Barry Hempel Inquest
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Mel-burn
Posts: 4,875
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
or have I missed something??
No CPL then no flying, regardless of the operation type, unless the aircraft was privately owned and flown by a Private Pilot Licencr holder (PPL) and if the flight was equally cost shared between the pilot and passenger. If this was the case it would also be a moot point because it sounds like he didn't have a medical anyway, so no PPL either. You also essentially can't run a private flight with a random passenger who is paying as that would require an AOC or Warbird approval.
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CPL, what CPL ????
VH-XXX
No, not the media, but I have a few mates who do, and they are watching this thread with great interest. I am just trying to get my head around the facts, and understand why Hempel was allowed to advertise flights, for many years, via his company, when he did not have a CPL. What do CASA actually do? Anything at all?
on a not-unrelated matter, it would appear that a CASA witness at the Hempel/Lovell inquiry (who apparently is also a pilot) had some sort of seizure or fit whilst in the witness box and was carted off to hospital. I wonder if CASA has done anything about his medical??
(note sarcasm switched "on")
or is it one rule for CASA and its mates, and another for the great unwashed mass of pilots out there ?
(note sarcasm switched "off")
please understand that I am not casting any aspersions on the "Warbirds" owners and operators, just trying to get some sense of how CASA did what they did,
or didn't, 
in terms of protecting the rights, and safety, of the uninformed public, epescially Ian Lovell.!
speaking of which, and possibly off-thread (Dear Mod: mea culpa mea culpa), have you had a look at the Rob Weaver Ferry thread elsewhere on the PPRune (sorry I do not yet know how to set up a link), it is fascinating reading (over 170 pages as of last night), and there appear to be some similarities of behaviour, even though Wobert
is much much younger than Hempel was at the time of the crash. At least one Australian (he reveals his name himself in the thread) has reported being ripped off by Ruprecht for non-existent ferry services.
No, not the media, but I have a few mates who do, and they are watching this thread with great interest. I am just trying to get my head around the facts, and understand why Hempel was allowed to advertise flights, for many years, via his company, when he did not have a CPL. What do CASA actually do? Anything at all?
on a not-unrelated matter, it would appear that a CASA witness at the Hempel/Lovell inquiry (who apparently is also a pilot) had some sort of seizure or fit whilst in the witness box and was carted off to hospital. I wonder if CASA has done anything about his medical??
(note sarcasm switched "on")
or is it one rule for CASA and its mates, and another for the great unwashed mass of pilots out there ?
(note sarcasm switched "off")
please understand that I am not casting any aspersions on the "Warbirds" owners and operators, just trying to get some sense of how CASA did what they did,
or didn't, in terms of protecting the rights, and safety, of the uninformed public, epescially Ian Lovell.!speaking of which, and possibly off-thread (Dear Mod: mea culpa mea culpa), have you had a look at the Rob Weaver Ferry thread elsewhere on the PPRune (sorry I do not yet know how to set up a link), it is fascinating reading (over 170 pages as of last night), and there appear to be some similarities of behaviour, even though Wobert
is much much younger than Hempel was at the time of the crash. At least one Australian (he reveals his name himself in the thread) has reported being ripped off by Ruprecht for non-existent ferry services.
I have to agree that CASA have different rules for different people. They were give irrefutable evidence in 2008 concerning deliberate and serious safety breaches by a well known charter/training/????? operator from NSW.
The outcome? An enforceable undertaking which means that nobody outside of that organisation knows they have been and probably still are shonky operators, and they continue offer their services to unwitting customers in the same manner as Hempel did.
When this crowd in NSW come unstuck as they surely will, I will be able to say "I told you so", but that will be cold comfort to the family and friends of their future victims.
Here is a link to Rober Weaver. Where Hempel may have been a highly qualified and skilled pilot, Weaver shows out to be a more than incompetent pilot, but highly a skilled scam artist.
http://http://www.pprune.org/biz-jet...xperience.html
The outcome? An enforceable undertaking which means that nobody outside of that organisation knows they have been and probably still are shonky operators, and they continue offer their services to unwitting customers in the same manner as Hempel did.
