorance-resized-600.png

.....while repeating.."nothing to see here, move along...nothing to see here move along!":}

...and all dutifully trained by the legaleagle at a miserly $**** per hour!

http://i1238.photobucket.com/albums/ff498/004wercras/Untitled.jpg

[Llevioloh8]

Thanks sarc, that has given me a great idea for a company selling blinds, called 'willful blindsness' - just pull them down and keep yourself in glorious willful, ignorant blindness!

Maybe a range of cool shades too - keeping yourself, and everyone else, in the total dark!

Or maybe a remake of 'Total Recall' called 'Total I Don't Recall'

[LeadSled]

dude65,
A story that does nobody involved, even on the periphery, any credit.
I wonder why so many people in Australia look up to the Ned Kelly types with so much more than acceptance, indeed bordering on adulation.
Tootle pip!!

[Worrals in the wilds]

Thanks for the link, dude.
Christ. :ooh:
In the industry most pilots are professional and would not do this. Agreed, but regulations and laws usually only exist because of a minority's foolish or reckless actions.

Most people wouldn't dream of smashing a glass into someone's face at the pub, but due to a feral minority, there are laws against doing it and regs about tempered glass.

I wonder what non-aviation readers of that article now think about the GA joy flight industry. :sad: Unfair? Of course. The vast majority of operators are safe and professional.

So are the majority of Queensland dive operators, but that didn't help them when an unprofessional outfit lost a couple of people. The industry got regulated to kingdom come by a jittery state government, to the extent that many safe activities are now unviable because of ridiculous regs.

One of the problems with rogue operators (apart from the obvious one, ie the completely needless fatality) is that every other professional business suffers for their actions, from both increased regs and bad PR.

[Macroderma]

on the front page of todays "Australian" you may find an article which discusses

"a doctor-shopping, law-breaking, medically unfit pilot; a serious breakdown in communications and regulatory systems; a lack of responsiveness and disclosure by those in aviation who had witnessed his antics"

and goes on to describe how:

'police officer Graham Anderson summarised six volumes of CASA material on Hempel "that involved an extensive list of prosecutions for administrative and flying breaches", "multiple offences in numerous aircraft", "numerous occasions when he flew without a current medical certificate" and attempts to distance himself from rules by appointing his second wife, then newly wed from The Philippines, as chief executive of Hempel's Aviation. The evidence raises serious questions about CASA's role in failing to rub Hempel out.'

see the below link for the website:

Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/casa-knew-dark-truth-about-rogue-aviator/story-e6frg6nf-1226397205874)


CASA knew dark truth about rogue aviator Barry Hempel



Hedley thomas, national chief correspondent
June 16, 2012 12:00AM

http://api.news.com.au/content/1.0/theaustralian/images/1226397205334?format=jpg&group=iphone&size=medium
Ian Lovell in a 2008 photo taken by girlfriend Samantha Hare, minutes before the fateful take-off of the Yak-52 piloted by Barry Hempel, who was not fully licensed. Source: Supplied






LONG before Barry Hempel, a legend of Australia's commercial aviation industry, strapped himself and an unwitting passenger in for a final, fateful aerobatic flight that ended 13 minutes later with their deaths, startling truths about the career pilot's conduct were well known to authorities.

The Civil Aviation Safety Authority knew Hempel, 60, to be a serial menace to public safety. His disciplinary record for flagrant breaches and dishonesty went back decades and became worse as he aged. He had put passengers and unsuspecting members of the public at risk with cavalier antics that appalled safety investigators - and cemented Hempel's status as a maverick with extraordinary skills but shocking judgment.

Doctors, medical specialists and CASA also knew that Hempel, who ran a Brisbane-based aviation company (motto: the sky's the limit) that flew politicians such as Nationals senator Barnaby Joyce, business chiefs and joy-riders, had severe epileptic-like seizures, believed to have begun after a brain injury from a hangar door accident in 2001. A loss of consciousness, rigidity and convulsing would occur; one ambulance officer who reported a 10-minute episode was so concerned about Hempel's status as a pilot that he kept notes on it for a decade.


These seizures would render Hempel an even more dangerous threat to the public. In one instance that became "common knowledge" shortly before his death, he was flying a Beechcraft Baron to Brisbane from the rural town of Dalby when, according to Nigel Arnot, an aircraft engineer, Hempel suddenly had "a seizure, a full fit with shaking". A friend "had to literally punch him out" to prevent inadvertent use of the controls and disaster.

Pilots with epilepsy or seizures face bans of 10 years to life because of the obvious dangers, yet Hempel kept flying.
Police, lawyers and doctors also knew another, darker side of the charismatic aviator with the distinctive handle-bar moustache. He had a criminal rap sheet for public indecency in Queensland going back 40 years; his guilty pleas and most recent convictions for public masturbation near children in parks in Brisbane were recorded a few months before the August 2008 crash.

But the flying public knew little, if anything, of any of these matters. Neither Hempel, nor CASA, was transparent about his safety transgressions. Despite dozens of pages of documentation about the seizures, and voluminous catalogues of his repeated defiance of safety rules, dishonesty, and the routine abuse of an unwitting public's trust in him as a pilot, CASA, a federal government-funded regulatory agency, still permitted Hempel to fly from his Archerfield airport base.

Official documents show that CASA even let Hempel maintain his private pilot aeroplane licence to conduct endorsement training of other aviators, despite 13 fresh convictions under the Civil Aviation Act, and a CASA finding in November 2007 that stated "you have a long established record of breaking the law relevant to aviation safety which is indicative of an intrinsic lack of honesty and integrity which is incompatible with you being entrusted with flight crew licences ... your record of motor vehicle-related offences as well as the aviation-related offences indicates a flagrant disregard by you of safety matters ... your actions indicate an inappropriate attitude to legal authority, and a flagrant disregard to the collective requirements of safety systems ... (you are) an unacceptable risk to recidivism that threatens aviation safety".

It was a scathing judgment that stripped Hempel of his commercial pilot's licence - yet it expressly allowed him to continue flying, as well as endorsement for training and instructing (teaching existing pilots how to fly different types of planes). He had been performing the instructing role for many years and with numerous pilots. Its legacy today is in the cockpits of passenger jets in Australia and around the world - the pilots who owe their wings to Hempel, who had himself logged more than 28,000 hours since he first flew in 1964.

The effect of CASA's ruling was meant to forbid Hempel from taking fare-paying passengers on his aerobatic higher-risk flights. But he openly flouted this and widely promoted his business under CASA's nose.
As one pilot on internet forum Pprune said in a posting that is now evidence before a Queensland coronial inquiry: "He was supposed to be a role model, but tell me ... how many young idiots have killed themselves trying to imitate bad boy Bazza? Is anyone who actually knew Barry surprised?"

The life and death of Hempel - as laid out in many volumes of evidence examined by The Weekend Australian pending the findings of the coronial inquiry - reads like a story of a disaster waiting to happen. The material depicts a doctor-shopping, law-breaking, medically unfit pilot; a serious breakdown in communications and regulatory systems; a lack of responsiveness and disclosure by those in aviation who had witnessed his antics; and an enduring tragedy for a young woman, Samantha Hare, who made one fatal error - she surprised her boyfriend, Ian Lovell, with a $492 birthday gift voucher for a joy-ride in Hempel's two-seater Soviet Yak military trainer.

Evidence and other material uncovered by police and Kerin Lawyers points to a likelihood that Hempel had suffered a seizure during the flight and was physically incapable of keeping the throttle, or power, on, resulting in the Yak plunging into the sea at a velocity of about 300km/h. In many crashes in which pilots brace before impact, their hands and wrists are broken. Hempel's hands and wrists were not injured, indicating he was not conscious when impact occurred.

Hare, of Brisbane, and Lovell's parents Dave and Lynn, who travelled from their home in England, could not listen to a recorded audio grab of the 35-year-old's last words, in a radio transmission to Hempel moments before the crash in water between North and South Stradbroke Island off the Gold Coast. Lovell was shouting to Hempel: "Oh, oh my god. What are you doing? Put it on!"

At Archerfield airport in Brisbane, Hare, who said she and Lovell had "planned on spending the rest of our lives together", waited patiently for his return to base. She had photographed him in the Yak before take-off and recalled him saying "it was the best present he had ever received".
But she noticed one of Hempel's staff looking increasingly stressed while waiting for the Yak to come back. The staff member took a phone call and Hare heard him say: "It crashed."

In a comprehensive forensic report for Coroner John Hutton, police officer Graham Anderson summarised six volumes of CASA material on Hempel "that involved an extensive list of prosecutions for administrative and flying breaches", "multiple offences in numerous aircraft", "numerous occasions when he flew without a current medical certificate" and attempts to distance himself from rules by appointing his second wife, then newly wed from The Philippines, as chief executive of Hempel's Aviation. The evidence raises serious questions about CASA's role in failing to rub Hempel out.

Anderson's report, which highlights "incapacitation" (seizure) as the most likely reason for the crash, recommends consideration of "mandatory reporting by health professionals to CASA when any serious medical condition could adversely risk the health and well being of the pilot or any other person". However, it is clear from the material that CASA had known about the seizures.

Anderson concluded: "Had a conscious decision by Hempel been made not to conduct these unauthorised flights, then the previous passengers would not have been put at risk and Ian Lovell would not have died as a result. In my opinion it was ultimately Hempel's misrepresentation that eventually directed Ian Lovell into the passenger's seat. Specialist advice to not fly (or drive cars) until epilepsy had been excluded was also ignored, 10 months before the crash. I believe it reasonable to assume that on this occasion, Hempel knew he had a significantly higher risk of crashing and to that end, behaved in a negligent manner."

A year before his death, Hempel and his solicitor had met CASA officials in a bid to mitigate the punishment he was anticipating from his safety breaches. Hempel told the group in a recorded interview: "I've been in aviation virtually full-time all my life since I was 16, I've been to the school of hard knocks and learnt myself through my own aviation. I can do it in me sleep, you know, I do it very safely, I don't do anything 'harum scarum', and when I'm teaching people low-level aerobatics, I teach them with a mind to staying alive."

Hutton, who concluded public hearings last week, has reserved his findings. For Hare, her parents, and the devastated family of Lovell, the priority is to lift safety standards, improve transparency for the public about the disciplinary record of pilots, and influence CASA, aviators and doctors to take a tougher line with other daring, medically unfit mavericks in Australia's skies.

[PLovett]

Hutton, who concluded public hearings last week, has reserved his findings. For Hare, her parents, and the devastated family of Lovell, the priority is to lift safety standards, improve transparency for the public about the disciplinary record of pilots, and influence CASA, aviators and doctors to take a tougher line with other daring, medically unfit mavericks in Australia's skies.

My bold. I am sure I read almost exactly the same words from relatives of the deceased following the Lockhart River crash and what has been achieved............................?

I'm still waiting.............................:ugh:

[crystalballwannabe]

Found this on the CASA website regarding "Adventure Flights"

Do people have to understand and accept the risks?

Yes. Before you take an adventure flight you must be given an explanation of the risks involved and you must accept those risks.

People who fly in Limited Category aircraft must be properly briefed and must have acknowledged that briefing in writing.

If you choose to take an adventure flight you will be asked to sign a document to confirm you have been briefed about the safety issues.

In addition, every Limited Category aircraft must carry a placard with the following warning clearly displayed inside the aircraft in a way that each person can read:

WARNING
PERSONS FLY IN THIS AIRCRAFT AT THEIR OWN RISK
THIS AIRCRAFT HAS BEEN DESIGNED FOR SPECIAL
OPERATIONS AND IS NOT OPERATED TO THE SAME SAFETY
STANDARDS AS A NORMAL COMMERCIAL PASSENGER
FLIGHT.


Just wondering if there was a signed disclaimer by the deceased and also what quality briefing did the other two passengers receive that fateful day? - This must have come up in the trial?

[halfmanhalfbiscuit]

On a wing and a prayer


On a wing and a prayer (http://www.theage.com.au/national/on-a-wing-and-a-prayer-20080720-3i78.html)

Richard Baker

July 21, 2008

Are we safe up there? Damning evidence to a Senate inquiry suggests the Civil Aviation Safety Authority may be failing as a safety watchdog.
SENIOR executives from Australia's air safety regulator were disgruntled when they fronted a special Senate inquiry earlier this month. Surprised by the Federal Government's decision to call a snap inquiry into their administration of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, they made their displeasure clear.
"After we had given our evidence at the last estimates (in May), the inquiry was announced and certainly I was disappointed ... a number of these issues have been ventilated quite a lot," CASA's deputy chief Shane Carmody told the senators.


Carmody's comments highlight the friction that has developed between members of the Senate's Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Committee and CASA management in recent years.
Labor's Kerry O'Brien and CASA chief Bruce Byron have been particularly prickly combatants, with the Tasmanian senator pursuing the Howard-government appointee over his expensive overseas travel, his scheduling of time-off to coincide with Senate hearings and his $350,000-plus annual salary.
In addition to showing their displeasure at being the subject of an inquiry, CASA's leadership let it be known they were disappointed that the many changes they had introduced to the organisation - including reform of its approach to safety regulation and a 50% staff turnover - had not been "broadly recognised in the community".


While it may be true that most Australians are unfamiliar with CASA's reforms, the policy changes - particularly regarding safety regulation - have not been lost on pilots, engineers, former CASA staff, families of air crash victims and other industry participants.


In fact, Byron's mission to have CASA seen as a "valued partner" of the aviation industry rather than a "nanny regulator" is a topic that features prominently in many of the 50 submissions received by the inquiry.


Critics of Byron's policy argue that the move towards self-administration is worrying, particularly as airlines look to cut costs to cope with soaring oil prices and a bleak global economic outlook. Submissions from pilots, unions and former CASA officials said such times demanded a rigorous regulator.


But Byron, an experienced pilot and former airline executive, has made little secret over the past three years of his desire to introduce a "more sophisticated" approach to CASA's role as safety regulator. It is, he said last year, "something that has really been dear to my heart for some time".


Looking to the aviation regulatory regimes in the US, Canada and Europe for inspiration, Byron has pushed CASA in the direction of educator rather than enforcer. "CASA will not be knocking on your door armed with the regulations and a plan to dig around until breaches are found," he said in 2006.


The desire for a smooth relationship with industry is evident right across CASA. Even its job advertisements contain the sentence: "CASA works to be a valued partner with the aviation industry."
Byron and his management team reject criticisms that this approach has led to a cosy relationship between CASA and the aviation industry. "When at times we have to be a firm regulator, that is what we have to do," he told the inquiry.


CASA's ostensibly firm hand was on display soon after the Senate inquiry was announced late last month, with the authority ordering a safety check of air operations in northern Australia, where in one of the nation's worst air crashes 15 people were killed at Lockhart River in Queensland in 2005.


However, the initiative was not well received by some of the families of the Lockhart victims, who regarded it as a cynical attempt to appear tough as the organisation faced parliamentary scrutiny.


What the Senate inquiry has made clear is that CASA's approach to safety regulation has been the cause of considerable debate and angst within the organisation. Deputy chief executive Carmody revealed an almost 50% turnover in staff, with some choosing to move on and others going "because we no longer had a place for them".


Byron linked some of the 134 redundancies at CASA to the cultural change he and his team have tried to implement.


