Barry Hempel Inquest

[Worrals in the wilds]

And you would be correct.
While the system promotes laziness, incompetence and don't caredness that's what the public service will deliver. Apparently that's what the public want; whenever a tough decision is made there's an outcry and sometimes a lawsuit; whenever a tough decision is not made there's an outcry. Either way, an outcry...the result; stalemate. More useless policy and advisories get issued, yet the truly lawless continue to operate outside the law and everyone else sighs, reads the latest inconclusive tripe from the agency and tries to figure out what they're supposed to do with their paperclip inventory this week to remain compliant...:bored:

Meantime, a bloke accepts a ticket bought by his partner for an activity they both believe is lawful but wasn't, and he dies.

But the paperclips are counted. The advisories have been circulated. Regulation has been seen to be done. The performance indicators have been met.

The departmental heads no doubt dismiss it as an unfortunate event that couldn't have possibly been prevented by them, because ya know, they sent out the advisories...:yuk:

There's a time for advisories and there's a time for jackboots. This was a time for jackboots, warrants and arrests and the agency missed the time. Sure, hindsight's a wonderful thing, but when a person is flouting rules and contravening regulations, doing what he was told not to do and dragging customers into it; IMO time to pull out the jackboots and the warrant, and public opinion be damned. Otherwise the regulations are worthless and so is the regulator.

They didn't do that, and that seems to be the public service people want. If that's not what you all want, why have you got it? :confused:

[Lodown]

Blaming the CASA in part on this thread seems par for the course. However, there's also the issue of a manager and a chief pilot. All get a briefing from the CASA along the lines of, "You are the one responsible for your employees' actions. You take the fall." The CASA is (as far as I know) very direct and straightforward on these deliberations. What might not be stated, but is implied is that any issues of rule breaking that are not dealt with appropriately will be ultimately held as the responsibility of those two individuals: licence revocation, future career, immense legal fees and jail time are all on the table if they do not absolve their responsibilities in an appropriate manner. Barry needed a chief pilot and a CEO to continue operations. He couldn't have done so without them. Barry alledgedly chose to ignore the rules. So why didn't the chief pilot walk if this wasn't the first time Barry did this?

[blackhand]

However, there's also the issue of a manager and a chief pilot. All get a briefing from the CASA along the lines of, "You are the one responsible for your employees' actions. You take the fall."
Perhaps that is too logical and doesn't fit the CASA/ATSB conspiracy theory. The recommendations from the Coronial Inquest will make interesting reading.

[Frank Arouet]

I guess when all else fails one can always blame the purchaser of the ticket quoting "Caveat Emptor". They tried that one on me too.

I don't think anybody is "NOT" blaming Hemple. Most see the obvious when apportiong blame here.

inability to satisfy the CASA class one medical standard

With the documented loss of consciousness and a subsequent history of Epilepsy, he should never have had a Class 2 medical.

[Arnold E]

With the documented loss of consciousness and a subsequent history of Epilepsy, he should never have had a Class 2 medical.

If those were the medical conditions that he suffered from, he should not have been given a license to drive a car, never mind about flying a plane.:ugh:

[Lancair70]

If those were the medical conditions that he suffered from, he should not
have been given a license to drive a car, never mind about flying a plane.


Exactly! An associate of mine has epilepsy, he can not hold a drivers licence until he has been over 12 months with NO episodes and no drugs to control it, IIRC.

[Macroderma]

I wonder if the CASA chap who had a seizure in the witness box during the Hempel/Lovel Coronial Inquiry is that same chappie who chairs the Accident Investigation Report Review Committee (i.e. the Deputy Director of Aviation Safety).

Does he have a pre-exising medical condition, and will his medical approval to fly be pulled??

[Frank Arouet]

Because of that, CASA have left themselves very exposed.

[Frank Arouet]

DAS-PN015-2010 ATSB Cooperation Policy ATSB Cooperation Policy August 2011 EF11/2127 DAS-PN015-2010 Page

2 of 2 Legislative Basis

With respect to cooperation with the ATSB, the



Civil Aviation Act 1988 relevantly states that:
Section 9:
(
3) CASA also has the following functions
:
(a) co-operating with the Executive Director of Transport Safety Investigation in relation to investigations under the Transport Safety Investigation Act 2003 that relate to aircraft;

Policy



In addition to meeting any obligations under the Transport Safety Investigation Act 2003 and the



Civil Aviation Act (1988), CASA is committed to cooperation with the ATSB in accordance with the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) established between the two agencies.

CASA has established an Accident Liaison and Investigation Unit (ALIU) to manage the day-to-day interaction and to act as a contact point for the ATSB. The ALIU is headed by the Manager Accident Liaison and Investigation Unit (MALIU) who reports to the Deputy Director of Aviation Safety.

Under the terms of the MoU, all requests from the ATSB for assistance, advice or interviews should be coordinated through the Accident Liaison and Investigation Unit (ALIU).

If CASA personnel are contacted directly by the ATSB in respect to any investigation or requests for information they should refer the request to the ALIU.

The ALIU also acts as the conduit for advice back to the ATSB. Staff should not contact or provide advice to the ATSB without first consulting the ALIU.

CASA officers participating in or supporting ATSB investigations have a responsibility to keep Manager ALIU informed of the progress of an investigation and to advise him immediately of information which indicates a need for CASA to take urgent safety-related action.


Links



CASA-ATSB MOU



　

John F. McCormick

Director of Aviation Safety

Date 03 August 2011

[Frank Arouet]

Civil Aviation Safety Authority - Corporate Plan (http://casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:STANDARD::pc=PC_92569)

[aroa]

So much BS and spin in the "corporate" plan it makes yr eyes go funny.:eek:
This is the bureaucratic way...lots of words (mostly meaningless) but I guess if the Albo thinks its all fair dinkum...so all is well with the world of aviation. I wish.
It reminds me of another lot of wordy crap called Model Litigant Directions, and you'll soon find out where that lot will take you.!! :mad: Nowhereland.

Someone mentioned jackboots and "professional" law enforcers with experience. Oh yeah..I had one of those and I doubt if he could have investigated his own willnots. No shining objective "investigation" there.!
Prior experience means versed in the verballing arts as well. :mad::mad:
The only thing with any 'polish' WAS the jackboots.
Za Stalina.! Long (has) (out) live(ed) the CASA bureaucratic Soviet.

[Jabawocky]

And as the CASA FOI leaves the premises, they all look at each other and laugh. Their collective view is: CASA and the rules can go and get f*cked.

What should happen next, oh wise Chimbu?

Creamie

Well if that is what happened, the very next time they had reason to turn up, they remove the CP approval, they do a job on him like the Gator in Kunners. They just had to do something. They didn't.

This had been going on for years......yet one criminal posts an edited video on youtube, and lies about it, and a guy loses his career. No Justice is there?:rolleyes:

[Creampuff]

[T]he very next time they had reason to turn up, they remove the CP approval, they do a job on him like the Gator in Kunners.My next visit would have been far less friendly.They just had to do something.Indeed.They didn't.It is to be hoped the coroner will make some findings about what CASA could practicably have done in the circumstances, and whether CASA did that.

[Kharon]

Chimbu Warrior 's post (#241) is a good snapshot of 'the way thing were'; which was, I agree most acceptable. It's getting things back to a workable relationship that's the head scratcher.

CP - And as the CASA FOI leaves the premises, they all look at each other and laugh. Cream Puff – this is only partly true, any laughter is usually of the hysterical giggling variety found in survivors of some sort of trauma. IOSA and BARS audits are usually of great value and benefit to an operation and welcomed. Once it's over there is a sit down and things get sorted so to provide acceptable, safety oriented resolutions. Not so with the CASA version. There is usually some hilarity after the band aids have been applied to the operation, mostly over the silly, petty, pedantic, worthless changes made which are often illegal themselves or of no practical value whatsoever, delivered by someone not worthy of any respect.

CP - Their collective view is: CASA and the rules can go and get f*cked. Cream Puff – clearly you hang out with the wrong people mate. Mostly the operator has an investment and a business to protect; they are very aware that it is extremely stupid to be operating 'in non compliance', just for the sake of insurance alone. It's getting to and staying in compliance that provides the "get stuffed' attitude; some versions of 'compliance' would make the angels weep and some versions of compliance can and do produce the odd chuckle, over a beer when it's all over. It's not the bloody awful regulations that are disrespected, but the ways they are manipulated and abused to suit that gets everyone's panties in a bunch.

In a healthy industry, you would expect the 'daily gripe' about 'the regulator', it's human nature. Same thing about the poor hidebound bugger who has the 'enforce' the regulatory framework; we can all agree that some of the regulations are a bit OTT, but risible or not, they are, until we change them – the law.

A thought – it's the 'application' of law that is interesting; the footy oval near us has recently had a sign installed (due rain) "Pitch closed" (by order etc.). The other day there were 4 kids kicking a ball about, away from the soft centre by the goal posts. Technically illegal – but, when you think it through, how is this to be treated.

[Creampuff]

Clearly you misunderstood the point of my post.

I was merely asking what the wise one’s suggested next strategy would be, if the ‘cup of coffee and strong chat’ method failed.Mostly the operator has an investment and a business to protect; they are very aware that it is extremely stupid to be operating 'in non compliance', just for the sake of insurance alone.Did that stop Hempel? Did that help Mr Lovell?

[Macroderma]

Chimbu and Creampuff are correct,

but none of these words or systems or views of morality or ethics protected Ian Lovell, when he climbed abord the :mad: Yak that day.

CASA knew that Hempel was a :mad: cowboy :eek: who had total disregard for rules or regulations

CASA knew that Hempel had been convicted for w*nking outside primary
schools

Did CASA know that Hempel was facing further similar charges related to getting his wedding tackle out for display in a public place near small children ??

CASA knew that Hempel did not hold a CPL

Was it CASA which pulled Hempel's CPL :rolleyes: ????

or am I missing something here, maybe it was aliens from the planet of "Wickitt" who pulled Hempels CPL :=:= ???

CASA (and the wider world of aviation) knew that HEMPEL had a head injury.

how many other pilots, apart from Hempel, had over 100 recorded complaints lodged to CASA?

which bit of 'totally sustained, ongoing and systemic failure of regulatory processes" am I missing??

[Torres]

Creamie.

CASA knew Hemple was conducting flights of a commercial nature for which a fee was charged, whilst not the holder of a commercial pilot license and Class 1 Medical. CASA knew Hemple had a medical condition which should have precluded him flying at all.

"What should happen next, oh wise Chimbu?"

"I was merely asking what the wise one’s suggested next strategy would be, if the ‘cup of coffee and strong chat’ method failed."

You appear to be asking mere mortal plebs, none of whom have ever been employed in a regulatory role, what we think we should do?

A decade or so ago you were in that regulatory role. What precisely would you have done under simnilar circumstances?

I suspect Mr Hemple may have been guilty of a criminal offense and the matter should probably have been handled by the AFP on complaint by CASA, but I defer to your knowledge and wisdom?

Of course, all that does nothing to explain why CASA failed to take appropriate action against Hemple, including cancellation of all his pilot licenses.

[Jabawocky]

Cream Puff – this is only partly true, any laughter is usually of the hysterical giggling variety found in survivors of some sort of trauma. IOSA and BARS audits are usually of great value and benefit to an operation and welcomed. Once it's over there is a sit down and things get sorted so to provide acceptable, safety oriented resolutions. Not so with the CASA version. There is usually some hilarity after the band aids have been applied to the operation, mostly over the silly, petty, pedantic, worthless changes made which are often illegal themselves or of no practical value whatsoever, delivered by someone not worthy of any respect.

Interesting observations, just a slight thread drift if I may for a moment.

Once upon a time in a land not so far away one of the countries better engine shops had an audit on their new DAMP policy. The one copied directly from the CASA template. This had the names and details edited accordingly. They received 5, not 1, but 5 non conformances. And to say there was no clear way of the staff having a method of direct contact with the owner/manager. FFS his office is right beside the workshop, with a big glass window in between. :ugh:

So yes, a visit from the CASA folk SHOULD ALWAYS be a proactive non BS and welcomed visit, with a clear aim to prevent any non compliances and to improve the industry overall. But when this guys asked if the CASA staff would be happy to sit with him and edit the document and print out one that satisfied them on the spot.......You can probably guess what followed. :ugh::ugh::ugh:

So is it any wonder we have what we have today. Until the little Hitlers are weeded out of the organisation, all the good folk will forever be viewed with the same and appropriate level of contempt.

It is not hard to fix, it just takes time and effort.

[superdimona]

CASA knew that Hempel had been convicted for w*nking outside primary
schools

Did CASA know that Hempel was facing further similar charges related to getting his wedding tackle out for display in a public place near small children ??

What does that have to do with being able to operate an aircraft safely? You may as well suspend his driver's license for it at the same time, it has as much relevance.

[Creampuff]

You appear to be asking mere mortal plebs, none of whom have ever been employed in a regulatory role, what we think we should do?But some of those mortal plebs have no hesitation in suggesting what CASA should and shouldn’t do. I was merely asking them what they thought CASA should do, in the scenario I presented.

Me as a regulator? There’s a scary thought! I reckon I’d just grab some local police or AFP, and arrest him when he’s taxiing for take-off, strapped to an aircraft with a fare paying pax. :ok:

[Sarcs]

Me as a regulator? There’s a scary thought! I reckon I’d just grab some local police or AFP, and arrest him when he’s taxiing for take-off, strapped to an aircraft with a fare paying pax.

Scary maybe? But given the responses in this thread your plan of action would be unanimously agreed on, so why didn't that happen?? Did Baza have his own version of PM Girrard's 'dirt file'?? If so how far up the food chain did the potential for blackmail go??

The canning of the potential CDPP prosecutions, how did that happen?? Either way these actions/inactions point to potential 3rd and possibly 4th party involvement.....yep there's a needle buried under that pile of pony pooh, but is there anyone with the balls to find it??

[Torres]

Me as a regulator? There’s a scary thought!

Yes, it was. But that is an entirely different chapter of history. :E

I reckon I’d just grab some local police or AFP, and arrest him when he’s taxiing for take-off, strapped to an aircraft with a fare paying pax.

Aside from the allegation that Barry was medically unfit to hold even a PPL and Class 2 medical, considering a number of CASA employees knew Barry was conducting fare paying flights prior to the accident flight, one wonders why CASA did not file a complaint with the AFP, especially as CASA employs what are supposedly qualified and experienced investigators?

The Coroners Report will make very interesting reading.

[Worrals in the wilds]

Me as a regulator? There’s a scary thought! I reckon I’d just grab some local police or AFP, and arrest him when he’s taxiing for take-off, strapped to an aircraft with a fare paying pax.
Same. :ok: It's a question of whether the officers had (or felt they had) the support of the organization to do that.
My guess would be no.
However, that's not saying CASA were the only people at fault. Primarily there was the pilot and secondarily, the people in his company that supported his unlawful actions.

Gotta say, I agree with superdimona.

[TunaBum]

Gotta say, I agree with superdimona.


Not sure I would. The moral character and judgement of pilots who are permitted to hold the lives of members of the unsuspecting public in their hands should be unblemished.

It's a question of trust. When you strap yourself into your passenger seat, you trust that the people at the pointy end are not criminals, but people of the highest moral character.

If I was given the choice of being flown by someone who was convicted of such offences (if that was the case) or by someone of higher moral standards - I know what I would choose.

The standard should be the same as a police officer who is permitted to carry a pistol and to use same when necessary. In both cases they are in control of a lethal weapon.

TB :*

[Frank Arouet]

All of which leads me to ask if he had an ASIC given his extra curricular activities. If he did, who issued it?

[blackhand]

which bit of 'totally sustained, ongoing and systemic failure of regulatory processes" am I missing??
Mmm you are rather a quick study Macroderma, several pages ago you purported to know nothing of Civil aviation, even to ask what a CPL was.
The regulators faults are several, but nothing like what you are suggesting.

I am looking through the applicable regs trying to work out why CASA did not take his PPL as well as his CPL. On the face of it there seems no reason, unless he has medical help to mask his ongoing epilepsy.

[Worrals in the wilds]

I take your point, but a car is also a lethal weapon in the wrong hands. IMO it's a different issue from what the inquest (and this thread) are about, albeit one affecting the same person.

As for the ASIC, I don't think that offence is on the no-go list unless it involved violence.
Fact Sheet: Aviation Security Identification Card (ASIC) - Obligation to Report Relevant Offences (http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/transport/security/aviation/factsheet/reporting_asro_convictions.aspx#ASRO)

[angry ant]

From memory, he turned up twice for work as an F/O on the Electra reeking of alcohol and was sent home in a cab, the third time , he was sacked. I also was on the Electra.

AA

[Macroderma]

Blackhand,

my previous question about CPL was intended to be sarcastic, my apologies if I was a little abtruse.:O

my question really is, why would ill health lead to cancellation of a CPL, but not a PPL, don't they need the same standard of health and fitness?

Did the regulations shed any light?

[Metro man]

Quote:
CASA knew that Hempel had been convicted for w*nking outside primary
schools

Did CASA know that Hempel was facing further similar charges related to getting his wedding tackle out for display in a public place near small children ??
What does that have to do with being able to operate an aircraft safely? You may as well suspend his driver's license for it at the same time, it has as much relevance.
Hempel's barrister, Tony Glynn stated in court that Hempel was having psychiatric treatment. This was during his trial for w*nking outside Lourdes Hill College.

I think the psychiatric treatment rather than the actual nature of the offence caused alarm with CASA.;)

[Frank Arouet]

I think the psychiatric treatment rather than the actual nature of the offence caused alarm with CASA

But this should have sealed the deal from an aviation medical perspective;

The Civil Aviation Safety Authority knew Hempel, 60, to be a serial menace to public safety. His disciplinary record for flagrant breaches and dishonesty went back decades and became worse as he aged. He had put passengers and unsuspecting members of the public at risk with cavalier antics that appalled safety investigators - and cemented Hempel's status as a maverick with extraordinary skills but shocking judgment.

Doctors, medical specialists and CASA also knew that Hempel, who ran a Brisbane-based aviation company (motto: the sky's the limit) that flew politicians such as Nationals senator Barnaby Joyce, business chiefs and joy-riders, had severe epileptic-like seizures, believed to have begun after a brain injury from a hangar door accident in 2001. A loss of consciousness, rigidity and convulsing would occur; one ambulance officer who reported a 10-minute episode was so concerned about Hempel's status as a pilot that he kept notes on it for a decade.


These seizures would render Hempel an even more dangerous threat to the public. In one instance that became "common knowledge" shortly before his death, he was flying a Beechcraft Baron to Brisbane from the rural town of Dalby when, according to Nigel Arnot, an aircraft engineer, Hempel suddenly had "a seizure, a full fit with shaking". A friend "had to literally punch him out" to prevent inadvertent use of the controls and disaster.

[TunaBum]

Not having a go at you WITW but......


a car is also a lethal weapon in the wrong hands


Yes - and as a passenger you would usually know a bit about the person whose hands you are putting your life into, and you make a choice. In the cases of taxi's busses etc.... I would repeat my earlier statements.


IMO it's a different issue from what the inquest (and this thread) are about


One of the main issues this thread is discussing is CASA and what they should have done IRO Hempel and what they should do to avoid contributing to the loss of innocent lives in the future. I happen to think the moral character and criminal history of the pilots should be part of the equation.:eek:

TB :ok:

[superdimona]

It's a question of trust. When you strap yourself into your passenger seat, you trust that the people at the pointy end are not criminals, but people of the highest moral character.

If I was given the choice of being flown by someone who was convicted of such offences (if that was the case) or by someone of higher moral standards - I know what I would choose.

Given the choice, I'd rather the people who fix my car and built my house had "high moral standards" - but at the end of the day all I can ask for is that they do the job they're paid to do in a safe way.

Do we ban mechanics from working on cars if they're pervs? They could forget to tighten something that results in multiple fatalities. Builders can make a house that falls down, electricians can start fires, truck drivers can smash into school buses etc. Unless someone is working with kids I don't see why aviation is so special.

[LeadSled]

Folks,
Just to add an extra possible course of action that "somebody" might have taken.
In Queensland, an aircraft is a vehicle, for the purposes of the Qld. Crimes Act, it is on state where state police could have taken action, particularly as it seems Barry did not meet the medical standard for a car licence.
We are all very smart in hindsight.
Tootle pip!!

[ozangel]

If anyone knows ML, who (I heard from a friend) was fairly senior at Hempels at the time?

We did an hour building trip to LRE together when I was 17, and I would be keen to get in touch. For no other reason than to say hi - nothing to do with all of this. Sorry for the thread drift.

If you're out there ML, let me know.

[Kharon]

LS- In Queensland, an aircraft is a vehicle, for the purposes of the Qld. Crimes Act, it is on state where state police could have taken action, particularly as it seems Barry did not meet the medical standard for a car licence. Does anyone know how 'wide' (for want of better) the QPS investigation is allowed to be ??. I am reliably informed that the NSW Police (for example) run an independent investigation which delves into a wide range of topics. The reasoning is to provide answers to a range of questions and to eliminate things such as suicide, murder, criminal activity etc. etc. before a matter is placed before the Coroner.

I wonder if the QPS (will) have looked into the reasons why BH was allowed to continue flying ?. There are well documented cases of guys being stopped dead in their tracks at the stroke of a pen, for much less. Perhaps this is outside of their remit; but it's a puzzle, to be sure. http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/confused.gif

[TunaBum]

I understand the QPS witness (initial investigator) stated at the inquest that CASA had been of considerable assistance to him in his investigations until early 2009 when that assistance suddenly dried up........ He opined that this may have been because CASA was becoming exposed legally!:ugh:

Part of CASA's Counsel's response was to state that CASA was only obliged to assist the ATSB (TB: who were not investigating the accident!) and not the QPS. :yuk:


Another interesting fact raised at the inquest was that (pre-accident) the CASA investigator sent a copy of the ambulance report from the 2003 seizure at BH's home to CASA's AvMed people to deal with. Later he queried the outcome he was told it was not a matter for his investigation, and he needed to get BH's permission to find out what the outcome was! :mad:

TB :suspect:

[Metro man]

http://img2.imagesbn.com/images/111560000/111567368.jpg

[Horatio Leafblower]

While I would love to see CASA disbanded and rebuilt with sensible intelligent people and regulations, it will never happen.

We live in a media-driven political state where Spin Wins.

The only possible outcome of the coronial inquiry will be renewed Nazi tactics and more people shut down to show how tough CASA are on the degenerates in the industry (like you and me).

While we whinge and carp on PPRuNe about John Q and the injustces he has (allegedly) suffered at the hands of the Regulator and AAT, the Hempel case will only result in MORE Quadrios, not less.

Careful what you wish for. :=

[TunaBum]

Interesting quote in Darker Shades of Blue:


"Leadership exists in direct proportion to the degree to which subordinates are willing to follow."




Kind of similar to a previous post:


"Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have the exact measure of the injustice and wrong which will be imposed on them."

Frederick Douglas



TB :bored:

[Creampuff]

The only possible outcome of the coronial inquiry will be renewed Nazi tactics …Godwin's law (also known as Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies or Godwin's Law of Nazi Analogies) is an observation made by Mike Godwin in 1990 that has become an Internet adage. It states: "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1." In other words, Godwin observed that, given enough time, in any online discussion—regardless of topic or scope—someone inevitably makes some comparison to Hitler and the Nazis.

[tail wheel]

I think you're referring to this?

http://i1.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/039/090/godwins-law1.png

Statistically in any PPRuNe thread involving CASA the words "Hitler", "Nazi" or "Stalin" will occur by Page 3!

Quite inappropriate. The Third Reich was far more efficient and decisive!!!

[Frank Arouet]

"Leadership exists in direct proportion to the degree to which subordinates are willing to follow."

Army Officer "confidential reports", (which weren't confidential because they were all passed around the Mess), had a classic I read;

"His men would follow him anywhere...... out of curiosity.

[Bedderseagle]

I came across these two videos which were Uploaded on U-tube by poondii (http://www.youtube.com/user/poondii) on Jan 14, 2009. His comments on both are:

"Got it off the net some mad bugger doing stuff"

Very interesting as the markings of the plane are a spit of Barry Hempel's Yak-52 AND poondi (Shanka Poondi) just happened to be a Hempels Aviation flight instructor pre 2008 . . . . . .


Referring my post #196 and the U-tube videos linked therein . . . . . . Surprise, surprise looks like Mr Poondi is ducking for cover as every video he had on U-tube connecting with Barry Hempel as been removed, so if you try to click on my U-tube link you get: "This video has been removed by the user".

Obviously my summations were correct and the best way to cover up was to remove all his videos . . . . . Well I am sure plenty of PPRUNE readers/followers had the opportunity to view whilst there were still up there . . . Think Mr Poondi should have been called at the inquest. . . . .

The same thing happened with the Hempel web site the week following the accident and all video links were removed.

Not that anyone had anything to hide . . . . . much. :=:=:=

[jetfighter]

Bedderseagle

I think there is enough information out there to prove the extent of criminal behaviour carried out by Barry Hempel, Hempel Aviation, CFI, CP, CEO, pilots, CASA, Police, wives, friends and associated friends. I mention all of these as anyone that knew Barry was still flying the YAK with no CPL could have done something to avoid this crash.

Unfortunately, people not associated with this circle of cowboys i.e. the public did not know about the criminal behaviour being carried out by the company. It surprises me the flying school is still operational.

As a result an innocent member of the public Ian Lovell was basically lost his life from this criminal activity. Furthermore hundreds of friends, family, and colleague’s partners have been affected from this for the rest of their lives.

I really hope the Inquest comes out with some strong recommendations to avoid this criminal activity in the industry to protect the public.

[blackhand]

I mention all of these as anyone that knew Barry was still flying the YAK with no CPL could have done something to avoid this crash. Yea, I knew Barry, and also knew that no one could stop him......
There is one person to blame for the accident, no amount of psuedo James Reason theorising will convince me otherwise.
Over the last many years several pilots I have worked and lived with have been killed, and over half of them caused it - and they would agree.

[Arnold E]

As a result an innocent member of the public Ian Lovell was basically lost his life from this criminal activity.

Then how come somebody from CASA doesn't end up in jail????

[jetfighter]

Blackhand

So i guess, knowing BH and what he was up to, you notified CASA and the police?

Yes no one could have stopped Barry Hemple from taking his life, but he also took an innocent member of the Public with him.

What did you do about stopping this inncident and also the many pilots you have worked with and lived with!!! Could your actions have stopped these accidents resulting in death?

[blackhand]

@Jetfighter
That was several dead pilots, not many.
As for the rhetorical question at the end of your post - WTF do you reckon??

[jetfighter]

@blackhand

Sorry for the mistake of several pilots.

As to the so called rhetorical question, im not sure what your actions were say in this instance hence the question.

Wouldnt you want to try and protect each other from these accidents occurring?

It is funny that the two pilots who worked for Hempels that were questioned during the inquest were offered to return to the inquest to be involved with recommendations to avoid these accidents from happening. None of them came back!!! Being such a tight network industry, you would think you would jump at these oppourtunities to make it a safer industry.

[gobbledock]

Then how come somebody from CASA doesn't end up in jail????
Hehehe!! Oh Arnie you are a very funny guy!
How can they end up in jail? They have complete, utter, unquestionable authority to do as they please, when they please with total immunity and 'non jail priviledges'. They are as untouchable as a crooked Australian politician.

[Frank Arouet]

I concur in your sentiments entirely.

I tried to post just the first two of the words as an answer so I am forced due to minimum letters to post more so I hope the message gets through.

I concur.:rolleyes:

[Sarcs]

The QPS investigation and subsequent report into this accident was extremely thorough and factual. However the limited assistance from the bureau and regulator appears to show signs of negligence, amorality, obfuscation etc..etc that beggars belief!:ugh:

Here is a couple of quotes of note from the QPS report:


The priorities applied when considering an aviation investigation reflect the ATSB’s primary focus on enhancing safety with respect to fare paying passengers. Subject to the considerations detailed above, the ATSB will allocate its resources in line with level “1” being the highest (i.e. large passenger aircraft). Level “3” includes commercial fare paying operations, in which this incident could be described as.

Whilst serious and fatal investigations involving fare paying passengers carries a high priority, due to the operational nature of this incident, the ATSB decided to preserve their resources and not investigate this matter.


"due to the operational nature of this incident",

.....in otherwords there was potentially ugly implications if the bureau decided to investigate!


15.4 No Crash Investigation by CASA


On the 15th January 2009, Senior Constable Bourke was advised by ****** ***** that CASA’s legal department had decided that no further material would be released to the QPS to assist with this investigation. That day, Senior Constable Bourke wrote to ******* *****, Deputy Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of CASA Operations requesting further assistance. Senior Constable Bourke did not receive a reply.


"Senior Constable Bourke did not receive a reply."

....and isn't that just typical!

Yep the Coroner sure has got his work cut out with this one.....full marks to the QPS Forensic Crash Unit though!:ok:

[Greedy]

I would like to provide a contrasting example of the medical aspects of the Hemple and CASA situation.
A close friend was in dispute (court) with the company he worked for. A Director of that company approached CASA and asked that the pilots medical be "pulled". CASA subsequently did so. This information is available in court documents. The reasons CASA gave for revoking the medical are dubious at best.
It seems that CASA knew that Barry Hemple had a serious medical problem yet allowed him a medical and PPL.
Another example of CASA inconsistency and old boy networks.

Greedy

[Jabawocky]

So MQ's email was faulty too? :ooh:

[baronvonaqua]

I wonder how many people are willing to take a stand and report unsafe practices. The reality for many whistleblowers is that they will be ostracised by many of their peers and eventually be forced to depart from their employment by their employer on some trumped up charge. The Government organisations charged with investigating and "Fixing" the problem appear to me unwilling or incapable of doing so. Shoot the messenger is alive and well in the Australian Aviation Industry. I wonder also if there are any reporters in Australia who are capable of investigative journalism should someone wish to "go public" with information regarding Aviation related safety matters. Typical reporting of an incident where an aircraft was not secured and rolled a few metres goes something like this: "Runaway aircraft terrorises Melbourne Airport" or emotive headlines to that effect. This i believe is great for selling newspapers but no good comes of it for the industry. Does anyone have any thoughts on "whistleblowing" or appropriate media outlets??? Thanks BVA

[Frank Arouet]

I wonder how many people are willing to take a stand and report unsafe practices

To whom?

CASA perhaps?

[Ejector]

This is just so true from 2 post above:

I wonder how many people are willing to take a stand and report unsafe practices. The reality for many whistleblowers is that they will be ostracised by many of their peers and eventually be forced to depart from their employment by their employer on some trumped up charge. The Government organisations charged with investigating and "Fixing" the problem appear to me unwilling or incapable of doing so. Shoot the messenger is alive and well in the Australian Aviation Industry.

CASA seem pre-occupied on personal grudges.

[crystalballwannabe]

Any sign of the coroners report yet????

[Sarcs]

Seems ICAO had similar concerns in regards to the bureau abrogating their responsibility for investigating certain fatal accidents::ok:

APPENDIX 3-6-1
CORRECTIVE ACTION PLAN PROPOSED BY AUSTRALIA
RELATED TO AIRCRAFT ACCIDENT AND INCIDENT INVESTIGATION
AUDIT FINDING AIG/01

Funding for aviation accident investigations is provided by the Federal Government of Australia through the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government.
To make the most of the funding allocated to it, the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) has established guidelines to determine whether to investigate an occurrence with the level of response to a notification determined by resource availability and such factors as:
1. existence of fatalities;
2. anticipated safety value of an investigation;
3. extent of public, media or political interest;
4. timeliness of notification;
5. training benefit for ATSB investigators;
6. likely possibility of safety action arising from the investigation or the existence of supporting evidence or requirements to conduct a special investigation based on trends;
7. safety analysis or an identified targeted programme; and
8. scope or impact of any system failures.

Under the ATSB guidelines, occurrences that may fit the ICAO Annex 13’s definition of an aircraft accident or incident may not be investigated. Although the ATSB submits a notification of these occurrences to ICAO in accordance with ICAO Annex 13 provisions, the ATSB does not submit a preliminary report and/or an accident data report identifying contributing safety factors or probable
cause.


...so which of the above 'factors' precluded the Hempel accident from being investigated? Could it be the ATSB knew that if they investigated they would have to foot the bill to raise the Yak?

Interesting response from the ATSB:


STATE’S COMMENTS AND OBSERVATIONS*

Australia has considered this finding and the related recommendations from the audit team.
Australia meets its Article 26 obligations. However, Australia has also lodged a difference with ICAO in relation to standard 5.1 and recommended practice 5.1.1 of Annex 13 as Australia considers it impractical to investigate all accidents and serious incidents within resources available. In addition to targeting those accidents and incidents that are likely to yield the greatest safety value in accordance with the guidelines quoted above, Australia normally gives priority to investigations of accidents and serious incidents involving regular public transport aircraft (especially with fare-paying passengers) and accidents involving fatalities other than those involving ultralights and sport aviation.

Australia notes that the investigation of accidents and serious incidents has been included for discussion at the ICAO Accident Investigation and Prevention (AIG) Divisional meeting in October 2008. ATSB will participate in this discussion as it relates to upgrading recommendation 5.1.1 to a standard and allocating resources to those investigations that will yield the greatest safety value.
Australia may review its investigation policy following the AIG meeting.


So that's the ATSB defence...the aircraft fell into 'sport aviation'...but hang on a sec..what about the fare paying pax??:ugh:

[Worrals in the wilds]

Any sign of the coroners report yet???? It's only July. :zzz:
Queensland justice moves at continental drift speed. :*

[Macroderma]

To summarise,


A young woman calls Archerfield Airport and asks them to recommend a safe operator for a joy flight
she is refered to Hempel Aviation Pty Ltd who advertise on their website that they provide joyflights in a Yak for a fee
she books a flight as a birthday present for her partner Ian Lovell
She pays for the flight by credit card and gets a receipt issued by Hempel Aviation Pty Ltd.

during the flight Hempel, a well known (to CASA and also to an awfully large number of commercial and private pilots around Australia it seems) epileptic, who had previously had his commercial pilots licence cancelled by CASA because of his head injuries (incurred when a hanger door fell on him) crashes the plane killing an innocent passenger, Mr Ian Lovell.

when the bodies are recovered from the wreckage on the seabed, the Police find a gift certificate made out to Mr Ian Lovell, issued by Hempel Aviation Pty Ltd, in Hempel's pocket.

how dare these snivelling, shiny arsed, back covering, prevaricating, self seeking, hypocritical, ba***rds at CASA say this is NOT a commercial operation !!!

how dare they claim that this justifies them NOT investigating the crash!

how dare they refuse to assist the Queensland Police Service!

what am I missing, we have a contract, we have valuable consideration, and we have goods supplied, if this is not a commercial arrangement what is it?

or are CASA now redefining the whole law of contract ??

I have to stop now before I get really worked up and start saying what I really think about CASA!

Macca

[T28D]

Macca,

or are CASA now redefining the whole law of contract ??

The only Law of Contract assiduosly enforced in CASA is the Contract of Employment for Full Time and the Conditions for Contractors ( consultants)

Perish the thought their renumeration might get less than contracted !!!!!!

[tail wheel]

A young woman calls Archerfield Airport and asks them to recommend a safe operator for a joy flight she is refered to Hempel Aviation Pty Ltd who advertise on their website...

Are you suggesting she was referred to Hemples by Archerfield Airport Corporation?

[blackhand]

or are CASA now redefining the whole law of contract ??Your frustration is understandable, but this is not a matter of commercial law, it is a matter of regulation. As difficult as this seems to be for some here to understand one does not relate to the other.

[Checkboard]

during the flight Hempel, a well known (to CASA and also to an awfully large number of commercial and private pilots around Australia it seems) epileptic, who had previously had his commercial pilots licence cancelled by CASA because
Barry's suspected epilepsy wasn't "known to a large number of people" - it was a feature of the enquiry that those very few who did know of it felt constrained by medical ethics not to reveal that knowledge. I'm certain Barry didn't go about telling people of it.

As far as I know, his commercial pilot's license (CPL) wasn't cancelled, his class one medical was suspended (which should prevent commercial operations). This is an important point, because Australian licenses are stamped "Permanently Valid", so anyone asking to see Barry's CPL could be shown a valid license. Anyone asking to see his medical could be shown a valid medical - you would need to be able to pick up the difference between a class one and class two medical to know whether he was correctly licensed for commercial operations.

[Worrals in the wilds]

Anyone asking to see his medical could be shown a valid medical - you would need to be able to pick up the difference between a class one and class two medical to know whether he was correctly licensed for commercial operations.
How is the average punter supposed to know this? :confused:
Let's say I'm an average person wanting a joyflight; how do I establish that the operator is reasonably safe? Is there a database or do I have to rely on what 'everybody knows' and hope that I'm part of the Everybody Knows Club? :yuk:

Or should I have a reasonable expectation that in Australia, a business advertising a service is 1. licensed to do so and 2. uses licensed operators to provide that adverised service, not people with known medical issues that should preclude them from flying?

This has systemic failure written all over it. The system works only when everyone wants it to work. When someone thwarts that, the whole thing falls in a heap, a customer dies and it's no-one's fault. Just an unfortunate event. :ugh:

What this case shows is that aviation in Australia is regulated by the law of the jungle/caveat emptor. Pay your money and take your chance; the regulator cannot protect you, the law will not protect you; all you can count on is your own hunch and a bunch of rumours. Don't count on law enforcement agencies to enforce the law because it's all Too Hard.