When this crowd in NSW come unstuck as they surely will, I will be able to say "I told you so", but that will be cold comfort to the family and friends of their future victims.
Here is a link to Rober Weaver. Where Hempel may have been a highly qualified and skilled pilot, Weaver shows out to be a more than incompetent pilot, but highly a skilled scam artist.
http://http://www.pprune.org/biz-jet...xperience.html
Last edited by PinkusDickus; 15th Jun 2012 at 02:00. Reason: Bad Link
What do CASA actually do? Anything at all?
In the area of 'high risk' recreational aviation activities the regulator wishes to keep such risk taking at arm's length, hence the philosophy of self regulation for groups like the RAA, Warbirds and the APF.
Is this mentality working??..I'll let you be the judge of that. However in one sense it is working for the CAA as they have a 'no care', 'no responsibility', which takes care of their biggest fear...'liability'!
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: on the edge
Posts: 823
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What do CASA actually do? Anything at all?
Again, we have a pilot being an absolute pillock, then killing himself and passenger, and somehow you blame the regulator.
I doubt that you would actually want the level of "policing" that you are suggesting, but then again some like the nanny state.
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Warbird so called Adventure Flights
I wonder how many operators running Adventure flights adhere to the following, and how does the Warbird Associsation control this:
7.2.6. each passenger must be told that:
“(a) the design, manufacture, and airworthiness of the aircraft are not required to meet any standard recognised by CASA; and
(b) CASA does not require the aircraft to be operated to the same degree of safety as an aircraft on a commercial passenger flight; and
(c) the passenger flies in the aircraft at his or her own risk”; and
7.2.7. each passenger must be told about those matters
(a) before boarding the aircraft; and
(b) before the passenger pays for the flight; and
7.2.8. each passenger must have acknowledged in writing that the passenger has been told about those matters; and
7.2.9. the aircraft operator must keep those written acknowledgments for at least three months; but the acknowledgements may not be kept in an aircraft.
7.3. Along with those conditions specific to adventure flights, the aircraft must be fitted with a placard or placards bearing a specific warning, displayed inside the aircraft in a way that is conspicuous to, and can be easily read by each person when seated in the aircraft. That placard must state:
“WARNING PERSONS FLY IN THIS AIRCRAFT AT THEIR OWN RISK THIS AIRCRAFT HAS BEEN DESIGNED FOR SPECIAL OPERATIONS AND IS NOT OPERATED TO THE SAME SAFETY STANDARDS AS A NORMAL COMMERCIAL PASSENGER FLIGHT”.
7.4. Additionally, the word “LIMITED” must be displayed on the outside of the aircraft near each entrance to the cabin or cockpit, in letters not less than 5 cm in height. The letters should be in block capitals of a style that is conspicuous and legible, so the sign/s may be easily read by each person entering the aircraft.
http://www.australianwarbirds.com.au...GM_vers1.0.pdf
7.2.6. each passenger must be told that:
“(a) the design, manufacture, and airworthiness of the aircraft are not required to meet any standard recognised by CASA; and
(b) CASA does not require the aircraft to be operated to the same degree of safety as an aircraft on a commercial passenger flight; and
(c) the passenger flies in the aircraft at his or her own risk”; and
7.2.7. each passenger must be told about those matters
(a) before boarding the aircraft; and
(b) before the passenger pays for the flight; and
7.2.8. each passenger must have acknowledged in writing that the passenger has been told about those matters; and
7.2.9. the aircraft operator must keep those written acknowledgments for at least three months; but the acknowledgements may not be kept in an aircraft.
7.3. Along with those conditions specific to adventure flights, the aircraft must be fitted with a placard or placards bearing a specific warning, displayed inside the aircraft in a way that is conspicuous to, and can be easily read by each person when seated in the aircraft. That placard must state:
“WARNING PERSONS FLY IN THIS AIRCRAFT AT THEIR OWN RISK THIS AIRCRAFT HAS BEEN DESIGNED FOR SPECIAL OPERATIONS AND IS NOT OPERATED TO THE SAME SAFETY STANDARDS AS A NORMAL COMMERCIAL PASSENGER FLIGHT”.
7.4. Additionally, the word “LIMITED” must be displayed on the outside of the aircraft near each entrance to the cabin or cockpit, in letters not less than 5 cm in height. The letters should be in block capitals of a style that is conspicuous and legible, so the sign/s may be easily read by each person entering the aircraft.
http://www.australianwarbirds.com.au...GM_vers1.0.pdf
Blackie not sure if that was aimed at me but if it is it seems (by your definition) that we have a few things in common:
....however that's where the love-in stops as you also have an internet definition:
Unfortunately I've kind of broken this rule...oh well!
Doppelganger:
In fiction and folklore, a doppelgänger is a paranormal double of a living person, typically representing evil or misfortune. In modern vernacular it is any double or look-alike of a person.
In fiction and folklore, a doppelgänger is a paranormal double of a living person, typically representing evil or misfortune. In modern vernacular it is any double or look-alike of a person.
Troll:
A troll is a supernatural being in Norse mythology and Scandinavian folklore. In origin, one of the meanings of the term troll was a negative synonym for a jötunn (plural jötnar), a being in Norse mythology, although the word was also used about witches, berserkers and various other evil magical figures. In Old Norse sources, beings described as trolls dwell in isolated rocks, mountains, or caves, live together in small family units, and are rarely helpful to human beings.
A troll is a supernatural being in Norse mythology and Scandinavian folklore. In origin, one of the meanings of the term troll was a negative synonym for a jötunn (plural jötnar), a being in Norse mythology, although the word was also used about witches, berserkers and various other evil magical figures. In Old Norse sources, beings described as trolls dwell in isolated rocks, mountains, or caves, live together in small family units, and are rarely helpful to human beings.
Troll: In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory,[2] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[3] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.
Unfortunately I've kind of broken this rule...oh well!
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
remember Ian Lovell ???
blackhand
no, I am definitely not part of the aviation establishment, nor am I a doppelganger for anyone.
I do personally know the lady who purchased the so-called "joyflight " for her partner Ian Lovell, after she had made inquiries at the Archerfield aerodrome office and specifically asked them if they could reccomend someone who was reliable and safe.
Apparently the Aerodrome office person told her that Barry Hempel was the pilot for her, and well qualified too.
unfortunately, on the third paid-for joyflight of the day, the one in which Ian Lovell was a passenger, the plane flew or crashed into the ocean killing all on board.
I wonder how the person in the Archerfield Aerodrome office feels about this matter niow?
If I can help to stop this happening again, then so be it.
As you say, "we have a pilot being an absolute pillock, then killing himself and passenger" !
CASA had the power to prevent him flying, I am thinking, but this did not happen?
I am entitled to ask why, especially as he had apparently been reported to CASA more than a few times?
again, I say clearly, I am not attacking or criticising Warbirds or any operators or operator groups in any way.
If we leave aside completely the issue of plane type, Warbirds, operators groups etc, it is still the case that CASA has a role (and I suggest a responsibility) in relation to licencing of pilots and related medical issues.
I am simply saying that if the customer (Ian Lovell's partner) had been informed that Barry Hempel did not hold a CPL, and therefore possibly (?) was not licenced to carry paying passengers, she might well have made a very different decision, and perhaps sought the services of another, licenced operator, or maybe even not have purchased a joyflight at all.
no, I am definitely not part of the aviation establishment, nor am I a doppelganger for anyone.
I do personally know the lady who purchased the so-called "joyflight " for her partner Ian Lovell, after she had made inquiries at the Archerfield aerodrome office and specifically asked them if they could reccomend someone who was reliable and safe.
Apparently the Aerodrome office person told her that Barry Hempel was the pilot for her, and well qualified too.
unfortunately, on the third paid-for joyflight of the day, the one in which Ian Lovell was a passenger, the plane flew or crashed into the ocean killing all on board.
I wonder how the person in the Archerfield Aerodrome office feels about this matter niow?
If I can help to stop this happening again, then so be it.
As you say, "we have a pilot being an absolute pillock, then killing himself and passenger" !
CASA had the power to prevent him flying, I am thinking, but this did not happen?
