Paul Phelan 's latest
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Age: 51
Posts: 931
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
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?
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Downunda
Posts: 562
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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....
.....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!
• 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.
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!
• 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.
I wonder if some of the tourists on board the boat got some pictures or maybe even video footage of the low level aerobatics??
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Australia
Posts: 313
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Downunda
Posts: 562
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
If John's case had occured in the USA, certain Pollies would have received a flood of angry mail on their desks. Has anyone written to their local member expressing outrage about John's treatment?
Whosoever on PPRuNe is aggrieved by the irregularities of the
Quadrio case - write to your MHR and to all the senators representing your state and politely request that John's licence be returned to him as a
matter of urgency so he may resume gainful employment in his industry. Point out that a grave miscarriage of 'justice' has occured. At John's trials the testimony of many highly respected people in the industry who know and have worked with John over several years was barely given credence.
John neither seeks nor has the wherewithal to mount any further appeal. It is true that sometimes a well worded request to our elected representatives can yield favourable results. John is not alone in having been singled out for persecution. Our recent history is littered with numerous similar cases across more than one field. It may not be a vain hope that some of our representatives can acknowledge this and themselves sense some degree of outrage.
First though, send an email to John and ask him to briefly list the salient points of his case history so that letters to the pollies will be clear and consistent. Ask him for copies of testimonies as to his character and his sensible, safe and mature approach to all his flying. Attach them to your letter.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Great thread
Here on Pprune - Rotorheads - Warning: Beware the camera.
I was puzzling on JQ' s little problem and a light came on; wonder what the chopper boys and girls thought about the whole sorry mess.
Well, they are all over it - big time.
Should have thought about it a bit before shooting, perhaps.
The only dopey question is the one you failed to ask.
I was puzzling on JQ' s little problem and a light came on; wonder what the chopper boys and girls thought about the whole sorry mess.
Well, they are all over it - big time.
Should have thought about it a bit before shooting, perhaps.
The only dopey question is the one you failed to ask.
Folks,
Re. the AMSAR Dornier, as these SAR operators have all sorts of low level approvals, has it occurred to the critics that what they were doing may have been completely kosher, and that is the reason why no "action" has been forthcoming from CASA???
Just a thought.
Tootle pip!!
Re. the AMSAR Dornier, as these SAR operators have all sorts of low level approvals, has it occurred to the critics that what they were doing may have been completely kosher, and that is the reason why no "action" has been forthcoming from CASA???
Just a thought.
Tootle pip!!
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Wentworth
Age: 59
Posts: 212
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rather than lecturing us about an aircraft with a proximity warning going off being normal operations LeadSled, what about using your connections to actually do something useful and right the wrong which has been done here.
Curiosity got the better of me, so I saved the video frame pictures on the AviationAdvertiser report and had a hack with Photoshop. This is what I came up with on what I judged to be the 'worst-case' frame...
Andy_RR well captured, how long was it hanging at that angle? Did the chopper fall from that frame to vertical down (wing over) or did the angle shallow out (recover)?
LeadSled although it isn't relevant to this thread here is the low level approval for 'said' operator:
copied from this thread: http://www.pprune.org/dg-p-general-a...tigates-3.html
It also states, in that thread, that the video flight was a flight test after the aircraft had come out of heavy maintenance!
Now back to the thread......the REPCON quote was ment to highlight the double standards portrayed by the regulator!
LeadSled although it isn't relevant to this thread here is the low level approval for 'said' operator:
Schedule 1 Extent of exemption
The exemption extends only to the directions under subregulation 150 (2) of
CAR 1988 that are contained in paragraph 4.5 of CAO 29.5.
Schedule 2 Conditions
1 The operator must ensure that dropping operations are conducted in
accordance with the operator's operations manual and the Australian Maritime
Safety Authority (AMSA) manual of Search and Rescue Standards and
Procedures.
2 The dropping operations may only be carried out for emergency relief, search
and rescue or for training associated with search and rescue operations.
3 The operator must include a copy of this instrument in the operator's
operations manual.
4 The operator and pilot in command of an aircraft operated by the operator
must ensure that no persons or livestock are in the drop site intended for the
alighting of dropped stores.
5 Despite clause 4, lightweight trail lines may alight outside of the drop site.
6 The operator must ensure, with the exception of the approval, permission and
exemption, all other requirements of CAO 29.5 are be complied with.
7 The operator must ensure that if a flight below 500 feet AGL is required, it
must be conducted in accordance with the ********** Pty Limited Low Flying
Approval and the operator's operations manual current at the time of this
instrument and as revised from time to time.
8 The operator must ensure that for every dropping operation, 1 of the following
aircraft systems is operational:
(a) Traffic Collision Avoidance System (TCAS);
(b) Auto Dependent Surveillance Broadcast System (ADSB).
9 The operator must ensure that appropriate radio broadcasts on both the area
and CTAF frequencies are made if dropping is within a lane of entry or within
5 miles of an aerodrome.
10 The operator must obtain the approval of Air Traffic Control before any
dropping operation is carried out in a control zone.
11 The pilot in command of the operator's aircraft must ensure that adequate
separation is maintained if air traffic is identified in the area of a dropping
operation.
12 The operator and the pilot in command of the operator's aircraft must ensure
that the aircraft is not flown directly over any building during the approach
and departure from the drop site.
13 The pilot in command of the operator's aircraft must remain wings level on
the approach run to the drop site.
14 The operator and pilot in command of an aircraft operated by the operator
must ensure that only persons required for the dropping operation are carried
in the aircraft.
Instrument number CASA EX25/11 Page 2 of 3 pages
The exemption extends only to the directions under subregulation 150 (2) of
CAR 1988 that are contained in paragraph 4.5 of CAO 29.5.
Schedule 2 Conditions
1 The operator must ensure that dropping operations are conducted in
accordance with the operator's operations manual and the Australian Maritime
Safety Authority (AMSA) manual of Search and Rescue Standards and
Procedures.
2 The dropping operations may only be carried out for emergency relief, search
and rescue or for training associated with search and rescue operations.
3 The operator must include a copy of this instrument in the operator's
operations manual.
4 The operator and pilot in command of an aircraft operated by the operator
must ensure that no persons or livestock are in the drop site intended for the
alighting of dropped stores.
5 Despite clause 4, lightweight trail lines may alight outside of the drop site.
6 The operator must ensure, with the exception of the approval, permission and
exemption, all other requirements of CAO 29.5 are be complied with.
7 The operator must ensure that if a flight below 500 feet AGL is required, it
must be conducted in accordance with the ********** Pty Limited Low Flying
Approval and the operator's operations manual current at the time of this
instrument and as revised from time to time.
8 The operator must ensure that for every dropping operation, 1 of the following
aircraft systems is operational:
(a) Traffic Collision Avoidance System (TCAS);
(b) Auto Dependent Surveillance Broadcast System (ADSB).
9 The operator must ensure that appropriate radio broadcasts on both the area
and CTAF frequencies are made if dropping is within a lane of entry or within
5 miles of an aerodrome.
10 The operator must obtain the approval of Air Traffic Control before any
dropping operation is carried out in a control zone.
11 The pilot in command of the operator's aircraft must ensure that adequate
separation is maintained if air traffic is identified in the area of a dropping
operation.
12 The operator and the pilot in command of the operator's aircraft must ensure
that the aircraft is not flown directly over any building during the approach
and departure from the drop site.
13 The pilot in command of the operator's aircraft must remain wings level on
the approach run to the drop site.
14 The operator and pilot in command of an aircraft operated by the operator
must ensure that only persons required for the dropping operation are carried
in the aircraft.
Instrument number CASA EX25/11 Page 2 of 3 pages
It also states, in that thread, that the video flight was a flight test after the aircraft had come out of heavy maintenance!
Now back to the thread......the REPCON quote was ment to highlight the double standards portrayed by the regulator!
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Good work Andy
Retard Vehicle guys are not all that silly
As I said previously, having video of a dead ring 45 degree AOB turn back which was with a fixed camera not one bobbing around, the illusion was that of more like 60.
How you get nailed for a dodgy bit of video from a proven liar and criminal is beyond me.
Retard Vehicle guys are not all that silly
As I said previously, having video of a dead ring 45 degree AOB turn back which was with a fixed camera not one bobbing around, the illusion was that of more like 60.
How you get nailed for a dodgy bit of video from a proven liar and criminal is beyond me.
Because in a court case claims must be proven - so a solicitor can utilise a more passive strategy, relying on the weakness of the accusation's proof to not meet the required standard.
In a tribunal case, claims are decided only on the balance of probabilities - so the defence strategy must be much more proactive in using the evidence to show you didn't do anything wrong, rather than relying on the opposition's evidence "failing to prove" anything.
This tribunal case appears to have had a poorly prepared defence. The angle of bank picture from a few posts ago would have been an obvious thing to bring to the court - along with flight manuals demonstrating there is no angle of bank limit, and so on.
Having said that - CASA is "dammed if you do, dammed if you don't". This very thread is saying "Why no action on THIS video", yet when they do take action it's "Why attack THIS bloke!" (Note - I think that this heli pilot is innocent of any wrong doing, on the basis of the video and pics I have seen.)
In a tribunal case, claims are decided only on the balance of probabilities - so the defence strategy must be much more proactive in using the evidence to show you didn't do anything wrong, rather than relying on the opposition's evidence "failing to prove" anything.
This tribunal case appears to have had a poorly prepared defence. The angle of bank picture from a few posts ago would have been an obvious thing to bring to the court - along with flight manuals demonstrating there is no angle of bank limit, and so on.
Having said that - CASA is "dammed if you do, dammed if you don't". This very thread is saying "Why no action on THIS video", yet when they do take action it's "Why attack THIS bloke!" (Note - I think that this heli pilot is innocent of any wrong doing, on the basis of the video and pics I have seen.)
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Read through Paul Phelan's full article again, and read the actual report. The defence put over most of the issues brought up in this thread in a most positive and strong manner. The problem with tribunals is that they can pick and choose. They chose to disregard so much of the defence argument, claiming it was unreliable despite strong evidence to the contrary. They chose to accept much CASA evidence despite it being so clearly proven inaccurate. It was as if they were penalising the defence to make up for the fact that the CASA case was so badly delivered. Like they were saying, "Let's make everyone think we are fair by watering down the defence case back down to a level where CASA won't be made to look so weak."
Understand that government is merely a protection racket and you'll begin to understand why indifference, corruption, apparent ineptitude, collusion and bloody-mindedness are the hallmarks when you get to deal with it.
The AAT is a government-controlled institution. CASA is a government entity. Even the judiciary is paid for by the government - especially the magistrates courts. Are you seeing a conflict of interest yet...? They have a darwinian instinct to keep the whole show on the road and they will do that in whatever manner is necessary.
All this democracy and rule-of-law stuff is just a PR stunt to keep the masses content - i.e. those who are not staring down the barrel of 'justice'.
Look at Syria and see what a government will do to stay in power. If you think Australia is much different, you are sadly deluded. OWS protests in Sydney and Melbourne were where the 'regime' gave you a sneak-peak of its true colours...
The AAT is a government-controlled institution. CASA is a government entity. Even the judiciary is paid for by the government - especially the magistrates courts. Are you seeing a conflict of interest yet...? They have a darwinian instinct to keep the whole show on the road and they will do that in whatever manner is necessary.
All this democracy and rule-of-law stuff is just a PR stunt to keep the masses content - i.e. those who are not staring down the barrel of 'justice'.
Look at Syria and see what a government will do to stay in power. If you think Australia is much different, you are sadly deluded. OWS protests in Sydney and Melbourne were where the 'regime' gave you a sneak-peak of its true colours...
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Alabama, then Wyoming, then Idaho and now staying with Kharon on Styx houseboat
Age: 61
Posts: 1,437
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Andy_RR, bingo !!
John Emerich Edward Dalberg Acton:
"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men."
This term aptly, perfectly and unequivocally describes governments.
John Emerich Edward Dalberg Acton:
"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men."
This term aptly, perfectly and unequivocally describes governments.