Last of the long posts: One of the email chains provided to DJ under FOI gives many clues, although the CASA 'legal opinion' guts are redacted. I'd just started this post when I realised (Sarcs a.k.a. Jiminy Cricket) many would not have a blind clue what I was banging on about so: to explain. As this squalid little affair has the potential to impact on any pilot unfortunate enough to be involved in an 'incident' I (figuratively) got hold of TOM (P7) at PAIN, they contacted the 'owner' of their DJ file who authorised the release of some DJ filed documents, to use as best pleased me. Now then, as many of the 'emails' are confidential and have been released under FOI I'm not sure if it would be productive or even 'legal' to post a link to them. But I will (time and patience permitting) attempt summarise the entire passage of play shortly, then add them to the ever growing Bankstown Chronicles. So:-
The original Notice of Suspension (24 December 2009) required in-flight assessments in an aircraft "sophisticated enough to permit CASA to make an effective assessment of ... skills, ability and. competence to hold an ATPL'' and that the test was to include "en route assessment for CP/PNR and .the decision to apply a diversion to an alternate, focusing on weather with a minimum fuel scenario." The amended Notice (26 February 2010) confirmed that there was no objection to the flight tests being conducted in a Westwind aircraft and that the test would be tailored to address the specific deficiencies identified following the accident flight. It Is evident from the two Notices that the in-flight assessment was to be conducted with a degree of rigour consistent with the type of operation of accident flight.
CASA has conceded that the flight assessments may be conducted In basic, training aircraft - a Cessna 182 for the CP(A)L flight test, and a Beech BE76 Duchess for the IR-C(ME)A flight test. While these aircraft will allow the CPL and CIR flight tests to be conducted against the prescribed assessment criteria, they are not sufficiently sophisticated or complex for CASA "to make an effective assessment of skills, ability and competence to hold an ATPL ". An attempt to include these assessments in the CPL or CIR fight tests could be a compromise that may limit the effectiveness of the ATPL assessment and could jeopardise the integrity of these flight tests
The paragraphs above were written by a 'management (acting) team member' FOI who, operationally speaking, could not find a cat, in a cathouse with a candle. But, nonetheless an acknowledged master of 'academic trivia'; a specialist in 'tricky' little questions. The trite wording seems at first glance innocuous enough, but think it through. Just for fun cherry pick some lines and examine them against normal, standard, promulgated industry safety regulations for qualifying and the accepted routine practices used to do so. Do not let the white noise distract you or the pure bollocks to baffle your brain. Remember DJ has re sat and passed the ATPL twice now.....
The DJ suspension was indeed kosher, most would agree righteous. OK, so after CPL test etc. could his instrument flying be legitimately re challenged – I'd say a MECIR pass, four approaches and a ditching at night, in weather, knackered, with an impending fuel crisis would test the instrument flying skills of all. The CVR would be nice, to find out if the FO was worried about this aspect; alas. So, could his flying skills be reasonably challenged then, here again, on balance you have to say no; history of failure – No; any complaints of poor flying from Fo – No; managed a night ditching which all survived – Yes. Even the toughest, most pedantic judges would say 'flight skills' adequate. So what's left – flight planning – definitely shy of the mark. So re train, re test (ATPLx2 a bit OTT, however) and make sure the company ops manual carries enough information and guidance (in Braille if needs must) so even the worst offender has enough rope to be hanged with. (AOC management 101).
But the real travesty here is that the original, double jeopardy aberration has firmly taken root and the rest is just manure, to ensure growth; one has to ask why the venom. A half way decent lawyer could knock out the foundations of this evil just on the CAO alone. A decent chief pilot would clean up this mess in about five minutes – tell them it's bollocks and piss off.
"The original Notice of Suspension (24 December 2009) required in-flight assessments" .etc.
Why. Against what?, measured how ?: MECIR nope; passed that. CPL fight test; nope passed that: CAO 40.1.5 possibly, but legal impediments loom and it's no fun when the base line is clearly stated in the orders. Better we invent one?.
"in an aircraft "sophisticated enough to permit CASA". etc.
who is to know what's going on? Veger; the lone Westwind' expert has a massive 4000 hours on type, but made a fearful hash (benefit of doubt) of the fuel planning figures (see Davis) but been no where near the bloody aircraft since circa 1996 or something. Was an independent observer requested and would it be allowed??
to make an effective assessment of ... skills, ability' and. competence to hold an ATPL'
This homemade nonsense was drafted against and to reinforce the first suspension notice. It sounds great to a layman or lawyer but what, in operational terms, does it all mean ?. He had passed the CPL/MECIR. Even if they could make double jeopardy stick, there's nary a word about a LOFT session in a sim – , not even a whisper of base check under CAR 217, not even the smallest hint that ATPL does not require a flight test. But "no industry ATO" says the DAS, just to rub the salt in; testing only by a person specifically approved by CASA. Chop ride for DJ right there?, bit like the 'expert' witnesses they drag into the AAT and they wouldn't lie, now would they?.
I did ask TOM if PAIN were doing a report on the DJ embuggerance. After a beat, "not just DJ, there are others"; TOM reckons the final report would rock 'em - if they could ever define 'them' and get the report into the hands of someone who can and will actually do something useful with it.
The above represents (IMO) some of what the WLR is not tackling as it could be construed as (a) it's Pel Air and (b) it mentions CASA; but in the final analysis, it comes back to loose regulation written with good intentions, becoming 'bad' law when it is being manipulated. Clearly defined outcome based regulation would plug most of the holes, making it difficult for the small minority who, without a seconds thought will happily perjure or impeach as pleases; breach constitutional and human rights tenets on a whim, then boast and swagger about the damage inflicted on another human being; able to hound their victims through the industry with complete impunity. Some men, just want to watch the world burn.
Selah.