Airtex, the Jury is out.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Airtex, the Jury is out.
The Airtex AAT clock stopped on Friday afternoon last week, all submissions in. Senior Member Mr. Ergon Fyce now has the unenviable task of making a ruling, which will not only affect Airtex and it's employees; but will impact on the entire aviation industry. The final submissions of this landmark hearing provided over 150 pages (combined). They make interesting reading.
It is not the hearing in it's self which concerns me. I am however deeply concerned about the how's and why's of this episode, the probity of the entire action and the lack of any tangible safety related outcome which may be of benefit to all. If there were 'real' safety related issues, they should be examined, cured 'on site', in real time and published for the industry to adopt. I believe, if the Authority is allowed to continue in an unconstrained manner, enforcing 'policy' which confounds or contradicts not only the law, but the spirit and intent of the law, without a realistic system for the industry to effectively hold individual officers properly accountable and responsible for their actions, the Authority's already marginal credibility will be destroyed. Not only at the coal face, but internationally, where we are already considerably embarrassed.
The question is how would a jury of reasonable men (or expert panel) view the case?; we cannot presume that this form of democratic process is generally and easily available to us, as an industry. Nor would it be proper for we, the industry to make any judgement on the case.
However, as the primary funding base, major client and the end user of the safety product, we are allowed to examine the actions, methods, motive, probity and cost effectiveness of any safety based action which impacts on our daily lives. Think of the realities of this action if you were involved; before being proven guilty of any wrongdoing, suspension and cancellation. The cost involved to a company or an individual precludes all but a select few from effectively defending themselves or obtaining justice against penalty for an act not proven to have been done. Even then, you serve your time before the guilty verdict.
I believe this case is as much about the regulations being a mess, about the way those rules may be misused, misinterpreted and misconstrued to make an argument which even highly qualified legal counsel struggle to untangle, as it is about 'real' safety issues. It is about speed with which an RCA response can be summarily dismissed and become show cause, resulting in an issue which needs a court to sort out. On first reading it appears, reasonably, that most, if not all of the issues presented could have been readily addressed, provided a good safety result and had a positive operational effect without the need for a record length hearing.
The extracts below are from the publicly available transcripts of the final submission for the defence. I find it hard to comprehend that allegations of this nature could ever be made of, or associated with the Public Servants charged with the oversight of air safety.
From the transcripts:-
Aspects of the respondent’s evidence
The respondent’s abandonment of the evidence of Dubois.
Chambers…………………………….………………….
Pilots………………………………………………………
Failure to call Hood……………………………………
The respondent in opposing Avtex’s application relies on allegations which by and large are unsupported by evidence. The respondent also relies on characterisation of what it considers to be the cumulative effect of its largely unsubstantiated allegations in terms such as ‘systemic deficiency’, ‘adverse safety’ culture and the like.
Chambers in his statement dated 20 August 2010 at paragraphs 47-50, under the heading ‘Nose wheel collapse, repeats only 3 of the NLG matters which preceded the collapse on 18 July 2010, interestingly omitting the one relevant one which was when the rod ends were replaced some weeks before the actual failure. The notice of cancellation of the Avtex AOC at paragraph 69 (d) states that the NLG failure “involves a maintenance issue,” and that the NLG failure was caused or contributed to by insufficient resourcing and inappropriate attitude to safety compliance. This bald assertion is entirely unsubstantiated in that document, and in evidence at this hearing.
One difficulty in the matter is that CASA officers such as Mr Chambers, and below him Mr Du Bois, with no formal professional ethical obligation to impede willingness to make allegations of the most serious kind, were subjected to the apparent need to treat consideration of action against the Applicant as of unprecedented importance. That is the clear implication arising from the fact that the CEO of CASA became involved in discussion of the nature of the action to be taken, something never previously experienced by Mr Chambers.
Recent conduct of CASA in hastily initiating the mid-hearing audit alleged to be in relation to an incident on 16 August 2010 in relation to an aircraft which for many years has not been maintained by Avtex is an unusual episode. It is of course not the case the CASA must abandon its statutory obligations against an applicant during any hearing in the AAT to which it is a respondent. But CASA cannot use its powers in that context where it is the purpose or a purpose of such action to create evidence it hopes will be advantageous to it during the completion of the hearing.
It is not the hearing in it's self which concerns me. I am however deeply concerned about the how's and why's of this episode, the probity of the entire action and the lack of any tangible safety related outcome which may be of benefit to all. If there were 'real' safety related issues, they should be examined, cured 'on site', in real time and published for the industry to adopt. I believe, if the Authority is allowed to continue in an unconstrained manner, enforcing 'policy' which confounds or contradicts not only the law, but the spirit and intent of the law, without a realistic system for the industry to effectively hold individual officers properly accountable and responsible for their actions, the Authority's already marginal credibility will be destroyed. Not only at the coal face, but internationally, where we are already considerably embarrassed.
The question is how would a jury of reasonable men (or expert panel) view the case?; we cannot presume that this form of democratic process is generally and easily available to us, as an industry. Nor would it be proper for we, the industry to make any judgement on the case.
However, as the primary funding base, major client and the end user of the safety product, we are allowed to examine the actions, methods, motive, probity and cost effectiveness of any safety based action which impacts on our daily lives. Think of the realities of this action if you were involved; before being proven guilty of any wrongdoing, suspension and cancellation. The cost involved to a company or an individual precludes all but a select few from effectively defending themselves or obtaining justice against penalty for an act not proven to have been done. Even then, you serve your time before the guilty verdict.
I believe this case is as much about the regulations being a mess, about the way those rules may be misused, misinterpreted and misconstrued to make an argument which even highly qualified legal counsel struggle to untangle, as it is about 'real' safety issues. It is about speed with which an RCA response can be summarily dismissed and become show cause, resulting in an issue which needs a court to sort out. On first reading it appears, reasonably, that most, if not all of the issues presented could have been readily addressed, provided a good safety result and had a positive operational effect without the need for a record length hearing.
The extracts below are from the publicly available transcripts of the final submission for the defence. I find it hard to comprehend that allegations of this nature could ever be made of, or associated with the Public Servants charged with the oversight of air safety.
From the transcripts:-
Aspects of the respondent’s evidence
The respondent’s abandonment of the evidence of Dubois.
Chambers…………………………….………………….
Pilots………………………………………………………
Failure to call Hood……………………………………
The respondent in opposing Avtex’s application relies on allegations which by and large are unsupported by evidence. The respondent also relies on characterisation of what it considers to be the cumulative effect of its largely unsubstantiated allegations in terms such as ‘systemic deficiency’, ‘adverse safety’ culture and the like.
Chambers in his statement dated 20 August 2010 at paragraphs 47-50, under the heading ‘Nose wheel collapse, repeats only 3 of the NLG matters which preceded the collapse on 18 July 2010, interestingly omitting the one relevant one which was when the rod ends were replaced some weeks before the actual failure. The notice of cancellation of the Avtex AOC at paragraph 69 (d) states that the NLG failure “involves a maintenance issue,” and that the NLG failure was caused or contributed to by insufficient resourcing and inappropriate attitude to safety compliance. This bald assertion is entirely unsubstantiated in that document, and in evidence at this hearing.
One difficulty in the matter is that CASA officers such as Mr Chambers, and below him Mr Du Bois, with no formal professional ethical obligation to impede willingness to make allegations of the most serious kind, were subjected to the apparent need to treat consideration of action against the Applicant as of unprecedented importance. That is the clear implication arising from the fact that the CEO of CASA became involved in discussion of the nature of the action to be taken, something never previously experienced by Mr Chambers.
Recent conduct of CASA in hastily initiating the mid-hearing audit alleged to be in relation to an incident on 16 August 2010 in relation to an aircraft which for many years has not been maintained by Avtex is an unusual episode. It is of course not the case the CASA must abandon its statutory obligations against an applicant during any hearing in the AAT to which it is a respondent. But CASA cannot use its powers in that context where it is the purpose or a purpose of such action to create evidence it hopes will be advantageous to it during the completion of the hearing.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Kharon,
thank you for the update, was wondering what was happening.
I look forward to reading the full trial transcrpt.
Just from your summary, it perhaps should be required reading for everyone involved in GA, and most certainly those from the mainstream press. It would seem a classic example of just what can happen when a bureaucracy is allowed to run out of control.
The rights or wrongs of the case really are not the point, rather the apparent questionable lengths these public official may have gone to to prove a point, with no accountability for their actions.
At the end of the day if this ends in their favour, they will go forward emboldened by the immunity inferred, and so the seed sprouts.
As has been mentioned in other threads in these forums, if corruption is allowed to take root it grows. The law is supposed to be fair and applied equally, the application of justice should not be based on ones ability to pay.
Unfortunately our regulator, and those within it who author the regulations we suffer, are well aware that within the industry there is unlikely to be anyone with the recources to challenge them, except perhaps the major airlines.So they are free to trample on an industry, strangle it with unintelligable rules, and feel secure that they will go on earning remuneration that they could never hope to receive in the industry and leave a trail of collateral damage behind them, because at the end of the day its the "Little" people who bear the results of their actions, who lose their livelyhoods, have their dreams and hopes shattered.
I sometimes wonder how these people sleep at night.
thank you for the update, was wondering what was happening.
I look forward to reading the full trial transcrpt.
Just from your summary, it perhaps should be required reading for everyone involved in GA, and most certainly those from the mainstream press. It would seem a classic example of just what can happen when a bureaucracy is allowed to run out of control.
The rights or wrongs of the case really are not the point, rather the apparent questionable lengths these public official may have gone to to prove a point, with no accountability for their actions.
At the end of the day if this ends in their favour, they will go forward emboldened by the immunity inferred, and so the seed sprouts.
As has been mentioned in other threads in these forums, if corruption is allowed to take root it grows. The law is supposed to be fair and applied equally, the application of justice should not be based on ones ability to pay.
Unfortunately our regulator, and those within it who author the regulations we suffer, are well aware that within the industry there is unlikely to be anyone with the recources to challenge them, except perhaps the major airlines.So they are free to trample on an industry, strangle it with unintelligable rules, and feel secure that they will go on earning remuneration that they could never hope to receive in the industry and leave a trail of collateral damage behind them, because at the end of the day its the "Little" people who bear the results of their actions, who lose their livelyhoods, have their dreams and hopes shattered.
I sometimes wonder how these people sleep at night.
Moderator
If you were indoctrinated to believe you are infallible, blame the aviation industry for the failure of your pre CASA career, and have 21 million shareholders to fund your litigation, why would your sleep patterns be affected? 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: 'Stralia!
Age: 47
Posts: 491
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
kimwestt
No-one. Casa, like any good (bad) bureaucracy, they are answerable only unto them selves.
Like a lot of other federal govt depts, they are largely run/controlled/influenced by lawyers now.
I can't go to the bathroom now without a comprehensive 4 page risk analysis that will spend 8 days with legal and 12 days with OH&S before I can go, in the hope I will change into something they want that will preclude the use of the bathroom for ever and ever, amen.
A place like CASA will have some lawyer look at anything first, ask what's our liability? Unfortunatly, the answer for CASA is always 'we have none, proceed at full speed!'
No-one. Casa, like any good (bad) bureaucracy, they are answerable only unto them selves.
Like a lot of other federal govt depts, they are largely run/controlled/influenced by lawyers now.
I can't go to the bathroom now without a comprehensive 4 page risk analysis that will spend 8 days with legal and 12 days with OH&S before I can go, in the hope I will change into something they want that will preclude the use of the bathroom for ever and ever, amen.
A place like CASA will have some lawyer look at anything first, ask what's our liability? Unfortunatly, the answer for CASA is always 'we have none, proceed at full speed!'
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Australia
Posts: 88
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not me Jim
However, now that you mention it, and to keep the 'classic' flavor,
Qui tacet consentire videtur - (He that is silent is thought to consent).
Every GA pilot and operator should be aware of this hearing. This is not about fostering safety, promoting the industry or even enforcing compliance. This is all about enforcing the authority of Authority.
Joyce, fetch the lobotomy kit, I can see the light.
Help, help, I'm melting.
Qui tacet consentire videtur - (He that is silent is thought to consent).
Every GA pilot and operator should be aware of this hearing. This is not about fostering safety, promoting the industry or even enforcing compliance. This is all about enforcing the authority of Authority.
Joyce, fetch the lobotomy kit, I can see the light.
Help, help, I'm melting.
Last edited by Rose_Thorns; 28th Nov 2010 at 09:20.
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Over the Rainbow
Age: 52
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Seems to me
Some folks set fire to their feet, to keep their hands warm.
Quote - (insydney) 'well you have to think that casa are ill advised by their briefs, as many of their actions leave them wide open to both question and ridicule'.
Careful reading of the transcript seems to indicate differently, quite the reverse. No expert, but IMHO, seems that the decision makers perhaps were given "duff gen". The system must rely on trust, and if a report is made, then it is only fit and proper that the prescribed protocol is followed.
If that 'gen' is flawed and an action is initiated, it becomes a legal nightmare. How micro is micro management?.
If, for example the C&T pilot and the CP decide to suspend a pilot: first the facts must be gleaned, then a consult with management and perhaps, in a serious matter, legal advice sought before action. If at the end of due and careful process a decision is made, that decision must then be able to be tested as legally safe.
It appears to me no such procedure was followed in this matter.
If it was my company, I would be looking very hard before making decisions which I may later have to defend. The mess the legal eagles have been left to sort out after the event, rather than before is mind blowing. Did the BK Field office seek legal advice before hand, I don't think so.
This must be of great embarrassment to the decision making pay grade.
Quote - (insydney) 'well you have to think that casa are ill advised by their briefs, as many of their actions leave them wide open to both question and ridicule'.
Careful reading of the transcript seems to indicate differently, quite the reverse. No expert, but IMHO, seems that the decision makers perhaps were given "duff gen". The system must rely on trust, and if a report is made, then it is only fit and proper that the prescribed protocol is followed.
If that 'gen' is flawed and an action is initiated, it becomes a legal nightmare. How micro is micro management?.
If, for example the C&T pilot and the CP decide to suspend a pilot: first the facts must be gleaned, then a consult with management and perhaps, in a serious matter, legal advice sought before action. If at the end of due and careful process a decision is made, that decision must then be able to be tested as legally safe.
It appears to me no such procedure was followed in this matter.
If it was my company, I would be looking very hard before making decisions which I may later have to defend. The mess the legal eagles have been left to sort out after the event, rather than before is mind blowing. Did the BK Field office seek legal advice before hand, I don't think so.
This must be of great embarrassment to the decision making pay grade.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Itinerant
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
By the looks of the interlocutory decision back in September where Avtex were after Fice to disqualify himself it must have been a riveting hearing!
Avtex Air Services Pty Ltd and Civil Aviation Safety Authority [2010] AATA 716 (14 September 2010)
Avtex Air Services Pty Ltd and Civil Aviation Safety Authority [2010] AATA 716 (14 September 2010)
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Australia
Posts: 88
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Selah, Amen, Hallelujah, unt Goodnight. etc.
Prince Hamlet's question is intended to smoke out his mother, to whom, as he intended, this Player Queen bears some striking resemblances.
Player Queen:
Both here and hence pursue me lasting strife,
If once I be a widow, ever I be a wife!.
Player King:
'Tis deeply sworn. Sweet, leave me here a while,
My spirits grow dull, and fain I would beguile
The tedious day with sleep.
Player Queen:
Sleep rock thy brain,
And never come mischance between us twain!
Hamlet:
Madam, how like you this play?
Queen:
The lady doth protest too much, methinks.
Short field = Thank you.
Player Queen:
Both here and hence pursue me lasting strife,
If once I be a widow, ever I be a wife!.
Player King:
'Tis deeply sworn. Sweet, leave me here a while,
My spirits grow dull, and fain I would beguile
The tedious day with sleep.
Player Queen:
Sleep rock thy brain,
And never come mischance between us twain!
Hamlet:
Madam, how like you this play?
Queen:
The lady doth protest too much, methinks.
Short field = Thank you.
and most certainly those from the mainstream press
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Reading complete.
Well, it's no wonder the press are not all over it. It's complex and some of it almost beggars the imagination let alone belief. 
To a lay person, the subtleties (and sub titles) it would be incomprehensible.
If it was a movie, you would have to give it PG or even AO.
One thing for certain; the boys and girls at Norton White are good, very, very good.
No, not for the press, to many big words. An attention span somewhat better than that of a well trained racing rabbit definitely required.
To a lay person, the subtleties (and sub titles) it would be incomprehensible.
If it was a movie, you would have to give it PG or even AO.
One thing for certain; the boys and girls at Norton White are good, very, very good.
No, not for the press, to many big words. An attention span somewhat better than that of a well trained racing rabbit definitely required.
