It is interesting following the story of the Barrier grounding whilst also reading the Hempel thread. There seems little doubt that Hempel was breaking the law and it is likely that an innocent passenger was killed as a result. CASA have been widely criticised for (allegedly) turning a blind eye to his possibly illegal activities leading to the fatal flight.
On the other hand, Barrier had not yet suffered a serious accident in one of their own aircraft. CASA have investigated allegations of illegal and unsafe operations, found supporting evidence and taken action to create a safe outcome. It has caused a lot of people a lot of inconvenience in the process and it has been argued that grounding and subsequently cancellation of Barrier’s AOC was too extreme a course of action.
I don’t wish to say that CASA were right or wrong in their course of action. I simply find it interesting that a lot of people here believe that they set out from the start to shut down the company. If, the day before the disgruntled ex-employee decided to talk to CASA, an aircraft had crashed as a result of an unserviceability that was known but not properly recorded, would the general consensus be different? What if it was a one-off oversight by an individual? What if that was just the way the company did things? Should the way a single base is managed tarnish a larger company? All very interesting to think about!
Last edited by cleggs; 18th Mar 2013 at 10:41.