I am entitled to ask why, especially as he had apparently been reported to CASA more than a few times?
again, I say clearly, I am not attacking or criticising Warbirds or any operators or operator groups in any way.
If we leave aside completely the issue of plane type, Warbirds, operators groups etc, it is still the case that CASA has a role (and I suggest a responsibility) in relation to licencing of pilots and related medical issues.
I am simply saying that if the customer (Ian Lovell's partner) had been informed that Barry Hempel did not hold a CPL, and therefore possibly (?) was not licenced to carry paying passengers, she might well have made a very different decision, and perhaps sought the services of another, licenced operator, or maybe even not have purchased a joyflight at all.
Well said Macroderma and from the heart I would suggest!
Hence my previous post #80 on the Willowbank jump plane crash. The two ladies, although signing all the waivers etc for the tandem jump, were never informed that the jump aircraft wasn't operating under an AOC and hence more heavily scrutinised by the regulator, otherwise they may not have decided not to jump!
I am simply saying that if the customer (Ian Lovell's partner) had been informed that Barry Hempel did not hold a CPL, and therefore possibly (?) was not licenced to carry paying passengers, she might well have made a very different decision, and perhaps sought the services of another, licenced operator, or maybe even not have purchased a joyflight at all.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Mel-burn
Posts: 4,875
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As a matter of interest, I've been witness to an Adventure Flight operator with a number of aircraft for quite a few years and to date I have NEVER seen the passenger choose to not sign the waiver before the flight, even when offered a full refund if they choose not to fly. The usual response is, "oh so I'm signing my life away," or "it seems necessary these days for these sorts of things."
I do seriously question if a tandem jumper would choose not to fly if the aircraft was not operated under an AOC. Hindsight is a great thing.
I do seriously question if a tandem jumper would choose not to fly if the aircraft was not operated under an AOC. Hindsight is a great thing.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: on the edge
Posts: 823
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CASA had the power to prevent him flying, I am thinking, but this did not happen?
CASA revoked his commercial licence (CPL), He choose to fly illegally.
They are not able to physically restrain him from flying.
His Chief Pilot claimed ignorance of the regulations.
In the industry most pilots are professional and would not do this.
Last edited by blackhand; 15th Jun 2012 at 07:01.
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Informed consent - remember Ian Lovell !?!
Sarcs
reading the Willowbank report made me really angry.
Again and again history repeats itself .
How long will CASA continue to wash its
hands!!
reading the Willowbank report made me really angry.
Again and again history repeats itself .
How long will CASA continue to wash its
hands!!
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Mel-burn
Posts: 4,875
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In the industry most pilots are professional and would not do this.
They are not able to physically restrain him from flying.
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How to stop Ian Lovell from flying ??
BH,
apology accepted.
with apologies to VH-XXX,
"jail will usually stop (someone) from flying (in) an aircraft."
so will dying, especially if Barry Hempel has killed you.
excuse my ire, it is not aimed at you or other posters on this thread.
apology accepted.
with apologies to VH-XXX,
"jail will usually stop (someone) from flying (in) an aircraft."
so will dying, especially if Barry Hempel has killed you.
excuse my ire, it is not aimed at you or other posters on this thread.
Last edited by Macroderma; 15th Jun 2012 at 07:44. Reason: to correct spelling mistake
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Alabama, then Wyoming, then Idaho and now staying with Kharon on Styx houseboat
Age: 61
Posts: 1,437
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Doppelganger:
In fiction and folklore, a doppelgänger is a paranormal double of a living person, typically representing evil or misfortune. In modern vernacular it is any double or look-alike of a person.
In fiction and folklore, a doppelgänger is a paranormal double of a living person, typically representing evil or misfortune. In modern vernacular it is any double or look-alike of a person.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Of this, Lockhart River and other matters.
For our esteemed regulator, the classic Rhyme of the Ancient Mariner although long, oft tedious has a modern, haunting and history repeating application; much as Macbeth and Hamlet do. Without apology selected verses from the Rhyme of the Ancient Mariner - S. T Coleridge.
No folks – it's not all Bollocks, not this time. Taxi Minister ??.
