The Pacific: General Aviation & Questions The place for students, instructors and charter guys in Oz, NZ and the rest of Oceania.

Barry Hempel Inquest

Old 5th Oct 2013, 12:03
  #601 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: New Zealand
Age: 66
Posts: 278
CASA will never be found to be accountable for any action they take or don't take in any aviation matter. They have blood on their hands over the death of Mr Lovell, but all they get is a list of recommendations, which have already been dispatched to the bottom of the LSG's drawers.
CASA also walked away from Lockhart smelling like roses. Again, untouchable.
If you want to study how the Australian regulator will forever remain untouchable just flick your attention across the ditch to NZ, and familiarise yourself with TE901 and Erebus. The highest levels of ass covering were sought by a Prime Minister and his government, as well as an inept CAA. The outcome? You guessed it - SFA. It is a prime example of what you are up against. CASA was never going to be held to account over the Hempel accident, and neither will they in the future when more accidents occur in which they are a contributing factor. To governments and their departments life is cheap and meaningless.

Last edited by Paragraph377; 5th Oct 2013 at 12:06.
Paragraph377 is offline  
Old 5th Oct 2013, 12:42
  #602 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Enroute from Dagobah to Tatooine...!
Posts: 774
So much for privacy laws and medical confidentiality hey? What a great idea - NOT! That proposition would spell the unnecessary demise of many a medical and career along with untold angst to both pilot employees and management...
Captain Nomad is offline  
Old 5th Oct 2013, 13:17
  #603 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Oz
Posts: 141
So CASA could gain access to private medical records? Is this not a gross breach of medical ethics?
DeafStar is offline  
Old 5th Oct 2013, 13:53
  #604 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Australia
Age: 49
Posts: 547
Worth reading this post I think taken from senate estimates where Senator Xenophon is raising question of bullying allegations the senators have been hearing.
.

http://www.pprune.org/australia-new-...ml#post7870392

Last edited by halfmanhalfbiscuit; 5th Oct 2013 at 16:37.
halfmanhalfbiscuit is offline  
Old 5th Oct 2013, 15:45
  #605 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Brisbane
Age: 64
Posts: 145
It appears, IMHO, that CASA Avmed is doing a kneejerk reaction, will knock back renewals so easily and then wait until the poor sucker goes through the AAT process, which can sometimes over-ride their decision. That way they can tin plate themselves and be proud of their over stringent standards.
Maybe I am just a little cynical.
harrowing is offline  
Old 5th Oct 2013, 20:36
  #606 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,053
Birds? what birds.

Now, I am intrigued; interested in bird activity, of both the maritime and war variety. I noted in the QPS FCU report (B3 p 153) there was a possibility of bird strike on the Hempel Yak. Just thinking out loud here but if, as CASA protest there was no 'evidence' of seizure and as Hutton remarks no fractures then at least the possibility of bird strike should have been positively ruled out, just by examining the aircraft. Like the autopsy report says, Hempel did not die from sudden onset epilepsy, yet the mystery of no broken bones (aviator astragalus) remains unresolved. There's puzzles a plenty here, for them what likes 'em.

It's a bugger though, when the feathered item cannot be discounted. Simple matter if it was, then – Bird strike, or the avoidance thereof; and everyone goes away replete.

The coroner doggedly sticks to 'medical' issues, probably because without a wreck to examine the chances of things like bird strikes, engine or structural failure etc. cannot be tangibly evaluated. Is this going to finish up like the Pel Air saga or the Marie Celeste?; one of life's wee mysteries, or are we going to stop poncing about and raise one or two of the wrecks laying about in shallow water around our coastline. We have the technology, science and funding to clearly resolve the issues and yet, once again, here I sit wondering – why not??

Aye well: at least Creamies dreaded wet lettuce leaf got an outing..... Now there's a happy Sunday thought....

Last edited by Kharon; 5th Oct 2013 at 20:40. Reason: Forgot the deep coded syntax.
Kharon is offline  
Old 6th Oct 2013, 00:11
  #607 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
On the balance of probability, the standard I believe The Coroner is held to use, the significance of a bird strike, turtle strike, flotsam strike etc would be far outweighed by the obvious medical incapacitation which The Coroner appeared to address.

Had this been a submission to The Coroner, I have no doubt he would have paid it scant regard to it. Depending also on who submitted this theory based on, an assumption of a probability. (what evidence)?

Did any submission seek to put a 'red herring' in place to apportion, move or remove blame on the submitter?

That's not the job of a Coroner by the way.

I do have serious reservations about some of his recommendations.
Frank Arouet is offline  
Old 6th Oct 2013, 01:29
  #608 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Victoria
Posts: 80
The many ways of getting screwed!

The coroner doggedly sticks to 'medical' issues, probably because without a wreck to examine the chances of things like bird strikes, engine or structural failure etc. cannot be tangibly evaluated.
To add to Kharon's possible causes, one that hasn't been considered is "locked controls". The attitude of the aircraft as described was not a controlled one. The exclamation by the passenger appears to confirm. Not knowing the intercom system fitted, with the PTT actuated from the rear seat, the pilot may have responded on his intercom but his words would not have transmitted to the world. Hence no reaction.

An engine failure would not have locked control input but an abandoned screwdriver or spanner could easily find its way into a compromising position through vibration or manoeuvres. Over 50 years of flying I have experienced 3 such situations and witnessed one fatal accident in a Harvard warbird. In the Harvard case the screwdriver was found lodged in a control bellcrank. The more pilot input the worse it gets. (In some cases opposite input may dislodge)

If CAsA were professional and respected confidential reporting, all too frequent instances of misplaced tools would be reported for all to learn from. However the Australian regulatory attitude, despite the so called "safety" mandate is one of punishment. What's easier than to blame a medical condition without ruling out obvious alternatives.

Hemel with his medical history should nt have been flying. An experienced Victorian pilot who suffered a similar encounter with a hangar door has a lifetime ban from flying, yet he declared all and was cleared by several local and o/s experts in the field, but naturally CAsA AvMed know better. The ex pilot is allowed to fly with a safety pilot however in the event of a seizure would the 5ft 45kg safety pilot be able to remove the patient from the controls. But this is LEGAL.

Not that the loss of even one life is not important ! But when the instances of pilot incapacitation resulting in a fatality are compared to fatalities as a result of a pilot's attitude perhaps this is where attention should be focused. Hempel's was an Attitude problem (no pun intended) S.W.

Empty skies are safe skies!
Stan van de Wiel is offline  
Old 6th Oct 2013, 06:16
  #609 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 41
Deafstar -" So CASA could gain access to private medical records? Is this not a gross breach of medical ethics?"

Maybe you should read the declaration (and permissions) you sign at your renewals. It may be enlightening.
BPH63 is offline  
Old 6th Oct 2013, 06:50
  #610 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 769
At any time CASA can demand ALL your medical records from DAME , GP, ALL Specialists, all Xrays and ALL tests for all time.

I have had it happen to me and it wasn't a pleasant experience.

To not give them what they want is a strict liability offence and your medical goes up in smoke until you are cleared again.
T28D is offline  
Old 6th Oct 2013, 07:37
  #611 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,873
Hempel should not have been flying, full stop.

What always exercises my mind is the "real reason" he was still flying, despite his appalling record over so many years.

Given the usual (for many years) CASA approach --- coming down like a ton of bricks on anybody "they" don't like, who was flying top cover for Hempel.

I know of one now retired FOI who spent years trying to put Barry out of business, (and this FOI is not somebody I would eulogizes - he had his faults in spades) but the "file"was always handled further up the food chain, and Hempel always survived to "fly another day". Even after the attempt to smash the hangar door down with his head, when he was "recovering", he was still flying, something that was hardly a well kept secret.

Once again, we have a system where CASA has not enforced the already draconian rules at their disposal --- in a select case, but will undoubtedly take up the Coroner's recommendations for even more draconian rules.

