Barry Hempel Inquest
It's well known in the aviation community (and don't ask me for references because you're not getting them 
) that calling CASA about breaches is a WOFTAE. Transair has already been mentioned. 
) that calling CASA about breaches is a WOFTAE. Transair has already been mentioned.
... and the Seaview Air Disaster
What is now clear is that the accident was entirely avoidable - that it should not have happened, that those nine lives were lost needlessly.
Yesterday in Federal Parliament, Aviation Minister John Sharp tabled the Commission of Inquiry report into relations between Seaview Air and the former Civil Aviation Authority, and more comprehensive denunciation of safety standards it is difficult to imagine.
The Commission of Inquiry pulled no punches. Seaview Air was "a slipshod, often wilfully non-compliant organisation in which breaches of regulations and unacceptable practices were ... commonplace", the report found.
Yesterday in Federal Parliament, Aviation Minister John Sharp tabled the Commission of Inquiry report into relations between Seaview Air and the former Civil Aviation Authority, and more comprehensive denunciation of safety standards it is difficult to imagine.
The Commission of Inquiry pulled no punches. Seaview Air was "a slipshod, often wilfully non-compliant organisation in which breaches of regulations and unacceptable practices were ... commonplace", the report found.
... and the South Pacific Seaplanes Disaster ...
18 From its inception, and even prior to the grant of its first Air Operators Certificate (" AOC"), SPS presented CASA with difficult regulatory problems. These involved frequent and repeated breaches of various regulatory requirements and a failure to honour the numerous undertakings it gave to remedy perceived inadequacies in its methods of operations.
19 It had a significant turnover in Chief Pilots, a number of whom made serious allegations against SPS management and its attitude to aviation safety. Over the period covered by this inquiry, CASA received at least 21 separate complaints against SPS operations and it issued 13 Non-compliance Notices and nine Aircraft Survey Reports in respect of matters of varying significance, some of which were serious enough to ground SPS aircraft. Its aircraft were involved in a number of accidents or allegedly near accidents, two of which involved aircraft being submerged with a threat to the pilot's life.
20 On 6 April 1997 the then Regional Manager South East Region (" RM SER") issued a notice to SPS requiring it to show cause why its AOC should not be cancelled or suspended. I regard the issue of that notice as fully justified.
21 On 12 May 1997, however, the then RM SER decided to take no further action after an informal conference with SPS management...
19 It had a significant turnover in Chief Pilots, a number of whom made serious allegations against SPS management and its attitude to aviation safety. Over the period covered by this inquiry, CASA received at least 21 separate complaints against SPS operations and it issued 13 Non-compliance Notices and nine Aircraft Survey Reports in respect of matters of varying significance, some of which were serious enough to ground SPS aircraft. Its aircraft were involved in a number of accidents or allegedly near accidents, two of which involved aircraft being submerged with a threat to the pilot's life.
20 On 6 April 1997 the then Regional Manager South East Region (" RM SER") issued a notice to SPS requiring it to show cause why its AOC should not be cancelled or suspended. I regard the issue of that notice as fully justified.
21 On 12 May 1997, however, the then RM SER decided to take no further action after an informal conference with SPS management...
Last edited by Checkboard; 19th Jun 2012 at 12:06.
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Oz Trailer
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CEO says not my job to manage pilots qualifications!!
here is the full text
CASA accused of reckless and deficient oversight in permitting pilot to continue to fly
Documents obtained by The Australian show the Civil Aviation Safety Authority prepared a comprehensive prosecution "brief of evidence" against two key figures in Hempel's company, its chief executive Gordon Craig and chief pilot Michael Lawrence.
CASA investigator John Jones stated in formal CASA documents that evidence showed the two men knew Hempel was illegally flying fare-paying passengers, despite having been stripped of his commercial licence, "and chose to do nothing about it".
A spokesman for CASA said last night that after referring its brief of evidence to the commonwealth DPP it was advised that no prosecution would be launched.
CASA has been accused of reckless and deficient oversight in permitting Hempel to continue to fly despite his long record as an unsafe pilot, and his history of uncontrollable epileptic-type seizures that led to losses of consciousness.
