Anyway back to the thread, back at post #320 Checkboard said:
As far as I know, his commercial pilot's license (CPL) wasn't cancelled, his class one medical was suspended (which should prevent commercial operations). This is an important point, because Australian licenses are stamped "Permanently Valid", so anyone asking to see Barry's CPL could be shown a valid license. Anyone asking to see his medical could be shown a valid medical - you would need to be able to pick up the difference between a class one and class two medical to know whether he was correctly licensed for commercial operations.
Well the following quote shows that Hempel's CPL(A), CPL(H) and ATPL licences were indeed cancelled:
Date: 29 November 2007
DECISION
13. On the basis of the above facts and circumstances and on the grounds set out above I have decided to cancel your:
(i) Air Transport Pilot (Aeroplane) licence;
(ii) Commercial Pilot (Helicopter) licence;
(iii) Commercial Pilot (Aeroplane) licence;
14. The cancellation of these licences means that you must not undertake any operation in an aeroplane or a helicopter associated with and requiring the authority outlined in subregulation 5.105(1), subregulation 5.21(1) or subregulation 5.166(1) of CAR 1988.
15. This will also prevent you from flying as pilot in command or as a co-pilot on any commercial purpose operation outlined in regulation 206 of CAR 1988 and any operation authorised under subregulation 262AM(7) of CAR 1988.
Given Hempel's past history of indiscretions, makes you wonder why the regulator didn't go the full hog and cancel all his licences.
The following is a quote from a letter reply to a query from Hempel's lawyer, this was in context of operating the YAK:
He is not required to hold an AOC to conduct flights in limited category warbird operations in the YAK as set out in CAR 262AM(2) but he is required to hold a commercial pilot (aeroplane) licence (or an ATPL) if he receives any commercial consideration from some other person for such flights (outside of the “shared cost” private operations set out in CAR 2(7A)) and meets the other requirements in CAR 262AM(7).
For clarity here is the relevant passage from CAR 262AM(7):
A person may carry passengers in a limited category aircraft in circumstances where payment is made for carriage, and subregulation 2 (7A) does not apply, only if:
(a) the pilot in command holds a commercial pilot licence, or an air transport pilot licence, with appropriate ratings and endorsements for a flight of that kind; and
(b) the aircraft departs from and returns to the same aerodrome without landing anywhere else; and
(c) the flight does not involve training or flight testing, and is not a scenic flight; and
(d) the aircraft:
(i) is a replica aircraft, ex-military aircraft or historic aircraft; or (ii) is being operated for the purpose of parachute jumping, mock combat or aerobatics ; or
(iii) is being operated only to carry passengers as part of an intrinsically hazardous recreational activity; and
(e) each passenger has acknowledged in writing that the passenger has been told about the matters mentioned in subregulation (5).
Which would seem to indicate that even if BH was a paid up member of Warbirds he was still unable to fly paying pax in the YAK!
So did the regulator miss all the warning signs leading up to this tragic accident?
Kind of gives credence to some kind of 'name and shame' statement being publicly released in the media, 'buyer beware' for sure!
