The Pacific: General Aviation & Questions The place for students, instructors and charter guys in Oz, NZ and the rest of Oceania.

Paul Phelan 's latest

Old 10th Nov 2011, 10:06
  #41 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Australia
Posts: 29
Paul Phelan

I don't plan to make this a habit, but in answer to poor old CM's query as to why I didn't drop everything and "apply my formidable experience and analytical skills to analysing the video and relevant technical issues, in considerable depth" etc etc, I can reveal that I just looked through my files on this matter and the date of the first of them shows that my earliest awareness of John and his case was in mid-March of this year. That was well over two years after the event, long after the first AAT hearing and also after the DPP dropped the matter like a hot brick. And it was only about four weeks ago that I first saw the video. Ten minutes after that I spotted the birds. I trust that will clear your mind of all that exhausting speculation. I'll now make a point of checking this thread every six months or so.

PS (Edit) Not quite right John, I just checked my Windows PC and the birds show up almost as well on that so there's still no excuse for missing them.

Last edited by Paul Phelan; 10th Nov 2011 at 10:36.
Paul Phelan is offline  
Old 10th Nov 2011, 11:47
  #42 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Age: 47
Posts: 934
Not quite right Paul,
there is an excuse for missing them. (we can all see that finding them denigrates casa's case)

I still find it very hard to believe that our system permits a guy/gal to recieve this treatment despite the court system not only failing to win, but more importantly dropping charges due to an unwinnable case! To find that the AAT can uphold CASA's decision just muddles my mind.

Trust me, I have been through our court system, both as primary witness, and as the one charged. I have no complaints with how I was treated in either case. But looking at this AAT thing, it seems to me they have more power than the courts, with a lower evidence requirement. To me it should be higher, as my read of the act says that the AAT has more power than the courts.


Lets assume that John DID fly a wingover. Was it within the manufacturers limitations? Was it an avoidance manouver? Evidence suggests that it was.
Sorry John, as much as I beleive that you have been wronged, the more i look at it the more I see failures in our system, coupled with the fact I doubt you got the best representation.

Every day I read about cases like this, and the more I want to leave our lovely land. The ONLY thing that holds me here is my parents.
Didn't the roman empire fail because it became too smart for its own good?

Jas
jas24zzk is offline  
Old 10th Nov 2011, 12:12
  #43 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Mel-burn
Posts: 4,882
I understand that recently a fixed-wing pilot was reported to CASA for "aerobatic" flying when they in fact weren't and they have been incriminated by video evidence, when in fact to the trained eye it is clear that this wasn't the case and also the video has been doctored using video editing software for entertainment purposes.

I hope they have learnt something from this R44 incident as I'm sure the current "victim" has better things to spend his money on than his lawyers.
VH-XXX is offline  
Old 10th Nov 2011, 12:21
  #44 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Age: 47
Posts: 934
what a crock
jas24zzk is offline  
Old 10th Nov 2011, 18:48
  #45 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,053
Welcome to the Underworld.

John, welcome. Your fare across the river Styx is paid in full.

I'll bet if I had told you a story, like yours 5 years ago over a beer, you would have made all the right noises, listened with half an ear and filed the yarn away. You mate, have just joined a fairly exclusive club of believers.

The reality of what happens to people caught up in the system as it lurches along today almost beggars imagination.

But perhaps there is hope, there are enough of these episodes on record within the last 2 years to present a solid case against the method and madness of the CASA actions.

Part of the problem is who to appeal to; another part is the complexity of the issues, the rest is the credibility gap. Who is going to believe that our "safety watchdog" is out of control, barking mad, rabid and as corrupt as old nick himself.

You wouldn't before the watchdog turned it's beady little eyes on you.

Selah.
Kharon is offline  
Old 10th Nov 2011, 23:22
  #46 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Wanna Be Up There...
Age: 48
Posts: 278
There has been a lot of discussion on this thread about why CASA didn't drop its case in the AAT when the DPP decided not to prosecute. The reason is that in a criminal proceeding which is prosecuted by the DPP they must prove their case "beyond reasonable doubt". That is the criminal "standard of proof".

In the AAT however, like Fair Work Australia, the evidentiary burden is only on the "balance of probabilities". This means that all things considered it is more likely that the events alleged occured than they did not occur. The case this was derived from is called Brigginshaw -v- Brigginshaw.

To give you an example from my personal experience, one of my clients terminated the employment of an employee who they believed had stolen money. We called the police who said they they would lay charges but it was highly unlikely to go to court because of a lack of evidence (ultimately this was correct). However we were still able to sack this person and run off an unfair dismissal claim because we didn't have to meet the same burden of proof as the police.

From my reading of the decision it would appear that Mr Quadrio was defeated by the weight of uncontested evidence. If he had managed to present the evidence as demonstrated by Mr Phelan it is highly unlikely that he would have lost his case. At the end of the day they didn't see the birds and they were swamped by the weight of CASA evidence.

I also think there was an element of another kind at play in the Tribunal Members mind. Mr Quadrio was a competent and popular pilot who was supported by his employer. I personally think that the Members thought that by making this decision it wouldn't take much time for Mr Quadrio to make an application to CASA to reinstate his licence and get back in the air. The finding by CASA that Mr Quadrio is not a fit and proper person is able to be overturned at whim (I believe) and I think the AAT were of the view that once a message had been sent, CASA would duly overturn their decision (perhaps after requiring a grovelling apology to justify their actions).

Time will tell if my intuition is correct, perhaps Mr Quadrio is so burnt by the process that he never wants to fly again.

On a related note it's funny how your senses can be fooled in chopper. Last year I took my son on a chopper flight down at the 12 Apostles and I thought the turns felt really steep. They weren't in truth and they were quite slow but not being used to it I thought they were fast and sharp. A quick look at the instruments fixed that up in my mind.

It is indeed a pity for Mr Quadrio that a fool with a phone camera and a big mouth has ruined his life. I hope the bastard reads these forums (probably does as a wannabe) and realises the misery his stupidity has caused.
notmyC150v2 is offline  
Old 11th Nov 2011, 01:59
  #47 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Go west young man
Posts: 1,732
As Allan Kessing alludes to in his interview with Richard Fidler: Allan Kessing - ABC Conversations with Richard Fidler , once you start up the machine (the bureaucracy) it is very hard to switch it off! By the time Allan's case went to court the whole issue had blown over. But because the slow wheels of justice had started turning the Courts, AFP etc had to see it through to save face and political careers!

This is the same story in jandsquadrio's case and because he is the 'little bloke', he is deemed to be expendable.

As with Allan and John, I too personally bare witness to this fact as I fight for my career against a prosecution from the AFP in a case that has been going on for nearly two years!

So good luck John!
Sarcs is offline  
Old 11th Nov 2011, 03:21
  #48 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Alabama, then Wyoming, then Idaho and now staying with Kharon on Styx houseboat
Age: 56
Posts: 1,437
666 The number of the Regulator !!

jandsquadrio, indeed, welcome to prune!
The first thing you will learn is that bureaucrats like Clinton will be regularly trolling around here, pretending they are not in any way linked to the Regulator, and will be vocally defending CASA yada yada yada. So just ignore the suckhole.

Indeed John, you are now a member of a growing club of individuals disembowelled by the Regulator for no better reason than simply hurting an ego, pointing out a truth or exposing an act of unprovoked malfeasance. Most are also retirement aged crusty old has-beens capable of nothing better than bludging off the taxpayer while hiding behind a protective cocoon, industry doesn't want them because they are as useful as a 2 day old tampon.

My mate Kharon, always love your posts:
Part of the problem is who to appeal to; another part is the complexity of the issues, the rest is the credibility gap. Who is going to believe that our "safety watchdog" is out of control, barking mad, rabid and as corrupt as old nick himself.
Perhaps this is their origin: Revelation 12:9 "So down the great Dragon was hurled, the original serpent, the one called Devil and Satan, who is misleading the entire inhabited earth, he was hurled down to the earth, and his angels were hurled down with him" ??
gobbledock is offline  
Old 11th Nov 2011, 04:07
  #49 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
I believe CASA have more than the means to dispense justice with a fair hand, however they consistently demonstrate that they misuse the tools available to them, such as to have track proven they do indeed, understand the simple useable fact that a pilot's need for instant decision making can be used by them in any connived/ altered/ corrupt or contempt of Court hindsight, to prosecute their cause in an adversarial manner.


Only the Federal Family Court is more adversarial.


The “AAT” as a means of redress is a farce only eclipsed by “FAIR WORK AUSTRALIA” (without prejudice to either Qantas or The Unions), and it's my opinion that both are tainted with vested interests. Any complaint to your Minister will need to run the gauntlet of our Governor General who signs off on things as the Mother in Law of another Minister with more vested interests.


As for industry cohesion, I would suggest, and I have said many times, that CASA are only as strong as their opposition is weak. This is demonstrated daily as previously noted, of industry disunity, and until everyone sees/ believes /and advertises/ and annoys the poor bloody travelling public, the “FACT” that CASA are “INCOMPETENT” and their precious lives are being used as pawns in a “Yes Minister” comedy, (Greek tragedy), in the trial of the “HOLE IN THE GROUND” which their loved ones are trusting dead victims, nothing will be done regardless of Government in power. Seaview and Reg 206 to the square of 10 may get those headlines. (God forbid this happens).


The words “INCOMPETENT” and “I TOLD YOU SO” are words for the media that may bring about a change.


Fighting windmills by yourself is a waste of time.
Frank Arouet is offline  
Old 11th Nov 2011, 04:51
  #50 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: australia
Posts: 1,206
the spinning doctor...

Jeezus... "Wheels Up" McKenzie... you could get a job with CASA !!

The business that had a thief, relieved itself of that dishonest person, and rightfully so.
That person could wander off, and was free get another job of the same kind if he so wishes.

In the Quadrio case, the AAT "conviction", in the lesser degree of proof...ie, not beyond reasonable doubt... as not a "fit and proper person" has resulted in Mr Quadrio being given a lifetime penalty, NOT to be able to work as a helicopter pilot ever again, because his licence/work permit, to do so is CANCELLED

Mr Quadrio is not 'free' like the thief to take up like employment elsewhere.

Not a penalty, a fine or a 3 month suspension.? Well he's had that and more, the cost already for 3 years of no job or livelihood.

How does that compare with CASA persons that are "not fit and proper" IMO to be in the job, that have commited perjury and conspired with others and breached the criminal provisions in the CAC Act...all to attempt bring about a criminal conviction. ? Still on the public payroll, I kid you not.

No contest.!! They are protected by the CASA "system" and by whatever it takes.

The Quadrio episode is nothing new, it has been going on for decades.

CASA is the Gadaffi regime of the GAFA. A revolution in political backbone is as badly needed as ever. We, the aviators must " bust a gut' to bring down this regime in its current form.

And by the way, Clinton, who is it that writes the regs these days..?
Not the G -G ???
aroa is offline  
Old 11th Nov 2011, 08:02
  #51 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 7,399
I wonder if the You Tube video had a title like "A visit to the Barrier reef" and that there was music instead of a laugh track, if the pilot would ever have been prosecuted? I think not.

Needless to say, no cameras ever again on any aircraft Sunfish flies.

To put it another way; in my youth I worked at a chemical plant with a highly unionised workforce.

I remember learning "Tell 'em nothing". I suspect that pilots are now adopting that approach out of simple caution, knowing that any disclosure can result in prosecution.

Since getting out of the stock market I've been wavering about an aviation investment. Threads like this make it unlikely because the risk is too high since there is no consistent interpretation of the regulations. We are always guessing what CASA will accept.
Sunfish is offline  
Old 11th Nov 2011, 08:55
  #52 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Wentworth
Age: 55
Posts: 216
They'd already be watching you Sunfish
Wallsofchina is offline  
Old 11th Nov 2011, 09:14
  #53 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Mel-burn
Posts: 4,882
I've been wavering about an aviation investment
Interesting use of the word "investment!"
VH-XXX is offline  
Old 11th Nov 2011, 11:20
  #54 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Age: 47
Posts: 934
aroa

The business that had a thief, relieved itself of that dishonest person, and rightfully so.
That person could wander off, and was free get another job of the same kind if he so wishes.

In the Quadrio case, the AAT "conviction", in the lesser degree of proof...ie, not beyond reasonable doubt... as not a "fit and proper person" has resulted in Mr Quadrio being given a lifetime penalty, NOT to be able to work as a helicopter pilot ever again, because his licence/work permit, to do so is CANCELLED

Mr Quadrio is not 'free' like the thief to take up like employment elsewhere.
WELL SAID!!

If you stare at a person willing to lie/cheat/steal from their boss, you can draw no further conclusion that said person does not want the job anyway. So them getting pissy about getting the sack is just another kick in the nads, and they should rightly lose any unfair dismissal claim.

If you don't like the job, then the way out is the same way as the way you came in.


In Mr Quadrio's case...seems to me, he loved his job. Why would he jeopardise it intentionally. Doesn't make sense that he would to me.
jas24zzk is offline  
Old 11th Nov 2011, 22:04
  #55 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,383
Franks post makes some worthy points.
It occurs to me that we as lay people look at these things from the point of view of "Justice."
The law is not about justice, its about winning.
People from the legal fraternity like Macca are not concerned with justice,
they get paid to win, whether they are acting for the prosecutor or the defence.
Its sad, but on the day it turned out John's legal team were beaten by CASA's, we are looking with hindsight and seeing an injustice, unfortunately too late.
We also express anger at the regulators for perpetrating what we perceive as an injustice, but in reality they are not concerned with justice either. They are what we call public servants and we imagine they are employed to serve the public where in fact they serve whatever agenda their department requires and to a large extent themselves, notches on their guns can mean promotion, so why are we surprised that they will, and do, manipulate the system to gain a win.
Frank is right, we get the regulator we deserve because our apathy allows them to exploit us with a "divide and rule" philosophy.
The time to defend guys like John should have been long before it escalated into the AAT farce.
Until the Industry stops waring with itself and forms strong associations that can counter events like John's, and also bring wayward members into line as well, CASA is going to walk all over us. Remember their charter does not require them to foster anything except more regulation.
For a good example of how to get CASA off your back just look at the enormous strides the Ag boys have made, the RAA is also starting to get its act together as well, divided we fall united we win, never truer words were spoken.
If John's case had occured in the USA, certain Pollies would have received a flood of angry mail on their desk, has anyone written to their local member expressing outrage about John's treatment?
thorn bird is offline  
Old 11th Nov 2011, 23:41
  #56 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Downunda
Posts: 559
What is really frustrating is the double standards that are constantly displayed by the regulator. Mr Quadrio gets done in by a dodgy punter taking a happy snap video. A video which never at any time focusses on the instrument panel or gives you are real appreciation of the 'big picture'. Meanwhile a person in a position of authority (i.e. high up the food chain) and PIC of this flight....
• After completing upper air work the captain took control of the aircraft. He then asked the crew if they had seen a Stuka dive, the aircraft then pitched up steeply and commenced a wingover to the left. Upon rolling out of the manoeuvre the pilot noticed the aircraft was pointed directly at a large tourist boat crowded with people. The captain continued the dive to within approximately 300 meters and 200 feet above the vessel before breaking off and flying alongside. The aircraft then proceeded a few miles west of the vessel at 200 ft, the captain handed control back to the pilot and instructed them to commence a stick shaker climb from 200 feet back to altitude for the return flight.
.....still continues to operate and keep both his position of authority and his license!! Also bare in mind that the flight above was carried out in a transport category aircraft which is contracted to the government. Hardly compares to Mr Quadrio's R44 scenic flights!
004wercras is offline  
Old 12th Nov 2011, 01:40
  #57 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Wentworth
Age: 55
Posts: 216
So what does the splattered skull have to say about all this?
Wallsofchina is offline  
Old 12th Nov 2011, 02:52
  #58 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: australia
Posts: 1,206
Nothing. CASA is the house of double standards and inconsistency.
aroa is offline  
Old 12th Nov 2011, 20:44
  #59 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Go west young man
Posts: 1,732
• After completing upper air work the captain took control of the aircraft. He then asked the crew if they had seen a Stuka dive, the aircraft then pitched up steeply and commenced a wingover to the left. Upon rolling out of the manoeuvre the pilot noticed the aircraft was pointed directly at a large tourist boat crowded with people. The captain continued the dive to within approximately 300 meters and 200 feet above the vessel before breaking off and flying alongside. The aircraft then proceeded a few miles west of the vessel at 200 ft, the captain handed control back to the pilot and instructed them to commence a stick shaker climb from 200 feet back to altitude for the return flight.
A very reliable source has told me this flight was conducted very close to Hastings Reef! It had a full crew (reliable witnesses) complement on board and was only part of a very irregular 'Training Flight'.

I wonder if some of the tourists on board the boat got some pictures or maybe even video footage of the low level aerobatics??
Sarcs is offline  
Old 12th Nov 2011, 22:15
  #60 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Australia
Posts: 302
Not the same government contracted transport category aircraft of which a video (now deleted) was seen on YouTube, shot from the inside of the aircraft while it was flying very low around the Kakadu gorges at 200+ KIAS with EGPWS going nuts?
bankrunner is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.