whoa Kharon,
I'm not real sure where that burr under your saddle came from!
How did my:
I've just read Avtex Air Services Pty Ltd and Civil Aviation Safety Authority [2011] AATA 61 (4 February 2011) in its entirety.
morph into your:
This is, perhaps, not the right forum for the discussion to be deflected to Airtex, happy to respond on a thread related to that company, delighted in fact. But bring the Kevlar, tin hat and a cut lunch. The claim made to have 'read' all of the data is suspect; I have 27 very full lever arch files here in my study and almost as much again in 'electronic' format, it's quite a read. So my Prince, if you have indeed ploughed your way through all the material, interviewed the participants, obtained Statutory declarations and are prepared to 'slug it out', I stand ready.
I keep reading these references to Avtex/Skymaster (which all seem to presume we all know the nuances of that situation) and now, despite your observation that this is not "the right forum for the discussion to be deflected to Airtex", your cross-reference identifies you as one of the main proponents of that connection.
My original question was indeed innocent. I took the AAT decision to include a reasonable summary of the evidence presented. What I read jars badly with your:
That company worked hard. All independently audited and approved to IOSA standards by a leading ICAO audit company, by CASA and due to go "BARS" green at the next independent audit.
Consider, in early 2010 there were preparations to release the third revision of the COM, IOSA audit results were 'first class', AOC conditions removed over the preceding 12 months, AOC reissued for three years, Safety Management System written with expert help, rough but ready for CASA scrutiny and guidance. Looking good.
What I was genuinely was after was a cogent statement of the relevance to the Pel-Air Inquiry - I still am!