Slam Click:
There's no doubt that Barrier's grounding was warranted, and the necessary culture changes within the organisation wouldn't be able to be introduced to a satisfactory standard.
I don't see what appealing their decision will do, all they'd get is lifting of the AOC cancellation and resurection of the suspension.
Quote: "We've never dispatched aircraft that weren't air-worthy or safe."
Ah no...you just forced your pilots to do it for you....Just because you haven't killed passengers/staff (or own or others) yet, doesn't mean you weren't about to!
I'm going to make the assumption that you are not a troll and attempt to rebut your assertions. These rest on a series of untested assertions.
You say there is "no doubt" that Barriers grounding was "Justified". .......
Justify = " To demonstrate or prove to be just, right, or valid" Exactly what process was employed to demonstrate Barriers non compliance? The evidence is untested in Court and perhaps even inadmissible. As to grounding and the financial destruction this causes, there is the question of proportionality.
You say that the grounding was "warranted". Says who? A disgruntled AWI about whom Barrier had already complained? On what evidence? In which Court? In front of which impartial judge?
You say that the "necessary" changes "wouldn't" be able to be "satisfactorilly" implemented.
Again, says who? And on what evidence? What are the necessary changes? Who said an organisation wouldn't be able to implement them? The behaviour of profit seeking organisatoins is predictable, especially when costs are involved. Who says what is "satisfactory"?
You may be right in your prediction regarding the AAT, not because evidence is produced and tested and found to be 100% correct. Not because the judgement of CASA will be solemnly weighed by the good commissoners who agree that the punishment fits the crime. But because CASA will read the regulations to the AAT and explain that they can do what they ****1ng well like to anybody in the name of an abstract concept called "Safety", and provided the AAT can't find a procedural legal flaw in their process then CASAs verdict stands, and the AAT will roll over to have its tummy tickled.
As for killing people, companies do it all the time, as do car drivers and anyone else engaged with machinery. The difference though is that they get their day in court and the penalties applied are commensurate with the sin committed after thoughtful consideration by an impartial judge. Not so aircraft operators.
To put that another way, BHP just got fined $130,000 over the crushing death of one of its workers. Was BHP's "licence to operate" cancelled? Did the worksafe people try to shut down BHPs operations and bankrupt the company? Of course not. Why should aircraft operators face anything different?
Ahhh! You will say "but aircraft fly over the heads of an unsuspecting public who dislike the prospect of being crushed in their sleep by flaming aircraft wreckage". Ever driven on the roads Slam Click? Ever been next to a B - Double truck carrying 55,000 litres of petrol? Do you know what Vinyl Chloride is? Ever seen Thirty tonnes of that on the road -capable of poisoning or incinerating an entire suburb if there is an accident - and the vehicle is operated and maintained to a standard far below an aircraft by minimum wage workers.
Ever been on a train Slam Klick - along with 300+ other people? Do we shut down rail companies at will? Did you know that at least One person dies every day in Melbourne from coming into contact with a train?
....We accept those risks daily, and trucks and trains kill people daily, but aircraft? Oh the horror! Think of the risk!!!!!
BHP Billiton has been fined $130,000 over the death of one of its workers in Port Hedland five years ago.
BHP fined over worker being crushed to death - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)