Quite apart from any CASA involvement, Hempel was a disgrace to aviation, he set an appalling example to the impressionable, but there is the unfortunate trait of Australians to romanticise the Ned Kellys of this world --- and people like Hempel.

Tootle pip!!
LeadSled is offline  
Old 6th Oct 2013, 07:57
  #612 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Sydney Harbour
Posts: 311
Did I read this correctly?

Bazza's wife calls the ambo's because he had an epileptic fit. The ambo's call his DAME because he wants to go flying. His DAME says let him go, then later gives Bazza a script for an anti-epilepsy drug and doesn't inform CASA?
Later on he hands his file over to poor old Dr Maxwell and doesn't tell him about the drugs or fits?

Is that right? Did I miss something here?
Dangly Bits is offline  
Old 6th Oct 2013, 08:02
  #613 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 743
One wonders that CASA must be blind as well as deaf. The aircraft was flying from a controlled airport, it would have been very easy to figure out who was flying the aircraft and stopped this operation and saved a life. Some one is CASA is responsible and should be taken to task for allowing this to happen.
Dog One is offline  
Old 6th Oct 2013, 10:06
  #614 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
the "real reason" he was still flying
Because he could.

And that is the problem.... There is a word for it.
Frank Arouet is offline  
Old 6th Oct 2013, 11:52
  #615 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Oz
Posts: 141
Good thing my GP told me he wouldn't give em anything. Not that I have to worry but I really don't like AVMED at CASA knowing I get the odd headache.
DeafStar is offline  
Old 6th Oct 2013, 20:00
  #616 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,053
"First principles, Clarice".

"First principles, Clarice. Read Marcus Aurelius. Of each particular thing ask: what is it in itself? What is its nature?"

There are at least two relatively sane (or they were when their troubles started) pilots who, for various reasons are not operating in their normal capacity: Dom James and John Quadrio. Neither of these chaps had anything but a clean record from day one, but DJ is still slugging away, trying to exercise the privileges of a legitimate ATPL against a foot high stack of manufactured administrative embuggerance. JQ is still grounded, based against the flimsiest of evidence, which, if rumour is true, can and will be destroyed. DJ has had his Senate days; JQ should, if there is any justice in the world. Yet Hempel, with a rap sheet the length of the New Testament, sails serenely off into the aerobatic sunset despite the best efforts of some good men. I, for one would like to know why.

It won't happen, but there is a good case under sections 50 and 50A of the Qld Coroners Act for this whole mess to be re opened. The best argument for this I have seen was written (or signed at least) by non other than Harvey, (there is whiff of voodoo therein) entitled Written Submission of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority. Now why CASA should present a document which brilliantly points out the many shortcomings, holes and limitations of the Coroner's findings is beyond my humble powers.

Probably, I should not even have read this remarkable document; but I have (Willyleaks). The document explains, for me at least, why the retrieval of the aircraft was steadfastly denied. Without the aircraft the possible causes for the accident cannot be 'properly' and forensically eliminated. This leaves a sizeable element of doubt, a very handy thing in a situation where the 'rules of evidence' apply. Should the aircraft have been retrieved, then many of the answers would have been provided, leaving a much shorter list of probable cause. Holmes, as usual says it much more succinctly than I can.

"How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?".

Last edited by Kharon; 6th Oct 2013 at 20:07. Reason: PS, the code is in the comma spacing grasshopper.
Kharon is offline  
Old 6th Oct 2013, 20:13
  #617 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Classified
Posts: 315
.............

Last edited by Radix; 18th Mar 2016 at 02:14.
Radix is offline  
Old 6th Oct 2013, 20:33
  #618 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: THE BLUEBIRD CAFE
Posts: 60
that's a bit simplistic
Fantome is offline  
Old 6th Oct 2013, 21:27
  #619 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: THE BLUEBIRD CAFE
Posts: 60
better to stick to the informed posts of those who have been on the case
for a long time. bit fatuous to comment without a close read of the reports and transcripts.

Last edited by Fantome; 6th Oct 2013 at 21:29.
Fantome is offline  
Old 6th Oct 2013, 22:24
  #620 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Go west young man
Posts: 1,732
Bad press and Willyleaks!

Kharon:
Probably, I should not even have read this remarkable document; but I have (Willyleaks).

I too received a newsflash from Willyleaksand have seen the truly remarkable document of which you speak...if true and not another smoke screen, strategic FF ploy, baited liability..“oh that was just a draft”...etc.etc.etc. Then FF would appear to have, if not a legal obligation, but a reportable moral(ha..bloody..ha!) duty to notify the State Coroner under s50 of the Act oftheir concerns regarding the coroner’s findings:
50 Reopening inquests etc.—on application

(1) A person dissatisfied with a finding at an inquest may apply to

the State Coroner or District Court to set aside the finding.

(2) The person may apply to the District Court even if, on an

application based on the same or substantially the same

grounds or evidence, the State Coroner has refused to set

aside the finding.

(3) However, the person may not apply to the State Coroner if, on

an application based on the same or substantially the same

grounds or evidence, the District Court has refused to set

aside the finding.

(4) The State Coroner may set aside a finding if satisfied—

(a) new evidence casts doubt on the finding; or

(b) the finding was not correctly recorded.

(5) The District Court may set aside a finding if satisfied—

(a) new evidence casts doubt on the finding; or

(b) the finding was not correctly recorded; or

(c) there was no evidence to support the finding; or

(d) the finding could not be reasonably supported by the

evidence.

(6) If the State Coroner sets aside a finding—

(a) the State Coroner may—

(i) reopen the inquest to re-examine the finding; or

(ii) hold a new inquest; or

(b) the State Coroner may direct another coroner to—

(i) reopen the inquest to re-examine the finding; or(ii) hold a new inquest.

(7) If the District Court sets aside a finding, the District Court

may order—

(a) the State Coroner to—

(i) reopen the inquest to re-examine the finding; or

(ii) hold a new inquest; or

(b) the State Coroner to direct another coroner to—

(i) reopen the inquest to re-examine the finding; or

(ii) hold a new inquest.

(8) A coroner who has reopened an inquest, or is holding a new

inquest, under this section may accept any of the evidence

given, or findings made, at the earlier inquest as being correct.
Besides the fact that the findings seem to point to changing the blame game from “doing the pilot” to “doing the doctor” and FF have yet again (with almost wilful disdain), put up another clever legal smoke screen while attacking the Coroner on his duty to uphold s45 of the Act..IMO the paragraph headed.. ‘Failure to investigate by the ATSB, CASA and QPS’..is the most damning indictment on the two Federal safety agencies...

...“It is of concern that the Australian Traffic Safety Bureau (ATSB) chose not to investigate the crash. This concern is compounded by the fact that CASA commenced an investigation but does not seem to have concluded it and no formal or informal report into the incident has been provided to the inquest. It appears that the Queensland Police Service (QPS) is responsible for the investigation of Civil Aviation accidents/incidents when the ATSB does not attend. Whatever the complexities of an inter-agency investigation and the delineation of which entity had the responsibility for investigating an incident, it seems that, in reality, it fell between the cracks.”

Perhaps if the wreck was retrieved and the ATsB had investigated this accident, then maybe the Coroner’s findings may have reflected a less subjective approach and given a stronger appraisal of all possible contributing factors on the ‘balance of probabilities’.

One thing that FF can’t duck is the extremely bad press that this has generated, here is a couple of examples of headlines that I’m sure will be filtering through to the new Minister and the concerned Senators:

Coroner attacks Australia's aviation watchdog

Indictment of CASA

Coroner staggered by CASA's failings

& a 7 news vid link:

Killed pilot ‘should not have been flying’

Hmm..how embarrassing for the DAS and his GWM cronies!
Sarcs is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.