Honour amongst thieves.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Honour amongst thieves.
CASA-Bennetts-AAT-Fice.
Does the proposed punishment fit the 'alleged' crime?.
What does a jury of peers think ?.
The evidence before me on this stay application comprised a number of documents provided by CASA pursuant to s 37 of the AAT Act as well as an affidavit sworn by Mr Hanley on 7 March 2012. These 37 documents contained a statement provided to CASA by Mr Michael Andrew Hope on 8 December 2011. Mr Hope is the owner of the helicopter which was damaged in the heavy landing incident and he was also the student pilot receiving training from Mr Hanley at the time of the incident.
Initially, Mr Hope informed CASA investigator, Mr Shaun Bennetts, that following the heavy landing, the helicopter was not taxied back to the hangar. However, some six weeks after the heavy landing incident, Mr Hope changed his evidence stating in his statement to CASA that after Mr Hanley inspected the helicopter following the heavy landing, it was taxied back to the hangar, a short distance of approximately 100-200 m from where the landing occurred. Mr Hope gave no reasons for changing the evidence which he gave to CASA.
In his affidavit Mr Hanley said that following the heavy landing, he and Mr Hope sat in the helicopter for about 2 minutes and completed the steps necessary to shut down the engine. He said that they got out of the helicopter, walked around it and noticed there was damage to the tail which consisted of a kink to the lower side of the tail boom and damage to the left rear skid anchor point. Mr Hanley said he told Mr Hope that there would not be any more flying on that day. Mr Hanley said Mr Hope became agitated and he told Mr Hope to go home. He said Mr Hope returned to his car, which was parked adjacent to the flying school hangar, and left the airfield. Mr Hanley said he then walked to the hangar and hooked up a quad bike and tow bar which is usually used to move large helicopters into and out of the hangar. Using the quad bike and a set of dual wheels which were affixed to the helicopter, he towed the helicopter back to the hangar.
It is not clear to me whether there were any other witnesses to this incident. While CASA did not refer to any witnesses who may have observed the incident, in an Investigation Report dated 12 December 2011 the investigator, Mr Bennetts, stated that Mr Hopewas subsequently contacted following industry intelligence being received which indicated that the information Mr Hanley provided to CASA was false. According to Mr Bennetts, the industry intelligence was received on 5 December 2011 and, following the discussion with Mr Hope, he apparently confirmed that the information he previously gave to CASA was false and that the helicopter had in fact been flown after the heavy landing.
In the course of the stay application hearing, Mr Anthony Carter, a lawyer with the legal branch of CASA, indicated that CASA would provide further information about the industry intelligence said to have been received by Mr Bennetts. Despite the conversation between Mr Hope and Mr Bennetts apparently being the trigger for Mr Hope changing the statement he provided to CASA on 10 November 2011, no reference is made to it in the show cause notice or the notice of cancellation issued by CASA. In fact, the cancellation notice states that Mr Hope approached CASA of his own volition to correct the record concerning the events which occurred following the heavy landing.
Initially, Mr Hope informed CASA investigator, Mr Shaun Bennetts, that following the heavy landing, the helicopter was not taxied back to the hangar. However, some six weeks after the heavy landing incident, Mr Hope changed his evidence stating in his statement to CASA that after Mr Hanley inspected the helicopter following the heavy landing, it was taxied back to the hangar, a short distance of approximately 100-200 m from where the landing occurred. Mr Hope gave no reasons for changing the evidence which he gave to CASA.
In his affidavit Mr Hanley said that following the heavy landing, he and Mr Hope sat in the helicopter for about 2 minutes and completed the steps necessary to shut down the engine. He said that they got out of the helicopter, walked around it and noticed there was damage to the tail which consisted of a kink to the lower side of the tail boom and damage to the left rear skid anchor point. Mr Hanley said he told Mr Hope that there would not be any more flying on that day. Mr Hanley said Mr Hope became agitated and he told Mr Hope to go home. He said Mr Hope returned to his car, which was parked adjacent to the flying school hangar, and left the airfield. Mr Hanley said he then walked to the hangar and hooked up a quad bike and tow bar which is usually used to move large helicopters into and out of the hangar. Using the quad bike and a set of dual wheels which were affixed to the helicopter, he towed the helicopter back to the hangar.
It is not clear to me whether there were any other witnesses to this incident. While CASA did not refer to any witnesses who may have observed the incident, in an Investigation Report dated 12 December 2011 the investigator, Mr Bennetts, stated that Mr Hopewas subsequently contacted following industry intelligence being received which indicated that the information Mr Hanley provided to CASA was false. According to Mr Bennetts, the industry intelligence was received on 5 December 2011 and, following the discussion with Mr Hope, he apparently confirmed that the information he previously gave to CASA was false and that the helicopter had in fact been flown after the heavy landing.
In the course of the stay application hearing, Mr Anthony Carter, a lawyer with the legal branch of CASA, indicated that CASA would provide further information about the industry intelligence said to have been received by Mr Bennetts. Despite the conversation between Mr Hope and Mr Bennetts apparently being the trigger for Mr Hope changing the statement he provided to CASA on 10 November 2011, no reference is made to it in the show cause notice or the notice of cancellation issued by CASA. In fact, the cancellation notice states that Mr Hope approached CASA of his own volition to correct the record concerning the events which occurred following the heavy landing.
Does the proposed punishment fit the 'alleged' crime?.
What does a jury of peers think ?.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Mel-burn
Posts: 4,875
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In summary:
Aircraft is damaged; assessed by the pilot as no longer suitable for flight.
Aircraft is then flown.
Presumably the pilot or instructor are not LAME's.
Show cause given.
Would you (any pilot) fly an aircraft that was damaged after a hard landing and has visible damage? Probably not, I hope.
Based on the simple facts, the aircraft should not have been flown.
Am I missing something?
It would have been a lot easier to ride the quad bike over and pick up the chopper. I can't help but wonder why the instructor sent the owner home, then moved it of his own accord without the use of the quad bike; probably seemed easier at the time.
Aircraft is damaged; assessed by the pilot as no longer suitable for flight.
Aircraft is then flown.
Presumably the pilot or instructor are not LAME's.
Show cause given.
Would you (any pilot) fly an aircraft that was damaged after a hard landing and has visible damage? Probably not, I hope.
Based on the simple facts, the aircraft should not have been flown.
Am I missing something?
It would have been a lot easier to ride the quad bike over and pick up the chopper. I can't help but wonder why the instructor sent the owner home, then moved it of his own accord without the use of the quad bike; probably seemed easier at the time.
A bit more industry intelligence
Would I fly an aircraft after a heavy landing? No.
Would I taxi an aircraft after a heavy landing? Probably.
I am quite sure that the alleged offence is one of strict lability and so the intent of the alleged offender and the circumstances surrounding the event are outside the scope of the tribunal's contemplation. Pity.
As for sending the student home - I presume that Mr Hope decided to get agro towards his instructor and gave him an earful about who would be paying for the damage, to which the instructor replied "Get f
cked" or similar.
Changing your story means you have lied to the investigator at last once. If the only evidence for the instructors alleged actions is a changed story, with no corroboration, how could it stand up?
How would that be just?
Would I taxi an aircraft after a heavy landing? Probably.
I am quite sure that the alleged offence is one of strict lability and so the intent of the alleged offender and the circumstances surrounding the event are outside the scope of the tribunal's contemplation. Pity.
As for sending the student home - I presume that Mr Hope decided to get agro towards his instructor and gave him an earful about who would be paying for the damage, to which the instructor replied "Get f
cked" or similar.Changing your story means you have lied to the investigator at last once. If the only evidence for the instructors alleged actions is a changed story, with no corroboration, how could it stand up?
How would that be just?
Last edited by Horatio Leafblower; 25th Apr 2012 at 22:21.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Mel-burn
Posts: 4,875
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As for sending the student home
It's a can of worms for the instructor. Imagine if when he lands back at the hangar, the landing gear collapses and the heli rolls over and is destroyed. No insurance in the world would cover that and I'm tipping his pay packet wouldn't either. If it was the owner that taxiied it, then fair enough (from a moral, not from a legal perspective though).
I say find another instructor. I sure as hell wouldn't want someone taxiing (flying) my aircraft without my approval particularly after a hard landing when a quad bike and trolley was near by.
NH and XXX, you both make fair points.
I am biased, having been burnt by Mr Hope in the past and, personally, having a very low view of him.
I am biased, having been burnt by Mr Hope in the past and, personally, having a very low view of him.
looks like a CASA is on a witch hunt.
Based on the previous posts it sounds like helicopter gets bent, then pilot decides to start it up again and taxi it back to the hangar.. Honestly I can't blame CASA chasing this one with what is really black and white (allegedly).
Who makes many of the allegations about regulatory breaches, volunteers lots of information to support allegations of regulatory breaches, and puts lots of pressure on the regulator to take action in response to alleged regulatory breaches?
Mirrors ready.
Mirrors up.
Perhaps that’s why Kharon italicised the phrase ‘industry intelligence’ in the quote in the OP (though I concede it’s often very difficult for me to discern any rhyme or reason to Kharon’s posts.)
Mirrors ready.
Mirrors up.
Perhaps that’s why Kharon italicised the phrase ‘industry intelligence’ in the quote in the OP (though I concede it’s often very difficult for me to discern any rhyme or reason to Kharon’s posts.)
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not guilty M'lud.
CP - Not my italics - check the link and try to read the text. I simply copied and pasted from the transcript. I offered this AAT hearing with no comment, just a couple of questions. The 'case' is intriguing from many aspects, so.
Lets try again; first RTFT then, lets have a grown up 'jury of peers' discussion.
Unless of course, you decide to be a complete Casasexual (once again) and defend, deny and depend on the slimmest of subtle wording deeply rooted in the current stew of prescriptive, never tested criminal penalty law that CASA prefer to use - out of court.
Administrative power over a pilots livelihood stinks to the high heavens. An administrative ruling and policy must not be allowed to wreck a career.
The crime is not proven - the penalty requested is effectively a 'death sentence' for a working pilot and there must be room at least for reasonable doubt over the probity of the evidence.
Love to hear this in court instead of the AAT. Matter of fact I'd probably insist on it.
Lets try again; first RTFT then, lets have a grown up 'jury of peers' discussion.
Unless of course, you decide to be a complete Casasexual (once again) and defend, deny and depend on the slimmest of subtle wording deeply rooted in the current stew of prescriptive, never tested criminal penalty law that CASA prefer to use - out of court.
Administrative power over a pilots livelihood stinks to the high heavens. An administrative ruling and policy must not be allowed to wreck a career.
The crime is not proven - the penalty requested is effectively a 'death sentence' for a working pilot and there must be room at least for reasonable doubt over the probity of the evidence.
Love to hear this in court instead of the AAT. Matter of fact I'd probably insist on it.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Who makes many of the allegations about regulatory breaches, volunteers lots of information to support allegations of regulatory breaches, and puts lots of pressure on the regulator to take action in response to alleged regulatory breaches?
Want to discuss it further?
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On the basis of the AAT record, and without corroborating evidence, it would seem its down to one persons word against another, one of whom by changing their story already appears to be be untruthful.
In a "PROPER" court and not CASA's kangaroo variety would this "Evidence" be admissable?
From my sad experience, on multiple occasions, so called "industry informants" turn out to be commercial competitors utilizing CASA's voracious appetite for notches on their guns (think promotion and bonuses ie bounty for scalps) to make mischief, the sad thing is you are guilty until you prove yourself innocent which involves time and money and redirects resources that would be better spent elsewhere in the business, like promoting "SAFETY". There are many rumours of CASA snitches who as protected species can get away with anything, even down to sabotaging competitors aircraft and what do CASA say??...not our problem.
In a "PROPER" court and not CASA's kangaroo variety would this "Evidence" be admissable?
From my sad experience, on multiple occasions, so called "industry informants" turn out to be commercial competitors utilizing CASA's voracious appetite for notches on their guns (think promotion and bonuses ie bounty for scalps) to make mischief, the sad thing is you are guilty until you prove yourself innocent which involves time and money and redirects resources that would be better spent elsewhere in the business, like promoting "SAFETY". There are many rumours of CASA snitches who as protected species can get away with anything, even down to sabotaging competitors aircraft and what do CASA say??...not our problem.
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
All stand for the Dishonorable Minister for Mascot....
I think 'honor amongst thieves' is way too kind and simply reflected Kharon being in a good mood when he posted this thread!
'Honor amongst turds' comes to mind? Or how about 'honor amongst sociopaths'? Or 'honor amongst incompetents'? Or maybe 'honor amongst bonus recipients'?
Damn it, I knew I forgot one - 'honor amongst swine' oink oink where has that trough gone, oink. (Don't worry K, no photos of pigs at the trough with their giant plums exposed, this time) oink.
'Honor amongst turds' comes to mind? Or how about 'honor amongst sociopaths'? Or 'honor amongst incompetents'? Or maybe 'honor amongst bonus recipients'?
Damn it, I knew I forgot one - 'honor amongst swine' oink oink where has that trough gone, oink. (Don't worry K, no photos of pigs at the trough with their giant plums exposed, this time) oink.
However, some six weeks after the heavy landing incident, Mr Hope changed his evidence stating in his statement to CASA that after Mr Hanley inspected the helicopter following the heavy landing, it was taxied back to the hangar, a short distance of approximately 100-200 m from where the landing occurred. Mr Hope gave no reasons for changing the evidence which he gave to CASA.
In his affidavit Mr Hanley said that following the heavy landing, he and Mr Hope sat in the helicopter for about 2 minutes and completed the steps necessary to shut down the engine. He said that they got out of the helicopter, walked around it and noticed there was damage to the tail which consisted of a kink to the lower side of the tail boom and damage to the left rear skid anchor point. Mr Hanley said he told Mr Hope that there would not be any more flying on that day. Mr Hanley said Mr Hope became agitated and he told Mr Hope to go home. He said Mr Hope returned to his car, which was parked adjacent to the flying school hangar, and left the airfield. Mr Hanley said he then walked to the hangar and hooked up a quad bike and tow bar which is usually used to move large helicopters into and out of the hangar. Using the quad bike and a set of dual wheels which were affixed to the helicopter, he towed the helicopter back to the hangar.
...................
CASA also relied on an incident which took place on 7 March 2004 when Mr Hanley was the pilot in command of a helicopter at Bankstown airport. On that occasion, Mr Hanley was demonstrating low-level manoeuvres when the aircraft struck the ground causing damage to the rotor blades, the skids and the engine sub-frame assembly. Following that ground strike, Mr Hanley hover-taxied the aircraft back to the maintenance facility. CASA did not take action against Mr Hanley following that incident because it said it could not establish that at least some of the damage sustained was damage of which Mr Hanley must have been aware prior to taxing the aircraft back to the hangar. Nevertheless, CASA contended that the incident demonstrated that Mr Hanley had a previous history of operating a helicopter in similar circumstances after the helicopter had sustained damage in an uncontrolled ground contact.
In his affidavit Mr Hanley said that following the heavy landing, he and Mr Hope sat in the helicopter for about 2 minutes and completed the steps necessary to shut down the engine. He said that they got out of the helicopter, walked around it and noticed there was damage to the tail which consisted of a kink to the lower side of the tail boom and damage to the left rear skid anchor point. Mr Hanley said he told Mr Hope that there would not be any more flying on that day. Mr Hanley said Mr Hope became agitated and he told Mr Hope to go home. He said Mr Hope returned to his car, which was parked adjacent to the flying school hangar, and left the airfield. Mr Hanley said he then walked to the hangar and hooked up a quad bike and tow bar which is usually used to move large helicopters into and out of the hangar. Using the quad bike and a set of dual wheels which were affixed to the helicopter, he towed the helicopter back to the hangar.
...................
CASA also relied on an incident which took place on 7 March 2004 when Mr Hanley was the pilot in command of a helicopter at Bankstown airport. On that occasion, Mr Hanley was demonstrating low-level manoeuvres when the aircraft struck the ground causing damage to the rotor blades, the skids and the engine sub-frame assembly. Following that ground strike, Mr Hanley hover-taxied the aircraft back to the maintenance facility. CASA did not take action against Mr Hanley following that incident because it said it could not establish that at least some of the damage sustained was damage of which Mr Hanley must have been aware prior to taxing the aircraft back to the hangar. Nevertheless, CASA contended that the incident demonstrated that Mr Hanley had a previous history of operating a helicopter in similar circumstances after the helicopter had sustained damage in an uncontrolled ground contact.
1. A personal camera and data logger are vital tools for professional pilots if any incident allegedly occurs. One never knows when misunderstandings, and resulting allegations will occur - even months after a flight.
2. It is unwise to be a "slow learner". Specifically if Mr. Hanley repeated a behaviour (allegedly taxiing a damaged helicopter) that had previously brought him to the attention of CASA, then he is very foolish indeed.
3. The threshold for what CASA deems to be solid evidence of wrongdoing appears to be rather flexible. "Industry Intelligence?" In Melbourne the source for all sorts of information was "Snowy on the trams" - the tram conductor who obviously had a son - The Townsville refueller.
I think the good AAT commissioner was as perplexed as the rest of us as to why a witness would allegedly change the entire thrust of their evidence, without which no offence could even have been alleged, Six weeks after an event.
....But hey, what would I know?
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Iraq
Age: 35
Posts: 151
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In his affidavit Mr Hanley said that following the heavy landing, he and Mr Hope sat in the helicopter for about 2 minutes and completed the steps necessary to shut down the engine
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GD - and simply reflected Kharon being in a good mood when he posted this thread!
Correct – very sanguine and cheery at the time.
Sunny - I think the good AAT commissioner was as perplexed as the rest of us as to why a witness would allegedly change the entire thrust of their evidence, without which no offence could even have been alleged, Six weeks after an event.
In a matter like this where CASA want the guys head, can the AAT offer an arm or a leg instead – mayhap suspend him instead of doing the Queen of Hearts thing ??, provided of course, there is a guilty call made.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Mel-burn
Posts: 4,875
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Would you sit and carry out shutdown after a bounce or quickly shut it off to prevent further damage?
Would you sit and carry out shutdown after a bounce or quickly shut it off to prevent further damage?
I would be wanting to get out as quickly as possible in case the u/c collapsed and it rolled over with the engine or blades running.
Based on the evidence presented in this thread I would suggest that it was an extremely dumb thing to do to taxi this aircraft. I would be extremely pissed if it turned up at my hangar in the hover but then again I haven't seen the damage either.
CASA have a difficult job, not for me, I am not happy playing judge and never will be, but I guess in this industry someone has to.