Barry Hempel Inquest

[Frank Arouet]

Two things come to mind concerning CAA intervention;

1) Hospitalisation for more than 7 days requires notification to CAA.

2) Any documented loss of consciousness means instant removal of licence.

I was involved in this matter at a family /business level and I passed this information on to the enquirer. I know from personal experience, any head injury involving a pilot needed a minimum of eight years free of any form of epilepsy and had no initial documented loss of consciousness to even be considered fit to fly.

[Frank Arouet]

No bites so far. I guess I'll just contact the Coroner direct.

It's on record here if anyone wants to PM me for further contact information.

24 hours would be fair.

[TunaBum]

Crash inquest probes pilot's health - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

TB

[Chu Mai Huang]

umm... Frank.... CAA hasn't existed for 17 years.....

[Bedderseagle]

Crash inquest probes pilot's health - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

What a pity the journos didn't cover the inquest from Day 1 and then they could have written a decent complete report instead of just picking up a couple of bits from a short last day session . . . a bird strike . . . . highly unlikely scenario . . on what had been presented throughout the 10 days . . . . what about giving a more updated Barry photo too . . . . Anyway at least the coroner has everything at his disposal now to come up with conclusions and recommendations . . . . .

[Sarcs]

CAA hasn't existed for 17 years.....

....and in that time the word safety (in the title) has never been properly upheld or justified...hence CAA!

[Frank Arouet]

Indeed;

I did not mistake my description of the dysfunctional, corrupt civil aviation, "small letters" regulator. The safety part, well, it parted 17 years ago. (if you insist).

The 24 hours I deemed reasonable is in keeping with that same regulator's insistence on issuing writs on Fridays after or just before end of business.

0900 on Monday The Inns of Court Brisbane will be aware of my concerns and I will question the independance of "ALL" parties involved in the matter.

[Dora-9]

I know from personal experience, any head injury involving a pilot needed a minimum of eight years free of any form of epilepsy and had no initial documented loss of consciousness to even be considered fit to fly.

Frank, that's certainly not correct now, given the recent Hazelton case where the AAT overruled the CASA AvMed people.

[Dora-9]

Frank, see Hazelton and Civil Aviation Safety Authority [2010] AATA 693 (10 September 2010)

[Frank Arouet]

The key words are;

and that he "seemed to be fully aware of his surroundings,

makes one believe there was no documented loss of consciousness. (a Coma score of 13 is acceptable), even though the patient may be incoherent through alcohol, or any drugs be they administered post trauma, illicit or otherwise. He was obviously ambulatory and as such was vindicated by The AAT.

One wonders why it got that far in the first place, The CAA medico's should have known the rules, they made them.

A different bird from a different nest than what the Coroner is now dealing with.

[Fantome]

Note that Bedderseagle has amended his originating post. Reads more rationally and provides some clarification. Well done BE for alerting the throng to this important inquest.

[dude65]

That ABC report is a bit misleading.

It makes no mention of the fact Lovell was a fare paying passenger. He was sitting in that aircraft as a customer, not as a friend.

[TunaBum]

From the originating post:

Then there was an upset. Evidence has been presented that following ahead injury in 2001, he underwent a major behavioral change. As a result of a hangar door accident he had brain damage and subsequent epileptic events. It appears that following partial recovery he was involved in a string of non-aviation offences.

I'm not convinced that this version is not overly sympathetic to Barry. I'm fairly sure that a number of his problems with CASA pre dated his "head injury". Certainly the controversial "non-aviation offences" did, as they were reported in the press in the mid 1990's (as noted on another thread on this network).

Hope that's not too close to the bone Mods. I'm not trying to slander the man, but lets get the story straight........warts and all.

TB

[Macroderma]

pre dating the head injury incident

for the record , on the first day of the the inquest the coroner asked a number of questions seeking to clarify Hempel's age at the date of the first complaint about his behaviour (apparently he was 19 yo at the time)

[Bedderseagle]

Inquest Winds Up

The inquest has now run it’s course and all evidence was submitted and final witnesses called last Friday 8th June. It seems the process to come up with the findings and recommendations will take at least 10 weeks. A few comments relating to some previous posts:

Ms Carmody certainly stepped up to the plate and proved to be a strong ‘barrister assisting the coroner” certainly able to ‘hold her own’ amongst the other high profile barristers.

The non-aviation offences were relevant to coronial inquiry as there was a significant criminal case (no details disclosed) pending at the time of the accident and it was implied that Barry Hempel could have been under high stress levels.

We can only hope that the coronial findings and recommendations are presented in a way that can be implemented to ensure such an accident like this could be avoided in the future.

[Frank Arouet]

Lets not impede any statutory declared lynch mob from executing it's legal function.

My guess is, CASA get .05% blame and BH gets 99.95%. If these figures work out it's an indictment on CASA for being reactive instead of PRO-active.

But I've been wrong before. (once, when I admitted I was wrong).

[Sarcs]

We can only hope that the coronial findings and recommendations are presented in a way that can be implemented to ensure such an accident like this could be avoided in the future

Good sentiments to have Bedderseagle, but unfortunately history points otherwise. Franks 'frank' assessment is so true:

My guess is, CASA get .05% blame and BH gets 99.95%. If these figures work out it's an indictment on CASA for being reactive instead of PRO-active.

The regulator's legaltocracy are only ever employed when they feel they maybe exposed, as Frank points out, even if it is only .05% exposure!

History also shows, time and time again, that they (the regulator) also have this part of the legal process totally 'sussed', they even employ the same counsel 'dude' to train all possible expert witnesses in the ways of the Coroner's court or AAT hearing. There is a pile of Coroner's findings that highlight this status quo, the Lockhart River inquest was a classic example.

In the LHR Inquest the Coroner didn't apportion any responsibility to the regulator, however he did make the following observations and recommendation:

The families of the victims of this crash, understandably want someone to blame for their loss. The passengers were entirely blameless and their deaths have caused extensive and on-going suffering. The pilots are dead; the company is in liquidation and its chief pilot has left the country. It is tempting for those bereaved by the deaths to identify numerous deficiencies or departures from proper standards that Transair had been guilty of in the various operations it was conducting around the country and internationally for five or six years leading up to the crash, aggregate those issues into a cumulative list of failings and say that CASA should have detected them and acted to prevent Transair from operating. With all due respect to those families, the making of scape goats in that manner is not part of my function. I find that CASA could have done more to insist that Transair improved certain aspects of its operations but I do not believe that the evidence supports a finding that they could reasonably have stopped it from operating or prevented the crash.


Interaction between the ATSB and CASA



Finally, I wish to return to the concerns I expressed earlier about the working relationship between CASA and the ATSB. In this and previous inquests I have detected a degree of animosity that I consider inimical to a productive, collaborative focus on air safety. CASA’s submissions in this inquest suggest there was a danger of the ATSB’s recommendations being ignored and I continue to detect a defensive and less than fulsome response to some of them. I am aware that others in the aviation industry share these concerns, although I anticipate the CEO’s of the two agencies will disavow them.


Recommendation 4 – Ministerial assessment of interagency relations



Accordingly I recommend that the Federal Minister for Transport, consider engaging an external consultant to assess whether high level intervention is warranted.

However it appears it isn't all doom and gloom, as the recent Senate Estimates highlighted:

Senator FAWCETT: I notice CASA is often another player in the coronial inquests and often you will highlight something, the coroner will accept it and basically tick off in his report on the basis that a new CASR orsomething is going to be implemented. Do you follow those up? I have looked through a few crash investigations, and I will just pick one: the Bell 407 that crashed in October '03. CASR part 133 was supposed to be reworked around night VFR requirements for EMS situations. I notice that still is not available now,nearly 10 years after the event. Does it cause you any concern that recommendations that were accepted by the coroner, and put out as a way of preventing a future accident, still have not actually eventuated? How do you track those? How do we, as a society, make sure we prevent the accidents occurring again?

Mr Dolan: We monitor various coronial reports and findings that are relevant to our business. We do not have any role in ensuring that coronial findings or recommendations are carried out by which ever the relevant party may be. I think that would be stepping beyond our brief.

Senator FAWCETT: Who should have that role then?

.........so maybe the tide is turning!

[crystalballwannabe]

Thank-you for the "thread".

It would have otherwise not come to my attention.

I will be reading the findings with interest.

Without hijacking the thread, can anyone direct me to the findings of a jet that also crashed on a joy flight in Katoomba a few years ago. I think this happened, maybe I'm getting confused?

[Bedderseagle]

Interesting account here of an inquest attendee:

Contempt for authority and the rule of law : The Ramble

and this only 1 1/2days 'actions' . . . . .

[Old Fella]

Jet Crash near Bathurst

Think this may be the crash to which you refer crystalballwannabe. Strikemaster wing failure as I recall around October 2006.