A victim of that change is the man who was its general counsel between 1995 and 2006, Peter Ilyk. The lawyer told senators that CASA was treading on dangerous ground by playing down its responsibility for safety regulation.
"It (CASA) was not set up to be a partner with industry. It was not set up to promote industry. It was not set up to bow to industry pressure. CASA was set up to regulate the industry and enforce the safety rules," Ilyk argued.


CASA's decision to stop publishing air operator suspensions or cancellations on its website suggests a dangerously close relationship between the regulator and industry, according to Ilyk. "Such publication would not be in the spirit of partnership," he said.


Ilyk told senators that governance failures had flourished under the new arrangements, including a reluctance to tackle the big operators such as Qantas. He said he had brought these to Byron's attention but "not long after raising my concerns, I was terminated".


"I think there was a lot of industry pressure to get rid of particular people that happened to criticise industry or took a tough stance," Ilyk said.


"Towards the end of my career, the CEO simply ignored all of my emails ... One of the ones I sent to the CEO at the time outlining my concerns about governance failures in CASA was never answered formally. We had a CEO meeting about three months later and the only response I got from the CEO was, 'Don't you ever send me a minute like that again.' At that point I knew I was on the slippery slope out."


Asked about Ilyk's claims, Byron said that to the best of his knowledge he always responded to concerns raised by senior staff, either by accepting what they said or rejecting it. He did not recall ever telling people not to send him certain material again and reminded senators that ex-CASA staff making submissions might be "disaffected".


Another former CASA employee, Joseph Tully, who was a policy manager in the general aviation group, supported Ilyk's criticisms. Tully told the inquiry that four senior CASA technical staff had been forced out of the authority since 2005 after registering concern about CASA's approach to safety regulation.


Rod Bencke, a CASA veteran of 21 years, was blunt in his assessment of the authority's standing: "It is my belief that CASA will not be an effective regulator until its operations and ethos have been comprehensively reviewed and effective correction action taken."


On what has CASA based its controversial new regulatory approach? The answer is a mix of the "partnership" models adopted by aviation regulators in the US, Europe and Canada in recent years.


Unfortunately for CASA, these regimes, which emphasise industry self-administration, have this year come in for strong criticism from law-makers and public sector watchdogs in their respective countries.
In April, James Oberstar, the chairman of the US House of Representatives Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, said the US Federal Aviation Administration had shown a dangerous lack of compliance with inspection requirements, resulting in thousands flying on potentially unsafe aircraft.
Oberstar's comments came after a congressional investigation revealed a discount airline was flying 737s that had defects which should have been detected by FAA inspections.


"It reflects an attitude of complacency at the highest levels of FAA management, a pendulum swing away from vigorous enforcement of regulatory compliance towards a carrier-friendly, cozy relationship with the airlines," he said.


Two months ago, the Canadian Auditor-General Sheila Fraser criticised Transport Canada's decision to let the aviation industry conduct its own safety inspections without first assessing any of the risks involved. Fraser said the policy "could have sweeping implications for air safety in Canada".


In Australia, it is not just former CASA employees who are worried by the authority's push for better relations with industry while moving away from the traditional role of a watch-dog style regulator.
Captain Ian Woods, president of the Australian and International Pilots Association, told senators that CASA had failed to meet required standards in enforcing industry compliance with safety regulations. This failure, he said, meant CASA was "unable to act as a necessary counterweight to balance shifting economic and regulatory frameworks".


"Some people would say that it is never possible for the one organisation to balance safety regulation with commercial necessity and they should be separated," Woods said.


"A number of occurrences I have personally witnessed lead me to conclude that CASA gave due consideration to its obligations there and at times confused those obligations and was not clear and definitive enough standing up for safety regulation."


Adding weight to criticism of CASA's relationship with industry is its refusal to release its audits of the overseas facilities, mainly in Asia, that are increasingly used by Qantas and Virgin Blue to maintain their jets. This has caused the Australian Licensed Aircraft Engineers Association to accuse CASA of putting the interests of foreign-owned companies before those of the Australian public.


Though the Senate inquiry has been a bruising experience for CASA executives, they have not been without support. Qantas and Virgin Blue applauded CASA's regulatory policy.


"The shift by CASA to a risk-based approach to safety, where the focus is on safety outcomes, with the responsibility for managing day-to-day safety risks resting with industry, is supported," Qantas said.
Importantly, Byron can point out to his critics that Australia still enjoys an airline safety record the envy of the world. "I am the first to say that we, CASA, do not have an easy job, but I stand by the record of my organisation over the last few years. We do not expect to receive bouquets for the work we do, but I would like to believe that most of the industry, from time to time, and on considered and calm reflection, acknowledges that CASA delivers real safety outcomes," said Byron, who is not seeking re-appointment as CASA chief.


But critics, such as CASA's former chief lawyer Peter Ilyk, suggest Australia is more than ever in need of a strong aviation regulator, given the growing pressure on airlines to cut costs and the possible negative effect that could have on safety and maintenance standards. "The fact that there have not been any accidents and the fact that people have not died does not mean that there is no safety problem."


Read more: On a wing and a prayer (http://www.theage.com.au/national/on-a-wing-and-a-prayer-20080720-3i78.html#ixzz1xwGcFoKp)

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

My bold. I am sure I read almost exactly the same words from relatives of the deceased following the Lockhart River crash and what has been achieved............................?

Clearly nothing achieved, but standby for a rash of ramp checks and random audits!

Same thing happened after Lockhart R as the word went out among the Cretins Against Safe Aviation to "clean up those North Qld cowboys".

Dr :8

[Sarcs]

Same thing happened after Lockhart R as the word went out among the Cretins Against Safe Aviation to "clean up those North Qld cowboys".



So watch out JT and Co (good win last night by the way)!

HMHB how times have changed, not! If anything it has gotten worse and there are no longer any of the old proactive heads...like the Benkes and Ilyks that aren't afraid to speak their minds...all numpty yes men too busy learning the trough rules and regs!:ugh:

Oh and nearly forgot gobbles "TICK TOCK!"

[Worrals in the wilds]

THIS AIRCRAFT HAS BEEN DESIGNED FOR SPECIAL
OPERATIONS AND IS NOT OPERATED TO THE SAME SAFETY
STANDARDS AS A NORMAL COMMERCIAL PASSENGER
FLIGHT. It's all about the aircraft though. There's nothing to say that the pilot may be flying despite having his CPL revoked due to a pre-existing medical condition that he knew about.

If he'd had an unexpected, out of the blue heart attack it would be a completely different matter (and a tragedy for both of them), but he had a condition that prevents sufferers from legally driving cars.
Epileptic driver jailed over fatal accident - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2006-11-07/epileptic-driver-jailed-over-fatal-accident/1304234)Sadly, there are plenty more examples and from what I can see if they were aware of the condition, they all got jail.

[crystalballwannabe]

Often cases are won or lost on "points of law".

Was the aircraft recovered and did it undergo "mechanical failure" testing? If not why not and what would it cost to get this examined?

I note the strike master crash near Bathurst was attributed to mechanical failure.

Will be reading the coroners findings with interest - Sad for everyone involved.

[poteroo]

How could CASA cancel a CPL, over safety breaches, but allow the PPL held by the same person, to remain 'current'? Of course, Before some smarty posts to inform me, it isn't really 'current' unless the pilot holds a Class 2 medical.

If you are considered unsafe to hold a CPL, then surely that applies to a PPL, an RAAus PC, and any other flying qualification?

Reckon CASA will need those high priced legal briefs in the near future!

happy days,

[Creampuff]

[T]he priority is to lift safety standards…There is, in my opinion, no need to “lift” safety standards.

There is, in my opinion, a chronic need to:
- interpret the existing safety standards consistently, and
- secure compliance with the existing safety standards, consistently and effectively.

That CASA knowingly permits commercial passenger carrying operations to be carried out in circumstances for which an AOC is required (e.g. parachute operations in which punters off the street pay to be carried in aircraft) is a scandal.

That CASA knowingly permits commercial flying training operations to be carried out in circumstances for which an AOC is required (e.g. RAA Aus charging money to train its members) is a scandal.

CASA has no power to exempt anyone from the requirement for an AOC authorising operations for which an AOC is required. CASA’s job is to enforce the requirement, not turn a blind eye to it.

The standards are already there.

Australians are entitled to have those standards enforced, consistently and effectively.

[Frank Arouet]

Hempel had been a person of interest to CAA for many years.

They failed to act on compelling evidence given to them.

They are responsible for the tragedy.

They are "The Watchdog's on duty".

If the "watchdog is not capable it should be shot and replaced with a more competent dog.

Hempel was just being Barry.

He should have had his wings clipped many years prior to this debacle.

[VH-XXX]

If you are considered unsafe to hold a CPL, then surely that applies to a PPL, an RAAus PC, and any other flying qualification?

The word "unsafe" is probably not correctly used in this instance Pots. Paperwork / AOC breaches etc wouldn't necessarily constitute the loss of a PPL. An RA cert could be lost if the RAA determined you to not be a fit and proper person and deny you membership. Would have to be pretty severe for that to happen.

[Worrals in the wilds]

Often cases are won or lost on "points of law".And points of fact. Bloke wasn't supposed to be flying pax for money, due to a pre-existing medical conditon. He'd been told that by the regulator and he did it anyway, unbenownst to the pax who thought he was getting a safe product. Bloke sold tickets despite being told not to by the regulator. This is where Blackhand has a point and this is where no points of law can point otherwise. He :mad:ed up and killed someone. Anyone want to claim a dodgy winglet did the deed? Was it all a horrible mistake?

Point of fact, the pax died and no doubt his partner will blame herself every day of her life for buying him the ticket, despite his fatality being not her fault.

In Australia, an advertised, commercial product is expected to be reasonably safe and comply with regulations. If you buy salami, you can reasonably expect that your deli and their supplier kept it stored and refrigerated at the regulated temperature and away from maggots and contaminants. If they left it sitting on the dock in the sun for half a day and you bought it, ate it and got really sick, it doesn't matter a toss if the listed fat content was wrong. They didn't follow the regulations and it's their problem. They :mad:ed up and you were harmed.

If you buy a joyflight ticket you should expect that the pilot complies with the regulations and is licensed to carry paying pax. This didn't happen. If there was anything wrong with the aircraft and a wing had fallen off mid flight, we would have heard about it by now. CASA and their Senior Counsels would have already found it and explained the whole problem away. :yuk: If there was anything wrong with the pilot? That's what the coroner will find out, and it's not looking good.

What caused the crash? No missing wing, no dodgy fuel, no alien bombers wreaking havoc on GA joyflights. A pilot with a known seizure problem and a prohibition re commerical pax (and no broken wrists) plunges into the sea, taking a trusting customer with him who paid for what he and the purchaser believed was a safe product. Any smoking guns we're not aware of? Now's the time.
Australians are entitled to have those standards enforced, consistently and effectively. Absolutely. One of the advantages of living in a nanny state is that you expect a commercial product will be safe, conducted by a trained, approved person and won't kill you. Otherwise, we may as well revert to the law of the jungle.
I agree that this sucks for everyone.

[Kharon]

I'd vote for it. In post #116 – CP presents an argument which although not perfect, kicks seven bells out of the current arrangements. Looking at the pros; debate always accepted (but know your stuff), education freely offered, words like consistent, existing, equitable and by the 'law' (as writ) are used and meant. On the minus side; well, there is the odd issue of AC/DC electrics (Jas 24 wins) and stray 'operational' matters which may need some detailed explanation; but, on the whole, of great advantage. You will always know exactly what you are dealing with. In old money – cash and no pony pooh. Now that, I can live with. (CPAA buttons here).http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/thumbs.gif

But this Hempell matter has got me scratching the old wooden head; something, somehow, somewhere does not add up. Tonight, aided by the products of a certain Franciscan Abbey, research was conducted (RDO or 3 – not in Oz). Now, whilst it took a little time to come to terms with the 'language'; essentially it turns out that Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) and Post Traumatic Epilepsy (PTE) are not only extremely well documented, researched and discussed both in lay and academic terms but, have been well known since WW 2. The "Wiki" links will get you started, they do provide some fascinating reading for folk infected by those who insist on being hit in the head by pavements, trucks, boots, bullets and the odd (errant ?) hanger door. But, I digress (blame the Nuns).

A conspiracy theorist could conjure a movie script from this tale – but as a pragmatist; well. However, when you examine the latitude afforded in this case against the many 'medically' cancelled licences (halitosis) and the many documented cases of pilots being administratively crucified for much lessor alleged 'crimes' (steep turns), you feel obliged to ask why was it so ?; given the nature of both the aeronautical and criminal allegations made.

It would, I believe, be reasonable to ask if this was a protected species case; and, if so, why and by whom ??; at least to eliminate it from our enquiries (so to speak).

Nope, it just don't add up at all. But then again. – (This space intentionally blank for sensible answers).

TBI (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traumatic_brain_injury)
PTE (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-traumatic_epilepsy)

[blackhand]

Creampuff said:That CASA knowingly permits commercial passenger carrying operations to be carried out in circumstances for which an AOC is required (e.g. parachute operations in which punters off the street pay to be carried in aircraft) is a scandal.Do these organisations require an AOC? Worrals said: And points of fact. Bloke wasn't supposed to be flying pax for money, due to a pre-existing medical conditon. He'd been told that by the regulator and he did it anyway, unbenownst to the pax who thought he was getting a safe product. Bloke sold tickets despite being told not to by the regulator. That's the truth but some here "can't handle the truth"

[Sarcs]

That's the truth but some here "can't handle the truth"


[YOUTUBE]A Few Good Man "You Can't Handle the Truth" - YouTube

Blackie just bury your head in the sand mate, we'll let you know when it's all over!:E

ps Gotta love that scene!

[Creampuff]

Do these organisations require an AOC?If all Qantas passengers joined a thing called The Qantas Club, would Qantas no longer be obliged to hold an AOC? I think not.

Organisations which take money to carry passengers in aircraft are carrying passengers for money in aircraft, whether or not those passengers happen to jump out of the aircraft and be members of a ‘club’ or a ‘federation’.

Organisations which take money to train pilots are taking money to train pilots, whether or not those trainees happen to be members of a ‘club’ or an ‘association’.

[blackhand]

Organisations which take money to carry passengers in aircraft are carrying passengers for money in aircraft, whether or not those passengers happen to jump out of the aircraft and be members of a ‘club’ or a ‘federation’.
Organisations which take money to train pilots are taking money to train pilots, whether or not those trainees happen to be members of a ‘club’ or an ‘association’.
Do CASA require them to hold an AOC?

[superdimona]

Organisations which take money to carry passengers in aircraft are carrying passengers for money in aircraft, whether or not those passengers happen to jump out of the aircraft and be members of a ‘club’ or a ‘federation’.

Organisations which take money to train pilots are taking money to train pilots, whether or not those trainees happen to be members of a ‘club’ or an ‘association’.

Also, an aircraft is an aircraft, and should be maintained to the same standard, no matter if it has 2 seats or 200. No more "exemptions" just because you can't afford to have your aging Cessna fleet cared for like an Airbus.

And don't even get me started on the "PPL" loophole.

[LeadSled]

There is, in my opinion, no need to “lift” safety standards.

There is, in my opinion, a chronic need to:
- interpret the existing safety standards consistently, and
- secure compliance with the existing safety standards, consistently and effectively.

