Bedders glad someone brought the thread back to life, it sort of died away; I thought due lack of interest. Happy to discuss the issues as if over an ale, just as an alternate point of view mind you, peaceful like.
The 'bus driver' comparison always brings me back to the same debate the deliberate intent to breach the rules. People in charge of equipment get sick, the honest Joe strolls (or crawls) to the nearest medical facility and seeks help, rings work and begs off for the duration, until declared fit. But, if you come off the trapeze or skateboard, suffer a serious injury and fail to mention it to the Medico; or continue to work knowing there is a problem; or lie to another medico about who you are, or what you do, then there is an intent to deceive. It's a bit like going through a stop sign, if you blast through, knock over a woman with a stroller on a pedestrian crossing, the law will crucify you after the event the law cannot prevent the intent or the event; nor, sadly can it restore the loss or alter the consequence. All that can be done is tighter penalties for committing the offence, the intent must remain within the purview of the individual. So why must an industry and a body of essentially honest individuals suffer more restriction because Hempel? who with arrogant aforethought deliberately flouted what sensible, responsible equipment operators, the world over do as routine.
BE # 510 "The 100+ violations that Hempel had along with his medical condition and his public exposures would have ensured that."
Lesser crimes than Hempel's sins have grounded a good many; CASA knew and did nothing this was compounded when those that knew and tried to do something were 'distracted'. There were two serious attempts to shut Hempel down made, check the resignations and the available information was this was a protected species? If it was, then by whom and why is beyond my short reach, but someone, somewhere must know.
BE # 510 "I am not advocating major crackdowns BUT there has to be a way of stopping another Hempel type. I can not accept that everything was done to monitor Barry's commercial flying exploits."
Agreed with a return to why; under the current ethos, you can get prosecuted for allegedly breaking wind; there is a clear record of the Hempel wrongdoings. But he wriggled away.
"then you are opening a whole can of worms to anyone who wishes to emulate Barry. Do we really believe that CASA did enough to monitor and sanction Hempel?"
Mild disagreement here, 99.999% of airmen are essentially compliant, responsible folk, it goes with the job. Now why should they be penalised for the aberrations of one man? It's a bit like shooting every dog because your cat got chased, no, we have to ask why some CASA operatives did so much and achieved so very little. Look at the Quadrio nightmare and draw the comparisons.
My only concern with Samantha Hare's statement is simple, after Lockhart only one of Coroners good intentions was transmogrified, we got the MOU and the resulting shambles. Given half a chance, CASA medical can and will develop a system where you can be grounded for taking some bark off your Willy on a Friday night and declared by legal to be not a fit and proper by Saturday for not reporting it.
Agree with 'nuff said, the report is, for me, of minor importance what results is.
One of the many problems the industry has is too many people with no idea of how it all works butting in. The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.