Barry Hempel Inquest
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Eastern Oz
Posts: 198
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pick up a copy of todays Weekend Australian if you want to know where this is heading. An absolutely scathing article.
Anyone who has flown in SEQ during the last 25 years has heard the stories about Barry but reading this left me shaking my head in disbelief. If even only 20% is true, there's a hell of a lot of people who need to stand in front of a mirror and have a good look at themselves.
Front page headline, "CASA knew dark truth about rogue aviatior" pretty much says it all.
Anyone who has flown in SEQ during the last 25 years has heard the stories about Barry but reading this left me shaking my head in disbelief. If even only 20% is true, there's a hell of a lot of people who need to stand in front of a mirror and have a good look at themselves.
Front page headline, "CASA knew dark truth about rogue aviatior" pretty much says it all.
Last edited by dude65; 16th Jun 2012 at 00:54.
And here is the expected response from the regulator...
.....while repeating.."nothing to see here, move along...nothing to see here move along!"
...and all dutifully trained by the legaleagle at a miserly $**** per hour!
.....while repeating.."nothing to see here, move along...nothing to see here move along!"
...and all dutifully trained by the legaleagle at a miserly $**** per hour!
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks sarc, that has given me a great idea for a company selling blinds, called 'willful blindsness' - just pull them down and keep yourself in glorious willful, ignorant blindness!
Maybe a range of cool shades too - keeping yourself, and everyone else, in the total dark!
Or maybe a remake of 'Total Recall' called 'Total I Don't Recall'
Maybe a range of cool shades too - keeping yourself, and everyone else, in the total dark!
Or maybe a remake of 'Total Recall' called 'Total I Don't Recall'
dude65,
A story that does nobody involved, even on the periphery, any credit.
I wonder why so many people in Australia look up to the Ned Kelly types with so much more than acceptance, indeed bordering on adulation.
Tootle pip!!
A story that does nobody involved, even on the periphery, any credit.
I wonder why so many people in Australia look up to the Ned Kelly types with so much more than acceptance, indeed bordering on adulation.
Tootle pip!!
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Sunny side up
Posts: 1,206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for the link, dude.
Christ.
Agreed, but regulations and laws usually only exist because of a minority's foolish or reckless actions.
Most people wouldn't dream of smashing a glass into someone's face at the pub, but due to a feral minority, there are laws against doing it and regs about tempered glass.
I wonder what non-aviation readers of that article now think about the GA joy flight industry.
Unfair? Of course. The vast majority of operators are safe and professional.
So are the majority of Queensland dive operators, but that didn't help them when an unprofessional outfit lost a couple of people. The industry got regulated to kingdom come by a jittery state government, to the extent that many safe activities are now unviable because of ridiculous regs.
One of the problems with rogue operators (apart from the obvious one, ie the completely needless fatality) is that every other professional business suffers for their actions, from both increased regs and bad PR.
Christ.
In the industry most pilots are professional and would not do this.
Most people wouldn't dream of smashing a glass into someone's face at the pub, but due to a feral minority, there are laws against doing it and regs about tempered glass.
I wonder what non-aviation readers of that article now think about the GA joy flight industry.
Unfair? Of course. The vast majority of operators are safe and professional. So are the majority of Queensland dive operators, but that didn't help them when an unprofessional outfit lost a couple of people. The industry got regulated to kingdom come by a jittery state government, to the extent that many safe activities are now unviable because of ridiculous regs.
One of the problems with rogue operators (apart from the obvious one, ie the completely needless fatality) is that every other professional business suffers for their actions, from both increased regs and bad PR.
Last edited by Worrals in the wilds; 16th Jun 2012 at 04:47.
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CASA knew dark truth about rogue aviator Barry Hempel
on the front page of todays "Australian" you may find an article which discusses
"a doctor-shopping, law-breaking, medically unfit pilot; a serious breakdown in communications and regulatory systems; a lack of responsiveness and disclosure by those in aviation who had witnessed his antics"
and goes on to describe how:
'police officer Graham Anderson summarised six volumes of CASA material on Hempel "that involved an extensive list of prosecutions for administrative and flying breaches", "multiple offences in numerous aircraft", "numerous occasions when he flew without a current medical certificate" and attempts to distance himself from rules by appointing his second wife, then newly wed from The Philippines, as chief executive of Hempel's Aviation. The evidence raises serious questions about CASA's role in failing to rub Hempel out.'
see the below link for the website:
Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian
"a doctor-shopping, law-breaking, medically unfit pilot; a serious breakdown in communications and regulatory systems; a lack of responsiveness and disclosure by those in aviation who had witnessed his antics"
and goes on to describe how:
'police officer Graham Anderson summarised six volumes of CASA material on Hempel "that involved an extensive list of prosecutions for administrative and flying breaches", "multiple offences in numerous aircraft", "numerous occasions when he flew without a current medical certificate" and attempts to distance himself from rules by appointing his second wife, then newly wed from The Philippines, as chief executive of Hempel's Aviation. The evidence raises serious questions about CASA's role in failing to rub Hempel out.'
see the below link for the website:
Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian
CASA knew dark truth about rogue aviator Barry Hempel
Ian Lovell in a 2008 photo taken by girlfriend Samantha Hare, minutes before the fateful take-off of the Yak-52 piloted by Barry Hempel, who was not fully licensed. Source: Supplied
LONG before Barry Hempel, a legend of Australia's commercial aviation industry, strapped himself and an unwitting passenger in for a final, fateful aerobatic flight that ended 13 minutes later with their deaths, startling truths about the career pilot's conduct were well known to authorities.
The Civil Aviation Safety Authority knew Hempel, 60, to be a serial menace to public safety. His disciplinary record for flagrant breaches and dishonesty went back decades and became worse as he aged. He had put passengers and unsuspecting members of the public at risk with cavalier antics that appalled safety investigators - and cemented Hempel's status as a maverick with extraordinary skills but shocking judgment.