Creamie,
That much, I agree with!! The answer to not enforcing existing laws is not more law ---- to also remain largely unenforced.

You have consistently made the point, in other threads over the years, the "the laws" are made by Parliament ---- quite correct, of course.

That CASA knowingly permits commercial passenger carrying operations to be carried out in circumstances for which an AOC is required (e.g. parachute operations in which punters off the street pay to be carried in aircraft) is a scandal.

No, CASA doesn't, and you know the law in the area at least just as well, if not better than I do.

If you or anybody else doesn't like the laws as enacted by Parliament, lobby for change.

That CASA knowingly permits commercial flying training operations to be carried out in circumstances for which an AOC is required (e.g. RAA Aus charging money to train its members) is a scandal.

No, CASA doesn't, and you know the law in the area at least just as well, if not better than I do.

If you or anybody else doesn't like the laws as enacted by Parliament, lobby for change.

CASA has no power to exempt anyone from the requirement for an AOC authorising operations for which an AOC is required. CASA’s job is to enforce the requirement, not turn a blind eye to it.


Now, here is an interesting point.

The AOC requirements were elevated to the Act largely as a result of several of the political backwash of several high profile Regional fatal crashes.

Many, me included, would say that the AOC amendments were very badly done, but done they were, covering a far wider range than the pollies originally. How do I know? You, for one, know.

Most of us are well aware of moves, over many years, to wind back some AOC requirements, to enable (as one example, there are others) one man flying training operations, as the FAA (and other counties) allow. The standards control is effective flight testing, as it used to be.

The demise of flying training in so many small country centers, is in large part due to the onerous AOC requirements, that have little to do with effective flying training --- onerous requirements that are financially unsustainable in micro businesses.

The very interesting point, argued yes by your former boss, was whether CASA had the power to give exemptions from provisions of the Act, by virtue of a regulation that made provision for exemptions. That is, can a regulation be used to create an exemption to it's enabling Act.

As a legal layman, my view, argued at the time, was that the answer was no, and the Act needed amendment, if that was to be the case. Your former boss successfully argued otherwise, and we have quite a few examples of what, on the face of it, are CASA using a regulation to create a provision that is, effectively, an exemption from a provision of the Act.

Organisations which take money to carry passengers in aircraft are carrying passengers for money in aircraft, whether or not those passengers happen to jump out of the aircraft and be members of a ‘club’ or a ‘federation’.

Organisations which take money to train pilots are taking money to train pilots, whether or not those trainees happen to be members of a ‘club’ or an ‘association’.

SuperD,

You are clearly suffering from "hire and reward" syndrome, that hasn't ever been in the "modern" Civil Aviation Act 1988, have a careful read of CAR 206, or anywhere else in the Act, where 'hire and reward" is the primary determinant for the regulations to be applied. Treatment is available, it is called application of suitable quantities of (self) education.

If you don't like the situation, including Supreme Court decisions that have, effectively, validated the arrangements, and including specific provisions of the Competition and Consume Act 2010, carried over from the Trade Practices Act 1974, authorizing waiver of liability in certain circumstances --- generically "extreme sports", where the risks cannot( effectively) be mitigated , take it up with the Minister ---- this is a rare case of bipartisan agreement between the major political parties.

It's a free world, those who want to extend the nanny state, go your hardest, you will have plenty of opposition.

Tootle pip!!

[Creampuff]

No, CASA doesn't …Doesn’t what?

[Creampuff]

Leaddie,

Your posts are often so meandering and ambiguous, it’s very difficult to understand what you’re trying to say.

It’s true that any or all operations can be excluded from the requirement to be authorised by an AOC. Regulation 206 could be repealed, with the consequence that no purposes would be prescribed for section 27 of the CA Act, with the further consequence that no operation would be required to be authorised by an AOC. Or Reg 206 could be amended to, for example, prescribe only fare paying passenger carrying operations in Class A aircraft, in which case all other operations would not be required to be authorised by an AOC.

But neither of things has happened and, given the 'pace' of classification of operations reform, nothing substantial is likely to happen soon. (I wouldn't presume to insult snails and glaciers by using them as a metaphor.)

CASA cannot grant an exemption from the requirement for prescribed operations to be authorised by an AOC.

But you appear (on one interpretation of your blurb) to be suggesting otherwise. If that’s correct, I’d appreciate you walking me through the application, or exemption, of the AOC requirement to this scenario:

Bob’s wife Jill buys Bob a parachute jump gift card for Bob’s birthday. The cost is $500. Bob fronts at the airfield where the seller of the gift card is sitting in an aircraft with VH painted on the tail. There is no warning placard in or on the aircraft to suggest or signify anything other than that the aircraft has a ‘standard’ certificate of airworthiness.

Walk me through the rules that determine the classification of that operation. And please: forget all the Competition this and Supreme Court that cr*p. Just quote the rules.

[Macroderma]

I agree 1000% with Frank who rightly stated that:

Hempel had been a person of interest to CAA for many years.

More than 100 registered complaints - which bit of "a dodgy, doctor shopping egomanic" did CASA NOT understand??

They failed to act on compelling evidence given to them. See above

They are responsible for the tragedy. Clearly

They are "The Watchdog's on duty". see above, and what about Lockhart River ???

If the "watchdog is not capable it should be shot and replaced with a more competent dog. obviously

Hempel was just being Barry. and according to the investigator, "a dodgy, doctor shopping egomanic"

He should have had his wings clipped many years prior to this debacle.
NOT by CASA, they were the three "wise" monkeys - see NO evil, hear no evil, do NOTHING at all.

[Dangly Bits]

Apart from standing guard out front of the flying school just in case Barry was to commit an offence, with only 7 GA FOI's in the Brisbane office, how could they have stopped this flight or others like it?

This is a man with complete disregard for rules, both aviation and the laws of criminality!

I'm confused!

[Creampuff]

But the key difference, DB, is that CASA was on notice of this person’s attitude and activities. For a very long time.

I suppose I’d ask a different question: If CASA does not have a sufficient combination of resources, expertise and strategic resource-allocation management flexibility to stop a person like this, before an innocent person is killed, when CASA has a mountain of evidence (much of it generated by CASA) to support constraint of this person’s activities, shouldn’t someone be alerting the public of that fact?

In other words, if it’s true that the lives of members of the public might continue to be placed in the hands of persons known by the safety regulator to have a history of safety rule breaking and safety-related medical conditions, isn’t the public entitled to know that?

The advice I give to friends and members of my family is: don’t fly in any aircraft with fewer than 40 seats in Australia. I find it sad that I have to give that advice. But on what basis should I be confident that aircraft with fewer than those seats are the subject of any proper regulatory surveillance and compliance activity in Australia?

[Sarcs]

In other words, if it’s true that the lives of members of the public might continue to be placed in the hands of persons known by the safety regulator to have a history of safety rule breaking and safety-related medical conditions, isn’t the public entitled to know that?



Top post Creamy and there's the rub!! It seems that our regulator has all the tools, regs, rules etc..etc in place but they lack the fortitude to actually enforce them ie they are severely reactive and not proactive in adhering to their own rules!:{

Whether this is due to having to be always 'politically correct' or their bosses being politically savvy, it has become totally unworkable and the system needs a serious overhaul...from bush operator, to jet jockey, to airlines big and small the clock is ticking!:ugh:

[halfmanhalfbiscuit]

I suppose I’d ask a different question: If CASA does not have a sufficient combination of resources, expertise and strategic resource-allocation management flexibility to stop a person like this, before an innocent person is killed, when CASA has a mountain of evidence (much of it generated by CASA) to support constraint of this person’s activities, shouldn’t someone be alerting the public of that fact?

The 2008 Senate Inquiry covered concerns regarding the move to self regulation. I believe the CEO made clear to employees that he didn't want complaints from industry either.

[superdimona]

LeadSled, please reread my post. I assure you my tounge is very firmly in cheek.

It's a sad world when someone who proposes Cessnas should be treated the same as 747s gets taken seriously.

[VH-XXX]

It makes you realize that if CASA won't arrange to have a renegade CPL locked up for this type of activity, they will not likely go near the renegade PPL's either and there are plenty of them out there doing dodgeys as well....

[Worrals in the wilds]

Agreed, VH-XXX.

Apart from standing guard out front of the flying school just in case Barry was to commit an offence, with only 7 GA FOI's in the Brisbane office, how could they have stopped this flight or others like it?Maybe not that particular flight, but there were others. Couldn't they have prosecuted him for breaches? Stopped him from advertising? Shut him down?

Honest question because I'm not overly familiar with the Act, but if there's no provision to prosecute a rogue operator then it's not worth the paper it's written on and CASA are not a regulator.

A regulatory body's duties are to maintain compliance to a legislated standard and enforce the regulations as required, by whatever legal means necessary. From what you see in the real world and read on here (and other places) CASA have been more than happy to pursue other operators in the past with much vim and vigour, allegedly sometimes for nothing more than paperwork violations.

Why was this operator different? :confused:

If a regulator is unable or unwilling to regulate then it is nothing more than a drain on the Commonwealth budget. It achieves nothing and serves no purpose.

[Sarcs]

If a regulator is unable or unwilling to regulate then it is nothing more than a drain on the Commonwealth budget. It achieves nothing and serves no purpose. :ok:

Worrals may I suggest that it has been 'thus' for over a quarter of a century. It can be argued that this maybe due to a cumbersome suite of regulations severely in need of a rewrite, however all anyone in the industry really wants is consistency!

Most industry stakeholders can accept the draconian regs as long as there is consistency in how they are enforced (or not enforced). It is the double standards, apparent kickbacks, Hempel v Quaddrio, Jet* v Tiger, apparent coronial cover-ups, denials, fear of retribution, obfuscation etc..etc the list is almost endless! :ugh:

This is what is 'beyond the pale' and slowly suffocating the Australian industry and (dare I say it) killing people! :{

[Macroderma]

WitW

you well might have hit the proverbial nail on the (not Barry's) head.

if :mad: Hempel did in fact train a whole generation pf pilots (including certain CASA staff), and was allowed to continue doing so AFTER he had his CPL cancelled, does this mean that all those certifications might actually be invalid?

Does this mean that there are a whole group of pilots :eek: who might now not be licenced for what they think they should be ???

I wonder if the insurance companies might not now take a close interest in which policies :( should be voided ?

could CASA be covering its backside ?? :rolleyes:

YOU BET !!

[jetfighter]

Good point Macroderma!!!

I believe all endorsements obtained by BH should be revoked by CASA?

The insurance company should make it part of their policy that all endorsements certified by BH must be re endorsed by a CFI.

[Creampuff]

From the Willowbank Coronial:The application of the existing regime to tandem parachuting

Self evidently, the requirement for an aviation operation to have an AOC has crucial safety ramifications. It is determined by whether the activities engaged in by the air operator come within any of the “commercial purposes” set out in CAR206 which delineates the prescribed purposes referred to in s27 of the CAA. That regulation specifies three general categories of aviation activity that it lists and defines by description and example. The three broad categories are aerial work, charter purposes and regular public transport.

In so far as is relevant to this case, “charter purposes” include “the carriage of passengers or cargo for hire or reward to or from any place”. The ATSB report notes in 1999 the CASA board considered the ambit of CAR206 and apparently determined that “the aircraft operation aspect of commercial parachuting should be excluded from the AOC requirement in CAR206”. However no change was made to the legislation or to the CAR as a result of this determination. Rather it seems that this was a policy or an administrative understanding that has henceforth applied.

[CP comment: So, the regulator chose to ignore the law from then on.]

As the evidence in this inquest clearly establishes, CASA does not view the conduct of flights for the purpose of transporting parachutists as constituting a prescribed purpose under s27, and therefore does not require such operations to be conducted by the holder of an AOC. In the evidence of its officers to the inquest and its submissions, CASA contends that all of the people in the incident aircraft were “participants” in a recreational aviation activity.

Counsel assisting helpfully sets out in his submissions some relevant authorities. The South Australian Supreme Court in Chegwidden v White interpreted legislation which preceded the CAA but contained the same definition of charter operations as quoted above. The court held that an aircraft operator who provides a customer with a number of different services in return for a single overall charge, carries those passengers “for hire or reward” if one of those services is carriage as a passenger in an aircraft. The court emphasised it is the substance of the arrangement, not the form of it that is decisive: “the way the parties choose to dress up the arrangement, even with the best of motives, cannot be conclusive”.

Cox J observed; “If there is any ambiguity about it, the court should bear in mind that the evident purpose of the regulation in this respect is to promote air safety – higher qualifications are needed for a commercial pilot licence (as are now for an AOC) – and should give the regulations a liberal and remedial construction.”

The evidence in this case shows that customers of the Brisbane Skydiving Centre were charged a single fee for a tandem parachute jump. The fee included temporary membership of the APF, the provision of parachuting equipment, a pre-flight briefing from a parachuting instructor, the services of a tandem master and carriage in an aircraft to reach the jump height.
I have no doubt that part of the fee paid by tandem jumpers is for the air carriage to the jump height - this is why they are charged more if they jump from higher. Accordingly I am of the view a court could conclude tandem jumpers are passengers carried for reward and CASA has misinterpreted the legislation when determining such activities can be carried on without an AOC.

While the reasons for CASA’s policy approach cannot override the law, they are relevant to the consideration of which should be changed: the policy or the law. I will therefore examine CASA’s explanation of its policy position.

A CASA officer, Robert Glen, gave evidence that he is responsible for oversighting self administered aviation recreational activities such as hang-gliding, parachuting and ultra light aircraft. He said “it remains the policy of CASA to classify parachute operations as private and regulate them in accordance with CASA’s policy regarding industry sector priorities and classification of civil aviation activities”. Under that policy CASA distinguishes and prioritises the deployment of its resources in descending order with regard to the protection of “passengers, task specialists, and thirdly participants” respectively. According to Mr Glen “parachutists fall within the category of participants as occupants of aircraft who voluntarily engage in an aviation activity, who are informed of the risks and have explicitly accepted the risks of their involvement in that activity”. He suggested this was appropriate because they are “members of an organisation” which has the capacity to inform its members of the risks of their sport and to manage those risks.

CASA provides limited funding to organisations involved in self administered recreation activities, in this case the APF, to discharge a number of responsibilities in relation to the oversighting of the activities concerned. However, Mr Glen indicated CASA “never understood these obligations to extend to the examination by the APF of the manner in which an aircraft engaged in a parachute operation has been maintained or operated”. As indicated below, Mr Glen’s appreciation of the limited nature of the APF’s oversight of operators is accurate.

I am of the view this policy is seriously flawed. It is based on a false assumption that the passengers in the incident aircraft were in a position to inform themselves of the risk in participating in the activities advertised and offered by the Brisbane Skydiving Centre. The people who responded to the advertisements offering tandem parachute jumps were not in any position to assess whether the Brisbane Skydiving Centre operated in accordance with safety requirements that would apply to a commercial organisation or something significantly less; they had no interest in or regard to whether part of the fee they paid was used to sign them up as temporary members of the APF, and in any event, the APF did not exercise any oversight role in relation to the aviation aspects of the business.

I have no doubt members of the public would assume that a business advertising tandem sky diving freely available to the public without any significant training or testing was subject to the same regulations as a business offering, say, joy flights.