God save thee, ancient Mariner,
From the fiends that plague thee thus! –
Why look'st thou so?' -"With my crossbow
I shot the Albatross."
Ah! well-a-day! what evil looks
Had I from old and young!
Instead of the cross, the Albatross
About my neck was hung."
From the fiends that plague thee thus! –
Why look'st thou so?' -"With my crossbow
I shot the Albatross."
Ah! well-a-day! what evil looks
Had I from old and young!
Instead of the cross, the Albatross
About my neck was hung."
Phelan AA. It’s also true that Federal Court Justice Kenny struck out the claim against CASA and its Deputy Director Terry Farquharson (and others) on the basis, in broad terms, that CASA and its officers owe no duty of care to the public in the performance of their duties.
King: O, my offence is rank, it smells to heaven,
It hath the primal eldest curse upon't—
A brother's murther. Pray can I not,
Though inclination be as sharp as will. - Hamlet.
It hath the primal eldest curse upon't—
A brother's murther. Pray can I not,
Though inclination be as sharp as will. - Hamlet.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: on the edge
Posts: 823
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@Macroderma
I have had the opportunity to work under four different countries regulations.
The issues with very small organisations is the same in all of those countries.
You would be stunned at the going ons in the deer harvesting industry in New Zealand some years ago.
Same with the mustering industry and the psuedo RPT in Torres Strait in the late 1990s
In Fiji and PNG, the National Aviation Authority has to micro manage their aviation industry to ensure safe outcomes are achieved.
The RCAs (Request for Corrective Action) that I have answered on behalf of clients in Australia, are in the main related to sloppy documentation. Rarely have I seen a show cause for a major breech. This I think points to the maturity of the General Aviation companies in Australia.
As you have seen from the Hempel Inquest as well as from the skydiver crash near Willowbank, there are a minority that do things their own way. Compliance with the regulations ensures the least risk in aviation.
Cheers
BH
I have had the opportunity to work under four different countries regulations.
The issues with very small organisations is the same in all of those countries.
You would be stunned at the going ons in the deer harvesting industry in New Zealand some years ago.
Same with the mustering industry and the psuedo RPT in Torres Strait in the late 1990s
In Fiji and PNG, the National Aviation Authority has to micro manage their aviation industry to ensure safe outcomes are achieved.
The RCAs (Request for Corrective Action) that I have answered on behalf of clients in Australia, are in the main related to sloppy documentation. Rarely have I seen a show cause for a major breech. This I think points to the maturity of the General Aviation companies in Australia.
As you have seen from the Hempel Inquest as well as from the skydiver crash near Willowbank, there are a minority that do things their own way. Compliance with the regulations ensures the least risk in aviation.
Cheers
BH
Not true. Jail will usually stop you from flying an aircraft.
"A person must not perform any duty that is essential to the operation of an Australian aircraft during flight time unless:
"(a) the person holds a civil aviation endorsement that is in force and authorises that person to perform that duty"
<snip>
Penalty: Imprisonment for 2 years.
It appears that Hempel had a PPL but did not have a CPL and at the time of the accident was conducting a flight that required a CPL. Hempel was (apparently) aware of his disqualifying condition, and so his actions would be a deliberate breach. Further, CAA 20A (1) and (2) refer to "reckless operation" and it could be proven that to carry a paying passenger knowing of his suspended CPL AND a disqualifying medical condition would meet that description.
The real issue here is what CASA knew about Hempel, and what they did or didn't do about it. Being the safety regulator, they have a responsibility to enforce all regulations diligently and impartially, and Hempel being a larger than life character would not have escaped their notice.
A good lawyer would have CASA squarely in the frame for negligence in allowing Hempel to continue to operate, which is why CASA has their representation at the inquest.
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Imprisonment, what imprisonment ??
pinkus,
no doubt the reason why CASA had barristers and a QC at the inquest.
BTW, how is the poor CASA chappie who fell ill whilst in the witness box, does anybody know?
no doubt the reason why CASA had barristers and a QC at the inquest.
BTW, how is the poor CASA chappie who fell ill whilst in the witness box, does anybody know?
Last edited by Macroderma; 15th Jun 2012 at 09:54. Reason: to insert a missing word