Doctors, medical specialists and CASA also knew that Hempel, who ran a Brisbane-based aviation company (motto: the sky's the limit) that flew politicians such as Nationals senator Barnaby Joyce, business chiefs and joy-riders, had severe epileptic-like seizures, believed to have begun after a brain injury from a hangar door accident in 2001. A loss of consciousness, rigidity and convulsing would occur; one ambulance officer who reported a 10-minute episode was so concerned about Hempel's status as a pilot that he kept notes on it for a decade.
These seizures would render Hempel an even more dangerous threat to the public. In one instance that became "common knowledge" shortly before his death, he was flying a Beechcraft Baron to Brisbane from the rural town of Dalby when, according to Nigel Arnot, an aircraft engineer, Hempel suddenly had "a seizure, a full fit with shaking". A friend "had to literally punch him out" to prevent inadvertent use of the controls and disaster.
Pilots with epilepsy or seizures face bans of 10 years to life because of the obvious dangers, yet Hempel kept flying.
Police, lawyers and doctors also knew another, darker side of the charismatic aviator with the distinctive handle-bar moustache. He had a criminal rap sheet for public indecency in Queensland going back 40 years; his guilty pleas and most recent convictions for public masturbation near children in parks in Brisbane were recorded a few months before the August 2008 crash.
But the flying public knew little, if anything, of any of these matters. Neither Hempel, nor CASA, was transparent about his safety transgressions. Despite dozens of pages of documentation about the seizures, and voluminous catalogues of his repeated defiance of safety rules, dishonesty, and the routine abuse of an unwitting public's trust in him as a pilot, CASA, a federal government-funded regulatory agency, still permitted Hempel to fly from his Archerfield airport base.
Official documents show that CASA even let Hempel maintain his private pilot aeroplane licence to conduct endorsement training of other aviators, despite 13 fresh convictions under the Civil Aviation Act, and a CASA finding in November 2007 that stated "you have a long established record of breaking the law relevant to aviation safety which is indicative of an intrinsic lack of honesty and integrity which is incompatible with you being entrusted with flight crew licences ... your record of motor vehicle-related offences as well as the aviation-related offences indicates a flagrant disregard by you of safety matters ... your actions indicate an inappropriate attitude to legal authority, and a flagrant disregard to the collective requirements of safety systems ... (you are) an unacceptable risk to recidivism that threatens aviation safety".
It was a scathing judgment that stripped Hempel of his commercial pilot's licence - yet it expressly allowed him to continue flying, as well as endorsement for training and instructing (teaching existing pilots how to fly different types of planes). He had been performing the instructing role for many years and with numerous pilots. Its legacy today is in the cockpits of passenger jets in Australia and around the world - the pilots who owe their wings to Hempel, who had himself logged more than 28,000 hours since he first flew in 1964.
The effect of CASA's ruling was meant to forbid Hempel from taking fare-paying passengers on his aerobatic higher-risk flights. But he openly flouted this and widely promoted his business under CASA's nose.
As one pilot on internet forum Pprune said in a posting that is now evidence before a Queensland coronial inquiry: "He was supposed to be a role model, but tell me ... how many young idiots have killed themselves trying to imitate bad boy Bazza? Is anyone who actually knew Barry surprised?"
The life and death of Hempel - as laid out in many volumes of evidence examined by The Weekend Australian pending the findings of the coronial inquiry - reads like a story of a disaster waiting to happen. The material depicts a doctor-shopping, law-breaking, medically unfit pilot; a serious breakdown in communications and regulatory systems; a lack of responsiveness and disclosure by those in aviation who had witnessed his antics; and an enduring tragedy for a young woman, Samantha Hare, who made one fatal error - she surprised her boyfriend, Ian Lovell, with a $492 birthday gift voucher for a joy-ride in Hempel's two-seater Soviet Yak military trainer.
Evidence and other material uncovered by police and Kerin Lawyers points to a likelihood that Hempel had suffered a seizure during the flight and was physically incapable of keeping the throttle, or power, on, resulting in the Yak plunging into the sea at a velocity of about 300km/h. In many crashes in which pilots brace before impact, their hands and wrists are broken. Hempel's hands and wrists were not injured, indicating he was not conscious when impact occurred.
Hare, of Brisbane, and Lovell's parents Dave and Lynn, who travelled from their home in England, could not listen to a recorded audio grab of the 35-year-old's last words, in a radio transmission to Hempel moments before the crash in water between North and South Stradbroke Island off the Gold Coast. Lovell was shouting to Hempel: "Oh, oh my god. What are you doing? Put it on!"
At Archerfield airport in Brisbane, Hare, who said she and Lovell had "planned on spending the rest of our lives together", waited patiently for his return to base. She had photographed him in the Yak before take-off and recalled him saying "it was the best present he had ever received".
But she noticed one of Hempel's staff looking increasingly stressed while waiting for the Yak to come back. The staff member took a phone call and Hare heard him say: "It crashed."
In a comprehensive forensic report for Coroner John Hutton, police officer Graham Anderson summarised six volumes of CASA material on Hempel "that involved an extensive list of prosecutions for administrative and flying breaches", "multiple offences in numerous aircraft", "numerous occasions when he flew without a current medical certificate" and attempts to distance himself from rules by appointing his second wife, then newly wed from The Philippines, as chief executive of Hempel's Aviation. The evidence raises serious questions about CASA's role in failing to rub Hempel out.
Anderson's report, which highlights "incapacitation" (seizure) as the most likely reason for the crash, recommends consideration of "mandatory reporting by health professionals to CASA when any serious medical condition could adversely risk the health and well being of the pilot or any other person". However, it is clear from the material that CASA had known about the seizures.
Anderson concluded: "Had a conscious decision by Hempel been made not to conduct these unauthorised flights, then the previous passengers would not have been put at risk and Ian Lovell would not have died as a result. In my opinion it was ultimately Hempel's misrepresentation that eventually directed Ian Lovell into the passenger's seat. Specialist advice to not fly (or drive cars) until epilepsy had been excluded was also ignored, 10 months before the crash. I believe it reasonable to assume that on this occasion, Hempel knew he had a significantly higher risk of crashing and to that end, behaved in a negligent manner."
A year before his death, Hempel and his solicitor had met CASA officials in a bid to mitigate the punishment he was anticipating from his safety breaches. Hempel told the group in a recorded interview: "I've been in aviation virtually full-time all my life since I was 16, I've been to the school of hard knocks and learnt myself through my own aviation. I can do it in me sleep, you know, I do it very safely, I don't do anything 'harum scarum', and when I'm teaching people low-level aerobatics, I teach them with a mind to staying alive."
Hutton, who concluded public hearings last week, has reserved his findings. For Hare, her parents, and the devastated family of Lovell, the priority is to lift safety standards, improve transparency for the public about the disciplinary record of pilots, and influence CASA, aviators and doctors to take a tougher line with other daring, medically unfit mavericks in Australia's skies.
- Hedley thomas, national chief correspondent
- June 16, 2012 12:00AM
LONG before Barry Hempel, a legend of Australia's commercial aviation industry, strapped himself and an unwitting passenger in for a final, fateful aerobatic flight that ended 13 minutes later with their deaths, startling truths about the career pilot's conduct were well known to authorities.
The Civil Aviation Safety Authority knew Hempel, 60, to be a serial menace to public safety. His disciplinary record for flagrant breaches and dishonesty went back decades and became worse as he aged. He had put passengers and unsuspecting members of the public at risk with cavalier antics that appalled safety investigators - and cemented Hempel's status as a maverick with extraordinary skills but shocking judgment.
Doctors, medical specialists and CASA also knew that Hempel, who ran a Brisbane-based aviation company (motto: the sky's the limit) that flew politicians such as Nationals senator Barnaby Joyce, business chiefs and joy-riders, had severe epileptic-like seizures, believed to have begun after a brain injury from a hangar door accident in 2001. A loss of consciousness, rigidity and convulsing would occur; one ambulance officer who reported a 10-minute episode was so concerned about Hempel's status as a pilot that he kept notes on it for a decade.
These seizures would render Hempel an even more dangerous threat to the public. In one instance that became "common knowledge" shortly before his death, he was flying a Beechcraft Baron to Brisbane from the rural town of Dalby when, according to Nigel Arnot, an aircraft engineer, Hempel suddenly had "a seizure, a full fit with shaking". A friend "had to literally punch him out" to prevent inadvertent use of the controls and disaster.
Pilots with epilepsy or seizures face bans of 10 years to life because of the obvious dangers, yet Hempel kept flying.
Police, lawyers and doctors also knew another, darker side of the charismatic aviator with the distinctive handle-bar moustache. He had a criminal rap sheet for public indecency in Queensland going back 40 years; his guilty pleas and most recent convictions for public masturbation near children in parks in Brisbane were recorded a few months before the August 2008 crash.
But the flying public knew little, if anything, of any of these matters. Neither Hempel, nor CASA, was transparent about his safety transgressions. Despite dozens of pages of documentation about the seizures, and voluminous catalogues of his repeated defiance of safety rules, dishonesty, and the routine abuse of an unwitting public's trust in him as a pilot, CASA, a federal government-funded regulatory agency, still permitted Hempel to fly from his Archerfield airport base.
Official documents show that CASA even let Hempel maintain his private pilot aeroplane licence to conduct endorsement training of other aviators, despite 13 fresh convictions under the Civil Aviation Act, and a CASA finding in November 2007 that stated "you have a long established record of breaking the law relevant to aviation safety which is indicative of an intrinsic lack of honesty and integrity which is incompatible with you being entrusted with flight crew licences ... your record of motor vehicle-related offences as well as the aviation-related offences indicates a flagrant disregard by you of safety matters ... your actions indicate an inappropriate attitude to legal authority, and a flagrant disregard to the collective requirements of safety systems ... (you are) an unacceptable risk to recidivism that threatens aviation safety".
It was a scathing judgment that stripped Hempel of his commercial pilot's licence - yet it expressly allowed him to continue flying, as well as endorsement for training and instructing (teaching existing pilots how to fly different types of planes). He had been performing the instructing role for many years and with numerous pilots. Its legacy today is in the cockpits of passenger jets in Australia and around the world - the pilots who owe their wings to Hempel, who had himself logged more than 28,000 hours since he first flew in 1964.
The effect of CASA's ruling was meant to forbid Hempel from taking fare-paying passengers on his aerobatic higher-risk flights. But he openly flouted this and widely promoted his business under CASA's nose.
As one pilot on internet forum Pprune said in a posting that is now evidence before a Queensland coronial inquiry: "He was supposed to be a role model, but tell me ... how many young idiots have killed themselves trying to imitate bad boy Bazza? Is anyone who actually knew Barry surprised?"
The life and death of Hempel - as laid out in many volumes of evidence examined by The Weekend Australian pending the findings of the coronial inquiry - reads like a story of a disaster waiting to happen. The material depicts a doctor-shopping, law-breaking, medically unfit pilot; a serious breakdown in communications and regulatory systems; a lack of responsiveness and disclosure by those in aviation who had witnessed his antics; and an enduring tragedy for a young woman, Samantha Hare, who made one fatal error - she surprised her boyfriend, Ian Lovell, with a $492 birthday gift voucher for a joy-ride in Hempel's two-seater Soviet Yak military trainer.
Evidence and other material uncovered by police and Kerin Lawyers points to a likelihood that Hempel had suffered a seizure during the flight and was physically incapable of keeping the throttle, or power, on, resulting in the Yak plunging into the sea at a velocity of about 300km/h. In many crashes in which pilots brace before impact, their hands and wrists are broken. Hempel's hands and wrists were not injured, indicating he was not conscious when impact occurred.
Hare, of Brisbane, and Lovell's parents Dave and Lynn, who travelled from their home in England, could not listen to a recorded audio grab of the 35-year-old's last words, in a radio transmission to Hempel moments before the crash in water between North and South Stradbroke Island off the Gold Coast. Lovell was shouting to Hempel: "Oh, oh my god. What are you doing? Put it on!"
At Archerfield airport in Brisbane, Hare, who said she and Lovell had "planned on spending the rest of our lives together", waited patiently for his return to base. She had photographed him in the Yak before take-off and recalled him saying "it was the best present he had ever received".
But she noticed one of Hempel's staff looking increasingly stressed while waiting for the Yak to come back. The staff member took a phone call and Hare heard him say: "It crashed."
In a comprehensive forensic report for Coroner John Hutton, police officer Graham Anderson summarised six volumes of CASA material on Hempel "that involved an extensive list of prosecutions for administrative and flying breaches", "multiple offences in numerous aircraft", "numerous occasions when he flew without a current medical certificate" and attempts to distance himself from rules by appointing his second wife, then newly wed from The Philippines, as chief executive of Hempel's Aviation. The evidence raises serious questions about CASA's role in failing to rub Hempel out.
Anderson's report, which highlights "incapacitation" (seizure) as the most likely reason for the crash, recommends consideration of "mandatory reporting by health professionals to CASA when any serious medical condition could adversely risk the health and well being of the pilot or any other person". However, it is clear from the material that CASA had known about the seizures.
Anderson concluded: "Had a conscious decision by Hempel been made not to conduct these unauthorised flights, then the previous passengers would not have been put at risk and Ian Lovell would not have died as a result. In my opinion it was ultimately Hempel's misrepresentation that eventually directed Ian Lovell into the passenger's seat. Specialist advice to not fly (or drive cars) until epilepsy had been excluded was also ignored, 10 months before the crash. I believe it reasonable to assume that on this occasion, Hempel knew he had a significantly higher risk of crashing and to that end, behaved in a negligent manner."
A year before his death, Hempel and his solicitor had met CASA officials in a bid to mitigate the punishment he was anticipating from his safety breaches. Hempel told the group in a recorded interview: "I've been in aviation virtually full-time all my life since I was 16, I've been to the school of hard knocks and learnt myself through my own aviation. I can do it in me sleep, you know, I do it very safely, I don't do anything 'harum scarum', and when I'm teaching people low-level aerobatics, I teach them with a mind to staying alive."
Hutton, who concluded public hearings last week, has reserved his findings. For Hare, her parents, and the devastated family of Lovell, the priority is to lift safety standards, improve transparency for the public about the disciplinary record of pilots, and influence CASA, aviators and doctors to take a tougher line with other daring, medically unfit mavericks in Australia's skies.
Last edited by tail wheel; 16th Jun 2012 at 08:46.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Permanently lost
Posts: 1,785
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hutton, who concluded public hearings last week, has reserved his findings. For Hare, her parents, and the devastated family of Lovell, the priority is to lift safety standards, improve transparency for the public about the disciplinary record of pilots, and influence CASA, aviators and doctors to take a tougher line with other daring, medically unfit mavericks in Australia's skies.
I'm still waiting.............................
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Found this on the CASA website regarding "Adventure Flights"
Just wondering if there was a signed disclaimer by the deceased and also what quality briefing did the other two passengers receive that fateful day? - This must have come up in the trial?
Do people have to understand and accept the risks?
Yes. Before you take an adventure flight you must be given an explanation of the risks involved and you must accept those risks.
People who fly in Limited Category aircraft must be properly briefed and must have acknowledged that briefing in writing.
If you choose to take an adventure flight you will be asked to sign a document to confirm you have been briefed about the safety issues.
In addition, every Limited Category aircraft must carry a placard with the following warning clearly displayed inside the aircraft in a way that each person can read:
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.
Yes. Before you take an adventure flight you must be given an explanation of the risks involved and you must accept those risks.
People who fly in Limited Category aircraft must be properly briefed and must have acknowledged that briefing in writing.
If you choose to take an adventure flight you will be asked to sign a document to confirm you have been briefed about the safety issues.
In addition, every Limited Category aircraft must carry a placard with the following warning clearly displayed inside the aircraft in a way that each person can read:
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.
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Australia
Age: 53
Posts: 547
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
article relating to the 2008 Senate Inquiry
On a wing and a prayer
On a wing and a prayer
Richard Baker
July 21, 2008
Are we safe up there? Damning evidence to a Senate inquiry suggests the Civil Aviation Safety Authority may be failing as a safety watchdog.
SENIOR executives from Australia's air safety regulator were disgruntled when they fronted a special Senate inquiry earlier this month. Surprised by the Federal Government's decision to call a snap inquiry into their administration of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, they made their displeasure clear.
"After we had given our evidence at the last estimates (in May), the inquiry was announced and certainly I was disappointed ... a number of these issues have been ventilated quite a lot," CASA's deputy chief Shane Carmody told the senators.
Carmody's comments highlight the friction that has developed between members of the Senate's Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Committee and CASA management in recent years.
Labor's Kerry O'Brien and CASA chief Bruce Byron have been particularly prickly combatants, with the Tasmanian senator pursuing the Howard-government appointee over his expensive overseas travel, his scheduling of time-off to coincide with Senate hearings and his $350,000-plus annual salary.
In addition to showing their displeasure at being the subject of an inquiry, CASA's leadership let it be known they were disappointed that the many changes they had introduced to the organisation - including reform of its approach to safety regulation and a 50% staff turnover - had not been "broadly recognised in the community".
While it may be true that most Australians are unfamiliar with CASA's reforms, the policy changes - particularly regarding safety regulation - have not been lost on pilots, engineers, former CASA staff, families of air crash victims and other industry participants.
In fact, Byron's mission to have CASA seen as a "valued partner" of the aviation industry rather than a "nanny regulator" is a topic that features prominently in many of the 50 submissions received by the inquiry.
Critics of Byron's policy argue that the move towards self-administration is worrying, particularly as airlines look to cut costs to cope with soaring oil prices and a bleak global economic outlook. Submissions from pilots, unions and former CASA officials said such times demanded a rigorous regulator.
But Byron, an experienced pilot and former airline executive, has made little secret over the past three years of his desire to introduce a "more sophisticated" approach to CASA's role as safety regulator. It is, he said last year, "something that has really been dear to my heart for some time".
Looking to the aviation regulatory regimes in the US, Canada and Europe for inspiration, Byron has pushed CASA in the direction of educator rather than enforcer. "CASA will not be knocking on your door armed with the regulations and a plan to dig around until breaches are found," he said in 2006.