While members of the public wishing to engage in tandem parachuting can be expected to make their own assessment of the risk of jumping out of a plane while harnessed to a tandem master, they cannot in my view be expected to assess the suitability of the plane, the modifications that may have been made to it, the competency of the pilot or any other aviation issue to any greater extent than can a passenger chartering a light plane to fly him or her to a destination. I can see no valid basis on which CASA can suggest that a distinction between “passengers” and “participants” in these circumstances provides a reasonable basis for absolving itself from any responsibility for oversighting such operations.

[CP comment: in other words, the coroner’s view is that the law should be enforced, not changed in accordance with a patently flawed ‘policy’ decision of the regulator made in 1999.]

Further, as CASA does not consider that the APF has any role in examining the manner in which the aircraft engaged in parachuting was maintained or operated, nor of ensuring that those who take up publicly advertised services are informed of the risks, I am unable to comprehend the basis on which it concludes it need play no role in oversighting these aspects of publicly advertised and offered tandem parachuting, involving as it does carriage for reward.

In its submissions, CASA explains the need to apply a descending order of priority to its oversight of “passengers”, “task specialists” and “participants” as a result of it having limited resources and the Government’s requirement that it focus primarily on passenger safety. This is understandable. It is however inconsistent with its submission to the effect that the classification of the parachuting as a “private operation” and the fare paying passengers as “participants” does not expose those passengers to greater risk.
…
Conclusions

A court could conclude the occupants of the incident aircraft, other than the pilot and the tandem masters, were passengers who were to be carried for reward from the airstrip to the jump site. Accordingly, I consider CASA misapplied the provisions of the CAA s27 and CAR206 when it concluded that the Brisbane Skydiving Centre and other similar operators could offer tandem jumps to members of the public without holding an AOC.[Bolding added, other than to headings]

[Kharon]

This is debate not essentially about policy or law the counter arguments and rebuttals have been done, dusted and passed into the historical apathy of the industry. Phelan did a piece as did we all here on Pprune, Reg 206 is bad law (He who must not be shamed) and SM Fyce agreed (bless him).
Phelan. (http://www.aviationadvertiser.com.au/news/2011/03/policy-is-not-law-%E2%80%93-aat-buckets-casa-decision/)
Fyce (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/AATA/2011/181.html)

This debate should encompass:-
Australian - Official documents show that CASA even let Hempel maintain his private pilot aeroplane licence to conduct endorsement training of other aviators, despite 13 fresh convictions under the Civil Aviation Act, and a CASA finding in November 2007 that stated "you have a long established record of breaking the law relevant to aviation safety which is indicative of an intrinsic lack of honesty and integrity which is incompatible with you being entrusted with flight crew licences ... your record of motor vehicle-related offences as well as the aviation-related offences indicates a flagrant disregard by you of safety matters ... your actions indicate an inappropriate attitude to legal authority, and a flagrant disregard to the collective requirements of safety systems ... (you are) an unacceptable risk to recidivism that threatens aviation safety". Hedley Thomas. See post #107 this thread. And the differences between the hammering John Quadrio, Max Davies and several others have received for much less heinous alleged (that's unproven, hearsay etc.) crimes than considered here.

Why was this situation allowed to continue, unchecked, unshriven and in the face of law and logic??.

[Sarcs]

I agree with you K in regards to CAR 206, it indeed has been done to death. If anything the Willowbank Inquest findings once again highlight the absurdity of CAR 206 and its application in the real world.

However the point should not be lost that in both Hempel and Willowbank the regulator was negligent in its duty to uphold the principles of the Civil Aviation Act and indeed their own mission/values statement:


Our mission

To enhance and promote aviation safety through effective regulation and by encouraging the wider aviation community to embrace and deliver higher standards of safety.
Our values

These are the principles that guide CASA’s internal conduct as well as its relationship with the wider aviation community:


If Hempel and Willowbank accidents are examples of how they uphold their mission and values or indeed their 'duty of care' to the unsuspecting punter going for an adventure flight or a tandem jump...then 'God help us!'

[Sarcs]

Having read back through this thread I have a few questions in regards to the investigation carried out (or not) into this accident...where's the accident report?:E

Although the Warbirds were (apparently) the controlling body, did this mean that they also carried out the investigation into this accident? Or did the regulator take over the investigation? If so where’s their report and why didn’t they defer to the ATSB?

It seems absurd that the one agency that has the expertise and regulatory backing to conduct investigations into transport accidents was left out of the loop.:confused:

Although sometimes painstakingly slow the ATSB does (generally) remain objective and unbiased while conducting an investigation, which means that they would not leave anything unexamined that had the potential to be causal to this accident….so what gives with keeping them out of it?:oh:

I know, I know, it was a rogue pilot! But does that excuse not investigating a fatal accident properly?:ugh:

....or have I missed something?:rolleyes:

[Frank Arouet]

Quick question without notice, what type of aeroplane does Herr Skull drive?

[1a sound asleep]

Although the Warbirds were (apparently) the controlling body, did this mean that they also carried out the investigation into this accident? Or did the regulator take over the investigation? If so where’s their report and why didn’t they defer to the ATSB?

This in itself should raise major alarm bells with the media and government. If a VH registered a/c is involved in a fatality then it should be the ATSB

[Wanderin_dave]

Although the Warbirds were (apparently) the controlling body, did this mean that they also carried out the investigation into this accident? Or did the regulator take over the investigation? If so where’s their report and why didn’t they defer to the ATSB?

AWAL were only the controlling body if Mr Hemple and the aircraft were both paid up members. If not then a limited cat aircraft can't (legally) fly.

[Fantome]

Seeing ATSB investigated this one, why did they not go to the Hempel's Aviation Yak? There is nothing on the website, not even notification of an occurrence.


The MiG 15UTI, VH-LSN, took off from runway 12 at Canberra Airport with the pilot and one passenger on board. After becoming airborne, the aircraft entered a climbing left turn and levelled at about 1,200 ft above ground level. The pilot advised the tower controller that he was having a minor technical problem and requested a landing. After a short discussion, the aircraft was cleared to land on runway 35. When the aircraft was about 4 km from the threshold of runway 35, it was seen to enter a steep nose-down attitude. The aircraft subsequently impacted the ground and the pilot and passenger were killed. The Bureau of Air Safety Investigation determined that an engine over-temperature occurred. The over-temperature was probably associated with an internal failure of the upper of two engine fuel pumps. The resulting excessive turbine temperatures led to the turbine blades creeping and rubbing on the turbine casing, and heat generated in the tail pipe as a result was then transferred into the fuselage area. Fuel in the fuselage area aft of frame 21, probably from a leaking fuel boost pump, was ignited by the high radiated temperatures in the tank bay. The fire melted and burned the rudder and elevator control tubes and control of the aircraft was lost. The area where the fire occurred was not monitored by over-heat or fire detection devices, and the pilot was therefore probably not aware of the fire.

Date: 13 Mar 1993 Investigation Status: Completed
Time: 1614 EST Investigation Type: Occurrence Investigation
Location: Canberra
State: ACT
Release Date: 20 Jul 1994 Occurrence Category: Accident
Report Status: Final Highest Injury Level: Fatal

[Dangly Bits]

Frank, JMac owns and flies a big red Yak-50 VH-YVO.

[eagle 86]

Fantome,
It was only due to the dedicated persistence of the wife of the pilot assisted by a friend who also was an ex-mil fighter pilot and a Mig pilot that this accident received the attention of the authorities that it finally did.
GAGS
E86

[Kharon]

Given the difficulties in having an inquest reopened, it may be time to look at some of the interesting issues raised and potential smoking guns.

CBW – "Was the aircraft recovered and did it undergo "mechanical failure" testing? If not why not?".

Sarcs - Although the Warbirds were (apparently) the controlling body, did this mean that they also carried out the investigation into this accident?.
Given the world wide track record of failure to recover from low level aerobatic manoeuvrers (USA, UK, NZ and Aust) for the type, I expect the investigation presented to the Coroner removed any doubts about these issues as a potential cause of death.

Given the history of control failures and the UK CAA issued AD, I expect the investigation presented to the Coroner would have made him fully aware of these issues, which he will have considered before handing down a finding on the cause of death.

Given the many rumours of trading dodgy parts, I expect the investigation presented to the Coroner would have made him fully aware of these issues, which he will have considered before handing down a report on the cause of death.

WiW - A regulatory body's duties are to maintain compliance to a legislated standard and enforce the regulations as required, by whatever legal means necessary. From what you see in the real world and read on here (and other places) CASA have been more than happy to pursue other operators in the past with much vim and vigour, allegedly sometimes for nothing more than paperwork violations. See CP post # 141.

Given the robust CASA oversight of AWB, I expect the Coroner would be fully satisfied that the complex relationship between the Administrative and regulatory bodies was robust, transparent, legally approved (for the operations conducted) and did not contribute in any way to the cause of death.

DB – "was to commit an offence, with only 7 GA FOI' s in the Brisbane office, how could they have stopped this flight or others like it ?".

Macro - Does this mean that there are a whole group of pilots who might now not be licensed for what they think they should be ???.
Now here, the regulator has a stellar track record, many cases of endorsements issued by qualified commercially licensed people being pulled, not to mention CIR etc. etc Seems they can and do pretty much as they please in this area, when the spirit moves 'em.

If all of the above boxes have been ticked we are only left with one, possibly two conclusions. For my money:- It would, I believe, be reasonable to ask if this was a protected species case; and, if so, why and by whom ??; at least to eliminate the questions from our enquiries (so to speak). We shall wait and see.

[Ovation]

There can be little doubt that CASA have "pet" operators and projects, and you need to look no further than the grounding of Tiger Airlines for their descent below MDA on approach to YMAV.

Have a trawl through the ATSB weekly summaries ATSB link (http://www.atsb.gov.au/aviation/weekly-summaries.aspx) and sooner or later you'll find an incident with an RPT jet that would be equally as life threatening and deserving of similar sanctions. While not identified, they can't all be Tiger (i.e. QF, VB etc).

Another already mentioned here is the determination to bust Quadrio, the cost of which would have been significant. Had that same diligence and determination been directed at Hempel he would have been grounded years ago.

Another thing - I don't believe the discussion (while enlightening) about AOC and Warbirds addresses the root cause of the accident. Hempel was well known to CASA and there is no doubt they were aware of his capacity to ignore the rules.

Put simply, CASA chose to smack him with a feather when they could have wielded a big stick up to and including a custodial sentence. Had they enforced the regulations as they are duty bound to do, this tragedy would not have happened. There is a earlier mention of 7 FOI's in Brisbane - it would only need one of them to sort him out. Go figure!

[thorn bird]

"Given the many rumours of trading dodgy parts"

What sort of aircraft does the "Skull" own again??

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

As one who was threatened by CASA with up to $40k in fines and 8 years gaol for what was, by any stretch of the imagination, a once-in-an-otherwise-blemish-free 30+ years as a pilot, inadvertant and relatively minor breach of the regs - I read this thread and shake my head!

Dr :8

[Up-into-the-air]

What sort of aircraft does the "Skull" own again??

A YAK, A YAK, A YAK!!!!

Just the old line:

Whose Mum owns a Whirlpool???

and remember, 95% PARTS exchangeable with the NanChang.

[Sarcs]

a once-in-an-otherwise-blemish-free 30+ years as a pilot, inadvertant and relatively minor breach of the regs - I read this thread and shake my head!


Forky I hear your sentiments!! Maybe you should of bought a Yak instead of the Bonanza, you may then have got away with doing beat ups of the main drag in YBTL!

The thing that gets me with this whole sordid tale is the more that is revealed the more questions are unearthed...the one with the no apparent involvement of the bureau beggars belief!!:ugh:

Personally if I'd come unstuck and killed myself in my VH registered Yak I'd expect the recognised experts (ATSB) to be sifting through the wreckage...and hopefully joining the dots to see whether I'd stuffed up or that bloody LAME had left his pesky screwdriver inside the tail empennage!!:rolleyes:

[aldee]

Ya reckon :confused:

[Macroderma]

Kharon,

how many pilots do you reckon are now sh**ing :{ themselves because they obtained their endorsements from a person who was described in the "Australian" as "a doctor-shopping, law-breaking, medically unfit pilot"

:E

"The Australian" went on to discuss:


a serious breakdown in communications and regulatory systems
a lack of responsiveness and disclosure by those in aviation who had witnessed his antics.

so, how many of Barry's former proteges and "mates" are :hmm: absolutely confident right now that CASA will not wilt under the increasing blowtorch of public opinion, and pull a few of those endorsements?

and what about the insurance policies, how many of those will the insurers void for lack of "approved" endorsements????

Wait until the whole Coroner's report is released, the story in "The Australian" barely scratched the surface!

Remember that at least one Insurer had a barrister AND a Queens Council attending the Inquest !

cheerio for now :ooh:

[Fantome]

whether I'd stuffed up or that bloody LAME had left his pesky screwdriver inside the tail empennage!!



While I concur 100% with all you say M. SARC-COSY, and while your French is not at fault, something else is a tad taut. Granny used to say "reversing back" and " a final tail-piece". (Then of course there's always that thin fine line between charisma and bull**** to put you off your stroke.)


em·pen·nage

NOUN:

The tail assembly of an aircraft, including the horizontal and vertical stabilizers, elevators, and rudder.

ETYMOLOGY:
French, feathers on an arrow, empennage, from empenner, to feather an arrow : en-, in ; see en-1 + penne, feather (from Latin penna; see pet- in Indo-European roots)

[Worrals in the wilds]

Personally if I'd come unstuck and killed myself in my VH registered Yak I'd expect the recognised experts (ATSB) to be sifting through the wreckage...and hopefully joining the dots to see whether I'd stuffed up or that bloody LAME had left his pesky screwdriver inside the tail empennage!!:rolleyes:Well, you wouldn't be expecting anything. You'd be dead. However I know what you're saying.
If you'd killed yourself and no-one else, despite having a known medical condition that doesn't mix well with flying, it might have fitted into the 'well he was doing what he loved' category of stuff ups. Unless you'd ploughed into a school of course...:hmm:
If you'd killed a private passenger that would have been a greater cause for concern.

If you'd killed a paying passenger (despite being prohibited from carrying them) who had discovered your operation because you'd continued to advertise a paying passenger service (despite being prohibited from carrying them) and that unfortunate customer had naively expected that an Australian aviation company advertising joyflights was in fact conforming with the regulations and allowed to do so, then the community in general and the relatives of said passenger in particular should expect that the ATSB would as you say, sift through the wreckage and find out what went wrong so all reasonable steps could be taken to prevent a repeat occurence. They should also wonder why a regulator, if it was aware of breaches, did not take all possible steps to prevent those breaches re-occuring before someone ended up dead rather than after, or indeed even then. :(

Say a person is known to be driving without a license. Say people who know this call the local coppers and say 'X is hooning around in a souped up Commodore even though his license is suspended.' Say the coppers then find X driving his souped up Commodore without a license. What is the expectation? I'm guessing that the majority of people would expect that the local coppers march X down to the station and charge him. It happens regularly. Sure, there's the odd miscreant who drives away from the courthouse on his fifth suspension, but they're usually plastered all over the news and then locked up. What's the diff? :confused: It's not even like the theoretical X was driving a taxi or other commercial vehicle and advertising his 'Souped Up Commie Taxi Service'.

