Barry Hempel Inquest
IF.....
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.!!
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.!!
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Australia
Age: 53
Posts: 547
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
I suspect some people were balancing the safety risk against the political risk of a complaint that could end their career!
Last edited by halfmanhalfbiscuit; 23rd Jun 2012 at 06:41.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Sunny side up
Posts: 1,206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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...
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
. 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?
Last edited by Worrals in the wilds; 23rd Jun 2012 at 10:47.
Slight drift, but remember when cops also had to meet specific height and weight requirements?
It’s unfortunate when otherwise sensible posts contain unsubstantiated twaddle.
Really? On what basis do you draw that conclusion, other than ignorant prejudice?
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?
The only part of CASA that seems to be growing is the Legal Services Division.
"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".
What should happen next, oh wise Chimbu?
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Sunny side up
Posts: 1,206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Welcome to the Australian Public Service. 
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.
They've been waiting for you to Show Them the Light.
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.
They've been waiting for you to Show Them the Light.
Last edited by Worrals in the wilds; 23rd Jun 2012 at 11:53.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Sunny side up
Posts: 1,206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And you would be correct.
While the system promotes laziness, incompetence and don't caredness that's what the public service will deliver. Apparently that's what the public want; whenever a tough decision is made there's an outcry and sometimes a lawsuit; whenever a tough decision is not made there's an outcry. Either way, an outcry...the result; stalemate. More useless policy and advisories get issued, yet the truly lawless continue to operate outside the law and everyone else sighs, reads the latest inconclusive tripe from the agency and tries to figure out what they're supposed to do with their paperclip inventory this week to remain compliant...
Meantime, a bloke accepts a ticket bought by his partner for an activity they both believe is lawful but wasn't, and he dies.
But the paperclips are counted. The advisories have been circulated. Regulation has been seen to be done. The performance indicators have been met.
The departmental heads no doubt dismiss it as an unfortunate event that couldn't have possibly been prevented by them, because ya know, they sent out the advisories...
There's a time for advisories and there's a time for jackboots. This was a time for jackboots, warrants and arrests and the agency missed the time. Sure, hindsight's a wonderful thing, but when a person is flouting rules and contravening regulations, doing what he was told not to do and dragging customers into it; IMO time to pull out the jackboots and the warrant, and public opinion be damned. Otherwise the regulations are worthless and so is the regulator.
They didn't do that, and that seems to be the public service people want. If that's not what you all want, why have you got it?
While the system promotes laziness, incompetence and don't caredness that's what the public service will deliver. Apparently that's what the public want; whenever a tough decision is made there's an outcry and sometimes a lawsuit; whenever a tough decision is not made there's an outcry. Either way, an outcry...the result; stalemate. More useless policy and advisories get issued, yet the truly lawless continue to operate outside the law and everyone else sighs, reads the latest inconclusive tripe from the agency and tries to figure out what they're supposed to do with their paperclip inventory this week to remain compliant...
Meantime, a bloke accepts a ticket bought by his partner for an activity they both believe is lawful but wasn't, and he dies.
But the paperclips are counted. The advisories have been circulated. Regulation has been seen to be done. The performance indicators have been met.
The departmental heads no doubt dismiss it as an unfortunate event that couldn't have possibly been prevented by them, because ya know, they sent out the advisories...
There's a time for advisories and there's a time for jackboots. This was a time for jackboots, warrants and arrests and the agency missed the time. Sure, hindsight's a wonderful thing, but when a person is flouting rules and contravening regulations, doing what he was told not to do and dragging customers into it; IMO time to pull out the jackboots and the warrant, and public opinion be damned. Otherwise the regulations are worthless and so is the regulator.
They didn't do that, and that seems to be the public service people want. If that's not what you all want, why have you got it?
Last edited by Worrals in the wilds; 23rd Jun 2012 at 12:31.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Back again.
Posts: 1,140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Blaming the CASA in part on this thread seems par for the course. However, there's also the issue of a manager and a chief pilot. All get a briefing from the CASA along the lines of, "You are the one responsible for your employees' actions. You take the fall." The CASA is (as far as I know) very direct and straightforward on these deliberations. What might not be stated, but is implied is that any issues of rule breaking that are not dealt with appropriately will be ultimately held as the responsibility of those two individuals: licence revocation, future career, immense legal fees and jail time are all on the table if they do not absolve their responsibilities in an appropriate manner. Barry needed a chief pilot and a CEO to continue operations. He couldn't have done so without them. Barry alledgedly chose to ignore the rules. So why didn't the chief pilot walk if this wasn't the first time Barry did this?
Last edited by Lodown; 23rd Jun 2012 at 16:03.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: on the edge
Posts: 823
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
However, there's also the issue of a manager and a chief pilot. All get a briefing from the CASA along the lines of, "You are the one responsible for your employees' actions. You take the fall."
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I guess when all else fails one can always blame the purchaser of the ticket quoting "Caveat Emptor". They tried that one on me too.
I don't think anybody is "NOT" blaming Hemple. Most see the obvious when apportiong blame here.
With the documented loss of consciousness and a subsequent history of Epilepsy, he should never have had a Class 2 medical.
I don't think anybody is "NOT" blaming Hemple. Most see the obvious when apportiong blame here.
inability to satisfy the CASA class one medical standard
With the documented loss of consciousness and a subsequent history of Epilepsy, he should never have had a Class 2 medical.
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Gods Country
Age: 53
Posts: 181
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If those were the medical conditions that he suffered from, he should not
have been given a license to drive a car, never mind about flying a plane.
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CASA covering its a--e ??
I wonder if the CASA chap who had a seizure in the witness box during the Hempel/Lovel Coronial Inquiry is that same chappie who chairs the Accident Investigation Report Review Committee (i.e. the Deputy Director of Aviation Safety).
Does he have a pre-exising medical condition, and will his medical approval to fly be pulled??
Does he have a pre-exising medical condition, and will his medical approval to fly be pulled??
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is interesting, everything goes to TF.
DAS-PN015-2010 ATSB Cooperation Policy ATSB Cooperation Policy August 2011 EF11/2127 DAS-PN015-2010 Page
2 of 2 Legislative Basis
With respect to cooperation with the ATSB, the
Civil Aviation Act 1988 relevantly states that:
Section 9:
(
3) CASA also has the following functions
:
(a) co-operating with the Executive Director of Transport Safety Investigation in relation to investigations under the Transport Safety Investigation Act 2003 that relate to aircraft;
Policy
In addition to meeting any obligations under the Transport Safety Investigation Act 2003 and the
Civil Aviation Act (1988), CASA is committed to cooperation with the ATSB in accordance with the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) established between the two agencies.
CASA has established an Accident Liaison and Investigation Unit (ALIU) to manage the day-to-day interaction and to act as a contact point for the ATSB. The ALIU is headed by the Manager Accident Liaison and Investigation Unit (MALIU) who reports to the Deputy Director of Aviation Safety.
Under the terms of the MoU, all requests from the ATSB for assistance, advice or interviews should be coordinated through the Accident Liaison and Investigation Unit (ALIU).
If CASA personnel are contacted directly by the ATSB in respect to any investigation or requests for information they should refer the request to the ALIU.
The ALIU also acts as the conduit for advice back to the ATSB. Staff should not contact or provide advice to the ATSB without first consulting the ALIU.
CASA officers participating in or supporting ATSB investigations have a responsibility to keep Manager ALIU informed of the progress of an investigation and to advise him immediately of information which indicates a need for CASA to take urgent safety-related action.
Links
CASA-ATSB MOU
John F. McCormick
Director of Aviation Safety
Date 03 August 2011
2 of 2 Legislative Basis
With respect to cooperation with the ATSB, the
Civil Aviation Act 1988 relevantly states that:
Section 9:
(
3) CASA also has the following functions
:
(a) co-operating with the Executive Director of Transport Safety Investigation in relation to investigations under the Transport Safety Investigation Act 2003 that relate to aircraft;
Policy
In addition to meeting any obligations under the Transport Safety Investigation Act 2003 and the
Civil Aviation Act (1988), CASA is committed to cooperation with the ATSB in accordance with the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) established between the two agencies.
CASA has established an Accident Liaison and Investigation Unit (ALIU) to manage the day-to-day interaction and to act as a contact point for the ATSB. The ALIU is headed by the Manager Accident Liaison and Investigation Unit (MALIU) who reports to the Deputy Director of Aviation Safety.
Under the terms of the MoU, all requests from the ATSB for assistance, advice or interviews should be coordinated through the Accident Liaison and Investigation Unit (ALIU).
If CASA personnel are contacted directly by the ATSB in respect to any investigation or requests for information they should refer the request to the ALIU.
The ALIU also acts as the conduit for advice back to the ATSB. Staff should not contact or provide advice to the ATSB without first consulting the ALIU.
CASA officers participating in or supporting ATSB investigations have a responsibility to keep Manager ALIU informed of the progress of an investigation and to advise him immediately of information which indicates a need for CASA to take urgent safety-related action.
Links
CASA-ATSB MOU
John F. McCormick
Director of Aviation Safety
Date 03 August 2011
Last edited by Frank Arouet; 24th Jun 2012 at 06:55.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts