Barry Hempel Inquest
Yes Jabs it's pretty much been the same all along. I think it was in 2008/9 that the requirement for an "Exposition" came into being describing how you would ensure compliance with all the rules imposed by CASA & managed by AWAL.
The rule has ALWAYS required a valid CPL and a big fat warning trying to talk your customers out of flying with you
The rule has ALWAYS required a valid CPL and a big fat warning trying to talk your customers out of flying with you
figured as much.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"standards recognised by CASA,
CASA does not require the aircraft...etc. "
Do potential clients still sign an 'indemnity' form prior to these flights..??
I can remember such forms from a r a t h e r l o n g time ago.
Just curious is all...
I can remember such forms from a r a t h e r l o n g time ago.
Just curious is all...
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Oz
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thought I'd put in my 2 cents worth on a couple of items from my first hand experience, not just pure amateur speculation which tends to attract emotionally driven comments. Firstly, on loose items. I've flown over 100 hrs aerobatics, competition sequences, low level & the like in high performance GA machines. On one particular occasion, with a paying passenger on a joyflight, while inverted(straight & level), a foreign object landed on the canopy, originating from who knows where. As I was holding the aircraft steady, I had to ask my guest to retrieve the item for me, as I only had 2 hands, & even if I had a third, it was out of reach. This item was a tool, probably left over from another firm's maintenance on the aircraft. Had this item fallen on the floor(which is exposed like the Yak) it could have made it's way into the tail, potentially jamming the rudder & elevator. This item could not be seen before flight, as the cockpit is basic & exposed, like most aerobatic aircraft. I'm under no illusion to the seriousness of finding loose items in the plane. The dismissive comments regarding loose items is from the emotional, uneducated or the inexperienced among posters. However, unfortunately, this does not condone the fact that the pilot flying did not hold the appropriate qualifications at the time. Hence blame & suspicion will be directed in one direction. This damages the reputations those in our industry, also, if by chance it was a mechanical problem(obstruction or other), another event may occur in the future. I'm not saying one way or the other, just giving some facts.
Unless the actual cause, beyond doubt is known, we all need to observe ALL possible contributing factors. It's a pity in this safety driven era, the authorities couldn't raise the wreck for proper examination to once & for all put this thing to rest. Affordable safety, I'm sure.
Unless the actual cause, beyond doubt is known, we all need to observe ALL possible contributing factors. It's a pity in this safety driven era, the authorities couldn't raise the wreck for proper examination to once & for all put this thing to rest. Affordable safety, I'm sure.
I would suggest that our era is not driven by "Safety" but by money, lawyers and insurance companies.
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FOD
The possibility that something had interfered with the control was reviewed at the Inquest. A number of witnesses discussed past incidents with yaks and foreign objects. The Coroner requested that he needed evidence beyond reasonable doubt that no object had penetrated the FOD barrier and thus disabled the bell crank in the tail of the Yak. This required an extensive diving exercise by the dive unit at the QPS. It was confirmed at the inquest that the FOD had not been penetrated by any object.
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
An adventure flight was not purchased
On the gift certificate that was provided to Samantha it did not refer to an ‘adventure’ flight but rather a ‘joyflight’. No briefing or information was given to Samantha or Ian with regards to the dangers of flying in the Yak 52 at the time of purchase or on arrival for the flight. No reference to danger or risks were in the brochure that was given with the gift certificate. No waiver was signed. Apparently there was a sign warning of the risks inside the Yak, which Ian may have seen but would have already been strapped in for the flight to begin.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
What about a small camera in the cabin? That was never retrieved.
Two separate issues of course. Should BH have been doing the flight? And could Ian have caused the deaths of both?
It could be that the answers are no and yes. Or it could be no and no. How will you know?
Two separate issues of course. Should BH have been doing the flight? And could Ian have caused the deaths of both?
It could be that the answers are no and yes. Or it could be no and no. How will you know?
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Barry piloted the joy flight under the guise of all pilots at Hempel’s Aviation having commercial licences. There was an exchange of money for the flight and a gift certificate was given to Samantha. The gift certificate was retrieved from the plane after it crashed.
Barry told Ian that he could bring the camera on the flight. If the camera is to blame for the crash I am unsure how this could be the fault of Ian.
If Ian took over the controls, it was confirmed at the inquest that Barry would be able to overpower him easily unless Barry was unconscious. Unsure how this is the fault of Ian?
How was Ian at fault?
Barry told Ian that he could bring the camera on the flight. If the camera is to blame for the crash I am unsure how this could be the fault of Ian.
If Ian took over the controls, it was confirmed at the inquest that Barry would be able to overpower him easily unless Barry was unconscious. Unsure how this is the fault of Ian?
How was Ian at fault?
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Ease up there.
I am just playing devils advocate. I think it is quite likely BH had some kind of issue, he should not have been there and the whole sale of the ride was shonky. You get no argument from me.
Even if BH said Ian could take a camera, losing it in the controls may well be Ians causing the accident. Yeah I know a lawyer would argue he was told he could take it, so it is still BH's fault.
We will never know for sure.
I am just playing devils advocate. I think it is quite likely BH had some kind of issue, he should not have been there and the whole sale of the ride was shonky. You get no argument from me.
Even if BH said Ian could take a camera, losing it in the controls may well be Ians causing the accident. Yeah I know a lawyer would argue he was told he could take it, so it is still BH's fault.
We will never know for sure.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: More than 300km from SY, Australia
Posts: 817
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
casa, atsb and Hemple
Must be a day for browsing and I found this in a British report on a YAK-52 crash in 2011 - Report is in after a May 2011 accident and a final report by September 2012 - just 16 months:
Notes on these at: YAK ? 52 Britain cms_resources | Assistance to the Aviation Industry
Post-mortem examination
A specialist aviation pathologist who carried out post‑mortem examination of both pilots found that the crash forces were outside the range of human tolerance and that both had suffered severe multiple injuries on impact. Whilst neither exhibited classical control‑type injuries to their hands, the instructor had suffered ankle fractures which might indicate his feet were on the rudder pedals at impact. Toxicology results were negative other than for caffeine.
A specialist aviation pathologist who carried out post‑mortem examination of both pilots found that the crash forces were outside the range of human tolerance and that both had suffered severe multiple injuries on impact. Whilst neither exhibited classical control‑type injuries to their hands, the instructor had suffered ankle fractures which might indicate his feet were on the rudder pedals at impact. Toxicology results were negative other than for caffeine.
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Downunda
Posts: 562
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
UITA, great post mate. Some interesting detail in that report. And I noticed that it wasn't just the local bobbies who were tasked with the investigation? No offence to the Coppers, they do a good job while underpaid and copping hits to the head, but aircraft accident investigation is a specialised field. Just ask the ATSB, it's what they do for a living and they still don't know how to do it!!
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Send this man a 475.
From UIA post on the Yak fatal....
In a succinct 15 pages, the 'old enemy' shames the ATSB in so many ways. Lucid, clear logical analysis provided without CASA interference or inference, does not rely on the sterling efforts of the QPS, no embuggerance of evidence, no baffled Coroner, no medical loopholes, no ducking, diving or weaving. Hell even Warbirds didn't get a mention. Just a blessed report: simply and effectively providing most of the answers, as requested and required. Someone send it to ATSBeaker along with a taxi voucher, four white feathers and a self flagellation kit....Please..
Repeat x 100: I will not get cranky on Sunday....I will not - Argh, battle lost.
During a tailchase, the aircraft entered an inverted spin at approximately 1,800 ft agl, probably because of unintentional pro-spin positioning of the flying controls. Although the spin ceased after three turns, the aircraft impacted the surface of a lake during the ensuing dive. The investigation identified several factors relevant to the accident, including operation of the aircraft, the type of flight instruments fitted to it and the manner in which the activity was conducted
The aircraft had come to rest submerged in a small lake, approximately 30 metres from the shore. Examination of the wreckage by divers confirmed that the aircraft was lying inverted on the lake bed. The right wing had separated from the fuselage and the left wing had failed approximately eight feet from the wing root. An initial examination of the aircraft was carried out after recovery from the lake. The engine mounting etc.
Both occupants had been wearing parachutes and their harnesses, including the crotch strap, and the rudder pedal foot straps were securely fastened. The damage to the fuselage had resulted in failure of the forward cockpit shoulder harness mounting structure. One section of the mounting bracket for the rear cockpit shoulder harness had failed, releasing the right shoulder harness strap. The left shoulder harness strap had failed approximately 30 cm from its attachment point.
The aircraft impacted the water in a dive following recovery from the inverted spin. Had the same recovery begun at sufficient height, the aircraft would not have impacted the water
Repeat x 100: I will not get cranky on Sunday....I will not - Argh, battle lost.
Last edited by Kharon; 29th Jun 2013 at 21:24.
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
As a drug wholesaler isn't responsible for the direct death of a user, he/it has facilitated the end result.
Hemple was "facilitated" by CASA.
They are culpable.
Hemple was "facilitated" by CASA.
They are culpable.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: adelaide australia
Posts: 272
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Horatio
You forgot to place Banks in your list, but as we're discussing an accident, that's not critical.p
I was thinking the aircraft seemed relatively intact in the underwater footage compared to the heavy damage described in the English Yak's accident report.
This could tend to indicate a somewhat "controlled" impact with the ocean' surface. What would the CASA investigation of the aircraft tend to indicate if it was found that the engine failed prior to impact?
If CASA aren't responsible for Limited category safety standards what's their interest in blaming BH? I.e. where is their liability? In NOT grounding BH perhaps?
You forgot to place Banks in your list, but as we're discussing an accident, that's not critical.p
I was thinking the aircraft seemed relatively intact in the underwater footage compared to the heavy damage described in the English Yak's accident report.
This could tend to indicate a somewhat "controlled" impact with the ocean' surface. What would the CASA investigation of the aircraft tend to indicate if it was found that the engine failed prior to impact?
If CASA aren't responsible for Limited category safety standards what's their interest in blaming BH? I.e. where is their liability? In NOT grounding BH perhaps?
Join Date: May 2010
Location: More than 300km from SY, Australia
Posts: 817
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Approvals by Hemple???
Here's a thought:
Who has Hemple conducted flight training for and what approvals did Hemple give
AND
Who, of these are employed by casa in the period that Hemple did not have a valid licence or medical.
Who has Hemple conducted flight training for and what approvals did Hemple give
AND
Who, of these are employed by casa in the period that Hemple did not have a valid licence or medical.
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Downunda
Posts: 562
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
UITA, surely not, surely? I mean we have all heard rumours of FOI's drumming up business by failing pilots unless they use the flying schools 'recommended' by the FOI (strictly rumour of course, has done the industry rounds for years), but surely Bazza didn't have mates at Fort Fumble, nah couldn't be? That would be like saying some new hires and promotions were done on the basis of mates rates, or that some I.T functions were farmed out to mates!! Nah, I find it beyond belief, couldn't be true.....
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Dark side of the moon
Age: 61
Posts: 124
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All those at Archerfield at the time know the story.
You are simply going around in circles Oleo, maybe one oleo is deflated?
There was nothing short of shooting Barry that would have stopped him from flying. It was everything to him.
The world is indeed a hard place and "innocent' people get killed.
You are simply going around in circles Oleo, maybe one oleo is deflated?
There was nothing short of shooting Barry that would have stopped him from flying. It was everything to him.
The world is indeed a hard place and "innocent' people get killed.