Barry Hempel Inquest

[PAIN_NET]

"K" the Instrument - 161/07 (http://www.casa.gov.au/WCMSWR/_assets/main/rules/miscinst/2007/casa161.pdf) – is on the CASA website. Enjoy.

P3. a.k.a. 3.8 psig.

[Up-into-the-air]

Kharon, the following is a repetitive occurrence:

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

I understand from the Coroner Inquiry yesterday that there were 5 documents that were not produced by casa until yesterday. casa had them with them though.

And how often do we find this happens with casa when they are pressed??

Just look at PelAir and the Chamber's report for example.

MODEL LITIGANT - NO

[my oleo is extended]

My my. Had the documents with them? Only released them when pressed?
Clear and transparent?
Hmmmm. I smell rooster booster!

Where is Flyingfiend, perhaps he will enlighten us with a robust analogy of all this?

[Sarcs]

Maxwell Smart cops a pineapple first and the Shamster rejects his while being fitted up..:=
The CASA medico at the time and who was on the stand today, would not vary from this explanation of "fainting" with no relationship to epilepsy or anything else.
Typical JS and what else would you expect?? If it has a FF badge on it well deny..deny and never..never admit that you might have made a mistake as that is akin to admitting liability…should be Civil Aviation Non-liability Administration or Civil Aviation Sociopath Administration (cheers Sunny!) proudly sponsored by QBE!

Kharon draws attention to the chronology section of QPS “Summary CAsA Show Cause” file which unbelievably stretches from 24th May 2001 to 18th March 2008 and has nearly ninety entries.

Just think what each one of those entries represents in legal and operational man hours for the best part of a decade :(, would love to see the ‘cost benefit analysis’ and final bill to the taxpayers after the coroner’s inquest wash up??:mad:

And what was the end result to improving aviation safety? Well I guess that question is still open because the coroner is yet to hand down his findings and recommendations but given FF’s past record of obfuscating coroner’s recommendations…weelll history says that the safety benefit lessons learnt will be lost somewhere at the back of the FF ‘Shelf Ware’ warehouse.:{

Caught a story from the States that has some similarities to the BH sordid tale minus the epilepsy:
Pilot in fatal helicopter crash had history of suspensions

On behalf of Arye, Lustig & Sassower, P.C. posted in Wrongful Death (http://www.als-lawyers.com/blog/wrongful-death/) on Wednesday, February 20, 2013

Losing a loved one unexpectedly in an accident can be absolutely devastating. In the aftermath of these tragic losses, family members often want to know if there is anything that could have been done to prevent a fatal accident. If instances of negligence or reckless behavior are identified as factors in these accidents, it is possible for family members to file a wrongful death (http://www.als-lawyers.com/Motor-Vehicle-Accidents/Fatal-Vehicle-Accidents.shtml) lawsuit against the appropriate party. It is true that no lawsuit or amount of money will be able to replace a loved one; however, holding the responsible party accountable for their actions can help family members get a sense of justice.

The family members of at least two people may be considering their legal options in the wake of a devastating helicopter crash that took the lives of two passengers and the pilot. The crash happened in California late one night during the production of a reality TV show. It was recently reported that the pilot in the crash had a history of violations and many people are wondering if the man should have ever been hired in the first place.
The pilot had been hired for the reality show and was flying in a hilly area in the middle of the night, even though visibility was very poor due to environmental conditions and the time of night. The helicopter crashed on a ranch in Los Angeles County. All those aboard were killed in the accident.

It was only after the crash that the pilot's history of suspensions and reckless behavior was reported. Before this fatal accident, the pilot had had his license suspended two separate times. Once it was suspended for 30 days for reckless operation of a helicopter, and the second time his certificate was suspended for failing to stay in contact with air traffic controllers during a flight.

Whether the families of the victims will pursue legal action for their loss remains to be seen. As is often the case in similar accidents, there may be a number of parties that are responsible for the crash. In addition to the actions of the pilot, the hiring practices of his employer as well as the safety measures taken or disregarded by producers on the TV show may be scrutinized.

Source: Los Angeles Times, "Helicopter pilot in film set crash faced prior enforcement action (http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/envelope/cotown/la-fi-ct-fatal-copter-pilot-20130219,0,5402520.story)," Richard Verrier, Feb. 19, 2013

Oh and the NTSB and the FAA are investigating:D, here's a link for the preliminary report:
WPR13FA119 (http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/brief.aspx?ev_id=20130210X93918&key=1)
Got to hand it to the yanks they don't muck around or obfuscate their responsiblities to aviation accident investigations!:ok:

So at the end of this inquest will Samantha Hare have a strong case for "wrongful death" and will the defendant's include FF:=? Well at least then QBE and FF can legitimately compare notes!:cool:

Link for ABC video from the 7 o'clock news last night: Inquest into double fatal plane crash begins - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-03-18/inquest-into-double-fatal-plane-crash-begins/4580618)

[Macroderma]

Frank,

I hope that Agent 86 does not have the same personal interests :eek: as Big Bazza?

did we ever discover who was it who was facing charges alledging indecent behaviour outside certain schools?:=

it is indeed a funny old world :ugh:

[Frank Arouet]

It would be humorous if it wasn't so serious to excuse eccentricity as regular or normal behaviour. Some border on the psychological abberations we witness in a day to day basis with psychopaths in the federal parliament, bureaucracy, and on down to the coal face. I sometimes pity the 'cannon fodder' that are expected to do their master's bidding.

I have but only suspicions.

God help aviation in Australia.

[Up-into-the-air]

From an Australian report by Hedley Thomas:

Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/casa-knew-dark-truth-about-rogue-aviator/story-e6frg6nf-1226397205874)

LONG before Barry Hempel, a legend of Australia's commercial aviation industry, strapped himself and an unwitting passenger in for a final, fateful aerobatic flight that ended 13 minutes later with their deaths, startling truths about the career pilot's conduct were well known to authorities.

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.

Pilots with epilepsy or seizures face bans of 10 years to life because of the obvious dangers, yet Hempel kept flying.

Police, lawyers and doctors also knew another, darker side of the charismatic aviator with the distinctive handle-bar moustache. He had a criminal rap sheet for public indecency in Queensland going back 40 years; his guilty pleas and most recent convictions for public masturbation near children in parks in Brisbane were recorded a few months before the August 2008 crash.

But the flying public knew little, if anything, of any of these matters. Neither Hempel, nor CASA, was transparent about his safety transgressions. Despite dozens of pages of documentation about the seizures, and voluminous catalogues of his repeated defiance of safety rules, dishonesty, and the routine abuse of an unwitting public's trust in him as a pilot, CASA, a federal government-funded regulatory agency, still permitted Hempel to fly from his Archerfield airport base.

Official documents show that CASA even let Hempel maintain his private pilot aeroplane licence to conduct endorsement training of other aviators, despite 13 fresh convictions under the Civil Aviation Act, and a CASA finding in November 2007 that stated "you have a long established record of breaking the law relevant to aviation safety which is indicative of an intrinsic lack of honesty and integrity which is incompatible with you being entrusted with flight crew licences ... your record of motor vehicle-related offences as well as the aviation-related offences indicates a flagrant disregard by you of safety matters ... your actions indicate an inappropriate attitude to legal authority, and a flagrant disregard to the collective requirements of safety systems ... (you are) an unacceptable risk to recidivism that threatens aviation safety".

It was a scathing judgment that stripped Hempel of his commercial pilot's licence - yet it expressly allowed him to continue flying, as well as endorsement for training and instructing (teaching existing pilots how to fly different types of planes). He had been performing the instructing role for many years and with numerous pilots. Its legacy today is in the cockpits of passenger jets in Australia and around the world - the pilots who owe their wings to Hempel, who had himself logged more than 28,000 hours since he first flew in 1964.

The effect of CASA's ruling was meant to forbid Hempel from taking fare-paying passengers on his aerobatic higher-risk flights. But he openly flouted this and widely promoted his business under CASA's nose.
As one pilot on internet forum Pprune said in a posting that is now evidence before a Queensland coronial inquiry: "He was supposed to be a role model, but tell me ... how many young idiots have killed themselves trying to imitate bad boy Bazza? Is anyone who actually knew Barry surprised?"

The life and death of Hempel - as laid out in many volumes of evidence examined by The Weekend Australian pending the findings of the coronial inquiry - reads like a story of a disaster waiting to happen. The material depicts a doctor-shopping, law-breaking, medically unfit pilot; a serious breakdown in communications and regulatory systems; a lack of responsiveness and disclosure by those in aviation who had witnessed his antics; and an enduring tragedy for a young woman, Samantha Hare, who made one fatal error - she surprised her boyfriend, Ian Lovell, with a $492 birthday gift voucher for a joy-ride in Hempel's two-seater Soviet Yak military trainer.

Evidence and other material uncovered by police and Kerin Lawyers points to a likelihood that Hempel had suffered a seizure during the flight and was physically incapable of keeping the throttle, or power, on, resulting in the Yak plunging into the sea at a velocity of about 300km/h. In many crashes in which pilots brace before impact, their hands and wrists are broken. Hempel's hands and wrists were not injured, indicating he was not conscious when impact occurred.

Hare, of Brisbane, and Lovell's parents Dave and Lynn, who travelled from their home in England, could not listen to a recorded audio grab of the 35-year-old's last words, in a radio transmission to Hempel moments before the crash in water between North and South Stradbroke Island off the Gold Coast. Lovell was shouting to Hempel: "Oh, oh my god. What are you doing? Put it on!"

At Archerfield airport in Brisbane, Hare, who said she and Lovell had "planned on spending the rest of our lives together", waited patiently for his return to base. She had photographed him in the Yak before take-off and recalled him saying "it was the best present he had ever received".
But she noticed one of Hempel's staff looking increasingly stressed while waiting for the Yak to come back. The staff member took a phone call and Hare heard him say: "It crashed."

In a comprehensive forensic report for Coroner John Hutton, police officer Graham Anderson summarised six volumes of CASA material on Hempel "that involved an extensive list of prosecutions for administrative and flying breaches", "multiple offences in numerous aircraft", "numerous occasions when he flew without a current medical certificate" and attempts to distance himself from rules by appointing his second wife, then newly wed from The Philippines, as chief executive of Hempel's Aviation. The evidence raises serious questions about CASA's role in failing to rub Hempel out.

Anderson's report, which highlights "incapacitation" (seizure) as the most likely reason for the crash, recommends consideration of "mandatory reporting by health professionals to CASA when any serious medical condition could adversely risk the health and well being of the pilot or any other person". However, it is clear from the material that CASA had known about the seizures.

Anderson concluded: "Had a conscious decision by Hempel been made not to conduct these unauthorised flights, then the previous passengers would not have been put at risk and Ian Lovell would not have died as a result. In my opinion it was ultimately Hempel's misrepresentation that eventually directed Ian Lovell into the passenger's seat. Specialist advice to not fly (or drive cars) until epilepsy had been excluded was also ignored, 10 months before the crash. 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 manner."

A year before his death, Hempel and his solicitor had met CASA officials in a bid to mitigate the punishment he was anticipating from his safety breaches. Hempel told the group in a recorded interview: "I've been in aviation virtually full-time all my life since I was 16, I've been to the school of hard knocks and learnt myself through my own aviation. I can do it in me sleep, you know, I do it very safely, I don't do anything 'harum scarum', and when I'm teaching people low-level aerobatics, I teach them with a mind to staying alive."

Hutton, who concluded public hearings last week, has reserved his findings. For Hare, her parents, and the devastated family of Lovell, the priority is to lift safety standards, improve transparency for the public about the disciplinary record of pilots, and influence CASA, aviators and doctors to take a tougher line with other daring, medically unfit mavericks in Australia's skies.

and from an earlier post:

Barry Hempel Inquest [Archive] - PPRuNe Forums (http://www.pprune.org/archive/index.php/t-487144.html)

[Sarcs]

Frank careful or you maybe labelled as one of..."a very small group within the industry which has long-standing grievances with CASA over past regulatory action"... although I'd say judging by the general responses on here to threads like this one and the Senate thread, which has had over a quarter of a million hits, that the DAS may have to sack his statitician and cut the bonuses to his industry moles.

The above quote comes from written QON 15 from the AQONs for the Senate hearing 15/02/2013, see here:
Information Privacy and Data Protection

15. Following your previous appearance, there was widespread industry feedback that “CASA clearly plays the man and not the ball”. Given that the ATSB is proposing to give CASA unlimited access to mandatory reports made by the industry, what effect do you think this perception of CASA’s approach to enforcement will have on the quality and quantity of incident reporting?

CASA is not seeking unlimited access to mandatory reports made by the industry, as stated above.

CASA also does not accept that the view ‘CASA clearly plays the man and not the ball’ is either true or widespread among the majority of the Australian aviation industry. There is a very small group within the industry which has long-standing grievances with CASA over past regulatory action, and who are quick to come to the fore in Inquiries like the current one with criticisms of this kind.

CASA does not consider their views to be representative of the responsible sections of the Australian aviation industry. CASA is confident that any reporting arrangement made with the ATSB will have the appropriate protections in place and will enhance Australian aviation’s already strong safety culture.
There's some serious tautological undertones in that answer from the DAS!:E Cheers Frank:ok:

[my oleo is extended]

The DAS response is also peppered with pony pooh served on a firm base made from donkey ****e. The response is typical and expected. As soon as these buffoons are forced into a corner they come out swinging, blaming those who criticise, yes yes John we are 'the ills of society' and have axes to grind, correct?
Well get down off your high horse, if you don't like scrutiny then it would be in your best interest to keep your neck below the radar. But that won't happen because your personality, temperament, emotions and attitude would never allow you to hide quietly. What, you expect to front an organisation that wastes taxpayer money, acts in its own self interest, bullies people and has put innocent people out of business costing them financially, emotionally, physically and destroying their reputation and you expect silence, acceptance and some kind of forgiveness by default??

Hmmm perhaps FF management truly are more stupid than they look?

[Sunfish]

Would it be too much to speculate that the ATSB didn't investigate Hempells accident because they were advised by CASA of the pain the revelations about Hempels history would cause CASA if the history was made public?

John Qadrio loses his licence over one YouTube video, but serial cowboy hempel continues to offend for decades with nothing more than a wrap over the knuckles with a feather?

Please explain.

[halfmanhalfbiscuit]

IJohn Qadrio loses his licence over one YouTube video, but serial cowboy hempel continues to offend for decades with nothing more than a wrap over the knuckles with a feather?

Please explain

Different CEO or DAS. Small 'r' regulator and big 'R' regulators. Small 'r' appeared heavily influenced by hr types a Laissez-faire attitude to regulating.

Look at JQ and DJ and see if you think casa play the man or not?

[Kharon]

Rumours in the wind:

1) Much derision from the court, but the witness stuck with that despite the ambulance reports to the contrary.

2) The witness mentioned other medical files kept within CASA, on pilots. This grabbed everyone's attention. These files while never present previously, are apparently in the Coroners office, but could not be used until they were mentioned in the proceedings. They will be part of Friday's hearing.

3) Counsel asked the witness that given everything said, would a recommendation to cancel Hempel 's licence be issued.. the witness said NO, it would have still been issued under certain circumstances. Counsel sat down flabbergasted as the witness tried to explain this statement. The coroner told the witness basically to shut up. One Counsel declined to question his witness.

Can't wait for the transcript, that will greatly assist in laying to rest the rumours. Apparently Counsel Assisting deserves a Choccy frog and a gold star for an excellent day's work.

Oh, while I'm at it, thanks P3 for the 161/07 instrument. Raises more questions than answers of course. The 'War-birds' angle is fascinating. It is difficult to join all the dots from the QPS report but it seems we have War-bird 'phantom' witnesses x two (I can't confirm that from the script I have; but there is at least one); offers of ex Navy divers to raise the Yak; and Instruments (161/07) being issued at what seems to be an 'awkward' time. All curiously intriguing.

[Jabawocky]

And what is more, there is still not conclusive proof that JQ was the pilot in that video.

And CASA stil got away with it. Has anyone actually tested that one to the limit? I doubt it.

My guess is there was far more video from the original cut that the criminal passenger had, but CASA would never have let that be made available just in case it shot them in the ar$e. Rather the edited and dubbed version that went to youtube was the sole piece of evidence.

Anyone care to shoot holes in my suspicious guess. :hmm:

[T28D]

its the boots, the video boots were not the type worn by JC never mind the broken chain of evidence and digital manipulation of the video file.

Would never have seen the light of day in a Court, only admissable in the AAT.

[Sunfish]

Kharon:

3) Counsel asked the witness that given everything said, would a recommendation to cancel Hempel 's licence be issued.. the witness said NO, it would have still been issued under certain circumstances. Counsel sat down flabbergasted as the witness tried to explain this statement. The coroner told the witness basically to shut up. One Counsel declined to question his witness.

A perusal of AAT rulings suggests that medical certificates are rather easy to lose, I would have thought, yet not in Bazzas case for some reason?

[Up-into-the-air]

I wonder if Hedley Thomas would be interested in digging some more. He certainly did a good job on the "Dam" report.

see this:

http://www.pprune.org/pacific-general-aviation-questions/487144-barry-hempel-inquest-25.html#post7749213

[my oleo is extended]

UITA, I guess Hedley won't be getting a Xmas card from The Skull this year!
Hedley just joined 'The Ills Of Society' club!

