The thing that beats me is that this when an issue like this one gets to the AAT it is not a lay down misere for CASA. There should not be reasonable doubt, it should be an industry supported formalisation of a clearly defined breach.
Long before it got to CASA, the Chief Pilot, (company management) should have been able to provide CASA with a pilot file or memo's which provided an insight to the pilot's general approach to work practice and it's own investigation. A 'wrong un' should be weeded out long before an incident like this occurs.
The real safety outcome could then be resolved by CASA; is this a one off event?, does the company culture encourage errant behaviour?; has there been an attempt to correct dangerous practice?. The list of safety based options is long, well documented by experts and freely available.
Was it used, I don't believe so.
Was this investigation conducted fairly and impartially, I don't believe so.
Was the prosecution of a minor low flying issue reasonable, I don't believe so.
There is clear almost overwhelming evidence of this in the transcript.
There is clear evidence of an FOI making an arbitrary judgement then dragging in the 'heavy mob' to justify and support a clearly flawed series of assumptions. Again.
[quote]
Maurie Baston
This win, I doubt would have provided little, if anything, in the way of an improvement in flight safety. Certainly it would have caused much heartache and financial loss for Mr.Quadrio. Here is another pilot forced from the industry due, in the main, to the procedures applied by several CASA persons
[quote]
.
Agreed - No help to man nor beast.
Sunfish.
For all I know Quadrio is indeed guilty as charged by CASA and deserves to lose his license, but that is not obvious from any of the proceedings nor the video.
Agreed - There is a mans livelihood, reputation and happiness at stake here, it should matter that the matter is proven beyond all doubt.
Clinton ; Sunfish. You ask why CASA didn’t do a number of things that you described. Answer: because CASA didn’t have to.
Clinton, please take off the lawyer hat and think about what's wrong with this disgusting statement, considering what's stake.
His Mum's (unbiased) statement has as much weight and value as the FOI's. Probably a bloody sight more accurate. 