Besides, as UITA alludes, the possible multiple breaches of the TSI Act by both Federal aviation safety authorities and the fact that there is also possibly breaches of the Commonwealth Criminal Code in perverting the course of justice in regards to the proceedings of the QLD Coroner's court...still too much mcwriggle room in there....
But there are also several questions to be asked in terms of the regulator's strict liability. Perhaps this is why Fort Fumble's legal eagles are busily devising diversionary/delaying tactics to the Coroner's findings.
The following copy of a letter from the Barry Hempel Show Cause process is perhaps why the regulator's legal eagles are feeling particularly vulnerable at the moment:
I refer to your letter dated 20 February 2008 in relation to the above.
As the cancellation of Mr Hempel’s commercial licence is the subject of a review by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal I am not prepared to meet with your client, but provide a written response to some of the questions you have raised.
I advise that Mr Hempel under his Private Pilot (Aeroplane) licence is authorised to conduct private operations including acrobatic flights under CAR 155 and warbird flights in, for example, the Yak aircraft within the limits for private operations set out in CAR 2(7) and excluding those matters for which an AOC is required under CAR 206.
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 the “share cost” private operations set out in CAR 2(7A)) and meets the other requirements in CAR 262AM(7).
As Mr Hempel still holds a flight instructor (aeroplane) rating he is authorised to conduct conversion training in relation to aeroplanes of which he holds an endorsement.
You also ask: “For what period you envisage that a history of compliance must be established in order to reasonably satisfy you as regards the issue of a commercial licence etc?”
There is no fixed period of disqualification before a person whose licences have been cancelled can reapply. Where a licence has been cancelled on the basis the holder is not a “fit and proper person” it is for that person to demonstrate to CASA they are now a fit and proper person by, for example, re-emergence of their former good character, honesty and history, or other activities involving aviation or safety generally, attending courses, providing lectures etc, and obtaining references from persons prepared to verify their alleged change of character.
Regardless of the fact that he wasn't a paid up member of the warbirds, to a person like Barry that letter would be as good as a 'green light' for ops in his Yak that he was ever likely to get!
From the regulator's point of view that letter makes it pretty hard to escape 'strict liability' in this matter but they will try!