Additionally, there are far fewer licensed pilots than car drivers in the country so it should be easier to keep tabs on them. With aviation, nor is there the disconnect between state regs and agencies that makes regulating ground vehicle drivers even more difficult.
a lack of responsiveness and disclosure by those in aviation who had witnessed his antics.Did any of them call the regulator? Was the regulator aware of his antics? How many calls and how much information do they need? It's well known in the aviation community (and don't ask me for references because you're not getting them :}:suspect:) that calling CASA about breaches is a WOFTAE. Transair has already been mentioned. :yuk:

Wait until the whole Coroner's report is released, the story in "The Australian" barely scratched the surface!I live in hope. At least I live, unlike the paying passenger who no doubt assumed that an advertised activity was conducted by persons licensed to do so. As Justiceseeker said, there's a strong sense of deja vu.

[Sarcs]

Fantome my apologies to your Norman brethren, French was never my forte...or is it forté...oh my head hurts (bloody frogs)!!:ok:

Worrals top post mate and it does seem that history repeats...like a broken record!:ugh:

[Frank Arouet]

If you'd killed a paying passenger (despite being prohibited from carrying them) who had discovered your operation because you'd continued to advertise a paying passenger service (despite being prohibited from carrying them) and that unfortunate customer had naively expected that an Australian aviation company advertising joyflights was in fact conforming with the regulations and allowed to do so, then the community in general and the relatives of said passenger in particular should expect that the ATSB would as you say, sift through the wreckage and find out what went wrong so all reasonable steps could be taken to prevent a repeat occurence. They should also wonder why a regulator, if it was aware of breaches, did not take all possible steps to prevent those breaches re-occuring before someone ended up dead rather than after, or indeed even then.

Another quick question without notice;

In the YLHR crash, what airline name was displayed in large text down the sides of the Transair aircraft, and what Company name was written on the tickets?

Transair perhaps?

[Worrals in the wilds]

Leonard Cohen - Everybody knows (live in London, 2008) - YouTube

[Checkboard]

It's well known in the aviation community (and don't ask me for references because you're not getting them :}:suspect:) that calling CASA about breaches is a WOFTAE. Transair has already been mentioned. :yuk:


... and the Seaview Air Disaster
What is now clear is that the accident was entirely avoidable - that it should not have happened, that those nine lives were lost needlessly.

Yesterday in Federal Parliament, Aviation Minister John Sharp tabled the Commission of Inquiry report into relations between Seaview Air and the former Civil Aviation Authority, and more comprehensive denunciation of safety standards it is difficult to imagine.

The Commission of Inquiry pulled no punches. Seaview Air was "a slipshod, often wilfully non-compliant organisation in which breaches of regulations and unacceptable practices were ... commonplace", the report found.
Winery tragedy: Has Drayton's curse struck again | thetelegraph.com.au (http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/has-draytons-curse-struck-again/story-e6freuy9-1111115337473)

... and the South Pacific Seaplanes Disaster ...
18 From its inception, and even prior to the grant of its first Air Operators Certificate (" AOC"), SPS presented CASA with difficult regulatory problems. These involved frequent and repeated breaches of various regulatory requirements and a failure to honour the numerous undertakings it gave to remedy perceived inadequacies in its methods of operations.

19 It had a significant turnover in Chief Pilots, a number of whom made serious allegations against SPS management and its attitude to aviation safety. Over the period covered by this inquiry, CASA received at least 21 separate complaints against SPS operations and it issued 13 Non-compliance Notices and nine Aircraft Survey Reports in respect of matters of varying significance, some of which were serious enough to ground SPS aircraft. Its aircraft were involved in a number of accidents or allegedly near accidents, two of which involved aircraft being submerged with a threat to the pilot's life.

20 On 6 April 1997 the then Regional Manager South East Region (" RM SER") issued a notice to SPS requiring it to show cause why its AOC should not be cancelled or suspended. I regard the issue of that notice as fully justified.

21 On 12 May 1997, however, the then RM SER decided to take no further action after an informal conference with SPS management...
Pages 1--223 from Skehill report (http://www.airsafety.com.au/skehill.htm)

[TunaBum]

More from The Australian:

Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian (http://m.theaustralian.com.au/business/aviation/casa-accused-of-reckless-and-deficient-oversight-in-permitting-pilot-to-continue-to-fly/story-e6frg95x-1226401657522)

TB :ok:

[Greedy]

Checkboard,
Good post and reminder of CASA failings. What is a WOFTAE ?
Greedy

[Macroderma]

here is the full text

CASA accused of reckless and deficient oversight in permitting pilot to continue to fly


by: Hedley Thomas
From: The Australian (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/)


June 20, 2012 12:00AM
THE aviation safety regulator has accused two pilots of "wilful blindness" to the dangerous antics of rogue aviator Barry Hempel, who repeatedly broke the law, lied and risked members of the public before a crash that killed himself and an unwitting passenger.
Documents obtained by The Australian show the Civil Aviation Safety Authority prepared a comprehensive prosecution "brief of evidence" against two key figures in Hempel's company, its chief executive Gordon Craig and chief pilot Michael Lawrence.
CASA investigator John Jones stated in formal CASA documents that evidence showed the two men knew Hempel was illegally flying fare-paying passengers, despite having been stripped of his commercial licence, "and chose to do nothing about it".
A spokesman for CASA said last night that after referring its brief of evidence to the commonwealth DPP it was advised that no prosecution would be launched.
CASA has been accused of reckless and deficient oversight in permitting Hempel to continue to fly despite his long record as an unsafe pilot, and his history of uncontrollable epileptic-type seizures that led to losses of consciousness.
Mr Craig and Mr Lawrence have strenuously denied that they were aware of Hempel's wrongdoing before the August 2008 crash of his aerobatic Russian aircraft in the water between North and South Stradbroke islands, off the Gold Coast. The men said Hempel, 60, had lied to them.
But the family of passenger Ian Lovell wants CASA's director of aviation safety, John McCormick, and federal Transport Minister Anthony Albanese to explain why CASA let Hempel continue to fly on a private licence and do endorsement training and instructing. Queensland Coroner John Hutton is expected to bring down findings later this year.
The Weekend Australian revealed that CASA formally disciplined Hempel months before the crash and told him he was dishonest, dangerous, reckless and "an unacceptable risk to recividism that threatens aviation safety". But CASA said he could still fly and instruct others.
CASA's documents after the double fatality state that Mr Craig "admits to being a Clayton's CEO", appointed to satisfy CASA requirements while Hempel controlled the management and operation of the aviation company. The documents state that Mr Craig and Mr Lawrence were present when Hempel flew illegally on 16 known occasions in the weeks before the crash.
CASA concluded that Mr Craig "tolerated a culture of turning a blind eye to illegal conduct by Barry Hempel. Lawrence remained involved in booking Hempel's illegal flights up until the date of the fatal flight. The actions of both Craig and Lawrence showed a wilful blindness."
Mr Lawrence emphatically denied the claims and insisted he maintained a vigilant watch, but that "none of the inquiries or inspections which I routinely made . . . gave rise to any suspicion that Hempel was engaged in unlawful activities". He said he had argued fiercely with Hempel in a bid to maintain safety.
Mr Craig also denied CASA's claims and said that while he was CEO, it was not part of his job to review Hempel's qualifications as a pilot for Hempel's Aviation.

===================

Yes but what about the CASA charges against Hempel?
why were they pulled?
Who was it in CASA who ordered them pulled?
what about CASA, why did they do nothing ?????
and what about the CASA chappie who had a seizure in the witness box - will CASA pull his licence??
was McCormick a very very close mate of Hempel??
why was Hempel worried about his multiple convictions for indecent behaviour becoming known?
were these convictions something in which CASA should have taken an interest?
did they make Hempel a fit and proper person to hold a pilot licence?
did Hempel hold a "Blue Card" which was necessary for him to carry young children unsupervised on joyflights?
or did all his planes have three seats (i.e. one for the chaperone)?

stay tuned for more dissembling from CASA!!

[Macroderma]

WOFTAE = waste of :mad: time and energy = CASA management = CASA supervision

[alphacentauri]

By their own admission....should not CASA, and specifically the person who described him as "an unacceptable risk....." but still allowed him to fly, also be accused of "wilful blindness" ?

I deal with CASA fairly regularly and I'm always astonished at the frequency and speed they lay blame and responsibility on other parties.

Sorry Mr CASA, but the parties being accused of wilful blindness is/should be YOU!

[Lodown]

There's been little mentioned up to this point of the conduct of the CP. Sounds like the CASA is only now trying to shut the gate after the horse has well and truly bolted.

In accidents such as these, it intrigues me as to the number of enablers: those who had influence as individuals to possibly have prevented the accident, but chose instead to tolerate, and thus endorse, the activities.
that CASA formally disciplined Hempel months before the crash and told him he was dishonest, dangerous, reckless and "an unacceptable risk to recividism that threatens aviation safety". But CASA said he could still fly and instruct others.

If these indeed are the actual words used by the CASA, then the immediate question is why was he still allowed to fly even as a PPL if he was "dangerous, reckless," etc.

At this early stage, it appears the investigative team has a target rich environment.

I will follow the outcome of this investigation with a great deal of interest.

[TunaBum]

Another quick question without notice;

In the YLHR crash, what airline name was displayed in large text down the sides of the Transair aircraft, and what Company name was written on the tickets?

Transair perhaps?


"AERO-TROPICS Air Services"

TB:ok:

[Worrals in the wilds]

(Nerd alert, if anyone has trouble reading linked articles from the Australian or they ask you to log on, just google the heading and the whole thing will come up as a 'news' item :8).

Documents obtained by The Australian show the Civil Aviation Safety Authority prepared a comprehensive prosecution "brief of evidence" against two key figures in Hempel's company, its chief executive Gordon Craig and chief pilot Michael Lawrence.

A spokesman for CASA said last night that after referring its brief of evidence to the commonwealth DPP it was advised that no prosecution would be launched.
Who was it in CASA who ordered them pulled?If the article is correct, the DPP pulled the case, not CASA. If you get caught doing stuff that contravenes federal law (whether it be smuggling, ripping off the Tax Office, breaching CASA regs, importing foreign pineapples or whatever) the relevant federal agency has to refer the evidence they gather to the DPP, who decide whether a prosecution will proceed. In my experience, if the DPP knock it back there's not a lot the agency can do, except wail, gnash its teeth and call the DPP a bunch of nasty names. :uhoh:

It's theoretically possible that they were influenced by a person or persons within CASA, but you'd want some pretty strong evidence before you started throwing that accusation around, because if you were wrong it would be pretty defamatory to both CASA and the DPP. :eek:

Maybe CASA did try in this case. Wonder what the DPP story was? :hmm: Too hard? To expensive? Unlikely to win?

[tail wheel]

Too hard? To expensive? Unlikely to win?

Insufficient/inconclusive evidence? Poor brief?

(e.g. the Fair Work brief on Craig Thomson)

I'm sure the Coroner will address this issue.

[Sarcs]

It's theoretically possible that they were influenced by a person or persons within CASA, but you'd want some pretty strong evidence before you started throwing that accusation around, because if you were wrong it would be pretty defamatory to both CASA and the DPP

Worrals if that was the case why did they refer it in the first place? Other than the obvious answer of a diversionary tactic.......or maybe some interdepartmental wrangling within the bowels of Fort Fumble and Albo's circus!

Q/ Is it a requirement that Minister Albo is kept informed of all fatal transport accidents?

If so it would be interesting to obtain any 'Ministerial Briefings' in regards to the Hempel accident! Perhaps an interested party could submit a well worded FOI request to Albo's circus, just a thought!

[Kharon]

Guys have we got the above comments out of context.
Documents obtained by The Australian show the Civil Aviation Safety Authority prepared a comprehensive prosecution "brief of evidence" against two key figures in Hempel's company, its chief executive Gordon Craig and chief pilot Michael Lawrence.

CASA investigator John Jones stated in formal CASA documents that evidence showed the two men knew Hempel was illegally flying fare-paying passengers, despite having been stripped of his commercial licence, "and chose to do nothing about it".

A spokesman for CASA said last night that after referring its brief of evidence to the commonwealth DPP it was advised that no prosecution would be launched.

My bolding, there all better now..

[Frank Arouet]

A spokesman for CASA said last night that after referring its brief of evidence to the commonwealth DPP it was advised that no prosecution would be launched.

As opposed to the Quadrio matter.

[Worrals in the wilds]

Guys have we got the above comments out of context.
Okay, so the Brief was about the actions of Craig and Lawrence, not Hempel? :confused:
Was there ever a Brief sent to the DPP wrt Hempel's alleged breaches?

[Macroderma]

WITW

that is a very good question.

Was there ever a Brief sent to the DPP wrt Hempel?

well, we know that CASA cancelled his CPL.

was Hempel's CPL pulled as a result of a brief or a court action?

was Hempel's CPL pulled under regulation?

was Hempel's CPL pulled by CASA because they could?

or was Hempel's CPL pulled because CASA was embaressed about what might be revealed in court if Hempel related issues (including the above mentioned brief) did ever go to court?

[T28D]

Maybe CASA did try in this case. Wonder what the DPP story was? http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/yeees.gif Too hard? To expensive? Unlikely to win?

Too many CASA clowns implicated in this which would have severely compromised the ability of CASA to give clear unfettered evidence of wrong doing without implicating themselves.

[in-cog-nito]

It's like 'there is never a cop when you need one'. They can't be everywhere, everytime. They took his medical/licence off him, what more can they do.
In accidents such as these, it intrigues me as to the number of enablers: those who had influence as individuals to possibly have prevented the accident, but chose instead to tolerate, and thus endorse, the activities. As I was once told by a Police investigator. "You can complain about people breaking the law all you like. But until you are prepared to go on record, we can't do a thing!"

I reckon it would be fair to say that part of the reason why nobody wants to speak up is FEAR!

Fear of being branded and being known by all to their peers as a dobber. Being known as a dobber, the individaul then believes this might have an impact on any future job prospects.

Fear of retaliation by their employers as we have seen with the Jetstar pilot that was sacked when he spoke up.

And...

Fear of retaliation by the company the allegations were made against. This has happened to me in the past. This included TIT-FOR-TAT bull**** false incident reports and threats of physical violence, even towards the business owners children.
We were even threaten by CASA. Saying that we were liable to be charged with peverting the cause of justice for withholding infomation!
I was also been approached by CASA about another pilot who was known to them. Told him to talk to the FOIs in the state where he was based. Also told the FOI if from what was being said by many was true, and you can somehow stop him, you will probably save a life. One year later he and his passenger were dead and I'm reading an article in the paper about how CASA knew he was dodgy.

An instructor at a reputable school at MB spoke up about poor airmanship displayed by the instructors of another school. Most others on the airport agreed with him and said, but he still had a target on his back because of it. A few months later two of the schools aircraft had a collision resulting in a death. Then they blamed ATC.

It is not only very sad for Ian's family and friends. I couldn't imagine the grief that Barry's family are going through. And for those who knew and did nothing to prevent this, you now have to live with the guilt too!

In-cog.

For those who are still after me from something that happen 10 years ago. Get over it, let it go, move on!

