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 10th Oct 2013, 04:34
  #641 (permalink)  
601
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Brisbane, Qld, Australia
Age: 73
Posts: 998
Perhaps someone can explain what it means in relation to Hempel's operations.
The Yak was not on nor could it ever be on Hempels Avaition Pty Ltd AOC.

It should have been administered under AWAL.

From what I know, BH was not a member of Australian Warbirds. If this is correct, the Yak had no authority overseeing its operation.

With the advent of Limited Category, AWAL became the industry body to undertake self-administration of the category on behalf of CASA.

So the only CASA involvement with this accident should be the administration of BH's pilot licence.

I wonder how many more warbirds have fallen through the crack between CASA and AWAL.
601 is offline  
Old 10th Oct 2013, 05:00
  #642 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: New Zealand
Age: 66
Posts: 284
601, surely you jest? The crack between CASA and AWAL is bigger than the crack between Oprahs butt cheeks. CASA form a giant crack, barrier, gully, mountain and solar curtain between themselves and anyone and anything aviation. They are vindictive, anti social, conceited, out of touch, bullies, bullshit artists and obsessed with being seen as correct on every matter, even when in reality they are the opposite. Thereare highly skilled aviation industry people out there who make CASA people look like mere apprentices. But hey, never let that get in the way of a robust, compliant system. And that is just their good points

They are a one and the same these clowns - CASA, CAA, FAA, CAD, all pedlars of bureaucracy, malfeasance and buck passing. Their destiny is to go through life with a tin of turd polish in one hand with their organisation in the other hand.

Last edited by Paragraph377; 10th Oct 2013 at 05:02.
Paragraph377 is offline  
Old 10th Oct 2013, 16:25
  #643 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: THE BLUEBIRD CAFE
Posts: 60
para377 . . .. . . OK, so the system is rotten. Many there are who know this first hand. But a torrent of vitriol is not helpful to a meaningful debate as to necessary reforms.
Fantome is offline  
Old 10th Oct 2013, 20:50
  #644 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,053
Even so.

601 #659 - "It should have been administered under AWAL."
Good point, the short quote you popped in seems to indicate that AWAL would/should 'stand in the shoes of the regulator', so to speak. Instrument 161/07 mentions "relevant aircraft operations", does this stretch to ensuring that the flight crew are qualified, competent, have a rule set and SOP to work to?. Like (for example) a fatigue score for commercial aero's, 12 loops a day is the limit. CASA most certainly would do that for an elevated risk operation which was available to 'the man off the street'........ If Hempel made a fatigue related error, pure and simple, I wonder that the spectre of pilot fatigue (particularly for older souls) was not examined. Harvey alludes to this, albeit obliquely. But for mine, it could just be a contributing factor. No doubt the ATSB covered it adequately in their stellar report....

A lay interpretation of 161 seems to indicate that the "Operation" rather than the "man" was under the administration of AWAL. That Hempel himself was not a paid up member seems moot; although the instrument is certainly slippery enough. It begs the question – just who was responsible for allowing the Hempel company to operate, as it did.

There are a couple of emails at the end of the CASA summary of show cause (Vol 2) which caught my eye, (the one which indicates 'mysterious' new witnesses for example). I left them aside as they seemed not to fit into that particular email daisy chain; although they certainly provoked a response from SC Bourke (QPS). Maybe it was just the offer of "qualified" divers that got SC Bourke salivating (or cranky).

Reference starts from page 72 (pdf counter) the email time sequence is all buggered up, so you need to wiggle things about a bit; but, AWAL were, at least peripherally involved. Perhaps this could explain why CASA was so frustrated and could only hammer away at the man's medical issues, rather than the company operational issues. It also may go some way in explaining the perception of 'top cover'.

One thing is clear, I don't know enough about the AWAL charter; yet.....

Last edited by Kharon; 10th Oct 2013 at 20:56.
Kharon is offline  
Old 10th Oct 2013, 23:14
  #645 (permalink)  
601
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Brisbane, Qld, Australia
Age: 73
Posts: 998
They are vindictive, anti social, conceited, out of touch, bullies, bullshit artists and obsessed with being seen as correct on every matter, even when in reality they are the opposite.
Must be a different crowd that I deal with. I do point out to them every now and then that they are wrong and get a "Sorry, but you are correct" in reply.
601 is offline  
Old 11th Oct 2013, 00:40
  #646 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,931
Folks,
I note references to AWAL, Australian Warbirds Association Ltd.
As already noted, AWAL are the body that administers Limited Category aircraft.
(1)The Hempel YAK was an aircraft certificated in the Limited Category.
(2) Hempel was a member of AWAL,
(3) Was AWAL aware of whether he was a financial or unfinancial at the time of the accident?
(4) AWAL has no jurisdiction over medical or basic pilot licensing matters, that were the core of this inquest.
Tootle pip!!
LeadSled is offline  
Old 11th Oct 2013, 03:02
  #647 (permalink)  
601
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Brisbane, Qld, Australia
Age: 73
Posts: 998
Australian Warbirds Association Ltd
I believe they also have the role of investigating any accidents.
601 is offline  
Old 11th Oct 2013, 07:23
  #648 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
Who then investigates the investigator?

BTW, they, like RA-Aus, are a self administrating body, not a self regulating body.

CASA regulates them all.

The buck stops somewhere...... sometimes......
Frank Arouet is offline  
Old 11th Oct 2013, 07:55
  #649 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 95
para377 . . .. . . OK, so the system is rotten. Many
there are who know this first hand. But a torrent of vitriol is not helpful to a meaningful debate as to necessary reforms
Some say his vitriol is bigger than his vacuum pump while others say his landing gear is extended through his bleed duct. All I know is.....they call him MOIE!

Welcome back, we missed the displays from the earthy part of the thesaurus

Last edited by Lookleft; 11th Oct 2013 at 07:58. Reason: If I'm going to use the word thesaurus I should get the punctuation right.
Lookleft is offline  
Old 11th Oct 2013, 09:28
  #650 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,931
I believe they also have the role of investigating any accidents.
The accidents, of which I am aware, have all been investigated by ATSB.
AWAL do have a function investigating some incidents, including incidents referred by CASA.
Tootle pip!!
LeadSled is offline  
Old 11th Oct 2013, 19:01
  #651 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,053
AWAL web site.


Not to say it's not there, but I couldn't find a "Charter" or detail of how the legal 's are managed and arranged, which would have been of some interest. Cribbed from the AWAL web site; spelling errors and all...

Subsequently, with the advent of Limited Category, AWAL became the industry body to undertake self-administration of the category on behalf of CASA. (If AWAL had not done so, Limited Category would no longer exist). The result is that we Australians have more freedom to fly a greater variety of ex-military aircraft than practically anywhere else in the world.

Structure: AWAL is managed by a board of volunteer directors. The CEO and Director of Self Administation report to the Board.

Services provided by Australian Warbirds Association Ltd:
  • Administers Limited Category aircraft on behalf of CASA.
  • Provides systems of maintenance for various warbird types.
  • Bi-monthly newsletters to keep members informed.
  • Conducts seminars and training days for engineers, owners, and pilots of limited category aircraft
  • Assists Warbird enthusiasts to get close to real Warbirds and their operators.
Paid Adventure Flights.
A big advantage of our Limited Category, and one available in very few parts of the world, is that you have the opportunity to earn money with your Warbird. Unlike standard category commercial operations, you don’t even need an AOC! However, to do so you must comply with the following. Firstly, you must submit an exposition to AWAL on how you intend to meet the operational requirements. (Under Manuals, you’ll find details and assistance on doing this). etc.

Thirdly, the pilot must be a CPL or higher, and be appropriately endorsed and experienced.
Someone has done a good job there and put in some hard work. The guidelines and advice (see the Manuals section) for potential war-bird owner/operators is clear, concise and within the grand scheme of things as idiot proof as possible. AWAL are to be congratulated. It's refreshing, a pity CASA don't get the same team to write a few of the regulations and guidelines for the wider community.

Reading through the data available it appears, at first glance that Hempel (man and operation) showed the same blatant disregard for the AWAL as they did to the CASA. Perhaps it explains some of the 'why' there was a sense of invulnerability. This is a further shame on Hempel; it's easy to forget there was an operation behind the man, equally responsible to CASA and AWAL. An organisation like AWAL is a good thing and it would be a loss to all to see the sensible, compliant operators penalised because of the actions of one individual and the company supporting his antics.

You could even say CASA have done well, showing common sense, patience and forbearance in their dealings with AWAL going forward from Hempel. The balancing act for both CASA and AWAL to maintain "independence" and a working relationship must be difficult enough, without the likes of Hempel undermining it. I wish them well for the future.....

Last edited by Kharon; 11th Oct 2013 at 19:01.
Kharon is offline  
Old 13th Oct 2013, 05:17
  #652 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Go west young man
Posts: 1,732
Avmed making up for Bazza??

Kharon, on Milt Jones thread, drew attention to recent FF AAT decisions in post #107.
Going through those cases I came across one that was an AAT review and decision to do with a FF suspension of a pilot's class 2 medical.

Here is the relevant link: AATA 465


& here is a quote from para 39 onwards where you'll see a familiar suspect:
1. On the basis of the evidence of Professor Navathe[1]we are satisfied of the following:

· a seizure during any stage of flight risks major interference with the safe control of the aircraft due to the interference with consciousness associated with any seizure event;

· a seizure may occur with very little warning, thus preventing the safe hand over of control to another pilot;

· a seizure may cause the pilot to block the primary flight controls (yoke and rudder pedals) and interfere with secondary controls, such as the throttles, flaps or undercarriage;

· the confined space typical of most cockpits would limit the opportunity to minimise self- harm [physical injury or respiratory obstruction] due to the fit;

· these characteristics of seizure activity, and their potential risks in the confines of an aircraft cockpit mean that, even if Mr ****** were flying with a qualified co-pilot, the timing, nature and severity of any seizure activity maybe such as to prevent the co-pilot safely assuming control of the aircraft in order to avert an accident in the event of Mr****** suffering from a seizure;

· a seizure in a solo- piloted aircraft would result in complete loss of control;

· the post-ictal phase would limit the restoration of normal cognitive function for an extended period of time.

2. Taking into account the effect that a seizure would have on the ability of Mr****** to operate an aircraft, we are satisfied that the risk that he will suffer a seizure or seizures, is likely to endanger the safety of air navigation.

3. We have given consideration to whether a condition or conditions could be imposed inaccordance with regulation 11.056 which would reduce the likelihood of endangering the safety of air navigation to an acceptable level. Taking into account the evidence of Professor Navathe as to the risks involved if a pilot suffers a seizure while in control of an aircraft, we are not satisfied that the imposition of a condition or conditions would reduce the likelihood to such a level that it would be acceptable. Mr****** did not contend that the issue of a certificate subject to conditions was appropriate.

Conclusion

4. The reviewable decision, being the decision of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority made 21 September 2012 and which refused the application of Mr****** for a class 2 medical certificate, will be affirmed
Hmm..now swap Mr****** with Mr Hempel change a few details like dates etc and it kinda makes you feel crook in the guts!

"But your Honour according to the Willyleaks document (from aussie cricket devil's number onwards)...the coroner got it wrong and on the balance of probabilities Bazza couldn't possibly have suffered a seizure prior to the crash!"

Oh well back to Bathurst...

Last edited by Sarcs; 13th Oct 2013 at 05:23. Reason: Para numbering is wrong but you get the picture
Sarcs is offline  
Old 13th Oct 2013, 18:30
  #653 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,053
An interesting, on topic read.

Sarcs – there are some interesting lessons within the AAT summaries. This one caught my attention while doing a skim through, I stopped and read the whole thing (2 pages). It speaks volumes (not tongues) of the 'mindset' at Sleepy Hollow Medical. This Mr. G, like all of us I expect, has honestly discussed with his DAME the en's and em's of his medical condition; and his DAME has decided that the Mr. G's medical condition was 'satisfactory'. It's a hell of a state where not only is Mr. G's honesty called into question, but that of the DAME as well and this, mind you, all based against 'paperwork'. Maybe someone let the watch dog off the chain and it's now on the high street chasing cars.

Then again, if this case represents the lengths to which Avmed are prepared to go to, in blind support of their decisions, it does raise, yet again the sceptre of top cover for Hempel. It appears that some horsepower is needed to influence the 'Professors' opinion. Maybe, he finally managed to catch one of those cars.

(2013)~AATA 48.

The decision under review is set aside and the matter remitted to the respondent for reconsideration in accordance with a direction that the applicant did not knowingly or recklessly make a false or misleading statement in relation to his application for a medical certificate.
1. That decision was made because the delegate concluded that Mr G had knowingly or recklessly made a false or misleading statement in relation to his application for that medical certificate.
6. (7) CASA must not issue a medical certificate to an applicant if it is satisfied that the applicant:
(a) has knowingly or recklessly made a false or misleading statement in relation to the application for the medical certificate; or
10. The submissions for CASA did not descend to any detailed examination or analysis of what the expressions “knowingly” or “recklessly” conveyed. Its representative appeared to accept that the matters that needed to be demonstrated for me to be satisfied that Mr G had knowingly or recklessly made a false or misleading statement in relation to the application were:
13. The evidence falls well short of demonstrating that Mr G suffered from glaucoma from November 2007 onwards. The latest of the reports is from September 2005. Moreover the evidence from Mr 's current ophthalmic surgeon, Dr Stephen O'Hagan, is to the contrary. In a report to CASA of 10 November 2011 Dr O'Hagan wrote,
Kharon is offline  
Old 24th Oct 2013, 00:42
  #654 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Oz Trailer
Posts: 97
The QLD Supreme Court might have some thoughts on their obligations - along with the obligations of the doctors involved. That is unless those claims (proceedings) are settled "out of court" to avoid such scrutiny........
TunaBum is offline  
Old 30th Oct 2013, 06:32
  #655 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: New Zealand
Age: 66
Posts: 284
AVMED manual released by CASA

Fort Fumble have just dropped this one on to their website. Released after frequent FOI requests, post Hempel of course.

http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_asset...i_f13_5348.pdf

Sarcs, get your analytical teeth into this one old son One would expect you will pick up on a nugget or two. Perhaps you will even find a medical shanty tucked away between the pages?

Last edited by Paragraph377; 30th Oct 2013 at 06:35.
Paragraph377 is offline  
Old 3rd Jul 2014, 02:33
  #656 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 27
Outcomes

Just returned from stints O/S, I suppose all is forgotten from this sordid affair since the coroner's recommendations? But at least it was encouraging to read that when the Tiger Moth went down a few months back ATSB were quick on the scene. Would have had more satisfaction if CASA could have been taken to task or admitted some form of neglect. It was said after the findings that CASA would make formal comment . . guess I was too naive to think that would ever happen.
Bedderseagle is offline  
Old 3rd Jul 2014, 05:06
  #657 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,053
Beautiful timing Bedders – Choccy frog, not one of the fuzzy ones from the bottom of the nav bag either; no, you shall have a wrapped one....

Toot toot.
Kharon is offline  
Old 4th Jul 2014, 05:49
  #658 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Oz Trailer
Posts: 97
CASA comments unlikley whilst QLD Supreme Court proceedings still active....
TunaBum is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


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.