Mr Craig and Mr Lawrence have strenuously denied that they were aware of Hempel's wrongdoing before the August 2008 crash of his aerobatic Russian aircraft in the water between North and South Stradbroke islands, off the Gold Coast. The men said Hempel, 60, had lied to them.
But the family of passenger Ian Lovell wants CASA's director of aviation safety, John McCormick, and federal Transport Minister Anthony Albanese to explain why CASA let Hempel continue to fly on a private licence and do endorsement training and instructing. Queensland Coroner John Hutton is expected to bring down findings later this year.
The Weekend Australian revealed that CASA formally disciplined Hempel months before the crash and told him he was dishonest, dangerous, reckless and "an unacceptable risk to recividism that threatens aviation safety". But CASA said he could still fly and instruct others.
CASA's documents after the double fatality state that Mr Craig "admits to being a Clayton's CEO", appointed to satisfy CASA requirements while Hempel controlled the management and operation of the aviation company. The documents state that Mr Craig and Mr Lawrence were present when Hempel flew illegally on 16 known occasions in the weeks before the crash.
CASA concluded that Mr Craig "tolerated a culture of turning a blind eye to illegal conduct by Barry Hempel. Lawrence remained involved in booking Hempel's illegal flights up until the date of the fatal flight. The actions of both Craig and Lawrence showed a wilful blindness."
Mr Lawrence emphatically denied the claims and insisted he maintained a vigilant watch, but that "none of the inquiries or inspections which I routinely made . . . gave rise to any suspicion that Hempel was engaged in unlawful activities". He said he had argued fiercely with Hempel in a bid to maintain safety.
Mr Craig also denied CASA's claims and said that while he was CEO, it was not part of his job to review Hempel's qualifications as a pilot for Hempel's Aviation.
===================
Yes but what about the CASA charges against Hempel?
why were they pulled?
Who was it in CASA who ordered them pulled?
what about CASA, why did they do nothing ?????
and what about the CASA chappie who had a seizure in the witness box - will CASA pull his licence??
was McCormick a very very close mate of Hempel??
why was Hempel worried about his multiple convictions for indecent behaviour becoming known?
were these convictions something in which CASA should have taken an interest?
did they make Hempel a fit and proper person to hold a pilot licence?
did Hempel hold a "Blue Card" which was necessary for him to carry young children unsupervised on joyflights?
or did all his planes have three seats (i.e. one for the chaperone)?
stay tuned for more dissembling from CASA!!
CASA accused of reckless and deficient oversight in permitting pilot to continue to fly
- by: Hedley Thomas
- From: The Australian
- June 20, 2012 12:00AM
Documents obtained by The Australian show the Civil Aviation Safety Authority prepared a comprehensive prosecution "brief of evidence" against two key figures in Hempel's company, its chief executive Gordon Craig and chief pilot Michael Lawrence.
CASA investigator John Jones stated in formal CASA documents that evidence showed the two men knew Hempel was illegally flying fare-paying passengers, despite having been stripped of his commercial licence, "and chose to do nothing about it".
A spokesman for CASA said last night that after referring its brief of evidence to the commonwealth DPP it was advised that no prosecution would be launched.
CASA has been accused of reckless and deficient oversight in permitting Hempel to continue to fly despite his long record as an unsafe pilot, and his history of uncontrollable epileptic-type seizures that led to losses of consciousness.
Mr Craig and Mr Lawrence have strenuously denied that they were aware of Hempel's wrongdoing before the August 2008 crash of his aerobatic Russian aircraft in the water between North and South Stradbroke islands, off the Gold Coast. The men said Hempel, 60, had lied to them.
But the family of passenger Ian Lovell wants CASA's director of aviation safety, John McCormick, and federal Transport Minister Anthony Albanese to explain why CASA let Hempel continue to fly on a private licence and do endorsement training and instructing. Queensland Coroner John Hutton is expected to bring down findings later this year.
The Weekend Australian revealed that CASA formally disciplined Hempel months before the crash and told him he was dishonest, dangerous, reckless and "an unacceptable risk to recividism that threatens aviation safety". But CASA said he could still fly and instruct others.
CASA's documents after the double fatality state that Mr Craig "admits to being a Clayton's CEO", appointed to satisfy CASA requirements while Hempel controlled the management and operation of the aviation company. The documents state that Mr Craig and Mr Lawrence were present when Hempel flew illegally on 16 known occasions in the weeks before the crash.
CASA concluded that Mr Craig "tolerated a culture of turning a blind eye to illegal conduct by Barry Hempel. Lawrence remained involved in booking Hempel's illegal flights up until the date of the fatal flight. The actions of both Craig and Lawrence showed a wilful blindness."
Mr Lawrence emphatically denied the claims and insisted he maintained a vigilant watch, but that "none of the inquiries or inspections which I routinely made . . . gave rise to any suspicion that Hempel was engaged in unlawful activities". He said he had argued fiercely with Hempel in a bid to maintain safety.
Mr Craig also denied CASA's claims and said that while he was CEO, it was not part of his job to review Hempel's qualifications as a pilot for Hempel's Aviation.
===================
Yes but what about the CASA charges against Hempel?
why were they pulled?
Who was it in CASA who ordered them pulled?
what about CASA, why did they do nothing ?????
and what about the CASA chappie who had a seizure in the witness box - will CASA pull his licence??
was McCormick a very very close mate of Hempel??
why was Hempel worried about his multiple convictions for indecent behaviour becoming known?
were these convictions something in which CASA should have taken an interest?
did they make Hempel a fit and proper person to hold a pilot licence?
did Hempel hold a "Blue Card" which was necessary for him to carry young children unsupervised on joyflights?
or did all his planes have three seats (i.e. one for the chaperone)?
stay tuned for more dissembling from CASA!!
time and energy = CASA management = CASA supervision
By their own admission....should not CASA, and specifically the person who described him as "an unacceptable risk....." but still allowed him to fly, also be accused of "wilful blindness" ?
I deal with CASA fairly regularly and I'm always astonished at the frequency and speed they lay blame and responsibility on other parties.
Sorry Mr CASA, but the parties being accused of wilful blindness is/should be YOU!
I deal with CASA fairly regularly and I'm always astonished at the frequency and speed they lay blame and responsibility on other parties.
Sorry Mr CASA, but the parties being accused of wilful blindness is/should be YOU!
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Back again.
Posts: 1,140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There's been little mentioned up to this point of the conduct of the CP. Sounds like the CASA is only now trying to shut the gate after the horse has well and truly bolted.
In accidents such as these, it intrigues me as to the number of enablers: those who had influence as individuals to possibly have prevented the accident, but chose instead to tolerate, and thus endorse, the activities.
If these indeed are the actual words used by the CASA, then the immediate question is why was he still allowed to fly even as a PPL if he was "dangerous, reckless," etc.
At this early stage, it appears the investigative team has a target rich environment.
I will follow the outcome of this investigation with a great deal of interest.
In accidents such as these, it intrigues me as to the number of enablers: those who had influence as individuals to possibly have prevented the accident, but chose instead to tolerate, and thus endorse, the activities.
that CASA formally disciplined Hempel months before the crash and told him he was dishonest, dangerous, reckless and "an unacceptable risk to recividism that threatens aviation safety". But CASA said he could still fly and instruct others.
At this early stage, it appears the investigative team has a target rich environment.
I will follow the outcome of this investigation with a great deal of interest.
Last edited by Lodown; 19th Jun 2012 at 22:38.
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Oz Trailer
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Another quick question without notice;
In the YLHR crash, what airline name was displayed in large text down the sides of the Transair aircraft, and what Company name was written on the tickets?
Transair perhaps?
TB
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Sunny side up
Posts: 1,206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
(Nerd alert, if anyone has trouble reading linked articles from the Australian or they ask you to log on, just google the heading and the whole thing will come up as a 'news' item 
).
If the article is correct, the DPP pulled the case, not CASA. If you get caught doing stuff that contravenes federal law (whether it be smuggling, ripping off the Tax Office, breaching CASA regs, importing foreign pineapples or whatever) the relevant federal agency has to refer the evidence they gather to the DPP, who decide whether a prosecution will proceed. In my experience, if the DPP knock it back there's not a lot the agency can do, except wail, gnash its teeth and call the DPP a bunch of nasty names. 