[Kharon]

Sunny # 494 –"A perusal of AAT rulings suggests that medical certificates are rather easy to lose, I would have thought, yet not in Bazzas case for some reason?" Rather than risk getting yet another thread closed down, I will avoid specific cases and events; there are a significant number on record which answer your questions, some quite bizarre. There's the well documented 'diabetic' case which is well worth a read; then a similar case to Hempel 's where a PPL (I believe) pranged a motor cycle and did himself grievous bodily and head harm, story goes it took eight years and some significant effort to regain a licence; then one of the strangest tales I ever heard was of selective 'psychic' DAMP tests where the results may be delayed until the 'auguries' are good (not my tale to tell, but I wish). http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/evil.gif

It is beyond my humble powers to determine what happened (or didn't happen) in the BH case, but I know I would not like to be the Coroner, not for a pension. I wonder if Bempel will end up at the Senate as part of a wider inquiry? there certainly seems to be enough reasonable doubt to justify it.

[Sarcs]

A perusal of AAT rulings suggests that medical certificates are rather easy to lose, I would have thought, yet not in Bazzas case for some reason?
Good point that you make Sunny :ok:and considering there is a few more docs fronting up for tomorrow's hearing perhaps the Coroner would be interested in reading a few of those AAT cases with a similar theme?

Pilot loss of licence or conditions on licence due to aviation seizure/diabetes/head injury medical conditions contested in the AAT 2006-2012:

2006: [2006] AATA 1123 (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/aat/2006/1123.html)

2007: [2007] AATA 1952 (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/aat/2007/1952.html)

2008: [2008] AATA 479 (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/AATA/2008/479.html)

2009: [2009] AATA 171 (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/AATA/2009/171.html) [2009] AATA 674 (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/AATA/2009/674.html)

2010: [2010] AATA 733 (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/AATA/2010/733.html) [2010] AATA 693 (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/AATA/2010/693.html) [2010] AATA 481 (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/AATA/2010/481.html) ,
2010: [2010] AATA 604 (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/AATA/2010/604.html)

2011: [2011] AATA 739 (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/AATA/2011/739.html)

2012: [2012] AATA 92 (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/AATA/2012/92.html)

At least it gives an idea how these medical conditions are normally handled by the FF medicos := and poses the question why BH (according to Shamster) was so much different??:{

[Kharon]

Anyone been keeping an eye on the CASA twitters and tweeters; they had a heap to say about Barrier, anything on Bempel??

Ah, the social media approach to aviation governance. I wonder what all this twitting and tweeting costs the taxpayer??, or more to the point, what in all the hells is the good of it? - I wonder, if we moved the Barrier discussion to some half arsed tweety type site, how could that get locked, silenced or censored ???

twit·ted, twit·ting, twits
To taunt, ridicule, or tease, especially for embarrassing mistakes or faults. See Synonyms at ridicule.
n.
1. The act or an instance of twitting.
2. A reproach, gibe, or taunt.
3. Slang A foolishly annoying person.

"What did you do today?" - "Oh, I twitted my t wheat tits off M'lud.

[601]

CASA twitters and tweeters

So can we expect tweets on Fridays instead of faxes?

[Kharon]

Twheaty all y' like. I'm a Pprune man through and through; although I do indulge the odd SMS text message, like the one just now from the Coroners court : need to paraphrase it - been some not so liddel attitude adjustment from a medical boffin, some great work from the Flemish old master artist and heaps of people looking for friendly rock to hide under till the noise dies down. Spins and hardly normal tizwozzes when the Coroner began asking awkward questions and for info on 'difficult' meeting and records from them, indicating he is fully prepared to extend if required. All very entertaining – update after lunch.

Stop press – Av med file dates relate to critical junctions – whatever that may mean. Beans on toast I think, and a nice choccy biscuit. Friday Twheats Heh heh heh! nice one 601 :D Endless possibilities. Lunch Minnie.

[Sarcs]

Will get a summary of today's proceedings posted in due course, here's a snippet from that Gold Coast journo again...:ok:

Pilot's doctor ignored advice, court told Crime and Court News | goldcoast.com.au | Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia (http://www.goldcoast.com.au/article/2013/03/22/449143_crime-and-court-news.html)

Pilot's doctor ignored advice, court told

Matthew Killoran | 01:37pm March 22, 2013


A CIVIL Aviation Safety Authority doctor assessing the pilot's licence of Barry Hempel, who was later involved in a fatal crash, disregarded a colleague's request for more medical tests to be done, a coronial inquest heard this morning.

Mr Hempel flew a Yak52 warbird that crashed near South Stradbroke Island in August 2008, killing him and passenger Ian Ross Lovell.

The inquest has been told Mr Hempel was given a pilot's licence despite having a history of seizures.

It heard when CASA approved Mr Hempel's licence in 2005 it was in possession of an ambulance report from 2002 which stated he had suffered a seizure and had at least two before that.

Ken Fleming QC said CASA records showed one doctor had requested Mr Hempel be evaluated by a neuro-psychologist, but Dr Rob Liddell disregarded the recommendation.

"You are completely ignoring the advise of the doctor above saying we need another neuro-psychologist's report," he said.

Dr Liddell denied that he ignored the recommendation.

"I would have considered it, I just didn't agree with it," he said.

[my oleo is extended]

Congratulations, Samantha Hare is this weeks recipient of 'The Chocolate Frog Award' :ok:
She did a superb job. I would, if I may, like to list just a couple of qualities she exhibited which just happen to be the same qualities CASA lack and do not exhibit, and by the way who once again receive this weeks not so coveted 'Chocolate Starfish Award'.

Congrats Samantha for emanating:
1. Balls (Tough and strong woman willing to tell it straight)
2. Dignity
3. Honesty
4. Truthfulness
5. Reasonableness
6. Conscience
7. Compassion
8. Accuracy
9. Clarity
10. Transparency
11. Bravery
12. Justice

FF, hang your heads in shame. Each and every one of you who had a hand in the chain of events that contributed to the death of Mr Lovell should hang their heads in shame. You have blood on your hands. You may sleep well but one day you will have to meet the Ferryman, do not forget that.

[Kharon]

If this appears disjointed, I apologise. I am working from nine pages of notes, not transcript. There are important issues for discussion and I wanted to get the ball rolling, the industry may have to extract a digit and provide this unfortunate Coroner with submissions as requested, whether they are read or not is a different matter.

I have just finished reading the Samantha Hare recommendations to the Coroner, made yesterday. The statement, in my opinion helps neither the current issues, the future of aviation nor her own civil action against the CASA. We have a nearly hysterical appeal for total control of everything from a flu shot to vasectomy to be reported to CASA from your doctor of choice (or convenience) recorded as part of an already very intrusive medical system. Should this be allowed I believe every person in charge of a vehicle of any description needs to protest, loud and long against it. Why should this entire industry suffer and be further impeded for the blatant crimes of one man??.

Had Hempel been a bus driver, or a ferry captain, passenger liner helmsman, train driver or even a truck driver, little of the hysteria surrounding 'medical condition' would have eventuated. Why does it have to be so very different for aircraft pilots?.....There exists a 'robust' extensive medical system which already has great powers, some would argue too many. The State has strong systems used to ensure that persons operating 'public service' vehicles are tested and qualified as 'fit for duty' as may be reasonably foreseen; insurance companies rely on those systems, the courts rely on those systems; and, the system is 'self protecting'. A call for further intrusion should be treated as an understandably, emotional response from a person who has been subjected to a long, frustrating wait for closure.

I am not sure what effect the Samantha Hare recommendation to the Coroner had; one can only hope that CASA will persist with a case against further over regulating, now that I could willingly support. In fact many of the CASA arguments in this case had merit.

There are several areas of serious interest from yesterday's final session which are worth considering:

Opinion : It has become apparent that no matter what legislation was in place, the intention to deliberately commit an offence cannot ever be effectively countered. There is no doubt that whatever method used by CASA in an attempt to control Hempel (and there were several) was doomed to failure – many had tried and all failed to restrain Hempel. Neither Commonwealth, State, civil or aeronautical law made any impression. There was prima facia evidence presented that even the notoriously difficult to prove "Not a fit and Proper person" case could have been successfully prosecuted. This never happened to Hempel. There are too many instances where the NFPP clause has been administratively made to stick. Not for Hempel though. It is reasonable to wonder why??

Opinion: The Coroners questions directed at the notes and minutes for "Difficult Case Meetings" (DCM) almost penetrated, were CASA medical aware of the Hempel medical condition – Yes, categorically, they were. The rest of it is simply an attempt to muddy the waters, ambulance officer reports, other medical opinion and evidence were denigrated. CASA medical have been known to suspend a medical against an unsubstantiated complaint. So, why was Hempel medical not suspended against the large amount of 'hard' evidence they had? The Coroner made a statement to the effect that CASA should have had Hempel under "strict care". Yet here we are in a Coroners court with CASA forced to defend their unique (for one man) lack of positive action. The reasonable question again is why?

A new cigar and a fresh coffee have brought me, temporarily to the end of this: the more I read of the legal ducking and weaving simply reinforces the facts – Several CASA operatives legitimately, legally, medically and operationally tried to prevent this one man from harming himself and other people. In my opinion there are only two questions; who was protecting him and why? Perhaps a detailed study of the transcript will change my mind, I doubt it, I really do: but I will try – later.

[601]

It has become apparent that no matter what legislation was in place, the intention to deliberately commit an offence cannot ever be effectively countered. There is no doubt that whatever method used by CASA in an attempt to control Hempel (and there were several) was doomed to failure – many had tried and all failed to restrain Hempel.

Several CASA operatives legitimately, legally, medically and operationally tried to prevent this one man from harming himself and other people.

Totally agree.

You cannot legislate against someone who has no respect for any legislation.

[Kharon]

Well, I've managed to work through the notes and observations from the last two days of the Hempel hearing. You have to give credit where it is due. Mr. Harvey is a master craftsman: successfully managing to get the Coroner to focus on the medical men and divert attention to the medical systems failure to communicate, very neatly distracted the courts attention away from the real issues. It was a very clever play. I don't like it, but I can acknowledge the guile, nerve and skill.

For instance (all paraphrased) – buried in amongst the white noise was this little gem; ex CASA medico Dr. Liddle on the stand was asked should Hempel have had a medical? – Yep says the good Doc, fully entitled to a class 2 no restrictions. It seems Hempel's own Dr. Spall had only ever requested a restricted class 2 for Hempel. CASA wanted and offered to provide a restricted class one medical.

Just have a think about that for a moment – then you have to acknowledge Harvey earns his keep. The case in a nutshell, swept away in a torrent of 'he said – she said' white noise from doctors unable to remember the fine details of events eight to 10 years go.

Justice served ?

[my oleo is extended]

Kharon,

I spent several hours last night also examinng the submissions in detail, reading the wording, intent and facts as they were positioned under the microscope.
I must agree, Mr Harvey earned his keep. I can see why FF continue to retain his robust services as he has truly mastered his craft, which is nothing new to us.
In fact to some degree when you research some of his earlier works over the years you can really see that he is a formidable player who clearly has the ability to outplay many dopey Coroners and Beaks that he has stood before!
I am sure the LSG has a giant bag of chocolate frogs awaiting him, and maybe even a couple of Hi 5's??
I do feel for Samantha Hare as I don't believe she will see the outcome she was looking for and once again another victims loved one joins the group on the sidelines who receive no logical or fair recourse.

Not that I agree with this saying, but a 'CASA person' once commented; 'Its all a game, a very seriou game, but all a game'.

"ut dilectos tuos pacem"

[Kharon]

MOIE# 501 "In fact to some degree when you research some of his earlier works over the years you can really see that he is a formidable player who clearly has the ability to outplay many dopey Coroners and Beaks that he has stood before!" Don't know they are so much as 'dopey', but certainly aeronautically uneducated. But. No one took the trouble to point out the exacting, intrusive and, some would argue un required aspects of the CASA medical ethos. Bus 60 folks – Train – 2/300 folks – Sydney Manly ferry – Fairstar liners – etc. etc. would their union tolerate the use of an ancient RAF method for weeding out pilots, transmogrified into an administrative empire?. I mean, why just pilots?

So here we have a 'robust' coroner and a very good council assisting. No idea about CASA medicals or how hard it is to keep one – none. Then in strolls Harvey, spots the fire and carefully wafts the flames. Never a word about embuggering (Cheers Sunny) their own investigation, nobbling the ATSB and actively refusing to help the QPS from doing their thing. (Great job fellahs). Never a word about the War-birds over sight requirement, not even a dicky bird. (Agree arguable). Never a word about how very easily CASA can prevent someone working in industry; not a peep about how AOC 's vanish like smoke on the breeze, or NFPP badges are dished out like Jaffas, on administrative whimsy.

Judges, Coroners and the like have absolutely NFI: they know the law, how to apply the law, their own roles and probably, for the most part do this well (not able to offer opinion). Harvey is a heavy weight veteran wolf, battle toughened, well supported; what chance the silent lambs Clarisse?

Why, man, they did make love to this employment,
They are not near my conscience. Their defeat
Does by their own insinuation grow.
'Tis dangerous when the baser nature comes
Between the pass and fell incensèd points
Of mighty opposites.

[Sarcs]

So much for Senator Fawcett's question to DOIT on 'closing the loop':ugh:: Senate Estimates RRAT Committee 23/05/2012 pg 92-93 :
Senator FAWCETT: Who would those other stakeholders be?

Mr Dolan: Our experience has been that counsel assisting, in trying to do a comprehensive job in support of a coroner, sought other lines of information and brought it to bear in the process. Other parties, all of whom have their own interests in a coronial process, often find it necessary to test a range of alternative hypotheses. Sometimes the weight comes down to a different place than we placed it. That is just part of the relationship. If there is a coronial finding that is inconsistent with what we found or more information comes to light in the course of an inquest that is relevant to our investigation, we will reopen the investigation and make sure that is properly weighed up in our processes.

Senator FAWCETT: I notice CASA is often another player in the coronial inquests and often you will highlight something, the coroner will accept it and basically tick off in his report on the basis that a new CASR or something is going to be implemented. Do you follow those up? I have looked through a few crash investigations, and I will just pick one: the Bell 407 that crashed in October '03. CASR part 133 was supposed to be reworked around night VFR requirements for EMS situations. I notice that still is not available now, nearly 10 years after the event. Does it cause you any concern that recommendations that were accepted by the coroner, and put out as a way of preventing a future accident, still have not actually eventuated? How do you track those? How do we, as a society, make sure we prevent the accidents occurring again?

Mr Dolan: We monitor various coronial reports and findings that are relevant to our business. We do not have any role in ensuring that coronial findings or recommendations are carried out by whichever the relevant party may be. I think that would be stepping beyond our brief.

Senator FAWCETT: Who should have that role then?

Mr Dolan: I would see that as a role for the coronial services of the various states. But to add to that, because we are aware of the sorts of findings—as you say, it is not that common that there is something that is significantly different or unexpected for us, but when there is—we will have regard to that obviously in our future investigation activities and recognise there may already be a finding out there that is relevant to one of our future investigations.

Senator FAWCETT: Would it be appropriate to have—a sunset clause is not quite the right phrase—a due date that if an action is recommended and accepted by a regulatory body, in this case CASA, the coroner should actually be putting a date on that and CASA must implement by a certain date or report back, whether it is to the minister or to the court or to the coroner, why that action has not actually occurred?

Mr Dolan: I think I will limit myself to comment that that is the way we try to do it. We have a requirement that in 90 days, if we have made a recommendation, there is a response to it. We will track a recommendation until we are satisfied it is complete or until we have concluded that there is no likelihood that the action is going to be taken.

Senator FAWCETT: Mr Mrdak, as secretary of the relevant department, how would you propose to engage with the coroners to make sure that we, as a nation, close this loophole to make our air environment safer?
Mr Mrdak: I think Mr Dolan has indicated the relationship with coroners is on a much better footing than it has been ever before. I think the work of the ATSB has led that. I think it then becomes a matter of addressing the relationship between the safety regulators and security regulators, as necessary, with the coroners. It is probably one I would take on notice and give a bit of thought to, if you do not mind.
Senator FAWCETT: You do not accept that your department and you, as secretary, have a duty of care and an oversight to make sure that two agencies who work for you do actually complement their activities for the outcome that benefits the aviation community?
Mr Mrdak: We certainly do ensure that agencies are working together. That is certainly occurring. You have asked me the more detailed question about coroners and relationships with the agencies. I will have a bit of a think about that, if that is okay.
Senator FAWCETT: Thank you.
While FF LSD as a DIP to an aviation accident fatality within the coronial process are allowed to continually obfuscate and sabotage that process, may I suggest there will never be a 'closing of the loop' and all good coroner recommendations will continue to be ignored!:ugh::ugh::yuk::yuk:

I also see a lot of irony in Mr Dolan's in bold statement (2nd from the top) in light of the Hempel inquest, especially considering the ATSB wasn't even a DIP to the inquest and had very little involvement in the QPS FCU's investigation or report???:*

[Brian Abraham]

Pity Laurie Gruzman QC is not still around.

[tail wheel]

Yes indeed. Laurie would have sorted them all out!! :E

[my oleo is extended]

Closing the loop is an essential component of mitigating deficiencies and moving forward. It is farcical, absurd and downright dangerous having 'findings' by a Coroner, yet those very findings don't have to be fixed!!
No wonder the same events keep recurring.
Aherne hit the nail on the head using the 2003 accident analysis. Talk about kangaroo courts and half arsed systems. Can you imagine Fort Fumble auditing you, hitting you with 50 NCN's and never coming back to ensure the deficiencies have been mitigated, the fixes 'tested' an the finding closed off?
(Mind you I did hear the rumour of a big hitter in CASA once making 30 RCA's as they were called disappear mysteriously off an operators books, rumour was the CASA person had a 'mate' there. Also rumoured was that it was a sloppy job and a lot of the underpinning paperwork still exists!! All rumor I must enforce)

Obviously different standards apply to the Regulator and industry, no surprise there, 'do what we say not as we do'. But the fact that the Regulator itself doesn't have to close the loop flies in the face of a robust SMS which it constantly belts into the operators.