Joyflight anyone? :(

[Arnold E]

the regulator cannot protect you,

Cannot?? or wont, Hmm I wonder:confused:

[Fliegenmong]

Good points Worrals.....even if Joe Punter were to dig that deep....which they would not......it would be reasonably expected to joe punter that anyone / organisation would be suitably regulated / supervised so as to be safe and compliant

For Christ's sake look at how ridiculously over regulated we are in everything else in this country, my company wants to introduce a safety procedure policy for the operation of a coffee plunger for crying out loud! And that is true...I am not making that up., so under that veil of nanny state crappola, yeah joe punter could reasonably expect that someone offering joyflights would be suitable fit to do so, it would appear from this thread that that would perhaps not necessarily be so...

Note how in Nanny state I have to type.. "it would appear from this thread that that would perhaps not necessarily be so..." Not allowed to talk about golliwogs either as that may offend some...

[outnabout]

The saddest part of this whole thread is that I am not in the least bit surprised that Fleigenmong's company is introducing a safety policy to use the coffee plunger. Thats "ops normal" in Australia's business culture today.

No matter how enthusiastically the lawyers pursue this matter or how much the regulators / business colleagues / local aviation fraternity may duck n dive, at the end of the day one fact remains - one young man climbed into a plane expecting the time of his life, not the end of it.

[Captain Dart]

If the facts and figures in the threads regarding CASA's regulatory reform, i.e. the time and cost to the taxpayer it has consumed, are true, it is a scandal.

Combined with the circumstances of this sad and unneccessary event, surely it would be something that Four Corners could run with?

And what about Australian Warbirds (AWAL), the de facto 'regulators' of Limited category passenger ('Adventure') flights? Was anyone in the upper echelons of that organisation aware of what was going on regarding this operator?

[in-cog-nito]

AWAL is a bit of an Ol'boys club. Especially if you are in the upper echelon's clicky little group.

[john_tullamarine]

Thats "ops normal" in Australia's business culture today.

Not really, it's driven by an out of control OHS/WHS Industry. Occupies a fair bit of my time and drives me to distraction. However, we all have to keep nice about it as the penalties for being caught out can be draconian.

[Frank Arouet]

Back to the Inquest, I believe the QLD Coppers will feature shortly in this affair. Remember, one of their Finest was lost at Lockhart River and they have long memories. Add a new State Government and there is hope.

I believe the first mob to get the boot were Anna's "climate" bureau.

This new bloke means business, and I don't think CASA washing their hands will get them off the hook.

[T28D]

Frank,
Back to the Inquest, I believe the QLD Coppers will feature shortly in this affair

And so they should, just maybe we might se some clear unbiased investigation that opensthe can of worms that CASA is loath to touch as it implicates their own.

Bring on the truth.

[Dangly Bits]

When you get on the 392 to Parramatta, how do you know the driver has a Commercial Vehicle Medical? How do you know the driver has a current license?

When I walk into a flying school and ask to do a joy flight, how do I know the pilot has a current class 1 medical, had an AFR, and has completed 3 take-off's and landings in the last 90 days? How woul I even know to ask, let alone even have the faintest idea what all the above was.

[Worrals in the wilds]

Exactly. How do you know that your deli stores its meat at the proscribed temperature so you don't get sick? How do you know that the bar you go to is serving real Absolut, not bathtub vodka poured into Absolut bottles with the potato peelings sieved out?

You don't. You rely on the government food inspectors and liquor licensing officers to regulate those things for you. That's why you pay tax; to fund those agencies and their investigations. You pay money and delegate that responsibility to the government. Of course any sane person will question services they can see are blatently unsafe, but no one person can possibly know everything about the services they use.

People who live in lawless societies like Somalia question everything they buy, every service they use. They know that there is no effective government and the only law is Caveat Emptor; let the buyer beware. Australia is not one of those societies. We all pay large amounts of tax to fund agencies that regulate business and detect and prosecute people engaging in unlawful activity.

In this instance, a company was operating with wilful disregard for the law and it is suggested that the relevant regulator was aware of that, but did nothing effective that either stoppped them doing so or warned the public about their unlawful activities. A person purchased a service from that company in good faith and her partner ended up dead through absolutely no fault of his own.

Why do we pay taxes again? If the government and its agencies cannot regulate activities and persue people who disobey its law, then what is its purpose? What does it achieve?:confused:

[eagle 86]

And another significant difference between Somalia and other places is that you can discuss any contentious issues with extreme prejudice.
GAGS
E86

[T28D]

Why do we pay taxes again? If the government and its agencies cannot regulate activities and persue people who disobey its law, then what is its purpose? What does it achieve?

CASA knew he was flying and they knew his medical status, CASA are culpable

[Frank Arouet]

I believe CASA are very exposed in the Hemple matter.

We all pay large amounts of tax to fund agencies that regulate business and detect and prosecute people engaging in unlawful activity.


There in lies the defense for claims of caveat emptor. There is a precedent, and Ex Gratia payments are paid, but not by CASA. It is usually by Dept Finance, but don't hold your breath with this current mob of politicians.

[wilcoleaks]

How did Lovell's family afford a QC for the inquest?

I only ask this because I'm wondering if they have set up a fund where you can donate for civil proceedings or to get the wreckage examined for their piece of mind?

I'm not preempting the findings, just asking the question?

[Arnold E]

, but don't hold your breath with this current mob of politicians.What, and you believe the next lot will be better?............dreamer!

[Worrals in the wilds]

There in lies the defense for claims of caveat emptor.But in this case someone died. Caveat emptor has no legal standing, though it's a common sense approach to a certain extent. You paid forty bucks more for a telly at provider A than provider B was offering? Caveat Emptor. Your pizza was cold? Caveat Emptor. Your bus was late or your coffee sucked? Caveat Emptor.

In this case a person used a product bought in good faith, believing it was legally sanctioned when it wasn't, when the provider was well aware of that and the regulator allegedly so. Caveat venditor.

Caveat ordinatio. :E

Of course Latin is a dead language so it's probably better to stick with the lingua franca (sorry :}). The important test in our legal system is the reasonable person test.
Would a reasonable person view an advertisement for joyflight services and assume that service complied with the relevant legislation (even if it were an inherently risky activity) because otherwise it would not be allowed to operate or advertise?
Would a reasonable person assume that if the relevant airport recommended that business (if that occurred), the business was conducting lawful activities?
Would a reasonable person assume that if the relevant regulator was aware of breaches against the legislation it regulates, it would restrict or prohibit that service's activities and advise the public of its findings so unwary customers didn't unwittingly stumble into a deathtrap?

Would that be reasonable?

[Frank Arouet]

What, and you believe the next lot will be better?............dreamer!

Arnold, I say this because the Libs do have form.

They paid me, an ex gratia payment, via Department Finance, for injustices done by CASA. I doubt I would get the political ear of anybody in the Labor Party today unless I was a life member or someone related by birth to the red dragon.

[catch18]

How will the coroners findings affect a civil case?

[Metro man]

Why do we pay taxes again?

To pay for defined benefit retirements for politicians and bureaucrats. Also to provide welfare benefits to people who don't want to work but have to be persuaded to vote for one of the political parties.

[Arnold E]

Also to provide welfare benefits to people who don't want to work but have to be persuaded to vote for one of the political parties.

You may be right metro Man, but I have a rellie that is incapable of working, I rely on your superior interlect to suggest that maybe we should put this person down, after all, he is a drain on the public purse, so I am willing to agree to this as long as YOU are willing to commit the act, what say you Metro????

[Frank Arouet]

Nobody "put Douglas Bader down" for having no legs.

Incapacities are a hurdle most of us can overcome.

People who are able bodied, indeed athletic, who abuse our right to breathe oxygen without putting a correspondingly amount of CO2 back into the vegetation are thieves not worthy of having the rank of "public servant" let alone caretakers of our welfare.

Public Servant: What an oxymoron!

10% of the population are full time unemployable. Get used to it.

[Worrals in the wilds]

According to the 2009-10 Annual Report, 52% of CASA's income came from the aviation fuel excise and only 12% from sale of goods/rendering of services.
http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/lib100037/casa-ar-2010-p1.pdf
Page 10.

From the same report, 33% of CASA's income was 'appropriation from government', aka funding from the consolidated revenue fund.
The Commonwealth’s Appropriation Framework – An Introduction - Department of Finance and Deregulation (http://www.finance.gov.au/budget/budget-process/appropriation-bills.html)

[LeadSled]

------ and only 12% from sale of goods/rendering of services.
Folks,
"Policy" says that charges for "services that are subject to cost recovery" are to be increased to achieve 25% cost recovery in the near term, with a long term aim of 100% cost recovery.
Not a pleasant prospect for whatever is left of aviation by that time ---- given the present level of charges, and what you get for the money.
Tootle pip!!

PS: That's not necessarily CASA policy, but Dept. of Finance.

[Sarcs]

Anyway back to the thread, back at post #320 Checkboard said:

As far as I know, his commercial pilot's license (CPL) wasn't cancelled, his class one medical was suspended (which should prevent commercial operations). This is an important point, because Australian licenses are stamped "Permanently Valid", so anyone asking to see Barry's CPL could be shown a valid license. Anyone asking to see his medical could be shown a valid medical - you would need to be able to pick up the difference between a class one and class two medical to know whether he was correctly licensed for commercial operations.

Well the following quote shows that Hempel's CPL(A), CPL(H) and ATPL licences were indeed cancelled:

Date: 29 November 2007
DECISION


13. On the basis of the above facts and circumstances and on the grounds set out above I have decided to cancel your:

(i) Air Transport Pilot (Aeroplane) licence;
(ii) Commercial Pilot (Helicopter) licence;
(iii) Commercial Pilot (Aeroplane) licence;

14. The cancellation of these licences means that you must not undertake any operation in an aeroplane or a helicopter associated with and requiring the authority outlined in subregulation 5.105(1), subregulation 5.21(1) or subregulation 5.166(1) of CAR 1988.

15. This will also prevent you from flying as pilot in command or as a co-pilot on any commercial purpose operation outlined in regulation 206 of CAR 1988 and any operation authorised under subregulation 262AM(7) of CAR 1988.


Given Hempel's past history of indiscretions, makes you wonder why the regulator didn't go the full hog and cancel all his licences.:ugh:

The following is a quote from a letter reply to a query from Hempel's lawyer, this was in context of operating the YAK:


He is not required to hold an AOC to conduct flights in limited category warbird operations in the YAK as set out in CAR 262AM(2) but he is required to hold a commercial pilot (aeroplane) licence (or an ATPL) if he receives any commercial consideration from some other person for such flights (outside of the “shared cost” private operations set out in CAR 2(7A)) and meets the other requirements in CAR 262AM(7).


For clarity here is the relevant passage from CAR 262AM(7):


A person may carry passengers in a limited category aircraft in circumstances where payment is made for carriage, and subregulation 2 (7A) does not apply, only if:
(a) the pilot in command holds a commercial pilot licence (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_reg/car1988263/s298a.html#licence), or an air transport pilot licence (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_reg/car1988263/s298a.html#licence), with appropriate ratings (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_reg/car1988263/s298a.html#rating) and endorsements (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_reg/car1988263/s298a.html#endorsement) for a flight of that kind; and
(b) the aircraft departs from and returns to the same aerodrome without landing anywhere else; and
(c) the flight does not involve training or flight testing, and is not a scenic flight; and
(d) the aircraft:
(i) is a replica aircraft, ex-military aircraft or historic aircraft; or (ii) is being operated for the purpose of parachute jumping, mock combat or aerobatics ; or
(iii) is being operated only to carry passengers as part of an intrinsically hazardous recreational activity; and
(e) each passenger has acknowledged in writing that the passenger has been told about the matters mentioned in subregulation (5).

Which would seem to indicate that even if BH was a paid up member of Warbirds he was still unable to fly paying pax in the YAK!:ugh:

So did the regulator miss all the warning signs leading up to this tragic accident?:zzz:

Kind of gives credence to some kind of 'name and shame' statement being publicly released in the media, 'buyer beware' for sure!:{

[Checkboard]

... so was he required to hand back all of his licenses? Did they stamp "cancelled" on them? :hmm:

Did CASA also send the same documentation to the chief pilot of Hempel Aviation, or did they rely on Barry owning up??

I haven't flown in Oz in 10 years - but I have the original sheaf of paper licenses (still valid), a credit card license (still valid) stating the same qualifications, and a "book printout" license (still valid) - all because Australia changed their license format 3 times ...

[Fantome]

(c) the flight does not involve training or flight testing, and is not a scenic flight; and
(d) the aircraft:


What is a 'scenic flight'? How can a flight so designated be the subject of a regulatory sanction, when everyone's looking at the scenery anyway? Does the purpose of so framing it (the reg.) merely imply that the warbird operator must not refer to flights as being 'scenic' in his advertising? And if so, how crazy is that?

[CHAIRMAN]

Because if you want to do 'Scenic Flights', even from A to A...............you will need a 'proper' AOC for that:ugh:

[Sarcs]

What is a 'scenic flight'? How can a flight so designated be the subject of a regulatory sanction, when everyone's looking at the scenery anyway? Does the purpose of so framing it (the reg.) merely imply that the warbird operator must not refer to flights as being 'scenic' in his advertising? And if so, how crazy is that?

I suppose that's why warbirds call them adventure flights or aerobatic flights!:ok:

Warbird Air Adventures - Melbourne, Cairns & Townsville (http://flyingwarbirds.com.au/)

Doesn't change the fact that what BH was doing was illegal and the regulator 'dropped the ball' in regards to monitoring BH's illegal activities!:rolleyes:

The YAK may have been a warbird but it was still a VH registered aircraft and therefore fell well within the remit of both the bureau and the regulator. However both government agencies seem to have been determined to abrogate all responsibility for investigating this sordid and tragic event!:ugh:

Given the circumstances the QPS Forensic Crash Unit did an exemplary job, with limited resources and in an obviously seriously 'politically sensitive' environment!:ok: Now it will be interesting to see if the Coroner can navigate his way through the various legal and political interest hurdles put in place by publically funded legal eagles!

[VH-XXX]

Gents, please don't screw up what is otherwise a very informative and educational thread. :cool:

[tail wheel]

For those who have lost the plot or love the sound of their own keyboard, the thread title is: Barry Hempel Inquest

:=

[blackhand]

@ tailwheel
sori massa mipela lusim ting ting na spak tumas

[wilcoleaks]

Question 1:

How much would it cost to get this aircraft recovered and inspected?

Question 2:

How will the Coroners report affect a civil case?

Question 3:

Who will finance a civil case and what will this cost?

[Sarcs]

wilcoleaks I heard that the salvage barge was quoted at 30k for starters, so maybe 50k?? The other questions I'll leave to those more knowledgeable on civil legal matters...:E

[MakeItHappenCaptain]

How long has it been sitting in salt water now?:rolleyes:

[PukinDog]

Sarcs

Given Hempel's past history of indiscretions, makes you wonder why the
regulator didn't go the full hog and cancel all his licences


Has why he was allowed to retain his PPL ever been answered to any degree? Given the regulator's strong statements during the decision to revoke his commercial priviledges, it makes no sense he would legally still be allowed to put anyone in an aircraft he operated, plus risk the lives of others on the ground if his "Private" antics came crashing down.

People have their drivers licenses revoked for careless and reckless operation of a private vehicle on the basis of being a hazard and danger to those around them (other drivers, pax, pedestrians, etc) "Commercial" has nothing to do with it. How can a judge say he was basically that kind of hazard in an aircraft, but allow him to retain a legal means to remain a public hazard by not touching his PPL? Was there some kind of buddy-buddy system at work there?

If he had been completely grounded by having all licenses revoked, wouldn't ANY further operation of an aircraft have come under a criminal act and therefore a bigger deterrent, much easier to monitor, and punish with some teeth? It seems it would have removed the gray area of "adventure flying" he seemed to hide his illegal acts behind, and perhaps one more unsuspecting person would be alive today.

[Kharon]

Wilco - Question 1: How much would it cost to get this aircraft recovered and inspected?

Probably not as much as leaving any doubt related to what exactly happened to the people and the aircraft. The QPS seemed to be prepared to conduct a full investigation, but they were 'shoo'd' off by CASA, twice. Seems the second dive was at the Coroners insistence but limited to the FOD shield condition. It's only a feeling gleaned from the limited information available but the QPS seemed to want to keep digging. Perhaps, in the end they may be proved right. We will never know.

Wilco - Question 2: How will the Coroners report affect a civil case?

That is literally the $1,000,000 question; in any event with the amount of wriggle room being left open to the waring legal teams and insurance companies, it will be years before the answer is known. It seems to take forever when the issues are clearly defined, but in this mess – no bets taken.

Question 3: Who will finance a civil case and what will this cost?

Another tricky question, for which it seems there is no finite answer but, here again given the size and amount of holes in the cheese it will probably be a long time before resolution. But whatever happens in the legal future will very much depend, once again, on the Coroner. It's a sad, tough job made more so by an apparent lack of clarity and probity.

Maybe the whole thing should be turned over to the QPS and an independent report made to the Coroner; this would (IMO) – in the end – save tears, time and money. Perhaps not.

[VH-XXX]

It won't take too many years; there is a statute of limitations on these things!

[Sarcs]

Probably not as much as leaving any doubt related to what exactly happened to the people and the aircraft. The QPS seemed to be prepared to conduct a full investigation, but they were 'shoo'd' off by CASA, twice. Seems the second dive was at the Coroners insistence but limited to the FOD shield condition. It's only a feeling gleaned from the limited information available but the QPS seemed to want to keep digging. Perhaps, in the end they may be proved right. We will never know.



The following excerpt from the QPS report alone should have created enough reason/incentive to raise the aircraft:

http://i1076.photobucket.com/albums/w448/PAIN_00123/Hempelexcerpt1-3.jpg

[catch18]

This will come down to who has the deepest pockets....

"The law" has not been and never will be a transparent, fair, ethical and just system.

People with no exposure to "the law" believe it is just that.

This will drag on for years and will resolve nothing. The findings will be on the balance of probabilities most likely inconclusive. Some key recommendations will be made for the future I suppose and that will be it.

I feel sad for all involved. Horrible trauma to have to go through.

[Frank Arouet]

The catch is;

1) Had Barry stayed in bed that day, this wouldn't have happened. So we can rule out "The Will of Allah" (or insert diety of your choice here).

2) Had Barry set out to kill himself and his passenger and one could prove intent, it would be murder. But He's not here to answer that charge.

3) Had things evolved as they seem, he would be guilty of manslaughter. But He's not here to answer that charge.

4) Had CASA prevented the outcome by actually grounding him, the crash wouldn't have happened.

5) The people left out in the cold and clearly left themselves exposed are CASA.

6) They will now be spending Taxpayer dollars to cover their own backsides.

7) The lack of political will makes this happens.

8) So can we conclude had the political will been there, the crash wouldn't have happened.

Send any questions to: Contact « anthonyalbanese.com.au (http://anthonyalbanese.com.au/contact)

[outnabout]

Are we kidding ourselves if we believe there is only one "Barry Hempel" in Australia?

[Frank Arouet]

They broke the mould mate.

[VH-XXX]

True, there are plenty of others out there.

Watch out for some of those that put "Captain" in front of their name in their marketing materials!

