The world is still deceived with ornament.
In law, what plea so tainted and corrupt,
But, being seasoned with a gracious voice,
Obscures the show of evil?
Cherry picked; (alas, with no hidden chanteys) but pertinent. Better men have lost much more, for much, much less. Now, was this all 'unfortunate' or:-
He had a contumelious disregard for aviation regulations and the law and he had an extensive history of offences and breaches. I attach hereto a schedule which is self-explanatory.
As shown by the Schedule of this decision, Mr Hempel had a long and extensive history, dating back to 1968, of breaching flying regulations.
His group of companies, including Hempel’s Aviation Pty Ltd, also had an extensive history of breaches of both administrative and flying regulations.
Given the above it goes without saying that he was well known by CASA and had had at one stage or other, inter alia, his Chief Flying Instructor delegation as an Approved Testing Officer ("ATO") withdrawn, his ATO delegations to issue aircraft endorsements removed and various other ATO delegations cancelled. Mr Hempel's licences, had, at various times, been suspended or cancelled.
"well aware that Mr Hempel was a pilot who flew with a total disregard for the safety regulations enacted to protect the public, passengers and the aviation industry generally."
The evidence at the Inquest gave an impression of a man who believed he was "above the law" so to speak.
It could be argued that the number and nature of Mr Hempel's breaches and the fact that many were repeated breaches indicated that Mr Hempel would probably never comply with safety regulations. In the light of the extensive history of breaches it is indeed extraordinary that he was left with even a Private Pilots Licence
What is truly perplexing about this case is that Mr Hempel had any kind of licence at all.
Given the litany of Barry Hempel’s breaches, one is left wondering why CASA allowed him to continue flying notwithstanding his ability to fly, but given his history of breaches, the question arises as to whether he was a fit and proper person to hold any kind of aircraft licence
Or; just plain (plane) protected ??.
No man is above the law and no man is below it; nor do we ask any man's permission when we ask him to obey it. (Theodore Roosevelt).
Avmed tomorrow, there are some questions methinks;.....
