Creampuff.
Scully-Power Search back to 2001.
It makes very interesting reading ... including
your thread of February 2002 regarding a pilot who:
"... failure(d)
to record a defect on a maintenance release; .... operation of an aircraft without an endorsement; and the incorrect operation of an aircraft at Moruya Airport."
I wonder what capital punishment CASA and OLC would have imposed had that pilot been anyone other than the CASA Director, who Senator O'Brien seems to be suggesting may have been protected or defended by CASA's legal counsel and another of CASA's consultant lawyers?
"I have concerns about the propriety of those meetings and discussions between Mr Toller, Mr Ilyk and Mr Skehill. Mr Ilyk's role at that time appears to have been one of damage control rather than ensuring that a proper and open investigation into the matter took place. He was, after all, at that time—or was shortly about to become—the senior officer responsible for investigation and enforcement of CASA's regulations, and Mr Skehill's involvement in the meetings meant that he was assisting Mr Toller to manage one of the breaches and at the same time was advising the authority about another of Mr Toller's breaches. I do not believe that Mr Skehill can credibly justify his conflict of interest in this case. So the initial response by Mr Toller, Mr Ilyk and Mr Skehill to the public disclosure of Mr Toller's breach of aviation regulations was inappropriate, to say the least.
I am advised that the Acting Assistant Director of Safety Compliance, Mr Farquharson, had similar concerns. In fact, I am given to understand that Mr Farquharson's concerns were such that he has committed them to writing. Now, if Mr Farquharson did express concerns about the relationship between Mr Toller, Mr Ilyk and Mr Skehill in relation to what has become known as the Uzu breach, either orally or in writing, the integrity of the internal inquiry into this matter must be called into question. Mr Farquharson was, after all, charged by the chairman of the board with the responsibility of ensuring that the investigation into the Uzu breach was carried out in a proper manner."
And your subsequent post in that thread:
"The refusal does not smack of a cover up: it is itself a cover up.
If you read the material in my thread about flying training AOCs, you will see that the regulator is merely going through the pretence of consultation before announcing a decision on which its mind has already been made up."
Probably explains Mr Toller's comment to me that "
It (the Uzu Air matter)
should have been handled in a different manner."
I can't believe CASA, Mr Ilyk or OLC would ever be a party to a cover up!
I guess that also justifies raising the question of CASA's integrity and propriety in the matter of Lockhart River?
It is indeed unfortunate the proposed Senate Inquiry is limited to 2003 to the present.