It's theoretically possible that they were influenced by a person or persons within CASA, but you'd want some pretty strong evidence before you started throwing that accusation around, because if you were wrong it would be pretty defamatory to both CASA and the DPP.
Maybe CASA did try in this case. Wonder what the DPP story was?
Too hard? To expensive? Unlikely to win?
).
Documents obtained by The Australian show the Civil Aviation Safety Authority prepared a comprehensive prosecution "brief of evidence" against two key figures in Hempel's company, its chief executive Gordon Craig and chief pilot Michael Lawrence.
A spokesman for CASA said last night that after referring its brief of evidence to the commonwealth DPP it was advised that no prosecution would be launched.
A spokesman for CASA said last night that after referring its brief of evidence to the commonwealth DPP it was advised that no prosecution would be launched.
Who was it in CASA who ordered them pulled?
It's theoretically possible that they were influenced by a person or persons within CASA, but you'd want some pretty strong evidence before you started throwing that accusation around, because if you were wrong it would be pretty defamatory to both CASA and the DPP.
Maybe CASA did try in this case. Wonder what the DPP story was?
Too hard? To expensive? Unlikely to win?
Last edited by Worrals in the wilds; 19th Jun 2012 at 23:23.
Moderator
Too hard? To expensive? Unlikely to win?
(e.g. the Fair Work brief on Craig Thomson)
I'm sure the Coroner will address this issue.
It's theoretically possible that they were influenced by a person or persons within CASA, but you'd want some pretty strong evidence before you started throwing that accusation around, because if you were wrong it would be pretty defamatory to both CASA and the DPP
Q/ Is it a requirement that Minister Albo is kept informed of all fatal transport accidents?
If so it would be interesting to obtain any 'Ministerial Briefings' in regards to the Hempel accident! Perhaps an interested party could submit a well worded FOI request to Albo's circus, just a thought!
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Out of context
Guys have we got the above comments out of context.
My bolding, there all better now..
Documents obtained by The Australian show the Civil Aviation Safety Authority prepared a comprehensive prosecution "brief of evidence" against two key figures in Hempel's company, its chief executive Gordon Craig and chief pilot Michael Lawrence.
CASA investigator John Jones stated in formal CASA documents that evidence showed the two men knew Hempel was illegally flying fare-paying passengers, despite having been stripped of his commercial licence, "and chose to do nothing about it".
A spokesman for CASA said last night that after referring its brief of evidence to the commonwealth DPP it was advised that no prosecution would be launched.
CASA investigator John Jones stated in formal CASA documents that evidence showed the two men knew Hempel was illegally flying fare-paying passengers, despite having been stripped of his commercial licence, "and chose to do nothing about it".
A spokesman for CASA said last night that after referring its brief of evidence to the commonwealth DPP it was advised that no prosecution would be launched.
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
A spokesman for CASA said last night that after referring its brief of evidence to the commonwealth DPP it was advised that no prosecution would be launched.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Sunny side up
Posts: 1,206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Guys have we got the above comments out of context.
Was there ever a Brief sent to the DPP wrt Hempel's alleged breaches?
Last edited by Worrals in the wilds; 20th Jun 2012 at 01:15.
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hempel brief ????
WITW
that is a very good question.
Was there ever a Brief sent to the DPP wrt Hempel?
well, we know that CASA cancelled his CPL.
was Hempel's CPL pulled as a result of a brief or a court action?
was Hempel's CPL pulled under regulation?
was Hempel's CPL pulled by CASA because they could?
or was Hempel's CPL pulled because CASA was embaressed about what might be revealed in court if Hempel related issues (including the above mentioned brief) did ever go to court?
that is a very good question.
Was there ever a Brief sent to the DPP wrt Hempel?
well, we know that CASA cancelled his CPL.
was Hempel's CPL pulled as a result of a brief or a court action?
was Hempel's CPL pulled under regulation?
was Hempel's CPL pulled by CASA because they could?
or was Hempel's CPL pulled because CASA was embaressed about what might be revealed in court if Hempel related issues (including the above mentioned brief) did ever go to court?
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 768
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maybe CASA did try in this case. Wonder what the DPP story was? 
Too hard? To expensive? Unlikely to win?
Too many CASA clowns implicated in this which would have severely compromised the ability of CASA to give clear unfettered evidence of wrong doing without implicating themselves.