[Bedderseagle]

It's like 'there is never a cop when you need one'. They can't be everywhere, everytime. They took his medical/licence off him, what more can they do.


What more could they do you ask? Why, oh why did they give him back his PPL which enabled him to fly (under the radar???) but in reality operate a commercial business. Also, from evidence presented that he was indeed a confirmed epliletic. :ugh::ugh:

I couldn't imagine the grief that Barry's family are going through.

Yes - BUT they too could have saved Barry's life by reporting his true health to authorities instead of allowing him to kill himself (and the fare paying passenger). It was going to happen sooner or later with Barry's condition.

[Worrals in the wilds]

I reckon it would be fair to say that part of the reason why nobody wants to speak up is FEAR!You make a good point.
However, I wonder whether the regulator would have done anything even if someone had gone on record. For all we know, several people may have.
They took his medical/licence off him, what more can they do. That's the part I respectfully disagree with. There was plenty they could do. Apart from anything else they could have stopped him advertising. Surely all they needed was footage of him flying a customer, evidence from two CASA officers that they saw him do it and the footage was a true record, and paperwork from the office showing that the customer paid. Law enforcement 101 stuff and no nasty dobbers required.

The true question is 'what more were they willing to do'?, and the answer would appear to be 'nothing.'

[aroa]

What more could they have done.???? FFS :eek:
In the Quadrio case, no court case, no conviction...but his CPL withdrawn, and using the hoary old euphemism at AAT ..."not a fit and proper person", .... not returned.
End of employment, income and career prospects.!!
This example clearly shows thatCASA is certainly not a fit and proper organisation to be the "safety" agency.

The travelling public should be aware that CASA's imprimatur is CYA 101 and NO liability. "Safety" as they would have it, comes a poor last.

The place is so disfunctional, in breach of its own "code", inconsistent, discriminatory and a regulatory nightmare...no wonder GA is having its throat cut.

There needs to be a judicial enquiry :ok: into the whole rotten structure, that has completely lost the plot, to the detriment of a vital industry.

Governments have to decide what they want... a bloated, grossly expensive, dysfunctional "authority" or a thriving aviation industry.
Without drastic changes we cant have both.

Listen up, you politicians..!! Digitus extractus.!

[Pinky the pilot]

Almost sounds like a good case for instituting a Royal Commission into the whole 'box and dice' now, doesn't it?

We all know the odds of that happening though.:ugh:

[Macroderma]

maybe the Coroner will pick some scabs, expose some sores, peer into some festering wounds and reccomend a closer look at the "mis" operations of CASA.

Or maybe not ??

fact:

Hempel was a sick man and should not have been driving a car, let alone an aeroplane

fact
many pilots knew

fact
CASA knew and did DID NOTHING to prevent him flying

Archerfield Aerodrome Office staff too might be feeling more than a little contrite (if not actually guilty), as it was them who reccomended Hempel as a good pilot when Ian's partner made the fateful inquiry.

I will walk naked down Queen Street with a feather up my a**e and whistle dixie if the aero population at Archerfield were not all well aware of Hempel's condition.


BTW,

will CASA now promise to NOT pull all the endorsements which Hempel appears to have given, when he was not authorised to do so? Are we sure?

have any of the Insurance companies promised to NOT cancel policies on the same basis? how confident do we feel?

how many pilots will be affected?

:eek:

[Worrals in the wilds]

I will walk naked down Queen Street with a feather up my a**e and whistle dixie if the aero population at Archerfield were not all well aware of Hempel's condition. The Mall has so many crazy looking people in it already that you'd probably go unoticed. ;):}

Seriously though, are you sure the full details were as widely known as all that? It's been some years since I've flown at Archerfield (at which time Barry was regarded as a bit of a maverick and a bit of a perv, but nothing like what's come out with this accident) but I'd be surprised if the AAC office knew his license had been revoked and still recommended him. Of course I've been surprised before. :(

There are certainly some people who would have known the whole story, but was it widely known by all people about his license revokation or the seizures? Or was the general word on the field as it was in the early 2000s, that he was a bit of a nut who didn't always play by the rules, but still basically compliant? :confused:

[Frank Arouet]

Sounds like a Rottweiler advertisement where they reckon they are "Cute Rotties" or "Staffies".

Righto! Barry wasn't a "Silkie Terrier" but a dog loved in the suburbs.

And he wasn't compliant, nor were his medico's of which I recommended him to the local Neurosurgeon, who I can't believe gave him any OK to hold a conditional Class 2 medical, which IS CONDITIONAL ON NOT BEING INVOLVED IN AEROBATIC MANOUVERS NOR BEING EPILEPTIC OR PRONE TO SAME.

CASA..................They are to blame for this sequence of events.

Think ISLAMIC for two minuits.

[Worrals in the wilds]

And he wasn't compliant, nor were his medico's of which I recommended him to the local Neurosurgeon, who I can't believe gave him any OK to hold a conditional Class 2 medical, which IS CONDITIONAL ON NOT BEING INVOLVED IN AEROBATIC MANOUVERS NOR BEING EPILEPTIC OR PRONE TO SAME.
Frank, was that well known at Archerfield? I'm not blaming anyone, I'm just curious.

[Frank Arouet]

I talked with his Widow/Partner after the 2001 hangar incident. I recommended a Neurosurgeon from the Gold Coast who also was my Doctor after a head injury.

I made the point of my experience to her, and subsequently passed this on to Counsel Assisting The Coroner, (but go no response nor, acknowlegement, possibly because I didn't ask for one, or the matter was deemed insignifigant).

When I had a clearance from that same Doctor it was after 8 years of non elpilesy and my licence/ medical was CASA conditional.

Part of that condition was that I did not perform any aerobatic manouvers.

Barry test flew my rebuilt aeroplane and checked me out on it in 1996.

A good pilot and a character of rememberance................but?

[D B Cooper]

Well, it's not exactly an unknown situation.....

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

and.....

http://www.coronerscourt.vic.gov.au/home/case+findings/577308+robert+alan+how

Some elements of this story seem to be along similar lines.

Quote:



"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...."

And.....


"... 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.''

[Worrals in the wilds]

Thanks.
A good pilot and a character of rememberance................but? It's the carrying of a paying pax that I have issues with. If he flew himself into the Bay then that would have been his problem. If he had flown a friend into the Bay with him then you could assume they knew the risks.

In contrast, as a pilot you did all the right things before flying yourself or passengers because you're obviously a responsible person. I imagine that would have been hard, and I trust you're now enjoying your flying again. :ok:

What I find difficult with this is the continuance of commercial ops, despite advice to the contrary. Not flying for pleasure but flying customers. To me it displays cowardice; a lack of admission about physical shortcomings that compromised an undoubtedly great talent; an unwillingness to face up to factors beyond an individual's skill.

At the core we're all like that. We all like to think we can do what we did when we were twenty, fit and bullet proof.

However, when most of us undertake a risky activity (and sometimes end up limping into the doctor/physio trying to explain why jumping on a skateboard pissed for the first time in a decade was a great idea until someone chucked that damned bollard in the way :\)...we didn't kill a paying customer. We didn't pretend to an outsider that our actions were safe and professional, and we didn't accept money to take them along for the ride. We only had ourselves to blame, unlike the unwitting passenger in this story. We didn't let our ego transcend our common sense and allow it to take risks with someone else's life.

This was a completely avoidable death. It didn't have to happen. Barry's death on its own would have been sad, but he knew what he was doing. His passenger didn't, and that's what makes me angry. So many early deaths are unpreventable, whether through illness or accident; this one wasn't. :(

''Looking back, it seems that we may have been able to prevent this. However, there were probably higher priorities at the time.''
If a regulator does not consider the prevention of death as its highest priority then it deserves to be damned. No doubt Lucifer had hindsight too. No doubt he expressed regret, but I'm not that familiar with Milton. :yuk::yuk::yuk:

Live with your decision, fellahs. You carried the badge and the authority of the Commonwealth; with it, the unspoken promise to uphold its law and stop wrong doers before they caused harm or death. Maybe all you saw was the privileges that went with that authority, not the obligations. What were the higher priorities this time around? Someone not doing their paperwork right? Someone piss you off by not showing respect? :yuk:

You :mad:ed up, fellahs. Someone died on your watch while you were looking at the 'higher' priorities. That's probably a horrible feeling but not as horrible as being related to the deceased; being the person who spent considerable money to buy him a ticket for something fun he'd enjoy and talk about, only to see him die because apparently you, the regulator, couldn't stop a person from flying customers against the conditions you'd specified, despite knowing he'd been doing it previously.

Tell you something, fellahs; you're lucky it wasn't one of my family. If it were...seen Dirty Harry? :E Of course that's not the solution. Doesn't fix anything. Apparently. :}

I ask again (as others have) where were the ATSB? Were they notified? Did they investigate? Why isn't this accident listed? Why was this even a CASA problem?
What is an immediately reportable matter? ANSWER:
An immediately reportable matter is a serious transport safety matter that covers occurrences such as accidents involving death, serious injury, destruction of, or serious damage to vehicles or property or when an accident nearly occurred. Under section 18 of the TSI Act (http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Series/C2004A01102), immediately reportable matters must be reported to a nominated official by a responsible person as soon as is reasonably practical. The reason for such a requirement is the need for ATSB investigators to act as quickly as possible is often paramount in order to preserve valuable evidence and thus to determine the proximal and underlying factors that led to a serious occurrence.
The list of immediately reportable matters for each mode of transport is contained in the TSI Regulations (http://www.comlaw.gov.au/ComLaw/Legislation/LegislativeInstrument1.nsf/0/1A6ECAC119884E6BCA256F700080EA7F?OpenDocument). Immediately reportable matters are the only transport safety matters that need to be reported for the marine and rail modes of transport. In aviation where the Commonwealth, and hence the ATSB, has more comprehensive responsibilities for the investigation of transport safety matters there is also a list of routine reportable matters.
Transport Safety Investigation Act 2003 (http://www.atsb.gov.au/about_atsb/legislation/trans_safety/tsi_qa.aspx#9)

[Sarcs]

Top post Worrals and one that needs to be copied, printed, distributed and stuck up on all bulletin boards of everyone of the regulator's outposts...shameful display of how not to uphold the act!:ok:

The apparent lack of a responsible accident investigative authority not being involved in this tragic accident just beggars belief!:ugh::ugh: Smells of cover up to me but why?

I've heard of cases where the regulator has taken over incident investigations because of apparent breaches of the CAA but not a fatal accident...besides I don't believe their remit covers it....questions..questions..and very few answers!:{

[Jabawocky]

Lester

Your are surely kidding us all.

The office at hendra is a darn site further from Horn Island yet CASA from some office somewhere shut troppos and others.

I personally had no idea, and could not have known any of this, but folk within CASA somewhere can not make this same claim. Impossible. End of story.

[Socket]

CASA hasn't been at Hendra since June 2008 and there is a CASA office in Cairns, where Aerotropics were based.

[Bedderseagle]

I came across these two videos which were Uploaded on U-tube by poondii (http://www.youtube.com/user/poondii) on Jan 14, 2009. His comments on both are:

"Got it off the net some mad bugger doing stuff"

Very interesting as the markings of the plane are a spit of Barry Hempel's Yak-52 AND poondi (Shanka Poondi) just happened to be a Hempels Aviation flight instructor pre 2008 . . . . . .

So I leave it your own conclusions: "Got it off the net mad bugger doing stuff" - NOT likely - my summation is Barry Hempel doing mad, illegal stuff with poondi taking the video in back seat . . . but don't quote me I am just speculating! A mere lay person . .

First video clearly shows the plane markings and if that ain't the illfated YAK then I will join Macroderma down Queen Street mall with my feather:

Pull Up in a Yak 52 - YouTube

Second video acrobatics over populated area??!!

YAK 52 Pull Up Mate , Nut Case - YouTube

Did they have CASA approvals? :
Take a look at Section 5 (5) of CAR155 Dated Jan 2007

http://www.casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMSLDASSET::svPath=/download/caaps/ops/,svFileName=155_1.pdf

:=:=

[bush pelican]

There were many people who knew what Barry was doing and were concerned by it. They could have been more proactive regarding personal advice to Barry, or given information to the authorities, although the fact they didn't wouldn't surprise anyone but the CASA.

The whole tragic saga demonstrates yet again that the CASA needs to change their ways of dealing with the aviation community, if it ever wants to gain the trust, support and confidence necessary to obtain good grass roots information, about what is really happening in the air or on the ground. That is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

Until that happens, the CASA will continue to be a blind man in a dark room.

bp

[puff]

CASA before the accident were definately 'after him' in the sense that several ex students and staff were approached and basically demanded to give statements about incidents and events that had happened over past years. Saying 'no' was not an acceptable response.

They appeared to be building their case so it definately stuck, CASA in the past had been made to look foolish by Barry because of their lack of doing things the 'right way'. Barry had a history of going through CFIs/CPs that stood up to him, and only ended up with those that didn't say no to him, he was MD but was effectively CFI/CP as he did what he wanted, he just wasn't able to be both of those positions due to his problems with CASA. He was a VERY strong character, and the sort of person that if you told him something he didn't want to hear, would have in no uncertain terms told you where to go.

Likeable enough character, and a bold pilot, but you know what they say about them. All things aside the sad thing in this case was the innocent, fare paying pax and his partner who thought she was doing a nice thing for obviously something special to them.

Aviation has its risks, especially in a 'limited' aircraft like the Yak, but the fact remains that he did not legally meet the medical requirements to be flying the flight, as a pilot it is your DUTY to ensure that you are legal to conduct the flight each time you put the belt on. All of those that were aware this was going on, without standing up and doing something about it, when clearly Barry wouldn't, have some element of blood on their hands, and at the time it was well known at AF that it was going on. Amazing how many people have a bad memory at times like this...

[Ovation]

Here is another larger than life character with a long "association" with CASA, but in this case they launched a prosecution for low flying, dropping objects and flying without a licence.

the link is to the 51 charges brought by CASA in the Omeo Magistrates court. CASA Prosecution (http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1300&dat=19880722&id=sHBVAAAAIBAJ&sjid=fpYDAAAAIBAJ&pg=3388,498524).

Mitta Mitta Beat Up - YouTube

[Frank Arouet]

CASA being non culpable in the Hemple incident is like saying The ALP didn't introduce the Cane Toad. Which incidently co-incided with The Wall St "crash" and depression in 1935.

[Macroderma]

There is always a smoking gun, just sometimes it takes longer to find it. I wonder if Hedley Thomas will ask CASA what they knew about these videos? the scenery certainly looks like the road and rail overpass at Yeerongpilly in Brisbane, doesn't it ?????

I don't think I need go out and buy my feather just yet.

[Worrals in the wilds]

The whole tragic saga demonstrates yet again that the CASA needs to change their ways of dealing with the aviation community, if it ever wants to gain the trust, support and confidence necessary to obtain good grass roots information, about what is really happening in the air or on the ground.Spot on the money. :D
When you're dealing with a generally decent and law abiding community (which I believe the aviation community is) you can learn a hell of a lot more leaning on the fence talking to people than you will by stomping around in jackboots making threats.

There's a time and place for jackboots (and if ever there was a place, Hempel Aviation was it :() but for the most part it just gets everyone off side and makes them clam up. Other federal agencies are well aware of this, but to a large extent it seems to have passed CASA by.