[Horatio Leafblower]

Are we kidding ourselves if we believe there is only one "Barry Hempel" in Australia?

THAT is one of the best posts I have seen so far in this debate.

We ALL know of someone who plays fast & loose with the rules and operate to the standard of

"Rules are for the guidance of wise men ...and obendience only when it suits me" :suspect:

I've been a nappy-wearing dibber-dobber in the past and I'll tell you now, it's pointless. Ignore the other guy, do your job the best you can, get on with your life. :ouch:

[601]

We ALL know of someone who plays fast & loose with the rules and operate to the standard of "Rules are for the guidance of wise men ...and obendience only when it suits me"

And sadly, most I knew have paid the ultimate price.

[Wizofoz]

This isn't even the first such accident.

A Strikemaster being allowed to take paying passengers when in a condition such that a wing falls off does not mark a robust regulatory environment!

[Frank Arouet]

If CAA spent more time on it's job we pay them for and less time with corruption and crony's we would have a safer aviation environment.

Probably too simplistic a claim? I could rewrite it into a 1,000 page missive, but the conclusion would be the same.

[Kharon]

A band of Brothers E.K. Gann 1973 (?). Must have loaned my copy out to someone; anyway - as I remember it, the 'team' were standing looking at a relic they had resurrected and our hero was noting the reactions of his fellow pilots about to turn 'thought into deed'. And again, in Fate is the Hunter there is a similar passage were he and a co pilot come across a left behind aircraft and the question of which of his fellow peer pilots would be 'game' to fly it, and poses their various responses to being asked.

Point of the ramble – there are many types of airman, all with varying degrees of 'derring do', experience and knowledge. Mustering pilots think very little of being down in the dust and trees all day but would have a mild case of the sweats tackling rush hour in Sydney (oxymoron) on a day like yesterday.

Not safe, fair or logical to declare a bloke a cowboy just because 'you' wouldn't do it. There are the odd rogues and rascals in any physically 'potentially dangerous' profession; but, I would mildly suggest that in the aviation 'business' they are the exception rather than the rule and would recommend a degree of caution before making those judgements in the current climate.

[Wizofoz]

Kharon,

All fine and beut until you have an unsuspecting member of Joe Public onboard.

Then who is and isn't a "Cowboy" becomes very germane.

[Horatio Leafblower]

Kharon,

Regardless of what one might be willing to discuss with the blokes in Formosa before getting arrested for crashing an aircraft, a willingness to break the law in the certain knowledge that in doing so creates a REAL risk to the life of another almost defines "reckless indifference".

It falls way short of any sane pilot's definition of "professional" and personally I doubt it falls within the scope of "competent". I would be surprised if EKG would appreciate being cited in the defence of BH's actions.

Never mind the fact that Band of Brothers was set in the 1950s and Fate was written about the 1930s and 1940s, a diffreent era altogether.

We're a very different society and, short of another great war + depression, will remain so.

[Kharon]

Guys, please, I am categorically not defending BH nor any other who would show a – "willingness to break the law in the certain knowledge that in doing so creates a REAL risk to the life of another". Reckless is not on the horizon. Culpable homicide, manslaughter etc. perhaps, all come to mind. The fact that BH was thought medically fit to fly beats me, let alone any of the many 'other' issues surrounding this whole sorry business. It's a mighty puzzle for the legal eagles to be sure.

All I was trying to say is that there is a willingness to be judgemental about others, particularly when it come to aviation (any crew room in the world). See, EKG was not used in defence of BH, but to point out that people can and do see things differently, particularly when it's 'your' arse on the line. (Scuba diving ?- no way José).

This is a sad, sorry case for all and bad enough without it becoming a slanging match based on 'one mans' view of what or who constitutes being 'dangerous'. Just my AUD$ 00.20.

[Fantome]

Which begs the rhetorical question old son would you defend someone willing to break the law in the certain knowledge that in so doing no risk whatever to the life of another is incurred?

My late good late mate and once boss Bryan McCook (The Hat) put a chapter in his memoir which can be found by going back into place bilong tok tok the chapter about the death of Ray Jaensch which Bryan in hindsight knew would not have happened had he said the law is an ass and landed on the highland airstrip he had used earlier in the day but that the department a short time later closed.

[Frank Arouet]

and landed on the highland airstrip he had used earlier in the day but that the department a short time later closed.

The highland matter was reactive, as is usually expected, but the Hemple matter is neutral indeed such a non event in aviation safety that CAA don't want to do anything about it.

There are other protected species around today, indeed some openly discussed on other threads which we can all garner comfort by saying I told you so when the inevitable happens.

Apathy is a curse;

But who cares?

[gobbledock]

Are we kidding ourselves if we believe there is only one "Barry Hempel" in Australia?
Bingo! There are more than 'one' Barry in this industry. Tony Kern was ahead of his time when he wrote Darker Shades of Blue. The industry has more than one rogue and more than one rogue organisation, I can assure you of that.

[Arnold E]

The industry has more than one rogue and more than one rogue organisation, I can assure you of that.

Sooo, does that make it acceptable.:confused:

[Frank Arouet]

It does if cronyism allowes it happen.

[Sarcs]

Tony Kern was ahead of his time when he wrote Darker Shades of Blue. The industry has more than one rogue and more than one rogue organisation, I can assure you of that.
Gobbles a bit of déjà vu (did I get that right Fantome?) happening here! I believe the good Tony Kern and his must read "Darker Shades of Blue":
Industry CRM Developers - Situational Awareness Management Course Outline (http://www.crm-devel.org/resources/paper/darkblue/darkblue.htm) was used as a anology for Hempel back on about page ten or eleven of this thread!

Quite similar circumstances i.e. "the ace of the base" could do no wrong in the eyes of the authorities and superiors!:ugh:

By the way did you see the footage where 'Bud Holland' flew a B52 across a ridgeline at 60' or pulled AOB turns at close to right angles..sheesh ballsy but he did have a crew onboard who went along with it? I will have to dig out the footage..

ps Gobbles loved your post on the Moral Exemplar thread!:ok:

[Metro man]

Are we kidding ourselves if we believe there is only one "Barry Hempel" in Australia?

There are credible imitators, possibly some come close, but ultimately there was only one Barry Hempel.

[gobbledock]

By the way did you see the footage where 'Bud Holland' flew a B52 across a ridgeline at 60' or pulled AOB turns at close to right angles..sheesh ballsy but he did have a crew onboard who went along with it?
Yes indeed!! Bud was indeed a rogue but he was also a gifted pilot who could do things with a B52 that only others could dream of doing. However his 'organisation' refused to pull his wings when it became apparent he was truly pushing the envelope of life and death. I think his fellow Crew members who reported him and refused to fly with him also had balls of steel. Sadly his wife was at the airshow when he killed himself and his Crew, you can hear her scream in the background of one of the video's shot. It is a sobering reminder that rogues need to be outed and have their wings clipped.

Sarcs, also take a look at Glenn Curtiss, Lincoln Beachey, Herman Gorring, Max Immelmann and Boelcke...Some insightful reading.

[Frank Arouet]

And who caan forget "wrong way Corrigan" who has been more recently represented by a Chinese pilot who had a mid air with an "American Spy Plane", name bilong, wait for it..... "wong wey".

[Lancair70]

Fast forward to about 4.10 for the low ridge crossings.

Mishap of B-52 at Fairchild Air Force Base Washington - YouTube

Further reading about 'Bob' Holland in the Wiki link. 1994 Fairchild Air Force Base B-52 crash - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1994_Fairchild_Air_Force_Base_B-52_crash)

Seems you could replace some names, locations and aircraft types and it could be a story about BH.

[Horatio Leafblower]

I believe the wife's scream, and the "Daddy daddy daddy!" you can hear is actually the family of the co-pilot, the squadron XO who refused to let anyone else fly with Bud Holland because he was such a ****wit.

Hearing that kid makes me tear up every time:sad:

[gobbledock]

My apologies Horatio......
Yep, a very sad day for several families. And yes, the XO and only one or two others would fly with Bob in the end as his subordinates refused to do so because he was such a loose cannon.
Even sadder is the fact that there are others rogues out there in our industry, and I am not necessarily talking about GA where a lot of people point the finger.

[TunaBum]

Anyway...........back to the issue at hand.

It won't take too many years; there is a statute of limitations on these things!


Not really relevant as legal proceedings have already been issued (within time) and are underway (although on hold pending the outcome of the Coroners Inquest). CASA are one of the Defendants..............and I think they will be the sole "deep pocket" in the long run.

Lot of hand wringing and teeth gnashing on this thread... not being funny, but IMHO what this industry (and CASA) needs is for a horrible event such as this to occur with the unsuspecting innocent passenger being a high profile politician. Sadly I believe this is what it will take to get some attention paid to the CASA problem, and to start to weed out some of the cowboys from the industry.

Until then this sort of thread will be a regular feature of PPRuNe until the cows come home.

TB :uhoh:

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

RE....
"with the unsuspecting innocent passenger being a high profile politician. Sadly I believe this is what it will take to get some attention paid to the CASA problem,"

Hey Tony, ya wanna come for a fly in my Tiger..???

(I'll be easy to ID.....I'll be the one with the 'chute...)

:eek::}:}

[Ovation]

"with the unsuspecting innocent passenger being a high profile politician"

I was going to say that there was a collection to give Anthony Albanese an "Adventure Flight" as a gift, but then thought maybe the Mods would think it inappropriate. ;)

[Sarcs]

Not really relevant as legal proceedings have already been issued (within time) and are underway (although on hold pending the outcome of the Coroners Inquest). CASA are one of the Defendants..............and I think they will be the sole "deep pocket" in the long run.

Good to hear because from what I've seen with this case so far (and this thread is worth a total re-read!) the regulator's ass is well and truly hanging in the breeze!:ugh:

Make's you wonder whether the JQ license suspension, so onerously pursued, was a knock on effect of Hempel (the timing certainly works)!:E

[Bedderseagle]

Today is 31st August 2012, not a significant day for many but certainly is very significant to the Lovell family and so many others whose son, partner, mate, friend was so tragically taken from this world four years ago 31st August 2008 through the “accident that was waiting to happen” but from what we have seen an accident that should never occurred. Ian who was 35 years old at the time was a talented animator with the world at his feet, here one minute and gone the next. I started this thread almost 3 months ago, June 4th, 2012 having sat through the first week of the inquest. I was that appalled by what I witnessed during that week, that somehow I wanted the story to come out, after all it had taken almost 4 years for the inquest to even take place. Since the initial posting, there have been an amazing 47,200 viewings/hits and 387 postings. Sure, at times, the thread drifted off subject but for the main part there has been a great deal of interest, constructive comments made as well as other exposures cited within in the industry. However, the more one delved into this tragic event, it did become so clear it was just wrong . . . . . . it should never have happened and there were so many ‘warning signs’ as well as people/organisations that could have prevented it from happening.

The coroner’s findings and recommendation are due to be announced mid to late September and at the inquest the coroner did appeal to various parties present to submit their recommendations in an attempt to avoid such an event and needless loss of life. So with so much expertise/experience in the industry on tap through the PPRUNE site I am proposing to ask everyone for feedback within the next week such that I might submit a compilation of points to the coroner’s office for consideration. This can be through postings on the site or personal message to me. I would compile anything submitted anonymously and pass on to the coroner. This, I feel, is the least I could do on this day for the Lovell family and others left behind in the hope that Ian’s life was not taken in vain and for also for the benefit of the industry.

The sceptics might say that nothing would come of it and the whole coroner’s enquiry and recommendations are a waste of time but IF we all speak up there is a better chance of being heard.

[Frank Arouet]

Don't let the bastards get you down.

People have long memories and some will walk the plank one day. Soon one hopes.

[Kharon]

BE - However, the more one delved into this tragic event, it did become so clear it was just wrong . . . . . . it should never have happened and there were so many ‘warning signs’ as well as people/organisations that could have prevented it from happening. It still puzzles me; the whole thing. Quadrio (Birds fame) was ruthlessly and remorselessly hunted down and butchered on the flimsiest of 'evidence' rejected by the DPP. It begs the question, was that as a consequence of the BH event or; was BH a protected species? I notice Hempel is mentioned in association with several AAT hearings related to license and AOC matters.

The contrast between the pursuit of the two cases is stark and very visible.

I think it's fair and reasonable to compare the logic and background to both events. To do this they need to be examined, independently of any Commonwealth agency. Just, as they say, "to eliminate the possibility from our inquires".

[Sarcs]

The BH and JQ licence suspension matters are like 'chalk' and 'cheese' and I have to agree there seems to be evidence that one is a knock on effect of the other.

I think it's fair and reasonable to compare the logic and background to both events. To do this they need to be examined, independently of any Commonwealth agency. Just, as they say, "to eliminate the possibility from our inquires".

Well to kick it off...1) BH was convicted under S20AA, CAR 5.04 etc, but JQ's case was dismissed by the CDPP.

2) BH had form/history of non-compliance whereas JQ had none,

3) BH was offered and accepted a Show Cause Conference (Alternative Dispute Resolution) on the 22nd of August 2007, whereas JQ wasn't offered any form of ADR prior to his decision letter.

There's a start "K"!:ok:

[Bedderseagle]

Seems CASA stalling for time and now they want their '2nd Day' in court to table more 'evidence' - how desperate they must be to try and wriggle their way out of this sordid affair. Who knows when they now can all agree to fix a date 'when everyone is available'. And so the saga goes on . . . . . sigh . . . :ugh:

[Up-into-the-air]

Do we have a date for the next performance??

[Bedderseagle]

No dates as yet, as they juggling to get all parties available !! Watch this space.

[halfmanhalfbiscuit]

They wouldn't be trying to delay until after the senate inquiry would they?

[aroa]

"juggling"..to get all parties together.

All CASA persons involved are already "together". Been in a major huddle ,no doubt, boning up on any legal wriggles available and cramming on CYA 101.

The BH accident gave me some deja vu...12 years ago when the Citation struck Mt Emerald nr Mareeba, killing 11, there was the classic statement made by an un-named* CASA spokesperson in CNS.."We always knew he was a 'cowboy'..."
And what had they done about it.???

* no balls to put a name to the comment.
:mad:

[Sarcs]

Bedderseagle while you wait for CASA legal try to figure out how best to lie, obfuscate, coerce etc..etc the Coroner from making findings that will implicate Fort Fumble and any possible liability that may result, why don't you write a submission to the Senate Inquiry! I think that you have extremely good grounds for bringing this matter to the attention of the good Senators.

Even though the QPS Forensic Crash Unit did an extremely stellar job under trying circumstances, I believe the ATSB rejection and justification of not accepting this crash for investigation definitely needs examination.

Take a look at the following quote from the TSI Act 2003 (my bolding):
23 Transport safety matters
(1) Each of the following occurrences involving a transport vehicle is a
transport safety matter for the purposes of this Act:
(a) the transport vehicle is destroyed;
(b) the transport vehicle is damaged;
(c) the transport vehicle is abandoned, disabled, stranded or
missing in operation;
(d) a person dies as a result of an occurrence associated with the
operation of the transport vehicle;
(e) a person is injured or incapacitated as a result of an
occurrence associated with the operation of the transport
vehicle;
(f) any property is damaged as a result of an occurrence
associated with the operation of the transport vehicle;
(g) the transport vehicle is involved in a near-accident;
(h) the transport vehicle is involved in an occurrence that
affected, or could have affected, the safety of the operation of the transport vehicle.
If we then look at the passage of text that the QPS FCU Hempel report refers to (from ATSB Website) and again my bolding:
Level of response

The level of investigation response is determined by resource availability and such factors as detailed below. These factors are presented in no particular order and may, depending on the circumstances, vary in the degree to which they influence the ATSB's decision to investigate and the level of response.
• anticipated safety value of an investigation, including the likelihood of furthering the understanding of the scope and impact of any safety system failures
• likelihood of safety action arising from the investigation, particularly of national or global significance
• existence and extent of fatalities/serious injuries and/or structural damage to transport vehicles/other infrastructure
• obligations or recommendations under international conventions and/or codes
• nature and extent of public, interest, in particular the potential impact on public confidence in the safety of the transport system
• existence of supporting evidence or requirements to conduct a special investigation based on trends NB The Yak has a checkered history with structural/control surface failure and control jamming events leading to accidents!
• relevance to an identified and targeted safety program
• the extent of resources available and projected to be available in the event of conflicting priorities
• the risks associated with not investigating including consideration of whether, in the absence of an ATSB investigation, a credible safety investigation by another party is likely
• timeliness of notification
• training benefit for ATSB investigators.

...and also this from the same webpage
Aviation broad hierarchy

In applying these guidelines, the ATSB will allocate its resources in line with the following broad hierarchy of operation types:
1. Passenger transport - large aircraft.
2. Passenger transport - small aircraft:
- RPT and charter on small aircraft
- humanitarian aerial work (for example, RFDS, SAR flights).
3. Commercial (that is, fare paying) recreation (for example, joy flights).
4. Aerial work with participating passengers (for example, news reporters, geological surveys).
5. Flying training.
6. Other aerial work:
- non-passenger carrying aerial work (for example, agriculture, cargo)
- private transport/personal business.
7. High risk personal recreation/sports aviation/experimental aircraft operations.

You start to see Bedderseagle that you have very relevant facts that fall definitely within the remit of the Inquiry. You could even recommend that the Committee consider an amendment to the TSI Act, something like..." All fatal aircraft accidents in VH (Aussie) registered aircraft must be investigated by the ATSB (needs work I know but you get the point!)"...

Bedderseagle you could also draw the good Senators to this part of the Act:
24 Offence to hinder etc. an investigation
(1) A person is guilty of an offence if:
(a) the person engages in conduct; and
(b) the person is reckless as to whether the conduct will
adversely affect an investigation:
(i) that is being conducted at that time; or
(ii) that could be conducted at a later time into an
immediately reportable matter; and
(c) the conduct has the result of adversely affecting such an
investigation (whether or not the investigation had
commenced at the time of the conduct); and
(d) the conduct is not authorised by the Chief Commissioner.
Penalty: Imprisonment for 12 months.
...and suggest that there is strong 'anecdotal evidence' that certain Federal Agencies may have breached this...blah blah blah!:E

Just a thought Bedderseagle...just a thought!;)

Here's the link:
Senate Committees – Parliament of Australia (http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate_Committees?url=rrat_ctte/pel_air_2012/index.htm)

[Bedderseagle]

Do we have a date for the next performance??

We have a date - Monday 19th November 2012 . . . . .. . :D

[bogdantheturnipboy]

To Bedderseagle,

I agree with you that people need to speak up.

In my 10 years in general aviation I have been regularly disappointed by fellow aviators who sweep safety issues under the carpet.
Very few people speak up or take a stand. Which is not surprising, very few people stand up for what is 'right' outside of aviation either. It's all too hard, they think nothing will be done or that it will affect their career.

I did a bit of training at Hempels some time ago and I was oblivious to the goings on there, however, it was well known with work colleagues of mine what a loose cannon he was and his medical problems.

I find it quite disconcerting how people describe Barry Hempel as a good pilot.
A good pilot is not someone who goes flying when they are not medically fit.
A good pilot is not someone who risks someone else's life because they live by the childish rule that "she'll be right".

There must have been so many people over the years that saw his roguish behaviour and did nothing about it. Maybe if more pilots showed some back bone and spoke out when others in the industry deliberately choose to flout the laws, maybe this would not happen.

The CEO, the Chief Pilot, CASA and those employees that knew about Barry's medical condition and other illegal activities and did nothing about it are all complicit in the death of Ian Lovell.

"unless we stand for something, we shall fall for anything"

[18-Wheeler]

The BH accident gave me some deja vu...12 years ago when the Citation struck Mt Emerald nr Mareeba, killing 11, there was the classic statement made by an un-named* CASA spokesperson in CNS.."We always knew he was a 'cowboy'..."
And what had they done about it.???

22 years ago you'll find.
And yes, I otherwise agree.

[owen meaney]

Have read this thread with interest.
From posts here and the coroners inquiry Barry Hempel was a PPL who took an aircraft that required a CPL to fly and crashed it.
From researching his history it appears the only way to prevent him from flying the Yak was to nail his feet to the ground.
Evidence at the coroners inquiry showed he flew after a major seizure when advise strongly to go to hospital.
Doesn't seem to be much for the ATSB to be involved with.

[Sarcs]

Dear owen meaney,

Please accept a complimentary years membership for the 'Flat Earth Society' and a one time subscription offer for the 'Darwinian Award Monthly Herald', the only condition on this one-time offer is you must formally submit a suitably witnessed attempt to survive a Darwin Award Event (the definition of which you will find in small print somewhere on the internet).

Regards


Secretary of the FES.:E

[owen meaney]

Dear Sarcs
Is your name short for sarcasm?
My preference is satire, but then that's another story.
Can you explain why you believe that the AIC or ATSB in Australai needs to investigate this accident?

[Sarcs]

OM will have to work on my satire and I totally agree that now is too late for the ATSB to investigate, it'd be a bit like shutting the gate after the horse has bolted! No this matter has got Fort Fumble's pony pooh smeared fingerprints all over it.

First the ATSB, for some inexplicable reason, decide it's not within its remit to investigate even though that decision would seem to suggest a breach of ICAO Annex 13, of which Oz is a signatory State.

Next the regulator tells the QPS to butt out and they were going to investigate instead. Then a couple of months down the track do a complete 180 and decide it is no longer in their interest to investigate...WTF??

Finally the QPS Forensic Crash Unit are left to pick up the pieces and contrary to the lies, obfuscation, legal to-and-froing, contention on who will foot the bill for raising the aircraft etc..etc manage to put together a very concise and uncorrupted 'Final Report'!

However the fact still remains that the prime source of physical evidence still sits on the ocean floor....

So OM you are probably right that it is past the PNR for the bureau to investigate...but don't be fooled there is more to this sordid, sorry tale than meets the "aye..to be sure,...to be sure!"

[Up-into-the-air]

An investigation Owen, is required according to the atsb and casa requirements.

That the regulator doesn't like the results is a different matter.

Was there a mechanical failure??

Did the regulator fail in it's duty??

Why didn't the regulator assist the QPS in it's investigation???

Is there information [like Norfolk Island] that has not been disclosed by the regulator??

Well Mr. casa

[Kharon]

OM#401 - Doesn't seem to be much for the ATSB to be involved with. We can agree, there were a couple of fatalities; this means a Coroner is involved. Insurance and other interested folks are going to look to that Coroner for answers.

The inquest will need to know, to be 'legally safe' (to be sure) exactly what and why. So, the ATSB do the technical stuff which will look at how or why the aircraft crashed and killed. The QPS (bless 'em) do their bit and the CASA do theirs.

The Coroner then has a nice big pile of paperwork to read through, ask questions of; and, make whatever recommendations and rulings are judged to be required.

To get it right, the Coroner needs as close to the whole truth as humanly possible; that means answers: which means full, independent, unbiased investigation by all three agencies. There are lots of question to answer about how things got to a stage where the prang occurred. Preventable, Yes M'lud, I believe it was.

[Kharon]

About 1400 EST tomorrow, marks the end of an era. It will quietly happen in the Senate and your comments on this subject have made it happen. Brava Ppruners, well done!, well done indeed.

I will not bang on about the sad state this industry is in, or the governmental agencies which have; in no small way, contributed to it's near demise. My thoughts, hopes and care for an industry I love, have been shared with some great folk here; infinitum; et tedium (and probably, ad nauseam).

My hope is that just for a short while, we can all stick together and rid ourselves of the invidious, often incestuous, expensive, non productive,. parasite on this industry, which has become our Civil Aviation Safety Authority.

Tomorrow is a start, the 22nd gives a slim (60/40 against) chance – the rest boys and girls; is really - up to you.

Selah – sleep well (if you can).

PS, the old man says Cheers (then rasps "about bloody time": Kilkenny rules. OK).
With the indulgence of T28 –

Macbeth:
To-morrow, and to-morrow, and to-morrow,
Creeps in this petty pace from day to day,
To the last syllable of recorded time;
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle!
Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player,
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage,
And then is heard no more. It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.

[Ejector]

Who is QPS ?

[Up-into-the-air]

QPS = Queensland Police Service

[user2012]

Some stuff to look at - number of calls to rescue, time of calls, response times, eyewitness accounts, flock of birds?, consistency in statements and time of events.....

[Frank Arouet]

I'll take a wild stab and say you must be new here.

It has open questions of what you highlight, however the rot set in years and years before, was well known to all including our regulator, yet nothing was done.

[Sarcs]

WTF??..A small birdy just tweeted to me that the Hempel Coroner's findings won't be handed out on the 19th November...instead there will be further evidence heard from Hempel's treating specialist and Fort Fumble's medical advisor!:ugh::{

Hmm sounds like another stalling tactic cooked up by AA, his mate flying fiend and a couple of those 'no morals', casasexual, ambulance chasing barristers with the fancy letters behind their name:yuk::yuk:

[Frank Arouet]

Hempel's treating specialist and Fort Fumble's medical advisor

If there is any documented loss of consciousness the pilot medical becomes immediately invalid and as that is the trigger for the licence, that person simply can't fly.

This lot are grabbing at straws.

[Kharon]

To SC Graham K. Anderson of the QPS Forensic Crash Unit and the QPS for their support of his endeavours. This team did a great job in difficult circumstances, without much assistance for the 'official' end of town.

Just finished reading his report on the Hempel incident, it is impressive. More so when compared to the ATSB effort on Norfolk. However, the following extracts (typed by me, errors expected) are of interest and make me even more curious about why the QPS were not only not given assistance and resources, but it appears actually hindered and ignored.

I know the NSW police do a great job for the Coroner and now we can see that the QPS can do equally as well. Perhaps it's time we gave the police services full authority to investigate all aviation matters. An untarnished, pragmatic factual report like the Hempel one would be of greater benefit to the Courts than the obfuscated mess we are left to deal with now. (If and when we ever get them and they are of some value).

QPS - Forensic Crash Report – Part 1.

B1-3: Upon decisions by the CASA and the ATSB not to examine the cause of this incident, the investigation was conducted by the QPS.

B1-4: It is not only my duty to enquire into the circumstances surrounding this incident but to also make recommendations that may assist in the prevention of other associated matters.

B1-44: A QPS incident log states that the ATSB will not be attending as it does not fit their criteria.

B1-45: On the 15 th January 2009 SC Bourke was advised that CASA legal department had decided that no further material would be released to the QPS to assist with this investigation.
Note : Michael Quinn DCEO CASA did not respond to a written request from SC Bourke. ( I wonder why ever not? when did Quinn depart the realms of power, anyone remember)?

Sorry there are only a few, the document is 'secured' and it is difficult to grab quotes.

[VH-XXX]

I can only hope the Coroner is switched on and given the correct information, otherwise something like this chestnut might show up as it did in another recent Coroners finding:


Mr X, a local aviator, gave evidence of his
views concerning the aircraft’s altimeter. The reading on the altimeter found at
the crash site was 4,380 feet. Mr X's theory was that the catastrophic
engine failure could have blocked the operation of the altimeter, and therefore
suggests it shows the altitude at which the aircraft was flying when that
failure occurred. This remains a feasible view.

[Frank Arouet]

After a catasprophic engine failure, gravity was not considered to be a contributing factor. I didn't know the pitot static system was connected to the engine, unless perhaps it was routed via the thronomistical hexagramometer.

Strewth!

[Up-into-the-air]

Look at this:

The Civil Aviation Safety Authority has issued the following Airworthiness Bulletin:

AWB 55-009 Issue 1 - Yak 52 Trim-Tab Failure

This and other AWBs can be viewed at:
Civil Aviation Safety Authority - Airworthiness Bulletins (http://www.casa.gov.au/airworth/awb/index.htm)

casa released this at 0945 on 26th October 2012 - Wonder how long they have had this report!!

[PAIN_NET]

For those interested the QPS report to the Coroner is available here.

Zippyshare.com - QPS Report.zip (http://www54.zippyshare.com/v/56023185/file.html)

On the top right hand corner of the page is a 'DOWNLOAD NOW' button. Click to start, the ZIP file takes a couple of minutes to complete the action.

It should all work, we will monitor.

P1.

[Horatio Leafblower]

Ahhhh yes. Suddenly it becomes clear!

Mr Hempel didn't black out - he might have had medical isues but they were not a factor and CASA is NOT responsible - it was a trim tab failure just like on that P51 at Reno.

OF COURSE! :8

How can one government agency have so much talent? :ugh:

[djpil]

AWB 55-009 Issue 1 - Yak 52 Trim-Tab Failure
my guess is that more info to come might suggest it is not relevant to this thread

Wonder how long they have had this report!!
not very long at all

[T28D]

How can one government agency have so much talent? :ugh:

Lear'nt the skills in Playboy

[Fantome]

The police report is comprehensive. It takes a bit of perseverance to wade through. No surprise, it is amateurish alongside what is expected from experts, here or overseas. It contains much detail, including numerous references of a highly speculative nature, impossible to connect conclusively to what led to the deaths of the two men killed.

At times it also shows poor proof reading, as when Nigel Arnott’s name is confused with that of Hempel.

Page 103 of the report –

“As stated on 13th September 2010, witness Nigel Hempel who has personal experience of flicker vertigo, was of the opinion that this would not be the case on 31st August 2008 as Hempel was flying at a time when the sun was too high.”

The 165 page report by Senior Constable GK Anderson of the Queensland Police Forensic Crash Unit concludes, in part –

“The direct cause of this crash, such as a confirmed health issue or a catastrophic engine failure, has not been identified in this investigation.”

“Regardless of whatever the direct cause to the crash, Hempel was aware of safety standards and the ability required to minimise the risks associated with flying/aerobatics and people on the ground.”

“I believe it reasonable to assume that on this occasion, Hempel knew he had a significantly higher risk of crashing and to that end, behaved in a negligent and unprofessional manner.”

This is a non-sequitur, basically illogical.

Here’s hoping the coroner will come down with something more compelling, less patently unknowing of FIGJAM psychology, even if he has to return an open finding.

[Sarcs]

Mr Hempel didn't black out - he might have had medical isues but they were not a factor and CASA is NOT responsible - it was a trim tab failure just like on that P51 at Reno.


My understanding from reading the report is that the ATSB expert on reviewing the photos taken by the police divers couldn't make an expert judgement whether it was a factor or not, see here:

http://i1076.photobucket.com/albums/w448/PAIN_00123/Hempelexcerpt1-3.jpg

So basically they were saying that unless the aircraft was salvaged there was no way of ruling it in or out.:=

The penny pinching Beaker put the notion to bed by not agreeing to foot the $30,000 required to salvage the Yak...so there she still lays probably now totally un-salvageable!:{

ps Hey Horatio wasn't having a crack at you mate! Just another blight on the relevant authorities who seem to be to be too busy either counting beans or covering their backsides to give a flying fcku about the people they're hurting!

[Horatio Leafblower]

Dude... I was being sarcastic. :suspect:

[Kharon]

HL #419 - Mr Hempel didn't black out - he might have had medical issues but they were not a factor and CASA is NOT responsible - it was a trim tab failure just like on that P51 at Reno. :D Fantome # 422 - No surprise, it is amateurish alongside what is expected from experts, here or overseas. It contains much detail, including numerous references of a highly speculative nature, impossible to connect conclusively to what led to the deaths of the two men killed. It's the family, friends and Coroner I feel sorry for.

The ATSB 'declined' to investigate a fatal with some very dark periphery issues, not sure if it was the old excuse (money) or the newly minted one (OH&S issues) or maybe, because their second best mates at CASA said "We'll pick this one up Beek old mate, no wuckers".

It is still not possible to define the true role CASA played in the investigation, bit like the whores draws, on again, off again.

Either way, the QPS report was provided with detail, a dedication to assist the Coroner and to prevent a repeat. Although how in all the hells that poor sod is to make rhyme or reason of this mess is beyond me.

Still, top marks for effort in the face of determined opposition, perhaps the Coroner could order an "expert" analysis; but then again he didn't have much luck getting his aircraft lifted. Never mind, the families can rest comfortably in the knowledge that "Beeker" under spent his budget that year. Crazy stuff.

[aroa]

around BNE would there not be club scuba divers or police divers who would volunteer their time be taken to the site that could obtain pics of the tail unit, fin and rudder, tailplane and elevators (plural??) AND the TRIM TAB.
Needs to be done.

[Sarcs]

aroa if you download the QPS zip file that PAIN provided, see here:Zippyshare.com - QPS Report.zip (http://www54.zippyshare.com/v/56023185/file.html) and I think it is in the second PDF file you will see that the police divers took a number of phots of the areas of interest.

However as my post above indicates the ATSB experts couldn't make "conclusive or absolute findings" without raising and pulling apart the Yak! But no government agency wanted to foot the bill for salvaging the aircraft, again the QPS report highlights the salvaging issue:ugh::ugh:

If you've got the time aroa it is well worth a read!

[Up-into-the-air]

It certainly is a great read, given that it points at two Government Departments dodging in their responsibilities.

Nothing new of course.

It will be good to see if the Coroner recognizes this and that there may be a whole range of issues in this.

A clear outcome with a direction as to how casa and atsb should have acted would be refreshing.

Maybe charges should be preferred under the TSI ACT

[Sarcs]

Besides, as UITA alludes, the possible multiple breaches of the TSI Act by both Federal aviation safety authorities and the fact that there is also possibly breaches of the Commonwealth Criminal Code in perverting the course of justice in regards to the proceedings of the QLD Coroner's court...still too much mcwriggle room in there....:yuk::yuk:

But there are also several questions to be asked in terms of the regulator's strict liability. Perhaps this is why Fort Fumble's legal eagles are busily devising diversionary/delaying tactics to the Coroner's findings.

The following copy of a letter from the Barry Hempel Show Cause process is perhaps why the regulator's legal eagles are feeling particularly vulnerable at the moment:
I refer to your letter dated 20 February 2008 in relation to the above.

As the cancellation of Mr Hempel’s commercial licence is the subject of a review by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal I am not prepared to meet with your client, but provide a written response to some of the questions you have raised.

I advise that Mr Hempel under his Private Pilot (Aeroplane) licence is authorised to conduct private operations including acrobatic flights under CAR 155 and warbird flights in, for example, the Yak aircraft within the limits for private operations set out in CAR 2(7) and excluding those matters for which an AOC is required under CAR 206.

He is not required to hold an AOC to conduct flights in limited category warbird operations in the Yak as set out in CAR 262AM(2) but he is required to hold a commercial pilot (aeroplane) licence (or an ATPL) if he receives any commercial consideration from some other person for such flights (outside the “share cost” private operations set out in CAR 2(7A)) and meets the other requirements in CAR 262AM(7).

As Mr Hempel still holds a flight instructor (aeroplane) rating he is authorised to conduct conversion training in relation to aeroplanes of which he holds an endorsement.

You also ask: “For what period you envisage that a history of compliance must be established in order to reasonably satisfy you as regards the issue of a commercial licence etc?”

There is no fixed period of disqualification before a person whose licences have been cancelled can reapply. Where a licence has been cancelled on the basis the holder is not a “fit and proper person” it is for that person to demonstrate to CASA they are now a fit and proper person by, for example, re-emergence of their former good character, honesty and history, or other activities involving aviation or safety generally, attending courses, providing lectures etc, and obtaining references from persons prepared to verify their alleged change of character.


Regardless of the fact that he wasn't a paid up member of the warbirds, to a person like Barry that letter would be as good as a 'green light' for ops in his Yak that he was ever likely to get!

From the regulator's point of view that letter makes it pretty hard to escape 'strict liability' in this matter but they will try!

[aroa]

Sarcs.. roger that . Just got in for QPS file OK this try.

From the letter extract re Hempels PPL.... the last para about "not fit and proper" and how you remake yourself to be so..all looks a bit weird to me.
JQ would be interested !
On what legal basis can you define or prove "the re-emergence of yr former good character, honesty and commitment to aviation safety".

And this is from the outfit that shows time and again these attributes are lacking in themselves ! :mad:
Takes one to know one does it?:confused:

[Kharon]

SARCS/ AROA: both good catches. A reasonable man (or mannette) would have to wonder just what the hell are CASA are trying to cover up or protect. The Coroner should open the gates and let the QPS do a full investigation; soup to nuts. This getting bizarre, Quadrio hung, drawn and quartered on the most questionable, flimsy evidence; Hempel against solid evidence, a slap on the wrist. WTF.

Once again we find ourselves at the CASA door asking questions. It's getting to be a repeat pattern, like holding, round and round it goes. Same old pony pooh, different day.

[gobbledock]

Note : Michael Quinn DCEO CASA did not respond to a written request from SC Bourke. ( I wonder why ever not? when did Quinn depart the realms of power, anyone remember)?Herr Quinn 'walked the green mile' on 29/01/2010. Oh my so many memories, so much activity at that time around the halls of Fort Fumble. At the time Micky was being a naughty boy :=

http://craziestgadgets.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/vacu-vin-pineapple-slicer1.jpg

[blackhand]

GD, surely not the same Quinn who is the hero of Senate Hearing?

[gobbledock]

GD, surely not the same Quinn who is the hero of Senate Hearing?Indeed it is dear Blackie, the one and only!
He has been itching to get square with the Skull. What better way to get even? Micky didn't leave Fort Fumble of his own volition that is for certain. There were many many 'things' going on behind closed doors, however I won't divulge publicly for legal reasons, however those in the know are very much aware of the shennanigans that were going on within the Temple of Safety!

[aroa]

Wised up thereon with the QPS report. Excellent work, that man.:ok:

No elephant stamps for the regulator tho.:{

Interested in 32.5...!!
CASA produced a brief of evidence with a view of prosecuting the Hemple Co. CEO and CP.."with inciting BH to fly commercial ops while not the holder of a CPL..." Que?
CDPP.(Been dudded before) . NO prosecution as no proof of intention re the act leading to the crash.

Damn, says CASA why wasnt that a rule of "strict liability":{
Dont have to prove intent..so yr a criminal if you just forgot or accidently or inadvertently breached without deliberate intent.
Or in this case just let BH go off and do what he does.

Its a weird and wonderful legal world out there, so just remember that all you criminals that havent been sprung yet.

And those at/on LSD are master tricksters at the " We'll getcha game".:mad:

[Horatio Leafblower]

LBH send message to new big chief when he move into Roma St lodge.

This indian ask:

"How?"

[Fantome]

SCRAMBLED .. .. . . have sit-down . . .. . have pow-wow

This quote is taken off the Memorial Wall dedicated to the Women and Men who lost their lives to the Salem Witch hunt mania of the 17th century.

I know it is not a Native American oriented quote, but in the air of potential "witch hunts" going on today, spurred on by some christian fundamentalists trying to ban non-christian worshipping on military bases and elsewhere, I thought it was appropriate. If they get their way, not only will Pagans and Wiccans suffer, but Native Americans following their own paths, and Muslims, and Jews, etc., until no one is left...





My Face


My face is a mask I order to say nothing
About the fragile feelings hiding in my soul.



-Glenn Lazore (Mohawk)


Words of Wisdom




The American Indian is of the soil, whether it be the region of forests, plains, pueblos, or mesas. He fits into the landscape, for the hand that fashioned the continent also fashioned the man for his surroundings. He once grew as naturally as the wild sunflowers, he belongs just as the buffalo belonged....



Out of the Indian approach to life there came a great freedom, an intense and absorbing respect for life, enriching faith in a Supreme Power, and principles of truth, honesty, generosity, equity, and brotherhood as a guide to mundane relations.



You have noticed that everything an Indian does is in a circle, and that is because the Power of the World always works in circles, and everything tries to be round..... The Sky is round, and I have heard that the earth is round like a ball, and so are all the stars. The wind, in its greatest power, whirls. Birds make their nest in circles, for theirs is the same religion as ours....



Even the seasons form a great circle in their changing, and always come back again to where they were. The life of a man is a circle from childhood to childhood, and so it is in everything where power moves.




-Black Elk (Oglala) 1863-1950

[aroa]

Black Elk spoke well. ( Black Elk Speaks...good book ,too)
But along came the !*$##@*!! whitemen from CASA that speak with forked tongue, and kill off everything.:mad:
Their symbol is also circular...a big black fundamental hole.
Way past time for smoking out ceremony.:ok: Big time.

[Horatio Leafblower]

Hm. White man magic. :suspect:

[gobbledock]

New Big Chief Stewie is good friend of Little Bighorn for long time and live in same village many years ago. He listen on "wire that carries voices."Word on street is that now Big Chief Footstool Bob gone new Chief Stewie not as keen on white man bureaucracy games and he even get rid of 6 Deputy Chiefs to make room for more Indians to pound beat.
Chief Footstool Bob retire with many white man monies from big retirement fund and government superannuation from many years loyally serving government Premier.
Chief Walking Stewie apparently known for not taking Kyote pooh from anybody, including Fort Fumble and ATSB. It still be unknown whether Chief Walking Stewie listen to Chief Sitting Duck Blackhand the postie bike mechanic from PNG or whether he tell Chief Sitting Duck Blackie to mind him business and go back home. Chief Stewie not take fools lightly so me thinks Chief Sitting Duck Blackie will not receive Chief Stewie's listening ear and will be told to go back to CAA in own country with lot of folding stuff and knowledge of SMS and he will receive many listening ears.

Chief Stewie also want to get him and QPS back to basics and not be involved in silly aeroplane accidents that take up time and resources to investigate. He want more QPS manning speed camera and making safe roads for all. He be wanting Fort Fumble's Chief Screaming Skull and ATSB Chief Beaker Gollum to look after large flying machines which sometime soar with the eagle then crash to earth in the dust like the Scorpion.

Chief Sitting Duck Blackie and Sqaw
http://www.websters-dictionary-online.org/images/wiki/wikipedia/en/thumb/9/9f/Nez-perce-couple-teepee-1900.jpg/222px-Nez-perce-couple-teepee-1900.jpg

[aroa]

Upfronter.
Any further on this or do we all have to wait until late November.?
Meanwhile re-feather yr arrows and sharpen yr tomahawks and pencils.

[Frank Arouet]

Someone speak with forked tongue!

[Fantome]

Came across this apt quote in the late Dick Nell's book, 'FLYING ON THE EDGE'.

(Funny, when you search "Dick Nell" on proone it comes up with a number of posts where you get Eskimo Nell references combined with Deadeye Dick.
Dick Nell would have chuckled his quiet appreciative laugh at that one.)

On page 171 of this excellent read Dick is visiting Ben Buckley. He asks Ben about his frequent court skirmishes with the department of uncivil aviation.

Ben . . . . "That's my best story. The department was really out to get me. They confiscated my licence but I refused to accept it. Eventually they caught me in the act and I had to line up in court. I was not really being a danger to anyone or even to myself. After all I had survived 23,000 hours flying in aviation's most dangerous occupation, so I must know something about safety."

"The department is supposed to regulate flying so it is safe. But their rules are inflexible and designed for the most inept people. They give no consideration to the fact that in some situations, with highly skilled pilots, the rules can be bent a little without danger to anyone. Some of these officials get a little bit of power and, in the name of safety, like to smash heads."

"Anyway, the trial was amazing. The prosecutor said that I was before the court for flying an Australian aircraft without a licence. My solicitor got up and asked them to explain the definition of an Australian aircraft. Well, would you believe it, they didn't know."

"They searched around in their papers and couldn't come up with the answer.
They lost the case and had to give my licence back. The joke of it all is, I found out later, the definition of an Australian aircraft is simply an aircraft registered in Australia."

[Brian Abraham]

Guy I worked with, Bob Stevens, wrote the biography of Ben, "Buckley's Chance". Wonderful story of how Ben was is front of the beak for low flying, under a bridge on the Princes Highway. Bens defence was the stanchions of the bridge were X feet apart, where as the aircrafts wing span was X+Y feet. Ergo aircraft wouldn't fit. Case dismissed. What wasn't said was that he had side slipped through.

Sorry for thread drift.

[601]

Sorry for thread drift.

No thread drift. I am sure BH would have done the same.

[Sarcs]

I noticed on the news that they stated that the ATSB and CASA won't be investigating this tragic crash...http://www.pprune.org/dg-p-general-aviation-questions/499529-light-plane-crash-west-brisbane.html...as the aircraft was experimental and not commercially registered. Oh well at least they're consistent!:{

It is interesting to note that this "classification" issue/discepancy was picked up by the FAA in the 2009 ICAO audit:
From para 3.3.21:

Under the ATSB guidelines, occurrences that may fit the ICAO Annex 13 definition of an aircraft accident or incident may not be investigated. There is however a process established for the acquisition of supplementary funding of accident investigations, when required, in the event of a major accident.

[Arm out the window]

They confiscated my licence but I refused to accept it.

But their rules are inflexible and designed for the most inept people. They give no consideration to the fact that in some situations, with highly skilled pilots, the rules can be bent a little without danger to anyone.

Dick Nell may have been a good bloke, good pilot and so on, but these kind of quotes are egotistical big-noting.

I just climbed up Mt Emerald this morning, where VH-ANQ speared in - lots of aeroplane pieces still scattered around 22 years later. I vaguely knew the story but, having just been to the crash site, looked up the BASI report. The pilot was last cleared to hold over Mareeba at 10000 ft due crossing traffic, but subsequently punched into the hillside (around 3500 AMSL) without further clearance in a controlled descent, killing the pilot and his 10 pax.

Given information about previous peculiarities of the aircraft's GPS system (errors reference the VOR) and the crash site reference the reported VOR radial from Biboohra, it sounds to me (although of course I can't be sure) that he was carrying out some kind of unpublished GPS descent to get into Mareeba - one of these 'highly skilled pilots bending the rules slightly'.

I'm not saying I never bent or broke a rule, but people who openly flout them worry me.

[Bedderseagle]

So somehow the next day in court scheduled for Monday 19 Nov, with 2 days notice, has been put forward a month "so that various parties can appear in person". Does the coroner realise what stresses this is putting on all closely involved/affected? No doubt a CAA stalling tactic to dilute the coroner proceedings. It is now well over 4 years since that fateful day 31/8/08 and we are still no further forward. How come ATSB was not asked to front and do a "please explain" . . . .
Nothing definite but "a suitable date at this stage is 17 December" .. . . . . . and so it goes on, and on and on . . . . we then have another wait before the actual coroner's findings will be presented. :rolleyes:

[Horatio Leafblower]

...Just to be clear AOTW, Dick was quoting Ben Buckley (to whom I was once likened by a certain pot, recently in charge of the RAAus Kettles and now with CASA).

Richard M. Nell Esq was, to my understanding, not cut from the same cloth as Ben Buckley and that is probably a good thing.

My defence of Mr Nell is not related to the fact the late Dick was a close friend (and neighbour) of my father in law and his daughter is an excellent photographer who shot my wedding. :ok:

I just wanted to Stampe on it before it got out of hand.

[Fantome]

The late fellow in the wheel house of ANQ was Stan (Sludge) Lindgren.

The less said about the man when not at the bar (social or litigious) probably the better. The fact remains he took with him a bunch of innocents that day.

[aroa]

Those who treat IFR or their own "special VFR" lightly should take a hike up Mt Emerald also....a very sobering place to visit, and demonstrates only too clearly the hardness of rock.:{

The crash site lies on the Bibhoora 170 radial..was the driver doing a home made let down TO (MBA) without first going to BIB and approaching the field FROM BIB to save a few minutes of charter time?
And without a topo picture in his head, the countryside rose up to smite them all wrongly.:mad:
Took a stereo pair of vertical photographs, the day after.
The popped out drag chute showed the direction of travel of the wreckage fan. One engine is down in a gully about 1/2 mile away.

Gives credence to the recent AvAd article re command responsibilities.!!

Meanwhile back on the thread.
Coroner Barnes should extricate the digit and get on with it. Tempus fugit etc

[Kharon]

Just a couple of stray thoughts; there is a new QPS Commissioner in the saddle whom, I hear is not the sort to put up with any sort of nonsense from CASA; I believe the John Quadrio story is about to go public with a vengeance; the Senate is on Monday and Wednesday.

Perhaps, there are simply not enough robust wagons left to circle; maybe the new Qld government has had a quite word and will not play at using their resources and officers to do the job that CASA and the ATSB should be doing. Maybe they have come close to getting to the bottom of the mystery and need time to develop evidence into charges. Who knows, I have no idea what this mess has cost the QPS but I'll bet a six pack they are over it.

This delay must be hard on the folk involved and affected, we can only hope that the result will justify the wait. But then again it is Barnes

[Bedderseagle]

Coroner Barnes should extricate the digit and get on with it. Tempus fugit etc

But then again it is Barnes

The Coroner is actually John Hutton.

[Arm out the window]

Just to be clear AOTW, Dick was quoting Ben Buckley

Fair enough, Horatio, I originally took them to be Dick's quotes.

[PAIN_NET]

We have decided to release part of a larger report as 'food for thought'. It is related to Coronial inquest into fatal aviation accidents. The report has been 'edited' to size and we apologise for the lack of 'in depth' commentary or continuity.

Download – Coroner_1. (http://www27.zippyshare.com/v/49175781/file.html)

P1 – a.k.a. P1
N.B. There are some noted, insignificant typographical errors in the abridged document; they will be corrected over the weekend, for the purists.

[Kharon]

BE #455 –"The Coroner is actually John Hutton". Furry muff BE, Mea culpa. I was thinking about "Barnstorming" and Dick, Buckley et al. Isn't Barnes the 'top dog' Coroner?. Anyway, I'd just had this; part of an email which probably a contributed:-

"Samantha Hare received an email (not even a phone call) today informing her that the hearing day on the 19th has been postponed. The bastardry of all involved knows no limits".

"Samantha obviously, is quite rattled by this. I advised that someone from her family or lawyer should immediately seek detailed reasons".
Barnes, Hutton whoever, it's still a fairly insensitive way to treat people. The good lady is obviously distressed, to get an email out of the blue on the deferring the gig for a month must be awful. I just hope it's the QPS and Coroner deferring in light of new evidence.

Maybe they have discovered why Hempel was such a protected species and Quadrio was victimised; aye, it's altogether a very strange tale.

[Sarcs]

Typical tactics from FF legal services, surely there will come a time when there will be someone in the Judiciary who will call it for what it is obfuscation, attempting to alter the course of justice or seeking to prejudice a legal process..etc..etc:yuk::yuk:

Kharon said:Furry muff BE, Mea culpa. It's amazing how often people have been uttering the term 'mea culpa' lately in relation to the bureau and regulator, here's Senator Edwards having a fair old crack at it in the Senate Inquiry:

Senator EDWARDS: Chair, since we have started, there has been mea culpa after mea culpa after mea culpa in this thing. Now you are hearing evidence for the first time of what is supposed to be a forensic investigation. I have heard that this report would be a joke in the international standing—if other reviewers were to have reviewed this. I think that the evidence that Senator Xenophon and Senator Fawcett are drawing out would suggest that. We haven't even got to the black box yet. Are you proud of this report?

Mr Dolan: I certainly would not hold this report as a benchmark. I am still satisfied that the key elements—

Senator EDWARDS: Three years in the making. Mea culpa after mea culpa. Are you proud of this report?

Mr Dolan: No, I am not proud of this report.

At least the 'Beaker' didn't deny 'mea culpa' whereas the FF motley crew deny everything in respect of fault, mistakes or blame...must be all that invaluable, taxpayer funded legal training they received from that 'learned gentleman' Mr Harvey QC.:ugh:

Perhaps on behalf of Samantha someone could ask at the Senate Inquiry how it is the ATSB justified a) not conducting this investigation; and b) not footing the bill for salvaging the aircraft (other than it saved them money)....I'd think even Coroner Hutton might be interested in those answers!

It would also be worth the Coroner's time to download that PAIN report which more than adequately displays what he is up against when it comes to the relevant aviation safety authorities, here's an example:
Limited release report. Coronial Analysis. Fatal accidents.

One of the twenty five categories in a research project undertaken by the PAIN_Net, a group of qualified, experienced aviation professionals focused on Coronial recommendations made in response to fatal accidents involving aircraft.

The purpose was, without bias, prejudice, fear or hidden agenda to achieve a clearly defined goal; the improvement of safety for the travelling public and the people who work within the aviation industry.

The approach to the construct has been simple, and asked only two questions.
a) Was the accident preventable ?.
b) What steps have been taken to prevent repetition in similar circumstances ?.
Research was conducted over a wide area including:-
c) Extensive operational background analysis, private anecdotal and publicly available data; and, considered expert opinion.

The intent was to present alternative or revised assessment of the accidents examined were, in the opinion of the group, the most probable and ranked contributing causes related to the incidents were not clearly defined or presented for Coronial considerations.

It became apparent during research into some thirty accidents that three powerful elements were effectively preventing satisfactory conclusions or clearly defining the contributing causes and pro active prevention made towards repeating the event.

We noted the following items:-
d) The frustration expressed by various Coroners through transcript trying to establish a clear picture through regulatory obfuscation, clouded evidence, a lack of clear technical knowledge and sound, independent operational advice.
e) The frustration expressed by the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) in almost every report examined, where sound advice and research has been belittled or waved aside as insubstantial.
f) The seemingly deeply entrenched culture of constant brinkmanship and
abrogation of responsibility existing between the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) and the ATSB.

These issues appear to often place the Coroner in the invidious position of having to make a choice between two, often different 'expert' opinions being presented.

The following incident reports are from a wide range available for consideration; they, we believe encompass the issues noted.

We believe that non of the promised legislation, against which many Coroners based their recommendations, is available for practical use.
We believe none of the Coroners recommendations have been adopted to produce, in any practical, meaningful way improved safety outcomes.

We believe that, in real terms, there has been no pro active approach to reduce the self evident risks or causal factors related to the provided reports.

We firmly believe that all the presented incidents still have the potential to be repeated.

The report editors.
:ok:

[TunaBum]

Breaking News - Coroner to reconvene hearing in late February or early March 2013 ......... :sad:

[Bedderseagle]

More breaking news . . . date now set for Monday March 18th, 2013 - just how long can they drag this out . . . . :ugh:

[Up-into-the-air]

Bedderseagle
New Date for Inquest Extension
More breaking news . . . date now set for Monday March 18th, 2013 - just how long can they drag this out . . . .

Roll on for a result!!!!

[Up-into-the-air]

Some reading:

2008 – Hemple – YAK in Brisbane (http://vocasupport.com/?page_id=173)

Look's like from the following, that there are two days given to finalise the coroners inquiry:



Coronial Inquests - March 2013 as at 28 February 2013

Inquest part heard: Hempel and Lovell;

Hempel, Barry Ian

Lovell, Ian Ross

Inquest scheduled for 18 Mar 2013 at 10am in Court 5 at BRISBANE,

Inquest scheduled for 22 Mar 2013 at 11am in Court 5 at BRISBANE

Coroner: John Hutton

Type: Violent or unnatural

The inquest will investigate:

The identity of the deceased, when where and how they died and what caused the death. The fact and circumstances surrounding the double fatal aviation crash.

Date of death: 31-Aug-08

Location: Pacific Ocean off Gold Coast

[Kharon]

The before and afters of this case are curiously intriguing. The transcript although difficult to plough through makes fascinating reading.

Will they recall the CASA manger who swooned away under examination?

Will they determine just how a guy with a known medical problem beat the CASA medico's and was granted any form of license whatsoever?

There is a chap, just recently spent an arm and a leg to be allowed to fly with diabetes and his case was supported by empirical evidence from the FAA, who have allowed diabetic pilots to fly (with some restrictions) for years, hell of a scrap. There was a case lately in the press of a chappie who was not allowed to operate a fair ground ride because of his alleged "epilepsy".

It's passing strange that Hempel beats the system and is allowed to operate under a watchful 'blind eye'. I would like to know how and why this occurred, forget the circus afterwards for a while, that's a story for a rainy day.

Waiting, waiting.......

[Sarcs]

There is no doubt that the QPS Forensic Crash Unit did an exemplary job (under controversial and testing circumstances) of investigating and producing a final report for the Coroner.:ok:

However there are still a number of questions surrounding the matter that the Coroner still deserves answers for. Some of these questions test the veracity and what would appear to be ulterior motives of Fort Fumble and to a lesser extent the ATSB.:=

So lets start the ball rolling with the QPS report pg 43-44 which deals with the bureau’s decision not to investigate:

http://i1076.photobucket.com/albums/w448/PAIN_00123/Hempel_ATSB_zps4e57b2d5.png
http://i1076.photobucket.com/albums/w448/PAIN_00123/Hempel_ATSB2_zpsa000e1ed.png

Terminology, investigation procedures and deciding whether to investigate (http://www.atsb.gov.au/about_atsb/investigation-procedures.aspx)

NB It is interesting to note that the QPS interpreted this accident as falling into a level 3 or ‘commercial fare paying operations’ and the bureau’s ADG lists fatalities at number 2.:ugh:

Some questions then: Q1) Was this decision by the ATSB in contravention to their (largely abrogated by notified differences) obligations to ICAO Annex 13 Chapter 5 para 5.1….“5.1 The State of Occurrence shall institute an investigation into the circumstances of the accident and be responsible for the conduct of the investigation, but it may delegate the whole or any part of the conducting of such investigation to another State by mutual arrangement and consent. In any
event the State of Occurrence shall use every means to facilitate the investigation.”

Ok clear as mud?? So let’s add in the notified difference that (I believe?) was current at the time (not the 2011 version which would have allowed them total lack of accountability to para 5.1)… “ 5.1 In respect of ultralights and sport aviation, for example, microlights, gyrocopters, gliders and hang gliders, investigations will be conducted only if benefits to future safety are evident and resources allow for such investigation.

Remarks: Australia has limited resources for accident and incident investigation and safety studies including database analysis. It is often the case that investigation of incidents or safety deficiencies involving regular public transport aircraft yield greater future safety benefit than investigation of sport aviation occurrences. Priority is given to the safety of the fare-paying public.”

The QPS report would also appear to show that the QPS FCU officers were under the impression that this was a ‘discontinued investigation’ by the ATSB as per section 21 of the TSI Act, which reads:
21 Investigations
(1) Subject to section 22:
(a) the ATSB may investigate any transport safety matter; and
(b) the ATSB must investigate a transport safety matter if
directed in writing by the Minister to do so.
Note: See also section 11, which puts constitutional limits on the exercise of
powers and functions under this Act.
(2) The ATSB may discontinue an investigation at any time.
(3) The ATSB must, within 28 days of discontinuing an investigation,
make publicly available, by electronic or other means, a statement
setting out the reasons for discontinuing the investigation.

So..Q2) Where is the ‘publicly available’ statement that sets out the ‘reasons for discontinuing the investigation’?:cool:

NB You will also remember that Senator Fawcett pointed out to Beaker (in the first public hearing of the Senate inquiry AAI Pel-Air) that although Beaker was pleading bureau overload of investigations and limited resources in 2008 there was in fact an under spend on the ATSB budget!

Ok so there’s two questions for the Coroner…and I’m off doing a ‘Kelpie’!:O

Ps next I think will be the FF bail out of the parallel investigation??:ok:

[halfmanhalfbiscuit]

NB You will also remember that Senator Fawcett pointed out to Beaker (in the first public hearing of the Senate inquiry AAI Pel-Air) that although Beaker was pleading bureau overload of investigations and limited resources in 2008 there was in fact an under spend on the ATSB budget!

I wonder if the underspend resulted in exec bonuses?

Also, just reflecting on Senate Inquiry , Barrier and this thread. They say an awful lot. I know some say tautological nonsense, but mke up your own mind.

[Sunfish]

One could wonder if one of the reasons the ATSB may discontinue and investigation "at any time" might be if the resulting report may be inimical to CASA or the Minister?

If that is the case then IMO the FAA/ICAO may be forced to downgrade Australia at the first obvious occurence of such an event.

[Volumex]

From the Pel-Air Senate Committee 28 Feb 2013:

Senator FAWCETT: At the end of a fairly long and convoluted process, the highest risk you would attribute to the safety outcome for the patient, their family, their nurse and their doctor on an EMS operation like this is fairly low because of the process. I, personally, have some concerns with that approach, but I hear that is the process you are working with.
I take you to annex 13 from ICAO. Are you familiar with their definition of standards versus recommended practices?
Mr Dolan: Yes, I am
Senator FAWCETT: So are you familiar with the use of the world 'shall' or 'should'?
Mr Dolan: Yes, I am familiar with italics as opposed to standard type, and various other things in the standard.
Senator FAWCETT: In paragraph 5.4 it says:
The accident investigation authority shall have independence in the conduct of the investigation and have unrestricted authority over its conduct … The investigation shall include:
a) the gathering, recording and analysis of all available information on that accident or incident;
Mr Dolan: 'Shall normally include', yes.
Senator FAWCETT: No, it says:
The investigation shall include:
a) the gathering, recording and analysis of all available information on that accident or incident;
There is no 'should', no 'normally'—it says 'shall'.
Mr Dolan: The version I have, which is the version promulgated on 18 October 2010, with additions that have been updated, says, 'The investigation shall'—and I agree with 'shall'—'normally include …'
Senator FAWCETT: It appears mine is not the current version, so I will stand corrected on that.
Mr Dolan: 'Shall' is the language.


:ugh:

Good to see that Captain Courageous is highly skilled at playing one upmanship with the Senator. It is scandalous that in a short period of time the ATSB has fallen from being a highly respected authority in Aviation safety to a "Yes Minister" operation that is only good at playing wordgames with the Senate inquiry.

[Kharon]

Nicely done Sarcs - http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/thumbs.gif

Quite apart from sympathy for the families, you have to spare a though for the poor old Coroner. How would you like to have to unscramble this mess and deliver what will be an important decision?. Tuff stuff.

Perhaps one of our more erudite commentators with some legal savvy could assist here. Where do the Coroners boundaries end?. What I'm trying to say is, do the 'after' the event operations and pantomimes matter to the Coroner?

Does the lack of CASA/ATSB investigations affect the eventual Coronial decision about the how and the why of the deaths, even if the reports are flawed or incomplete or just not done?

Would the Coroner need to care – or be interested?

There are many what could be described as "side" issues; there's the tantalizing whiff of "conflict of interest" with QBE and CASA legal getting fairly chummy and discussing a possible 'fraudulent claim' by Hempels. Is this the Coroners concern?

Then there is the saga of the "phantom" witness which is passing strange, indeed. Seems a pilot was doing a float plane ticket and witnessed the whole thing, but was reluctant to chat with the CASA investigator. Now it appears (not confirmed) that no one could find him. No one except the CFI and the CEO of Warbirds who advised the CASA. So, the 'phantom' disappeared into the mists, without ever being at least named for the Coroner to have a word with. Does this matter to a Coroner?

I ask because there are some strange and wonderful things associated with this episode but just how they impact on the Coroner and how the system works is a mystery to me. But when it quacks and waddles like duck, I could be excused for thinking it is a duck.

[Jabawocky]

Was the senator homing in on the FDR and CVR?

Why are these still in the ocean when they are easy to get? :ugh::ugh:

[Jamair]

Why are they still lying on the ocean floor? Because the longer they stay there, the less likely it is they will stay intact and therefore the less likely it is that they will provide objective evidence of what really occurred in the latter stages of that flight; thereby relieving ATSB from the need to explore those realities as compared to the piffle that was published. My opinion.:ugh:

[my oleo is extended]

Toejamair, spot on my friend! It's amazing what 2 or 3 years of salt water and shifting tides will do to your evidence! The ATSBeaker may not have initially thought of keeping the beakerboxes submerged for that reason but I am pretty sure that it didn't take long before somebody there realised that a retrieval operation was best not to be undertaken.
The ATSBeaker is a shell of what it was. Beaker and his mii mi-ing has done damage beyond what words can describe. Maybe Team America will graciously set up a branch of the NTSB in Australia to do the work that 'The Fanulous Beaker Brothers' can't do??

[Kharon]

Sec (Confidential).
To : the higher up Jobsworths.
From : a slippery pole contender.

Mate, There is a call on Pprune for a great underwater salvage fund to be initiated – (Sunny for Chairman). Their purpose would be to complete underwater evidence recovery.

This would deprive the Navy of some great training of course. It is a preferable to have a self funding, user pays system. That way budget monies could be reserved for important things like soft white paper, heated chamber pots and increased legal fees. They would have to supply the crew (investigators and auditors) though. As you are aware the official ones are terribly busy attending Coroners Inquests, Senate Inquiries and other hugely expensive functions which are conducted in defence of our realm. Another great side benefit would be the bonus system could be well and truly milked. Just think of the perceived "savings", we'd make mincemeat out of that mob at Estimates.

I am on the second floor at Brisvegas this week if you want to coffee (Thursday if you want to use your Gloria Jeans voucher).

Best etc. A. Bright spark. (wannabe Contender).

[Sarcs]

I am on the second floor at Brisvegas this week if you want to coffee (Thursday if you want to use your Gloria Jeans voucher).

Very cheeky "K", love it!:E

At first I had to check the title of the thread when people were talking about the non-salvaging of stuff on the ocean floor but...but then after reading some more of the QPS coroner report it hit me like déjà vu, here's a couple more pages from the report:

http://i1076.photobucket.com/albums/w448/PAIN_00123/Hempel_Salvage_issue_zps23e64e7c.png
http://i1076.photobucket.com/albums/w448/PAIN_00123/Hempel_Salvage_issue2_zpsfe8468c5.png
http://i1076.photobucket.com/albums/w448/PAIN_00123/Hempel_Salvage_issue3_zpse1c9fe94.png
http://i1076.photobucket.com/albums/w448/PAIN_00123/Hempel_Salvage_issue4_zps9a1a72b3.png

See what I mean..there's even a link back to the 'brothers in arms' in certain other passages of the report.:cool:

And the end result?? Despite the best intentions of the Coroner...err the Yak never got lifted and the Coroner is subsequently left with an element of doubt about that FOD barrier and bell crank area as the QPS divers couldn't quite get inside the area of concern to take some phots. The phots they did take were examined by an ATSB boffin who couldn't make a definitive yes or no...all very untidy from the Coroner's point of view!:ugh:

Q/ What's 30 grand? A single first class return ticket to Montreal with 5 star accommodation perhaps?? Nah probably have to slum it in 3 star I'd say!:{

[PAIN_NET]

The boys thought that some may like to read the -QPS report (http://www71.zippyshare.com/v/90898641/file.html)-to the Hempel Coroner. The file is 45 MB and may take a minute or two download. From Zippyshare. Please only use the "Download Now" button in the top right hand corner of the page.

P26. a.k.a. 36-24-36. http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/wink2.gif

[Sarcs]

Onwards and down to the murky underbelly with tales of tragedy and parallel universes....down..down..down!!:E

Q/ Why is it that anytime FF are involved in parallel investigations into accidents there is always a whiff of rank, fetid, corruption and bulldust?:yuk::yuk:

So FF involvement in the Hempel investigation, pg 45 & pgs 121-123 of the QPS report: http://i1076.photobucket.com/albums/w448/PAIN_00123/Hempel_CASA1_zps015a1dd3.png

http://i1076.photobucket.com/albums/w448/PAIN_00123/Hempel_CASA2_zpsd1cca5f2.png

http://i1076.photobucket.com/albums/w448/PAIN_00123/Hempel_CASA3_zps7e89cdb4.png
http://i1076.photobucket.com/albums/w448/PAIN_00123/Hempel_CASA4_zps4e0b936d.png

So questions for the Coroner…hmm where do you want to start…anyone???:cool:

I find it somewhat bemusing that the further this Hempel saga went on the more and more people from FF got involved, last count I was over twenty and some of those included flying fiend doing the Samba with a QBE PI to MQ. At least MQ had the good sense to not reply… “stay clear of that Mick old son just say the letter got lost in the mail!” :ugh::ugh:

Perhaps another chapter in the ‘Shelfware Chronicles’ is almost complete??:ok:

[my oleo is extended]

Sarcs, robust research as always. Lutze saw the light and abandoned the S.S CASA. My understanding with this investigation was it was stressful enough, and combined with the challenge of being directed by Quinn, plus having Vaughan involved and subsequent 'interesting dynamics' of Vaughan and Quinn together. She could see what the future held at FF and bailed. Smart girl.
Then add into the mix chief whip The Grima Reaper and you can just see how this saga was going to end in tears.
J Jones was an interesting character, my understanding was he too was sick of all the FF pony poo and bailed before things hit rock bottom.

Yes, once again the Hempel investigation contained all the finesse of a Black Sabbath concert, and in standard CASA fashion the loop remains open and a trail of pony manure lays along CASA's path.
Poor old QLD coppers having to deal with the regulatory monolith.

'Safe skies weren't Hempel skies'

[Kharon]

Hempel: No MR x 4, No medical x 5, Maintenance directive x 2, No record TIS x 1, No log book 1. Fined $16,000 (< $4000) and to be of good behaviour for three years.

Quadrio was hammered out of existence for a lot less than this and yet Johns claims it was a 'group' decision to give Hempel a licence but goes on to admit that most of his statements were a 'nonsense' (before swooning away). A thing of wonder to me how the CASA mind works. Then, from the QPS report, there's this puzzle to think on:-

Oct 13. 2008 08:08 – Jones to ?? missing email.

Oct 14. 2008. 07:54 – Crocker (Warbirds) to Jones – CFI Sydney Aerobatics, possibility of a second witness.

Oct 14 2008. 07:57 - Jones to Crocker, re contact details of witness.

Oct 13. 2008. 08:30 - Jones to Crocker – Email missing.

Oct 14. 2008. 08:10. - Yvette Lutz – Crocker with 'witnesses' and offers of his divers to retrieve the wreck.

No further correspondence available; nil for Bourke.

Oct 14. 2008.-14:10. - Bourke to Jones - wants the witness to speak suggests offering a $2250 fine for not helping an investigation may persuade at least one Crocker witness to 'have a chat". No further news of 'witnesses?' from this point.

Oct 20. 2008 – 16:59 – Vaughan to Tredrea and Anastasi. Initial contact and high speed hand off of QBE issues. - (Smart).

Oct 20. 2008 – 17:19 – Tredrea to Anastasi and Vaughan – Asks Anastasi to deal. Tredrea rapid hands off QBE contact - (Fast flick).

Oct 21. 2008 09:10 – Anastasi to Tredrea and Vaughan. Hempel insurance matters discussed further with a 'very cooperative' QBE. No further correspondence available on this matter.

Aye, it's all passing strange. http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/confused.gif

[Sarcs]

Kharon said (my bold):Hempel: No MR x 4, No medical x 5, Maintenance directive x 2, No record TIS x 1, No log book 1. Fined $16,000 (< $4000) and to be of good behaviour for three years.

Quadrio was hammered out of existence for a lot less than this and yet Johns claims it was a 'group' decision to give Hempel a licence but goes on to admit that most of his statements were a 'nonsense' (before swooning away).Ah yes to read the FF Hempel ‘Show Cause’ document attached to the QPS Coroners report leaves one to think that big bad Bazza was a ‘protected species’.:*

Personally I think it is a classic case of FF playing the man and not the ball:=. One could argue the point for FF that Bazza was a ‘repeat offender’, who had been thumbing his nose at the authorities for decades and therefore FF were well justified in attacking the man.:D

However if we were to take the present case that is in the public arena i.e. Barrier and time travel back a decade and then replace the name to Hempel and say to FF legal…“go your hardest at shutting down the Hempel AOC”…well would Lovell maybe have been alive today as a consequence?:confused:

Going off the bold bits in Kharon’s post and given that these were just a sampling of a litany of non-compliances and priors by BH (some of which was admitted to by BH) it would appear that FF had very damning documented evidence (for a change!). The seriousness of these documented non-compliances etc..etc far outweighs anything presented thus far in the Barrier case.:ugh:

Yet Barrier’s AOC is permanently cancelled :yuk::yuk: on far less alleged misdemeanours and with total disregard by FF on ‘rule of law’ principles.:(

So it isn’t too much of a stretch to imagine that FF could have pulled BH’s AOC and put BH out of business with a legitimate legally justified case i.e. adhering to ‘rule of law' and the 'MLR' principles.:ok:

Therefore FF could (a) have stopped the means for BH to fly illegal psuedo commercial operations under the cover of the Hempel AOC; and (b) Samantha Hare wouldn’t have seen an advertisement for Hempel’s adventure flights; and (c) not have bought the ticket that put her fiancé in the back seat of BH’s Yak that fateful, tragic day.:{

Kharon said: “A thing of wonder to me how the CASA mind works.”:E

Hmm…Hempel…Pel-Air…Barrier…Hempel…Pel-Air...Barrier (I know there’s more but these matters are here and now i.e. current) all similar in some ways but all handled by FF with apparently different ‘modi operandi’…yes indeed Kharon …“it's all passing strange.”???:p

[tail wheel]

Did Mr Dolan mislead Senator Fawcett?

From ICAO Annex 13 (http://www.airsafety.com.au/trinvbil/C619icao.pdf):

General
5.4 The accident investigation authority shall have independence in the conduct of the investigation and have unrestricted authority over its conduct, consistent with the provisions of this Annex. The investigation shall include:
a) the gathering, recording and analysis of all available information on that accident or incident;
b) if appropriate, the issuance of safety recommendations;
c) if possible, the determination of the causes; and
d) the completion of the final report.
When possible, the scene of the accident shall be visited, the wreckage examined and statements taken from witnesses.

[Creampuff]

Is the 9th edition, dated 2001, the current edition of Annex 13?

[Volumex]

Current edition is 10th edition, dated 2010.

Annex 13 Aircraft Accident and Incident Investigation. - ENGLISH - Printed - ICAO Online Store (http://store1.icao.int/index.php/annex-13-aircraft-accident-and-incident-investigation-english-printed.html)

[my oleo is extended]

Volumex, can you please email that link to Beaker?

Tail wheel, I believe M Dolan also said 'mi mi mi mi mi'.

[Sarcs]

Good catch Volumex! :ok: Err creamy you know what that means?? I do believe Mr Dolan owes the good Senator an apology!:E

ps and Taily your link was the relevant Annex 13 edition for Hempel, again good catch!:D

[halfmanhalfbiscuit]

Small 'r' regulator
Hempel
Pel Air
Allegedly - don't want any industry complaints.

Big 'R' regulator
Quadrio
Barrier
Tautology, delusional, ills of society.

[Creampuff]

So rather than continue on the basis of mere innuendo, why doesn’t someone post copies of the primary material?

The edition of Annex 13 at the link in TW’s post covers amendments 1 to 10 inclusive. The current edition has 3 more: 11, 12 and 13.

What did amendments 11, 12 and 13 to Annex 13 actually say, and when did each of those amendments actually take effect?

(Nobody would be silly enough to mistake the date of an edition for the date of effect of the various amendments, would they….?)

[Sarcs]

Okay Creamy I'll bite here's a link for Annex 13 9th edition with amendment 11 incorporated, which lists the effective date for the amendment as 13 July 2006:
http://www.cad.gov.rs/docs/udesi/an13_cons.pdf

So the next amendment we're interested in is amendment 12, so here is a link for Annex 13 10th edition, which lists the effective date for amendment 12A and 12B as 20 July 2009. However both 12A&B deal with (a) definitions of runway incursion incidents and (b) State safety programs and voluntary incident reporting systems...blahblah.

Which leaves amendment 13 which was effective on 12 July 2010 and was subsequently in edition 10. And this amendment would appear to have dealt solely with Chapter 5 'Investigations'.

http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=4&sqi=2&ved=0CEQQFjAD&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bazl.admin.ch%2Fexperten%2Fregulation%2 F03080%2F03081%2Findex.html%3Flang%3Dit%26download%3DNHzLpZe g7t%2Clnp6I0NTU042l2Z6ln1ah2oZn4Z2qZpnO2Yuq2Z6gpJCDeoB9gWym1 62epYbg2c_JjKbNoKSn6A--&ei=2O1CUc_FGY3ylAWN2oC4Bg&usg=AFQjCNGTS6fk5q9QAZrp1TR7IhRhqBJO0w&sig2=_1jT_Bd29nwvRzZ-gld_fg

Anyway I'll let you do the reading and if you still aren't happy well I'll let you track down a Annex 13 9th edition with the amendment 12 incorporated...:E

[my oleo is extended]

Halfmanhalftautological,

'Ills Of Society' is catchy. Sounds like a mi mi movie about a serial killer or something of that nature. Definitely a horror movie featuring death, destruction, and rape....or is that what's being allowed to happen to G.A?
And,
'Tautology'. That could be the sequel movie to Groundhog Day, except in 'Tautology' every day that you wake up the industry is still copping the same pineappling by that big (R)egulator....then again 'Tautology' sounds like 'Anthology', a pretty good Peter Frampton album!

[Sarcs]

Anyway annex 13 versions aside the writer of the QPS Coroner's report points the way and reveals some serious flaws and possible breaches in both the bureau's and Fort Fumble's obligations to the ICAO annex 13, the TSI Act and the CAA.:rolleyes:

1) Despite notified differences to Annex 13 para 5.1 by the bureau in 2011 at the time of this accident in 2008 the bureau were obligated to notify ICAO and investigate this accident. Why they didn't is open to conjecture but the notified difference to 5.1 at the time just does not cut the mustard:
5.1 In respect of ultralights and sport aviation, for example, microlights, gyrocopters, gliders and hang gliders, investigations will be conducted only if benefits to future safety are evident and resources allow for such investigation.

Remarks:
Australia has limited resources for accident and incident investigation and safety studies including database analysis. It is often the case that investigation of incidents or safety deficiencies involving regular public transport aircraft yield greater future safety benefit than investigation of sport aviation occurrences. Priority is given to the safety of the fare-paying public.

And regardless of whether the bureau could justify not investigating this accident (and as SC Anderson points out in his remarkable report) the bureau were still obligated under section 21 of the TSI Act to:


(3) The ATSB must, within 28 days of discontinuing an investigation,
make publicly available, by electronic or other means, a statement


setting out the reasons for discontinuing the investigation.

NB There is no provision within the act to not even start an investigation where there has been a fare paying pax fatality.:=

2) There is no notified difference to annex 13 para 4.1 in not notifying to ICAO the circumstances of this fatal accident. Yet as this accident is not listed on the ATSB investigation database one can only assume that ICAO haven't been notified.

3) Although there is a notified difference to para 7.1 of annex 13...


7.1 Australia will comply with the standard for the more complex accidents. However, for some less complex investigations Australia does not prepare a Preliminary Report.
Remarks:



The difference arises predominantly in relation to domestic occurrences, particularly those of a less complex nature, where Australia does not prepare a Preliminary Report.

...I would argue that this accident had enough complexities and murky layers to warrant the bureau to at least write a preliminary report but yet again it never happened.:ugh:


Thank god for the Coroner's benefit that SC Anderson wrote an exemplary report!:ok:

Hmmm doing a "Kelpie"...nighty nite!:E

[halfmanhalfbiscuit]

Sarcs...I would argue that this accident had enough complexities and murky layers to warrant the bureau to at least write a preliminary report but yet again it never happened.

This is an interesting point regarding not investigating as not a priority. Despite Ian having put his trust in Hempel and being a fare paying passenger on a VH registered aircraft under casa approval. But if the ATSB had investigated they may have found the issues with casa oversight. Consequently Pel Air may not have happened?!

You also have the Barrier MD using phrases like 'personal vendetta by casa'. This sounds like bullying and harassment rather than regulatory oversight!

[Kharon]

You could forgive Barrier's DK for being a little confused and a tad angry though, a little old ladies diary and a disgruntled x employee can apparently galvanise aviations new "tough boy" to show a 'no nonsense' approach to these 'rogue' operators. Much robust posturing and muscle flexing for Barrier, yet the same outfit cleared Pel Air back to operations in less than a fortnight (over Christmas). Then there's John Quadrio stood scratching his arse, wondering "why me" when Hempel strolls through a panel of peers and trades on – regardless.

Consistent?; - "Oh yes Senator, we are consistently above the law, beyond reproach and pretty much consistently do as we damn well please so there; and anyway, we all come from the same training/finishing course; – Admin for Reptiles beyond reproach."

Aircraft ? http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/confused.gif ...– what aircraft?, thought we got the lot.

[Sarcs]

All good points that you make Biccy and Kharon! :D
HMHB said: This is an interesting point regarding not investigating as not a priority. Despite Ian having put his trust in Hempel and being a fare paying passenger on a VH registered aircraft under casa approval.NB I also believe (although I could stand corrected) that the Yak-52’ s MAUW is above 2250kg which is an ICAO basic requirement for notifying accidents or serious incidents and submitting a preliminary report to ICAO (reference Annex 13 paragraphs 4.1&7.1).:ugh:

Perhaps the Coroner and SC Anderson would be interested in how the ATSB listed this accident on PG 6 of the ATSB weekly summary w/e 05/09/2008 (my bold):
http://www.atsb.gov.au/media/27915/aws050908.pdf
Occurrence Date: 31/08/2008
ATSB Reference Number: 200805512
Occurrence Category: Accident
ATSB Investigation: No
Location:Gold Coast Aerodrome, 330° M 28Km
State: QLD
Aircraft Manufacturer: YAKOVLEV
Aircraft Model: AIRCRAFT FACTORIES YAK-52
Operation Type: Private
Operation Sub Type: Unknown
Airspace Type: OCTA
Airspace Class: G
ATSB Summary: It was reported that the aircraft impacted into water. The wreckage was recovered and both POB sustained fatal injuries.

Passing strange (yet again) that the Coroner and Senior Constable are under the impression that this accident was categorised as commercial and that Ian Lovell was a fare paying pax??

Oh and the Coroner might also be interested to know that apparently the "wreckage was recovered"??:E

Next..part 3 for Questions for the Coroner..remember the next inquest hearing is Monday morning!:cool:

[Up-into-the-air]

Here's the bit sarcs:


Appendix 8 to Chapter 3
Accident and Incident Notification and Reporting Guidance

1.0 Introduction

In accordance with Annex 13 Aircraft Accident and Incident Investigation, States are required to report to ICAO information on all aircraft accidents which involve turbojet-powered aeroplanes or aircraft having a maximum certificated take-off mass of over 2 250 kg. The Organization also gathers information on aircraft incidents considered important for safety and accident prevention. For ease of reference, the term ―occurrence‖ refers to both accidents and inciden


Full read at:

http://vocasupport.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/ICAO-DOC-9859-SMM-3rd-Ed-2012.pdf

[Kharon]

Sarcs # 465 –"Perhaps the Coroner and SC Anderson would be interested in how the ATSB listed this accident on PG 6 of the ATSB weekly summary w/e 05/09/2008 (my bold):"
This is what I was trying to get at, by asking where does the Coroner start and finish?

It's naughty that the ATSB is (quite legally) ducking and weaving it's ICAO obligations; it probably cost a fortune to have our unique 'exemptions' drafted and accepted, but is sorting this, or any of the other let's call them 'investigative anomalies' a job for the Coroner ??......

The Coroner is probably aware of the chronology; in 2007 Vaughan was not messing about, there was a strong push against Hempel (Notice to Cancel.etc.). Johns, in 2008 was also serious, but somehow the problems melted away and Hempel was essentially turned loose and managed to gain a lot more latitude than many other similar cases received on a lot less factual, tested evidence. Why? remains a mystery. This should, I imagine, be important to a Coroner. If BH had been 'stopped cold' then, perhaps the event may not have occurred.

Technically, this was a simple, bread and butter investigation. Why did it become an epic, 'stadium spectacular' with a cast of thousands? Do the maths, there was more money spent involving up to 20 CASA and who knows how many ATSB to deny that that the event is in any way significant; certainly more than the cost of a fairly straight forward 'barge lift' of the wreck. It troubles me that there was a lot more spent avoiding the 'issues' than a routine investigation by CASA and ATSB would have ever cost. But again, is this for the Coroner??. I imagine it would be if the 'aviation investigation', such as it was, has been compromised.

The Coroner and a couple of the Counsel seem to pointed in the right direction, despite the 'sotto voce' distractions. The QPS were thanked by the Coroner, his comments on the rest are still in abeyance.

[Sarcs]

Yes UITA they’re plenty of indicators that Beaker and co have gone to a lot of trouble to subvert their obligations to ICAO. And just like FF they’ve now got the obfuscation in the form of notified differences to Annex 13 down to a fine art.:ugh:

Which means that although Oz is a signatory to ICAO we are merely paying lipservice to the principles and charter of the Chicago Convention 1944. This appears to be so ATSBeaker can pick and choose accidents/incidents that they investigate or notify purely for fiscal or politically sensitive reasons not for the stated reasons of improving and mitigating risk in aviation safety.

Do we really want our once small but proud aviation safety watchdog to go down the FF path of thumbing it’s nose at ICAO?:{

Anyway back to the thread…and to perhaps lead on from Kharon’s very insightful post.:D

Although FF ended up truncating their investigation into the Hempel accident (for as yet unexplained reasons) doesn’t change the fact that as a federal law enforcement agency they are obligated under AGIS 2003 or 2011 to manage, document and adhere to a set standard for an investigation (just like with Pel-Air and dare I say Barrier). This ‘standard’ is referred to throughout the CasA enforcement manual and the SOPs for upholding this standard is apparently contained within flying fiend’s invisible ‘Investigator’s Manual’.:cool:

Extracts from the enforcement manual:


“11.5.1.1 Initial steps (pg 11-4 enforcement manual)


If the relevant manager considers that there may be evidence of a breach then the first action to be taken is initiation of the CEP (see Chapters 2 and 3). It is only after discussion in this forum that a request for investigation should be made using form 333.


The tasked investigator will conduct an investigation to provide the Manager EPP with a report and recommendations in accordance with the procedures set out in the Investigators Manual which incorporates the Australian Government Investigations Standards. (Reference 11-4 enforcement manual.)


If a prima facie case exists and prosecution is considered, a Brief of Evidence will be compiled and submitted in accordance with the procedures set down in the Investigators Manual. Alternatively, on consideration of the investigator’s report, the Manager EPP may decide that the issue of an AIN is a more appropriate penalty. This will also be discussed as part of the CEP. (Reference 11-4 enforcement manual.)


11.5.2 Reporting The Investigators/Coordinator Investigations make entries on AIRS, on the ASIS database and on the Enforcement Action Register on the Enforcement Action eRooms.” (Note: This would be as per the AGIS 2003.)


“13.6.2 Staff Responsible

Inspectors.

At any time, where inspectors may be unsure of exhibit-handling procedures, advice should be sought from EPP.

Note: Investigators are also responsible for evidence/exhibits and should refer to the Investigators’ Manual. (reference 13-7 enforcement manual).

Note: For procedures for evidence and evidence handling (for Inspectors) refer to section 13 of enforcement manual. Investigators procedures are contained within the Investigators Manual.”

“3.7.1 Enforcement Policy and Practice Branch (EPP)

EPP is the focal point for linking all enforcement action and the Manager EPP is the contact point for the CEP.

In addition to its role in the development of CASA’s enforcement policies and practices, coordinating enforcement action and the conduct of investigations by investigators appointed under Part IIIA of the Civil Aviation Act, EPP also has responsibility for:

������ Issuing infringement notices

������ Administering the Demerit Points Scheme

������ Monitoring the Aviation Self-Reporting Scheme

������ Monitoring enforcement processes including compliance-related processes such as counselling.

While some CASA Part IIIA investigators are based in field offices, they are tasked by the Manager EPP, through the Coordinator, Investigations, to investigate complex matters that could result in a variety of outcomes, including referral to the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (CDPP). Because Part IIIA investigators are tasked on a centralised basis, all requests for their investigative assistance must be made to the Manager EPP or the Coordinator Investigations using form 333. Requests for the assistance of a Part IIIA investigator or the conduct of a Part IIIA investigation should only be made on the basis of a prior CEP consultation. (See Sections 3.4, 3.6.2 and 3.8).
Any general questions relating to enforcement matters should be referred to the Manager, EPP.”


“3.9 Requesting the Services of a Part lllA Investigator

The primary purpose of a Part lllA investigation is to establish the facts and circumstances that gave rise to the breach, by the gathering of information and evidence. This needs to be understood when requesting the assistance of a Part lllA investigator.

Requesting the assistance of a Part lllA investigator is NOT an initial step in relation to enforcement. While investigators undertake investigations that may result in referral of briefs to the CDPP, they also help managers in the collecting of information to support other enforcement responses such as administrative action and to support compliance-related action.

Before an investigation is requested, the operational/technical manager must first take part in the CEP to identify what the manager is trying to achieve, and to assess whether the services of an investigator are actually necessary. While investigators in the EPP Branch have specific powers under Part lllA of the Act in relation to entry and seizure of documents and while they may also be more familiar with the gathering of evidence and the investigative process generally, operational inspectors also have the capability to undertake many of the basic tasks of gathering information and evidence. (See Chapters 12, 13, 14 and 15)

Requests for Part lllA investigations are initiated by using form 333 after a CEP Meeting. (See also the flowcharts Coordinated Enforcement Process A and Coordinated Enforcement Process B.”

So questions for the Coroner:

Q/ Are the above requirements and documentation, as per the AGIS, contained within the 6 volumes of information FF passed onto the QPS?

Q/ Where is the CAsA accident investigation report and recommendations from the Part IIIA investigator for this accident?

Q/ Can the Coroner have a copy of the original form 333 (request for a Part IIIA investigator)?

Q/ As the CDPP prosecution against certain managers of Hempels has now been dropped can the Coroner now get a copy of the FF ‘brief of evidence’?

There’s a start…I’m off doing a Sundy Kelpie! :ok:

[601]

Johns, in 2008 was also serious, but somehow the problems melted away and Hempel was essentially turned loose

I believe about that time a CASA team from down south conducted an audit and determined the restrictions for the re-issue of the AOC.
One of the restrictions was that BH was not to have anything to do with the AOC or the operation.

[my oleo is extended]

Let me guess, it was the Sydney office who conducted the audit?

[Sarcs]

Let me guess, it was the Sydney office who conducted the audit?
That's gold Oleo! :ok: Although it does stand to reason as they are the experts on systems audits...hmm let me guess they brought there own portaloo??:E

One of the restrictions was that BH was not to have anything to do with the AOC or the operation. Fat lot of good that did when it came to restricting big bad Bazza!:ugh:

[TunaBum]

Pilot in fatal crash 'had brain injury' (http://www.google.com/url?sa=X&q=http://www.goldcoast.com.au/article/2013/03/18/448867_crime-and-court-news.html&ct=ga&cad=CAEQARgAIAAoATAAOABAqKaaigVIAVgBYgVlbi1BVQ&cd=_oC1eJJBWyY&usg=AFQjCNGQlVsUkGUpJJ8LarEN9HTtvtIdNg)

THE pilot of a plane which crashed in the ocean off the Gold Coast in 2008 had a history of seizure-like symptoms, a coronial hearing was told today.

Barry Ian Hempel flew a Yak-52 Warbird that crashed near South Stradbroke Island in August 2008, killing him and passenger Ian Ross Lovell.

The court was told Mr Hempel suffered a "severe brain injury" in 2001 and in 2002 was taken to hospital by ambulance on two occasions suffering symptoms which could have been seizures.

In 2005 neurologist Dr Ian Maxwell cleared Mr Hempel to fly, but he said he was unaware of his history.

"If I had that ambulance report I would have cancelled his licence immediately," he said.

[my oleo is extended]

It seems the only people unaware of Barry's 'interesting mental health issues' were Fort Fumble and Dr Maxwell!!
Just about everyone in GA around the nation knew about Barry.

Sarcs, did the Sydney office really bring a port a loo or was it a chamber pot (full of course).

[601]

Sydney office

Nope. Higher up the food chain.

[Frank Arouet]

In 2005 neurologist Dr Ian Maxwell cleared Mr Hempel to fly, but he said he was unaware of his history.

I recommended Mr Hemple consult Dr Maxwell after the same Doctor cleared me to fly, (after 8 years on non epalyptic incidence), and follow the same principle of time/and proof of non events. The simple fact was that I had a coma score of 13 + at all times and no documented loss of conscious ability.

Mr Hemple had a head injury that rendered him unconscious after his head was crushed in a large hangar door.

It would appear that Dr Maxwell was not privy to all the evidence.

I would suggest his protected status lay in his previous strange and documented activities which may have relevance to this incident if someone with the power was of a similar mind.

[Jabawocky]

Franks last paragraph


Wooooowwwww there... :eek:

I am sure many of us are joining the dots. If you had proof of this, I would suggest there are places for this.....but not here! Well not until tested in court.

Frank...I did not copy and paste just in case you wanted to remove that bit. You may be right or wrong, but thats a big bold move.

[Kharon]

Jabba - I believe Frank is referring to the previous convictions for an 'adventurous' perhaps caviller attitude toward the Regs, which ended up in a court appearance and subsequent conviction. What else could he possibly mean ?? http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/evil.gif

Hempel was 'known' to the authority, but somehow, some way over the 7.75 years period (rough time line below), he managed to stay in business. How is this so ? is a question a reasonable man may ask, particularly if you compare the Quadrio (or James) time line against this:-

Time frame - 4 July 2001. Medical suspended. 18 March, 2008 AAT application withdrawn. (7.75 years: Director changes eight: CP changes 14. (Conservative count, for those inclined to count such things ). 2007 to 2008 was a good year.

10 April, 2007. Voluntary undertaking.

24 April, 2007. Enforceable Voluntary undertaking accepted by CASA.

08 May, 2007. CASA letter – Show cause.

11 May, 2007. Instrument 161/07 (effective 14 May 07). Approval Australian War-birds??? (Anybody assist with this ??? – curious now)....

18 May, 2007 - 27 June, 2007. Series of correspondence between Hempel Legal counsel and CASA re EVU and Show cause conference. etc.....

6 July, 2007 CASA email Anastasi re 'advice'. (Email not included with QPS brief).

13 July, 2007 – 17 Sept, 2007. Correspondence between CASA and Hempel counsel ending with a show cause issued by Peter Johns.

22 August, 2007. Show cause conference.

29 Nov 2007 - Vaughan cancels Pilot licences.

18 March, 2008. AAT appeal application withdrawn by the Applicant – (Hempel).
18 March, 2008. Cancellation of Hempel CPL effective.

There's passing strange, then there's passing weird.....then there's passing wind. (Pooh/wind separator – Checked). You'll own it is a bit of a curiosity.

[Tankengine]

I last had anything to do with him in 1987, he was "known to the authority" a long time before that.:hmm: