Barry Hempel Inquest
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
Then how come somebody from CASA doesn't end up in jail????
How can they end up in jail? They have complete, utter, unquestionable authority to do as they please, when they please with total immunity and 'non jail priviledges'. They are as untouchable as a crooked Australian politician.
Last edited by gobbledock; 3rd Jul 2012 at 10:26.
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
I concur in your sentiments entirely.
I tried to post just the first two of the words as an answer so I am forced due to minimum letters to post more so I hope the message gets through.
I concur.
I tried to post just the first two of the words as an answer so I am forced due to minimum letters to post more so I hope the message gets through.
I concur.
The QPS investigation and subsequent report into this accident was extremely thorough and factual. However the limited assistance from the bureau and regulator appears to show signs of negligence, amorality, obfuscation etc..etc that beggars belief!
Here is a couple of quotes of note from the QPS report:
"due to the operational nature of this incident",
.....in otherwords there was potentially ugly implications if the bureau decided to investigate!
"Senior Constable Bourke did not receive a reply."
....and isn't that just typical!
Yep the Coroner sure has got his work cut out with this one.....full marks to the QPS Forensic Crash Unit though!
Here is a couple of quotes of note from the QPS report:
The priorities applied when considering an aviation investigation reflect the ATSB’s primary focus on enhancing safety with respect to fare paying passengers. Subject to the considerations detailed above, the ATSB will allocate its resources in line with level “1” being the highest (i.e. large passenger aircraft). Level “3” includes commercial fare paying operations, in which this incident could be described as.
Whilst serious and fatal investigations involving fare paying passengers carries a high priority, due to the operational nature of this incident, the ATSB decided to preserve their resources and not investigate this matter.
Whilst serious and fatal investigations involving fare paying passengers carries a high priority, due to the operational nature of this incident, the ATSB decided to preserve their resources and not investigate this matter.
.....in otherwords there was potentially ugly implications if the bureau decided to investigate!
15.4 No Crash Investigation by CASA
On the 15th January 2009, Senior Constable Bourke was advised by ****** ***** that CASA’s legal department had decided that no further material would be released to the QPS to assist with this investigation. That day, Senior Constable Bourke wrote to ******* *****, Deputy Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of CASA Operations requesting further assistance. Senior Constable Bourke did not receive a reply.
On the 15th January 2009, Senior Constable Bourke was advised by ****** ***** that CASA’s legal department had decided that no further material would be released to the QPS to assist with this investigation. That day, Senior Constable Bourke wrote to ******* *****, Deputy Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of CASA Operations requesting further assistance. Senior Constable Bourke did not receive a reply.
....and isn't that just typical!
Yep the Coroner sure has got his work cut out with this one.....full marks to the QPS Forensic Crash Unit though!
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would like to provide a contrasting example of the medical aspects of the Hemple and CASA situation.
A close friend was in dispute (court) with the company he worked for. A Director of that company approached CASA and asked that the pilots medical be "pulled". CASA subsequently did so. This information is available in court documents. The reasons CASA gave for revoking the medical are dubious at best.
It seems that CASA knew that Barry Hemple had a serious medical problem yet allowed him a medical and PPL.
Another example of CASA inconsistency and old boy networks.
Greedy
A close friend was in dispute (court) with the company he worked for. A Director of that company approached CASA and asked that the pilots medical be "pulled". CASA subsequently did so. This information is available in court documents. The reasons CASA gave for revoking the medical are dubious at best.
It seems that CASA knew that Barry Hemple had a serious medical problem yet allowed him a medical and PPL.
Another example of CASA inconsistency and old boy networks.
Greedy
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Melbourne
Age: 65
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Blow the whistle on their "mate"
I wonder how many people are willing to take a stand and report unsafe practices. The reality for many whistleblowers is that they will be ostracised by many of their peers and eventually be forced to depart from their employment by their employer on some trumped up charge. The Government organisations charged with investigating and "Fixing" the problem appear to me unwilling or incapable of doing so. Shoot the messenger is alive and well in the Australian Aviation Industry. I wonder also if there are any reporters in Australia who are capable of investigative journalism should someone wish to "go public" with information regarding Aviation related safety matters. Typical reporting of an incident where an aircraft was not secured and rolled a few metres goes something like this: "Runaway aircraft terrorises Melbourne Airport" or emotive headlines to that effect. This i believe is great for selling newspapers but no good comes of it for the industry. Does anyone have any thoughts on "whistleblowing" or appropriate media outlets??? Thanks BVA
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
I wonder how many people are willing to take a stand and report unsafe practices
CASA perhaps?
This is just so true from 2 post above:
I wonder how many people are willing to take a stand and report unsafe practices. The reality for many whistleblowers is that they will be ostracised by many of their peers and eventually be forced to depart from their employment by their employer on some trumped up charge. The Government organisations charged with investigating and "Fixing" the problem appear to me unwilling or incapable of doing so. Shoot the messenger is alive and well in the Australian Aviation Industry.
CASA seem pre-occupied on personal grudges.
I wonder how many people are willing to take a stand and report unsafe practices. The reality for many whistleblowers is that they will be ostracised by many of their peers and eventually be forced to depart from their employment by their employer on some trumped up charge. The Government organisations charged with investigating and "Fixing" the problem appear to me unwilling or incapable of doing so. Shoot the messenger is alive and well in the Australian Aviation Industry.
CASA seem pre-occupied on personal grudges.
Seems ICAO had similar concerns in regards to the bureau abrogating their responsibility for investigating certain fatal accidents:
...so which of the above 'factors' precluded the Hempel accident from being investigated? Could it be the ATSB knew that if they investigated they would have to foot the bill to raise the Yak?
Interesting response from the ATSB:
So that's the ATSB defence...the aircraft fell into 'sport aviation'...but hang on a sec..what about the fare paying pax??
APPENDIX 3-6-1
CORRECTIVE ACTION PLAN PROPOSED BY AUSTRALIA
RELATED TO AIRCRAFT ACCIDENT AND INCIDENT INVESTIGATION
AUDIT FINDING AIG/01
Funding for aviation accident investigations is provided by the Federal Government of Australia through the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government.
To make the most of the funding allocated to it, the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) has established guidelines to determine whether to investigate an occurrence with the level of response to a notification determined by resource availability and such factors as:
1. existence of fatalities;
2. anticipated safety value of an investigation;
3. extent of public, media or political interest;
4. timeliness of notification;
5. training benefit for ATSB investigators;
6. likely possibility of safety action arising from the investigation or the existence of supporting evidence or requirements to conduct a special investigation based on trends;
7. safety analysis or an identified targeted programme; and
8. scope or impact of any system failures.
Under the ATSB guidelines, occurrences that may fit the ICAO Annex 13’s definition of an aircraft accident or incident may not be investigated. Although the ATSB submits a notification of these occurrences to ICAO in accordance with ICAO Annex 13 provisions, the ATSB does not submit a preliminary report and/or an accident data report identifying contributing safety factors or probable
cause.
CORRECTIVE ACTION PLAN PROPOSED BY AUSTRALIA
RELATED TO AIRCRAFT ACCIDENT AND INCIDENT INVESTIGATION
AUDIT FINDING AIG/01
Funding for aviation accident investigations is provided by the Federal Government of Australia through the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government.
To make the most of the funding allocated to it, the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) has established guidelines to determine whether to investigate an occurrence with the level of response to a notification determined by resource availability and such factors as:
1. existence of fatalities;
2. anticipated safety value of an investigation;
3. extent of public, media or political interest;
4. timeliness of notification;
5. training benefit for ATSB investigators;
6. likely possibility of safety action arising from the investigation or the existence of supporting evidence or requirements to conduct a special investigation based on trends;
7. safety analysis or an identified targeted programme; and
8. scope or impact of any system failures.
Under the ATSB guidelines, occurrences that may fit the ICAO Annex 13’s definition of an aircraft accident or incident may not be investigated. Although the ATSB submits a notification of these occurrences to ICAO in accordance with ICAO Annex 13 provisions, the ATSB does not submit a preliminary report and/or an accident data report identifying contributing safety factors or probable
cause.
Interesting response from the ATSB:
STATE’S COMMENTS AND OBSERVATIONS*
Australia has considered this finding and the related recommendations from the audit team.
Australia meets its Article 26 obligations. However, Australia has also lodged a difference with ICAO in relation to standard 5.1 and recommended practice 5.1.1 of Annex 13 as Australia considers it impractical to investigate all accidents and serious incidents within resources available. In addition to targeting those accidents and incidents that are likely to yield the greatest safety value in accordance with the guidelines quoted above, Australia normally gives priority to investigations of accidents and serious incidents involving regular public transport aircraft (especially with fare-paying passengers) and accidents involving fatalities other than those involving ultralights and sport aviation.
Australia notes that the investigation of accidents and serious incidents has been included for discussion at the ICAO Accident Investigation and Prevention (AIG) Divisional meeting in October 2008. ATSB will participate in this discussion as it relates to upgrading recommendation 5.1.1 to a standard and allocating resources to those investigations that will yield the greatest safety value.
Australia may review its investigation policy following the AIG meeting.
Australia has considered this finding and the related recommendations from the audit team.
Australia meets its Article 26 obligations. However, Australia has also lodged a difference with ICAO in relation to standard 5.1 and recommended practice 5.1.1 of Annex 13 as Australia considers it impractical to investigate all accidents and serious incidents within resources available. In addition to targeting those accidents and incidents that are likely to yield the greatest safety value in accordance with the guidelines quoted above, Australia normally gives priority to investigations of accidents and serious incidents involving regular public transport aircraft (especially with fare-paying passengers) and accidents involving fatalities other than those involving ultralights and sport aviation.
Australia notes that the investigation of accidents and serious incidents has been included for discussion at the ICAO Accident Investigation and Prevention (AIG) Divisional meeting in October 2008. ATSB will participate in this discussion as it relates to upgrading recommendation 5.1.1 to a standard and allocating resources to those investigations that will yield the greatest safety value.
Australia may review its investigation policy following the AIG meeting.
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What about Ian Lovell ?????
To summarise,
A young woman calls Archerfield Airport and asks them to recommend a safe operator for a joy flight
she is refered to Hempel Aviation Pty Ltd who advertise on their website that they provide joyflights in a Yak for a fee
she books a flight as a birthday present for her partner Ian Lovell
She pays for the flight by credit card and gets a receipt issued by Hempel Aviation Pty Ltd.
during the flight Hempel, a well known (to CASA and also to an awfully large number of commercial and private pilots around Australia it seems) epileptic, who had previously had his commercial pilots licence cancelled by CASA because of his head injuries (incurred when a hangar door fell on him) crashes the plane killing an innocent passenger, Mr Ian Lovell.
when the bodies are recovered from the wreckage on the seabed, the Police find a gift certificate made out to Mr Ian Lovell, issued by Hempel Aviation Pty Ltd, in Hempel's pocket.
how dare these snivelling, shiny arsed, back covering, prevaricating, self seeking, hypocritical, ba***rds at CASA say this is NOT a commercial operation !!!
how dare they claim that this justifies them NOT investigating the crash!
how dare they refuse to assist the Queensland Police Service!
what am I missing, we have a contract, we have valuable consideration, and we have goods supplied, if this is not a commercial arrangement what is it?
or are CASA now redefining the whole law of contract ??
I have to stop now before I get really worked up and start saying what I really think about CASA!
Macca
A young woman calls Archerfield Airport and asks them to recommend a safe operator for a joy flight
she is refered to Hempel Aviation Pty Ltd who advertise on their website that they provide joyflights in a Yak for a fee
she books a flight as a birthday present for her partner Ian Lovell
She pays for the flight by credit card and gets a receipt issued by Hempel Aviation Pty Ltd.
during the flight Hempel, a well known (to CASA and also to an awfully large number of commercial and private pilots around Australia it seems) epileptic, who had previously had his commercial pilots licence cancelled by CASA because of his head injuries (incurred when a hangar door fell on him) crashes the plane killing an innocent passenger, Mr Ian Lovell.
when the bodies are recovered from the wreckage on the seabed, the Police find a gift certificate made out to Mr Ian Lovell, issued by Hempel Aviation Pty Ltd, in Hempel's pocket.
how dare these snivelling, shiny arsed, back covering, prevaricating, self seeking, hypocritical, ba***rds at CASA say this is NOT a commercial operation !!!
how dare they claim that this justifies them NOT investigating the crash!
how dare they refuse to assist the Queensland Police Service!
what am I missing, we have a contract, we have valuable consideration, and we have goods supplied, if this is not a commercial arrangement what is it?
or are CASA now redefining the whole law of contract ??
I have to stop now before I get really worked up and start saying what I really think about CASA!
Macca
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 768
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Macca,
or are CASA now redefining the whole law of contract ??
The only Law of Contract assiduosly enforced in CASA is the Contract of Employment for Full Time and the Conditions for Contractors ( consultants)
Perish the thought their renumeration might get less than contracted !!!!!!
or are CASA now redefining the whole law of contract ??
The only Law of Contract assiduosly enforced in CASA is the Contract of Employment for Full Time and the Conditions for Contractors ( consultants)
Perish the thought their renumeration might get less than contracted !!!!!!
Moderator
A young woman calls Archerfield Airport and asks them to recommend a safe operator for a joy flight she is refered to Hempel Aviation Pty Ltd who advertise on their website...
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: on the edge
Posts: 823
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
or are CASA now redefining the whole law of contract ??
during the flight Hempel, a well known (to CASA and also to an awfully large number of commercial and private pilots around Australia it seems) epileptic, who had previously had his commercial pilots licence cancelled by CASA because
As far as I know, his commercial pilot's license (CPL) wasn't cancelled, his class one medical was suspended (which should prevent commercial operations). This is an important point, because Australian licenses are stamped "Permanently Valid", so anyone asking to see Barry's CPL could be shown a valid license. Anyone asking to see his medical could be shown a valid medical - you would need to be able to pick up the difference between a class one and class two medical to know whether he was correctly licensed for commercial operations.
Last edited by Checkboard; 25th Jul 2012 at 08:32.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Sunny side up
Posts: 1,206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Anyone asking to see his medical could be shown a valid medical - you would need to be able to pick up the difference between a class one and class two medical to know whether he was correctly licensed for commercial operations.
Let's say I'm an average person wanting a joyflight; how do I establish that the operator is reasonably safe? Is there a database or do I have to rely on what 'everybody knows' and hope that I'm part of the Everybody Knows Club?
Or should I have a reasonable expectation that in Australia, a business advertising a service is 1. licensed to do so and 2. uses licensed operators to provide that adverised service, not people with known medical issues that should preclude them from flying?
This has systemic failure written all over it. The system works only when everyone wants it to work. When someone thwarts that, the whole thing falls in a heap, a customer dies and it's no-one's fault. Just an unfortunate event.
What this case shows is that aviation in Australia is regulated by the law of the jungle/caveat emptor. Pay your money and take your chance; the regulator cannot protect you, the law will not protect you; all you can count on is your own hunch and a bunch of rumours. Don't count on law enforcement agencies to enforce the law because it's all Too Hard.
Joyflight anyone?
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Fliegensville, Gold Coast Australia
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Good points Worrals.....even if Joe Punter were to dig that deep....which they would not......it would be reasonably expected to joe punter that anyone / organisation would be suitably regulated / supervised so as to be safe and compliant
For Christ's sake look at how ridiculously over regulated we are in everything else in this country, my company wants to introduce a safety procedure policy for the operation of a coffee plunger for crying out loud! And that is true...I am not making that up., so under that veil of nanny state crappola, yeah joe punter could reasonably expect that someone offering joyflights would be suitable fit to do so, it would appear from this thread that that would perhaps not necessarily be so...
Note how in Nanny state I have to type.. "it would appear from this thread that that would perhaps not necessarily be so..." Not allowed to talk about golliwogs either as that may offend some...
For Christ's sake look at how ridiculously over regulated we are in everything else in this country, my company wants to introduce a safety procedure policy for the operation of a coffee plunger for crying out loud! And that is true...I am not making that up., so under that veil of nanny state crappola, yeah joe punter could reasonably expect that someone offering joyflights would be suitable fit to do so, it would appear from this thread that that would perhaps not necessarily be so...
Note how in Nanny state I have to type.. "it would appear from this thread that that would perhaps not necessarily be so..." Not allowed to talk about golliwogs either as that may offend some...
The saddest part of this whole thread is that I am not in the least bit surprised that Fleigenmong's company is introducing a safety policy to use the coffee plunger. Thats "ops normal" in Australia's business culture today.
No matter how enthusiastically the lawyers pursue this matter or how much the regulators / business colleagues / local aviation fraternity may duck n dive, at the end of the day one fact remains - one young man climbed into a plane expecting the time of his life, not the end of it.
No matter how enthusiastically the lawyers pursue this matter or how much the regulators / business colleagues / local aviation fraternity may duck n dive, at the end of the day one fact remains - one young man climbed into a plane expecting the time of his life, not the end of it.