Dick. I searched the ATSB Occurrence File around 23 October 2001; there is no record of an incident at Launceston.

Perhaps the matter has already been resolved to the satisfaction of CASA, ATSB and the airline concerned and there is no current prosecution in process?

Torres, even if the matter has been resolved to the satisfaction of CASA and ATSB, why would the information be deleted from the ATSB occurrence file? That doesn’t normally happen.

Also, after the article by Steve Creedy, why wouldn’t the public and interested parties be informed of what happened to the action? By the sound of it, if it has been resolved CASA must have withdrawn the action as I certainly haven’t heard of any successful prosecution, and I can’t see how that could be kept secret.

I believe this is a very serious issue and should not be covered up.

Has it been? Do you know for a fact that it has? That's a pretty serious allegation to be making Dick.

That doesn’t normally happen.
Maybe because the media decided that there was no 'news' in it.

Alleging a cover up is a pretty serious issue Dick. It appears to be a great attempt at dissembling the situation. There is no evidence to suggest that the issue has been covered up yet your final comment suggests that as fact.

Very disappointed. :=

PS: My sincere thanks to a colleague for giving me the word dissembling....it's my new favourite word and has SO many applications in this day and age whether talking about QF or Dick. :cool:

Dick, I personally think we should be examining why aviation in Australia has come down to dob in a fellow aviator, instead of trying to assist others in preventing things going pear shaped.

Why didn't the onlookers attempt to re-activate the pal, if they saw it flashing?

Airmanship & Professionalism - its a wonderful thing isnt it!

My opinion Dick, is that it wasn't a "very serious issue".

I used to take off with no lights frequently, even landing lights, with PAX from commercial fields. It's really no big deal so I wouldn't be surprised if no further action came from it.

Why do you think it's such an issue? What danger do you think existed?

I’d seriously like to know.

Cheers

Wombat

I have received a number of extraordinary private emails in relation to this Launceston issue. There are claims that I shouldn’t mention this at all as it is completely a non-issue and the DPP may decide to drop the action.

I don’t agree at all. I understand that many hundreds of thousands of dollars have been spent on this court action, and if the DPP drop the action now because they believe they do not have a case, this is extraordinary. Is that the normal practice from the DPP? If so, why isn’t it exposed?

Is the DPP operating on false information? If that is so, that should be exposed as it has cost a small fortune and no doubt caused the Qantas pilots an incredible amount of anguish.

I have also been told that at the present time there is “no litigation.” Surely that is impossible. The Creedy article mentions that action was taken. How can the action stop without the DPP giving a major reason for their back down?

I believe it is important for all of us to find out what has happened. Was it a completely trumped up claim in the first place – without any basis or foundation? If this is so, the situation should be exposed.

No doubt we will await further information.

Blueloo, you state:

I tend to agree with you, however we don’t even know if the pilots actually did what it was claimed that they did. I find it difficult to believe that the DPP would allow hundreds of thousands of dollars to be spent by the union, Qantas, and (I understand) CASA, when nothing has been finalised in five years.

Could it be that the whole claim was a fabrication to damage someone? I’ve heard rumours that this is so. Because of this, it is important that the true situation be exposed. I can assure you that I believe the pilots are innocent until proven guilty.

Dick,

I see that you probably not that worried about the safety aspect, (My opinion was that it was not dangerous at all.) rather the DPP stuff, well fair enough, however some thought.

Far be it for me to mention the effort that you must have gone through to research all of this, but why is it your area of concern? Are you looking out for the professional pilots? If so, what about the appalling conditions that some work in and the pittance that instructors get paid? Is that not of more concern to you?

That's something that you COULD do something about, something positive that might help our industry, rather than all this other stuff, that looks like it's going to send you to an early grave.

Why not use you time to inspire? You have such potential, why not go out to somewhere like Camden and see some of the younger members of our industry and really try to help them..

Just a thought, myself, I'm gunna head out to the field and take a young guy/girl up for a free ride and some aeros. :ok:

Cheers

Wombat

What about an annual Dick Smith scholarship to help someone that is less fortunate who would like to persue a career in aviation who otherwise would not be able to afford to do so? And that could include secondary schooling as well as a contirbution to flying lessons. :)

Dick,
The DPP often drops cases that are too weak to stand up in court. Saves everyone money and egg on the face.

Why were charges laid in the first place? Did someone not understand the full story?

These are questions you need to ask. Maybe the DPP could answer them. But I don't think the answer lies here on this forum.

And that, my friends, about sums it up.

:ok:

Cheers,

NFR.

And its the same reason the Governments Dorothy Dixers get handed around to the backbencher MPs that would otherwise not ever be heard, then they can tell their constituents they are a power in the land. :\ It's an attention getting device that enables the party to bang their drum on a particular issue.

I think I can see where Dick is coming from:

Why five years and why the excessive expenditure of public funds to get the matter to Court where, even if the prosecution is successful, the likely outcome would be a relatively minor punishment or penalty?

Those of us that get about will be aware that this alleged event is perhaps not all that uncommon. I know of at least two other cases around the same time where RPT departed with no runway lights (the a/c lights are pretty good) and in one case the crew did not know, but self reported anyway. There was no action or comment. In the other case there were 300+ witnesses (and nothing followed). What ever the circumstances, I don't believe it to be a big deal and certainly not worthy of the regulator doing anything but perhaps writing a letter to the operator.

Like some 3rd world countries that try and prosecute someone/anyone after an accident, we learn nothing from that event because all lips shut tight. It would be far better to acknowledge that it is possible for pilots to depart without runway lights due to many factors and to work on a solution that would minimize such occurrences.

The person/s responsible for sending this to court deserve to be :mad: :mad:

The australian judicial system could not cope with the amount of actions that could be pursued. The prosecutors regardless of whether they are DPP employed or not, must assess the evidence, and if there is a reasonable chance of a successful prosecution they will proceed to a court hearing.

It is an expensive business litigation - at some point the decision to not continue and save the $ involved in a costs claim against them for an unsuccessful prosecution will over-ride the risk factor in maybe jagging a conviction on weak/tenuous evidence.

I'd have thought if this issue was of real concern this would have finished a long time ago.

Wombat35 and Enema Bandit’s Dad, I agree wholeheartedly with your comments. My main interest is to get more pilots in jobs and more pilots flying. That is why I concentrate so much on necessary reform and having a viable aviation industry.

I have helped people with money to gain their pilot’s licence, but that is for others to comment on. Donating money to something like this is easy. Working many hours to try to achieve reform is a lot harder. My satisfaction will come when we have a booming general aviation industry – including flying training and recreational aviation – and the industry is as successful as the three businesses I have been involved in.

I fly regularly in the USA and I can see from that how fantastic our own aviation industry could be – as long as we can remove all unnecessary costs and regulations. That is what I am aiming for, and that is what I consistently work for.

See what is interesting Dick is that for some of us it is very different to reconcile what you think you are doing and what your posts indicate that you're doing.

Initially I believed that you were alleging a cover up between CASA and QF and that both parties had made the issue 'go away'. Your posts weren't very clear that it you were actually trying to track down whether or not CASA had been fiddling around onthis one.

If the post put forward by Air Ace is closer to the mark then you have my full support. I always felt the initial charges (which from my understanding were on the basis of a CAIR report) were entirely un-prosecutable- hard to have natural justice when you can't cross examine your accuser in court.

To follow on from that point I believe you when you say that you want to encourage more people into aviation and for it to be more affordable. The issue that many of us would have with your contributions on both PPRUNE and the wider media is that what you state you wish to happen actually looks to make the wider aviation environment less safe and more regulated and more costly.

I too would like to see an aviation environment in Australia that is philosophically aligned with the US- cheaper flying, greater encouragement of GA rather than seeing it as a 'user pays' cash cow, etc. I don't want to see lower standards of services to achieve that.

So if you're on the hunt for CASA to be up front as to the charges against the crew and why it hasn't been sorted yet then have at it. If you're alleging a cover up by QF or trying to hang the pilots then I reckon you're barking up the wrong tree.

Regards,

Cockpit voice recorders are not allowed to be used in any case where there is at least one surviving crew member.
Have to admit with 2 types of PAL to play with and there not always being an AFRU installed it can be very easy to not switch them on and think you have.

"Cockpit voice recorders are not allowed to be used in any case where there is at least one surviving crew member."
Under the TSI Act, CVR's are routinely accessed and listened to during investigations. Not sure where the one surviving crew member bit come into it.

The one surviving member, is the bloke who presses the erase button :}