The desire for a smooth relationship with industry is evident right across CASA. Even its job advertisements contain the sentence: "CASA works to be a valued partner with the aviation industry."
Byron and his management team reject criticisms that this approach has led to a cosy relationship between CASA and the aviation industry. "When at times we have to be a firm regulator, that is what we have to do," he told the inquiry.
CASA's ostensibly firm hand was on display soon after the Senate inquiry was announced late last month, with the authority ordering a safety check of air operations in northern Australia, where in one of the nation's worst air crashes 15 people were killed at Lockhart River in Queensland in 2005.
However, the initiative was not well received by some of the families of the Lockhart victims, who regarded it as a cynical attempt to appear tough as the organisation faced parliamentary scrutiny.
What the Senate inquiry has made clear is that CASA's approach to safety regulation has been the cause of considerable debate and angst within the organisation. Deputy chief executive Carmody revealed an almost 50% turnover in staff, with some choosing to move on and others going "because we no longer had a place for them".
Byron linked some of the 134 redundancies at CASA to the cultural change he and his team have tried to implement.
A victim of that change is the man who was its general counsel between 1995 and 2006, Peter Ilyk. The lawyer told senators that CASA was treading on dangerous ground by playing down its responsibility for safety regulation.
"It (CASA) was not set up to be a partner with industry. It was not set up to promote industry. It was not set up to bow to industry pressure. CASA was set up to regulate the industry and enforce the safety rules," Ilyk argued.
CASA's decision to stop publishing air operator suspensions or cancellations on its website suggests a dangerously close relationship between the regulator and industry, according to Ilyk. "Such publication would not be in the spirit of partnership," he said.
Ilyk told senators that governance failures had flourished under the new arrangements, including a reluctance to tackle the big operators such as Qantas. He said he had brought these to Byron's attention but "not long after raising my concerns, I was terminated".
"I think there was a lot of industry pressure to get rid of particular people that happened to criticise industry or took a tough stance," Ilyk said.
"Towards the end of my career, the CEO simply ignored all of my emails ... One of the ones I sent to the CEO at the time outlining my concerns about governance failures in CASA was never answered formally. We had a CEO meeting about three months later and the only response I got from the CEO was, 'Don't you ever send me a minute like that again.' At that point I knew I was on the slippery slope out."
Asked about Ilyk's claims, Byron said that to the best of his knowledge he always responded to concerns raised by senior staff, either by accepting what they said or rejecting it. He did not recall ever telling people not to send him certain material again and reminded senators that ex-CASA staff making submissions might be "disaffected".
Another former CASA employee, Joseph Tully, who was a policy manager in the general aviation group, supported Ilyk's criticisms. Tully told the inquiry that four senior CASA technical staff had been forced out of the authority since 2005 after registering concern about CASA's approach to safety regulation.
Rod Bencke, a CASA veteran of 21 years, was blunt in his assessment of the authority's standing: "It is my belief that CASA will not be an effective regulator until its operations and ethos have been comprehensively reviewed and effective correction action taken."
On what has CASA based its controversial new regulatory approach? The answer is a mix of the "partnership" models adopted by aviation regulators in the US, Europe and Canada in recent years.
Unfortunately for CASA, these regimes, which emphasise industry self-administration, have this year come in for strong criticism from law-makers and public sector watchdogs in their respective countries.
In April, James Oberstar, the chairman of the US House of Representatives Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, said the US Federal Aviation Administration had shown a dangerous lack of compliance with inspection requirements, resulting in thousands flying on potentially unsafe aircraft.
Oberstar's comments came after a congressional investigation revealed a discount airline was flying 737s that had defects which should have been detected by FAA inspections.
"It reflects an attitude of complacency at the highest levels of FAA management, a pendulum swing away from vigorous enforcement of regulatory compliance towards a carrier-friendly, cozy relationship with the airlines," he said.
Two months ago, the Canadian Auditor-General Sheila Fraser criticised Transport Canada's decision to let the aviation industry conduct its own safety inspections without first assessing any of the risks involved. Fraser said the policy "could have sweeping implications for air safety in Canada".
In Australia, it is not just former CASA employees who are worried by the authority's push for better relations with industry while moving away from the traditional role of a watch-dog style regulator.
Captain Ian Woods, president of the Australian and International Pilots Association, told senators that CASA had failed to meet required standards in enforcing industry compliance with safety regulations. This failure, he said, meant CASA was "unable to act as a necessary counterweight to balance shifting economic and regulatory frameworks".
"Some people would say that it is never possible for the one organisation to balance safety regulation with commercial necessity and they should be separated," Woods said.
"A number of occurrences I have personally witnessed lead me to conclude that CASA gave due consideration to its obligations there and at times confused those obligations and was not clear and definitive enough standing up for safety regulation."
Adding weight to criticism of CASA's relationship with industry is its refusal to release its audits of the overseas facilities, mainly in Asia, that are increasingly used by Qantas and Virgin Blue to maintain their jets. This has caused the Australian Licensed Aircraft Engineers Association to accuse CASA of putting the interests of foreign-owned companies before those of the Australian public.
Though the Senate inquiry has been a bruising experience for CASA executives, they have not been without support. Qantas and Virgin Blue applauded CASA's regulatory policy.
"The shift by CASA to a risk-based approach to safety, where the focus is on safety outcomes, with the responsibility for managing day-to-day safety risks resting with industry, is supported," Qantas said.
Importantly, Byron can point out to his critics that Australia still enjoys an airline safety record the envy of the world. "I am the first to say that we, CASA, do not have an easy job, but I stand by the record of my organisation over the last few years. We do not expect to receive bouquets for the work we do, but I would like to believe that most of the industry, from time to time, and on considered and calm reflection, acknowledges that CASA delivers real safety outcomes," said Byron, who is not seeking re-appointment as CASA chief.
But critics, such as CASA's former chief lawyer Peter Ilyk, suggest Australia is more than ever in need of a strong aviation regulator, given the growing pressure on airlines to cut costs and the possible negative effect that could have on safety and maintenance standards. "The fact that there have not been any accidents and the fact that people have not died does not mean that there is no safety problem."
Read more: On a wing and a prayer
On a wing and a prayer
Richard Baker
July 21, 2008
Are we safe up there? Damning evidence to a Senate inquiry suggests the Civil Aviation Safety Authority may be failing as a safety watchdog.
SENIOR executives from Australia's air safety regulator were disgruntled when they fronted a special Senate inquiry earlier this month. Surprised by the Federal Government's decision to call a snap inquiry into their administration of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, they made their displeasure clear.
"After we had given our evidence at the last estimates (in May), the inquiry was announced and certainly I was disappointed ... a number of these issues have been ventilated quite a lot," CASA's deputy chief Shane Carmody told the senators.
Carmody's comments highlight the friction that has developed between members of the Senate's Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Committee and CASA management in recent years.
Labor's Kerry O'Brien and CASA chief Bruce Byron have been particularly prickly combatants, with the Tasmanian senator pursuing the Howard-government appointee over his expensive overseas travel, his scheduling of time-off to coincide with Senate hearings and his $350,000-plus annual salary.
In addition to showing their displeasure at being the subject of an inquiry, CASA's leadership let it be known they were disappointed that the many changes they had introduced to the organisation - including reform of its approach to safety regulation and a 50% staff turnover - had not been "broadly recognised in the community".
While it may be true that most Australians are unfamiliar with CASA's reforms, the policy changes - particularly regarding safety regulation - have not been lost on pilots, engineers, former CASA staff, families of air crash victims and other industry participants.
In fact, Byron's mission to have CASA seen as a "valued partner" of the aviation industry rather than a "nanny regulator" is a topic that features prominently in many of the 50 submissions received by the inquiry.
Critics of Byron's policy argue that the move towards self-administration is worrying, particularly as airlines look to cut costs to cope with soaring oil prices and a bleak global economic outlook. Submissions from pilots, unions and former CASA officials said such times demanded a rigorous regulator.
But Byron, an experienced pilot and former airline executive, has made little secret over the past three years of his desire to introduce a "more sophisticated" approach to CASA's role as safety regulator. It is, he said last year, "something that has really been dear to my heart for some time".
Looking to the aviation regulatory regimes in the US, Canada and Europe for inspiration, Byron has pushed CASA in the direction of educator rather than enforcer. "CASA will not be knocking on your door armed with the regulations and a plan to dig around until breaches are found," he said in 2006.
The desire for a smooth relationship with industry is evident right across CASA. Even its job advertisements contain the sentence: "CASA works to be a valued partner with the aviation industry."
Byron and his management team reject criticisms that this approach has led to a cosy relationship between CASA and the aviation industry. "When at times we have to be a firm regulator, that is what we have to do," he told the inquiry.
CASA's ostensibly firm hand was on display soon after the Senate inquiry was announced late last month, with the authority ordering a safety check of air operations in northern Australia, where in one of the nation's worst air crashes 15 people were killed at Lockhart River in Queensland in 2005.
However, the initiative was not well received by some of the families of the Lockhart victims, who regarded it as a cynical attempt to appear tough as the organisation faced parliamentary scrutiny.
What the Senate inquiry has made clear is that CASA's approach to safety regulation has been the cause of considerable debate and angst within the organisation. Deputy chief executive Carmody revealed an almost 50% turnover in staff, with some choosing to move on and others going "because we no longer had a place for them".
Byron linked some of the 134 redundancies at CASA to the cultural change he and his team have tried to implement.
A victim of that change is the man who was its general counsel between 1995 and 2006, Peter Ilyk. The lawyer told senators that CASA was treading on dangerous ground by playing down its responsibility for safety regulation.
"It (CASA) was not set up to be a partner with industry. It was not set up to promote industry. It was not set up to bow to industry pressure. CASA was set up to regulate the industry and enforce the safety rules," Ilyk argued.
CASA's decision to stop publishing air operator suspensions or cancellations on its website suggests a dangerously close relationship between the regulator and industry, according to Ilyk. "Such publication would not be in the spirit of partnership," he said.
Ilyk told senators that governance failures had flourished under the new arrangements, including a reluctance to tackle the big operators such as Qantas. He said he had brought these to Byron's attention but "not long after raising my concerns, I was terminated".
"I think there was a lot of industry pressure to get rid of particular people that happened to criticise industry or took a tough stance," Ilyk said.
"Towards the end of my career, the CEO simply ignored all of my emails ... One of the ones I sent to the CEO at the time outlining my concerns about governance failures in CASA was never answered formally. We had a CEO meeting about three months later and the only response I got from the CEO was, 'Don't you ever send me a minute like that again.' At that point I knew I was on the slippery slope out."
Asked about Ilyk's claims, Byron said that to the best of his knowledge he always responded to concerns raised by senior staff, either by accepting what they said or rejecting it. He did not recall ever telling people not to send him certain material again and reminded senators that ex-CASA staff making submissions might be "disaffected".
Another former CASA employee, Joseph Tully, who was a policy manager in the general aviation group, supported Ilyk's criticisms. Tully told the inquiry that four senior CASA technical staff had been forced out of the authority since 2005 after registering concern about CASA's approach to safety regulation.
Rod Bencke, a CASA veteran of 21 years, was blunt in his assessment of the authority's standing: "It is my belief that CASA will not be an effective regulator until its operations and ethos have been comprehensively reviewed and effective correction action taken."
On what has CASA based its controversial new regulatory approach? The answer is a mix of the "partnership" models adopted by aviation regulators in the US, Europe and Canada in recent years.
Unfortunately for CASA, these regimes, which emphasise industry self-administration, have this year come in for strong criticism from law-makers and public sector watchdogs in their respective countries.
In April, James Oberstar, the chairman of the US House of Representatives Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, said the US Federal Aviation Administration had shown a dangerous lack of compliance with inspection requirements, resulting in thousands flying on potentially unsafe aircraft.
Oberstar's comments came after a congressional investigation revealed a discount airline was flying 737s that had defects which should have been detected by FAA inspections.
"It reflects an attitude of complacency at the highest levels of FAA management, a pendulum swing away from vigorous enforcement of regulatory compliance towards a carrier-friendly, cozy relationship with the airlines," he said.
Two months ago, the Canadian Auditor-General Sheila Fraser criticised Transport Canada's decision to let the aviation industry conduct its own safety inspections without first assessing any of the risks involved. Fraser said the policy "could have sweeping implications for air safety in Canada".
In Australia, it is not just former CASA employees who are worried by the authority's push for better relations with industry while moving away from the traditional role of a watch-dog style regulator.
Captain Ian Woods, president of the Australian and International Pilots Association, told senators that CASA had failed to meet required standards in enforcing industry compliance with safety regulations. This failure, he said, meant CASA was "unable to act as a necessary counterweight to balance shifting economic and regulatory frameworks".
"Some people would say that it is never possible for the one organisation to balance safety regulation with commercial necessity and they should be separated," Woods said.
"A number of occurrences I have personally witnessed lead me to conclude that CASA gave due consideration to its obligations there and at times confused those obligations and was not clear and definitive enough standing up for safety regulation."
Adding weight to criticism of CASA's relationship with industry is its refusal to release its audits of the overseas facilities, mainly in Asia, that are increasingly used by Qantas and Virgin Blue to maintain their jets. This has caused the Australian Licensed Aircraft Engineers Association to accuse CASA of putting the interests of foreign-owned companies before those of the Australian public.
Though the Senate inquiry has been a bruising experience for CASA executives, they have not been without support. Qantas and Virgin Blue applauded CASA's regulatory policy.
"The shift by CASA to a risk-based approach to safety, where the focus is on safety outcomes, with the responsibility for managing day-to-day safety risks resting with industry, is supported," Qantas said.
Importantly, Byron can point out to his critics that Australia still enjoys an airline safety record the envy of the world. "I am the first to say that we, CASA, do not have an easy job, but I stand by the record of my organisation over the last few years. We do not expect to receive bouquets for the work we do, but I would like to believe that most of the industry, from time to time, and on considered and calm reflection, acknowledges that CASA delivers real safety outcomes," said Byron, who is not seeking re-appointment as CASA chief.
But critics, such as CASA's former chief lawyer Peter Ilyk, suggest Australia is more than ever in need of a strong aviation regulator, given the growing pressure on airlines to cut costs and the possible negative effect that could have on safety and maintenance standards. "The fact that there have not been any accidents and the fact that people have not died does not mean that there is no safety problem."
Read more: On a wing and a prayer
My bold. I am sure I read almost exactly the same words from relatives of the deceased following the Lockhart River crash and what has been achieved............................?
Same thing happened after Lockhart R as the word went out among the Cretins Against Safe Aviation to "clean up those North Qld cowboys".
Dr
Same thing happened after Lockhart R as the word went out among the Cretins Against Safe Aviation to "clean up those North Qld cowboys".
HMHB how times have changed, not! If anything it has gotten worse and there are no longer any of the old proactive heads...like the Benkes and Ilyks that aren't afraid to speak their minds...all numpty yes men too busy learning the trough rules and regs!
Oh and nearly forgot gobbles "TICK TOCK!"
Last edited by Sarcs; 16th Jun 2012 at 07:59.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Sunny side up
Posts: 1,206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
THIS AIRCRAFT HAS BEEN DESIGNED FOR SPECIAL
OPERATIONS AND IS NOT OPERATED TO THE SAME SAFETY
STANDARDS AS A NORMAL COMMERCIAL PASSENGER
FLIGHT.
OPERATIONS AND IS NOT OPERATED TO THE SAME SAFETY
STANDARDS AS A NORMAL COMMERCIAL PASSENGER
FLIGHT.
If he'd had an unexpected, out of the blue heart attack it would be a completely different matter (and a tragedy for both of them), but he had a condition that prevents sufferers from legally driving cars.
Epileptic driver jailed over fatal accident - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)Sadly, there are plenty more examples and from what I can see if they were aware of the condition, they all got jail.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Often cases are won or lost on "points of law".
Was the aircraft recovered and did it undergo "mechanical failure" testing? If not why not and what would it cost to get this examined?
I note the strike master crash near Bathurst was attributed to mechanical failure.
Will be reading the coroners findings with interest - Sad for everyone involved.
Was the aircraft recovered and did it undergo "mechanical failure" testing? If not why not and what would it cost to get this examined?
I note the strike master crash near Bathurst was attributed to mechanical failure.
Will be reading the coroners findings with interest - Sad for everyone involved.
How could CASA cancel a CPL, over safety breaches, but allow the PPL held by the same person, to remain 'current'? Of course, Before some smarty posts to inform me, it isn't really 'current' unless the pilot holds a Class 2 medical.
If you are considered unsafe to hold a CPL, then surely that applies to a PPL, an RAAus PC, and any other flying qualification?
Reckon CASA will need those high priced legal briefs in the near future!
happy days,
If you are considered unsafe to hold a CPL, then surely that applies to a PPL, an RAAus PC, and any other flying qualification?
Reckon CASA will need those high priced legal briefs in the near future!
happy days,
[T]he priority is to lift safety standards…
There is, in my opinion, a chronic need to:
- interpret the existing safety standards consistently, and
- secure compliance with the existing safety standards, consistently and effectively.
That CASA knowingly permits commercial passenger carrying operations to be carried out in circumstances for which an AOC is required (e.g. parachute operations in which punters off the street pay to be carried in aircraft) is a scandal.
That CASA knowingly permits commercial flying training operations to be carried out in circumstances for which an AOC is required (e.g. RAA Aus charging money to train its members) is a scandal.
CASA has no power to exempt anyone from the requirement for an AOC authorising operations for which an AOC is required. CASA’s job is to enforce the requirement, not turn a blind eye to it.
The standards are already there.
Australians are entitled to have those standards enforced, consistently and effectively.
Last edited by Creampuff; 16th Jun 2012 at 09:02.
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
Hempel had been a person of interest to CAA for many years.
They failed to act on compelling evidence given to them.
They are responsible for the tragedy.
They are "The Watchdog's on duty".
If the "watchdog is not capable it should be shot and replaced with a more competent dog.
Hempel was just being Barry.
He should have had his wings clipped many years prior to this debacle.
They failed to act on compelling evidence given to them.
They are responsible for the tragedy.
They are "The Watchdog's on duty".
If the "watchdog is not capable it should be shot and replaced with a more competent dog.
Hempel was just being Barry.
He should have had his wings clipped many years prior to this debacle.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Mel-burn
Posts: 4,875
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you are considered unsafe to hold a CPL, then surely that applies to a PPL, an RAAus PC, and any other flying qualification?
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Sunny side up
Posts: 1,206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Often cases are won or lost on "points of law".
ed up and killed someone. Anyone want to claim a dodgy winglet did the deed? Was it all a horrible mistake?Point of fact, the pax died and no doubt his partner will blame herself every day of her life for buying him the ticket, despite his fatality being not her fault.
In Australia, an advertised, commercial product is expected to be reasonably safe and comply with regulations. If you buy salami, you can reasonably expect that your deli and their supplier kept it stored and refrigerated at the regulated temperature and away from maggots and contaminants. If they left it sitting on the dock in the sun for half a day and you bought it, ate it and got really sick, it doesn't matter a toss if the listed fat content was wrong. They didn't follow the regulations and it's their problem. They
ed up and you were harmed. If you buy a joyflight ticket you should expect that the pilot complies with the regulations and is licensed to carry paying pax. This didn't happen. If there was anything wrong with the aircraft and a wing had fallen off mid flight, we would have heard about it by now. CASA and their Senior Counsels would have already found it and explained the whole problem away.
If there was anything wrong with the pilot? That's what the coroner will find out, and it's not looking good. What caused the crash? No missing wing, no dodgy fuel, no alien bombers wreaking havoc on GA joyflights. A pilot with a known seizure problem and a prohibition re commerical pax (and no broken wrists) plunges into the sea, taking a trusting customer with him who paid for what he and the purchaser believed was a safe product. Any smoking guns we're not aware of? Now's the time.
Australians are entitled to have those standards enforced, consistently and effectively.
I agree that this sucks for everyone.
Last edited by Worrals in the wilds; 17th Jun 2012 at 00:07.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cream Puff Aviation Administration.
I'd vote for it. In post #116 – CP presents an argument which although not perfect, kicks seven bells out of the current arrangements. Looking at the pros; debate always accepted (but know your stuff), education freely offered, words like consistent, existing, equitable and by the 'law' (as writ) are used and meant. On the minus side; well, there is the odd issue of AC/DC electrics (Jas 24 wins) and stray 'operational' matters which may need some detailed explanation; but, on the whole, of great advantage. You will always know exactly what you are dealing with. In old money – cash and no pony pooh. Now that, I can live with. (CPAA buttons here).
But this Hempell matter has got me scratching the old wooden head; something, somehow, somewhere does not add up. Tonight, aided by the products of a certain Franciscan Abbey, research was conducted (RDO or 3 – not in Oz). Now, whilst it took a little time to come to terms with the 'language'; essentially it turns out that Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) and Post Traumatic Epilepsy (PTE) are not only extremely well documented, researched and discussed both in lay and academic terms but, have been well known since WW 2. The "Wiki" links will get you started, they do provide some fascinating reading for folk infected by those who insist on being hit in the head by pavements, trucks, boots, bullets and the odd (errant ?) hangar door. But, I digress (blame the Nuns).
A conspiracy theorist could conjure a movie script from this tale – but as a pragmatist; well. However, when you examine the latitude afforded in this case against the many 'medically' cancelled licences (halitosis) and the many documented cases of pilots being administratively crucified for much lessor alleged 'crimes' (steep turns), you feel obliged to ask why was it so ?; given the nature of both the aeronautical and criminal allegations made.
It would, I believe, be reasonable to ask if this was a protected species case; and, if so, why and by whom ??; at least to eliminate it from our enquiries (so to speak).
Nope, it just don't add up at all. But then again. – (This space intentionally blank for sensible answers).
TBI
PTE
But this Hempell matter has got me scratching the old wooden head; something, somehow, somewhere does not add up. Tonight, aided by the products of a certain Franciscan Abbey, research was conducted (RDO or 3 – not in Oz). Now, whilst it took a little time to come to terms with the 'language'; essentially it turns out that Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) and Post Traumatic Epilepsy (PTE) are not only extremely well documented, researched and discussed both in lay and academic terms but, have been well known since WW 2. The "Wiki" links will get you started, they do provide some fascinating reading for folk infected by those who insist on being hit in the head by pavements, trucks, boots, bullets and the odd (errant ?) hangar door. But, I digress (blame the Nuns).
A conspiracy theorist could conjure a movie script from this tale – but as a pragmatist; well. However, when you examine the latitude afforded in this case against the many 'medically' cancelled licences (halitosis) and the many documented cases of pilots being administratively crucified for much lessor alleged 'crimes' (steep turns), you feel obliged to ask why was it so ?; given the nature of both the aeronautical and criminal allegations made.
It would, I believe, be reasonable to ask if this was a protected species case; and, if so, why and by whom ??; at least to eliminate it from our enquiries (so to speak).
Nope, it just don't add up at all. But then again. – (This space intentionally blank for sensible answers).
TBI
PTE
Last edited by Kharon; 16th Jun 2012 at 16:33.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: on the edge
Posts: 823
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Creampuff said:That CASA knowingly permits commercial passenger carrying operations to be carried out in circumstances for which an AOC is required (e.g. parachute operations in which punters off the street pay to be carried in aircraft) is a scandal.
Worrals said: And points of fact. Bloke wasn't supposed to be flying pax for money, due to a pre-existing medical conditon. He'd been told that by the regulator and he did it anyway, unbenownst to the pax who thought he was getting a safe product. Bloke sold tickets despite being told not to by the regulator.
Last edited by blackhand; 16th Jun 2012 at 21:41. Reason: Syntax