Queensland Court rules against Robinson
Up-into-the -air.
Ogier was an expert witness acting for McDermott, not Robinson. He left CASA a few years ago and has been very supportive of industry ever since.
Other expert witnesses well known in Australia for their aviation expertise and impartiality also supported this case against RHC.
The LAMEs concerned were the ones that actually conducted the work on the helicopter and were the ones being impugned by Robinson as being negligent. One other expert LAME supporting McDermotts case was from the USA.
The court found for a whole range of reasons that EVERY indicator that Robinson gave in it's Instructions for Continuing Airworthiness, for the detection of loose fasteners on an R22 flex plate was deficient and could not be relied on.
This is of great assistance to LAMES and Robinson helicopter owners as it exposes a critical error and omission in the R22 maintenance manual, and clarifies the simple action needed to ensure flexplate fastener integrity.
Other evidence given at the trial exposed further critical deficiencies in the manual to the extent the appeal judges stated,
"it is compelling that the exercise, at least in regard to what the manual said about proper inspection of these critical parts –the flexplate, and the bolts through it – gives rise to suspicion, not comfort, about the sufficiency of the instructions in it."
There were other comments of a similar nature.
This is a case that needed to happen, and it wasn't pursued on the basis of 'easy targets' or 'CASA culture'. It was pursued because of the dire consequences that had been suffered, the failure and arrogance of a large company that refuses to listen to anyone, and that for example was prepared to issue instructions to R22 and R44 passengers that they should wear fireproof clothing if they were to contemplate traveling in these machines.
BP