Nah blackie MQ had already fallen on his sword long before this debacle, plus you skipped a couple of steps along the food chain...(1) FOI overseeing Pel-Air; (2) Team Leader Flight Ops Sydney region; (3) Regional Manager (acting at the time) for Sydney/Bankstown (this is the one where the pony pooh detector goes off the scale).
But blackie don't let us get in the road of your obvious attempt to smear some pony pooh across Mr Quinn's name.
Big Mack's rule 101..."forget the ball always, always play the man!"
Let's move onto question 2 from the CASA AQON PDF:
CASA02: FOI views on diversion
Hansard: p. 37
Senator FAWCETT: How many FOIs thought it was a legal requirement to divert your flying operations inspectors?
Mr McCormick: I do not have that information. We can find that on notice, if you like.
Answer:
As part of CASA’s own investigation into the Pel-Air accident, the officer in charge took an informal sample of the views of six CASA Flying Operations Inspectors (FOIs) regarding the appropriate decision to divert, in relation to the actions of the captain of the aircraft involved in the accident. The three FOIs experienced on large aircraft were of the opinion that if a pilot whilst enroute, became aware of the weather at the destination going below alternate minima but remained above the landing minima, then a diversion was not required. The three FOIs who flew smaller aircraft were of the opinion that, in the circumstances of the weather going below alternate minima, whilst enroute, a diversion was required.
It should be noted that, in March 2010, the details of the accident were not widely known amongst the CASA inspectorate. CASA’s position with respect to the diversion issue was and remains that, in all the circumstances of the accident flight, good airmanship should have resulted in a diversion, even if there was no explicit, mandatory requirement that the accident pilot do so.
This question when asked was a prelude to one of those golden moments in the hearing, here is the follow on discourse from the QON:
Senator FAWCETT: Does anyone on the panel have that information?
CHAIR: You have to have some idea.
Senator FAWCETT: I have got an email here from a fairly senior person within CASA saying: 'Our FOI perforation seems to be evenly split about the need or not to mandatorily divert from an alternate from the last possible diversion if the destination weather falls below the alternate minima. 'It goes on to talk about a range of things to do with that. That is followed up by another email—fairly senior again within CASA—on 20 March 2010, which says: 'I am happy with the path you are taking. My point is and you are addressing it that, as a result of reliance on the AIP, the Aeronautical Information Publication, which has no head of power and contains much that we need to revisit anyway, there is one group of pilots that have one view which leads to a mandatory diversion, and another group with the opposite view. Putting aside the practicalities, both groups believe that they are legally correct'—
and this is talking about FOIs—senior flying people within CASA. 'If we find ourselves in an AAT or a court, we once again could look a bit foolish if we, the regulator, find ourselves in a position where we have to say that there are two conflicting views, one of which has to be wrong, and we have done nothing to rectify that over the years—very untidy.'
What that says to me is that you have written the paragraph here aimed at Mr James which indicates that this body of knowledge and training should enable him to make the right decision in every circumstance, putting aside the fact of fuel planning and all the rest of it—and I understand that. The fact is, within CASA, 50 per cent of your FOIs disagreed with the other 50 per cent over what the legal interpretation of that was.
CHAIR: Before you respond to that, if you do not mind, just a procedural matter, Mr McCormick: would you care to make that a public document?
Senator FAWCETT: I am happy to.
CHAIR: Thank you. We will publish that.
Senator XENOPHON: If it is noted publicly, the author of that and these other documents should be redacted.
CHAIR: I am sure one of these guys up here is very familiar with it.
(
edit note: there was stunned silence at the CASA table)
There was more pregnant pauses, dagger stares, flaming red ears etc..etc but I digress back to question 2...
