Phelan has recently posted a very interesting article, you may or may not (as pleases) agree with the context or the conclusion; but, for a quiet Sunday morning read it's hard to beat. For my two bob, the argument is hard to beat, anyway. Perhaps someone would be kind enough to ensure it is brought to the attention of our Wodger, just as food for thought. I think the article highlights the Jekyll & Hyde performance under discussion very well.
Be warned: the new website is not fully 'seen' by search engines; you may need to copy the link into the "paste & go" address bar of your browser.
Publish and be Damned – Case Study | Pro Aviation. I'll try to get the Pprune link system to find it. But, worth a coffee?, I think so.....
Begins : "This analysis of the ten allegations against the operator demonstrates that the suspension of the AOC was not necessary “in the immediate interests of safety” without examining whether the unsubstantiated allegations had merit. In other words, had CASA been motivated to assure the operator was a compliant operator rather than a discredited operator, initiatives were available to its officials to achieve that assurance without exercising sanctions which had the inevitable outcome of closing down a commercial aviation operation at the peak of a business season. The allegations and an analysis of their validity and Civil Aviation Safety Authority responses are detailed below."
Concludes: "If the Civil Aviation Safety Authority became aware of any safety-related allegations against operators, scrutinised and evaluated them as to whether they would be sustainable in a court of law, and did not ground the aircraft concerned until the alleged errors were rectified; or did not have the matters rectified immediately, then the Civil Aviation Safety Authority must itself be guilty of negligence."
The question of whether the publication of unsubstantiated allegations constitutes a defamation never came before a court.
However the owner was charged in the Cairns District Court with the 10 alleged offences. He was found guilty on the dangerous goods charge and fined $600 for that offence, which is a minor technical one. Like most seaplane operators he made a practice of carrying a jerry can of two-stroke motor fuel in a locker in one of the aircraft’s floats in case a boat tending the aircraft ran out of fuel. The actual offence was carrying the fuel without having a supplement in its Operations Manual to describe the dangerous goods precautions taken. The other nine charges were dismissed.