Too hard? To expensive? Unlikely to win?Too many CASA clowns implicated in this which would have severely compromised the ability of CASA to give clear unfettered evidence of wrong doing without implicating themselves.
Join Date: May 2011
Location: in the country
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's like 'there is never a cop when you need one'. They can't be everywhere, everytime. They took his medical/licence off him, what more can they do.
As I was once told by a Police investigator. "You can complain about people breaking the law all you like. But until you are prepared to go on record, we can't do a thing!"
I reckon it would be fair to say that part of the reason why nobody wants to speak up is FEAR!
Fear of being branded and being known by all to their peers as a dobber. Being known as a dobber, the individaul then believes this might have an impact on any future job prospects.
Fear of retaliation by their employers as we have seen with the Jetstar pilot that was sacked when he spoke up.
And...
Fear of retaliation by the company the allegations were made against. This has happened to me in the past. This included TIT-FOR-TAT bull**** false incident reports and threats of physical violence, even towards the business owners children.
We were even threaten by CASA. Saying that we were liable to be charged with peverting the cause of justice for withholding infomation!
I was also been approached by CASA about another pilot who was known to them. Told him to talk to the FOIs in the state where he was based. Also told the FOI if from what was being said by many was true, and you can somehow stop him, you will probably save a life. One year later he and his passenger were dead and I'm reading an article in the paper about how CASA knew he was dodgy.
An instructor at a reputable school at MB spoke up about poor airmanship displayed by the instructors of another school. Most others on the airport agreed with him and said, but he still had a target on his back because of it. A few months later two of the schools aircraft had a collision resulting in a death. Then they blamed ATC.
It is not only very sad for Ian's family and friends. I couldn't imagine the grief that Barry's family are going through. And for those who knew and did nothing to prevent this, you now have to live with the guilt too!
In-cog.
For those who are still after me from something that happen 10 years ago. Get over it, let it go, move on!
In accidents such as these, it intrigues me as to the number of enablers: those who had influence as individuals to possibly have prevented the accident, but chose instead to tolerate, and thus endorse, the activities.
I reckon it would be fair to say that part of the reason why nobody wants to speak up is FEAR!
Fear of being branded and being known by all to their peers as a dobber. Being known as a dobber, the individaul then believes this might have an impact on any future job prospects.
Fear of retaliation by their employers as we have seen with the Jetstar pilot that was sacked when he spoke up.
And...
Fear of retaliation by the company the allegations were made against. This has happened to me in the past. This included TIT-FOR-TAT bull**** false incident reports and threats of physical violence, even towards the business owners children.
We were even threaten by CASA. Saying that we were liable to be charged with peverting the cause of justice for withholding infomation!
I was also been approached by CASA about another pilot who was known to them. Told him to talk to the FOIs in the state where he was based. Also told the FOI if from what was being said by many was true, and you can somehow stop him, you will probably save a life. One year later he and his passenger were dead and I'm reading an article in the paper about how CASA knew he was dodgy.
An instructor at a reputable school at MB spoke up about poor airmanship displayed by the instructors of another school. Most others on the airport agreed with him and said, but he still had a target on his back because of it. A few months later two of the schools aircraft had a collision resulting in a death. Then they blamed ATC.
It is not only very sad for Ian's family and friends. I couldn't imagine the grief that Barry's family are going through. And for those who knew and did nothing to prevent this, you now have to live with the guilt too!
In-cog.
For those who are still after me from something that happen 10 years ago. Get over it, let it go, move on!
Last edited by in-cog-nito; 20th Jun 2012 at 02:10.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What more can they do???
It's like 'there is never a cop when you need one'. They can't be everywhere, everytime. They took his medical/licence off him, what more can they do.
I couldn't imagine the grief that Barry's family are going through.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Sunny side up
Posts: 1,206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I reckon it would be fair to say that part of the reason why nobody wants to speak up is FEAR!
However, I wonder whether the regulator would have done anything even if someone had gone on record. For all we know, several people may have.
They took his medical/licence off him, what more can they do.
The true question is 'what more were they willing to do'?, and the answer would appear to be 'nothing.'
Last edited by Worrals in the wilds; 20th Jun 2012 at 03:04.