No wonder the industry is rooted.
I hope Aherne keeps chipping away. I have my opinions as to the 'full reason' he is sticking it to FF but at least he is standing up to them balls and all. And their pathetic shots at him do nothing but show them up for being the pathetic weak specimens they really are.

[601]

Obviously different standards apply to the Regulator and industry,

And within the Regulator.

[Lookleft]

I hope Aherne keeps chipping away. I have my opinions as to the 'full reason'
he is sticking it to FF but at least he is standing up to them balls and
all.


I think you will find that BA is not interested in sticking it to FF but more interested in showing that the ATSB is not sticking to its international obligations. Have another look at the transcript from his first appearance before the Senate. He doesn't criticise CASA as much as he does the ATSB. I would be interested to know what you think the "full reasons" are.

As for LG he would have represented BH in any court case. Alledgedly his 310 had an "accessory" in the glove box because he had upset many people in his dealings with them.

[my oleo is extended]

Lookleft, I won't go into detail publicly, check your PM's.
Just remember in life that not all things are as they seem.
Regardless, I support Ahernes testimony because it sums up CASA and ATSB' ability nicely - pony pooh.

[Bedderseagle]

Now that the dust has settled and the coroner and barrister assisting prepare their reports ready for issuing the findings in the next month or so, there is time for some additional focus on this case. Unfortunately, I was overseas for these last additional two days of inquest so unable to attend. However, I have been able to 'interview' a number of those present on both days and also read through in detail the inquest transcripts.

I have to question Kharon's headline and some comments thereunder:

Had Hempel been a Bus driver.

Had Hempel been a bus driver, or a ferry captain, passenger liner helmsman, train driver or even a truck driver, little of the hysteria surrounding 'medical condition' would have eventuated. Why does it have to be so very different for aircraft pilots?

I feel quite confident that had Hempel indeed been a Bus Driver, he certainly would not have been driving a bus on that fateful day and mostly likely would have been locked up in custody. The 100+ violations that Hempel had along with his medical condition and his public exposures would have ensured that.

There exists a 'robust' extensive medical system which already has great powers, some would argue too many.

If a satisfactory system had existed then we can be sure Hempel would not have 'slipped through the cracks' and be allowed to have even held a PPL on that day. Whilst I do not hold a PPL myself, I come from an aeronautical family with my father and two sons having served in the Air Force and one son and a brother who have flown extensively both commercially and privately. I spend a great deal of time on commercial planes every month as a passenger travelling around the world and rely on pilots who I hope have passed stringent tests. I am not advocating major crackdowns BUT there has to be a way of stopping another Hempel type. I can not accept that everything was done to monitor Barry's commercial flying exploits.

If we accept It has become apparent that no matter what legislation was in place, the intention to deliberately commit an offence cannot ever be effectively countered. There is no doubt that whatever method used by CASA in an attempt to control Hempel (and there were several) was doomed to failure – many had tried and all failed to restrain Hempel. then you are opening a whole can of worms to anyone who wishes to emulate Barry. Do we really believe that CASA did enough to monitor and sanction Hempel?

You have to give credit where it is due. Mr. Harvey is a master craftsman: successfully managing to get the Coroner to focus on the medical men and divert attention to the medical systems failure to communicate, very neatly distracted the courts attention away from the real issues. It was a very clever play. I don't like it, but I can acknowledge the guile, nerve and skill.

Yes very clever play but the coroner and all present were not fooled by these tactics and CASA was made to look like an incompetent organisation. It came out that it was up to a pilot to 'turn him/herself in' in disclosing serious medical issues such as seizures and that reports by qualified paramedics would not be considered. Are they serious? So there is no external independent reviews and a pilot can find a willing doctor, without revealing or lying about their condition and walk out with a medical certificate which is accepted by CASA.

I am not sure what effect the Samantha Hare recommendation to the Coroner had; one can only hope that CASA will persist with a case against further over regulating, now that I could willingly support. In fact many of the CASA arguments in this case had merit.
At least it was encouraging and commendable that Samantha Hare had taken the trouble to table recommendations which can be worked on and incorporated into the coroner's report should he see fit and certainly by reactions and feedback by many he was impressed. Sometimes it needs someone not so close to the industry to make comments.

Enough said, looking forward to the coroner's report and recommendations.:)

[Sunfish]

Sea Eagle, I have to take issue with some of your comments.

Firstly Two documents are required to legally pilot an aircraft, a suitably endorsed licence and a separate medical certificate. Mr. Hepel had the former but not the latter.


As for CASA being able to prevent Mr. Hempel from using an aircraft, please give them some credit. Exactly how are they able to do this in the face of a decision by someone to deliberately break the law?

Road users are occasionally caught without licences. Mr. Hempels situation is not much different from a car driver. Since aircraft are very expensive and flown by multiple pilots, "wheel clamping" is not a practical option.

It "may" be possible to detect an offence by detecting an aircraft associated with a particular person, but you can't pull over an aircraft.

With regard to medical standards, yes they do exist for train drivers and other rail personnel. I 've linked to the standard and its administration below.

In my limited opinion, I wish pilots were treated as well as train drivers. The standard is quite specific and a model of administrative clarity compared to the arcane and some would say capricious and unfair aviation medical system pilots have to endure. I particularly like the rail categories of "fit for duty, subject to review" and "temporarily unfit" that seem to be more useful than the "on/off" system used in aviation.

Perhaps if Mr. Hempel had the benefit of the train drivers system this accident wouldn't have happened.

http://www.ntc.gov.au/filemedia/Reports/NatHealthAssStdsRailVol2May2004.pdf

[Kharon]

Bedders – glad someone brought the thread back to life, it sort of died away; I thought due lack of interest. Happy to discuss the issues as if over an ale, just as an alternate point of view mind you, peaceful like.

The 'bus driver' comparison always brings me back to the same debate – the deliberate intent to breach the rules. People in charge of equipment get sick, the honest Joe strolls (or crawls) to the nearest medical facility and seeks help, rings work and begs off for the duration, until declared fit. But, if you come off the trapeze or skateboard, suffer a serious injury and fail to mention it to the Medico; or continue to work knowing there is a problem; or lie to another medico about who you are, or what you do, then there is an intent to deceive. It's a bit like going through a stop sign, if you blast through, knock over a woman with a stroller on a pedestrian crossing, the law will crucify you – after the event – the law cannot prevent the intent or the event; nor, sadly can it restore the loss or alter the consequence. All that can be done is tighter penalties for committing the offence, the intent must remain within the purview of the individual. So why must an industry and a body of essentially honest individuals suffer more restriction because Hempel? who with arrogant aforethought deliberately flouted what sensible, responsible equipment operators, the world over do as routine.

BE # 510 "The 100+ violations that Hempel had along with his medical condition and his public exposures would have ensured that." Lesser crimes than Hempel's sins have grounded a good many; CASA knew and did nothing this was compounded when those that knew and tried to do something were 'distracted'. There were two serious attempts to shut Hempel down made, check the resignations and the available information – was this was a protected species? If it was, then by whom and why is beyond my short reach, but someone, somewhere must know.

BE # 510 "I am not advocating major crackdowns BUT there has to be a way of stopping another Hempel type. I can not accept that everything was done to monitor Barry's commercial flying exploits." Agreed – with a return to why; under the current ethos, you can get prosecuted for allegedly breaking wind; there is a clear record of the Hempel wrongdoings. But he wriggled away.

"then you are opening a whole can of worms to anyone who wishes to emulate Barry. Do we really believe that CASA did enough to monitor and sanction Hempel?" Mild disagreement here, 99.999% of airmen are essentially compliant, responsible folk, it goes with the job. Now why should they be penalised for the aberrations of one man? It's a bit like shooting every dog because your cat got chased, no, we have to ask why some CASA operatives did so much and achieved so very little. Look at the Quadrio nightmare and draw the comparisons.

My only concern with Samantha Hare's statement is simple, after Lockhart only one of Coroners good intentions was transmogrified, we got the MOU and the resulting shambles. Given half a chance, CASA medical can and will develop a system where you can be grounded for taking some bark off your Willy on a Friday night and declared by legal to be not a fit and proper by Saturday for not reporting it.

Agree with– 'nuff said, the report is, for me, of minor importance – what results is.
One of the many problems the industry has is too many people with no idea of how it all works butting in. The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.

[Bedderseagle]

Sunfish:
As for CASA being able to prevent Mr. Hempel from using an aircraft, please give them some credit. Exactly how are they able to do this in the face of a decision by someone to deliberately break the law?

Road users are occasionally caught without licences. Mr. Hempel's situation is not much different from a car driver. Since aircraft are very expensive and flown by multiple pilots, "wheel clamping" is not a practical option.

It "may" be possible to detect an offence by detecting an aircraft associated with a particular person, but you can't pull over an aircraft.


In Hempel case, from listening to the CEO and Chief Pilot and attending the inquest Part 1, it became very clear that the Yak was Barry's private plane and he was very possessive about it and allegedly allowed no one to pilot it. Even the Chief pilot reported that he only flew in it very occasionally but with Barry. It appears Barry even locked the Yak away in another location when he went out of town so that no one could fly it.

So many people knew Barry and so many people knew what Barry was doing and 'turned a blind eye'. In Barry's case could it have been feasible to 'wheel clamp' his beloved Yak? There were just so many instances that imply that Barry was a 'protected species'. Something is just 'not right' in this whole case and hopefully something good will come out of the inquest findings for all.

[TunaBum]

So why must an industry and a body of essentially honest individuals suffer more restriction because Hempel?



99.999% of airmen are essentially compliant, responsible folk, it goes with the job. Now why should they be penalised for the aberrations of one man?


I'm sure Samantha Hare could answer these questions..........

What I'm not so sure about is how plugging some of the gaping holes in the process at CASA (to the extent possible) will cause the "industry" so much pain and the suffering. Surely the damage to the industry caused by cowboys like this (not to mention the littany of deaths and injuries) outweighs a little incovenience?

TB :sad:

[Sunfish]

I disagree with any further punitive regulations on pilots, there are already far too many "strict liability" offences and the public don't understand that these are CRIMINAL convictions, not some administrative misdeed like a parking fine or speeding ticket.

What concerns me is that if the laws and regulations are made any stricter, then the result will be major non compliance, as it is it is not possible to comply with current regulations anyway because CASA staff all have their own interpretations of what is leg.al and what isn't.

To put that another way, a Magistrate once told me that a suggested form of law as too strict his advice was to water it down if compliance was to be achieved.

[Ovation]

Road users are occasionally caught without licences. Mr. Hempels situation is not much different from a car driver. Since aircraft are very expensive and flown by multiple pilots, "wheel clamping" is not a practical option.

It "may" be possible to detect an offence by detecting an aircraft associated with a particular person, but you can't pull over an aircraft.

There is/was a well-known pilot known to operate around Benambra (VIC) having legend status due to some of his daring feats (and record number of licence suspensions). He was allegedly flying his Cessna on a charter with a plaster cast on his leg, having broken it in a bad parachute landing. DoA inspectors suspended his licence based on information supplied by the local copper who was "out to get him".

The point I'm trying to make is that DoA and now CASA, have been known to target, prosecute and suspend pilots they believed were breaking the rules. In Hempels case they had all the necessary evidence but seemed to lack the will and discipline to properly enforce the regulations, or applied the rules selectively and with no expense spared viz the Quadrio prosecution.

You have to wonder whether CASA have "mates" who can get away with breaking the rules, while others get worked over for minor technical infractions.

[TunaBum]

I disagree with any further punitive regulations on pilots


Yes but is that the issue here? I think its more about application of existing rules/regs and how CASA does it's job.

TB :sad:

[aroa]

Ovation...you don't have to wonder.... its a fact. :mad:

CASA persons do have "mates" and indulge in cronyism and corruption as well
And they do have differing definitons of "crimes"...to suit themselves.

Ordinary citizen...Get busted for forgetting to fill a few lines in yr Log book...a criminal offence.
CAsA persons, ( plural as in elevators), make false sworn statements with a view to obtaining a criminal conviction...That's only a breach of the code of conduct..with admin penalties. NIce outcome if you can get it...:mad:, but only if you are one of the boys. Or a mate.
Just ar$e is right !!:mad:

TB is right.. Some existing regs are bad enough but the INCONSISTENT application of many regs , is legend.

Some one/two would have been "protecting" Hempel but those that might know aren't saying.
AS Sunny says CAsA is REactive after the event and CYA 101 gets full play as well.
eg. Lockhart. CAsA.. . "Last auditors weren't properly trained" How piss weak an excuse is that.!!
Bet they didnt go into the Transair office with the discalaimer.. We are just apprentices learning how to do "audits", might be some mistakes because we are only trainees on apprentice wages. Yeah, pigs etc :mad: :mad:

And WE the people better do something about it.

[601]

Some one/two would have been "protecting" Hempel but those that might know aren't saying.

I believe it was a team from another region that allowed the company to retain their AOC. One restriction was that there was to be no involvement in the company by BH.

As for his medical, that is not in the responsibility of the local CASA office.

[Up-into-the-air]

Coronial Inquests - May 2013 [as at 30 April 2013]

Findings reserved

Hempel and Lovell; Hempel, Barry Ian Lovell, Ian Ross
Inquest Adjourned DTBF for findings
BRISBANE
John Hutton
Violent or unnatural
The inquest will investigate: The identity of the deceased, when, where and how they died and what caused the death. The facts and circumstances surrounding the double fatal aviation crash.

[Fantome]

Without wishing to invite a rehash of the conflicting opinions about the integrity of the British helicopter instructor, Iain King, being not exactly relevant to this thread anyway, it is salutary to remember that Mr King was jailed last year by a magistrate who was far more sympathetic to the prosecution than he was to the defence, and who in effect sided with the CAA who wanted a scalp to warn others they must be absolutely meticulous with their paperwork. (Iain King had incorrectly entered in his records a couple of place-names to do with cross-country training flights)

[Sunfish]

Fantome, read the last page of the Pprune thread on the fatal helicopter crash of the pilot who was trained by One Iain King, especially the post by "Sir Niall Dementia".

Iain King had "form" as the police would say, and allegedly had been involved in multiple acts of dishonesty over the years.

The allegation at the heart of the matter was that records had been forged to deceive either the CAA or the owner of the helicopter involved in training.

To put that another way, I always wondered why my instructor wanted me to refuel and bring back the receipt on my cross country exercises. Now I know.

The fact that the actual cause of the fatal accident was poor airmanship by deciding to fly in bad weather is not material.

[Bedderseagle]

I hear through the grapevine now that the inquest findings are not likely to be presented until August 2013. That will be almost 5 years since the tragedy.

There has to be some serious questions raised as to why all the processes can take 5 years?

No wonder that the stock answer to so many questions raised during the inquest process resulted in a "I do not recall".

It also let's our dear friends CASA and other liable parties a chance to have any cases against them diluted or a hope that people become so frustrated as to let them all get away with 'murder'. However, somehow I don't see certain people allowing that to happen. It's going to be game on regardless of how long that might take.

Stay tuned for the next exciting episode of 'All the days of Hempel'

[Frank Arouet]

Sometimes, no news is good news.

Pending news is better, probably.

Delay can mean more evidence.

What's with these negative vibes man?

(Donald Sutherland-Kelly's Hero's).

[Bedderseagle]

All very quiet and we are well into June, does anyone have any updates?

[TunaBum]

Last I heard submissions from counsel assisting Coroner are still awaited - were expected early May - but alas still not to hand....... :(

Once delivered parties will have 14 days to provide submissions.

Thereafter (at some stage!) Coroner should deliver findings.

A looooong process indeed.........:*

TB

[TunaBum]

Submissions by Counsel Assisting delivered.
Submissions in response must go to the Coroner by 28th June 2013.
TB

[Bedderseagle]

TB: I hear however that the coroner is on holiday and his findings presentation and recommendations will not be tabled until August!!

In the meantime I see Australian Story is doing its next Monday's program:

Monday 24th June 8pm
The Men Who Fell to Earth

This week's program is about a fatal plane crash and the disturbing facts that emerged in the aftermath.
It started when a young woman called Samantha Hare surprised her fiance with the gift of a joy flight off the coast of South East Queensland back in 2008.
In the pilot's seat was a well known, colourful and seemingly highly reputable aviator called Barry Hempel.
But unbeknownst to Samantha Hare, Mr Hempel had been stripped of his commercial pilot's license - and there were other worrying issues too.
Mr Hempel and Samantha's fiance, Ian Lovell, were both killed when their plane plummeted into the sea.
This week's episode tells the story of Samantha Hare and her five year quest for answers in the face of a 'smorgasbord' of baffling and worrying questions.

[TunaBum]

Looking at Counsel Assisting submissions, all I can say is I hope the Coroner has some strong independent views else a very soft and disappointing outcome awaits. TB

[Kharon]

August now, general disinterest and an 'ice cream' version from Australian story to boot. Ayup, that'll fix it up nicely. No problem.


Time, no problem.

[Username here]

Woman sues doctors over partner's death during joy flight crash with pilot Barry Hempel | News.com.au (http://www.news.com.au/national-news/queensland/woman-sues-doctors-over-partner8217s-death-during-joy-flight-crash-with-pilot-barry-hempel/story-fnii5v6w-1226667749832)

[004wercras]

The Australian Story should be interesting Monday night. I imagine it won't be as hard hitting as Four Corners, but will be rather more focused on the emotional side of things, which is still good because hopefully it will show the real side to aviation tragedies and what those left behind have to endure. I give Samantha Hare full marks for being brave and determined to see justice maybe served one day.
And you never know, maybe someone at CAsA will learn something, a trait such as compassion or sorrow? Very unlikely I know, but you never know!

[halfmanhalfbiscuit]

004,

I'm thinking Four Corners might be following up on Pel Air and Hempel soon?

Crash Landing - Four Corners (http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/stories/2012/08/30/3579404.htm)

Going to be tense atmosphere in FF corridors this week.

[004wercras]

Mr Biscuit, agreed, a follow up story by Four Corners is a robust idea!
As for tonight's Australian Story could somebody please record it? For the pensioners at the helm of CAsA it is on a little late at 1930. They will have taken their meds, placed their teeth in a glass besides the bathroom sink and gone sleepies! Then again, Australian Story could re-schedule the program for a more convenient time such as 1659 on a Friday afternoon?

[RenegadeMan]

I just finished watching "The Men Who Fell To Earth" Australian Story episode on the ABC. It just brings home just how wide and deep the impact is when a crash like this occurs. So very sad for the partner of the passenger who died, their wider family, Barry's family and everyone he touched too.

When oh when is the "boy's club" nature of our industry going to lift and our regulator really address safety in a more proactive manner. I do appreciate there are many people within CASA doing some very good work and who are being proactive, but you can just see how the cosy relationship amongst so many people involved in this sad tale has facilitated a breakdown in standards and a member of the public with little awareness or understanding has believed things are being managed properly only to suffer loss of life when they're not.

I never flew with Barry but have hired aircraft from him and met him on a few occasions. A larger than life figure that's for sure. But, if the program's points on the anomalies with his medical are accurate, it's quite possible this was a major factor in the crash.

[Capt Claret]

But, if the program's points on the anomalies with his medical are accurate, it's quite possible this was a major factor in the crash.

Not according to Hempel's sister who seemed at one point to postulate that the passenger's camera, which hadn't been recovered might have been responsible. And at another point said something along the lines that whatever happened must have been unforeseeable.

[004wercras]

It's been around 5 years since I 'bumped' into John Jones, it was a robust conversation, but I must say he is looking more like Tommy Lee Jones these days. More creases on his face than what criss crosses The Skulls vanilla white spotted ass!

On a serious note, of great concern in all this is the rumour that Hempel's doctor/s were also former students. If this is true then me thinks the air just became even more murky. Also of interest is how the Barrymeister could operate so openly right underneath CAsA's flaring nostrils, yet supposedly nobody knew? Nobody ever tipped off CAsA? Hmmmm, me smells pooh. Especially when those hard working CAsA disciples spend many hours in between having coffees and receiving pineapple insertions, trawling Poohtube, Pprune, aviation websites and Fridays aviation section in The Australian, I am certain somebody's internal red flag must have gone up? Nobody noticed anything unusual in cyber land?

Will be very interesting to also see more medical evidence released when the findings are handed down, particularly as to whether Bazza's wrists were broken?

[angry ant]

I would like Miss Hare to contact me. I have information that may be of interest to her.


angry ant

[Horatio Leafblower]

I would imagine any bloke in Australia would be delighted if Ms Hare or her sister contacted them :eek:

[Bedderseagle]

"24/06/2013

Mr Hempel was not authorised to conduct the flight in question as he was required to hold a commercial pilot licence. CASA cancelled Mr Hempel's commercial pilot licence in November 2007.
CASA had no knowledge and had received no reports or information that Mr Hempel was conducting unauthorised flights after CASA cancelled his commercial pilot licence.
After his licence was cancelled CASA understands Mr Hempel did not conduct commercial flights under Hempel Aviation’s air operator certificate."



""""""""""""""""""""""

To a layman that statement is beyond belief and obviously CASA did not conduct ANY checks. It is almost as bad as the former CEO and Chief Pilot at Hempels saying under oath, at the inquest that they were not aware that Barry was conducting commercial joy flights.

As for other comments on medical above it has become pretty clear, from injuries noted, that Barry was not actually 'gripping' the stick at time of impact. :ugh:

[bizbug182]

as anybody who has had anything do with a 52 can vouch it is a awesome performer. easy to fly and is able to conduct the most exiting aerobatics but like most aircraft in this category it must also be treated with the upmost of respect in particular to foreign objects in the cockpit. The 52 is probably the most unfriendly aircraft in the world to loose objects in the cockpit. It has all exposed control push pull tubes and mixers in the rear cockpit that run very close to the floor and the area in the back where the rear elevator horn is located is just perfect for attracting any objects. Extreme caution must also be paid to the rear harness because if the crotch strap is not done up in the harness the buckle will drop down and get jammed in the controls. Because of the nature of the 52 it will be turned upside down regularly and any loose objects will end up anywhere. Being in a group that has operated a 52 for the past 7 years we also have a empty pockets policy however from time to time things have been found.
In my opinion you must at regular intervals remove both the front and back seat get down there with a torch and mirror inspect and then vacuum out the bottom of the fuse.
If we spent all this money on inquests and court time and all the rest of the stuff that goes with it but we could not spend a bit of money to recover the aircraft? At least if we had the aircraft it could be inspected by someone who knows what they are looking at or for and if the location was known and in twenty meters of water surely it could not be that difficult! Are the divers that were sent down familiar with the 52? Who knows what is behind that little panel on the left hand side near the tail

[RenegadeMan]

It just seems our investigators are all too happy to leave these aircraft wrecks and not recover them. This one (appears to be) hardly in a difficult location and surely having it out of the water and in a hangar somewhere for investigators to piece together would likely reveal clues as to the cause? I sometimes wonder if the decision to NOT retrieve aircraft is the easier option as it allows for a level of broad speculation and generalisation as to what's happened that would be less acceptable if they'd pulled it out.

If it was out and people like bizbug182 were called upon to inspect it and offer commentary based on their level of familiarity surely we'd get a lot closer to the truth (or at a minimum be able to rule certain things out)?

[TunaBum]

Loose items in the cockpit???? Just the one - a loose cannon at the helm....

[Sunfish]

Bizbug:

At least if we had the aircraft it could be inspected by someone who knows what they are looking at or for and if the location was known and in twenty meters of water surely it could not be that difficult! Are the divers that were sent down familiar with the 52? Who knows what is behind that little panel on the left hand side near the tail

It would appear, following the ATSB decision NOT to retrieve the Westwinds flight data recorders, that it is now official ATSB policy to close investigations as quickly as possible on the flimsiest of excuses and blame the pilot.

Technical investigations may bring up conflicting facts that dont fit the ATSB script. That is why the wreck isn't retrieved.

[Jabawocky]

ATSB do not do anything in depth (pardon the pun) anymore with respect to GA. Their QF32 type reports seem to be well documented, and perhaps they are, I am not qualified to comment, but they appear to be thorough. Perhaps the additional resources of high quality material from Qantas and others with nothing to hide helps achieve this.

Bring an investigation to a piston GA accident.....and there appears to be a huge gap. Some would argue that the RPT segment is where the resources need to go, well if so, stop doing anything GA, because nothing (no report) is better than sloppy, incorrect or completely cocked up (perhaps even corrupted) reports being published that the industry and public swallow as being truthful and accurate.

As for the regulator, we have pilots, LAME's and others being bullied, crucified or whatever else for flying when they were not, using battery chargers without a label, oil storage without a sign saying "oil store"....you name the absurdities, yet this case where a high profile person who had been banned from doing a significant amount of what he used to do, was able to still do it without any clue at all in the CASA!

It is akin to David Attenborough studying some small lizard while an elephant crushes the film crews camera bag....and he does not notice despite film crew and bag right in front of him behind the camera man!

It just don't make sense!

Maybe the crash was all Ian Lovell's fault, and it could well have been, very plausible, but with ATSB failure and CASA failure, what on earth's chance have we got of ever getting the truth. I am afraid to say this but to be honest, we are wasting more time and money to gain nothing. And putting the family of Samantha and Ian through hell and back.

I admire their strength and tenacity, Shane's also, but I fear it is all in vain.

:sad:

[outnabout]

Whether or not there were issues with the aircraft, to my understanding, from the claims made on Australian Story, Barry Hempel should not have been flying with a fare paying passenger.

To achieve this (providing a commercial operation), Barry Hempel did not act alone. I understand someone else held the AOC he operated under, and someone else was named last night as Chief Pilot at the time. There may have been someone else (receptionist?) who took bookings / money.

Surely others within the organisation knew? At the very least, surely the CP knew the status of one of his pilot's medical / CPL / recency / F&D?

It will be interesting to see if charges are eventually laid against others in the business, seeing as charges have already reportedly been laid against the DAMEs who signed off as his medical.

[Wally Mk2]

'BH' was on a pedestal,we put him there as in society the aviation industry, he did fall from the sky but he also fell from that pedestal under pressure he put on himself. Sadly though he took not only his own life & that of a trusting passenger but he took the normal lives of many others as well.
Samantha has or is grieving twice, once for the actual death of her mate the other for having to live with the deception of some. I can't believe that CASA had no knowledge of BH conducting Commercial flights (or 'Adventure flights' which at the end of the day amounts to the same thing, duty of explaining the risks), that's almost inconceivable for a regulator in such a small industry!

I feel for those that get caught up in misadventures of those that cannot accept/control their ill feelings towards what's been dealt to them. 'BH' was not a saint, he was only kidding himself:-(

In the end BH was just the bullet in a gun held/fired by other person/s

Maybe some out there will remember this event so as to sway them not to do something similar.

Aviation is full of sad stories but what's even more sadder is that humans never learn:sad:

Wmk2

[Fris B. Fairing]

What concerned me about the "Australian Story" report is the statement that the aircraft now serves as a "dive wreck". Another good reason for bringing it up.

[Kharon]

It's passing strange that words are published complaining about 'damage' done to the stellar reputation of the authority by robust criticism from industry, but the adverse comments from the Senate, lower house, Journalists and now the ABC for second time, don't get whined on about or blamed for upsetting the public image. Non of this is CASA's fault, they didn't damage their reputation, play fast and loose with ATSB and QPD or perhaps dally with QBE: nope it's us the ills of society that have damaged the pristine, hitherto unsullied good name.

The story on the ABC last night at least showed some of the public a small part of the ills our society endures and how quickly an industry name can be tarnished.

Games over – Taxi???, don't worry about the receipts.....:ugh:

[Blowie]

Whether or not there were issues with the aircraft, to my understanding, from the claims made on Australian Story, Barry Hempel should not have been flying with a fare paying passenger.

To achieve this (providing a commercial operation), Barry Hempel did not act alone. I understand someone else held the AOC he operated under, and someone else was named last night as Chief Pilot at the time. There may have been someone else (receptionist?) who took bookings / money.

Surely others within the organisation knew? At the very least, surely the CP knew the status of one of his pilot's medical / CPL / recency / F&D?

I watched the show last night, and it certainly appeared as though the Yak flight had been offered by the AOC holder, but it is misleading to promote such flights in that way.

In fact, the Yak could not legally do a 'joy flight', although it might well have been authorised for 'adventure' flights. If it was so authorised, an AOC was NOT necessary, it was NOT a 'commercial operation' and NO Chief Pilot was required either. However, an authorisation from Warbirds should have been provided based on a declaration about who would be doing the flights and who would take responsibility and how.

Also, one of the regulated safeguards for 'adventure flights' is that the passenger must be warned about the risks before paying for the flight.

Wonder if any of that stuff happened?

[Runaway Gun]

What a strange world we now live in, having to warn of the risks.

"If we crash - we might die. I haven't yet, and I've flown xx thousand hours!"

Does that really need saying, and if so, is it really going to sway a customer?

[Blowie]

Quite agree RG, nevertheless, the regulations require the following for aircraft like the Yak:

For an aircraft that has been certificated under CASR 21.189 in the LIMITED category, each passenger must be told that:

• the design, manufacture, and airworthiness of the aircraft are not required to meet any standards recognised by CASA, and
• CASA does not require the aircraft to be operated to the same degree of safety as an aircraft on a commercial passenger flight; and
• persons fly in the aircraft at their own risk

The operator or the pilot in command must ensure that each person carried is told about the matters mentioned above before boarding the aircraft, and if the passenger is being carried on an 'adventure' flight, then before the passenger pays for the flight.

That sort of warning might (or might not) cause a passenger to think twice. Most people who fly in warbirds (myself included) are just happy to get the opportunity to go up - bugger the risks - but they would be enthusiasts, not Joe Public. Hence the CASA requirement for the information to be provided to a potential passenger.

[Jabawocky]

Was that the case back in 2008? Did AWAL have the system in place then, as is required now? And was it optional then? It s now a requirement, prior it was CASA controlled, or at some time prior.

I am curious to learn as I have no prior knowledge of the AWAL managed era.

[Horatio Leafblower]

Yes Jabs it's pretty much been the same all along. I think it was in 2008/9 that the requirement for an "Exposition" came into being describing how you would ensure compliance with all the rules imposed by CASA & managed by AWAL.

The rule has ALWAYS required a valid CPL and a big fat warning trying to talk your customers out of flying with you :rolleyes:

[Jabawocky]

Thanks Leafie :ok: figured as much.

[Sunfish]

The "warning" isn't a warning at all. It is merely a statement that CASA is not liable for anthing to do with your safety, or otherwise.

[Kharon]

"standards recognised by CASA,

CASA does not require the aircraft...etc. "

Well caught Sunny; CYA 101 available in a 2000 page manual, near you right now. "This boat is not the Titanic, so it's not our fault if she sinks". - get it.

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

Do potential clients still sign an 'indemnity' form prior to these flights..??

I can remember such forms from a r a t h e r l o n g time ago.

Just curious is all...

[goddamit]

Thought I'd put in my 2 cents worth on a couple of items from my first hand experience, not just pure amateur speculation which tends to attract emotionally driven comments. Firstly, on loose items. I've flown over 100 hrs aerobatics, competition sequences, low level & the like in high performance GA machines. On one particular occasion, with a paying passenger on a joyflight, while inverted(straight & level), a foreign object landed on the canopy, originating from who knows where. As I was holding the aircraft steady, I had to ask my guest to retrieve the item for me, as I only had 2 hands, & even if I had a third, it was out of reach. This item was a tool, probably left over from another firm's maintenance on the aircraft. Had this item fallen on the floor(which is exposed like the Yak) it could have made it's way into the tail, potentially jamming the rudder & elevator. This item could not be seen before flight, as the cockpit is basic & exposed, like most aerobatic aircraft. I'm under no illusion to the seriousness of finding loose items in the plane. The dismissive comments regarding loose items is from the emotional, uneducated or the inexperienced among posters. However, unfortunately, this does not condone the fact that the pilot flying did not hold the appropriate qualifications at the time. Hence blame & suspicion will be directed in one direction. This damages the reputations those in our industry, also, if by chance it was a mechanical problem(obstruction or other), another event may occur in the future. I'm not saying one way or the other, just giving some facts.
Unless the actual cause, beyond doubt is known, we all need to observe ALL possible contributing factors. It's a pity in this safety driven era, the authorities couldn't raise the wreck for proper examination to once & for all put this thing to rest. Affordable safety, I'm sure.

[Horatio Leafblower]

I would suggest that our era is not driven by "Safety" but by money, lawyers and insurance companies.

[ZokPow]

The possibility that something had interfered with the control was reviewed at the Inquest. A number of witnesses discussed past incidents with yaks and foreign objects. The Coroner requested that he needed evidence beyond reasonable doubt that no object had penetrated the FOD barrier and thus disabled the bell crank in the tail of the Yak. This required an extensive diving exercise by the dive unit at the QPS. It was confirmed at the inquest that the FOD had not been penetrated by any object.

[ZokPow]

On the gift certificate that was provided to Samantha it did not refer to an ‘adventure’ flight but rather a ‘joyflight’. No briefing or information was given to Samantha or Ian with regards to the dangers of flying in the Yak 52 at the time of purchase or on arrival for the flight. No reference to danger or risks were in the brochure that was given with the gift certificate. No waiver was signed. Apparently there was a sign warning of the risks inside the Yak, which Ian may have seen but would have already been strapped in for the flight to begin.

[Jabawocky]

What about a small camera in the cabin? That was never retrieved.

Two separate issues of course. Should BH have been doing the flight? And could Ian have caused the deaths of both?

It could be that the answers are no and yes. Or it could be no and no. How will you know?

[ZokPow]

Barry piloted the joy flight under the guise of all pilots at Hempel’s Aviation having commercial licences. There was an exchange of money for the flight and a gift certificate was given to Samantha. The gift certificate was retrieved from the plane after it crashed.



Barry told Ian that he could bring the camera on the flight. If the camera is to blame for the crash I am unsure how this could be the fault of Ian.



If Ian took over the controls, it was confirmed at the inquest that Barry would be able to overpower him easily unless Barry was unconscious. Unsure how this is the fault of Ian?


How was Ian at fault?

[Jabawocky]

Ease up there.

I am just playing devils advocate. I think it is quite likely BH had some kind of issue, he should not have been there and the whole sale of the ride was shonky. You get no argument from me.

Even if BH said Ian could take a camera, losing it in the controls may well be Ians causing the accident. Yeah I know a lawyer would argue he was told he could take it, so it is still BH's fault.

We will never know for sure.

[Up-into-the-air]

Must be a day for browsing and I found this in a British report on a YAK-52 crash in 2011 - Report is in after a May 2011 accident and a final report by September 2012 - just 16 months:

Post-mortem examination

A specialist aviation pathologist who carried out post‑mortem examination of both pilots found that the crash forces were outside the range of human tolerance and that both had suffered severe multiple injuries on impact. Whilst neither exhibited classical control‑type injuries to their hands, the instructor had suffered ankle fractures which might indicate his feet were on the rudder pedals at impact. Toxicology results were negative other than for caffeine.
Notes on these at: YAK ? 52 Britain cms_resources | Assistance to the Aviation Industry (http://vocasupport.com/?attachment_id=1689)

[004wercras]

UITA, great post mate. Some interesting detail in that report. And I noticed that it wasn't just the local bobbies who were tasked with the investigation? No offence to the Coppers, they do a good job while underpaid and copping hits to the head, but aircraft accident investigation is a specialised field. Just ask the ATSB, it's what they do for a living and they still don't know how to do it!!

[Kharon]

From UIA post on the Yak fatal....http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/thumbs.gif
During a tailchase, the aircraft entered an inverted spin at approximately 1,800 ft agl, probably because of unintentional pro-spin positioning of the flying controls. Although the spin ceased after three turns, the aircraft impacted the surface of a lake during the ensuing dive. The investigation identified several factors relevant to the accident, including operation of the aircraft, the type of flight instruments fitted to it and the manner in which the activity was conducted The aircraft had come to rest submerged in a small lake, approximately 30 metres from the shore. Examination of the wreckage by divers confirmed that the aircraft was lying inverted on the lake bed. The right wing had separated from the fuselage and the left wing had failed approximately eight feet from the wing root. An initial examination of the aircraft was carried out after recovery from the lake. The engine mounting etc. Both occupants had been wearing parachutes and their harnesses, including the crotch strap, and the rudder pedal foot straps were securely fastened. The damage to the fuselage had resulted in failure of the forward cockpit shoulder harness mounting structure. One section of the mounting bracket for the rear cockpit shoulder harness had failed, releasing the right shoulder harness strap. The left shoulder harness strap had failed approximately 30 cm from its attachment point. The aircraft impacted the water in a dive following recovery from the inverted spin. Had the same recovery begun at sufficient height, the aircraft would not have impacted the water In a succinct 15 pages, the 'old enemy' shames the ATSB in so many ways. Lucid, clear logical analysis provided without CASA interference or inference, does not rely on the sterling efforts of the QPS, no embuggerance of evidence, no baffled Coroner, no medical loopholes, no ducking, diving or weaving. Hell even Warbirds didn't get a mention. Just a blessed report: simply and effectively providing most of the answers, as requested and required. Someone send it to ATSBeaker along with a taxi voucher, four white feathers and a self flagellation kit....Please..http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/censored.gif

Repeat x 100: I will not get cranky on Sunday....I will not - Argh, battle lost.

[Frank Arouet]

As a drug wholesaler isn't responsible for the direct death of a user, he/it has facilitated the end result.

Hemple was "facilitated" by CASA.

They are culpable.

[gileraguy]

Horatio

You forgot to place Banks in your list, but as we're discussing an accident, that's not critical.p:cool:

I was thinking the aircraft seemed relatively intact in the underwater footage compared to the heavy damage described in the English Yak's accident report.

This could tend to indicate a somewhat "controlled" impact with the ocean' surface. What would the CASA investigation of the aircraft tend to indicate if it was found that the engine failed prior to impact?

If CASA aren't responsible for Limited category safety standards what's their interest in blaming BH? I.e. where is their liability? In NOT grounding BH perhaps?

[Up-into-the-air]

Here's a thought:

Who has Hemple conducted flight training for and what approvals did Hemple give

AND

Who, of these are employed by casa in the period that Hemple did not have a valid licence or medical.

[004wercras]

UITA, surely not, surely? I mean we have all heard rumours of FOI's drumming up business by failing pilots unless they use the flying schools 'recommended' by the FOI (strictly rumour of course, has done the industry rounds for years), but surely Bazza didn't have mates at Fort Fumble, nah couldn't be? That would be like saying some new hires and promotions were done on the basis of mates rates, or that some I.T functions were farmed out to mates!! Nah, I find it beyond belief, couldn't be true.....

[owen meaney]

All those at Archerfield at the time know the story.
You are simply going around in circles Oleo, maybe one oleo is deflated?
There was nothing short of shooting Barry that would have stopped him from flying. It was everything to him.
The world is indeed a hard place and "innocent' people get killed.

[Frank Arouet]

So that makes everything OK? Perhaps o'whine should have shot him? (that's probably a bit mean though).

CASA are culpable, Hemple was a pilot in need of therapy.

I have flown with Barry prior to this Circus, he was a great and capable pilot, however he should not have been flying because he got his head squashed in a hangar door. He had a documented loss of consciousness which should have removed "ALL" flight crew "PRIVELEGES" until he had a documented clearance from epileptic seizurers for at least eight to ten years.

I've been through the system.

Who, of these are employed by casa in the period that Hemple did not have a valid licence or medical

Anybody in CASA own a Yak or Nanchang?

[004wercras]

Owen Meaney/Blackhand, don't worry Blackie, the Oleo isn't flat, still fully extended and as 'sharp' as ever, thanks for caring though :ok:

[Frank Arouet]

Why didn't you shoot him?

[TunaBum]

CASA knew his history and took away his commercial license. That's all good - but surely they should have known that this would not stop him? It's bleeding obvious. As everyone seems to say - flying was his life. What else was he going to do? Kindergarten teacher?

I would have thought they should have taken all licenses off him and ensured he wasn't still flying. A simple task to check I would have thought - just ring Hempels and arrange a joy flight and see who turns up???

Would they have the power to shut down his business? I would expect not if there are/were others there who could fly?

I wonder if CASA had their time over again if they would do things differently. Are they doing things differently now? Probably not as that would be an admission that they need to change.......

I don't know - it's all just too hard.

TB :(

[Dog One]

One would have thought that the Archerfield CASA office could have been advised by the tower that the suspect aircraft was flying. A drive airside would have soon sorted who was flying and who the passenger was. Though its years since I have been to YBAF, I suppose the CASA office has been closes.

[halfmanhalfbiscuit]

Yes, Archerfield now handled by Brisbane I think. Didn't the Archerfield airport manager join casa?

[Sunfish]

I would have thought CASA could have obtained a court order or simply requested the AFP to meet the aircraft on return and ascertain who was flying.

...then immediately into the slammer for contempt of court.

[Up-into-the-air]

and if they had done that, who would do YAK endorsements??

Anyway who's mum has a whirlpool?? ah ah.... AK????

[601]

Archerfield CASA office

Brisbane office. CASA AF has been closed for years.

As far as I know, the removal of BH's licence was not a product of CASA Brisbane.

[aroa]

You can put it down to Standard Bureaucratic Sloth. No one is interested. No one is accountable. No one is liable. So..... :mad:

Was John Quadrio allowed to keep a PPL, having had his CPL cancelled on ficticious grounds..?:eek:

CAsA says.." Nobody knew... re BH
I say BULLSH*T TRU !!

[Bedderseagle]

Still no date for the coroner's final report with recommendations. Will be almost 5 years since the tragedy. However, rumour has ît CASA has been busy (Mr Harvey) putting ink to paper for their dissertation to the coroner. No doubt plenty of CYA as per normal.

[004wercras]

Indeed, CAsA and Harvey have a robust working relationship that tends to complement each other very well. A but like Sonny and Skippy, Ronnie Corbett and Ronnie Barker, Statler and Wardolf. Why break up a successful marriage where both partners know each other intimately, can almost read each others thoughts, have shared in many wins where truth, justice and transparency flourished!

[halfmanhalfbiscuit]

Now into September or close as damn it and no further forward on the coroners final report. I know it is caretaker mode as pointed out by Albanese in regard to Pel Air.

I agree with Mick Quinns comments about Australia's reputation being trashed. Perhaps Mick will be getting his old office back in April and might be able to change the situation.

[004wercras]

Perhaps you are right halfmanhalfcaretakermode, Mick the Magnificent may return to his old former lofty throne at the Brisbane CAsA Temple!
Bit like the Blues Brothers 'We're getting the band back together'? He could round up Murray, Collins, Vaughan, it could be a real hoot!

[LeadSled]

----- He could round up Murray, Collins, Vaughan, it could be a real hoot!

I think you are way of base here:

Mick has, in by opinion, two chances, none and Buckley's.
Murray, I couldn't say;
Collins, you are so funny, ever though of standup;
Vaughan, no way, he wants to preserve his sanity, and CASA couldn't afford him, anyway.

Tootle pip!!

[004wercras]

Leadie, you do know I was taking the piss, right??

[601]

I know it is caretaker mode as pointed out by Albanese in regard to Pel Air.

The Coroner Office is State institution - nothing to do with the Federal Election.

[halfmanhalfbiscuit]

Quote:
I know it is caretaker mode as pointed out by Albanese in regard to Pel Air.
The Coroner Office is State institution - nothing to do with the Federal Election.

Accept that. What is hard to accept is the ongoing delays.

[Horatio Leafblower]

LeadSled, old cock, you wouldn't be VERY close to one of those mentioned in

...Murray, Collins, Vaughan, ... by any chance? No?

[LeadSled]

Horatio,
Murray I do not know, the other three I know, two of them quite well. Bit hard to not know them if you have been around the aviation business for while.
Tootle pip!!

[004wercras]

Leadie, the relationship between Vaughan and Quinn could only be described as parlous! But it was fun to watch!!
I doubt the Gov'ment would permit the return of Collins, something to do with Lockhart, but I'm not going to start on that again.
Vaughan could be a potential return, he didn't leave CAsA because he wanted to, he couldn't work with the drunk. But I don't think GA would be happy with him returning either.

What to do what to do? I know that a lot of sponsors wanted Carmody (Wingnut) to be DAS rather than the Skull, but the vote, so to speak, went in favour of the Skull, just. Now Wingnut is still out there working in bureaucracy land so you never know, he could come back.

[Kharon]

I'm not hanging on for any response – it's been waaaaayyyy to long. There are too many vested interests, too much to hide and the process was so very neatly diverted to matters 'medical' by Harvey that the best we can hope for is the coroner does not support tightening the screws on pilot medicals; or, having us all micro chipped.

CASA will adopt that form recommendation; it may be the first and only coroner recommendation in history adopted; but if it suits --:rolleyes:

Not one to give up easily; but I fear 'flogging a dead horse' is an appropriate idiom. Expecting the worst while hoping for the best.....http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/puppy_dog_eyes.gif

[LeadSled]

But I don't think GA would be happy with him returning either.

004,
And why would that be??

He always enjoyed excellent relations with all the alphabet soup orgs., he introduced a number of changes all the GA's benefit, and quarantined some of the worst of CASA's worst to back rooms --- all subsequently let loose on the industry again by the present management.
He was responsible for the change that pulled the rug out from under the "data approval" industry, a nice little earner for those around that little trough ---- and recently reversed by the present management. He was moving towards making Schedule 5 a real maintenance program, as per FAR 43, Appendix D --- all anathema to the "iron ring".

I can't think of a single thing he did that was not to the advantage of the industry. After all, he came to aviation from GA - his first job was with Bob Hoover.

His greatest crime, as far as the CASA "iron ring" was concerned, was that he didn't follow the policy of "maximum conviction at any costs, guilty or not". Unusually for CASA, he didn't believe the accusation was the proof of the crime, he wanted real evidence, he didn't believe in the reverse onus of proof.

After all, his experience of "typical" CASA, before he took a contract with CASA, was of the dictatorial behavior of misinformed, inflexible and aggressive behavior of the little martinets all to typical. I believe he would have been no friend of the ALAEA.

Byron hired him as a change agent, he and Byron were never forgiven for that, as you may well know.

Tootle pip!!

[Bedderseagle]

Finally, we have a date for the coroner's recommendations from the Inquest. After waiting and waiting, a sudden announcement and its on this Friday 4th October at 10am, Coroners Courtrooms.

Could this be the beginning of the end - I won't hold my breath on that.

[halfmanhalfbiscuit]

bedderseagle,

Thanks for posting the update. This has been a long time coming.

[Up-into-the-air]

It will be an interesting listen this morning I wonder if FF will run interference like
they did at Lockhart River???

[Frank Arouet]

OUR ABC reports findings damned CASA and recommends action toward Av MED Branch. Hemple had a seizure from reports. (imagine that).

[TWT]

Death crash pilot 'shouldn't have flown' (http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/death-crash-pilot-shouldnt-have-flown-20131004-2uynl.html)

[Cactusjack]

Perhaps 4 Corners will investigate who Hempel knew at CASA, what medical practitioners he had trained to fly, who signed him off as medically fit, and who signed off on his pilots licence at CASA?

[Sarcs]

Very interesting...:=

Hempel Coroner Report (http://www.courts.qld.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0018/212517/cif-hempel-bi-lovell-ir-20131004.pdf)
Recommendations RE CASA

1.That CASA consider immediately disseminating the names of pilots to the industry who have had conditions imposed upon their licence or had their licence suspended or cancelled. As it is a matter of some urgency, the dissemination should be by way of emails.

2.That CASA consider immediately introducing a Register of Pilots which includes reference to licence suspensions and cancellations. That further dissemination should be by way of, a readily available entry on the CASA website in the form of the Register of Pilots, in the CASA briefing newsletter and the bi-monthly electronic magazine ‘Flight Safety Australia’.

(a) The fact that the Register exists should be published as widely as possible and on an urgent basis so that all pilots, airports and related aviation industry members are alerted to its existence.
(b) In the event that concerns are raised by CASA with respect to privacy or confidentiality requirements CASA should be referred to a range of entities which have long published such Registers.

3. That when investigating a pilot’s medical fitness CASA should consider adopting the practice, in the event of becoming aware of an ambulance/paramedic attendance upon the pilot, of obtaining the ambulance/paramedic report and related hospital reports. Where relevant they should also speak to the author of such reports. Those reports should also be forwarded to that pilot’s Aviation Medical Examiner.

4. That CASA give consideration to a review of the ‘culture’ within its Medical Unit of accepting medical information provided by pilots rather than being cautious, in particular with respect to pilots who are at risk of losing their licence.

Commonwealth centralised medical treatment system

5. That the Queensland government give consideration to participating in the Commonwealth centralised medical treatment system (eHealth). That systems records medical data including personal health records, Medicare data, Australian Organ Donor Registration data and Australia Childhood Immunisation Registry data which can only be accessed by medical practitioners. Further consideration should be given to a requirement that Queensland Ambulance Service reports also be included.

[Cactusjack]

Point number 4 is a good one - Culture.
Perhaps CASA's medical unit needs a NCN issued in response to its not utilising 'worlds best practise', plus it having a deficient culture? Then again CASA's overall culture with anything is pretty well crappy.
Poor Poopooshan, will the Screamer give him a smack on the Botty or a promotion?

[spinex]

The old adage; be careful what you wish for, comes to mind. In the a$$ covering fashion of bureaucracies worldwide, all that is likely to come of this is more pain for the average law abiding member of society, watch a medical become even more onerous and costly - the slightest deviation from an arbitrary standard will be referred to a specialist and so on ad nauseam.

No argument this disgraceful situation shouldn't have occurred, but I for one will not be holding my breath waiting for the guilty to be punished.

[Creampuff]

I agree with Spinex

Point number 4 is not a good one, Cactus.

CASA is already way too risk averse on the question of medical certificates.

Sorting out why Mr Hempel was issued a medical certificate, despite a medical history that would result in a refusal of a certificate for anyone else, is the appropriate response.

Denying lots of people medical certificates on the basis of remote risks is not the appropriate response. :=

[Frank Arouet]

A 'register' of unfit people, or a 'hit list' in the hands of CASA give me cause for concern. But then again I don't like the new centralized digital medical records either.

Of note also is the failure to recover the wreckage after The Coroner requested it be done so in a timely manner. That has some parallels with the Lord Howe Island matter.

The concept of a new engine and prop mitigating the conclusion that no mechanical failure is likely flies in the face of some US studies, (I can't remember where I read it), that put the most likely time for an engine failure as just after major overhaul.

I believe The Coroner got it right in general and one should include the word 'culture' in any dealings with our regulator. Any 'inter agency complexities' should also consider this.

[BPH63]

Look up your doctor here:

Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency - Registers of Practitioners (http://www.ahpra.gov.au/Registration/Registers-of-Practitioners.aspx)

[Kharon]

The world is still deceived with ornament.
In law, what plea so tainted and corrupt,
But, being seasoned with a gracious voice,
Obscures the show of evil? Cherry picked; (alas, with no hidden chanteys) but pertinent. Better men have lost much more, for much, much less. Now, was this all 'unfortunate' or:-

He had a contumelious disregard for aviation regulations and the law and he had an extensive history of offences and breaches. I attach hereto a schedule which is self-explanatory. As shown by the Schedule of this decision, Mr Hempel had a long and extensive history, dating back to 1968, of breaching flying regulations. His group of companies, including Hempel’s Aviation Pty Ltd, also had an extensive history of breaches of both administrative and flying regulations. Given the above it goes without saying that he was well known by CASA and had had at one stage or other, inter alia, his Chief Flying Instructor delegation as an Approved Testing Officer ("ATO") withdrawn, his ATO delegations to issue aircraft endorsements removed and various other ATO delegations cancelled. Mr Hempel's licences, had, at various times, been suspended or cancelled. "well aware that Mr Hempel was a pilot who flew with a total disregard for the safety regulations enacted to protect the public, passengers and the aviation industry generally." The evidence at the Inquest gave an impression of a man who believed he was "above the law" so to speak.
It could be argued that the number and nature of Mr Hempel's breaches and the fact that many were repeated breaches indicated that Mr Hempel would probably never comply with safety regulations. In the light of the extensive history of breaches it is indeed extraordinary that he was left with even a Private Pilots Licence What is truly perplexing about this case is that Mr Hempel had any kind of licence at all.
Given the litany of Barry Hempel’s breaches, one is left wondering why CASA allowed him to continue flying notwithstanding his ability to fly, but given his history of breaches, the question arises as to whether he was a fit and proper person to hold any kind of aircraft licence Or; just plain (plane) protected ??.

No man is above the law and no man is below it; nor do we ask any man's permission when we ask him to obey it. (Theodore Roosevelt). Avmed tomorrow, there are some questions methinks;.....http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/evil.gif

[Up-into-the-air]

Careful reading of the Coroner's finding reveals some gems:



REPRESENTATION:
Counsel Assisting: Ms Karen Carmody
Samantha Hare & family of Ian Lovell: Mr Ken Fleming QC i/b Kerin Lawyers
Civil Aviation Safety Authority: Mr Ian Harvey
Dr Sheahan, Dr Lam & Dr Spall: Mr P Hastie i/b Ashurst
QBE Insurance: Mr A Katsikalis i/b Carter Newell
Mr Craig: Mr A Mansfield
The Yak was designated as a ‘limited category aircraft’ in that the design manufacture and airworthiness were not required to meet the standards of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA). The Yak was regarded as a Warbird and as such it was less stringently operated and administered than normal passenger carrying aircraft.
CASA schedule of regulatory action & criminal proceedings [45 charges/ proceedings] instigated against the late Barry Hempel for breaches of Aviation Legislation;
Hempel’s Aviation Pty Ltd, also had an extensive history of breaches of both administrative and flying regulations;
His Commercial Pilots Licence (Aeroplane), his Transport Pilots Licence (Aeroplane) and his Commercial Pilots Licence (Helicopter) had all been cancelled by CASA;
CASA was, therefore, well aware that Mr Hempel was a pilot who flew with a total disregard for the safety regulations enacted to protect the public, passengers and the aviation industry generally;
Mr Hempel was not authorised to take fee paying passengers;
It became evident that no-one, other than Mr Hempel and CASA, knew what licence he held;
Given the litany of Barry Hempel’s breaches, one is left wondering why CASA allowed him to continue flying;
It was the evidence of the officers [QAS] that in their opinion, Barry Hempel had suffered an epileptic seizure [in 2002]. This was clearly marked on the report which was provided to CASA;
At the inquest Dr Maxwell was shown the ambulance report in relation to the events of October 2002 which had been in CASA’s possession. He said this was the first time he had seen that document;
Dr Maxwell said he had to rely upon that which Barry Hempel told him, and for the purposes of the report he was never supplied with the ambulance report by CASA. Had he been so supplied, he said he would never have recommended Barry Hempel’s licence be returned;
In relation to a diagnosis of epilepsy, Dr Cameron was most emphatic, an AV-MED doctor must notify CASA then it’s up to CASA to consider the person’s licence;
He replied - ‘Based on this report, I would still, if he was a pilot, I would say you can’t fly. I would notify CASA I would then do a neurological assessment an examination with EEGs and MRI et cetera.’
Dr Cameron went on to say that it is up to the pilot to notify CASA as well. In summary, Dr Cameron said - ‘I don’t ground him. I say he can’t fly. CASA grounds him.’
Notwithstanding his clinical suspicions, Dr Spall failed in his duty as an av-MED doctor to advise CASA that he had his reservations concerning Barry Hempel’s epilepsy and that he had in fact prescribed Tegretol to him.
During the inquest it became apparent that Dr Spall was aware of at least two instances after the accident with the hangar door, which could have been put down as epileptic episodes, and he failed to communicate his concerns to CASA;
Witnesses from CASA Aviation Medical Branch including Dr Tak Shum and Dr Liddell both agreed that CASA received a copy of the QAS report dated 29 October 2002;
This document ought to have put CASA on red alert as to Barry Hempel’s ability to fly. It is unbelievable that CASA did not act;
During the inquest it became obvious that CASA medical officers were cavalier in respect to the QAS reports of both 1 July 2002 and 29 October 2002, and notwithstanding the opinions of Dr Maxwell and Dr Cameron in relation to ambulance staff and paramedics generally, CASA medical officers chose to disregard the observations of trained paramedics;
The fact that CASA did not test the truthfulness of Barry Hempel’s assertions and withdraw his licence after a due and diligent enquiry proved absolutely disastrous;
A further disturbing aspect of the case is internally, CASA had been on notice as to Barry Hempel’s medical condition and that it required further investigation, and
That notice had been included in a report provided to CASA by Mr John Jones, a CASA investigator;
It is of concern that the Australian Traffic Safety Bureau (ATSB) chose not to investigate the crash;
This concern is compounded by the fact that CASA commenced an investigation but does not seem to have concluded it and no formal or informal report into the incident has been provided to the inquest;
It appears that the Queensland Police Service (QPS) is responsible for the investigation of Civil Aviation accidents/incidents when the ATSB does not attend;
Whatever the complexities of an inter-agency investigation and the delineation of which entity had the responsibility for investigating an incident, it seems that, in reality, it fell between the cracks;

Recommendations Re CASA by the Coroner:



That CASA consider immediately disseminating the names of pilots to the industry who have had conditions imposed upon their licence or had their licence suspended or cancelled. As it is a matter of some urgency, the dissemination should be by way of emails.
That CASA consider immediately introducing a Register of Pilots which includes reference to licence suspensions and cancellations. That further dissemination
Findings of the inquest into the death of Barry Hempel and Ian Lovell 16
Findings of the inquest into the death of Barry Hempel and Ian Lovell 17
should be by way of, a readily available entry on the CASA website in the form of the Register of Pilots, in the CASA briefing newsletter and the bi-monthly electronic magazine ‘Flight Safety Australia’.
(a) The fact that the Register exists should be published as widely as possible and on an urgent basis so that all pilots, airports and related aviation industry members are alerted to its existence.
(b) In the event that concerns are raised by CASA with respect to privacy or confidentiality requirements CASA should be referred to a range of entities which have long published such Registers.
That when investigating a pilot’s medical fitness CASA should consider adopting the practice, in the event of becoming aware of an ambulance/paramedic attendance upon the pilot, of obtaining the ambulance/paramedic report and related hospital reports. Where relevant they should also speak to the author of such reports. Those reports should also be forwarded to that pilot’s Aviation Medical Examiner.
That CASA give consideration to a review of the ‘culture’ within its Medical Unit of accepting medical information provided by pilots rather than being cautious, in particular with respect to pilots who are at risk of losing their licence.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


The above is a summary of what casa was up to in the Hemple case - enough "....holes in the green cheese to line up again and cause a fatality...."

[halfmanhalfbiscuit]

This should be read alongside the recent senate inquiry with its 26 recommendations.

Interesting Atsb didn't investigate. Look at the two cases together might have told them something ?

[Kharon]

You have to admire the guile of Ian Harvey; you don't have to like it, but skill wherever or however manifested must be acknowledged. Clearly he understood the Coroner and neatly deflected the focus to matters medical, rather than matters related to why Hempel had for many years thumbed his nose at the authority. Starting at page 15 continuing to 16, is a neat little rant from Hutton, where his hobby horse is ridden around the arena. Harvey identified this, exploited it and probably had two bob each way on the result. Brava.....

No doubt the Coroner is well meaning and did not spare the Sleepy Hollow men; the now world infamous wet lettuce leaf lash was ferociously applied. Probably the only Coroner's recommendation, in the whole long history of ignored coronial recommendations will be the public flogging of pilots on a weekly list (register) assiduously provided by CASA to the industry. It is to be most sincerely hoped that this notion is stillborn. In the hands of the current crew it could, and (IMO) probably would be used as a lethal weapon.

Just say you came off the skate board one night, on your way home from the pub and some worthless FOI has it in for you. Now, your broken arm heals, just fine and the hangover has long since disappeared. You have been a good lad (or ladette) and reported the broken arm. Now you expect to be declared fit for duty; not so. You mate, are now down on an industry wide list, informing the world and it's wife that your broken wing is suspect and expected to fail during a safety sensitive period of flight; furthermore, that you need extensive close scrutiny while extensive testing for a suspected, deep seated, substance abuse problem is forensically examined. Privacy, forget about all that, your friendly FOI will simply cc the complaint to all and sundry. Couldn't happen you say, well: I'd have to disagree.

Hutton: "That CASA consider immediately disseminating the names of pilots to the industry who have had conditions imposed upon their licence or had their licence suspended or cancelled. As it is a matter of some urgency, the dissemination should be by way of emails"

Bollocks, I believe. Well intentioned, well meaning, but bollocks non the less. Long live the nanny state and the specialist care and feeding of protected species.

Selah.

[Frank Arouet]

I vigorously and urgently concur.

If any recommendations are adhered to, this will be it.:ouch:

[Desert Flower]

From the Adelaide Advertiser today:

Air watchdog failings


A CORONER has been stunned by the failings of Australia’s aviation watchdog, saying a pilot who killed himself and a passenger should not have been flying.

Queensland coroner John Hutton has found the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) knew 60-year-old pilot Barry Hempel had a history of seizures and safety breaches yet did not ground him.

The veteran aerobatic pilot and his 35-year-old passenger Ian Lovell died when Mr Hempel's plane plunged into the ocean off South Stradbroke Island in October 2008.

Moments before the aircraft crashed, a panicked Mr Lovell could be heard on the plane's transmission system saying: “Oh my god, what are you doing? Put it up ...”

But there was no response from the pilot. The coroner found the pilot had likely suffered an epileptic seizure at the controls, sending the plane hurtling into the sea.

Tragically, Mr Lovell's girlfriend had bought him the joy flight as a birthday gift.

DF.

[Paragraph377]

CASA will never be found to be accountable for any action they take or don't take in any aviation matter. They have blood on their hands over the death of Mr Lovell, but all they get is a list of recommendations, which have already been dispatched to the bottom of the LSG's drawers.
CASA also walked away from Lockhart smelling like roses. Again, untouchable.
If you want to study how the Australian regulator will forever remain untouchable just flick your attention across the ditch to NZ, and familiarise yourself with TE901 and Erebus. The highest levels of ass covering were sought by a Prime Minister and his government, as well as an inept CAA. The outcome? You guessed it - SFA. It is a prime example of what you are up against. CASA was never going to be held to account over the Hempel accident, and neither will they in the future when more accidents occur in which they are a contributing factor. To governments and their departments life is cheap and meaningless.

[Captain Nomad]

So much for privacy laws and medical confidentiality hey? What a great idea - NOT! That proposition would spell the unnecessary demise of many a medical and career along with untold angst to both pilot employees and management...

[DeafStar]

So CASA could gain access to private medical records? Is this not a gross breach of medical ethics?

[halfmanhalfbiscuit]

Worth reading this post I think taken from senate estimates where Senator Xenophon is raising question of bullying allegations the senators have been hearing.
.

http://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific/468048-senate-inquiry-hearing-program-4th-nov-2011-a-99.html#post7870392

[harrowing]

It appears, IMHO, that CASA Avmed is doing a kneejerk reaction, will knock back renewals so easily and then wait until the poor sucker goes through the AAT process, which can sometimes over-ride their decision. That way they can tin plate themselves and be proud of their over stringent standards.
Maybe I am just a little cynical.

[Kharon]

Now, I am intrigued; interested in bird activity, of both the maritime and war variety. I noted in the QPS FCU report (B3 p 153) there was a possibility of bird strike on the Hempel Yak. Just thinking out loud here but if, as CASA protest there was no 'evidence' of seizure and as Hutton remarks no fractures then at least the possibility of bird strike should have been positively ruled out, just by examining the aircraft. Like the autopsy report says, Hempel did not die from sudden onset epilepsy, yet the mystery of no broken bones (aviator astragalus) remains unresolved. There's puzzles a plenty here, for them what likes 'em.

It's a bugger though, when the feathered item cannot be discounted. Simple matter if it was, then – Bird strike, or the avoidance thereof; and everyone goes away replete.

The coroner doggedly sticks to 'medical' issues, probably because without a wreck to examine the chances of things like bird strikes, engine or structural failure etc. cannot be tangibly evaluated. Is this going to finish up like the Pel Air saga or the Marie Celeste?; one of life's wee mysteries, or are we going to stop poncing about and raise one or two of the wrecks laying about in shallow water around our coastline. We have the technology, science and funding to clearly resolve the issues and yet, once again, here I sit wondering – why not??

Aye well: at least Creamies dreaded wet lettuce leaf got an outing..... Now there's a happy Sunday thought....:D

[Frank Arouet]

On the balance of probability, the standard I believe The Coroner is held to use, the significance of a bird strike, turtle strike, flotsam strike etc would be far outweighed by the obvious medical incapacitation which The Coroner appeared to address.

Had this been a submission to The Coroner, I have no doubt he would have paid it scant regard to it. Depending also on who submitted this theory based on, an assumption of a probability. (what evidence)?

Did any submission seek to put a 'red herring' in place to apportion, move or remove blame on the submitter?

That's not the job of a Coroner by the way.

I do have serious reservations about some of his recommendations.

[Stan van de Wiel]

The coroner doggedly sticks to 'medical' issues, probably because without a wreck to examine the chances of things like bird strikes, engine or structural failure etc. cannot be tangibly evaluated.

To add to Kharon's possible causes, one that hasn't been considered is "locked controls". The attitude of the aircraft as described was not a controlled one. The exclamation by the passenger appears to confirm. Not knowing the intercom system fitted, with the PTT actuated from the rear seat, the pilot may have responded on his intercom but his words would not have transmitted to the world. Hence no reaction.

An engine failure would not have locked control input but an abandoned screwdriver or spanner could easily find its way into a compromising position through vibration or manoeuvres. Over 50 years of flying I have experienced 3 such situations and witnessed one fatal accident in a Harvard warbird. In the Harvard case the screwdriver was found lodged in a control bellcrank. The more pilot input the worse it gets. (In some cases opposite input may dislodge)

If CAsA were professional and respected confidential reporting, all too frequent instances of misplaced tools would be reported for all to learn from. However the Australian regulatory attitude, despite the so called "safety" mandate is one of punishment. What's easier than to blame a medical condition without ruling out obvious alternatives.

Hemel with his medical history should nt have been flying. An experienced Victorian pilot who suffered a similar encounter with a hangar door has a lifetime ban from flying, yet he declared all and was cleared by several local and o/s experts in the field, but naturally CAsA AvMed know better. The ex pilot is allowed to fly with a safety pilot however in the event of a seizure would the 5ft 45kg safety pilot be able to remove the patient from the controls. But this is LEGAL.

Not that the loss of even one life is not important ! But when the instances of pilot incapacitation resulting in a fatality are compared to fatalities as a result of a pilot's attitude perhaps this is where attention should be focused. Hempel's was an Attitude problem (no pun intended) S.W.

Empty skies are safe skies!

[BPH63]

Deafstar -" So CASA could gain access to private medical records? Is this not a gross breach of medical ethics?"

Maybe you should read the declaration (and permissions) you sign at your renewals. It may be enlightening.

[T28D]

At any time CASA can demand ALL your medical records from DAME , GP, ALL Specialists, all Xrays and ALL tests for all time.

I have had it happen to me and it wasn't a pleasant experience.

To not give them what they want is a strict liability offence and your medical goes up in smoke until you are cleared again.

[LeadSled]

Hempel should not have been flying, full stop.

What always exercises my mind is the "real reason" he was still flying, despite his appalling record over so many years.

Given the usual (for many years) CASA approach --- coming down like a ton of bricks on anybody "they" don't like, who was flying top cover for Hempel.

I know of one now retired FOI who spent years trying to put Barry out of business, (and this FOI is not somebody I would eulogizes - he had his faults in spades) but the "file"was always handled further up the food chain, and Hempel always survived to "fly another day". Even after the attempt to smash the hangar door down with his head, when he was "recovering", he was still flying, something that was hardly a well kept secret.

Once again, we have a system where CASA has not enforced the already draconian rules at their disposal --- in a select case, but will undoubtedly take up the Coroner's recommendations for even more draconian rules.

Quite apart from any CASA involvement, Hempel was a disgrace to aviation, he set an appalling example to the impressionable, but there is the unfortunate trait of Australians to romanticise the Ned Kellys of this world --- and people like Hempel.

Tootle pip!!

[Dangly Bits]

Did I read this correctly?

Bazza's wife calls the ambo's because he had an epileptic fit. The ambo's call his DAME because he wants to go flying. His DAME says let him go, then later gives Bazza a script for an anti-epilepsy drug and doesn't inform CASA?
Later on he hands his file over to poor old Dr Maxwell and doesn't tell him about the drugs or fits?

Is that right? Did I miss something here?

[Dog One]

One wonders that CASA must be blind as well as deaf. The aircraft was flying from a controlled airport, it would have been very easy to figure out who was flying the aircraft and stopped this operation and saved a life. Some one is CASA is responsible and should be taken to task for allowing this to happen.

[Frank Arouet]

the "real reason" he was still flying

Because he could.

And that is the problem.... There is a word for it.

[DeafStar]

Good thing my GP told me he wouldn't give em anything. Not that I have to worry but I really don't like AVMED at CASA knowing I get the odd headache.

[Kharon]

"First principles, Clarice. Read Marcus Aurelius. Of each particular thing ask: what is it in itself? What is its nature?"
There are at least two relatively sane (or they were when their troubles started) pilots who, for various reasons are not operating in their normal capacity: Dom James and John Quadrio. Neither of these chaps had anything but a clean record from day one, but DJ is still slugging away, trying to exercise the privileges of a legitimate ATPL against a foot high stack of manufactured administrative embuggerance. JQ is still grounded, based against the flimsiest of evidence, which, if rumour is true, can and will be destroyed. DJ has had his Senate days; JQ should, if there is any justice in the world. Yet Hempel, with a rap sheet the length of the New Testament, sails serenely off into the aerobatic sunset despite the best efforts of some good men. I, for one would like to know why.

It won't happen, but there is a good case under sections 50 and 50A of the Qld Coroners Act for this whole mess to be re opened. The best argument for this I have seen was written (or signed at least) by non other than Harvey, (there is whiff of voodoo therein) entitled Written Submission of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority. Now why CASA should present a document which brilliantly points out the many shortcomings, holes and limitations of the Coroner's findings is beyond my humble powers.

Probably, I should not even have read this remarkable document; but I have (Willyleaks). The document explains, for me at least, why the retrieval of the aircraft was steadfastly denied. Without the aircraft the possible causes for the accident cannot be 'properly' and forensically eliminated. This leaves a sizeable element of doubt, a very handy thing in a situation where the 'rules of evidence' apply. Should the aircraft have been retrieved, then many of the answers would have been provided, leaving a much shorter list of probable cause. Holmes, as usual says it much more succinctly than I can.

"How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?".

[Radix]

.............

[Fantome]

that's a bit simplistic

[Up-into-the-air]

1. No AOC?

2. No licence

3. No fly!

Why did the ASA tower approval occur?

Why did casa not know?

Who was running top cover for the operation?

Just a couple of saturday questions

Maybe the senators need a couple of quick questions of FF

[Fantome]

better to stick to the informed posts of those who have been on the case
for a long time. bit fatuous to comment without a close read of the reports and transcripts.

[Sarcs]

Kharon: Probably, I should not even have read this remarkable document; but I have (Willyleaks).
I too received a newsflash from Willyleaks:cool:and have seen the truly remarkable:rolleyes: document of which you speak...if true and not another smoke screen, strategic FF ploy, baited liability..“oh that was just a draft”...etc.etc.etc. Then FF would appear to have, if not a legal obligation, but a reportable moral(ha..bloody..ha!:ugh:) duty to notify the State Coroner under s50 of the Act oftheir concerns regarding the coroner’s findings:
50 Reopening inquests etc.—on application

(1) A person dissatisfied with a finding at an inquest may apply to

the State Coroner or District Court to set aside the finding.

(2) The person may apply to the District Court even if, on an

application based on the same or substantially the same

grounds or evidence, the State Coroner has refused to set

aside the finding.

(3) However, the person may not apply to the State Coroner if, on

an application based on the same or substantially the same

grounds or evidence, the District Court has refused to set

aside the finding.

(4) The State Coroner may set aside a finding if satisfied—

(a) new evidence casts doubt on the finding; or

(b) the finding was not correctly recorded.

(5) The District Court may set aside a finding if satisfied—

(a) new evidence casts doubt on the finding; or

(b) the finding was not correctly recorded; or

(c) there was no evidence to support the finding; or

(d) the finding could not be reasonably supported by the

evidence.

(6) If the State Coroner sets aside a finding—

(a) the State Coroner may—

(i) reopen the inquest to re-examine the finding; or

(ii) hold a new inquest; or

(b) the State Coroner may direct another coroner to—

(i) reopen the inquest to re-examine the finding; or(ii) hold a new inquest.

(7) If the District Court sets aside a finding, the District Court

may order—

(a) the State Coroner to—

(i) reopen the inquest to re-examine the finding; or

(ii) hold a new inquest; or

(b) the State Coroner to direct another coroner to—

(i) reopen the inquest to re-examine the finding; or

(ii) hold a new inquest.

(8) A coroner who has reopened an inquest, or is holding a new

inquest, under this section may accept any of the evidence

given, or findings made, at the earlier inquest as being correct.
Besides the fact that the findings seem to point to changing the blame game from “doing the pilot” to “doing the doctor” and FF have yet again (with almost wilful disdain:{), put up another clever legal smoke screen while attacking the Coroner on his duty to uphold s45 of the Act..IMO the paragraph headed.. ‘Failure to investigate by the ATSB, CASA and QPS’..is the most damning indictment on the two Federal safety agencies...

...“It is of concern that the Australian Traffic Safety Bureau (ATSB) chose not to investigate the crash. This concern is compounded by the fact that CASA commenced an investigation but does not seem to have concluded it and no formal or informal report into the incident has been provided to the inquest. It appears that the Queensland Police Service (QPS) is responsible for the investigation of Civil Aviation accidents/incidents when the ATSB does not attend. Whatever the complexities of an inter-agency investigation and the delineation of which entity had the responsibility for investigating an incident, it seems that, in reality, it fell between the cracks.”

Perhaps if the wreck was retrieved and the ATsB had investigated this accident, then maybe the Coroner’s findings may have reflected a less subjective approach and given a stronger appraisal of all possible contributing factors on the ‘balance of probabilities’.:=:=

One thing that FF can’t duck is the extremely bad press that this has generated, here is a couple of examples of headlines that I’m sure will be filtering through to the new Minister and the concerned Senators:

Coroner attacks Australia's aviation watchdog (http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/coroner-attacks-australia8217s-aviation-watchdog-saying-aerobatic-pilot-barry-hempel-should-not-have-flown/story-fnihsrf2-1226732895245)

Indictment of CASA (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/aviation/indictment-of-casa/story-e6frg95x-1226733234213)

Coroner staggered by CASA's failings (http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/2013/10/04/11/21/death-crash-pilot-shouldn-t-have-flown)

& a 7 news vid link:

Killed pilot ‘should not have been flying’ (http://au.news.yahoo.com/video/watch/19253131/killed-pilot-should-not-have-been-flying/)

Hmm..how embarrassing for the DAS and his GWM cronies!:E

[Kharon]

Fascinating stuff: this transcript. I am almost convinced that the CASA case is worthy of serious consideration. There's the quiet little intrigue of the missing camera and pocket knife (QPS B2-87 p 24.2); slightly noisier control interference question and the delicately balanced matter of the 'new' manoeuvre to be considered. The debate about changed propellers is slightly esoteric, a bit of high tech 'fluff' to bamboozle the punters and the endless speculation on Lay (with a capital L) 'eye-witness' all contribute serious doubt on the coroners labours. Intriguing ?? – Yes; when you consider the efforts made to prevent recovery and ATSB investigation, with the lack of any other report other than the sterling QPS effort.

Many would shake their collective heads at the very fancy verbal aerobatics, smoothly explaining away the Avmed questions; "our people are not hands on, neither are they 'experts', essentially, just humble clerks; servants of the people M'lud; who wouldn't dream of ruling against 'expert' medical evidence". Oh dear, oh dear. "Oh and further M'lud, of Dr. Navathe's 'unfortunate' faux pas ["absolutely yes"] he of course did not mean to say absolutely yes; he was misunderstood and provoked". Fee fie foh fum, I smell the words of the voodoo man.

With tempus fugit it and temper fugging it; we leave the transcript; this wonderful missive: while master "K" ambles off for a well earned coffee, breath of fresh air and a long scratch at the old wooden head. It is, you'll own, a funny old world though.

N.B. I made up the blue bits, in italics.....http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/thumbs.gif

[Paragraph377]

Seems CASA Australia and the NZ CAA were born and raised from the same litter. Not much they wouldn't do to cover over their incompetence. And of course they have the unfettered support of big brother to back them in their quest to paper over the cracks, or should I say the gaping craters?
My guess, and it is just a guess from having been involved in several political escapades (not by choice and not on the side of government), is that your new Government will be desperate to imbed itself and be seen as a robust and compliant holder of your Australian values and processes (cough cough).
As I understand, and as has already been alluded to, nothing will happen to the regulatory imbeciles at CASA. Mr JMac's tenure expires in march 2014, and according to Mr Truss department the review of CASA will be completed in February 2014. By the time that report is released in March, Mr JMac will be puffing on a Havana special on a yacht moored off the Maldives. (Or bathing in a Rotorua geothermal spring, which will be emenating a smell similar to what he has left behind). Of course Mr Truss will make sure all believe that JMac has resigned so he can 'pursue personal business interests' (maybe some consulting work for the Swire Group?) and the government gets to save face.
Then again, Mr Truss will still be left with the complete embarrassment that is the ATSB, and Mr Dolan still has some time left to serve, so that may be the one scalp your government is willing to offer up? Oh well, Safe Skies October 2013 in Canberra should be interesting for you, as most of the government aviation folk would rate a 10 on a safety ****ometer. And while we are at it, please tell him to stop flying over the ditch. His boundary should stop somewhere around Norfolk.

And this one below was quite amusing, in which your fearless leader DAS was a guest speaker (I have no idea why)
Agenda :: Safety in Aviation ASIA 2013 (http://www.flightglobalevents.com/safety2013/agenda)

He spoke about behaviour and eliminating resistance to change. For the love of God I am still laughing.

[Frank Arouet]

Can someone break this down and tell me what it means.... simply?

13.45 Lack of knowledge is no defence

Defined and measurable expected behaviour: How key is transparency?
Understanding the severity and seasonality of the problem
Reinforcing a feedback loop and eliminating all resistance to change
John McCormick (http://www.flightglobalevents.com/uploads/assets/John%20McCormick%20bio%20-%20formatted.pdf), Director of Aviation Safety, CASA Australia

[Paragraph377]

Frank, this would seem to be some form of North Korean or German concentration camp method of compliance. It is likely to be the big stick approach where the regulator always assumes that individuals and operators are some sort of non complying safety avoiding anti Christ, and that you are guilty until proven innocent, and even if found innocent you should still be beaten mercilessly with jackboots and a nine iron.
It has been tried on occasion in NZ I may add. So in hindsight, perhaps the gust speaker was the right man for the conference?

[LeadSled]

Folks,
I repeat a previous question: Who in CASA was flying top cover for Hempel????
Think a bit beyond his aviation activities --- it wasn't only for his non-normal aviation activities that he was justly infamous.
Tootle pip!!

[thorn bird]

Now now Leadie, we're not intimating that something may not be Kosher with this. For kosher insert "corrupt"?

[Cactusjack]

Leadsled, it wouldn't be the individual forced to walk the green mile in and around 2008 would it? Said individual had some robust material on his computer. The Sheriffs removed him from the building and the rest is history, so my source informs for me. :=

[LeadSled]

Now now Leadie, we're not intimating that something may not be Kosher with this. For kosher insert "corrupt"?
Thorn Bird,
Perish the thought, I'm certain they are all as pure as the driven slush.
Cactus,
It has always seemed to me that persons of certain proclivities congregate in groups, just like those of us who are all founder members of the "Ills of Society Society".
Tootle pip!!

[Kharon]

When a legal controversy goes to trial, the parties seek to prove their cases by the introduction of evidence. All courts are governed by rules of evidence that describe what types of evidence are admissible. One key element for the admission of evidence is whether it proves or helps prove a fact or issue. If so, the evidence is deemed probative. Probative evidence establishes or contributes to proof. (The free dictionary).

The word was used in a damning attack on one Dr. Maxwell and it intrigued me, so Google to the rescue. It struck me as passing strange (like most of this farce); seeing as the Coroner is not bound by the rules of evidence (same same the AAT). The Doc gets a flogging, accused, without evidence and even less cross examination, of being dismissive and failing in a duty care; the probative bone thrown to a well kicked dog. Mind you, this part only appears after the carefully constructed canonisation of Navathe and his merry little troop of stamp lickers. This is made crystal clear without delving into the intricacies of the CASR; where it is patiently, once again explained that the stamp lickers are not clinicians. Apparently, some rubbish about knowing the limits of their power seems to be the acceptable norm. Suddenly, there are doubts; Avmed would get beaten in the AAT (spare me). Apparently, now they feel they must abide by the AAT indications, on how medical standards are to apply.

Oh, if only it where so. I wish I'd a beer in the fridge for every time the 'non clinicians' had stuck their oar in and grounded some poor sod on a reasonably formed conclusion against 'expert' advice, now that would be a party.

I particularly like the bit where despite the huff and puff, they allow that the autopsy reveals no sudden onset epilepsy (carefully avoiding the existence of non sudden perhaps?).

Patience with medical matters exhausted: lets leave it with the counsel assisting taking some nasty flack over these issues. But it does seem, thus far as though everyone in the world is to blame except those who condone, fund and supply the muscle for the care and protection of their own species. You can't buy this class of top cover from the NRMA. It's a lot of trouble and risk to go to, just to protect one aging, busted head airman.

Do CASA have the clout and case to use QCA section 50 and have the case re opened? – it certainly seems that way. Perhaps, they could insist that the rules of evidence apply next time. That would be fun..... :D

[Frank Arouet]

persons of certain proclivities congregate in groups

Perhaps if one looks back at some of this individuals prior convictions, (outside of aviation), it may give a hint of the type of "company" he may have kept. These "congregations" usually have very good "high cover".

[halfmanhalfbiscuit]

The story has made the British press

British man died when pilot suffered an epileptic fit and crashed his plane into the sea during flight bouth for him by girlfriend as a birthday gift | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2449823/British-man-died-pilot-suffered-epileptic-fit-crashed-plane-sea-flight-bouth-girlfriend-birthday-gift.html)

[Cactusjack]

Frank old chap, bingo! Now there are members of the elite IOS who could shed light on this mystery, but without the type of protection CASA is afforded and without a fifth amendment I am confident that names won't be aired. It is far to risqué and a bunch of CASA's overpaid lawyer muscle would be pounding down your Ascot door and suing you for your home, boat, holiday unit in Kitty city and even the pot plants. Now I know I know some are eager to join the robust dots (parden the pun and potential shanty), but to be fair to PPRune and at least one decent MOD it would be unwise to name names and do a Hinch := However the information that does exist out there makes all of this a potential dogs breakfast, a hot potato, a smouldering steaming mass ready to explode and cover all onlookers, deviants and CASA cronies in smelly brown matter.
This story has only begun really, and you probably need an IOS like Chris Masters or a Chanel 7 stalwart to bust this Easter egg wide open :ok:

[Frank Arouet]

Fear not Cacktus' it won't be me who breaks any eggs on PPRune. I doubt anyone will have that opportunity.

It is enough that people know there are egg shells a'foot that need careful navigation. Mention on this subject is in The Australian, 16th June 2012, which puts it in the public domain. That newspaper has more to gain or loose than me. I'll Leave it to them, no doubt with the MODS blessings.

[Kharon]

And cross checking: The last part of the reading was fairly pedestrian, the push and shove, slither and slide about the ethics and values of medical folk continues. Poor old Maxwell being dragged centre stage as a sacrificial lamb for the CASA crew; no big surprises there. However :- It seems, ancillary issues such as pilot licensing are only tangential; Hempel's long chequered background simply a fillip to the real issues. He apparently lost control of the aircraft, if we are to believe the CASA application of Briginshaw.

The defence of the Hempel CAR 5.21 approval makes for interesting reading though, just shows how, in the right hands, a system can serve as both master and slave. Even so, the show cause response must have been a blinder; it convinced CASA that they just had to be reasonable. Although looking back at the discovery I can't for the life of me determine exactly which part of Hempel's advance argument flipped the coin in his favour, unless it was one of the two headed variety. You need to go back to the discovery if you hope to untangle these mirror generated, smoke shrouded images; this has all been mentioned in previous posts, so there is no point labouring (so to speak).

The rest of the document drivels away, essentially reassuring the Coroner that CASA, once again through planned, future, diligent reform packages and strict, robust compliance with ICAO have masterfully got the situation under control.

There is a final slap taken at Warbirds; perhaps being groomed in the wings as understudy to the cameo performance. Although, I do find, the more I read that my eye keeps being drawn to the QBE / Anastasi/ Treadrea/ Vaughan email chain. But, alas more than that is all idle speculation on my part.

That's it children, I have done my duty for the Ills of Society. I'd love to be able to get the document I've just read public, but wiser heads suggest this is not, for many reasons, a good thing. If it is kosher; then it's probably fiercely protected. So you'll have to make do with my scrambled prose and pick the gold nuggets from the flotsam and jetsam.

Selah.

[Paragraph377]

CASA must have been concerned about the potential outcome of this case. Usually they call upon the expertise of Mr Harvey when they feel a little threatened, a little uncomfortable, a little exposed and a little vulnerable. Something Mr Hempel made his own special friends feel.
Harvey obviously has much more capability than CASA's own legal folk? Some of them seem to look up to him as a sort of grand master, a doyan of legal affairs, a Yoda of law.
Also, a review of the Lockhart River accident as well as the PelAir accident and other anecdotal occasions reveals his regular utilisation in times of need. Perhaps it would be cheaper for the dear Australian taxpayer if he were employed on a permanent basis?
I better not promote him too much though, he may head over the ditch and start assisting the CAA in its own robust aviation legal matters, and that would leave a hole in your defence, a chink in your armour, a chain link missing from your regulators ass covering shield :=

[puff]

Everyone at AF knew what he was doing, everyone knew that CASA seemed to turn a blind eye. The question I also have is the DAME in question is still a CASA registered DAME?

He was a protected species, sadly he took someone else's life, because no one in the industry had the coconuts to stand up to him. Plenty of good CFIs and CPs walked from that business over the years because they wouldn't be walked over, and mandate illegal activities. Those that stayed were puppets for a very well liked but dodgy character. Everyone agreed he was still CP and ran the operation as CEO, but someone else's name was on the business card. What Barry did have is a lot of years of dealing with CASA and the regulator, and even though he was often in the wrong, I think proceedings had been so badly handled over the years he had a lot of dirt on a lot of people as well, which is why he was a Teflon coated, and a lot of people were scared to take him on head to head, because if you didn't have your Is dotted and your Ts crossed he'd make you and the department look like fools.

The sad thing was he was a good pilot, and a likeable 'character' of aviation, but in the end he took out a innocent person that trusted that the he was appropriately licensed and safe to provide him with an experience that he had paid for. A lot of people have blood on their hands for not doing more to stop someone that thought that the rules that apply to everyone else didn't apply to them.

[LeadSled]

The sad thing was he was a good pilot, and a likeable 'character' of aviationA good pilot --- No Way!!! There is no doubt of his stick and rudder skills, but there is far more to being a good pilot than just stick and rudder stuff.
He was a long standing disgrace to aviation.
As to "likeable character", ask some of his victims of his nefarious activities, the criminal law didn't think it was "likeable".
Tootle pip!!

[thorn bird]

hey guys, there's nothing unusual in this, there are one or two CAsA FOI's
with red hands, all swept under the carpet, so why is everyone surprised??

