Barry Hempel Inquest

[Kharon]

Had Hempel been a Bus driver.

If this appears disjointed, I apologise. I am working from nine pages of notes, not transcript. There are important issues for discussion and I wanted to get the ball rolling, the industry may have to extract a digit and provide this unfortunate Coroner with submissions as requested, whether they are read or not is a different matter.

I have just finished reading the Samantha Hare recommendations to the Coroner, made yesterday. The statement, in my opinion helps neither the current issues, the future of aviation nor her own civil action against the CASA. We have a nearly hysterical appeal for total control of everything from a flu shot to vasectomy to be reported to CASA from your doctor of choice (or convenience) recorded as part of an already very intrusive medical system. Should this be allowed I believe every person in charge of a vehicle of any description needs to protest, loud and long against it. Why should this entire industry suffer and be further impeded for the blatant crimes of one man??.

Had Hempel been a bus driver, or a ferry captain, passenger liner helmsman, train driver or even a truck driver, little of the hysteria surrounding 'medical condition' would have eventuated. Why does it have to be so very different for aircraft pilots?.....There exists a 'robust' extensive medical system which already has great powers, some would argue too many. The State has strong systems used to ensure that persons operating 'public service' vehicles are tested and qualified as 'fit for duty' as may be reasonably foreseen; insurance companies rely on those systems, the courts rely on those systems; and, the system is 'self protecting'. A call for further intrusion should be treated as an understandably, emotional response from a person who has been subjected to a long, frustrating wait for closure.

I am not sure what effect the Samantha Hare recommendation to the Coroner had; one can only hope that CASA will persist with a case against further over regulating, now that I could willingly support. In fact many of the CASA arguments in this case had merit.

There are several areas of serious interest from yesterday's final session which are worth considering:

Opinion : It has become apparent that no matter what legislation was in place, the intention to deliberately commit an offence cannot ever be effectively countered. There is no doubt that whatever method used by CASA in an attempt to control Hempel (and there were several) was doomed to failure – many had tried and all failed to restrain Hempel. Neither Commonwealth, State, civil or aeronautical law made any impression. There was prima facia evidence presented that even the notoriously difficult to prove "Not a fit and Proper person" case could have been successfully prosecuted. This never happened to Hempel. There are too many instances where the NFPP clause has been administratively made to stick. Not for Hempel though. It is reasonable to wonder why??

Opinion: The Coroners questions directed at the notes and minutes for "Difficult Case Meetings" (DCM) almost penetrated, were CASA medical aware of the Hempel medical condition – Yes, categorically, they were. The rest of it is simply an attempt to muddy the waters, ambulance officer reports, other medical opinion and evidence were denigrated. CASA medical have been known to suspend a medical against an unsubstantiated complaint. So, why was Hempel medical not suspended against the large amount of 'hard' evidence they had? The Coroner made a statement to the effect that CASA should have had Hempel under "strict care". Yet here we are in a Coroners court with CASA forced to defend their unique (for one man) lack of positive action. The reasonable question again is why?

A new cigar and a fresh coffee have brought me, temporarily to the end of this: the more I read of the legal ducking and weaving simply reinforces the facts – Several CASA operatives legitimately, legally, medically and operationally tried to prevent this one man from harming himself and other people. In my opinion there are only two questions; who was protecting him and why? Perhaps a detailed study of the transcript will change my mind, I doubt it, I really do: but I will try – later.