Most people will only report stuff to the government if 1. it's easy, 2. they can do it anonymously and 3. they trust the agency they're reporting it to. Often if they know an officer personally they'll report stuff they wouldn't dream of ringing the department about. That's why guys on the ground are so important for an agency, even if they never seem to achieve all that much.
Slack? Sure, but that's humans for you. Most people don't really believe in accidents until they actually happen.

[Frank Arouet]

Something perplexing me is the matter of BH "not having broken wrists" condusive to such an UCFIT accident, but no mention of the passenger who, is "recorded" as saying things that were recorded.

Was this recorded on the camera loaned to him, or was he holding an open mic on the PTT in the rear stick which would suggest a AsA recording?

[Bedderseagle]

Macroderm the scenery certainly looks like the road and rail overpass at Yeerongpilly in Brisbane, doesn't it ?????


Well I guess you were close but at 20 seconds into the video we have this photo capture as compared to Google Earth shot:

PDF to HTML Online Converter (http://www.pdfonline.com/convert-pdf-to-html/success.aspx?zip=DocStorage/1d927e3afd104591ab703ff37cfead4b/Centro_Shopping_Centre_at_Springwood.zip)

Centro Shopping Centre at Springwood . . . . :D

[Macroderma]

I stand corrected, it is Springwood not Yeerongpilly ;)

[Bedderseagle]

Frank Something perplexing me is the matter of BH "not having broken wrists" condusive to such an UCFIT accident, but no mention of the passenger who, is "recorded" as saying things that were recorded.

Was this recorded on the camera loaned to him, or was he holding an open mic on the PTT in the rear stick which would suggest a AsA recording?

I might be able to help here. Excuse me if my tech references are not 100% accurate. It was NOT a recorder on any camera loaned but on the open mic - there are two buttons on right side of throttle (which is left is on left side), top button is open air waves, bottom button is intercom to pilot. Nothing on the stick. See Yak cockpit layout:

http://www.pdfonline.com/convert-pdf-to-html/success.aspx?zip=DocStorage/9a76d978dc5c46cfac29ac4d54af85b6/YAK 52 Cockpit.zip

[Kharon]

It's all there, all to play for;

Holmes - "You will not apply my precept," he said, shaking his head. "How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth? We know that he did not come through the door, the window, or the chimney. We also know that he could not have been concealed in the room, as there is no concealment possible. When, then, did he come?"
The Sign of the Four, ch. 6 (1890)
One of the great gifts the classics don't always provide, is what you do with the truth, once you have it ?.

[blackhand]

Hindsight bias is a psychological effect that leads people to misinterpret the
conclusions of accident investigations. Often the first question people ask about the decision making leading up to an accident such as Columbia takes the form of: “why
did NASA continue flying the Shuttle with a known problem…?
The hindsight bias is a well reproduced research finding relevant to accident analysis and reactions to failure. Knowledge of outcome biases our judgment about the processes that led up to that outcome.

From Space shuttle Columbia accident report.

[Kharon]

A fact in itself is nothing. It is valuable only for the idea attached to it, or for the proof which it furnishes. Claude Bernard.

And Bollocks is always bollocks no matter from which Troll it spews. K 2012.


Don't feed the http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/censored.gif Troll.

[blackhand]

Hindsight is not foresight. After an accident, we know all of the critical information and knowledge needed to understand what happened.
But that knowledge is not available to the participants before the fact. In
looking back we tend to oversimplify the situation the actual practitioners faced, and this tends to block our ability to see the deeper story behind the label human error.

[Frank Arouet]

Apologies to those who have seen this before cc PPRune.

A small token of what wasted effort people garner to evolve their Stolkholm syndrome in relation of a wasted organisation and the members of that clique.


Chaucer’smissing

‘LaddesTale’







Three fellowes wenten into a pubbe,

And gleefullye their hands did rubbe,

In expectation of revelrie,

For ‘twas the houre known as happye.




Greate botelles of wine did they quaffe,

And hadde a reallye good laffe.!

‘Till drunkennesse held full dominione,

For ‘twas two for the price of one.




Yet after wine and meade and sac,

Man must have a massive snack,

Great pasties from Cornwalle!

Scottishe egs round like a balle!




Great hammes, quail, ducke and geese!

They suck’d the bones and drank the grease!

(One fellowe stood all pale and wan,

for he was vegetarianne)




Yet man knoweth that gluttonie,

Stoketh the fyre of lecherie,

Upon three young wenches round and slye,

The fellowes cast a wanton eye.




One did approach, with drunkene winke:

“Ello darlin’, you fancy a drink?”,

Soon they caught them on their knee,

‘Twas like some grotesque puppettrie!




Such was the lewdness and debaucherie –

‘Twas like a sketch by Dick Emery!

(Except Dick Emery is not yet borne –

so such comparisonne may not be drawn).




But then the fellowes began to pale,

For quail are not the friend of ale!

And in their bellyes much confusion!

From their throats vile extrusion!




Stinking foule corruptionne!

Came spewinge forth from droolinge lippes,

The fetide stenche did fille the pubbe,

“Twas the very arse of Beelzebubbe!




Thrown they were, from the Horne and Trumpette,

In the street, no coyne, no strumpet.

Homeward bounde, must quicklie go,

To that ende – a donkey stole!




Their hands all with vomit greased,

(the donkey was not pleased,

and threw them into a ditche of ****e!)

They all agreed “What a brilliant night!”

[LeadSled]

It's a sad world when someone who proposes Cessnas should be treated the same as 747s gets taken seriously.

superd,

In a long discussion today, we were taking about exactly that, as being an increasing problem (one size fits all --- SMS/QAP da da da) regardless of the size of the disorganization ---- unlike, say, the US, Canada, NZ, where there is an escalation of requirements as the aircraft get bigger --- by and large we have one size fits all --- and the "New Rules" are making matters worse.

One of the nasties we have only just discovered in the recently amended Part 21 is that "CAR 35" modes and repairs ( which we have had for how many years???) are no prohibited.

Creamie,
Re-read may last post with slightly less per-prejudice, I don't believe you can use a regulation to create an exemption/variation/ concession against a provision of the Act ---- so, clearly, I can't step you through that one!!

Tootle pip!!

[Worrals in the wilds]

Often the first question people ask about the decision making leading up to an accident such as Columbia takes the form of: “why did NASA continue flying the Shuttle with a known problem…?The Challenger and Columbia pilots were licensed though...and they didn't suffer from epilepsy. Both shuttles were lost due to complex problems with the aircraft that were unknown at the time of the crashes, not due to the pilots suffering from pre-existing medical conditions, having their licenses suspended and flying anyway.

There's hindsight and foresight. CASA had the foresight to restrict Hempel's license but apparently lacked the means (or will) to enforce that restriction. To me, the restriction of his license illustrates that they were aware of a problem, unlike the NASA people who in both cases knew of a number of seemingly unrelated issues that came together and caused the accidents. This was not an accident caused by a structural failure; in an old aircraft that would have been understandable and acceptance of that risk forms the main part of the disclaimer. This was an accident caused by wilful pilot error.

This guy shouldn't have been flying passengers, he was told that, prohibited from doing that, he did it anyway (repeatedly) and the regulator didn't, or couldn't stop him. That's a problem.

[LeadSled]

if http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/censored.gif Hempel did in fact train a whole generation pf pilots (including certain CASA staff), and was allowed to continue doing so AFTER he had his CPL cancelled, does this mean that all those certifications might actually be invalid?

Does this mean that there are a whole group of pilots http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/eek.gif who might now not be licenced for what they think they should be ???

Macroderma,
Take a close look at CASA v. RQAC, an interesting one.
Tootle pip!!

[Sarcs]

Oh Worrals although an extremely good rebuttal to Blackie's post of no consequence, you've broken rule 101..."Don't feed the troll"...especially when it's half past the mast of o'beer o'clock!

Now Blackie mate back under yonder bridge and like I said we'll wake you when it's all over! Since Frank chose to break into verse here's a lullaby to steady the shakes...and rattled nerves!!

Troll sat alone on his seat of stone,
And munched and mumbled a bare old bone;
For many a year he had gnawed it near,
For meat was hard to come by.
Done by! Gum by!

In a cave in the hills he dwelt alone,
And meat was hard to come by.
Up came Tom with his big boots on.
Said he to Troll: 'Pray, what is yon?
For it looks like the shin o' my nuncle Tim,
As should be a-lyin' in graveyard.
Caveyard! Paveyard!

This many a year has Tim been gone,
And I thought he were lyin' in graveyard.'
'My lad,' said Troll, 'this bone I stole.
But what be bones that lie in a hole?
Thy nuncle was dead as a lump o' lead,
Afore I found his shinbone.
Tinbone! Thinbone!

He can spare a share for a poor old troll,
For he don't need his shinbone.'
Said Tom: 'I don't see why the likes o' thee
Without axin' leave should go makin' free
With the shank or the shin o' my father's kin;
So hand the old bone over!
Rover! Trover!

Though dead he be, it belongs to he;
So hand the old bone over!'
'For a couple o' pins,' says Troll, and grins,
'I'll eat thee too, and gnaw thy shins.
A bit o' fresh meat will go down sweet!
I'll try my teeth on thee now.
Hee now! See now!

I'm tired o' gnawing old bones and skins;
I've a mind to dine on thee now.'
But just as he thought his dinner was caught,
He found his hands had hold of naught.
Before he could mind, Tom slipped behind
And gave him the boot to larn him.
Warn him! Darn him!

A bump o' the boot on the seat, Tom thought,
Would be the way to larn him.
But harder than stone is the flesh and bone
Of a troll that sits in the hills alone.
As well set your boot to the mountain's root,
For the seat of a troll don't feel it.
Peel it! Heal it!

Old Troll laughed, when he heard Tom groan,
And he knew his toes could feel it.
Tom's leg is game, since home he came,
And his bootless foot is lasting lame;
But Troll don't care, and he's still there
With the bone he boned from its owner.
Doner! Boner!

Troll's old seat is still the same,
And the bone he boned from its owner!
The Lord of the Rings
Rhyme of the Troll sung by Sam, The Fellowship of the Ring Book 1,

....now sorry about the thread drift...where were we??

[Worrals in the wilds]

Oh Worrals although an extremely good rebuttal to Blackie's post of no consequence, you've broken rule 101..."Don't feed the troll"...especially when it's half past the mast of o'beer o'clock!Well it's well past the mast of shiraz o'clock here, in fact I think the mast sank without a trace some time ago, but still...:\
IMO Blackhand makes some good points that deserve discussion, particularly with respect to personal responsibility. If there was no paying customer or bystander involved I'd agree with most of them.

If people want to be idiots and kill themselves then that's their problem (BASE jumpers included). However, there was an unwitting customer who died through no fault of his own, and to me that's the fundamental difference.
So-and-so leaps off a building and his parachute fails? Care factor :zzz:.
So-and-so falls on a teenage apprentice who was going to do his shopping and kills him? Different kettle of fish.
So-and-so charges a fee to take a tandem jumper and infers to that tandem jumper that the activity is both safe and legal, the coppers knew he was undertaking this activity and accepting paying customers, yet didn't arrest him and confiscate his parachute?
:ugh::ugh::ugh:
Anyway, if we're doing poetry (a sure sign that the bar should be closing soon, bet Tailwheel wishes he had bouncers :}) I'll add this commentary from Eliot;

Mistah Kurtz—he dead. A penny for the Old Guy

We are the hollow men
We are the stuffed men
Leaning together
Headpiece filled with straw.
Alas! Our dried voices, when
We whisper together
Are quiet and meaningless
As wind in dry grass
Or rats’ feet over broken glass
In our dry cellar

Shape without form, shade without colour,
Paralysed force, gesture without motion;
Those who have crossed
With direct eyes, to death’s other Kingdom
Remember us—if at all—not as lost
Violent souls, but only
As the hollow men
The stuffed men.

The hollow men will probably escape unscathed. The hollow men doubtlessly remain strong in the belief that They Did Their Best and this was simply an unfortunate turn of events. The next time some maverick gets restricted and wants to fly pax anyway (safe in the personal belief that he knows best) he will assume that the Hollow Men will not be able or willing to stop him. After all, they didn't or coudn't stop Hempel; why should he be any different? :uhoh:

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

[Kharon]

WiW, posts with honesty, care, a judicious, weighted modicum of passion and a love of fairness, despite Shiraz pizzazz. (Leonard Cohen, T S Eliot I can live with - but Milton ? oh yawn).

But; with the Mods forbearance, my own favourite silly poem, offered as a 'Cheers' to the good, honest compliant folks trying to better the aviation community: – The Dogs Tail.

"The dogs they called a meeting, they came from near and far.
Some dogs came by aeroplane, others came by car; and as they crossed the courtyard to sign the visitors book each dog took off its asshole and hung it on a hook".

"Now every dog was there sir, each bitch each pup each sire; when a dirty rotten mongrel jumped up and shouted FIRE.
The dogs were so confused sir, didn't know where to look. Just grabbed the nearest asshole off the nearest hook".

"Now that is why today sir, wherever you may roam; you'll see each dog sniff another's arse to see if its his own".

Not my own work - you reading Skipper?. Selah.

[Frank Arouet]

Well, that's easy for you to say.;)

Now where are we...............Oh yes everyone in agreement but with different themes. Hindsight is not foresight

True, and I am probably as guilty as others for not "dobbing" but I was fighting a battle with CASA at the same time and I was aware of the stupidity of laying such a complaint.

I did my best in the circumstances by alerting the company of my previous medical encounters with "head doctors" and Dr No.

Am I repeating myself?:rolleyes:

[angry ant]

Has anyone asked why he was sacked from Ansett, when he was an f/o on the L-188 Electra freighter, in about 1975/6.

Give you one guess.

aa

[Worrals in the wilds]

True, and I am probably as guilty as others for not "dobbing" but I was fighting a battle with CASA at the same time and I was aware of the stupidity of laying such a complaint.Everybody knows. :sad:
Everybody knew with Transair (whatever name was on the tickets :}) and I was as guilty as anyone. I didn't pick up the phone either. I know people who did and received no acknowlegment or follow up from the regulator.

If I had? IMO there would have been no gain. Absolute risk to me (the dog) with no guarantee of a resolution. That's the level of trust that the community has in the regulator. Don't bother calling. :{

It sounds like you did what you could; you did what you thought was right. A reasonable person would have listened to your advice but the reasonable person defence falls down when we're talking about an unreasonable person.

A regulator should be there to curtail the unreasonable persons; that's what they're there for. That's why the Commonwealth entrusts them with things like the right of search; the right to interview; the right to curtail business activities. These are not rights that should be taken lightly, but unfortunately that seems to have happened in other cases. Why didn't people call the regulator? Maybe because they didn't trust them. :(

Whether people were beating down the door with complaints or whether the word on the street was that Hempel was acting dodgy makes no difference; I find it hard to believe they didn't know. If people knew and weren't beating down their door then that says something about the aviation community's perception of its (alleged) regulator.

Sure Milton's yawny but there's a bit in there.

[VH-XXX]

Has anyone asked why he was sacked from Ansett

If it's about exposure of equipment within the cockpit or at the staff party, then we don't need to know about it thanks. Keep the thread out of the gutter as requested by the Mods.

[Capt Fathom]

we don't need to know about it thanks. Keep the thread out of the gutter as requested by the Mods


Hmmm....why did you respond then?

[Worrals in the wilds]

There are many ways of notifying...
:}:suspect:

[Checkboard]

Actually, I heard it was for a completely different reason. An alcohol/flying incident, which is why Barry was teetotal after the 80s or so.

I did an instrument rating renewal with Barry around '94 or '95, and also two or three check flights in his Pitts, so that I could hire it privately.

For all that this incident, and the problems leading up to it were terrible, Barry was a fascinating person to meet, a gifted pilot, and he did a great deal of good for the GA industry.

[blackhand]

If there was no paying customer or bystander involved I'd agree with most of them. This is of course hindsight bias.

[Worrals in the wilds]

I don't see why. I would have thought it was a bad idea if I'd heard about it prior to the accident.

[blackhand]

Worrals
Knowledge of outcome biases our judgment about the processes that led up to that outcome.
The outcome: dead pilot and passenger.
Processes leading to the outcome are now tainted with our knowledge of that outcome.

[Sarcs]

Just doing a blackie and trolling through old news articles on this crash back in '08 and came across this one:CASA investigating aviation company over fatal crash - ABC Local - Australian Broadcasting Corporation (http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/09/03/2354680.htm?site=local)

In particular this paragraph may hold the answers on who investigated??...
A spokesman for the the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) says it is not investigating the accident because it is a police matter.


Sorry in advance if this was already stated, but it would appear that the QPS may have investigated this accident..."however I cannot confirm or deny...yada,yada..!"

[Worrals in the wilds]

Thanks for that.
I wonder why...:confused:
I thought the ATSB usually worked alongside state police.

[Macroderma]

yes indeed WitW.

For reasons unknown, QPS investigated alone. :{

Maybe CASA and ATSB had very good reasons why they should not get involved in the investigation of the crash of an unlicenced aeroplane being flown by an :mad: unlicenced pilot?

not sure what those reasons could have been though????

:ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh:

[Creampuff]

Perhaps it’s because the ‘only’ people killed were ‘participants’ – you know, the people whom CASA pretends are “informed of the risks of an aviation activity and have explicitly accepted the risks of their involvement in that activity”. :yuk:

[trashie]

"--he did a great deal of good for the GA industry."

There is an innocent person deceased. Totally negates any good he may have done.

Read "A deeper shade of blue" by Tony Kern. Everyone condoned Bud Holland's antics and he was supposedly a good pilot as well!!!

[TunaBum]

"Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have the exact measure of the injustice and wrong which will be imposed on them."

Frederick Douglas

TB:ok:

[Sarcs]

Read "A deeper shade of blue" by Tony Kern. Everyone condoned Bud Holland's antics and he was supposedly a good pilot as well!!!

Spot on trashie and a absolute must read for all aviators, here's a version of Tony Kern's investigation into Holland's exploits:ok::

Industry CRM Developers - Situational Awareness Management Course Outline (http://www.crm-devel.org/resources/paper/darkblue/darkblue.htm)

Huge indictment on the US Airforce but a big lesson to be learnt from their mistakes. So hand's up anyone who has experienced their very own Bud Holland doppelganger....I know mine's up??:{

Question does the QPS have a NSW equivalent of the Aviation Support Branch? Although the NSW branch appears to have only been around since '07 see here:
More assistance for country police investigating aviation crashes - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2007-10-31/more-assistance-for-country-police-investigating/712020)
...the DI that heads it up John Hurley seems to be unafraid to kick a few heads!

[Checkboard]

There is an innocent person deceased. Totally negates any good he may have done.
Apples and oranges.

I'm not denying the tragedy of the innocent death. :(

[Jabawocky]

CASA are internally cringing at this. Some folk had been trying to stop this for years and to that end I must say I support their view on things, it pretty much aligns with the general sentiment here.

Did I just say that?:eek:

Back to being serious, while I am critical of CASA at any moment, the folk trying to do a job with hands tied behind their back, are not happy. The hand toeing is not so much CASA being slack but legislative bull**** requiring them to do certain things.

Hempel was just too cunning. Look at the Quadrio case where I personally thing CASA got it all wrong, how did they get that far on really dodgy evidence, yet hempy was able to duck and weave.

One was doing his job, to the limit, the other was a blatant rule breaker but a character who could pull it off.

Believe me when I say CASA have on several occasions been found wanting, but generally do a good job, however the few cockups have resulted in probably innocent folk done over, while dangerous ones slip through.

Problem is too much law, not enough common sense. And that may well be post of the year in that last sentence.

[halfmanhalfbiscuit]

Didn't casa set up some accident investigation group around 2008. Remember some article on the group that were being trained in the US or Cranfield UK. Probably the directors newsletter. What was the purpose - surely to investigate?

Found the reference in the annual report
Civil Aviation Safety Authority - Stakeholder liaison (http://www.casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:STANDARD::pc=PC_93468)

Complementing activities under the MoU, in 2008–09 CASA established an Accident Liaison and Investigation Unit to manage the agencies’ day-to-day interaction. The unit provides a contact point for the ATSB, reviews all ATSB occurrence reports and prepares responses to ATSB recommendations, and identifies opportunities for aviation safety improvement.
CASA has also established an Accident Investigation Report Review Committee, chaired by the Deputy Director of Aviation Safety, to review and agree on the method of implementation of any formal recommendations from the ATSB.

[Sarcs]

HMHB mate good snapshot...I'm envious of your long term memory!!:ok: This bit explains a lot: CASA has also established an Accident Investigation Report Review Committee, chaired by the Deputy Director of Aviation Safety, to review and agree on the method of implementation of any formal recommendations from the ATSB.

....has there ever been a more self-saving 'hogger' of the trough...his stature speaks for itself! :yuk:

[Kharon]

Jabba - Back to being serious, while I am critical of CASA at any moment, the folk trying to do a job with hands tied behind their back, are not happy. The hand tying is not so much CASA being slack but legislative bull**** requiring them to do certain things. (My bold).

If this is the case (and I seriously doubt it is); then are they not guilty of the same crimes they tried to pin on the Hempel Director and Chief Pilot ??. Sitting on your arse wringing your hands and whimpering while Rome burns is not a good look for a robust regulatory person.

Jabba - Believe me when I say CASA have on several occasions been found wanting, but generally do a good job, however the few cockups have resulted in probably innocent folk done over, while dangerous ones slip through. (My bold).

Big breath, pause for thought and disable the Napalm; it's all been said before.

"They" are corporately, collectively and individually the most dangerous threat to aviation in Australia. Proof ?– all there in public documents. Look at the data – ATSB muzzled on a short leash, ASA straining at the seams, AAT, Courts and Coroners 'spivved' and spun out of any semblance probity, Senate treated with open disdain.

There is no need to even research for data – I could name at least six honest, ordinary, competent, physically fit pilots on the ground today because of CASA administrative bastardry, persecution and mendacity who could have conducted a routine joy flight operation safely. Not for this passenger though, no siree bub...

If it was fate that decided the time of death for the pair, we cannot change that. But if it was not – then there are no excuses for CASA; none that are worth hearing anyway.

Sorry Jabba, reasonable as it seems, the sack cloth and ashes defence won't work. It would be nice to believe the Coroner and the QPS can come up with the right answers; the comparison between the "truth" and nothing but the truth will be interesting, to say the least.

Selah – steam off.

[blackhand]

Jaba:

....the folk trying to do a job with hands tied behind their back, are not happy. The hand toeing is not so much CASA being slack but legislative bull**** requiring them to do certain things.
Hempel was just too cunning.

As you may be aware, Barry had some very good legal firepower.
Every decision by an AWI or FOI has to be approved by CASA legal department. And there is the rub.

[chimbu warrior]

CASA in 2012 suffers the same problem as the various Police services in our nation. Years of political knee-jerks have caused them to be so isolated from the community they serve, that they are completely out of touch.

As we all know, years ago many a youngster would commit a misdemeanor which never got to court but was resolved by a kick in the backside from the local Police sergeant, and a stern talking-to. There ended many a potential career of crime, as the words of wisdom (and sore behind) were not forgotten.

Likewise DCA/CAA/DOT in years gone by. Because their personnel were out and about (flying the Bonanza/310/Aero Commander or whatever) they saw and heard a lot that was going on in the industry, and, where warranted, offered suggestions to curb errant behavior. This was generally appreciated by industry, and everyone got along just fine. Note that this was not just in flying ops, but airworthiness too. Add to that the absolute gems that were drawn from articles in the Aviation Safety Digest.

Nowadays CASA are considered by many to be the "Fear of Flying" club, and all "advice" is promulgated through publications that seem more focused on advertising, and articles that may as well be written by schoolkids. Result - the gulf between industry and regulator grows deeper and wider, as does the fear and suspicion.

Our legislators in Canberra continue to express shock and outrage whenever an avoidable/predictable tragedy occurs, and resolve to "give CASA increased powers" (read remove them even further from reality). The only part of CASA that seems to be growing is the Legal Services Division, and for all the wrong reasons.

Meanwhile our 20+ year "transition" to a "new regulatory framework" drags on, with the result that only the LSD understand it.

For once I have to admit that this is something the Kiwis got right. Their regs (and to a degree their regulator) have a far more practical approach.

In summary, this problem didn't need someone to be creating a file on Barry, or writing letters or emails. It needed someone to march into his business, line up Barry and the post-holders and state "Barry we know you have a long history as a pilot, but regrettably your inability to satisfy the CASA class one medical standard means that your commercial flying days are over, and you (turns to Chief Pilot) will ensure Barry obeys this, and you (turns to manager/CEO) will ensure that commercial operations are conducted only by appropriately licenced persons".

It would have all taken less than 30 minutes.

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

That is one of the best posts that I have read on this forum. :ok:

Thank you!

Dr :8

[baron_beeza]

For once I have to admit that this is something the Kiwis got right. Their regs (and to a degree their regulator) have a far more practical approach.

I doubt few here will disagree with that.

Many here will work under both regimes, some as engineers and pilots... the difference really is chalk and cheese stuff, - to me at least.
The NZ system is user friendly and workable, possibly the best I have seen it in 40 years.

Both countries still have their share of 'personalities' but I am equally sure the regulators seem to be taking different approaches to the industry.

[aroa]

If someone ? anyone in CASA had REALLY wanted to put the kybosh on BH...it could have been done. Was the LSD afraid of a legal contest.?... hardly.
CASA has ways and means, by what ever it takes.
Their classic MO of bastardry CASA style re Quadrio could have been used with like effect on BE.
Dont even have to have a court case, withdraw the licence and if he wants it back, then he will have to go to the AAT... and there CASA can use that hoary old chestnut..."NOT a fit and proper person" Job done.
The Q is... if not...Why not???
Probably because so much of the fan debris from CASA is 'different strokes (of the cane) for different folks', ...or none at all.
And the CASA leadersh*t (not a typo) in all this...?
Are they ALL headless chooks FFS.!! :mad:

[halfmanhalfbiscuit]

There was a lot of shall we say emphasis from senior mgmt to reduce the number of complaints from industry. I think a casa wary issue mid year spelt it out again after one complaint. The number of complaints was in the annual report 2008-9 so clearly an important kpi.

I suspect some people were balancing the safety risk against the political risk of a complaint that could end their career!

[Dangly Bits]

Spot on Chimbu!

[Worrals in the wilds]

:ok: Chimbu.
Years of political knee-jerks have caused them to be so isolated from the community they serve, that they are completely out of touch.I think that the drive to have tertiary educated 'professional' law enforcement people has also led to the out of touchness. Of course any agency needs people who can read whole sentences with big words in them, but they also need people with relevant experience and people skills.

When an agency starts taking people the day after they graduate from their Bachelor of Criminal Justice (which they entered two months after they finished high school) and ignores applicants with real world life experience because they don't have a fancy piece of paper, you know that shortly the agency will be further removed from the real world than Star Trek.

I'm not overly familiar with CASA; is this a problem? It is in a number of state and federal agencies.
It needed someone to march into his business, line up Barry and the post-holders... And that someone needed to be sure they had the backing of their agency and the surety that their agency would persue the aforementioned people if they continued to operate. Otherwise, they'd just end up looking stupid.

When officers don't have that confidence they'll generally use the softly-softly approach rather than put their own necks on the line in an action that may be considered politically unwise or un-PC. Most agencies are now run by people who are professional public servants and care far more about their own promotion than doing the job they're supposed to do. Fearless crusaders are not popular within today's public service and they don't usually get promoted. :( As a result, the people who do get promoted (and end up running the joint) are often the sort of people who'd walk backwards to Burke before they put their name to a Decision.

Again; dunno about CASA but it's a hell of a problem in other agencies.

Hempel was always going to be a hard nut to crack. He had lawyers, he didn't follow the rules and he was popular. I don't know that marching into the office of a person like that was going to be terribly effective; I think they would have had to prosecute him. That takes time, effort, dogmatic drive and causes a lot of bad PR. If they had done that there probably would have been a bunch of people on here and elsewhere defending Big Bad Barry who was being picked on by the nasty government.

When you're the guy (or girl) signing off on that sort of operation you have to be prepared to cop a lot of flak and you have to be sure the Minister and the DPP will back you. Would they? Or would they snivel off to the sidelines and leave you up to your neck in it? This is where hindsight does become a factor, because we all know the outcome. If there hadn't been a fatality we wouldn't be talking about it and he'd probably still be operating.

Should they have prosecuted him? IMO, absolutely; he was acting in contravention of the law and their direction. It was the right thing to do.

Do I understand why they didn't? Yep. Been there, done that, got given the 'you're a loud mouthed trouble-maker' T-shirt :E. Now it's gone really pair shaped on them and they're scraping for excuses, none of which are very believable.

IMO, this has shown that the regulator can't or won't regulate. That's a problem, because now everybody knows. Make a noise, threaten to sue, defy the rules; what are they going to do about it? :bored:

[MakeItHappenCaptain]

Slight drift, but remember when cops also had to meet specific height and weight requirements?:rolleyes:

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

Thanks 'Chimbu W',

I reckon you're not far away at all.....

Cheers:ok:

[Creampuff]

It’s unfortunate when otherwise sensible posts contain unsubstantiated twaddle.The only part of CASA that seems to be growing is the Legal Services Division.Really? On what basis do you draw that conclusion, other than ignorant prejudice?"Barry we know you have a long history as a pilot, but regrettably your inability to satisfy the CASA class one medical standard means that your commercial flying days are over, and you (turns to Chief Pilot) will ensure Barry obeys this, and you (turns to manager/CEO) will ensure that commercial operations are conducted only by appropriately licenced persons".And as the CASA FOI leaves the premises, they all look at each other and laugh. Their collective view is: CASA and the rules can go and get f*cked.

What should happen next, oh wise Chimbu?

[Arnold E]

That takes time, Rubbish,It only takes time if you are incompetent, lazy or you just dont care.

[Worrals in the wilds]

Welcome to the Australian Public Service. :yuk:
I left because I was none of the above.
Think you can change the world? Go join up and see how you go. Go change the System, it'll love ya. :E
They've been waiting for you to Show Them the Light.

[Arnold E]

They've been waiting for you to Show Them the Light.

At no stage did I even suggest that I could change the system, I was only pointing out the obvious.