[Dora-9]

LeadSled is spot on!

[Ovation]

CASA are inconsistent in application of Rules and Regulations, and will pursue someone over the most innocent and insignificant infraction, but when presented with sworn evidence of flagrant regulatory breaches will look the other way and do nothing - much the same way as Hempel was protected from prosecution and allowed to keep flying until he killed himself and his innocent victim.

My experience goes back to 2006 when I engaged a well known ferry company based at YSBK with a written agreement from them to comply with FAA and CASA regulations when delivering my new aircraft from the USA to Australia. Unfortunately I had paid them upfront for the job. Even before they left the USA I was aware of their failure to comply with regulations and made it clear they had to comply - their solution was to leave the aircraft in Santa Rosa CA and refuse to offer a refund.

By the time they abandoned it they had committed any number of of strict liability offences, but the one that really pissed me off was the ferry pilot had along for company a student (from their flying school) with a total of 2 solo flights, taking off and landing my new, high performance complex SE CS Retractable G1000 equipped aircraft AND his flight times were logged in USA as flying training (a clear breach of their AOC).

The ferry pilot was incompetent when it came to W+B with the computed CG about 8" aft of the rear limit, the ferry tanking was non-compliant and the Ferry Permit applied for was for a 5% overload when it needed to be 15%, and the log books were signed off by a person not authorised to do so.

All of their breaches were proven and documented, and submitted to CASA YSBK in the form of a comprehensive written complaint. Nothing happened, and in 2013 they still do flying training and ferry aircraft.

Maybe these cowboys will never have an accident or incident within CASA jurisdiction, but if and when they do, I will have the doubtful satisfaction of being able to say Ï told you so. But then (perhaps) some innocent person will have been killed in the process, a result of the same disregard shown by Barry Hempel along with the tacit understanding CASA will not take action against those who choose to wilfully abuse rules and regulations.

[Cactusjack]

Word of the day has to be PROCLIVITIES. It is a succinct word and one that is sure to get the wordsmiths excited. I like it. Well done Leadie :ok:

Kharon, you make mention of warbirds. Interesting as they certainly do tend to have a rather high rate of accidents. Doesn't CASA's fearless leader own and fly a warbird, a Yak? Anyway I'm not asking for any particular reason, just curious really. I tend to gravitate toward data analysis, trending of patterns etc, and it would seem there has been more than one warbird owner/operator that has been hit in the head and ended up with a few loose aileron screws. Now that is NOT an indictment on all warbird drivers so please refrain from abusive PM's, unlike CASA I don't classify one class of human being as being lower than another. It's just that there has been some interesting periods of activity within the warbird group over recent years.

Hempel and JMac discuss Yak's?
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ZVkn_a1X554

[Radix]

.............

[Kharon]

CJ.#656 –"Kharon, you make mention of warbirds."

Only because reference to WB 'floats' in and out at the strangest of places, usually in the last paragraph; almost as an afterthought.

Excerpt from Instrument CASA 161/07.

I, SHANE PATRICK CARMODY, Deputy Chief Executive Officer, Strategy and Support, a delegate of CASA, make this instrument under sub-regulation 262AN (1) of the Civil Aviation Regulations 1988.

I approve the Australian Warbirds Association Limited (the Association) as an approved organisation to administer the operation of aircraft engaged in special purpose operations mentioned in subregulation 21.189 (3) of the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998.

The approval is subject to the conditions mentioned in Schedule 1.

The Association must have suitably qualified and competent personnel to ensure the administration of relevant aircraft operations, airworthiness assessments and continuing airworthiness procedures are properly carried out. etc.

I'm not sure why the instrument 161/07 was issued or why it is in the Hempel file. 161/07 seems to be simply approving Warbirds as stated (my bold). The CASA chronology flags 11 May 2007 – "Issue of Instrument 161/07 effective 14 May, 2007 "approval" of Australian Warbirds Association", but the show causes summary provides no additional information. Perhaps someone can explain what it means in relation to Hempel's operations. It's a bit of a puzzle; but only in that it doesn't seem to fit in anywhere. It's probably just so WB can oversee the Yak operations as approved above. It seems like a reasonable move, bring in a third party. But the how and the why of it I can't hunt down in the available documents; WB just seems to haunt the periphery without actually being dragged into the scrum. Dunno, only idle curiosity, maybe one of the grown ups can explain.

[601]

Perhaps someone can explain what it means in relation to Hempel's operations.

The Yak was not on nor could it ever be on Hempels Avaition Pty Ltd AOC.

It should have been administered under AWAL.

From what I know, BH was not a member of Australian Warbirds. If this is correct, the Yak had no authority overseeing its operation.

With the advent of Limited Category, AWAL became the industry body to undertake self-administration of the category on behalf of CASA.


So the only CASA involvement with this accident should be the administration of BH's pilot licence.

I wonder how many more warbirds have fallen through the crack between CASA and AWAL.

[Paragraph377]

601, surely you jest? The crack between CASA and AWAL is bigger than the crack between Oprahs butt cheeks. CASA form a giant crack, barrier, gully, mountain and solar curtain between themselves and anyone and anything aviation. They are vindictive, anti social, conceited, out of touch, bullies, bull**** artists and obsessed with being seen as correct on every matter, even when in reality they are the opposite. Thereare highly skilled aviation industry people out there who make CASA people look like mere apprentices. But hey, never let that get in the way of a robust, compliant system. And that is just their good points :D

They are a one and the same these clowns - CASA, CAA, FAA, CAD, all pedlars of bureaucracy, malfeasance and buck passing. Their destiny is to go through life with a tin of turd polish in one hand with their organisation in the other hand.

[Cactusjack]

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ygFz7hwC1Pg

[Fantome]

para377 . . .. . . OK, so the system is rotten. Many there are who know this first hand. But a torrent of vitriol is not helpful to a meaningful debate as to necessary reforms.

[Kharon]

601 #659 - "It should have been administered under AWAL." Good point, the short quote you popped in seems to indicate that AWAL would/should 'stand in the shoes of the regulator', so to speak. Instrument 161/07 mentions "relevant aircraft operations", does this stretch to ensuring that the flight crew are qualified, competent, have a rule set and SOP to work to?. Like (for example) a fatigue score for commercial aero's, 12 loops a day is the limit. CASA most certainly would do that for an elevated risk operation which was available to 'the man off the street'...:rolleyes:..... If Hempel made a fatigue related error, pure and simple, I wonder that the spectre of pilot fatigue (particularly for older souls) was not examined. Harvey alludes to this, albeit obliquely. But for mine, it could just be a contributing factor. No doubt the ATSB covered it adequately in their stellar report....http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/evil.gif

A lay interpretation of 161 seems to indicate that the "Operation" rather than the "man" was under the administration of AWAL. That Hempel himself was not a paid up member seems moot; although the instrument is certainly slippery enough. It begs the question – just who was responsible for allowing the Hempel company to operate, as it did.

There are a couple of emails at the end of the CASA summary of show cause (Vol 2) which caught my eye, (the one which indicates 'mysterious' new witnesses for example). I left them aside as they seemed not to fit into that particular email daisy chain; although they certainly provoked a response from SC Bourke (QPS). Maybe it was just the offer of "qualified" divers that got SC Bourke salivating (or cranky).

Reference starts from page 72 (pdf counter) the email time sequence is all buggered up, so you need to wiggle things about a bit; but, AWAL were, at least peripherally involved. Perhaps this could explain why CASA was so frustrated and could only hammer away at the man's medical issues, rather than the company operational issues. It also may go some way in explaining the perception of 'top cover'.

One thing is clear, I don't know enough about the AWAL charter; yet.....http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/cwm13.gif

[601]

They are vindictive, anti social, conceited, out of touch, bullies, bull**** artists and obsessed with being seen as correct on every matter, even when in reality they are the opposite.

Must be a different crowd that I deal with. I do point out to them every now and then that they are wrong and get a "Sorry, but you are correct" in reply.

[LeadSled]

Folks,
I note references to AWAL, Australian Warbirds Association Ltd.
As already noted, AWAL are the body that administers Limited Category aircraft.
(1)The Hempel YAK was an aircraft certificated in the Limited Category.
(2) Hempel was a member of AWAL,
(3) Was AWAL aware of whether he was a financial or unfinancial at the time of the accident?
(4) AWAL has no jurisdiction over medical or basic pilot licensing matters, that were the core of this inquest.
Tootle pip!!

[601]

Australian Warbirds Association Ltd
I believe they also have the role of investigating any accidents.

[Frank Arouet]

Who then investigates the investigator?

BTW, they, like RA-Aus, are a self administrating body, not a self regulating body.

CASA regulates them all.

The buck stops somewhere...... sometimes......

[Lookleft]

para377 . . .. . . OK, so the system is rotten. Many
there are who know this first hand. But a torrent of vitriol is not helpful to a meaningful debate as to necessary reforms


Some say his vitriol is bigger than his vacuum pump while others say his landing gear is extended through his bleed duct. All I know is.....they call him MOIE!

Welcome back, we missed the displays from the earthy part of the thesaurus:ok:

[Up-into-the-air]

Good to see you back with "...deep and meaningfull comments.."

[LeadSled]

I believe they also have the role of investigating any accidents.

The accidents, of which I am aware, have all been investigated by ATSB.
AWAL do have a function investigating some incidents, including incidents referred by CASA.
Tootle pip!!

[Kharon]

Australian Warbirds Association Ltd (http://www.australianwarbirds.com.au/)


Not to say it's not there, but I couldn't find a "Charter" or detail of how the legal 's are managed and arranged, which would have been of some interest. Cribbed from the AWAL web site; spelling errors and all... :D

Subsequently, with the advent of Limited Category, AWAL became the industry body to undertake self-administration of the category on behalf of CASA. (If AWAL had not done so, Limited Category would no longer exist). The result is that we Australians have more freedom to fly a greater variety of ex-military aircraft than practically anywhere else in the world.

Structure: AWAL is managed by a board of volunteer directors. The CEO and Director of Self Administation report to the Board.

Services provided by Australian Warbirds Association Ltd:


Administers Limited Category aircraft on behalf of CASA.
Provides systems of maintenance for various warbird types.
Bi-monthly newsletters to keep members informed.
Conducts seminars and training days for engineers, owners, and pilots of limited category aircraft
Assists Warbird enthusiasts to get close to real Warbirds and their operators.



Paid Adventure Flights.
A big advantage of our Limited Category, and one available in very few parts of the world, is that you have the opportunity to earn money with your Warbird. Unlike standard category commercial operations, you don’t even need an AOC! However, to do so you must comply with the following. Firstly, you must submit an exposition to AWAL on how you intend to meet the operational requirements. (Under Manuals, you’ll find details and assistance on doing this). etc.

Thirdly, the pilot must be a CPL or higher, and be appropriately endorsed and experienced.
Someone has done a good job there and put in some hard work. The guidelines and advice (see the Manuals section) for potential war-bird owner/operators is clear, concise and within the grand scheme of things as idiot proof as possible. AWAL are to be congratulated. It's refreshing, a pity CASA don't get the same team to write a few of the regulations and guidelines for the wider community.

Reading through the data available it appears, at first glance that Hempel (man and operation) showed the same blatant disregard for the AWAL as they did to the CASA. Perhaps it explains some of the 'why' there was a sense of invulnerability. This is a further shame on Hempel; it's easy to forget there was an operation behind the man, equally responsible to CASA and AWAL. An organisation like AWAL is a good thing and it would be a loss to all to see the sensible, compliant operators penalised because of the actions of one individual and the company supporting his antics.

You could even say CASA have done well, showing common sense, patience and forbearance in their dealings with AWAL going forward from Hempel. The balancing act for both CASA and AWAL to maintain "independence" and a working relationship must be difficult enough, without the likes of Hempel undermining it. I wish them well for the future.....http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/thumbs.gif

[Sarcs]

Kharon, on Milt Jones thread, drew attention to recent FF AAT decisions in post #107 (http://www.pprune.org/8094890-post107.html).:E
Going through those cases I came across one that was an AAT review and decision to do with a FF suspension of a pilot's class 2 medical.

Here is the relevant link: AATA 465 (http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/cth/AATA/2013/465.html?stem=0&synonyms=0&query=Civil%20Aviation%20Safety%20Authority)


& here is a quote from para 39 onwards where you'll see a familiar suspect:
1. On the basis of the evidence of Professor Navathe[1]we are satisfied of the following:

· a seizure during any stage of flight risks major interference with the safe control of the aircraft due to the interference with consciousness associated with any seizure event;

· a seizure may occur with very little warning, thus preventing the safe hand over of control to another pilot;

· a seizure may cause the pilot to block the primary flight controls (yoke and rudder pedals) and interfere with secondary controls, such as the throttles, flaps or undercarriage;

· the confined space typical of most cockpits would limit the opportunity to minimise self- harm [physical injury or respiratory obstruction] due to the fit;

· these characteristics of seizure activity, and their potential risks in the confines of an aircraft cockpit mean that, even if Mr ****** were flying with a qualified co-pilot, the timing, nature and severity of any seizure activity maybe such as to prevent the co-pilot safely assuming control of the aircraft in order to avert an accident in the event of Mr****** suffering from a seizure;

· a seizure in a solo- piloted aircraft would result in complete loss of control;

· the post-ictal phase would limit the restoration of normal cognitive function for an extended period of time.

2. Taking into account the effect that a seizure would have on the ability of Mr****** to operate an aircraft, we are satisfied that the risk that he will suffer a seizure or seizures, is likely to endanger the safety of air navigation.

3. We have given consideration to whether a condition or conditions could be imposed inaccordance with regulation 11.056 which would reduce the likelihood of endangering the safety of air navigation to an acceptable level. Taking into account the evidence of Professor Navathe as to the risks involved if a pilot suffers a seizure while in control of an aircraft, we are not satisfied that the imposition of a condition or conditions would reduce the likelihood to such a level that it would be acceptable. Mr****** did not contend that the issue of a certificate subject to conditions was appropriate.

Conclusion

4. The reviewable decision, being the decision of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority made 21 September 2012 and which refused the application of Mr****** for a class 2 medical certificate, will be affirmed Hmm..now swap Mr****** with Mr Hempel change a few details like dates etc and it kinda makes you feel crook in the guts!:yuk::yuk:

"But your Honour according to the Willyleaks document (from aussie cricket devil's number onwards)...the coroner got it wrong and on the balance of probabilities Bazza couldn't possibly have suffered a seizure prior to the crash!":E

Oh well back to Bathurst...:ok:

[Kharon]

Sarcs – there are some interesting lessons within the AAT summaries. This one caught my attention while doing a skim through, I stopped and read the whole thing (2 pages). It speaks volumes (not tongues) of the 'mindset' at Sleepy Hollow Medical. This Mr. G, like all of us I expect, has honestly discussed with his DAME the en's and em's of his medical condition; and his DAME has decided that the Mr. G's medical condition was 'satisfactory'. It's a hell of a state where not only is Mr. G's honesty called into question, but that of the DAME as well and this, mind you, all based against 'paperwork'. Maybe someone let the watch dog off the chain and it's now on the high street chasing cars.

Then again, if this case represents the lengths to which Avmed are prepared to go to, in blind support of their decisions, it does raise, yet again the sceptre of top cover for Hempel. It appears that some horsepower is needed to influence the 'Professors' opinion. Maybe, he finally managed to catch one of those cars.

(2013)~AATA 48. (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/AATA/2013/48.html)

The decision under review is set aside and the matter remitted to the respondent for reconsideration in accordance with a direction that the applicant did not knowingly or recklessly make a false or misleading statement in relation to his application for a medical certificate.

1. That decision was made because the delegate concluded that Mr G had knowingly or recklessly made a false or misleading statement in relation to his application for that medical certificate.

6. (7) CASA must not issue a medical certificate to an applicant if it is satisfied that the applicant:
(a) has knowingly or recklessly made a false or misleading statement in relation to the application for the medical certificate; or

10. The submissions for CASA did not descend to any detailed examination or analysis of what the expressions “knowingly” or “recklessly” conveyed. Its representative appeared to accept that the matters that needed to be demonstrated for me to be satisfied that Mr G had knowingly or recklessly made a false or misleading statement in relation to the application were:

13. The evidence falls well short of demonstrating that Mr G suffered from glaucoma from November 2007 onwards. The latest of the reports is from September 2005. Moreover the evidence from Mr 's current ophthalmic surgeon, Dr Stephen O'Hagan, is to the contrary. In a report to CASA of 10 November 2011 Dr O'Hagan wrote,

[Up-into-the-air]

Any answers anyone??

[TunaBum]

The QLD Supreme Court might have some thoughts on their obligations - along with the obligations of the doctors involved. That is unless those claims (proceedings) are settled "out of court" to avoid such scrutiny........:8

[Paragraph377]

Fort Fumble have just dropped this one on to their website. Released after frequent FOI requests, post Hempel of course.

http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/lib100096/foi_f13_5348.pdf

Sarcs, get your analytical teeth into this one old son :ok: One would expect you will pick up on a nugget or two. Perhaps you will even find a medical shanty tucked away between the pages?

[Bedderseagle]

Just returned from stints O/S, I suppose all is forgotten from this sordid affair since the coroner's recommendations? But at least it was encouraging to read that when the Tiger Moth went down a few months back ATSB were quick on the scene. Would have had more satisfaction if CASA could have been taken to task or admitted some form of neglect. It was said after the findings that CASA would make formal comment . . guess I was too naive to think that would ever happen. :8

[Kharon]

Beautiful timing Bedders – Choccy frog, not one of the fuzzy ones from the bottom of the nav bag either; no, you shall have a wrapped one....

Toot toot.

[TunaBum]

CASA comments unlikley whilst QLD Supreme Court proceedings still active.... :cool: