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 19th Nov 2011, 08:28
  #121 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Wentworth
Age: 55
Posts: 216
I think it goes without saying that CASA appears to have come up a little short on this one, so repeating their alleged deficiencies, colourful as these posts are, is preaching to the converted and not moving John's position forward.
Wallsofchina is offline  
Old 19th Nov 2011, 09:02
  #122 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Go west young man
Posts: 1,732
So Wallsofchina have you got any suggestions to how John can move his position forward?
Sarcs is offline  
Old 19th Nov 2011, 09:29
  #123 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Wentworth
Age: 55
Posts: 216
I did make some suggestions Sarcs, and we were going well but then lost our direction again.
Wallsofchina is offline  
Old 19th Nov 2011, 09:37
  #124 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Atherton Tablelands
Age: 57
Posts: 25
Thankyou guys

Thankyou for all your overwhelming support guys it really has helped my healing process.

Reading your posts I see there is one issue that needs clarification. With regards to the turns we proved in court that they were not illegal steep turns (ie aerobatic) and we also brought up the fact that the low flying law specifically states it applies over terrain. The judge decided that in this instance terrain actually included water and I was unfit because he thought my suggested reason for turning in such a manner due to birds was risable (laughable) because he could not see any birds in the footage. But none of them ever bothered to go out to the reef to see how many birds there actually was in that area.
jandsquadrio is offline  
Old 19th Nov 2011, 09:54
  #125 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
Until the CASA “expert” has been proven to be patholigically and habitually incompetent however, they will remain “the expert”-
The key to the answer is "INCOMPETENT".

Prove this is an habitual fact of life and you may see the simple answer to the problem. The public who outnumber us in the industry 1000/1 will then solve it for us.

JQ simply needs to keep his action alive.
Frank Arouet is offline  
Old 19th Nov 2011, 10:08
  #126 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Go west young man
Posts: 1,732
John I don't think you'll have anyone disagree with you about the birdlife out on the reef structures, especially near the pontoons or old wrecks (Emily reef comes to mind!).

Wallsofchina, I'm sorry I missed your post #137! So in what court do you suggest JQ continue his fight to regain his license?
Sarcs is offline  
Old 19th Nov 2011, 11:16
  #127 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: australia
Posts: 1,222
the big short...

w.o.c. Casa havent just come up "a little short" in this example they are WELL short of any norms of due process that the citizen should expect from
a Commonwealth authority.
CASA has a "code of conduct" which is supposed to apply to its staff, but as we see, they just think its a load of old bollocks that doesnt apply to them.

Who's to give Compliance and Enforcement to the enforcers? Nobody.

If you read the CAC Act 1997, Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Act,
there are very serious penalty provisions for criminal behaviour.

I hope that Mr Quadrio can eventually kick their ar$e, with hobnail boots on when the time comes.

CASAs read on a "just culture" as I know it is ...
JUST fit this guy up, JUST do whatever it takes, 'coz we JUST dont care how much it might cost. JUST do it.
aroa is offline  
Old 19th Nov 2011, 11:31
  #128 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Age: 47
Posts: 934
....... because he thought my suggested reason for turning in such a manner due to birds was risable (laughable) because he could not see any birds in the footage.
Now this part of the transcript I found highly offensive.

The men in funny suits, declare that we must show them the utmost respect, and if we don't, then they toss us in the can for a bit.

But this same person sitting there demanding the utmost respect, can sit on his fat overpaid laurels and call a persons honest testimony Risable is a disgusting abuse of power. It tells me our 'learned' man on the bench finds it amusing.

He either agree's with a persons testimony, or he doesn't. His position is not there to rate its comedy level.

This muppet should be keel hauled!
jas24zzk is offline  
Old 19th Nov 2011, 16:14
  #129 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: `
Posts: 309
Originally Posted by Jabawocky
The best one to fly it would be John himself.....oh the licence issue
Instructor in the LHS pretending to be a QF F/O imposter would solve that issue.

If there is going to be a "fighting fund" then please post it in this thread coz I'm in.
Biggles78 is offline  
Old 19th Nov 2011, 20:29
  #130 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 7,474
With respect to the birds thing, it is pointless to argue. What we need is current video proof that the $#%ing birds exist on platforms, that they are a hazard to navigation, and that they must therefore be avoided or scared away.

That evidence needs to be of legal evidentiary quality. Anything else is just conjecture. A picture is worth a thousand words.
Sunfish is offline  
Old 19th Nov 2011, 21:47
  #131 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Go west young man
Posts: 1,732
I know of one or two webcams in the area. What would be even better would be to place a webcam on the HLS at Hastings reef, get some footage of birds on the platform and a few arrivals of choppers etc.
Sarcs is offline  
Old 19th Nov 2011, 23:31
  #132 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Wentworth
Age: 55
Posts: 216
Footage of birds isn't going to carry any weight.

Footage of birds there that day in the way AND requiring a bank angle of at least 62 degrees to scare them away, along with whatever extreme attitudes occurred may help, but if they would have been scared away by a cautious approach of say 10 knots, his justification falls away.

Same applies if prudent action by the operator in response to constant birds was a mustering horn.

Sunfish makes a good point about real evidence.
Wallsofchina is offline  
Old 19th Nov 2011, 23:54
  #133 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Still in Paradise
Age: 56
Posts: 864
With respect to the birds thing, it is pointless to argue. What we need is current video proof that the $#%ing birds exist on platforms, that they are a hazard to navigation, and that they must therefore be avoided or scared away.

That evidence needs to be of legal evidentiary quality. Anything else is just conjecture. A picture is worth a thousand words.
You mean a picture like this?



Hands up all those who would manoeuvre to avoid this lot?
Jamair is offline  
Old 20th Nov 2011, 01:53
  #134 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Atherton Tablelands
Age: 57
Posts: 25
Thorough investigation

You would have thought that the experts (CASA) would have went out to the area, but no they have the video that is all they need.
They cancelled my license before they conducted a thorough investigation.
WHY DID NONE OF THESE EXPERTS GO OUT TO THE AREA AND CONDUCT A THOROUGH INVESTIGATION.
GULLTY TILL PROVEN INNOCENT.
jandsquadrio is offline  
Old 20th Nov 2011, 01:58
  #135 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Wentworth
Age: 55
Posts: 216
The last two posts make me nervous. Have we been led up the garden path here.
Wallsofchina is offline  
Old 20th Nov 2011, 02:49
  #136 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Australia
Posts: 302
The answer to that is easy: CASA knew exactly what they'd find there, and they knew this evidence would affect their case.
bankrunner is offline  
Old 20th Nov 2011, 02:51
  #137 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Go west young man
Posts: 1,732
So Wallsofchina you are saying that the only 'real evidence' is the video footage taken on the day. Therefore that footage has to be analysed frame by frame, presumably by helo experts etc..etc and then draw conclusions about the illegalities of that flight?

The last two posts make me nervous. Have we been led up the garden path here.
I'm not sure what you mean? Other than banging on about the birds!
Sarcs is offline  
Old 20th Nov 2011, 06:42
  #138 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Sydney
Posts: 188
Forget the birds

So John did a few steep turns getting his pax into the floating pad. Big deal. Sure, these turns are probably silly (someone might chuck), but dangerous - I really don't think so. Whether there were birds around or not is not (IMHO) worth discussing. (Although I do well understand why that topic is needed...).

No one complained, no one got hurt and John got fried (and fired) for being (at best) over enthusiastic.

You HAVE to be kidding.

These are the same public servants that brought us pink batts, the NBN and other ridiculous ideas. Don't you guys have something better to do ?

Some of the crap I have read here is ridiculous - does everyone here fly a helicopter or (perhaps) a desk ? Desk jockeys don't get a right to comment !

Fair dinkum.

Chin up John.

Arrrj

PS - I fly a helicopter - not a desk, and I will have to be careful not to make a turn that is too tight for the authorities in future ! (Of course I will now have to study all the crap from Canberra to find out what the max angle turn I am allowed to make !).
Arrrj is offline  
Old 20th Nov 2011, 17:47
  #139 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 7,474
Talked to a very experienced former helicopter driver yesterday. Steep turns (2G) are most definitely OK.
Sunfish is offline  
Old 20th Nov 2011, 22:50
  #140 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Alabama, then Wyoming, then Idaho and now staying with Kharon on Styx houseboat
Age: 56
Posts: 1,437
Taking a CASA representative out to the reef would serve no purpose, neither does submitting birdlife/helicopter photos that aren't related directly to John's case because CASA would say that any later visit or follow up plus any photos supplied that is not directly related to the incident in question in John's case (i.e photo's taken today, next week or next June) does not accurately replicate the circumstances that actually took place in John's case. They would hang their hat on things such as different weather patterns, temperatures, food sources for the birds, cloud formation, jeez even the moon phase...........
John has been dealt a cruel hand, persecuted for rubbing somone's ego the wrong way. Its a disgrace.
gobbledock 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.