Any news on Barrier? Minus the drift. [Archive]

anothertwit

15th Feb 2013, 06:23

From what I hear CAsA tried for a 28 day extension to the grounding and didn't get it. Instead were forced into mediation. :ouch: According to CAsA's tweets they are happy with this, but my mate has said Barrier have been asking for talks with CAsA for a while now with a stern NO being the reply to any such requests. Funny how they're happy to talk, now that they have to.:hmm:

edit - from the horses mouth

MEDIA RELEASE
For immediate release - February 15th 2013 (Cairns)
“Judge orders mediation”
In a Federal Court hearing held in Sydney today the Judge has ordered that CASA and Barrier Aviation move to mediation early next week in a step to resolve a number of alleged issues. A second hearing will take place on Friday, 22nd of February in Sydney.
Mr David Kilin, Managing Director of Barrier Aviation explained “we feel that mediation is a major step in the right direction and it is certainly something we have been pushing for since being grounded in December.
The fact that mediation and the follow up Court hearing will take place within seven days is an indication that both parties want to resolve any alleged issues quickly. We applaud this response as the financial strain of being grounded for so long is certainly proving challenging.
That said, we have to look forward. We continue to stand by our 20 year history and safety record and we welcome the opportunity to defend our name and reputation. We remain extremely grateful for the overwhelming support we continue to receive from throughout Cairns, Cape York, Torres Strait and Darwin.”
END

Josh Cox

15th Feb 2013, 10:31

Defenstrator,

I think you've got it wrong, today was CASAs big chance to present evidence and witnesses, yet it would appear they didn't, why is that do you think? .

They went to court, the magistate apparently did not issue CASA another 28 days, why is that do you think? .

Apparently ordered to mediation, why is that do you think?.

If you get caught doing 80 in a school zone, would the court order you into mediation with the police service? .

Model litigator...........

Dash 42

15th Feb 2013, 11:33

Josh,

Unfortunately, it's not as black and white as being caught doing 80 in a school zone. Barriers solicitor alluded to the fact that CASA had concerns about the safety of the Horn Island operation. CASA's initial media release stated:

"CASA has evidence of Barrier Aviation directing pilots to fly with serious and known aircraft defects, as well as not recording those defects on aircraft maintenance documentation when the defects became known."

Rumor has it this evidence was in the form of a snag book (let's not get into a debate about the legalities of this - its not legal!). CASA look at this, then the MR and soon work out what's going on. This warrants further investigation, and when considering the potential safety risks from letting barrier fly with evidence of "serious and known defects", they had no choice. One must cover ones own arse, and CASA are good at that.

This evidence however is not the smoking gun. In order to prove the alleged occurred, it requires further investigation. Just let the investigation take its course, all will be revealed.

Dash

fierylildevil

15th Feb 2013, 23:46

The little black book
:=

aroa

16th Feb 2013, 09:27

a short time frame.? How much paperwork is there?. If there's mobs, then overtime is 'go', or lay on extra staff.
And there's that mantra, they so often trot out..under-staffed and "overworked"

Well might they have some serious poo on Barrier, and you can rest assured that they will be looking for every un-dotted i and un-crossed t, however trival, to build up the Hit file.
As for the extra 28 days, thats for more financial nails to drive into the Barrier coffin.
Remember..this is an outfit that does NOT play by Queensbury Rules.

Local historical example ..had 119 charges on operator xxx, got busted on five, minimal fines and a 2 year good behaviour bond.!
Bloody courts! :mad:

Sarcs

21st Feb 2013, 23:11

So any word on how the AAT mediation conference went...the directions hearing is listed this morning so I suppose we'll be hearing soon the outcome of mediation :( or :ok::
Justice Rares Court Room 19E
9:00 AM First Directions
1 (P)NSD28/2013 TAX PRACTITIONERS BOARD v MARK ANTHONY SHANAHAN
9:00 AM Directions
2 (P)NSD2240/2012 CIVIL AVIATION SAFETY AUTHORITY v BARRIER AVIATION PTY LTD ACN 056 643 531
3 (P)QUD334/2012 STANDARD BANK PLC v MITCHELL BALL AS LIQUIDATOR OF MUSTANG MARINE AUSTRALIA SERVICES PTY LTD (IN LIQUIDATION)
4 (P)NSD26/2013 INTERNATIONAL BUNKER SERVICES K.K v THE SHIP HAI SHI
5 (P)NSD2170/2012 PATRICK BYRNE v MLC LIMITED ABN 90 000 000 402
6 (P)NSD453/2012 IAN MATHIESON v DST GLOBAL SOLUTIONS PTY LTD
Lets hope for a positive outcome for DK and his crew!:O

beaver_rotate

22nd Feb 2013, 01:20

Heard its in the hand of administrators...? Might be bull$hit... Nothing on the web or in CNS post

Delta_Foxtrot

22nd Feb 2013, 04:22

At least two, maybe three, Barrier Bongos spotted at Mareeba earlier this week.

blackhand

22nd Feb 2013, 07:08

testing 123

Ex FSO GRIFFO

22nd Feb 2013, 07:14

One BN-2a-26 Islander listed 'For Sale' in Feb. edition of 'Aviation Trader'...
ex Mareeba....along with an Aztruk,

Any connection with current 'financials', or just co-incidence I wonder..?

Hope you Guys & Gals 'come out OK'...

Cheers, and Gooood Luck...:ok:

Capt Claret

22nd Feb 2013, 07:17

According to 7 Local News tonight (1800 22/02/13), another week's grounding and in that time CASA to decide whether to issue a Show Cause Notice.

MyNameIsIs

22nd Feb 2013, 20:57

"good paint" on the Islander.. well, for being painted outside behind a tarp I suppose so!

Up-into-the-air

22nd Feb 2013, 22:41

To put together the public material:

ABC News 24 December, 2012 5:15PM AEST

CASA extends Barrier Aviation's suspension
By Sam Davis A Cairns based aircraft charter service says it expects considerable financial losses following the Civil Aviation Safety Authority's [CASA] decision to extend its suspension to February 15.
4
The extension follows Sunday's statement from CASA announcing it would take Barrier Aviation [BA] out of the air because of 'a range of maintenance related deficiencies'.
The initial suspension meant BA would have been grounded for five working days but the company's 55 employees will now spend Christmas mulling more than two months out of action.
Following the first suspension BA said more than 750 people may not make it home for the holidays.
It is now unclear how many people will be inconvenienced.
BA runs around 30 flights a day out of Horn Island, Darwin, Gove and Cairns.
Manager David Kilin said the timing could not have been worse for the company.
"It's totally wrecked our Christmas," he said.
"It appears they've reacted to allegations made by a disgruntled former employee. The allegations put to us ... are mainly related to maintenance."
In a statement released Sunday CASA said it regrets any inconvenience to passengers but that safety of passengers was their main concern.
"CASA has evidence of Barrier Aviation directing pilots to fly with serious and known aircraft defects, as well as not recording those defects on aircraft maintenance documentation when the defects became known," the statement said.
But Mr Kilin said BA has a strong safety record and has never been taken out of the air since the company was founded 20 years ago.
"We're vigorously defending our position. With the holiday period it makes it awkward," he said. "It's just disappointing. The timing of this almost seems like it was premeditated."
"I think perhaps there are individuals in CASA who are responsible for orchestrating some of this."
CASA's Peter Gibson said further time was needed to investigate concerns about BA's maintenance of their fleet.
"These allegations are very serious," Mr Gibson said. "Obviously not maintaining an aircraft properly, fixing faults ... puts at risk the entire safety of an aircraft during its flight. We can't condone that in Australian aviation."
CASA would not comment on whether current or former employees had approached them with evidence of maintenance problems on any of BA's 34 planes.

© The Cairns Post

Barrier still in no-fly zone
Michael Serenc
Monday, January 7, 2013
© The Cairns Post

THE stand-off between Barrier Aviation and the Civil Aviation Safety Authority has continued, with neither party taking any significant action since the airline was suspended from flying until February 15.
Principal lawyer representing Barrier Aviation, Derek Perkins, said Barrier was still awaiting the results of CASA's investigation.
"The cards are all in CASA's hands in terms of the court process and their ability to maintain an investigation whilst the airline is suspended," Mr Perkins said.
"CASA have been quiet and we've been quiet. Everyone's got their heads down."
In an open letter written to CASA on January 1, Mr Perkins estimated the airline was haemorrhaging $28,000 a day since being grounded and had suffered "severe reputational damage".
Barrier's sudden grounding, which was initiated by CASA on December 23, has affected the airline's entire fleet of 34 aircraft and 55 staff, spread across their bases in Cairns, Darwin, Gove and Horn Island.
The regulator claims it has evidence of Barrier "directing pilots to fly with serious and known aircraft defects, as well as not recording those defects on aircraft maintenance documentation when the defects became known".
The charter airline was initially handed a five-day suspension but that was extended by CASA after an application to the Federal Court.
CASA spokesman Peter Gibson said the regulator's investigation was still ongoing.
"We've got a lot of material to work through. We have got a dedicated team working on it," Mr Gibson said. "We'll complete that as quickly as we possibly can."
Mr Gibson said it was "too early to say" if CASA was on track to lift the suspension on the airline.
"Barrier have said to us that they were going to put a plan to us to address the issues that we've identified so far," he said.
"Now, we haven't seen that yet, but that may be of assistance."
The airline has had strong support from fellow local operator Hinterland Aviation.

ABC News Friday 15th February 2013

Court orders grounded airline to mediation
By Sharnie Kim
Updated Fri Feb 15, 2013 1:53pm AEDT

PHOTO: Barrier Aviation has since had to stand down all its staff and says it is at risk of financial collapse. (ABC TV News - file image)
RELATED STORY: Grounded far north Qld airline fears closure
MAP: Cairns 4870
The Federal Court has ordered the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) and grounded far north Queensland-based airline Barrier Aviation to go to a mediator.

CASA suspended all of the airline's operations in December last year amid serious safety concerns.

Barrier Aviation has since had to stand down all its staff and says it is at risk of financial collapse.

A CASA spokesman says mediation talks are expected to be held ahead of another Federal Court directions hearing next Friday.

advo-cate

23rd Feb 2013, 05:17

Been looking this matter in the Federal Court information for what happened on Friday 22nd February 2013:

Barrier Aviation – Cairns | Assistance to the Aviation Industry (http://vocasupport.com/?page_id=355)

This shows the full file - The matter appears finalised.

Radix

23rd Feb 2013, 08:54

That court order reads as "game over".

Up-into-the-air

23rd Feb 2013, 08:56

Read the information that is posted!!

Josh Cox

23rd Feb 2013, 10:04

Yesterdays order:

THE COURT ORDERS BY CONSENT THAT:

1. Pursuant to s 30DE(2) of the Civil Aviation Act 1988 (Cth) the respondent be prohibited from doing anything that would otherwise be authorised by the Air Operator’s Certificate held by the respondent for a period ending at 5pm on Friday 22 February 2013.
2. Each party bear its own costs of the proceedings.

http://vocasupport.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Federal-Court-February-2013-File-details-applications-for-file.pdf

Sarcs

23rd Feb 2013, 10:13

Lazy bugger UITA!:E Tell the story for FFS:

ASSISTED DISPUTE RESOLUTION filed by CIVIL AVIATION SAFETY AUTHORITY(A) on 20-FEB-2013

20-Feb-2013
Closed
21-Feb-2013

Court Events and Orders (https://www.comcourts.gov.au/file/Federal/P/NSD2240/2012/)

Details (http://www.pprune.org/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=7710389#;javascript<b></b>:void(0);)

21-Feb-2013
10:15
Mediation
Registrar Tesoriero
Level 17 Mediation Room
Finalised - Resolved

Order Type

Decision Type

ADR Outcomes (needed to allow entering of an outcome only)
ADR - Held, Resolved - Finalised

Radix I guess that means it has been resolved...it now depends on whether DK and his crew can afford to continue to operate??

anothertwit

23rd Feb 2013, 10:22

To me it says the judge didn't have the minerals to make a final call on the matter. Instead letting the suspension run out at 5pm on the 22nd. Leaving CAsA open to slap another 5 day suspension (which they did) on Barrier and start the financial strangling all over again.

That's my take on it anyway and I may be way off the mark. :confused:

Josh Cox

23rd Feb 2013, 10:45

Leaving CAsA open to slap another 5 day suspension (which they did) on Barrier and start the financial strangling all over again.

If that is the case CASA and the FOI's / AWI's ( as individuals ) are playing a very dangerous game.

anothertwit

23rd Feb 2013, 11:04

According to CAsA's tweets that's what they did.

Now I'm not the clueyest bloke so you'll have to elaborate on the dangerous games they're playing Josh.

Defenestrator

23rd Feb 2013, 12:15

Interesting choice of words Josh...:D

D

Kharon

23rd Feb 2013, 18:31

Just reading the thread; details, facts and information seem to be thin on the ground. Happy to be wrong but:-

Barrier and CASA go to court. The Judge hears two arguments and CASA only put a token show of resistance, which protects a large chunk of their case, but does enough to ensure a go away and "mediate" ruling.

The next step is a failed 'mediation' which opens the 5 day door, to be followed by a Show Cause, then into the AAT under Rafferty's rules.

Creamie, if you're out there; coukl you give us a steer on the implications of the 20 Feb. 13 court ruling. (Sarcs #27). Seems to me if there are two willing parties then a way forward could be mapped out so CASA can, with a clear conscience say they did their bit; and, the operator pulls a finger out and cleans up the untidy areas of their act. Puzzled, and probably got it arse about, but I'm curious now.

Up-into-the-air

23rd Feb 2013, 21:04

Josh Cox:

You show your "colours" here. You have not put in the complete order. This may explain why Kharon can't see the play here by FF.

Barrier Aviation – “Orders” | Assistance to the Aviation Industry (http://vocasupport.com/?p=208)

Please read carefully. And for JC, here is the reference he made - READ!!!

http://i1175.photobucket.com/albums/r623/soilmaster/uploads%20to%20pprune/barrier-FederalCourt_zpsfc8c427e.png

Josh Cox

23rd Feb 2013, 23:05

Uita,

If you were trying to say something important, try using plain language.

"Colours", what are you babbling about ?, I don't work for barrier..........

Thanks for posting the whole order, I was unable to do it on my android phone.:ok:

Defenestrator

23rd Feb 2013, 23:15

I think he's referring to the rosey 'tint' of your specs.

D

Up-into-the-air

23rd Feb 2013, 23:28

YUP - A FF colour maybe!!

Josh Cox

23rd Feb 2013, 23:31

If barrier are so naughty, why then hasn't that been proven in the federal court, you know, last week when they were there ?.

Be naughty = get caught and be proven in court = punishment.

Defenestrator

23rd Feb 2013, 23:39

Seriously Josh. Your bias is to the point of absurdity. Have you ever stopped to think that IF this was as cut and dry as you continuously say it is, then the company in question would be back in the air already, or indeed the unpleasantness of it all would never have begun in the first place. Your loyalty is commendable though its making you sound like a goose.

D

Up-into-the-air

23rd Feb 2013, 23:39

Maybe it's:

Maybe Naughty [Depend on dodgy statements to go to AAT]

= Ground the Operation

= Go to Court [Operator in a Court which requires proper evidence and collection of evidence and meeting the AGIS standard]

= Not Enough viable evidence

= What's next [Use collected evidence that may not meet Court standards in another forum???]

Josh Cox

24th Feb 2013, 00:01

Across the whole legal system, guilt has to be proven, if the prosecution can not prove guilt, then it didn't happen.

If Mr Richardson's evidence, the hundreds of tax payer funded hours of investigation and the ceasure of someone's personal diary was insufficient to obtain a conviction , perhaps there is a reason you that.

From what I've heard this individual was sacked by another operator prior to working for barrier, was universally hated by all at barrier and sacked for multiple dangerous acts in an aircraft.

Kharon

24th Feb 2013, 00:21

Josh# 37 – "If barrier are so naughty, why then hasn't that been proven in the federal court, you know, last week when they were there ?". #40 –(edit- seizure) but a tick for the rest.

Fair point; things that worry me are -(i)- The standard of investigation and evidence probity in FNQ is very suspect, if you weigh it against the Quadrio case: -(ii)- whatever evidence CASA has is not good enough to put Barrier down in a fair dinkum court, but near enough to convince an AAT "member", -(iii)- that if there is to be a 'mediation' then it needs to overlooked by an independent arbitrator, if it is to have a cat in hell's chance of being a 'highly desirable' outcome based safety fix.

If the operator is willing, same - same Tiger, rehabilitated one base at a time; a safety outcome to be proud of, instead of the carnage we always see when CASA gets its panties in a bunch about things that should have been noted and sorted during routine audit. Instant breaches 'discovered' (shock horror) at audit are not overnight events.

The whole thing stinks of 'double jeopardy', can't get you in court, but we can administratively cut your throat. If, and it's a big IF, CASA were known as reliable, honest and above suspicion, the likes of Quadrio, Barrier, Pel Air, Hardy, Polar etc. etc would not get so much as a mention.

Defenestrator

24th Feb 2013, 02:05

Josh,

I'm not the one bleating on about how unfair this process is with no knowledge of what CASA have up their sleeve nor any idea as to the alleged wrong doings at said company. That would be you. All you have is a relationship with an ex employer that's assured you that there's 'nothing to see here'. Oh well that should be the end of it. Surely if the operator has told the regulator that they are compliant this should all just go away. It must be true....ignorance really is bliss.

I have no interest in this other than the maintenance (pardon the pun) of an even playing field.

'Chickens coming home to roost' comes to mind.

D

Josh Cox

24th Feb 2013, 02:22

Defen,

It would appear your emotion will not allow you to see the truth, Casa has had their day at court and could not close the deal, why is that do you think.

I wasn't the judge, so surely there can't be two completely different people that do not agree with your all knowing horse excrement.

I'm prepared to assume the judge knows his job , casa has pre sented their evidence ( if any ) , barrier defended and the judge wasn't convinced, sure that may not mean au thing, otherthat the fact the " if you can't prove it, it didn't happen ".

I'm not bleating about anything other than casa has the right to prosecute, which they did, barrier has the right to defend, which they did, the judge has the job to find guilt and award punishment, Which he didn't, yet Casa, who claims to be a model litigator, apparently does not accept the outcome.

Dash 42

24th Feb 2013, 02:23

Josh Cox: "From what I've heard this individual was sacked by another operator prior to working for barrier, was universally hated by all at barrier and sacked for multiple dangerous acts in an aircraft."

Josh,

If by multiple dangerous acts in aircraft, you mean flying with serious and known defects, then you are spot on the money! :D Let's not mention the other safety issues. A very close shave in IMC with an IFR Caravan and a VFR Islander comes to mind...:ugh:

Josh Cox

24th Feb 2013, 02:28

No dash 42, apparently intentionally pulling out infront of aircraft on final at remote airstrips, aircraft operated by the company that previously sacked him/her.

I know nothing about the c208 and bn2 event/s, sounds plausable.

Defenestrator

24th Feb 2013, 02:33

Righto Josh. If you say so....

D:ugh:

Josh Cox

24th Feb 2013, 02:41

I don't say so, a dozen odd horn pilots say so.

People I know that worked for barrier at the time told me this story over six month ago.

Dash 42

24th Feb 2013, 02:45

I am aware of the incident you refer, however the other party involved from said company had "finger trouble" with the volume control in the other aircraft, not an intentional act at all. From what I heard, Barrier had their nickers in a not because he tried to report it! I'm not defending anyone here Josh, just pointing out that you aren't only full of it, you're over flowing with it!

The airprox report is here:

Investigation: AO-2010-022 - Aircraft proximity event - VH-WZJ and VH-WRR, 37 km NE of Horn Island aerodrome, 24 March 2010 (http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2010/aair/ao-2010-022.aspx)

Feel free to add your valued comments on it.

Defenestrator

24th Feb 2013, 02:50

Or is this another of the many examples of wrong doing that you have no knowledge of Josh. You're either very ill informed or at the mercy of a selective memory.

D:hmm:

Josh Cox

24th Feb 2013, 02:55

Dash42,

Incident in March 2010, did it occur to you that it is Feb 2013, that's nearly three years ago.

Thanks for the feedback, I was infact jus t wondering what you thought of me, I am underwhelmed by your input, thanks.

Defen, neither buddy, do you want another guess ?.

Dash 42

24th Feb 2013, 03:06

Did it occur to you that some things never change?

Sarcs

24th Feb 2013, 03:24

Yep certainly see how this thread drifted last time and got shut down!! :E

What gets me is this is a consistent tactic over a good many years by FF to victimise, totally demoralise and fiscally bankrupt a company that less than 6 months before had been system audited with no hint of an immediate, imminent risk to air safety and the travelling public.

Rightly or wrongly, disgruntled pilots or not, the regulator has again grounded a reasonably stable operation that has been around for twenty odd years (which in FNQ is a remarkable achievement) and one that is still under the same management. Yet all of sudden they're flying cowboys thumbing their nose at the regulator...err does that sum it up Josh??:ok:

Defenestrator

24th Feb 2013, 03:33

Don't have to guess Josh. The facts, as you so regularly refer to, speak for themselves. The generalisations printed in the press :yuk: make up only a small part of a much bigger picture. I mightn't have all the pieces but it's clear to me I have many more than you.

I won't be returning to this discussion with you as I have no desire to participate in a gunfight with an unarmed man. By all means have the last word.

Good luck to both you and your former employer.

D

anothertwit

24th Feb 2013, 03:36

Sums it up nicely Sarcs :ok:

Defenestrator

24th Feb 2013, 03:37

Sarcs,

Has it occurred to you that they may have been getting away with it for 20 years? That will certainly account for the companies longevity.

D

anothertwit

24th Feb 2013, 03:48

Defenastrator, if as you say, they have been getting away with it for 20 years, don't you think their safety record would reflect it?

You seem to have an axe to grind, just from looking at your posts.

Defenestrator

24th Feb 2013, 03:53

Define safety record for me. I can only assume you refer to the reported incidents?

No axe to grind. I care little for the outcome to the company but greatly for the displaced pilots. But the bull**** bouncing off the walls in here gets hard to stomach. Probably best if I removed myself from this thread altogether.

D:)

anothertwit

24th Feb 2013, 04:08

Well if they had a raft of incidents or accidents due to maintenance deficiencies don't you think we would have heard about it?

I have only moderate knowledge of what is going on and it beggars belief that CAsA have the authority to do what they are doing solely based on what they think, not what the can prove in a federal court.

How can we maintain a level playing field if the field is not level to begin with? :confused:

Sorry Mod's it appears I have become one of the drifters on a thread I asked for no drifting on. :ugh:

Defenestrator

24th Feb 2013, 04:19

Josh Cox

24th Feb 2013, 04:31

Def,

Well if you are so well informed and knowledgable, I dare you to step out of the shadows, post your name and contact details and present your evidence.

Or are you just another nancy boy hiding behind a pseudonym in mummy and daddys basement, mailing out resumes and making callous and damaging claims on pprune, against someone who is unable to defend themselves due to you having no nuts.........

The facts, as you so regularly refer to, speak for themselves

Yes, it would appear CASA went to court and didn't make their case, why is that do you think, when:

The generalisations printed in the press http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/pukey.gif make up only a small part of a much bigger picture.

Sorry which credible sources are you referring too, you know, ones the court would accept.

I won't be returning to this discussion with you as I have no desire to participate in a gunfight with an unarmed man. By all means have the last word.

I think you meant to say " never engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed man ", nice try tiger.

Lamest come back ever, post your name and number up here big man and we'll see who's who at the zoo.

I bet you don't, Meow.

advo-cate

24th Feb 2013, 04:55

Just to get back on topic:

Barrier is a commercial operation, who has been severely affected by casa and it's "Grounding".

casa has had plenty of time to surveil Barrier. casa has had no reason in the past to place a "Show Cause Notice" or Ground the operator.

Barrier has passed the "surveillance by casa test" and retained it's AOC and operation.

Why is this so different???

Has casa failed it's surveillance requirements and now doing a Double Jeopardy??

We are right because we are right!!!

anothertwit

24th Feb 2013, 04:58

Agreed. I also apologise for the drift. However how would anyone know of any incidents if they went unreported? Safety is also measured by the culture not by 'reported' incidents/accidents alone and this doesn't apply to any company inparticular.

I'll go along with that. But as we are talking about barriers safety record I'll take it as you think barrier has a bad safety culture. Which you are entitled to think.

What gets up my nose is CAsA couldn't prove their case in a federal court but still have the power to carry on trying to shut the company down because of what someone in CAsA thinks.

When no one is policing the police, corruption shall rain supreme.

Sarcs

24th Feb 2013, 05:52

What gets up my nose is CAsA couldn't prove their case in a federal court but still have the power to carry on trying to shut the company down because of what someone in CAsA thinks.

When no one is policing the police, corruption shall rain supreme.
Too true anothertwit too true! The trouble is noone is game to call them out for fear of reprisals...so the lies, cover ups, obfuscation all becomes part of an excepted culture..is it any wonder they feel they're above the 'rule of law'!:{

By the way twit found that tw##t (oops forgot) you were talking about...
CASA ‏@CASABriefing (https://twitter.com/CASABriefing)Feb 22
Federal Court agrees to continue the suspension of Barrier Aviation. Suspension in place until at least next Friday.:ok:

Horatio Leafblower

24th Feb 2013, 07:15

I thought there was only one # in ****? :confused:

crayfish

24th Feb 2013, 08:09

So much passion

We all have opinions some here no doubt from within the operator, some looking from outside and others based on the gossip that circulates around the industry. I guess that is the point of PPRUNE.

One thing I do know is that none of us will really know the facts until the whole affair is over. I do believe that CASA does not go around shutting down operators on a whim. In fact the silent majority that try to do right things in the spirit and intent of the law, to the best of their ability. These folk never seem to have a problem for some reason.

It's those others who will operate on the line and will argue till the cows come home. They often say "The systems stuffed, we are safe, after all we have a perfect safety record." These types are usually the loudest amongst us all, know the law perfectly according to themselves and the ones that more often than not get away with doing the wrong thing. Every time they beat the system they get a little more audacious and arrogant to the point they actually believe themselves.

The following link I read with interest as it was a recent example of an operator being shut down. They too stated they had a "perfect safety" record. It took six incidents and a passenger video camera for our aviation system to finally do the right thing. I think its a sobering example off how much wrong doing is required to get to that point. Read and watch the video.

The law of the Bungles grounds unruly Alligator (http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/the-law-of-the-bungles-grounds-unruly-alligator-20120608-201bm.html)

Just food for thought...enjoy:ok:

Brian Abraham

24th Feb 2013, 10:26

I do believe that CASA does not go around shutting down operators on a whimYou must be still wet behind the ears cray. Ask John Quadrio his opinion of CASA, or Dominic James.

Birds? What birds? – aviationadvertiser.com.au (http://www.aviationadvertiser.com.au/news/2011/11/5328/)

If CASA were doing their job of surveillance there would be no need to shut operations down.

Horatio Leafblower

24th Feb 2013, 11:08

If CASA were doing their job of surveillance there would be no need to shut operations down.

That's absolutely outrageous.

At what then point are operators responsible for their own conduct?

If operators conduct themselves as Kendrick did, flagrantly allowing a culture of non-compliance to fester, what other outcome could result?

Shutting down an operator is surely the Big Stick of last resort? Your assertion is like saying if the police did their job properly no driver would ever lose their licence. :ugh:

Brian Abraham

24th Feb 2013, 11:26

flagrantly allowing a culture of non-compliance to festerThat's the issue. If CASA were doing an adequate job on the surveillance front it would never get to the stage of closing an operation down. Problems would be found by audit and action demanded. If subsequent audit found no action made in addressing problems raised, that's time the big stick comes out. An operation should not be able to run for years and years with entrenched non compliance.

Defenestrator

24th Feb 2013, 11:41

An operation should not be able to run for years and years with entrenched non compliance.

And there it is. Anyone care to postulate as to how this might occur?

D

that guy

24th Feb 2013, 11:46

Ok, Comparing Barrier with Gator is a bit ridiculous, I think everyone in their right mind knows that alligator was being run by a maniac and (unlike barrier) NEEDED to be shut down.

lostwingnut

24th Feb 2013, 12:22

Visited Darwin over the weekend and had a beer with a couple pilots, asked the same questions I'm sure everyone else has asked. I will highlight one of the NCN's I was told about below (and I'm sure I'll get a dirty SMS for this, but screw it, these things should be made public).

------------------------------------------------

One of the company 310's was in the back of a hanger, in the middle of a check 2 (end of MR 100 hourly). We all know what state an aircraft would have been in around the halfway point of a Check 2. It was at this point that a Cairns based FOI walked into the back of the hanger and 'ramped' the aircraft.

This FOI found 1 of 88 VG fins missing (the aircraft can legally/safely fly with all 88 fins missing for those that don't know, I didn't until Saturday night).

The FOI asked the engineers for the MR and found it wasn't endorsed on the MR. It was explained to the FOI that the fin would have been knocked off in the hanger when the inspection panels were removed, its a common thing, secondly it was explained that when an aircraft is in the hanger for a Check 2 the MR is withdrawn from use, it is now expired, the engineers would not have and could have not endorsed the expired MR.

Just to remind everyone, the aircraft was SITTING ON JACKS AT THE BACK OF A HANGER, ALL INSPECTION PANELS AND COWLS REMOVED, WITH ENGINEERS AND TOOLS ALL OVER THE AIRCRAFT.

When the FOI returned to Cairns an NCN was raised for failing to endorse an MR. Even though the FOI knew the state of the aircraft and was familiar with the rules, the NCN was still raised.

------------------------------------------------

Since when can a CASA FOI ramp an aircraft thats in the middle of a Check 2 and then raise an NCN for something that was clearly explained at the time as not being an NC? This NCN now forms one of the pillars of the grounding, it is being used by CASA as an example of maintenance problems within the company.

Other NCN's seem to follow similar themes, it sounds like the regulator is not playing very fair. I got the impression that CASA is playing dirty plus they are dragging this out as long as possible in hope of shutting the business before they have to answer serious questions themselves.

I hope for the guys and girls who were working for Barrier that this is resolved quickly!

Nose wheel first

24th Feb 2013, 15:55

Def,

Well if you are so well informed and knowledgable, I dare you to step out of the shadows, post your name and contact details and present your evidence.

Mr Cox.... sometimes when people step out of the shadows after being dared to do so, the dearer (in this case you) may wish they hadn't thrown out the challenge.

Or are you just another nancy boy hiding behind a pseudonym in mummy and daddys basement, mailing out resumes and making callous and damaging claims on PPRuNe, against someone who is unable to defend themselves due to you having no nuts.........

Oh dear... For an insult that wasn't bad, but it's so far off the mark that it's comical.

Now to get back on topic...

Sunfish

24th Feb 2013, 18:22

Defenestrator:

Has it occurred to you that they may have been getting away with it for 20 years? That will certainly account for the companies longevity.

and Horatio Leafblower:

That's absolutely outrageous.

At what then point are operators responsible for their own conduct?

If operators conduct themselves as Kendrick did, flagrantly allowing a culture of non-compliance to fester, what other outcome could result?

Shutting down an operator is surely the Big Stick of last resort? Your assertion is like saying if the police did their job properly no driver would ever lose their licence.

But Brian Abraham understands the issue here:

That's the issue. If CASA were doing an adequate job on the surveillance front it would never get to the stage of closing an operation down. Problems would be found by audit and action demanded. If subsequent audit found no action made in addressing problems raised, that's time the big stick comes out. An operation should not be able to run for years and years with entrenched non compliance.

The fact that CASA has taken apart a business with Twenty years of allegedly safe operation reflects very very badly on CASA and its entire regulatory approach!

Let's take Leafblowers point first;

Your assertion is like saying if the police did their job properly no driver would ever lose their licence

Which is the preferred Safety state? Thousands of speeding tickets issued or no speeding tickets issued? The second case, assuming the Police are doing a perfect job, implies that no driver is breaking the law, and that is actually the policy position of the Police. If no tickets are issued then they have succeeded in their objective of obtaining full compliance with the law.

The actual issue of speeding tickets implies that other methods of obtaining compliance eg: through encouragement of safe driving, or other forms of deterrence, etc have failed. This is what the Police themselves are saying when they opine about serious accidents.

But it is Defenestrators point that really destroys CASA's position. How come an allegedly dodgy operation can survive for Twenty years without CASA detecting fault? What does that say about the efficiency and competence of CASA as regulator?

So here is Barrier deliberately and flagrantly breaking the rules if the allegations are true, and it takes CASA twenty years to find out? Not only that, CASA's own audits don't discover the alleged non compliance, it takes a whisper from an allegedly disgruntled employee to tell them exactly where to look. How stupid does that make CASA seem?

To put that another way, and as Brian Abraham might put it; if CASA was doing its job perfectly, there would be no groundings - no speeding tickets and no non compliance. The correct policy position for CASA is that each and every grounding, court case or accident is a failure by CASA to encourage, deter or otherwise procure a perfect safety outcome.

To put that yet another way, perhaps if CASA was constantly engaging with the industry in a constructive and equitable way, there would be no need for them to pull out the blunt and rusty knife and try and kill industry participants - their alleged "clients":yuk: all the time.

Twenty years to detect non compliance by Barrier? All those billions of taxpayers money spent on CASA? For what exactly? Pull the other one!

Horatio Leafblower

24th Feb 2013, 18:49

Sunfish,

You seem to miss the point. To say that CASA should never have to shut any operator down is just stupid.

Even Brian admits the stick is there and will need to be used occasionally:

If subsequent audit found no action made in addressing problems raised, that's time the big stick comes out.

They are the regulator, not the Ministry of Cuddles.

That said, from my own conversations with the pilots, there does seem to be little substance to CASA's action in the Barrier case :suspect:

Torres

24th Feb 2013, 19:06

Seems to me if there are two willing parties then a way forward could be mapped out so CASA can, with a clear conscience say they did their bit; and, the operator pulls a finger out and cleans up the untidy areas of their act. Puzzled, and probably got it arse about, but I'm curious now.

I doubt that was ever or would ever be CASA’s intention. The last thing CASA wants is for the decision to be made by a Court.

Across the whole legal system, guilt has to be proven, if the prosecution can not prove guilt, then it didn't happen.

Josh, you’ve been around long enough not to be so naive! Over the years many operators have been shut down by CASA’s “administration action” with repetitious Friday evening faxes until the operator is financially strangled. I don’t recall any operator ever being found guilty and shut down by any Court, although it may have occurred.

Sunfish

24th Feb 2013, 20:03

Horatio, it's not stupid. Of course I know that we don't live in a perfect world and as we are all made from crooked timber operators will have to be reminded of their responsibilities from time to time.

What I am saying, and Brian Abraham I think, is that if a matter gets so far as to a grounding then CASA should regard that as a FAILURE of its own, in that it failed to detect and correct non compliance at an early stage.

Early detection is much cheaper for all concerned (including the taxpayer) and CASA should be asking itself why Barrier allegedly got so far off course that a grounding was the only option.

However the continual string of groundings and putting various operators severed heads on poles as a warning to others is a bad and expensive method of regulation, and if it is true that CASA is "file stuffing" Barrier with dodgy NCN's as alleged then it makes it even worse.

Josh Cox

24th Feb 2013, 20:29

NWF,

Mr Cox.... sometimes when people step out of the shadows after being dared to do so, the dearer (in this case you) may wish they hadn't thrown out the challenge.No, I stand by that statement, no name = no jeopardy, if what he / she is saying is true, put a name to the pseudonym and stand up and be counted.

If he she has real actual evidence, present it publicly, if it is a lie, he /she will suffer the consequences of the lie, its funny how most strutting around pprune go weak in the knees and wet their panties when faced with this challenge.

Man up or shut up.

Torres,

That statement was not in reference to the administration of aviation.

Sarcs

24th Feb 2013, 22:46

Given the revelations from the last public hearing of the Senate Inquiry into ‘Aviation Accident Investigations (Pel-Air)’ where the effectiveness, compliance and indeed the legitimacy of FF oversight/surveillance, investigation and enforcement were all being called into question perhaps the Barrier ‘Show Cause’ could be seen as a test case for the new paradigm that the DAS says is in place at FF.

Here are several statements made by the DAS in the public hearing 15/02/2013: (my bold)

Mr McCormick: … “To get back to the Chambers report, I directed Mr Hood, who was then the executive manager of operations, to get an independent internal view of CASA, for my information—a view of how the organisation worked, the efficiency of our procedures and how we were undertaking them. The Chambers report dates from August 2010. We had to wait for the entire investigation to be finished before we did the Chambers report. That report was actually intended for me, and I did say at the time that I wanted warts and all. I certainly did not want any holding back in finding out where we were going and how we were going forward….”

…… “What it indicates is that our procedures and way we went about doing some things needed revision, and we were in the process of doing that. We are a different organisation from what we were in those days….”

…. “As far as CASA goes, particularly in auditing FRMS: we are very limited in our resources. As I say, at the time we were a different organisation; we were a legacy of my predecessor and his predecessors as far as our organisational structure goes. We are a learning organisation. We are much better at what we do…..”

…. “At the time, as I say, the Chambers report was started by me—and I requested that after we had completed our investigations and completed our report. So, we are at the point where I am now looking at a continuous improvement exercise; not an exercise involving talking to the ATSB. If you say the public have a right to know about internal CASA reviews: there are many internal CASA review documents, and not all of them are flattering to CASA, that is why we have to continually improve and that is what we have been doing in the time since 2009 when I arrived here….”

…. “The Chambers report was to try to pull all this together, in a new time with a new position, trying to move the organisation forward. We have learned from that and we are certainly a different organisation than we were then, in structure, policy, process and procedure…..”

… “If you look to the situation in CASA now—whether we had the resources and whether we did not—through 2009-10 and continuing to this day, an overhaul of CASA and the way we operate, the way we are structured, how we go about our surveillance, where we do surveillance and when we do it, and what systems we have to support it have been ongoing issues for myself and my team. We are deeply involved in reorganising CASA and have been, as I said, since I arrived. As for the resources, when we did go forward with what came out of the Chambers report—which I will say, again, is an internal report to CASA….”

… “Since that time, and continuing to this day, we surveil organisations at a much greater depth than we ever have before—but there is only so much we can do, as I think the committee is quite happy to acknowledge. We have seen organisations head in a direction where we could not ostensibly pull them out of a nose dive, to use an aviation analogy, or where they did not want to work with us or were not cognisant of their safety responsibilities. And we have taken action. We have taken action with Tiger Airways and we have taken action with Barrier Aviation, and there are a number of other aviation companies at the moment that we are involved with. It is not because we are out there kicking heads, if I could use the vernacular; we are out there saying. 'Here's what the regs say.' We have to strike this balance. We have to say, 'You've got to step up to this the same as we have.'…. ”

There is no denying that the DAS realised at the start of his tenure that he had some pretty major problems in FF’s oversight of smaller GA/LCRPT operators. And he should be commended for taking the initiative to commission a “warts and all” review of the FF SY/BK flight ops office.:E

Therefore the Barrier matter is a perfect example (here and now) to test the veracity of his statements (above) and whether FF is now proactively addressing the numerous deficiencies highlighted in the ‘Chambers Report’ and to a certain extent the Pel-Air FRMS Special Audit.:sad:

One would have to say that given the evidence presented so far that in the case of Barrier the DAS’s proactive stance (thus far) is an abject failure and FF are just reverting to form!!! :ugh:

Horatio Leafblower

25th Feb 2013, 02:23

I have heard that CASA didn't even turn up to the mediation.

Model litigants, aparrently :hmm:

that guy

25th Feb 2013, 02:33

From what I'm told they showed up ( most likely because the court ordered it) but that was as far as their participation went.. :mad:

anothertwit

25th Feb 2013, 03:11

From what I'm told they showed up ( most likely because the court ordered it) but that was as far as their participation went.

This is what I have been told also......

aroa

25th Feb 2013, 09:12

Cray is very wet behind the ears. CASA not only has whimsies, but will do a job on someone at the behest of a competitor company..ma a a te !
And especially if the person now with CASA, used to work for the competitor co.! An agency with ethics and integrity..my ar$e!:mad:

"CAsA is the regulator, (Big R ?) not the ministry of cuddles."
Definitely doesnt have that sort of embrace..just a choke hold. And busy strangling the life out of GA. :mad:
But worse..CASA is also the judge, jury, "investigator" and would -be executioner. "Investigations" can be polished, (like the turd) to suit the agenda...make it up, see things that didnt happen, and embellish the story. Whatever it takes. :mad:
And the phrase "file stuffing"has plenty of merit...from CASA point ..the more NCNs or whatever, all grist for the unsafety mill, the better it sounds for the prosecution...if it gets that far. :mad:

CASA is an agency that has so poisoned its relationship with the industry, that its beyond redemption.:{
Praise be to Dog, Allah, the Senators or whoever..PLEASE put the bloody place out of our misery.:ok:

anothertwit

25th Feb 2013, 10:42

Amen Aroa....testify!

The trouble is, nothing will change until CAsA can be held accountable for it's actions. As far as I can see they can do pretty much what ever they like with no repercussions. If they are being naughty they will have no exception to any such change. Now how do we issue THEM a 'show cause notice' as to why they should still be our regulator?

Again sorry for the drift, just gets up my nose and we need a change......

owen meaney

25th Feb 2013, 10:43

This FOI found 1 of 88 VG fins missing (the aircraft can legally/safely fly with all 88 fins missing for those that don't What is a VG Fin?

aroa

25th Feb 2013, 10:48

from the Barrier vine.
Certain CNS CASA "Wally of Note"...big on the Barrier bash? seemingly having some trouble with BN2 u/c leg maintenance issues.
Where do they dredge up these trogs from?:mad:
Not the first time the BLister has chucked a wobbly over HIS way of thinking..never mind real world ...or the manual. His been updated now,has it??
Oh dear.!
What have they got to make them Court shy, I wonder.? :sad:

anothertwit

25th Feb 2013, 10:50

VG = Vortex Generator.

owen meaney

25th Feb 2013, 10:53

Thanks anothertwit, Aora is that a Fairly leg or BN leg?

aroa

25th Feb 2013, 11:02

2twit..Have done.!.in spades aplenty.
The good senators are still in the Pel-Air bit...but... part d) other matters should yield some incendiary materials from far and wide. :ok:
Trust some of my handfuls hit the fan, go forth..and stick! :ok:

jas24zzk

25th Feb 2013, 11:22

Ok,
this seems to have drifted a lil bit.

Like all things legal, some of the documents supplied are a lil hard on the eyeballs, unless suitably 'endorsed'

2 simple questions......

1. Judge said "nothing to see here get on with business" ?
2. CASA said next day, "lots to see, you're grounded again" ?

If the answer to both, is yes, then surely a criminal act has been committed by the 'regulator' There are laws against double jeopardy in this country FFS!

Given the way i read the judges comments, the regulator should be working with the operator to get them airborne again. One wouldn't expect that to be an instantaneous process, however, one would expect a guvmint entity to be proactive in encouraging business activity under its control

I digress.......

lostwingnut

25th Feb 2013, 11:48

Ok, so I have to get this clear, from what I understand the following happened:

15th February: CASA and Barrier meet in Federal Court, CASA asks for a 28 day extension of the grounding and gets denied. CASA says they are not ready for Court, unable to present any solid evidence they get forced by the Court into supervised mediation with Barrier.

18th February to 21st February: CASA and Barrier meet in mediation. It seems that CASA had no intention to mediate and simply stalled, stonewalled, disrupted the whole process, delaying until time ran out.

22nd February - Federal Court basically throws out the whole case, the suspension is lifted/expires at 1700. CASA then proceeds to ignore the court and extend the suspension for another five day plus now finally threatens a Show Cause which would give them a further 28 day suspension.

If this is correct how can this be legal?
Do the Federal Courts decisions not cary any weight?
Will this now go to the AAT or stay in the Federal Court?
What would have to happen for there to be a Senate Inquiry into CASA's conduct and the process?

This just doesn't seem right!
Can anyone shed some light on how this is possible? (Serious Question)

Kharon

25th Feb 2013, 20:22

Speaking of legal gospel:-Phelan-Polar Aviation (http://www.aviationadvertiser.com.au/news/2012/08/casa-cites-polar-judgement-in-repacholi-case/)- This what Barrier are trying to deal with. It's a tough road to travel.

Opinion. In effect, CASA’s lawyer is claiming that its officers can do what they like to whomever they like, using the cloak of respectability of “safety” under s9A (1) of the Civil Aviation Act, with impunity and at the discretion and subjective opinions of the officials concerned, with a total disregard to any person’s personal or business rights, no matter how trivial (or negligently false) the alleged “safety” issue might be, and no matter how devastating the effect any such heavy handed action might have on an individual or business.

Is this the way any industry should be regulated?

I just wonder where it was all hidden during the Hempel mess?, next up in the Coroners court.

weloveseaplanes

25th Feb 2013, 21:32

'Safety' is a bludgeon used by petty minded officials to intimidate, abuse and destroy those who annoy them.

It is like the club of 'Security.'

Crying safety safety safety and security security security all manner of evils are perpetrated.

The key is to stop using generalizations which hide and protect the guility officials. Everytime we say CASA we are letting the individuals making the mess off scot free.

The individuals gorging at CASA trough as pilots engineers staff and families struggle with mortgages, school payments and feeding their kids, must be named and shamed. Operators should have access to an industry generated list of suspect CASA officials listing their service histories so that when John Icanninoflysoneitherwillyou is listed as an upcoming Inspector or Auditor the company has the right to appeal for an unbiased auditor.

Conflicts of interests, power plays, pleasure of destruction, psychopathetic personalities, stubbornness, more of the same, intimidation runs rife in the minds of entrenched bureaucrats on a pronouced mission to make the world safe and secure but really operating at a biological level of enjoying inflicting pain on others.

Name and shame the CASA officials involved.

Dash 42

26th Feb 2013, 00:42

Some of you clowns amaze me. Barrier HAVE done wrong, that is not in question. Don't like being bludgeoned by CASA's safety hammer, then be compliant. This doesn't mean just appearing to be compliant (which is why the operation has been around so long).

This just doesn't seem right!
Can anyone shed some light on how this is possible? (Serious Question)

Lostwingnut,

fpvdude answers this one for you:

So we're all now taking a rumor forum as legal gospel. Intriguing..

You're not going to get the full story here, due largely to the blokes that clearly have their head FIRMLY wedged in the sand. To imply that CASA grounded this operator for no reason other than a vendetta, is ludicrous! Everyone in FNQ knows what really goes on up there, "proof" or otherwise. Quite frankly, I don't care what proof they have.

Easy to make money hand over fist when you sell seats without the overheads of silly things, like a CAR 217 organisation, class A maintenance (and questionable class B maintenance as it turns out). The chickens have come home to roost it would seem.

Brian Abraham

26th Feb 2013, 02:36

This doesn't mean just appearing to be compliant (which is why the operation has been around so long). I don't think anyone has their head stuck in the sand Dash. If they have given the appearance of being compliant it means they have been pulling the wool over the regulators eyes. How do you get away with that? Superficial auditing? Audit personnel not up to the task for whatever reason, perhaps untrained? Once again it highlights deficiencies on the part of the regulator. Is that because there are not enough auditors on the ground? The ones that are there, do they have the resources (budget/time etc) to do an adequate job? I'm afraid I'm not in a position to provide answers to those questions.

Dash 42

26th Feb 2013, 04:11

If they have given the appearance of being compliant it means they have been pulling the wool over the regulators eyes. How do you get away with that?

Perhaps it has something to do with the owner being a former northern section FOI? I certainly agree though that there has been a massive failure of the system, this should have been discovered YEARS ago. Once a certain person put pen to paper with the aforementioned allegations, CASA could no longer sweep it under the rug.

anothertwit

26th Feb 2013, 05:47

CASA could no longer sweep it under the rug

Which division of CAsA do you work for Dashy me old fruit?

Trent 972

26th Feb 2013, 06:07

Quoting Dash 42A very close shave in IMC with an IFR Caravan and a VFR Islander comes to mind..
Civil Aviation Safety Authority
Review of the Horn Island Area CTAF boundary
The Civil Aviation Safety Authority is currently reviewing the use of two distinct frequencies for the Horn Island and Northern Peninsula CTAF(R)s.
Operator of the Islander
Review of company procedures
Due to the amount of traffic operating within the Torres Strait area, the company is considering the possibility of changing its operating procedures so that all flights carried out in this region are conducted under IFR, when marginal VMC weather conditions exist.
ATSB COMMENT
This incident highlights the fundamental role radio broadcasts have, particularly in uncontrolled airspace, to ensure that separation between aircraft is established and maintained; and the value of applying effective see-and-avoid principles.
For more information regarding see-and-avoid principles, the following publication is available from the ATSB’s website (www.atsb.gov.au):

-42, No casa or ATSB comment in there about proven VFR in IMC. The body of the report has a lot of conjecture about the weather conditions but the airprox was put down to the differing CTAF(R)'s. However you proclaim Vfr into IMC, you must be very wise.

-42 also says
Barrier HAVE done wrong, that is not in question.
Everyone in FNQ knows what really goes on up there, "proof" or otherwise. Quite frankly, I don't care what proof they have.
You probably don't care if there is no proof either.
Don't bother about proof and judicial procedure or fairness or innocent until proven guilty.
Oh to be so wise.
-42 just 'knows' it. He can feel it in his bones. :yuk:

Dash 42

26th Feb 2013, 06:35

Which division of CAsA do you work for Dashy me old fruit?

Just because I put some balance into this discussion, does not mean I work for the CASA. Just to be clear, I am not defending CASA here, as I mentioned, this should have been brought to light some time ago. The point I am making is that Barrier have, over the years received preferential treatment from the northern section. Most know why.

What I am suggesting, is that after the written statement was furnished to them, they finally decided to cover their own butts and follow it up. Evidence was found, and here we are. I think questions should be asked from Canberra as to WHY it has taken a written statement from a former employee for CASA to "discover" what has been occurring for years. Now THAT would be interesting, but won't happen.

blackhand

26th Feb 2013, 07:24

Dash 42, don't go against the flow

anothertwit

26th Feb 2013, 07:29

I fail to see how making stuff up equates to adding balance.

According to other posts on here, Barrier had undergone 2 audits and over 8 months of surveillance before 'the letter', which you say forced CAsA to no longer sweep it under the rug, was even written

Now I hardly call that preferential treatment. :ugh:

Josh Cox

26th Feb 2013, 07:50

Just because I put some balance into this discussionBalance you say ?.

The point I am making is that Barrier have, over the years received preferential treatment from the northern (http://www.pprune.org/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=7715112#) section. Most know why. Now I just know you are absolutley FOS. Slagging CASA and Barrier, nice, who next, the Salvation Army, Santa Claus ?.

Not just are you unwilling to look at the facts, i.e. court outcome, you are a bitter little man aren't you.

Same challenge to you, man up or shut up, present your name, evidence, time, dates and aircraft registrations,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, I bet you don't.

Evidence was found, and here we are. I think questions should be asked from Canberra as to WHY it has taken a written statement from a former employee (http://www.pprune.org/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=7715112#) for CASA to "discover" what has been occurring for years.And the dumbness reaches new levels, what evidence ?, the bablings of a possibly unstable and disgruntled ex-employee of two operators in the Torres, apparently sacked both times, in a very short period of time.

Your village rang, they said they'd take you back.

anothertwit

26th Feb 2013, 09:32

Dashy, if they found substantial evidence, which would have been shown in court, the judge would have had no worries in yanking Barriers AOC.

But that didn't happen. Did it.

Yes there must have been some evidence for it not to be thrown out of court but you seem to be making mountains out of mole hills.

Soo, not a CAsA stooge, maybe a close competitor then......back in your box jack.

I'm still drifting, :ugh: sorry mods :(

justinga

26th Feb 2013, 09:57

This is more fun than watching Neighbours on cable!!

Josh, get a new job ......the Labour Party is looking for a new leader

Crayfish, im thinking you may have been around FNQ for a while

Back to the subject, anybody whom has worked in aviation knows the company they have (are) working for is guilty of something.

Rules are rules, right or wrong,either start a revolution or play by them!

Is BA being unfairly targeted? Yes, but sometimes the squeaky wheel (with the missing dustcap) draws attention to itself .

owen meaney

26th Feb 2013, 10:01

My reading is that CASA asked for the mediation.
JustinGA, more like watching the little kids protecting their sandpit.
Maybe they should wear panties, the sand wouldn't be as annoying

Josh Cox

26th Feb 2013, 10:05

Incidently Dash,

WRT to your post 48 being some sort of silver bullet, I personally would not be in a single engine IFR turbine aircraft operating in low capacity RPT, in IMC, descending through 4,000ft at circa 20nm from the aerodrome.

When I did my C208 endorsement at Flight Safety in Wichita, they quoted some where in the ballpark of 2.5nm distance over ground to 1,000ft of glide.

Sorry justinga, my clown suit, red wig and big floppy shoes are at the dry cleaners.

Roost

26th Feb 2013, 10:18

Some of the dodgies in Northern WA and NT have fallen, North Qld is in need of a good shake up. Leave the compliant who can pass any audit, government or public sector to do it properly and make money. This allows them to provide a decent career for their staff.

Josh, haven't you got a history for working for companies that end up in court with CASA, and the ones that don't ask you to leave. Where are you now?

justinga

26th Feb 2013, 10:20

Too true Owen, sand in mangina is diffuclt

Trent 972

26th Feb 2013, 10:23

anothertwit said
I'm still drifting,:ugh: sorry mods :suspect:
:D :D :D :D :D
It's your thread dude. Drift away.

Dash 42

26th Feb 2013, 10:28

WRT to your post 48 being some sort of silver bullet, I personally would not be in a single engine IFR turbine aircraft operating in low capacity RPT, in IMC, descending through 4,000ft at circa 20nm from the aerodrome.

You're right, better option would be to delay descent until 10 or so miles and blow out the passengers eardrums. What's that got to do with a silver bullet? I'm told that operators up that way fly piston singles at 500ft over water in marginal VMC... Is it illegal? No.

Moving on.

Josh Cox

26th Feb 2013, 10:30

Roost,

It would appear you have me at a disadvantage, how could I possibly return the kinds words.

I'm guessing your parents didn't name you Roost.

Josh, haven't you got a history for working for companies that end up in court with CASA, and the ones that don't ask you to leave.

Oh gee, I don't know, how about you tell us.

Haven't you got a history of being sacked by me ?.

that guy

26th Feb 2013, 10:34

" Leave the compliant who can pass any audit"

Can you show me the audit that BA failed? Oh wait they haven't......

anothertwit

26th Feb 2013, 10:40

I know Trent, but I did ask for no drifting so I feel bad. :}

lostwingnut

26th Feb 2013, 10:53

Following on from the above comment by That Guy, I heard from a few sources that CASA Darwin's office even commended the Barrier operation and aircraft standards.

Apparently the Cairns FOI sent to Darwin for the audit was on a mission to find specific faults, faults which were not found, even when Darwin based AWI's were asked to come down and help. Heard from the engineers that CASA Darwin refused to fall into line with CASA Cairns mission and instead made it a point to write a positive internal report on Barrier - a report that never made it through to Cairns, Canberra or Sydney.

I got the distinct impression there are a few people in Darwin scratching their heads over the whole thing, especially the MIA report from CASA Darwin.

Roost

26th Feb 2013, 10:59

Josh you know your history.

that guy - why defend? Barrier aren't the best, never enjoyed it there. Leave it to the pros.

thorn bird

26th Feb 2013, 11:11

I listen to the debate occuring back and forth across this thread and I really have to wonder if the "Reason model" so despised by our safety investigator and perhaps our regulator has some substance after all.
Unlike the country with the largest aviation industry in the world whose regulator rose from the civilian world, ours rose from the military where you do as your told. No problem, because way back then the "expertise" lay with the military. Unfortunately that "Attitude" infected the regulator and as time went by and civilian expertise rapidly outstripped the military. Our regulator was forced to recuit from ever lower levels of the expertise pool, the attitude remained, "Do as your told" "we are the experts" and so the layers of swiss cheese began to line up as the regulator began scraping the bottom of the barrel.
We as an industry were too busy trying to stay afloat to challenge the regulator as increasingly incompetent clowns filled the shoes of competent ex military experts and the rule of the regulator was born. Using clever manipulation of politics they gave themselves ever increasing powers, divested themselves of accountability, and endowed themselves with the mystical mantra as the custodians of "Safety".
To better control the masses a clever shift of the regulations into the criminal code, a tinker here and there with administrative sancions and they became unassailable.
Trouble is they set out to modernise our regulations, unfortunately you need expertise to do that so they relied on the lawyers.
Therefore we ended up, after 25 years and a quarter of a BILLION dollars or so,with around 1500 regulations that are impossible to comply with.
Can someone tell me WHY a manual submitted and accepted in Queensland is non compliant in NSW, or WHY one compliant in VIC is unacceptable in WA. WHY can we have five different operators of the same aircraft operating it differently, and contrary to the manufacturers procedures placing themselves in legal limbo at the whim of an expert FOI.
WHY are our regulations so out of step with the rest of the world that we have become a laughing stock. WHY does it cost three times as much to operate the same aircraft in this country than anywhere else?
Why is our regulator at WAR with the industry it purports to regulate?
Why are young pilots so terrified of making a "Command" decision and following the safest course of action for fear of retribution.? WHY are experienced individuals in the industry reluctant to accept administrative positions. WHY can an audit by the regulator be accepted as compliant one month and non compliant the next with a different set of auditors trawling up issues that were acceptable then but not now.
I have no idea how compliant barrier were or were not, but they were "Safe" for a lot of years. Knowing just how "Corrupt" our regulator is I have no idea if Barrier is being treated fairly or not. What I do know is that with the best will in the world it is impossible to be in Compliance in this country because compliance rests within the "Opinions" of the individual of the day, not the LAW as written, because nobody understands the LAW. Until a Judge, in a court, rules one way or the other the opinion wins and a lot of us know that opinion can change from one day to the next.

berry blue

26th Feb 2013, 11:44

TB Thread talks a lot about the regulator - not so much about Barrier - where to for them- not easy to see how they can fight back.

anothertwit

26th Feb 2013, 13:14

Great Post Thorn Bird. :D

So how do we change it? Nobody sticks together in this industry. Everyone's out for themselves and if it's not them that's in the gun than who cares seems to be the thinking. Until we stand together as a unified front and say enough is enough nothing will change. :ugh:

Hope yas like the song cos it's stuck on repeat. :sad:

Sunfish

26th Feb 2013, 18:52

Great post by Thorn bird.

Dash 42, your argument condenses down to: "where there is smoke there is fire". I have no knowledge of Barrier or its transgressions,

What I object to is the apparent abuse of process designed to destroy a business without ever letting them have their day in court if at all possible.

To put that another way what would you think if you saw a gang of police lynching a driver by the side of the road after alleging he was a "speeder"?

Judge, Jury, and executioner, it has to stop.

LeadSled

26th Feb 2013, 19:08

--- and contrary to the manufacturers procedures placing themselves in legal limbo at the whim of an "expert" FOI.
Folks,
And contrary to the CAR 138, with FOI's demanding non- CAR 138 compliant procedures be included in the Operations Manual. I, for one, don't want to be involved in the financial consequences of any serious incident, when the insurance payout is refused, because the "CASA" ("expert" FOI) demanded procedures are in breach of CAR 138 -- that is, contrary to the AFM.
Tootle pip!!

Creampuff

26th Feb 2013, 19:30

Similar wailing and gnashing of teeth occurred in the Butson/Polar matter. The outcome of all the Federal Court claims and appeals in that matter is a neat compendium of the duties that CASA and its officers don’t have.

Polar and Mr Butson claimed that CASA owed them a common law duty to take reasonable care in the exercise of CASA’s statutory powers. Polar and Mr Butson also claimed that CASA owed them a common law duty not to act beyond power, intending to cause harm to either Polar or Mr Butson, or knowing that their acts were beyond power and that harm to Polar or Mr Butson was foreseeable, or recklessly indifferent (a) to whether their acts were beyond power and (b) to the likelihood of harm to Polar and Mr Butson.

The Federal Court held that the duty as pleaded did not exist.In all the circumstances, it cannot be said to be open to the applicants upon the [statement of claim] to prove the facts at trial which would constitute a reasonable cause of action in negligence against the respondents. In so far as the [statement of claim] endeavours to plead negligence against the respondents, this pleading should be struck out.Polar and Mr Butson also claimed that CASA owed them a statutory duty to exercise CASA’s statutory powers lawfully, reasonably and in “good faith” for the purposes for which those powers were given.The Federal Court held that:[T]here is no statutory or common law duty of the kind alleged in the statement of claim, to the extent that these paragraphs plead breach of statutory duty. Furthermore, there is no basis for a claim that [Terrence Farquharson, Garry Presneill, Robert Collins, Jim Marcolin, Peter John and Allan Cook] were under any personal duty under the Act that would support a cause of action of this kind against them. The pleading of breach of statutory duty should be struck out in accordance with these reasons.… Further, it is plain enough that there is no tenable basis on which Polar and Mr Butson could bring an action in tort against CASA and the other respondents for breach of a general duty to act in good faith.Polar and Mr Butson also claimed that CASA owed a common law duty generally to the same effect as one of the above claims, but also involving a common law duty not to exercise CASA’s statutory powers “in such a way as unlawfully and intentionally to interfere with the trade or business” of Polar or Mr Butson.

The Federal Court held that:[T]he cause of action described as wrongful interference with trade or business interests should be struck out.Polar and Mr Butson also claimed that Terrence Farquharson, Garry Presneill, Robert Collins, Jim Marcolin, Peter John and Allan Cook were guilty of “misfeasance in public office” because:
(1) their knowledge of the limits of their powers was to be inferred from their position and experience;
(2) their knowledge of the likely consequences of their conduct was similarly to be inferred from their position and experience;
(3) their intention to bring about those consequences was in turn to be inferred from that knowledge, the actions themselves and the “pattern of conduct” described in the claim;
(4) their reckless indifference was to be inferred “from the conduct of CASA and the officers of CASA taken as a whole” as set out in the claim and from the “pattern of conduct” set out in the claim.

The Federal Court held that:There is nothing that supports the hypothesis that the respondents had the intention or acted with reckless indifference as claimed, and this must be established if the cause of action is to be made out. … The pleadings reveal no more than that CASA and its officers differed with Polar and Mr Butson as to the correct exercise of CASA’s statutory powers and that, by accepting an enforceable voluntary undertaking under the CAA, the matter might be resolved in conformity with CASA’s understanding of its obligations.

Further, the pleadings, as particularised, fall well short of supporting any claim against the individual respondents of misfeasance in public office… The pleading as against the individual respondents is thus fundamentally deficient. Even if Polar and Mr Butson were to establish legal error in the relevant exercises of statutory power, this would do no more than support a finding of deficient administration. …

Accordingly, the applicants’ pleading of misfeasance in public office is embarrassing within the meaning of the Federal Court Rules and should also be struck out.[All bolding added]

I realise the Federal Court is replete with lazy judges who couldn’t possibly see behind CASA’s nefarious machinations and breaches of the Legal Services Directions, but its decisions are nonetheless the law.

Sunfish

26th Feb 2013, 20:47

Creampuff, the core of the problem:

All lawyers will recognise the oft cited aphorism of Lord Hewart from Rex v Sussex Justices; Ex parte McCarthy:

“… it is not merely of some importance but is of fundamental importance, that justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done.” 1

Lord Hewart was encapsulating a principle that had been long known and often expressed 2. Another pithy articulation of part of the scope of the principle is that of Lord Bowen:
“… Judges, like Caesar’s wife, should be above suspicion …”. 3

And Lord Atkin said:

“Justice is not a cloistered virtue.” 4

The High Court has expressly applied Lord Hewart’s aphorism a number of times,5 as have other Australian courts.

..................... I use the word “justice” to mean fair outcomes arrived at by fair procedures. To whom must justice, in this sense, appear to be done? The observer is not a party, not even the accused in a criminal trial.13

The relevant observer is always the “fair minded observer”, acting “reasonably”.14

Seen to be Done: The Principle of Open Justice - Supreme Court : Lawlink NSW (http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/lawlink/supreme_court/ll_sc.nsf/vwPrint1/SCO_speech_spigelman_091099)

I submit that CASA does not appear to abide by this standard, at least according to many people who post here. THe question then is if they are Spieglemans "fair minded observer."?

I also submit that if there is substance to the allegations regarding the behaviour of CASA and such alleged behaviour continues, there is one day the possibility of an extremely nasty and unpleasant result for CASA.

Creampuff

26th Feb 2013, 22:00

And all of the Federal Court judges in the Polar/Butson matter are unaware of those principles?

You should entertain the remote possibility that Federal Court judges know what they are doing.

thorn bird

26th Feb 2013, 22:16

Sunny, your observation is astute and timely. Creamie provides evidence of just how affective the law is at protecting itself, but to what end, "Justice?"
Why was the law written? to promote safety?. Was it to contain the industry? or for the benifit of the industry? Perhaps to aggrandise those writting the Law and consolidate their power?.
If it was written to promote safety it has patently failed.
if it was written for the benefit of the industry it has patently failed,
so one can only assume it was written for the other reasons.

Creampuff

26th Feb 2013, 23:03

The quotes in Sunny’s post are of statements made by …… judges.

The quotes in my post are of decisions made by ….. judges.

At the end of the day, all you are saying is that you disagree with the decisions of ….. judges.

I’d suggest that if you don’t like the outcomes, you become a judge or a legislator. :ok:

Sunfish

26th Feb 2013, 23:14

Creampuff of course the Fed Judges are aware of those principles. However as your post pointed out the Federal Judges did not rule on the content of Butsons allegations, they declined to hear argument on the grounds that, as pleaded, he did not have a case to argue. Hence they did not entertain the case.

I would welcome some comment on my opinion that if this approach continues. It is all very well talking legal niceties, but what happens if someone believes they have been seriously wronged and decides to take matters into their own hands?

To clarify what I mean; the reason we actually have a legal system at all is to prevent the feuds, vendettas, murders and arson that blighted communities for centuries and which Shakespear alluded to in Romeo and Juiet. If the legal system and the Regulator are percieved to totally stack the system against the little guy then we could see some "unintended consequences". The least of which might be a GA strike.

As to Barrier and its alleged transgressions, CASA appears bent on killing the business. The Federal Government paid $67 million to Pan Pharmaceuticals after a civil servant tried to do the same. This could all get very ugly.

$67 million a Pan Pharmaceuticals painkiller | thetelegraph.com.au (http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/archive/national-old/million-a-pan-pharmaceuticals-painkiller/story-e6freuzr-1226028360765)

aroa

27th Feb 2013, 02:38

Sunny is right. He is not alone in postulating that there could be unhappy consequences for CASA if it continues down its current path.

With any CASA "investigation", kill off mission or whatever,.. CASA persons are not "fair minded observers"...they are biased observers, part of the very wrong, no liability, unaccountable, POWER structure that is all to often used and seriously abused.:mad:
IMHO if alleged reg breaches were handed on to a totally CASA free/independent proper investigative organisation to examine fairly and squarely the issues at stake,...the sort of buggery we see perpetrated by CASA, time after time, after time could/SHOULD become a thing of the past. :ok:
The bullsh*t that now passes for "investigations" and "cases" that fail with diabolical consequences, eg J Quadrio for one,..has the continuing problem that its all INHOUSE CASA bullsh*t.:mad:

It all HAS to be removed from the Regulator...and soon...or else.!
What was that movie title again.."There will be blood" ?

Submissions to the Senate should push this line HARD.
Please axe off CASA "investigations" and prosecutions to an independant agency. :ok:
It would save much angst and anger, depression, financial pain and outrage by CASA victims...and possibly the carpet.

Creampuff

27th Feb 2013, 03:18

[T]he Federal Judges did not rule on the content of Butsons allegations, they declined to hear argument on the grounds that, as pleaded, he did not have a case to argue. Hence they did not entertain the case.Circular nonsense.

The content of the allegations is the claims made and pleaded.

This is straight out of the Federal Court’s judgement, which judgement was appealed to the Full Court and rejected.APPLICANT’S FURTHER AMENDED STATEMENT OF CLAIM

By their Application and FASC, the applicants claim damages for breaches of duties allegedly owed to them. In particular, Polar and Mr Butson claim that CASA owed them:
- a common law duty to take reasonable care in the exercise of CASA’s statutory powers (FASC, par [16(a)]);
- a statutory duty to exercise CASA’s statutory powers lawfully, reasonably and in “good faith” for the purposes for which those powers were given (FASC, par [16(b)]);
- a common law duty generally to the same effect as 2 above but also involving a common law duty not to exercise CASA’s statutory powers “in such a way as unlawfully and intentionally to interfere with the trade or business” of Polar or Mr Butson (FASC, par [16(c)]);
- a common law duty not to act beyond power, intending to cause harm to either Polar or Mr Butson, or knowing that their acts were beyond power and that harm to Polar or Mr Butson was foreseeable, or recklessly indifferent (a) to whether their acts were beyond power and (b) to the likelihood of harm to Polar and Mr Butson (FASC, par [17]).

The FASC alleged that these duties arose pursuant to common law, by operation of the provisions of the CAA and the regulations and orders made under the CAA and, in the case of the penultimate duty (par [16(c)]), also by virtue of ss 22-25 of the Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Act 1997 (Cth) (‘CAC Act’). According to the FASC, these duties as pleaded were breached by a series of actions taken under the CAA by the second to seventh respondents acting on behalf of CASA. These actions are stated in various paragraphs of the FASC, including in paragraphs [67], [70], [71], [77], [79], [101], [103], [105], [107], [119], [121], [124], [136], [145], [151], [155], [160], and [169] of the FASC. They are too numerous to set out here. In the FASC, Polar and Mr Butson alleged that the breaches of these duties caused them loss and damage: see paragraph [178].

In the FASC, Polar and Mr Butson alleged that the second to seventh respondents were required to exercise “their powers and functions”: (a) with reasonable care and diligence; (b) in good faith and in the best interests of CASA and for a proper purpose; and (c) so as not improperly “to use their position” to cause detriment to Polar or Mr Butson: see FASC par [10].

As CASA submitted, a central allegation in the FASC is that the various breaches of duty on the part of CASA and the individual respondents arose from a “pattern of conduct” towards Polar and Mr Butson, “adopted” by CASA and the individual respondents during and following an “operational audit” of Polar by CASA in May 2004: see FASC par [25]. The FASC alleges that, before and during the May 2004 audit, Mr Butson and CASA officers discussed CASA’s requirements concerning Polar’s development of a competency-based training (‘CBT’) syllabus and the provision by Polar and Mr Butson of asymmetric flying training for students of Polar’s flying school. According to the FASC, these matters were the subject of “a difference of opinion” between Mr Butson and various officers of CASA such that the alleged “pattern of conduct” was “strongly influenced by [Mr Butson’s] attitude to CBT and asymmetric flying”: see FASC pars [23], [24], [25(c)].

Polar and Mr Butson alleged that the breaches of duty arising from the alleged “pattern of conduct” and constituting “unlawful acts”, included (amongst other things):

- CASA issuing a “unique” request for corrective action (‘RCAs’) to be taken by Polar in respect of “deficiencies” that CASA had raised with Polar and Mr Butson as a result of the May 2004 audit: FASC pars [26]-[29] and [32];

- CASA (“over the hand” of the second respondent) issuing notices – supplementary notices – to Polar (to show cause why CASA should reissue a fresh AOC to Polar) and to Mr Butson (to show cause why his Chief Pilot’s approval and his approval as Chief Flying Instructor should not be cancelled, suspended or revoked) having regard to the deficiencies that CASA had raised in the RCAs: FASC pars [30]-[37] and [48]-[49];

- CASA (by a notice signed by the fifth respondent on the advice and recommendation of the second respondent) cancelling Polar’s AOC: FASC pars [54]-[57];

- CASA (by a notice signed by the fifth respondent on the advice and recommendation of the second respondent) cancelling Mr Butson’s approval as Chief Pilot of Polar: FASC pars [58]-[61];

- CASA (by a notice signed by the fifth respondent on the advice and recommendation of the second respondent) revoked the approval of Mr Butson as Chief Flying Instructor with Polar: FASC pars [62]-[65];

- CASA (by notice signed by the sixth respondent on the advice and recommendation of the second respondent) refusing to renew Polar’s AOC: FASC pars [94]-[97];

- CASA opposing Polar’s application to the AAT for a stay of CASA’s decisions cancelling Polar’s AOC and refusing to re-issue an AOC to Polar: FASC pars [106]-[107];

- CASA (by a notice signed by the sixth respondent on the advice and recommendation of the second respondent) issuing an AOC to Polar containing a number of conditions relating to the conduct of flying training: FASC pars [117]-[118];

- the third respondent (and subsequently the second respondent) writing to the Chief Pilot of Polar and allegedly setting out a false interpretation of a provision of the CAA: FASC pars [127]-[128], [131];

- the fourth respondent (by a letter forwarded to Mr Butson) advising that he had refused to recommend (to the Director of CASA) that Mr Butson be “re-appointed” as an Approved Testing Officer of CASA: FASC pars [143]-[144];

- the first respondent (by a notice signed by the second respondent) proposing to further suspend or cancel Polar’s AOC and issuing a further supplementary show cause notice to Polar: FASC pars [149], [150] and [151]; and

- the first respondent (by a notice signed by the seventh respondent on the advice and recommendation of the second respondent) issuing a notice of proposed action to Polar: FASC pars [158]-[160].

This account of the FASC is necessarily incomplete. I accept that, as Polar and Mr Butson submitted, the identification of events set out above must be understood “in the context of the allegations set out in the relevant paragraphs of the [FASC]”. [my bolding]

All of that looks very much to me like allegations of CASA actions and motivations, and claims as to the consequences of those actions of motivations, all of which were considered by the court.

I think what you meant to say, Sunfish, is that the court did not rule on whether the facts asserted by Mr Butson were true. But there’s a fundamentally important reason for that: The claims failed, even if every fact asserted by Mr Butson were true.

It’s a point that some people can’t or won’t, but should, take the time to understand.

It’s also why there’s been no reporting of the outcome of this matter by Mr Phelan. It’s a rather inconvenient outcome for CASA’s critics.

206greaser

27th Feb 2013, 06:57

I'd bet $1000 dollars that casa issues barrier with a show cause Friday arvo. Any takers? They will then apply for another 28 day grounding. Because even blind Freddy could see what casa are trying to do here.

Hope I didn't ruin the surprise mark.

Sunfish

27th Feb 2013, 07:16

Cream puff, not one bit of evidence in the Hutson case was tested in court. the argument that CASA made was not that it did any of the things that Butson alleged, but that Butson had no right to complain abou.t ANYTHING CASA did.

...And the Judge agreed, making CASA judge jury and executioner with no right of appeal.

justinga

27th Feb 2013, 07:50

206greaser, I bet you 98 cents nobody will call you on the bet. If 2 people do, I will chuck another k in the pot to back you.

weloveseaplanes

27th Feb 2013, 08:05

CASA judge jury and executioner

A fundamental requirement of justice is the division of power. This is why we have police, lawyers, juries and judges.

Vest these powers in one organisation and the inevitable outcome is injustice.

As Lord Acton noted "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."

The corrupting nature of power is discussed on the ActionInstitute website:

"But, apparently, the only way they can think of to do this “good” is to impose more restrictive laws.

Now, obviously, there is no point in passing a law which requires people to do something they would do anyhow; or which prevents them from doing what they are not going to do anyhow. Therefore, the possessor of the political power could very well decide to leave every person free to do as he pleases so long as he does not infringe upon the same right of every other person to do as he pleases. However, that concept appears to be utterly without reason to a person who wants to exercise political power over his fellow man, for he asks himself: “How can I ‘do good’ for the people if I just leave them alone?” Besides, he does not want to pass into history as a “do nothing” leader who ends up as a footnote somewhere. So he begins to pass laws that will force all other persons to conform to his ideas of what is good for them.

That is the danger point! The more restrictions and compulsions he imposes on other persons, the greater the strain on his own morality. As his appetite for using force against people increases, he tends increasingly to surround himself with advisers who also seem to derive a peculiar pleasure from forcing others to obey their decrees. He appoints friends and supporters to easy jobs of questionable necessity. If there are not enough jobs to go around, he creates new ones. In some instances, jobs are sold to the highest bidder. The hard-earned money of those over whom he rules is loaned for questionable private endeavors or spent on grandiose public projects at home and abroad. If there is opposition, an emergency is declared or created to justify these actions."

(Power Corrupts | Acton Institute (http://www.acton.org/pub/religion-liberty/volume-2-number-6/power-corrupts))

CASA has absolute power and is absolutely corrupt. It can't be anything but!

Creampuff

27th Feb 2013, 09:25

Cream puff, not one bit of evidence in the Hutson case was tested in court. The argument in court about the pleadings assumes every bit of evidence that Mr Butson would have given was absolutely true. That's the point. Even if all of his evidence was accepted as true, it would have made no difference to the outcome.the argument that CASA made was not that it did any of the things that Butson alleged, but that Butson had no right to complain abou.t ANYTHING CASA did.Rubbish. CASA's argument was that Mr Butson and anyone else can complain about everything and anything, but none of his complaints disclosed a cause of action against CASA or its officers....And the Judge agreed, making CASA judge jury and executioner with no right of appeal.No. The judge agreed that none of Mr Butson's complaints disclosed a cause of action against CASA or its officers, even if the facts asserted by Mr Butson were assumed to be true.

But you should be whinging to the federal court judge who made the decision, and the three federal court judge who agreed with that decision. Have you done that, or will you continue to have a pointless argument about it on PPRuNe?

Sunfish

27th Feb 2013, 21:00

Creampuff, if what you say is true then no pilot or airline has any rights at all.

That is going to lead to a very nasty situation one day.

SgtBundy

28th Feb 2013, 01:12

Maybe its just my layperson reading of that decision, but I read it as Polar saying "they can't order us to do things if it hurts our business" and the judges response was "no, they are under no duty to protect your business, go away". It also seemed to read as bringing the actions against the individuals was pointless as there was no recourse in the law against them individually.

I doubt that means there are no rights for AOC holders or pilots - unless you can show they actually acted without the authority of the act you are up for a tough argument. The pattern of behaviour argument also sounds thin unless you can prove there was malice intended, and not just a battle of egos and opinions.

Creampuff

28th Feb 2013, 07:55

A refreshingly objective summary of the decision, Sergeant. :ok:

thorn bird

28th Feb 2013, 08:43

"It’s also why there’s been no reporting of the outcome of this matter by Mr Phelan. It’s a rather inconvenient outcome for CASA’s critics."

Creamie, very, very rarely CASA actually learn something from other countries.
I think you will find that Mr. Phelan's silence is more due to CASA adopting the tactic used by the Singapore Government to stifle criticism and dissent, by swamping the individual or organization with writs or threats of writs.
Someone very close to me, who happened to be a judge, said to me once
"The law applies to everyone, justice on the other hand only applies to them that can afford it".
I have no doubt what you say is true and CASA have no liability to anyone under the law as written., and why not, they wrote the law, and it took them over twenty years and a quarter of a billion dollars to do it.
however, at the end of the day what they produced is rubbish, is killing the industry it purports to regulate and is not achieving what it was allegedly written to achieve. Who's fault is that?, unfortunately its ours, we let it happen and now we are paying the price, once corruption takes hold its very hard to eradicate.

Creampuff

1st Mar 2013, 06:22

I see.

So Mr Phelan has been threatened with legal action by CASA if he reports that:

(1) The Federal Court ultimately denied all of Polar/Butson’s claims in this decision: Polar Aviation Pty Ltd v Civil Aviation Safety Authority (No 4) [2011] FCA 1126 (30 September 2011) (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FCA/2011/1126.html) and

(2) The Full Federal Court denied Polar/Butson’s appeal in this decision: Polar Aviation Pty Ltd v Civil Aviation Safety Authority [2012] FCAFC 97 (4 July 2012) (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FCAFC/2012/97.html)

That’s very odd. I would have thought CASA would warmly welcome reports of its success in the matter. :confused:

I’ll let you know if I receive any threats of legal action, now that I’ve bravely reported facts that have already been published by the Federal Court. ;)

Trent 972

1st Mar 2013, 06:40

It's now Friday after 5pm, so I guess Barrier have received their latest 'rogering' from casa. Any news?

anothertwit

1st Mar 2013, 09:47

roger on the rogering......

Shed Dog Tosser

1st Mar 2013, 10:56

They could not have a spine or moral thought between them.

Justice is not being served here, shame on you CASA.

Unusual-Attitude

1st Mar 2013, 21:53

I can't find anything official...were are you getting your info?

'Roger on the rogering'...can you be a bit more specific?

Still nothing?

zac21

4th Mar 2013, 04:06

Well,,,,,,,,,,,,what happened on Friday??????? :E:E:E

anothertwit

4th Mar 2013, 06:26

well they are still on the ground,,,,so only one thing could have happened :oh:

aroa

6th Mar 2013, 06:36

a grape from the vine...

CASA has presented nothing new, over and above that which they had before the "mediation"
But now a "Show Cause" ...more delay. And back to court?

Hope their legal folk can respond with the famous " The only cause that I show is... etc..." not to paint them into a blind corner.

Down at the CNS FF you can hear the sounds of Rottweilers snuffling over the Barrier bone. :mad:

zac21

10th Mar 2013, 06:12

Another Friday passed and still obviously no resolution FFS!!! :oh::oh::oh:

curiousflyer

10th Mar 2013, 08:15

Haven't actually seen any of the 'official' reasons why from CASA yet. Nothing on their website, twitter feed or anything. It would seem they were bull:mad:ting when they talked about 'working with Barrier to get back into the air'. It's suprising that after all of this time Barrier is still hanging on. 9 weeks is a hell of a long time for a business to not be operating.

Love them or hate them all the operators in that part of the world play a big part in the local economy. CASA aren't doing anyone any favours by dragging this thing out.

Why aren't Barrier given the opportunity to fix the issues concerning CASA right now and continue operating immediately? Poor form.

Is the death by a thousand cuts intentional? Are they so detached from the industry and so bureaucratic that they don't recognise it, or do they simply not give a monkeys?

aroa

10th Mar 2013, 08:32

curious...last para ..you are right.:mad:

We all have to remember that CASA does not give one rats ar$e about any financial pain inflicted on any business or person for whatever their reason...valid or otherwise. Ask JQ.! Ask me!
And if it helps their MO in knocking someone over, so be it. :mad:

The Bald (delete eagle) insert Screamer stated at the Senate hearing, when there was a Q posed about unwarranted imposts on a business...
The bizarre reply was " Again, we are not a commercial regulator, we are a safety regulator"
Oh really.! Could have fooled me and all those like folk who have been seriously shafted by the "safety" regulator and its attack dogs. :mad:

Up-into-the-air

10th Mar 2013, 09:24

Hear hear aroa.

casa has cost me in excess of $5m dollars.

Reckon they have not got my attention.

curiousflyer

10th Mar 2013, 09:39

What protections are in place to stop CASA damaging a business?

How much proof and hard evidence do CASA need before they can shut someone down?

I did read somewhere that this all came from the accusations of a former employee but I'm not sure if thats true or not. Is that enough to warrant this sort of action or is there a smoking gun we don't know about yet?

anothertwit

10th Mar 2013, 10:33

curiousflyer,

There is no protection as long as they wave the "safety flag"

Apparently not very much proof at all.

Yes a disgruntled ex employee started this.

The main evidence they have is a gripe sheet and an affidavit. No smoking gun.

Unchecked bureaucratic power at it's finest.

curiousflyer

10th Mar 2013, 10:53

anothertwit,

So how come BA haven't been able to get back into the air if there is no smoking gun? Surely that evidence isn't enough to ground the whole operation for this long. What a joke CASA.

I wonder how much longer they are allowed to keep BA grounded. If thats all they've come up with, it makes BA's case a bit stronger for ending the suspension.

anothertwit

10th Mar 2013, 11:04

For a full explanation, see the last line of my last post. :hmm:

aroa

10th Mar 2013, 11:18

some months ago Barrier was halted Sunday 23 Dec on the basis that...and correct me if I'm wrong with the wording.."they were a serious and imminent threat to aviation safety". ie a crash pending.

OK,...lets hear it from the CASA crew..What is this threat, or threats plural?

All the punters seated in the GA stadium would dearly like to know.

Eventually it will all have to see the light of day to clearly show in a court of law, unlike JQ and others, that they have a dinkum case and can prosecute accordingly.
If not...$#@!!%%$! :mad::mad::mad:

UITA...I bet they have.!!! The problem is from the Miniscule, Pollywafflers and the CASA Bored down is how do WE get THEIR attention.
My impression is its us the desperate talking to the disinterested:mad:
Senators just keep at it P L E A S E !

that guy

10th Mar 2013, 12:42

"Eventually it will all have to see the light of day to clearly show in a court of law, unlike JQ and others, that they have a dinkum case and can prosecute accordingly."

This has already been through a court and it appears that casa had squat, the problem is that there is no one to regulate the regulator... It took them minutes after the suspension was lifted by the court for them to reinstate it and then send out a hastily prepared show cause apparently with no new accusations.. (Double jeopardy must not apply in Casa's world) :mad:

curiousflyer

11th Mar 2013, 02:50

Does anyone know if BA are making much progress day to day with this or is it just a waiting game? Have the lost many of their contracts?

Sunfish

11th Mar 2013, 12:21

Curious, the idea is to send broke without ever getting their day in court. That way CASA doesn't have to have its evidence tested. Judge jury executioner is their preferred mo.

zac21

13th Mar 2013, 04:51

Still no real information as to what is happening, or what has transpired!
Someone must know where they are at!!!!!:hmm::hmm:

curiousflyer

13th Mar 2013, 06:24

Nothing on BA's website, nothing on CASA's either. Anyone know what date BA can get back into the air under the current suspension? Can it be extended (legally) again after this?

Everyones playing this with the cards to their chest it seems

lurker999

13th Mar 2013, 13:12

BARRIER AVIATION GROUNDED:
CASA has stopped Barrier Aviation from flying. Barrier flies into Darwin from Cairns. Here's the text of CASA's statement...

"The Civil Aviation Safety Authority cancelled the air operator’s certificate held by Barrier Aviation Pty Ltd on Wednesday 13 March 2013.
Barrier Aviation was a Cairns-based charter operator and flying school.
CASA suspended Barrier Aviation’s operations on 23 December 2012 due to a serious and imminent risk to air safety.
On 22 February 2013, the Federal Court of Australia made an order prohibiting Barrier Aviation from conducting operations.
CASA conducted a thorough investigation which confirmed Barrier Aviation had been operating aircraft with serious and known defects, as well as directing pilots to fly these aircraft.
Known defects were also not being recorded on aircraft maintenance documentation.
Following the Federal Court order and the completion of CASA’s investigation, CASA was not satisfied that Barrier Aviation would not operate aircraft with known defects if allowed to resume operations.
CASA has determined Barrier Aviation had a poor safety culture and placed commercial imperatives before safety.
The inconvenience this action will cause for passengers and Barrier's employees is regrettable, however, CASA's primary and overriding priority is safety."

curiousflyer

13th Mar 2013, 14:22

Well, I guess that's it. Goodbye to another GA operator.

Sunfish

13th Mar 2013, 19:51

Following the Federal Court order and the completion of CASA’s investigation, CASA was not satisfied that Barrier Aviation would not operate aircraft with known defects if allowed to resume operations.
CASA has determined Barrier Aviation had a poor safety culture and placed commercial imperatives before safety.

Exactly how could CASA possibly predict the behaviour of a commercial organization in the future? I can make a fortune on the stock market with this knowledge.

Unusual-Attitude

13th Mar 2013, 20:28

We're is this statement taken from?

Nothing official on the CASA, Federal court or Barrier Av web sites...

DaisyDuck

13th Mar 2013, 20:47

There is a couple of tweets on the subject.

halfmanhalfbiscuit

13th Mar 2013, 21:53

Civil Aviation Safety Authority - Barrier aviation's operators certificate cancelled (http://www.casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:STANDARD::pc=PC_101377)

my oleo is extended

13th Mar 2013, 22:30

Ironic really, CASA conducted a thorough investigation? CASA can't even tie its own shoelaces 'thoroughly'. You only have to peruse years of senate inquiries and other silly things they have done to see that. In CASA's current condition they aren't capable of watering their pot plants.

And, once again, we have an operator in allegedly such a bad state that they must be instantaneously grounded and dispatched to the pages of aviation history, yet how did Barrier become so bad supposedly so quickly when they have been the receivers of regular CASA audits and surveillance for some time? Hmm Transair used to receive CASA audits and undergo surveillance as well.
I would enjoy reviewing all surveillance and audit reports in say the past 3 years leading up to this 'parlous situation'. It would be intersting indeed to see how 'thorough' the regulator has been?

And as Sunfish mentioned, you have this CASA gem; 'CASA was not satisfied that Barrier Aviation would not operate aircraft with defects if allowed to resume operations'. Isn't that an assumption? Isn't that a statement based on crystal ball methodology? What if BA admitted to its mistakes, fixed its systems and processes and demonstrated evidence of such? That is a possibility, yet they never got the chance? According to CASA the AOC is cancelled because CASA was not satisfied the operator would not operate aircraft with known defects. Bit hard to assume this based solely on past evidence alone. I guess the thorough CASA investigation must have uncovered some pretty serious concerns that we aren't totally privy to.
You still have to wonder if FNQ really is cursed or whether there is 'something' in the CASA or operator water? Maybe it's the humidity that affects both operator and regulator? Who knows.

Trent, there is nothing 'normal' about CASA. As for 'tweets', the bearded spokesman is showing that he is embracing of modern technology at FF. Tweets, twitters, emails, text messages, smoke signals and morse code. All methods of robust communication that the (R)egulator uses to keep industry alert to imminent concerns! Folly.

'Safe skies are FNQ skies?'

Ixixly

13th Mar 2013, 22:58

Theres a couple of lovely lines in this that are obviously there to make themselves seem in the right and backed up by others such as:

"On 22 February 2013, the Federal Court of Australia made an order prohibiting Barrier Aviation from conducting operations."

Oh ok...what about the later decision to have this reversed? No mention of that...funny...

"Following the Federal Court order and the completion of CASA’s investigation, CASA was not satisfied that Barrier Aviation would not operate aircraft with known defects if allowed to resume operations."

Once again, a bit odd considering that by all accounts the Federal Court Ordered Mediation between CASA and Barrier to work these problems out and get them going again has apparently been completely ignored or de-railed by CASA who have instead decided to yank their AOC.

Could this all have something to do with Barriers latest post on March 4th on their Facebook page? Funny how this is posted on a Saturday, probably noticed by CASA when they return to work on Monday and 2 days later their AOC is yanked...:

"To Our Valued Customers,

We want to give you a brief update regarding the grounding of Barrier Aviation. As you know it is has been well over two months and we are still going through the process with CASA.

Our biggest concern is that CASA are not obligated to speed this process up, but we of course do want to resolve this as soon as possible. We at Barrier Aviation haven’t asked for any special treatment, just a timely resolution to the issues at hand. We have fully co-operated every step of the way and continue to do so, but it is reaching a point where our business will not be able to recover from this unreasonable and lengthy grounding.

We think that the issues CASA has raised could have been dealt with professionally and without the ambush on Christmas Eve. We were ready then and still are ready now to deal with CASA on a co-operative and professional basis; there should have been no reason to be grounded. Regrettably we have been forced to place our customers in such an inconvenient situation.

We also appreciate all the support our wonderful staff have given us at this difficult time. They are all aware of what is going on and are still standing by us at this time.

If you feel that it is appropriate, can we ask you to email or fax your Federal Member asking that our case be heard and resolved promptly.

We hope to be able to give you more positive news in the near future.
We cannot fully express the gratitude we feel for the incredible support that continues to flow from throughout Cairns, Cape York, the Torres Strait and the Darwin and Gove area from our customers, the aviation industry and our staff.

Kindest regards,

David Kilin
Managing Director
Barrier Aviation Pty Ltd"

I hope this all makes its way to the Senate Inquiry, no one, whether in the right or wrong, should have to face this, our own law system is completely designed around this, Rapists, Pedophiles, Murderers, Thief's, Con-artists, Politicians, all get their right to defend themselves in a Public Court of Law and have that decision upheld (Lets not get into appeals and the various appeals they can have...).

Someone somewhere gets Murdered, the Police do their job find a suspect and arrest him based on information they have. So far completely above board and correct. That Man has his day or days in court, he does the right things, hires a lawyer, defends himself as he believes he is innocent. The Judge hears both sides, deliberates and decides that the evidence was enough for the initial action but upon further investigation he is not the one responsible but did play a part and should be counseled for current problems and released. Yay for the Judicial System. HANG ON A SECOND, what are the Police doing putting him back in Handcuffs and taking him back to jail? "Screw you Judge, we don't care, we're putting him back in Prison anyway till he confesses to the crime"... well ain't that a B***h. Good thing the Police don't operate like CASA do.

aroa

13th Mar 2013, 23:37

So the axe falleth...
Dont ya love 'em :mad: :mad:

Earlier it was "...working as quickly as possible (sic) to get them back in the air.." Obviously there was never any intention of that, proven by trying to get another 28 grounding extension.

Now its that hoary old chestnut "CASA is not satisfied....." And a few assumptions.
Does CASA have a legal definition of "satisfaction"???
Will satisfaction to CASA be in titling the round -robin email to all concerned after a "win" FOR YOU AMUSEMENT ??

And as for Mr Gobsome...dont get me started!!!:mad::mad:

3 days to appeal....Hmmmmm.

LeadSled

14th Mar 2013, 02:01

Does CASA have a legal definition of "satisfaction"???

aroa,
Within CASA training material, "satisfaction" is defined in the same way as the civil standard of proof, in the balance of probabilities, last time I looked, but that was some time ago.
Tootle pip!!

SpyderPig

14th Mar 2013, 02:15

From Barrier as reported by Nine news Darwin

BARRIER AVIATION'S RESPONSE: Here is the response from Barrier Aviation's Managing Director, David Kilin, in relation to CASA's decision to ground the airline.

“Clearly we are very disappointed by CASA’s latest action. We still have a right of appeal and
several alternative steps that we can take. At this stage we are exploring our opportunities with
our legal team.
I would like to make it very clear that at no stage has CASA entered into any meaningful or
productive discussion about how to resolve any perceived issues. We have continually asked
what do they want us to do, but that has not been forthcoming at any stage.
In my opinion (and the opinion of many others), CASA’s draconian approach has been a
personal vendetta against me, hidden behind their catch cry ‘it is all about safety’. Their PR
machine has been both cunning and manipulative, whilst we have been shackled and made to
tow the line every step of the way.
It is ludicrous to think that Barrier Aviation would want anything but safe planes and practises
for our staff and our passengers. A clean, twenty year reputation and business is destroyed
because of bureaucrats playing out their own agendas yet again. Every year we have tens of
thousands of flights conducted without a single passenger harmed in any way.
We are not the first small regional airline to be treated this way. QANTAS and VIRGIN are too big
to be bullied by CASA – we are not.
At this stage the future of Barrier is uncertain. We will take stock in the coming days and plan a
media conference for early next week to provide an update.”
David Kilin
Managing Director,

my oleo is extended

14th Mar 2013, 02:51

Kilin might be justified to react that way but it won't help him. History will tell you that once you 'poke the bear' it is all over red rover. Publicly slagging the Ego driven pencil necks at FF will only see you pineappled off the face of the planet. The only game move available when playing with CASA is the 'roll over and take it' manoeuvre, nothing else works or wins. Speak up publicly and you have signed your death warrant.

It's a pity that FF have singled out BA when there are bigger fish that need frying in the region. FNQ and NT have several HICAP outfits that should not have been granted anything above GA status.
The whole industry is rooted. Contributing factor - CASA.

curiousflyer

14th Mar 2013, 02:56

What good does appealing do? History tells us that Federal Court decisions in this case do not amount to :mad:, so even an appeal wouldn't be worth it. CASA really has the deck well and truly stacked.

Looks like CASA made the decision to cancel the AOC on December 23rd 2012. Looking at this from start to finish, BA was never given a chance to right any wrongs. They have pretty good safety record looking at what is available in the public domain. I don't think there is a single operator in aviation that is without sin and I'm pretty sure they would all want a chance to rectify things if they were in BA's shoes.

According to ABC News, they have 28 days to appeal (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-03-14/safety-probe-permanently-grounds-barrier-aviation/4572114). By then, I would imagine they will be so financially crippled it will be all over.

Unfortunately, BA really don't have a hope in the world of getting back into the air. A pretty sad day for GA.

Capt Claret

14th Mar 2013, 03:37

Despite much that is written in this thread, I find it difficult to believe that CASA can cancel an AOC without justification. Some one is putting their neck in the noose, if so.

1a sound asleep

14th Mar 2013, 03:47

Cairns news paper Barrier Aviation grounded permanently- Local Cairns News | cairns.com.au (http://www.cairns.com.au/article/2013/03/14/240199_local-news.html)

BARRIER Aviation has been grounded permanently with The Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) cancelling the Cairns-based airline's air operator's certificate yesterday.

The charter company’s Horn Island base was the main concern for CASA with the authority suspending the airline from flight in December because maintenance issues were not been documented correctly.

In a statement released last night, CASA said they conducted an investigation which confirmed Barrier Aviation had been operating aircraft with serious and known defects, as well as directing pilots to fly these aircraft.

On 22 February 2013, the Federal Court of Australia made an order prohibiting Barrier Aviation from conducting operations.

tail wheel

14th Mar 2013, 04:42

Barrier were dead on the day their AOC was suspended. David Kilin must have known it was all over on that first day as he is a former CASA employee and operating in the Torres Strait region where I think history confirms only three operators were not shut down and killed off by CASA, mostly without reasonable cause.

That is the way CASA operates.

weloveseaplanes

14th Mar 2013, 06:56

Hadn't Barrier just successfully passed an audit two weeks before the December 23rd suspension?

If so, how can an operator go from successful audit result to sudden suspension to winning in court to complete loss of AOC with no chance of rectifying anything?

What does this scandal say about

A) the validity of CASA audits
B) the comparative power of the courts of Australia and that of CASA
C) the fundamental right of innocent until proven guilty in a court of law
D) the security of any operator in the nation

Is this the spark that will ignite the industry against CASA as each pilot and operator finally releases that they could be so targeted at any time?

If every operator in the nation sent a single letter to the Minister express outrage at this travesty of justice surely those CASA individuals involved must be investigated, their biased actions brought to light, their careers thus destroyed and those players removed before they can destroy the next operator ...

In conjunction with operator outrage, surely there is at least one, for it only takes one, courageous individual in CASA who has been privy to and disgusted by his colleagues actions here, and the pain inflicted on the Barrier staff and their families who will blow the whistle and bring the house of cards down on CASA ... The lifetime satisfaction that individual would receive and the courageous example he would leave would forever fill his family with pride and start to stop the tide of rampant aviation destruction.

curiousflyer

14th Mar 2013, 07:26

At this stage we are exploring our opportunities with our legal team
What opportunities?

Ixixly

14th Mar 2013, 07:42

Curiousflyer, just because you've been thrown into a deep dark dungeon without any light doesn't mean you don't get up and feel around the room to see whats what...

curiousflyer

14th Mar 2013, 08:07

Ixixly, for the record I hope that BA fight back and get back into the air. A lot of good people there in Darwin and Cairns. I just don't see what options they have.

Radix

14th Mar 2013, 21:21

CASA needs this power to stop rogue operators.

Whether BA falls in this group or not, (acc. CASA they do); I cannot hope for a situation where an offender can be loose on the streets, while our great and incredibly slow juricidal system catches up.

I am firmly convinced there needs to be firm, convincing evidence. This hasn't been made public in the BA case and assuming there is evidence, I wonder whether there is an obligation to do so.

kalavo

15th Mar 2013, 00:08

Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

There is a reason the rest of our entire legal system separates the roles of judge, jury and executioner. We don't give absolute power to the police on the street, we don't give absolute power to the judge - that's why we have a jury as well.

Aviation is absolutely no different, except we were stupid enough to let CASA have more power. Yes there is the potential for things to go wrong in Aviation. But guess what? Accidents happen in other industries as well.

As has been pointed out earlier in the thread, if someone is convicted of murder, the police arrest him, he is taken to court and the case is heard by a judge and a jury of his peers and he is found not guilty.... the police do not then throw him straight back in jail because "he has the potential to be a murder". He was found not guilty, to even arrest him again there needs to be a significant amount of new evidence that takes potentially years to gather.

I don't believe anyone here could say CASA has managed to gain that evidence in a single afternoon in the case of Barrier. For starters not a single flight got in to the air between the end of the court case and CASA issuing the show cause notice. Any evidence gathered up until the point that it was dismissed should have been shown in court.

We have a very very broken system here where CASA can destroy a business, and keep it from operating until they are so far in debt they can't afford a lawyer and never have their day in court, even if they do have their day in court and their case is heard and dismissed, CASA can still rough them up again. This is broken.

"In summing up it's the constitution, it's mabo, it's justice, it's law, it's the vibe and uhh no that it's it, it's the vibe. I rest my case"

Up-into-the-air

15th Mar 2013, 00:12

This has just been published on the Federal Court website:

Federal Court Action [Barrier] (http://vocasupport.com/?page_id=503)

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Civil Aviation Safety Authority v Barrier Aviation Pty Ltd
[2013] FCA 227

Citation: Civil Aviation Safety Authority v Barrier Aviation Pty Ltd [2013] FCA 227

Parties: CIVIL AVIATION SAFETY AUTHORITY v BARRIER AVIATION PTY LTD ACN 056 643 531

File number: NSD 2240 of 2012

Judge: RARES J

Date of judgment: 22 February 2013

Legislation: Civil Aviation Act 1988 (Cth) ss 3A, 9A(1), 30DB, 30DC, 30DE(2) and (3), 30DH, 30DI
Civil Aviation Regulations 1988 (Cth) reg 42G

Cases cited: Civil Aviation Safety Authority v Bell [2008] FCA 1049 applied
George v Rocket (1990) 170 CLR 104 applied

Date of hearing: 22 February 2013

Place: Sydney

Division: GENERAL DIVISION

Category: No catchwords

Number of paragraphs: 17

Counsel for the Applicant: Mr I Harvey

Solicitor for the Applicant: Legal Branch, Civil Aviation Safety Authority

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr S Ferrier

Solicitor for the Respondent: Ferrier & Associates Lawyers Pty Ltd

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION NSD 2240 of 2012

BETWEEN: CIVIL AVIATION SAFETY AUTHORITY
Applicant

AND: BARRIER AVIATION PTY LTD ACN 056 643 531
Respondent

JUDGE: RARES J
DATE OF ORDER: 22 FEBRUARY 2013
WHERE MADE: SYDNEY

Dated: 14 March 2013

Civil Aviation Safety Authority v Barrier Aviation Pty Ltd [2013] FCA 227 (http://www.judgments.fedcourt.gov.au/judgments/Judgments/fca/single//2013fca0227)

LeadSled

15th Mar 2013, 01:39

Folks,
It is reported in today's Australian that CASA has cancelled the Barrier AOC.
Tootle pip!!

anothertwit

15th Mar 2013, 10:27

Bit behind the times leady, AOC was cancelled wednesday afternoon. From what I hear, Barrier have 28 days to launch an appeal.

Radix

15th Mar 2013, 12:39

If someone was convicted of murder and he was found not guilty, to even arrest him again there needs to be a significant amount of new evidence that takes potentially years to gather.
I agree with most of your vibe, but the analogy still doesn't hold, because BA was found guilty. For us the unanswered question is: 'to what amount' and is it acceptable risk to let is continue (or rot), and is the behaviour recidivistic.

Until the evidence is revealed, we can keep talking about it forever drawing up analogies that probably don't apply. I can't wait.

206greaser

16th Mar 2013, 02:45

I guess the down side of signing an affidavit that ends up in federal court is that your name then becomes attached to decisions which end up a part of the public record.

I suppose you know what you are doing though.

Won't it make it very difficult to get a job in the future though? I mean imagine if you were on hold with a company like Virgin? I'd be nervous that they would find out and then remove me from the hold file! Oh well I'm sure you'll be fine as it's a big country.

If you are interested to know who started all this, the first demoted then fired, disgruntled employee this link should work: Federal Court Action [Barrier] | Assistance to the Aviation Industry (http://vocasupport.com/?page_id=503)
Check out section 8.

rep

16th Mar 2013, 03:06

Why are so many people blaming CASA here?

CASA found evidence which were serious breaches of the law.

They got caught, so they got shutdown.

The only real people to blame here is the company for having such a piss poor safety culture, and the pilots for flying broken aircraft - I mean some of those defects in that report above are just shocking. Are you kidding me?

The link above said CASA only looked at 3 out of 8 aircraft. No doubt the remaining aircraft would have had the exact same problems.

Barrier got everything they deserved.

Good riddance! :D

lostwingnut

16th Mar 2013, 03:10

15 Mr Richardson gave evidence that early in his employment, he formed the view that an aircraft was unfit to fly after carrying out a daily pre-flight inspection. He could not recall, he said, what the issue was or the aircraft concerned, but he had refused to take that aircraft that he had been assigned to fly, because he considered it to be unserviceable, and instead flew another one. When he returned from the flight, he said he had been surprised to see that the aircraft which he refused to fly was missing, and apparently, according to his inquiries, had been flown by another pilot who had not identified the same defect.

Oh, wait a minute, paragraph 15 suggest that Mr Richardson failed to endorse the MR after he discovered a defect on an aircraft, as a result another pilot who wasn't aware of the defect then flew that aircraft. I would think/hope most pilots check an aircrafts MR to see if the aircraft is unserviceable prior to flight, the fact that the aircraft flew would reinforce the suggestion that MR Richardson failed to endorse the MR earlier in the day when he discovered the defect.

Will CASA thoroughly investigate what would appear to be a serious non compliance with the rules and regulations by MR Richardson?

Will CASA, if this is found to be the case, be issuing MR Richardson with an infringement notice?

206greaser

16th Mar 2013, 03:24

Lost wing nut, are you joking there's no way casa would have a go at their pet!

In fact casa called around offering pilots immunity from prosecution if they too would sign affidavits. All the guys i know who were called declined as nothing in the affidavit was factual.

Cheers,
Greaser.

Creampuff

16th Mar 2013, 03:25

Even if the answers are 'yes' and 'yes' lostwingnut, it does not excuse Barrier.

Flying Bear

16th Mar 2013, 03:50

There's probably a really good lesson in this for GA pilots, and hopefully a coming paradigm shift in that part of the industry...

By that, I would suggest that Mr Richardson and his pilot colleagues have some serious questions to answer for operating these aircraft with these known defects. Mutual liability, and all that jazz, and the "Nuremburg Defence" they might offer should not be allowed to stand...

It is worth noting that maintenance cannot fix problems that are not reported to them (correctly) and although I do not assert for one moment that Barrier are innocent, I have seen on many occasions aircraft get flown by pilots with defects because the pilot "doesn't want the delay" the rectification would cause, or have to make the effort to change aircraft. Also, it is a common pilot mindset in the early career phase to just "hope I don't get caught out with this until I've got my hours up" - which doesn't help the issue.

Barrier are an example of a company that has evidently gone too far down the dodgy path and their demise perhaps sends a message to the other GA operators that they need to perform better than this. The pilots should also shoulder some blame and get a message - have the courage / discipline to manage defects / airworthiness standards correctly using company procedures and it should never get to the "dobbing to CASA" stage - pilots do have an obligation to be loyal to their employer, which often is difficult if they are recalcitrant, but companies will fix their airplanes if no one will fly them.

There are enough mechanisms in place to protect pilots (AFAP, FWA and yes, CASA) who set and maintain standards. But the best thing to protect pilots will be the correct safety culture - but as is often the case, pilots are their own worst enemy and there is no shortage of those who will fly dodgy aircraft just to "get their hours up"...

But nothing in this excuses Barrier - DK is an experienced operator - and it ultimately falls to him to ensure the viability of his company, the safety standards maintained by it and to have the integrity to do what is right. Through this, he might have been able to keep safe the livelihoods of those who entrusted a phase of their careers to him.

Up-into-the-air

16th Mar 2013, 06:27

Let's get to the real part of this whole sorry saga of BA.

We have the regulator - casa doing, a surveillance less than two months prior to grounding BA.

No issues - re-issue the AOC.

Then the re-calcitrant pilot fronts up.

"I will get even with DK................."

CASA grounds BA, but no evidence is mounted at a proper level that can be disputed.

Today is a week short of 3 months without any income for BA.

Death by a thousand cuts.

geeup

16th Mar 2013, 06:41

Sounds like it is all over.

Who will fill the gap Barrier leaves?

Unusual-Attitude

16th Mar 2013, 07:35

Up-into-the -air, where did you get that "quote" from?

Up-into-the-air

16th Mar 2013, 07:49

UA - Read from this:

8 First, Brad Cowan, an airworthiness inspector employed by CASA, with what appeared to be significant expertise, stated that CASA officers had conducted an audit of Barrier Aviation from 29 October 2012 to 12 November 2012 in which they identified a number of instances of non-compliance with the Act. Secondly, CASA relied on the affidavit of Craig Richardson, a pilot who, the parties agreed, was currently disaffected with his former employer, Barrier Aviation.

and:

15 Mr Richardson gave evidence that early in his employment, he formed the view that an aircraft was unfit to fly after carrying out a daily pre-flight inspection. He could not recall, he said, what the issue was or the aircraft concerned, but he had refused to take that aircraft that he had been assigned to fly, because he considered it to be unserviceable, and instead flew another one. When he returned from the flight, he said he had been surprised to see that the aircraft which he refused to fly was missing, and apparently, according to his inquiries, had been flown by another pilot who had not identified the same defect.

Barrier Judgement – 2013FCA0227 | Assistance to the Aviation Industry (http://vocasupport.com/?attachment_id=905)

Stink Finger

16th Mar 2013, 09:36

What are the chances Mr Craig Richardson will ever have the chance to be "disaffected" by an employer is aviation ever again........Douche.

Craig Richardson - Australia | LinkedIn (http://au.linkedin.com/pub/craig-richardson/3a/248/b63)

Unusual-Attitude

16th Mar 2013, 09:55

He'll be flying for a major in no time, no doubt....:E

With a rep from NZ to PNG, and now Aus, how can he not?!? :D

anothertwit

16th Mar 2013, 10:47

Great post Flying Bear. :ok:

Cactusjack

17th Mar 2013, 03:52

Tis interesting how DK has led a fairly comfortable existence relatively hassle free since the Falcon drama of the 90's and the Wheelahan report?
Perhaps DK screwed somebody in CASA a few decades back and that somebody who has spent 15 plus years wandering the halls of FF until such a time that they became powerful enough to be in a position to deliver some robust payback to DK through BA as the means for that payback?
As for the 'informant' who threw the poo grenade at BA, don't worry as I am sure he will jag a job with APNG. It's new CEO and HOFO are as smart as moon dust.

Unusual-Attitude

17th Mar 2013, 05:01

He's already been there...

Socket

17th Mar 2013, 06:49

Quote:
"I will get even with DK................."

Still waiting to hear where you got that quote from UITA. You wouldn't deliberately print something that was untrue would you?

Tidbinbilla

17th Mar 2013, 08:18

Some of you people are sailing very close to the wind. I strongly suggest you read the announcement regarding anonymity before going into too much more character assassination. You'll find it located at the top of each forum ;)

Defenestrator

17th Mar 2013, 09:46

Some posters make reference to CASA as 'FF'. What is 'FF'?

Ixixly

17th Mar 2013, 10:04

Fort Fumble...or sometimes I think they're referring to Flying Fiend who I believe was a CASA guy who used to post here a bit. They're interchangeable I think!! :ok:

my oleo is extended

17th Mar 2013, 10:45

Indeed 'FF' is Fort Fumble'. And although 'Flyingfiend' could be abbreviated to 'FF' it isn't. So wherever you see FF it is strictly a reference to Fort Fumble, also known as Malfunction Junction, and a few other acronyms and nicknames also which won't be printed here:=

Capt Fathom

17th Mar 2013, 12:16

Fort Fumble!

Is that anywhere near Fort Courage?

aroa

18th Mar 2013, 01:46

Nah...no courage out of FF ...or even near it.
Fort CASA... Cant Account for Stuff all Accountability.(No Liability, either)
:mad:

cleggs

18th Mar 2013, 07:38

It is interesting following the story of the Barrier grounding whilst also reading the Hempel thread. There seems little doubt that Hempel was breaking the law and it is likely that an innocent passenger was killed as a result. CASA have been widely criticised for (allegedly) turning a blind eye to his possibly illegal activities leading to the fatal flight.
On the other hand, Barrier had not yet suffered a serious accident in one of their own aircraft. CASA have investigated allegations of illegal and unsafe operations, found supporting evidence and taken action to create a safe outcome. It has caused a lot of people a lot of inconvenience in the process and it has been argued that grounding and subsequently cancellation of Barrier’s AOC was too extreme a course of action.
I don’t wish to say that CASA were right or wrong in their course of action. I simply find it interesting that a lot of people here believe that they set out from the start to shut down the company. If, the day before the disgruntled ex-employee decided to talk to CASA, an aircraft had crashed as a result of an unserviceability that was known but not properly recorded, would the general consensus be different? What if it was a one-off oversight by an individual? What if that was just the way the company did things? Should the way a single base is managed tarnish a larger company? All very interesting to think about!

aroa

18th Mar 2013, 10:27

thoughtful post cleggs...
But it seems... and historically so... that if CASA is slighted by accidents or misdemeanors/breaches of the regs...CLOSE the WHOLE PLACE DOWN.
eg Whyalla Air is a classic example.

Its how they go about creating a "safer" outcome that is the problem:eek:

Reg breaches made known at TI..and only a few people would have been involved...so prosecute and apply the penalties for that,to those responsible, when proven guilty in a court of law.

DONT destroy the whole business and all the jobs for those in Darwin, Gove, Cairns and Mareeba that had nothing to do with those breaches.

Safer skies for all doesnt mean punishment for all and sundry, does it ?

And there are people in CASA who are not the shining white safety knights as they pretend to be either. :mad:

my oleo is extended

18th Mar 2013, 11:18

Aroa, there are several handfuls of 'white nights' at FF, a smattering of frontline people, as for the rest well 'brown knights' is more like it.
FF's mantra, safety statement, mission statement and any other lawyer approved piece of written wankery they come up with isn't worth a pinch of panther p#ss. The executive tier is littered with individuals out to make big salaries with executive bonuses and enjoy taxpayer funded missions abroad every 2 months. Nothing more and nothing less.

You can count FF's success stories on one finger. It is a playground where everyone is a bully. It is an organisation which attracts sociopaths and hen pecked husbands where they can operate with full immunity and supposedly exercise their manhood making 'big' decisions which normally amount to nothing and get shelved in the bottom draw. Serial bludgers who have learned how to play the system and tap into endless streams of taxpayer funded goodies that flow through the bottomless trough. They work in a world, a fantasy world where accountability does not exist, where you cannot be sacked, where you can remain unskilled and out of touch with the real aviation environment while making decisions not based on safety but based upon fulfilling ego, pride, arrogance and a conceited lust for power and domination.
And all of this comes wrapped in a parcel with a bowtie on it provided by the Australian government and shoved up the a#s of industry.
Yep, ho ho f#cking ho, everyday is Xmas day at FF.

So different people ask 'why shut down an entire airline at the behest of one or two bad apples'? FF's response is 'why the f#ck not'. No sense of justice, no conscience, no empathy, no moral compass and no understanding. But what do you expect from an environment that fosters, creates and embraces schoolyard bullies.
Bet you $20 that the rumor that half the bad elements of their workforce workforce burnt lizards with magnifying glasses as children and the other half lost their cherry to the Green Grocer down the road or to Great Aunt Gretel before they left primary school is true!

weloveseaplanes

18th Mar 2013, 21:11

It is an organisation which attracts sociopaths ... They work in a world, a fantasy world where accountability does not exist, where you cannot be sacked, where you can remain unskilled and out of touch with the real aviation environment while making decisions not based on safety but based upon fulfilling ego, pride, arrogance and a conceited lust for power and domination. . .

No sense of justice, no conscience, no empathy, no moral compass and no understanding. But what do you expect from an environment that fosters, creates and embraces schoolyard bullies.

My Oleo is right.

There is growing research that describes in detail this process of sociopathic control of organizations. The process is known as ponefication.

Whenever you combine the power of judge, jury, and executioner in one organisation not only are sociopaths naturally drawn to it, but their prescence creates a environment where all others are forced to follow their thinking. The cost for humanity has been catastrophic.

Piloting and flying is the ultimate freedom where the pilot exercises individual decision making free for a time from the control of others. This is the absolute antithesis of those in bureaucratic organizations where the individual is just a cog in a juggernaut blindly following the rules. Thus mentally there is always incredible friction between free thinkers and autocrats they span different sides of a metaphysical chasm. Interestingly enough MRI brain scan research back up what My Oleo said about the inherent cruelty of those drawn to such organizations - for a number in such organisations it really is a power game. And all it takes is for a small critical number of these sociopaths to rise up into positions of unaccountable power for them to rain hell down on the free. Just ask our Jewish friends when the friendly Nazis came through with their clipboards and smiles for just a standard survey of the neighbourhood a few weeks before the men in black rolled in at night with their trucks and dogs. Their justification is always that they are saving the world but in reality they are enjoying destroying the world. The psychology of it is fascinating and the implications for any groups such as operators and pilots under the control of such a tyrannical organization as CASA are truly frightening.

Another indicator of psychopathic control is judging an organisations success in external engagement and its level of humanity towards those it believes need help. If CASA has failed so terribly in engaging the industry and is so well and truly disliked by the industry it was made to SERVE then the servant has become the master - with unlimited power, even the power to override the laws of the land. If errors were made at BA - that is naturally - for where this is humans there will be mistakes. As humans we are all made from warped wood as someone else aptly described in this site. Organizations though should however have the right to try to fix their errors, not to be destroyed outright. For that is another indicator of psychopathic control whether they destroy outright or seek to help rehabilitate. . .

For those interested in knowing what you are really up against when you try to fight CASA and their ilk this is a fascinating and highly acclaimed work - Political Ponerology.

Amazon.com: Political Ponerology (A Science on the Nature of Evil Adjusted for Political Purposes) (9781897244258): Andrzej M. Lobaczewski, Laura Knight-Jadczyk: Books

Kharon

18th Mar 2013, 21:20

Clegg - "It is interesting following the story of the Barrier grounding whilst also reading the Hempel thread.etc". Why?? – how ??, please explain how it can it possibly be even remotely parallel?? Even spun up by Wodger the Weport Wabbit, it's a tough line to argue. Smoke, mirrors and pony pooh, all whipped up into sticky mess which will rot your teeth and probably make you go blind.

Compare the Tiger, Barrier, Polar, Airtex, Whyalla or Uzu treatment to Pel Air; then you may get somewhere close to a working understanding of the environment industry really operates in.

Compare James or Quadrio (or any of half dozen like them) to Hempel then, you may get somewhere close a working to understanding the environment industry pilots really operate in.

Even if Barrier was the most dodgy, unsafe, operator on the planet the methods and double jeopardy system used to 'enforce' the CASA 'psychic' analysis, subsequent fiscal carnage and legal wriggling is a problem to reasonable folk. We should be able to applaud the CASA efforts, but who can believe anything they come up with ?– they ain't playing with a straight deck.

Operators operate aircraft, plumbers fix the taps, (ginger beers fix just about anything). You want the surgeon or the secretary??. Admin runs the bloody bookwork, counts the paperclips and sits on it's arse in the office; all day, ear-wigging the boss, whining about policy and playing favourites. It does not, can not; nor should be allowed to run a fleet of aircraft or the boys and girls who fly them - by remote control. This ain't Kansas Toto.

Arrgghhh - Steam off.

Gobbles, get your chain saw lad; the next bloody admin or legal type shows up here- it's all yours.

Sunfish

18th Mar 2013, 21:39

Seaplanes is correct about the behaviour of sociopaths although I don't know if CASA is an applicable case study because all the CASA people I've ever met were honest straight forward people and did their job very well in my opinion.

On the general topic of sociopaths, I've studied the subject for Ten years now after running head on into one at work, then another in my private life and I have the emotional scars to prove it.

Basically these people - sociopaths or sufferers of Narcissistic personality disorder suffer from a deep seated sense of lack of self esteem - they compensate for it by seeking continuous evidence from other people of their importance. They do this by seeking high profile positions where they are publicly noticed by as many people as possible. They are often highly intelligent and hard working individuals.

The downside is that they are toxic to be around. They are great haters of anyone who they think threatens them. I saw a perfectly good chief of staff fired - her sin was to publicly correcting one of her bosses more obvious mistakes.

Sociopaths don't do empathy, have a sense of self entitlement a mile wide and believe the rules don't apply to them. A more complete list of traits is at the link below.

Examples? How about Kevin Rudd - wonderful public face but a serial foul mouthed abuser of anyone who worked for him.

Then there was a certain sporting body official who accepted a gift for his child that thousands of other Australian kids were hoping for.

I've identified Two or Three I personally know and steer well clear of them. There are thousands more out there.

How do they get into organisations and prosper? They are extremely good at ""managing up" They calibrate and then mimic the bosses behaviour to impress. If the boss is a golfer they will take up golf. If the boss rides horses, so will they, then casually drop this fact in conversation. They will work hard and intelligently.

Once they get into a position of power, they fire anyone who possibly threatens their omnipotence and replaces them with more sociopaths - for only a sociopath will work for another of his ilk. Good people leave if they can.

Is CASA sociopathic? I don't know, but the issuance of a notice to an organisation late on a Friday afternoon or like Barrier, late on Christmas Eve is an act of deliberate cruelty. Its also the legal equivalent of dropping a turd wrapped in burning newspaper on someones doorstep. Lawyers generally grow out of this sort of behaviour very quickly, so I am surprised that CASA has practiced it on more than one occasion.

Perhaps the good Senators might like to ask CASA to explain why this seems to happen on a regular basis?

Oh yes, the list:

How to spot a sociopath - 10 red flags that could save you from being swept under the influence of a charismatic nut job (http://www.naturalnews.com/036112_sociopaths_cults_influence.html)

Up-into-the-air

18th Mar 2013, 22:54

The list of ten makes for interesting reading Sunny and is posted here:

10 signs for spotting a sociopath

#1) Sociopaths are charming. Sociopaths have high charisma and tend to attract a following just because people want to be around them. They have a "glow" about them that attracts people who typically seek guidance or direction. They often appear to be sexy or have a strong sexual attraction. Not all sexy people are sociopaths, obviously, but watch out for over-the-top sexual appetites and weird fetishes.

#2) Sociopaths are more spontaneous and intense than other people. They tend to do bizarre, sometimes erratic things that most regular people wouldn't do. They are unbound by normal social contracts. Their behavior often seems irrational or extremely risky.

#3) Sociopaths are incapable of feeling shame, guilt or remorse. Their brains simply lack the circuitry to process such emotions. This allows them to betray people, threaten people or harm people without giving it a second thought. They pursue any action that serves their own self interest even if it seriously harms others. This is why you will find many very "successful" sociopaths in high levels of government, in any nation.

#4) Sociopaths invent outrageous lies about their experiences. They wildly exaggerate things to the point of absurdity, but when they describe it to you in a storytelling format, for some reason it sounds believable at the time.

#5) Sociopaths seek to dominate others and "win" at all costs. They hate to lose any argument or fight and will viciously defend their web of lies, even to the point of logical absurdity.

#6) Sociopaths tend to be highly intelligent, but they use their brainpower to deceive others rather than empower them. Their high IQs often makes them dangerous. This is why many of the best-known serial killers who successfully evaded law enforcement were sociopaths.

#7) Sociopaths are incapable of love and are entirely self-serving. They may feign love or compassion in order to get what they want, but they don't actually FEEL love in the way that you or I do.

#8) Sociopaths speak poetically. They are master wordsmiths, able to deliver a running "stream of consciousness" monologue that is both intriguing and hypnotic. They are expert storytellers and even poets. As a great example of this in action, watch this interview of Charles Manson on YouTube.

#9) Sociopaths never apologize. They are never wrong. They never feel guilt. They can never apologize. Even if shown proof that they were wrong, they will refuse to apologize and instead go on the attack.

#10) Sociopaths are delusional and literally believe that what they say becomes truth merely because they say it! Charles Manson, the sociopathic murderer, is famous for saying, "I've never killed anyone! I don't need to kill anyone! I THINK it! I have it HERE! (Pointing to his temple.) I don't need to live in this physical realm..."

Learn more: How to spot a sociopath - 10 red flags that could save you from being swept under the influence of a charismatic nut job (http://www.naturalnews.com/036112_sociopaths_cults_influence.html#ixzz2Nw0UK4q1)

my oleo is extended

18th Mar 2013, 23:00

Sunfish, you are doing well to have picked the socio's around you and your post is highly accurate and your understanding is superb. Weloveseaplanes has also got a good grip on socio behaviour.

It is extremely difficult normally to pick a socio due to their covert nature. To coin a phrase Socio's are the most dangerous of all assassins. They don't take you out in a split second with one bullet, they prefer slow methodical dissection over years before banging in the final nail. There is no satisfaction in a quick kill!
Even scarier when the most senior person(s) in the organisation are socio's. I know of several organisations where the most senior person(s) have PhD's in psychology and are themselves sociopaths. You can only imagine what those organisations are breeding, it's not pretty. Could explain the framework of some government departments.:E

One might presume that KRudd is a classic example. He exhibits all the traits of such a behaviour. He has the time and resources to support his quest of cutting the red freak off at the knees centimetre by centimetre. Each time he scores a direct hit such as leaking information, embarrassing his assassin, or taking out some of the faceless men or killing off a career prospect he feeds the beast, he gets closer to his final destination and ultimate trophy. No, he won't be satisfied with just her scalp as PM, putting her out of politics altogether is what feeds him, when that day comes he will be relatively satisfied, but the scalps of he supporters in the coup will be his next mission. And so the cycle goes. Socio's are very very patient at times, research the Unabomber - methodical, patient and intelligent, time was never going to be his enemy.
'The Sociopath Next Door' by Martha Stout is good reading, a little frightening, worrying and humorous, but makes you realise there are more socio's among us than we would wish to believe.

Socio's feel no guilt, feel unaccountable and certainly believe that they exist on a plain (or could be plane) well above the rest of society. That is why the things they do are often so outrageous, beyond belief or comprehension, and very hard to understand by those with a sound mind.
It is interesting that Stout writes that up to one in four people may be sociopathic. I just hope those figures don't apply to FF......

lostwingnut

18th Mar 2013, 23:17

This is interesting:

CASA must answer to their actions, says Entsch > Warren Entsch MP (http://www.warrenentsch.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/284/CASA-must-answer-to-their-actions-says-Entsch.aspx)

CASA must answer to their actions, says Entsch

Posted on Tuesday, 19 March, 2013
FEDERAL Member for Leichhardt Warren Entsch has slammed CASA for the permanent grounding of Barrier Aviation, identifying “vested interests” as playing a key role in the airline’s crisis.

“It’s a bloody disgrace – there are people in CASA who should be sacked over this,” he said. “By the time the true facts behind all this come out, the victim will have been financially destroyed.”

Mr Entsch said Barrier Aviation's 20-year safety record had been ignored in CASA's ambush of the company and confirmed he had called the aviation authority to express his concerns. “CASA are on a ‘go slow’ campaign to send Barrier bankrupt. I have contacted them and tried to expedite the investigation process but they were not interested.”

Mr Entsch said the suspension was causing a huge financial, emotional and personal toll, with 50 families reliant on the family-owned business.

“As well as the employees who have worked for them for many years and never had a problem, there are also numerous local businesses that rely on Barrier - from Haggerstone Island Resort to Wongai Hotel on Horn Island and pilot training services in Cairns.

“I personally have used Barrier on many occasions and they have been outstanding. But when the allegations come from a disgruntled employee who was demoted because of circumstances he created himself, (CASA) are denying natural justice.”

Mr Entsch can reveal that the complaint originated from a former employee who was cautioned and demoted following a number of irregular procedural issues, left the country and then filed a complaint of unfair demotion. The situation has also been compounded by Barrier’s ongoing troubles with a particular CASA Airworthiness Inspector (AWI) based in Cairns.

In May 2011, the airline lodged a formal complaint through the director of CASA that the AWI responsible for inspecting Barrier’s aircraft, Mr Phillip Lister, lacked the experience to fulfil his role and duties and lacked the ability to correctly interpret CASA regulations.

“The matter was referred to the Industry Complaint Commissioner but as of this time, Barrier has not heard a single word back from them,” Mr Entsch commented.

“Given the seriousness of the matter, wouldn’t you think that while it is being investigated, CASA would have allocated another AWI for Barrier? But no action has been taken and Phillip Lister is still on the case; in fact, he has now been promoted to a team leader position and continues to have direct involvement.

“You have to wonder whether this is a personal attack as payback for the original complaint rather than anything that can be attributed to legitimate safety concerns.”

Mr Entsch said it was not the first time he had heard of CASA employing people who had either “failed in the private sector” or had their own agendas.

“You get individuals with a vested interest employed in these positions and they want to prove a point... They drive airlines into the ground and they cite safety as a reason for doing it, so it becomes very difficult for anyone to speak out.

“I see Barrier in this category – the airline has had no opportunity whatsoever of being able to test any of the information they are charged with including these false allegations. You do have to ask if there is a vendetta.”

curiousflyer

19th Mar 2013, 00:43

I think BA are meant to have a press conference today about their plan from here. It will be interesting to see what happens. I wonder if they are going to appeal this in court. Any tips?

my oleo is extended

19th Mar 2013, 00:50

Lostwingnut, thanks for the update!!

Well well well, an operator puts a complaint in to the ICC about CASA and they are hammered out of existence! What a shock? Now where have I heard that before? Sounds like a case of Groundhog Day me thinks. Same modus operandi - complain about CASA and you are punished. If true this is becoming a sick joke by an out of control egotistical payback fostering bunch of twats.
And what a shock, another complaint stemming from the team in FNQ! Doesn't look like the new Regional Manager is handling his misfits very well. Then again that's what happens when you give a kid a grown ups job to do. The stench that leaks from FNQ has dogged FF for years, the fools still haven't got it right hav they?

If Mr Entsch's comments about CASA's response to his concerns are true then it shows the level of disregard that CASA hierarchy have for anybody who questions them.
Please remind me again who runs the ICC? And please remind me who the AAT members are?? Hmmmm.

I would appeal to Mr Entsch to also forward his concerns to Senator Xenophon's office if he hasn't done so yet.

Welcome to 'CASA 101' Mr Entsch, hold on and enjoy the ride. Next stop is Mt Pineapple. Toot toot.

Up-into-the-air

19th Mar 2013, 00:51

Barrier Press Conference:

PLEASE NOTE – We will be hosting a Media Conference at Barrier Aviation on Tuesday 19th March at 12pm. For more information please contact: Andrew Griffiths – 0409 264 293.

Contact details: Andrew Griffiths Barrier Aviation Spokesperson Mobile 0409 264 293
Email - [email protected] Barrier Aviation | Cairns, Queensland Australia (http://www.barrieraviation.com.au)

Sarcs

19th Mar 2013, 02:48

Warren Entsch is perhaps one MP that has seen it all when it comes to FNQ aviation operators and their trials and tribulations with FF.

Wazza has been the sitting member in FNQ for all but 3 years of the last seventeen. Here has seen operators come and go or remorph with the same aircraft but a different badge. Given that Entsch is the chief opposition whip also shows that he is very highly regarded by his party and therefore such a statement will be reverberating through the halls of parliament this week and there will be a knock on effect politically…could be interesting???

On the sociopath analogies and FF and their various methodologies/motivations in enforcement action combined with the chalk and cheese difference between the BA and BH show cause process…well perhaps with BH FF were out done by a far superior Sociopath??

For wlsp and Sunny’s benefit here’s a quote from James Lee Burke’s novel ‘Creole Belle’… “Perhaps there’s a bad seed at work in our loins. Were there two groups of simian creatures vying for control of the gene pool, one fairly decent, the other defined by their canine teeth? Did we descend out of a bad mix, some of us pernicious from the day of our conception? Maybe. Ask any clinician inside the system how a sociopath thinks. He’ll be the first to tell you he doesn’t have a clue. Sociopaths are narcissists, and as such, they believe that reality conforms to whatever they say it is. Consequently, they are convincing liars, often passing polygraph tests and creating armies of supporters. Watch a taped interview of James Earl Ray. His facial expressions are soft wax, the eyes devoid of content, the voice deferential and without emotion or an apparent need to convince the listener.”
Despite there being, as you say Sunny, good people within FF the problem is highlighted by what wealoveseaplanes said here: Whenever you combine the power of judge, jury, and executioner in one organisation not only are sociopaths naturally drawn to it, but their prescence creates a environment where all others are forced to follow their thinking.
One could assume that like an unsafe culture within an organisation is hard to shift (without taking drastic action), so to would a sociopath culture??:confused:

In fact it could require greater proactive action as a sociopath is naturally cunning and chameleon in nature. Therefore surgical removal of the head, neck and many blood transfusions maybe required to purge FF of the sociopath culture within.:E

Josh Cox

19th Mar 2013, 03:07

Oleo,

There are a couple of really good CASA FOIs in Cairns, please don't use too wide a brush.

curiousflyer

19th Mar 2013, 03:23

This was just posted on ABC online

Far north Queensland-based airline Barrier Aviation is appealing against the aviation watchdog's decision to ground it permanently.
The Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) last week cancelled the Cairns-based airline's operating licence, citing serious safety concerns.
Barrier Aviation has lodged an application to have the matter heard in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.
Owner and managing director David Kilin says he is looking forward to having CASA's allegations tested by an independent umpire.
"A lot of the allegations in their notices don't appear to be 100 per cent correct and we need to get the mistakes taken out of it," he said.
"I feel we've operated a good safe airline for many years now.
"We've never dispatched aircraft that weren't air-worthy or safe.
"We have a safety record spanning over 20 years.
"We really need to get to the bottom of what's going on."
A hearing date is yet to be set
.

my oleo is extended

19th Mar 2013, 03:55

Josh Cox, my apologies for any offence, and I agree that there are some decent people at FF, its just that they are few, very few and far between.

Josh Cox

19th Mar 2013, 05:19

Oleo,

None taken bloke, I just thought it worth mentioning that there are also some real decent people working for CASA in Cairns.............

megle2

19th Mar 2013, 05:50

Josh, for too long I have been saying much the same of the apparent good guys in Casa but not any more. When it comes to the crunch their instruction from above ( a recent comment by a FOI ) was, if they don't toe the Casa line then they will be " on their own ". In that case it will be difficult for the " good guy " to remain so.

my oleo is extended

19th Mar 2013, 06:33

Megle2, interesting interjection. So the management bullyboys are bullying the frontline staff as well as industry? Not to mention CASA's smarta#s attitude to state politicians, the media and senators. What a wonderful culture they are breeding? So much for being an example of upholding the values of a 'just culture'?
This really is a diseased organisation which has well and truly rotted from the head. Aargh yes, shades of GWM shine forth, not to mention the stain of sociopathic behaviour trailing their every move.

The iron doesn't get much hotter than it is now (except maybe 3000 degrees centigrade in the core of a smoking hole). Time for the Senators to apply the blowtorch if they have one fully gassed and ready to go!

The Green Goblin

19th Mar 2013, 06:56

CASA must answer to their actions, says Entsch

Posted on Tuesday, 19 March, 2013
FEDERAL Member for Leichhardt Warren Entsch has slammed CASA for the permanent grounding of Barrier Aviation, identifying “vested interests” as playing a key role in the airline’s crisis.
“It’s a bloody disgrace – there are people in CASA who should be sacked over this,” he said. “By the time the true facts behind all this come out, the victim will have been financially destroyed.”
Mr Entsch said Barrier Aviation's 20-year safety record had been ignored in CASA's ambush of the company and confirmed he had called the aviation authority to express his concerns. “CASA are on a ‘go slow’ campaign to send Barrier bankrupt. I have contacted them and tried to expedite the investigation process but they were not interested.”
Mr Entsch said the suspension was causing a huge financial, emotional and personal toll, with 50 families reliant on the family-owned business.
“As well as the employees who have worked for them for many years and never had a problem, there are also numerous local businesses that rely on Barrier - from Haggerstone Island Resort to Wongai Hotel on Horn Island and pilot training services in Cairns.
“I personally have used Barrier on many occasions and they have been outstanding. But when the allegations come from a disgruntled employee who was demoted because of circumstances he created himself, (CASA) are denying natural justice.”
Mr Entsch can reveal that the complaint originated from a former employee who was cautioned and demoted following a number of irregular procedural issues, left the country and then filed a complaint of unfair demotion. The situation has also been compounded by Barrier’s ongoing troubles with a particular CASA Airworthiness Inspector (AWI) based in Cairns.
In May 2011, the airline lodged a formal complaint through the director of CASA that the AWI responsible for inspecting Barrier’s aircraft, Mr Phillip Lister, lacked the experience to fulfil his role and duties and lacked the ability to correctly interpret CASA regulations.
“The matter was referred to the Industry Complaint Commissioner but as of this time, Barrier has not heard a single word back from them,” Mr Entsch commented.
“Given the seriousness of the matter, wouldn’t you think that while it is being investigated, CASA would have allocated another AWI for Barrier? But no action has been taken and Phillip Lister is still on the case; in fact, he has now been promoted to a team leader position and continues to have direct involvement.
“You have to wonder whether this is a personal attack as payback for the original complaint rather than anything that can be attributed to legitimate safety concerns.”
Mr Entsch said it was not the first time he had heard of CASA employing people who had either “failed in the private sector” or had their own agendas.
“You get individuals with a vested interest employed in these positions and they want to prove a point... They drive airlines into the ground and they cite safety as a reason for doing it, so it becomes very difficult for anyone to speak out.
“I see Barrier in this category – the airline has had no opportunity whatsoever of being able to test any of the information they are charged with including these false allegations. You do have to ask if there is a vendetta.”

CASA must answer to their actions, says Entsch > Warren Entsch MP (http://www.warrenentsch.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/284/CASA-must-answer-to-their-actions-says-Entsch.aspx)

Very very interesting.

falconx

19th Mar 2013, 07:53

Some aircraft have started positioning back to Darwin

curiousflyer

19th Mar 2013, 08:53

falconx, do you know why they are moving things over to Darwin? thats quite interesting.

lostwingnut

19th Mar 2013, 09:21

I've been told that a large part of the fleet is still flying, other operators around Australia apparently jumped at the opportunity to use the aircraft.

It has been mentioned here on Pprune a few times that CASA Darwin had no problems with the Darwin operation. The local AWI's found no evidence of any wrong doing during the November audit. Which makes sense because the aircraft are obviously still able to operate.

I'd imagine as a pilot you would be extra careful to cross every t and dot every i if you were flying around in an aircraft with 'Barrier' painted on the tail :}

Up-into-the-air

19th Mar 2013, 09:22

ABC report this afternoon:

Barrier Aviation to appeal CASA grounding - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-03-19/barrier-aviation-to-appeal-casa-grounding/4582018?section=qld)

Barrier Aviation to appeal CASA grounding
By Sharnie Kim
Updated 6 hours 8 minutes ago

PHOTO: Mr Kilin says he is looking forward to having CASA's allegations tested by an independent umpire. (ABC News: Sharnie Kim)
MAP: Cairns 4870
Far north Queensland-based airline Barrier Aviation is appealing against the aviation watchdog's decision to ground it permanently.

The Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) last week cancelled the Cairns-based airline's operating licence, citing serious safety concerns.

Barrier Aviation has lodged an application to have the matter heard in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

Owner and managing director David Kilin says he is looking forward to having CASA's allegations tested by an independent umpire.

"A lot of the allegations in their notices don't appear to be 100 per cent correct and we need to get the mistakes taken out of it," he said.

"I feel we've operated a good safe airline for many years now.

"We've never dispatched aircraft that weren't air-worthy or safe.

"We have a safety record spanning over 20 years.

"We really need to get to the bottom of what's going on."

A hearing date is yet to be set.

anothertwit

19th Mar 2013, 09:59

nice wind up slammy ya troll :hmm:

curiousflyer

19th Mar 2013, 10:13

Have the Appeals Tribunal ever reversed a CASA decision before?

justinga

19th Mar 2013, 10:18

“As well as the employees who have worked for them for many years and never had a problem, there are also numerous local businesses that rely on Barrier - from Haggerstone Island Resort to Wongai Hotel on Horn Island and pilot training services in Cairns.

I have to wonder if Wazza has ever checked the legalities of landing at Haggerstone in a 402.....................

Horatio Leafblower

19th Mar 2013, 10:29

Have the Appeals Tribunal ever reversed a CASA decision before?

Yes the AAT reversed the decision to suspend the AOC of Caper Pty Ltd (Direct Air) but the Federal Court reversed it back :ugh:

Do operators have recourse to the FCA, or only to the AAT?

...or is it simply a matter of running out of money before we make it to the higher court?

Ixixly

19th Mar 2013, 11:03

Hey Justinga, out of curiosity, what would be wrong with the Hicks Island airstrip? looks like about 650-700m and from what I've seen in the books the C402 takes about 650-700m of strip to land on without any kind of VG or STOL upgrades? Just purely out of curiosity, landing into strips they shouldn't be at would add another dimension to the argument of course! :E

*Edit*
I had been spending all day converting pounds to kilos and back and as such just automatically did the same conversion from feet to metres, so if anyone saw the glaring mistake before I changed it...that is why!! :E

Sunfish

19th Mar 2013, 18:02

Slam Click:

There's no doubt that Barrier's grounding was warranted, and the necessary culture changes within the organisation wouldn't be able to be introduced to a satisfactory standard.

I don't see what appealing their decision will do, all they'd get is lifting of the AOC cancellation and resurection of the suspension.

Quote: "We've never dispatched aircraft that weren't air-worthy or safe."

Ah no...you just forced your pilots to do it for you....Just because you haven't killed passengers/staff (or own or others) yet, doesn't mean you weren't about to!

I'm going to make the assumption that you are not a troll and attempt to rebut your assertions. These rest on a series of untested assertions.

You say there is "no doubt" that Barriers grounding was "Justified". .......

Justify = " To demonstrate or prove to be just, right, or valid" Exactly what process was employed to demonstrate Barriers non compliance? The evidence is untested in Court and perhaps even inadmissible. As to grounding and the financial destruction this causes, there is the question of proportionality.

You say that the grounding was "warranted". Says who? A disgruntled AWI about whom Barrier had already complained? On what evidence? In which Court? In front of which impartial judge?

You say that the "necessary" changes "wouldn't" be able to be "satisfactorilly" implemented.

Again, says who? And on what evidence? What are the necessary changes? Who said an organisation wouldn't be able to implement them? The behaviour of profit seeking organisatoins is predictable, especially when costs are involved. Who says what is "satisfactory"?

You may be right in your prediction regarding the AAT, not because evidence is produced and tested and found to be 100% correct. Not because the judgement of CASA will be solemnly weighed by the good commissoners who agree that the punishment fits the crime. But because CASA will read the regulations to the AAT and explain that they can do what they ****1ng well like to anybody in the name of an abstract concept called "Safety", and provided the AAT can't find a procedural legal flaw in their process then CASAs verdict stands, and the AAT will roll over to have its tummy tickled.

As for killing people, companies do it all the time, as do car drivers and anyone else engaged with machinery. The difference though is that they get their day in court and the penalties applied are commensurate with the sin committed after thoughtful consideration by an impartial judge. Not so aircraft operators.

To put that another way, BHP just got fined $130,000 over the crushing death of one of its workers. Was BHP's "licence to operate" cancelled? Did the worksafe people try to shut down BHPs operations and bankrupt the company? Of course not. Why should aircraft operators face anything different?

Ahhh! You will say "but aircraft fly over the heads of an unsuspecting public who dislike the prospect of being crushed in their sleep by flaming aircraft wreckage". Ever driven on the roads Slam Click? Ever been next to a B - Double truck carrying 55,000 litres of petrol? Do you know what Vinyl Chloride is? Ever seen Thirty tonnes of that on the road -capable of poisoning or incinerating an entire suburb if there is an accident - and the vehicle is operated and maintained to a standard far below an aircraft by minimum wage workers.

Ever been on a train Slam Klick - along with 300+ other people? Do we shut down rail companies at will? Did you know that at least One person dies every day in Melbourne from coming into contact with a train?

....We accept those risks daily, and trucks and trains kill people daily, but aircraft? Oh the horror! Think of the risk!!!!!

BHP Billiton has been fined $130,000 over the death of one of its workers in Port Hedland five years ago.

BHP fined over worker being crushed to death - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-03-19/bhp-fined-over-worker27s-death-in-port-hedland/4582630)

Jabawocky

19th Mar 2013, 20:05

Did you know that at least One person dies every day in Melbourne from coming into contact with a train?

And about 3/week in Qld......but they are not accidental deaths Sunnie.

But your points are otherwise hard to argue.

Up-into-the-air

19th Mar 2013, 23:46

An article has been published in the Cairns Post this am:

Barrier Aviation Media Comments | Assistance to the Aviation Industry (http://vocasupport.com/?page_id=370)

or:

Grounded air boss lets fly at CASA- Local Cairns News | cairns.com.au (http://www.cairns.com.au/article/2013/03/20/24036_local-news.html)

and the following:

Tweets
CASA ‏@CASABriefing 46m
CASA rejects claims re the grounding of Barrier Aviation. Proper processes were followed. Action based on evidence and facts.

It is interesting the rapidity of the casa response!!

Sunfish

20th Mar 2013, 00:05

Slam click:

Without knowing how the BHP employee was killed, it's a bit hard to draw a comparison. But the reason why AOC operators should be handled differently is because every step of operating an aircraft, everything we do, is regulated by law. Laws designed to maintain safety. The servicability of an aircraft, the way it is maintained, loaded, fueled, operated and documented, is all laid out in the CAA, CAR, CAO, CASR, along with other various acts, standards and manuals.

Many of those rules are below what you could expect to be as safe as reasonably possible, but this allows operators to develop their processes to manage the risks of operating, and remain financially viable. The problem being is the operators that don't use that lowest, baseline safety standard, and fall below it because of commercial pressures.

slam click, good try. Yes, like it or not, we are all governed by laws, but that is not the point. If any Australian police force behaved as CASA is alleged to behave, meaning vindictive, selective, spiteful and capricious, there would be blood in the streets.

As the saying goes; any set of laws are acceptable when enforced by Angels and no set of laws is any good if enforced by the devil. The laws are not the issue, it is the alleged method of enforcement. why was not Hempels AOC not cancelled long ago?

Why did it take CASA 20 years to detect Barriers "unsafe culture"? If you accept the alleged CASA assertion that change is impossible, it means their audits failed for Twenty years to detect anything and it was only a helpful disgruntled ex employee who blew the whistle.

The laws themselves have nothing to do with the matter, it is the apparent total failure of CASA to operate under anything like a "just culture".

As far as "absolute safety" is concerned there is no such thing, which is why I mentioned the mining and ground transport industries and it is specious to argue that aviation should be held to some higher standard that automatically precludes aviators from the same legal protections as other citizens.

Sarcs

20th Mar 2013, 00:28

Slammy you’re kind of missing the point here it’s not about the ‘good’, the ‘bad’ or the ‘ugly’ of Barrier, it is about the fact that everyone in Australia deserves the ‘Rule of Law’ principles. Catch phrases like the ‘presumption of innocence’, ‘onus of proof’, ‘natural justice’, ‘due process’, ‘chain of evidence’ and ‘everyone deserves their day in court’ seem not to be applicable when it comes to the regulator.:ugh:

And when FF declares “Oh but you can appeal to the AAT”, well the AAT is not a court of law and doesn’t have to adhere to the normal rules of evidence and full disclosure. Also the onus of proof falls on the appealing party.:{

Meanwhile FF are not obligated to prove their case in the AAT unless the President so requests, so the appellant is on a hiding to nothing if they don’t have all their ducks in a row.:=

The Hoodoo Voodoo doctor and other members of the GWM worked out a long time ago that the AAT suits their sociopathic purposes when it comes to ‘kicking heads’ of some GA upstart that dared to complain.

However having just listened to the ABC local radio news bulletin which had interview cuts to Mr Entsch then Mr Gibson and finally Mr Kilin. It would appear that DK concedes that Barrier may well be done and dusted but he still wants to go to the AAT on a matter of principle, sort of in the context of what I just mentioned i.e. ‘due process’.

That’s the spirit DK don’t challenge them on the law, the Voodoo doc has that well and truly wrapped up in over 1700 pages of gobbledygook legalese and you will never win. However if you challenge ‘due process’ (and there’s a list as equally impressive as the regs contained within the enforcement manual, the SPM and the hidden ‘Investigator’s manual) and ask to see the required documentation for an enforcement action as per the AGIS 2011 and the required process outlined in the CAsA Enforcement manual….well game on I reckon and the Barrier case could well be a test case for the legal legitimacy of CAsA as a ‘enforcement’ agency, a privilege that they well and truly don’t deserve while FF is ruled by Sociopaths (like that Sunny?)!:E

Trent 972

20th Mar 2013, 01:13

The casa twitt_er account is in overdrive to account for casa's handling of Barrier.
2 Tweets in an hour and a quarter.
Starting to feel a little heat in FF?

"Get the facts on casa's grounding of Barrier...." it says, so I looked and guess what.. no hard facts, just more 'trust us' because we found defects.
Just how did they discover the "smoke in a cockpit" defect? Was the investigator there when it happened, or was it hearsay (http://www.alrc.gov.au/publications/7.%20The%20Hearsay%20Rule%20and%20Section%2060/hearsay-rule)?
Are any or all the discoveries of defects hearsay?
I'd also like to know how casa determined the so called 'snag logs' are genuine.
What was the burden of proof to establish the bona fides of the 'snag logs'?

anothertwit

20th Mar 2013, 01:15

Ah no...you just forced your pilots to do it for you..

What a very Gen Y thing to say. It's not my fault, they made me do it.

I'm not saying the company did or did not apply pressure to it's pilots to fly with known defects. What I am saying is if the pilots did fly with known defects then the blame rests entirely on the pilots shoulders. Poor Safety culture, commercial pressure, what ever, as Pilot In Command you are responsible. :ugh:

So I'm glad slam click that when you were pressured to fly with known defects, as you elude to in your posts, you told them NO just like the sunbus driving bongo pilot....oh no wait, his integrity didn't kick in till after he was fired. Ooh that was a cheap shot :E

boeingwest

20th Mar 2013, 02:11

Hang on why are you protecting DK?

He was an FOI and owner of falcon air. He got caught due conflict of interest then puts the name of director into CB, then got caught.

Karmas a biatchhhh!

Up-into-the-air

20th Mar 2013, 02:19

The latest ABC radio interview has just been published:

CASA defends permanently grounding Barrier Aviation
By Sharnie Kim
Posted 53 minutes ago

RELATED STORY: Barrier Aviation to appeal CASA grounding
MAP: Cairns 4870
The Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) says it is confident its investigation into grounded airline Barrier Aviation in far north Queensland will stand up before an independent umpire.

Barrier Aviation is going to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal to appeal against CASAs decision to ground it permanently.

CASA spokesman Peter Gibson says the regulator stands by its findings.

"We found maintenance that wasn't being done," he said.

"We found aircraft flying with serious defects - like oil pressure gauges that weren't working, fuel gauges not working properly, engine with oil leaks, smoke in the cockpit, engines coughing.

"Because of that they've found themselves on the ground.

"We'll certainly be defending those decisions because we believe they were correct in the interests of the travelling public."

Mr Gibson says the regulator has followed all the proper processes in investigating and grounding the airline.

"The Civil Aviation Safety Authority has had a team of aviation experts working on the investigation into Barrier Aviation," he said.

"No one person has been responsible for the investigation and the decisions on the suspension and the cancellation were taken at the very highest levels within the Civil Aviation Safety Authority by our senior managers in Brisbane."

Barrier Aviation managing director David Kilin says it will be difficult to get the airline operating, even if the tribunal rules in its favour.

"It would be extremely difficult given the reduction in the number of aircraft, staff that we'd have to recruit and retrain, and the damage to the brand name," he said.

"It'd be a very difficult thing to come back from so that's another factor we'll have to take into account."

However, he says it is still important to see the matter through.

"This process that they've used against us can be used against anybody and I think it's time that somebody sat back and asked some questions and had a look at why CASA uses this process in this way," he said.

"It's not a fair process and I think it really needs to be examined."

my oleo is extended

20th Mar 2013, 03:26

There does seem to be some common borderline tautological themes popping up:
'CASA conducts audit or undertakes robust surveillance, operator gets clean bill of health, operator then gets shut down a month or so later for being an untenable risk, or operator crashes plane'.
As for extra CASA tweets and fast responses, well that would mean they are busy today, poor ol Herr Gibson would be struggling to find coffee time today!

And no surprise that BA were shut down. It would be rumoured that the 'Hooded ones A/g replacement is quite fond of going straight for the jugular and has a guilty before proven innocent persona. Just a rumour.

Brisbane HQ would be abuzz today with all this robust activity, not to mention FF having to respond to the 'ministerial' they would have received either yesterday or today after Entsch went public with his criticism! Big Tony doesn't like bad publicity. And I wonder which FF exec will have the next dummy spit and point fingers at all of the ills of society judging their actions?
Meanwhile, back at ASA Frau Staib and the Hooded One will be remaining silent whilst the robust attention is focused on Sith Mrdaks Deathstar - Fort Fumble.
The Hoodmeister seems to have made a good call transferring off the sinking S.S Titanic and joining Team ASA. And where are other members of the GWM, very quiet? The Hoodoo Voodoo and 'he who does not speak while at the Senate'? Are they ok, gone to Montreal, having an 'over 70 rectal examination', having a nana nap??

And Beaker, dear Beaker, is he mi mi mi enjoying the break from the spotlight for a few days? Well I hope so, I hear the Senators will get their April extension on their enquiry into 'the mystiques of aviation safety' and they have a couple of robust pooh bombs to drop in the Beakers lap which will get him mi mi mi mi-ing!

aroa

20th Mar 2013, 05:23

Should be that DK and his lawyer has a talk with JQ, or at least read the transcript of JQs AAT hearing...its not a good look.:mad:
If its an appeal with AAT and not a court, with proper rules of evidence under oath...all this could end in tears. :{

Until CAsA is defrocked of "investigation" abilities, the victim is on a hiding to nowhere because CAsA cannot be trusted, due CYA mode, protecting its own, and using every dirty trick in the book.
They have years/decades of experience at this. Anything goes.

(R)egulator, finder of breaches and crimes ( well some : cf B Hempel),
"investigations" by CAsA, for CAsA, minding any staff of CAsA, and insuring the MO and agenda of CAsA is paramount.
Its a huge crock of !$#@$!!..but it favours CAsA.
All NON independant and IN house. How objective ! NOT. :mad:

There will only be an end to this Barrier type crush crusade when allegations of reg breaches are handed on to an INDEPENDANT and PROPER investigative agency....COMPLETELY seperate from CASA. :ok:

Over to you Senators. Wield that axe.!! :ok: And soon.

And then the CAsA H?R dept can stop using the place as a creche for retired cops, etc posing as "investigators"
With my case the "Investigator" just followed the CAsA line.."we think we can make this stick", failed to do a proper investigation, found no witnesses in my favour when 2 other investigations found 3, and deleted/ignored vital information from a LAME that was detrimental to the CAsA case.! (breach of the TSI Act!) Biased for a "kill"...up to the eye balls.
IT HAS TO STOP.
And while CAsA do it, it never will. :mad:

I'm surprised Msr Gobsome hasnt yet said that Barrier pilots put the aircraft on auto pilot and go back and play cards with the passengers!!:ok: