Barry Hempel Inquest
Anyway back to the thread, back at post #320 Checkboard said:
Well the following quote shows that Hempel's CPL(A), CPL(H) and ATPL licences were indeed cancelled:
Given Hempel's past history of indiscretions, makes you wonder why the regulator didn't go the full hog and cancel all his licences.
The following is a quote from a letter reply to a query from Hempel's lawyer, this was in context of operating the YAK:
For clarity here is the relevant passage from CAR 262AM(7):
Which would seem to indicate that even if BH was a paid up member of Warbirds he was still unable to fly paying pax in the YAK!
So did the regulator miss all the warning signs leading up to this tragic accident?
Kind of gives credence to some kind of 'name and shame' statement being publicly released in the media, 'buyer beware' for sure!
As far as I know, his commercial pilot's license (CPL) wasn't cancelled, his class one medical was suspended (which should prevent commercial operations). This is an important point, because Australian licenses are stamped "Permanently Valid", so anyone asking to see Barry's CPL could be shown a valid license. Anyone asking to see his medical could be shown a valid medical - you would need to be able to pick up the difference between a class one and class two medical to know whether he was correctly licensed for commercial operations.
Date: 29 November 2007
DECISION
13. On the basis of the above facts and circumstances and on the grounds set out above I have decided to cancel your:
(i) Air Transport Pilot (Aeroplane) licence;
(ii) Commercial Pilot (Helicopter) licence;
(iii) Commercial Pilot (Aeroplane) licence;
14. The cancellation of these licences means that you must not undertake any operation in an aeroplane or a helicopter associated with and requiring the authority outlined in subregulation 5.105(1), subregulation 5.21(1) or subregulation 5.166(1) of CAR 1988.
15. This will also prevent you from flying as pilot in command or as a co-pilot on any commercial purpose operation outlined in regulation 206 of CAR 1988 and any operation authorised under subregulation 262AM(7) of CAR 1988.
DECISION
13. On the basis of the above facts and circumstances and on the grounds set out above I have decided to cancel your:
(i) Air Transport Pilot (Aeroplane) licence;
(ii) Commercial Pilot (Helicopter) licence;
(iii) Commercial Pilot (Aeroplane) licence;
14. The cancellation of these licences means that you must not undertake any operation in an aeroplane or a helicopter associated with and requiring the authority outlined in subregulation 5.105(1), subregulation 5.21(1) or subregulation 5.166(1) of CAR 1988.
15. This will also prevent you from flying as pilot in command or as a co-pilot on any commercial purpose operation outlined in regulation 206 of CAR 1988 and any operation authorised under subregulation 262AM(7) of CAR 1988.
The following is a quote from a letter reply to a query from Hempel's lawyer, this was in context of operating the YAK:
He is not required to hold an AOC to conduct flights in limited category warbird operations in the YAK as set out in CAR 262AM(2) but he is required to hold a commercial pilot (aeroplane) licence (or an ATPL) if he receives any commercial consideration from some other person for such flights (outside of the “shared cost” private operations set out in CAR 2(7A)) and meets the other requirements in CAR 262AM(7).
A person may carry passengers in a limited category aircraft in circumstances where payment is made for carriage, and subregulation 2 (7A) does not apply, only if:
(a) the pilot in command holds a commercial pilot licence, or an air transport pilot licence, with appropriate ratings and endorsements for a flight of that kind; and
(b) the aircraft departs from and returns to the same aerodrome without landing anywhere else; and
(c) the flight does not involve training or flight testing, and is not a scenic flight; and
(d) the aircraft:
(i) is a replica aircraft, ex-military aircraft or historic aircraft; or (ii) is being operated for the purpose of parachute jumping, mock combat or aerobatics ; or
(iii) is being operated only to carry passengers as part of an intrinsically hazardous recreational activity; and
(e) each passenger has acknowledged in writing that the passenger has been told about the matters mentioned in subregulation (5).
(a) the pilot in command holds a commercial pilot licence, or an air transport pilot licence, with appropriate ratings and endorsements for a flight of that kind; and
(b) the aircraft departs from and returns to the same aerodrome without landing anywhere else; and
(c) the flight does not involve training or flight testing, and is not a scenic flight; and
(d) the aircraft:
(i) is a replica aircraft, ex-military aircraft or historic aircraft; or (ii) is being operated for the purpose of parachute jumping, mock combat or aerobatics ; or
(iii) is being operated only to carry passengers as part of an intrinsically hazardous recreational activity; and
(e) each passenger has acknowledged in writing that the passenger has been told about the matters mentioned in subregulation (5).
So did the regulator miss all the warning signs leading up to this tragic accident?
Kind of gives credence to some kind of 'name and shame' statement being publicly released in the media, 'buyer beware' for sure!
... so was he required to hand back all of his licenses? Did they stamp "cancelled" on them? 
Did CASA also send the same documentation to the chief pilot of Hempel Aviation, or did they rely on Barry owning up??
I haven't flown in Oz in 10 years - but I have the original sheaf of paper licenses (still valid), a credit card license (still valid) stating the same qualifications, and a "book printout" license (still valid) - all because Australia changed their license format 3 times ...
Did CASA also send the same documentation to the chief pilot of Hempel Aviation, or did they rely on Barry owning up??
I haven't flown in Oz in 10 years - but I have the original sheaf of paper licenses (still valid), a credit card license (still valid) stating the same qualifications, and a "book printout" license (still valid) - all because Australia changed their license format 3 times ...
(c) the flight does not involve training or flight testing, and is not a scenic flight; and
(d) the aircraft:
What is a 'scenic flight'? How can a flight so designated be the subject of a regulatory sanction, when everyone's looking at the scenery anyway? Does the purpose of so framing it (the reg.) merely imply that the warbird operator must not refer to flights as being 'scenic' in his advertising? And if so, how crazy is that?
What is a 'scenic flight'? How can a flight so designated be the subject of a regulatory sanction, when everyone's looking at the scenery anyway? Does the purpose of so framing it (the reg.) merely imply that the warbird operator must not refer to flights as being 'scenic' in his advertising? And if so, how crazy is that?
Warbird Air Adventures - Melbourne, Cairns & Townsville
Doesn't change the fact that what BH was doing was illegal and the regulator 'dropped the ball' in regards to monitoring BH's illegal activities!
The YAK may have been a warbird but it was still a VH registered aircraft and therefore fell well within the remit of both the bureau and the regulator. However both government agencies seem to have been determined to abrogate all responsibility for investigating this sordid and tragic event!
Given the circumstances the QPS Forensic Crash Unit did an exemplary job, with limited resources and in an obviously seriously 'politically sensitive' environment!
Now it will be interesting to see if the Coroner can navigate his way through the various legal and political interest hurdles put in place by publically funded legal eagles!
Moderator
For those who have lost the plot or love the sound of their own keyboard, the thread title is: Barry Hempel Inquest
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Xraydor Mbasi
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Question 1:
How much would it cost to get this aircraft recovered and inspected?
Question 2:
How will the Coroners report affect a civil case?
Question 3:
Who will finance a civil case and what will this cost?
How much would it cost to get this aircraft recovered and inspected?
Question 2:
How will the Coroners report affect a civil case?
Question 3:
Who will finance a civil case and what will this cost?
wilcoleaks I heard that the salvage barge was quoted at 30k for starters, so maybe 50k?? The other questions I'll leave to those more knowledgeable on civil legal matters...
Last edited by Sarcs; 7th Aug 2012 at 11:44.
Sarcs
Given Hempel's past history of indiscretions, makes you wonder why the
regulator didn't go the full hog and cancel all his licences
Given Hempel's past history of indiscretions, makes you wonder why the
regulator didn't go the full hog and cancel all his licences
People have their drivers licenses revoked for careless and reckless operation of a private vehicle on the basis of being a hazard and danger to those around them (other drivers, pax, pedestrians, etc) "Commercial" has nothing to do with it. How can a judge say he was basically that kind of hazard in an aircraft, but allow him to retain a legal means to remain a public hazard by not touching his PPL? Was there some kind of buddy-buddy system at work there?
If he had been completely grounded by having all licenses revoked, wouldn't ANY further operation of an aircraft have come under a criminal act and therefore a bigger deterrent, much easier to monitor, and punish with some teeth? It seems it would have removed the gray area of "adventure flying" he seemed to hide his illegal acts behind, and perhaps one more unsuspecting person would be alive today.
Last edited by PukinDog; 7th Aug 2012 at 18:46.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good questions
Wilco - Question 1: How much would it cost to get this aircraft recovered and inspected?
Wilco - Question 2: How will the Coroners report affect a civil case?
Question 3: Who will finance a civil case and what will this cost?
Maybe the whole thing should be turned over to the QPS and an independent report made to the Coroner; this would (IMO) – in the end – save tears, time and money. Perhaps not.
Probably not as much as leaving any doubt related to what exactly happened to the people and the aircraft. The QPS seemed to be prepared to conduct a full investigation, but they were 'shoo'd' off by CASA, twice. Seems the second dive was at the Coroners insistence but limited to the FOD shield condition. It's only a feeling gleaned from the limited information available but the QPS seemed to want to keep digging. Perhaps, in the end they may be proved right. We will never know.
Last edited by Sarcs; 8th Aug 2012 at 05:42.
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: 3rd Rock
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This will come down to who has the deepest pockets....
"The law" has not been and never will be a transparent, fair, ethical and just system.
People with no exposure to "the law" believe it is just that.
This will drag on for years and will resolve nothing. The findings will be on the balance of probabilities most likely inconclusive. Some key recommendations will be made for the future I suppose and that will be it.
I feel sad for all involved. Horrible trauma to have to go through.
"The law" has not been and never will be a transparent, fair, ethical and just system.
People with no exposure to "the law" believe it is just that.
This will drag on for years and will resolve nothing. The findings will be on the balance of probabilities most likely inconclusive. Some key recommendations will be made for the future I suppose and that will be it.
I feel sad for all involved. Horrible trauma to have to go through.
Last edited by catch18; 8th Aug 2012 at 05:17.
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
The catch is;
1) Had Barry stayed in bed that day, this wouldn't have happened. So we can rule out "The Will of Allah" (or insert diety of your choice here).
2) Had Barry set out to kill himself and his passenger and one could prove intent, it would be murder. But He's not here to answer that charge.
3) Had things evolved as they seem, he would be guilty of manslaughter. But He's not here to answer that charge.
4) Had CASA prevented the outcome by actually grounding him, the crash wouldn't have happened.
5) The people left out in the cold and clearly left themselves exposed are CASA.
6) They will now be spending Taxpayer dollars to cover their own backsides.
7) The lack of political will makes this happens.
8) So can we conclude had the political will been there, the crash wouldn't have happened.
Send any questions to: Contact « anthonyalbanese.com.au
1) Had Barry stayed in bed that day, this wouldn't have happened. So we can rule out "The Will of Allah" (or insert diety of your choice here).
2) Had Barry set out to kill himself and his passenger and one could prove intent, it would be murder. But He's not here to answer that charge.
3) Had things evolved as they seem, he would be guilty of manslaughter. But He's not here to answer that charge.
4) Had CASA prevented the outcome by actually grounding him, the crash wouldn't have happened.
5) The people left out in the cold and clearly left themselves exposed are CASA.
6) They will now be spending Taxpayer dollars to cover their own backsides.
7) The lack of political will makes this happens.
8) So can we conclude had the political will been there, the crash wouldn't have happened.
Send any questions to: Contact « anthonyalbanese.com.au