Any news on Barrier? Minus the drift.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: More than 300km from SY, Australia
Posts: 817
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
casa and the effect on commercial operations
This has just been published on the Federal Court website:
Federal Court Action [Barrier]
Civil Aviation Safety Authority v Barrier Aviation Pty Ltd [2013] FCA 227
Federal Court Action [Barrier]
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Civil Aviation Safety Authority v Barrier Aviation Pty Ltd
[2013] FCA 227
Citation: Civil Aviation Safety Authority v Barrier Aviation Pty Ltd [2013] FCA 227
Parties: CIVIL AVIATION SAFETY AUTHORITY v BARRIER AVIATION PTY LTD ACN 056 643 531
File number: NSD 2240 of 2012
Judge: RARES J
Date of judgment: 22 February 2013
Legislation: Civil Aviation Act 1988 (Cth) ss 3A, 9A(1), 30DB, 30DC, 30DE(2) and (3), 30DH, 30DI
Civil Aviation Regulations 1988 (Cth) reg 42G
Cases cited: Civil Aviation Safety Authority v Bell [2008] FCA 1049 applied
George v Rocket (1990) 170 CLR 104 applied
Date of hearing: 22 February 2013
Place: Sydney
Division: GENERAL DIVISION
Category: No catchwords
Number of paragraphs: 17
Counsel for the Applicant: Mr I Harvey
Solicitor for the Applicant: Legal Branch, Civil Aviation Safety Authority
Counsel for the Respondent: Mr S Ferrier
Solicitor for the Respondent: Ferrier & Associates Lawyers Pty Ltd
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION NSD 2240 of 2012
BETWEEN: CIVIL AVIATION SAFETY AUTHORITY
Applicant
AND: BARRIER AVIATION PTY LTD ACN 056 643 531
Respondent
JUDGE: RARES J
DATE OF ORDER: 22 FEBRUARY 2013
WHERE MADE: SYDNEY
Dated: 14 March 2013
Civil Aviation Safety Authority v Barrier Aviation Pty Ltd
[2013] FCA 227
Citation: Civil Aviation Safety Authority v Barrier Aviation Pty Ltd [2013] FCA 227
Parties: CIVIL AVIATION SAFETY AUTHORITY v BARRIER AVIATION PTY LTD ACN 056 643 531
File number: NSD 2240 of 2012
Judge: RARES J
Date of judgment: 22 February 2013
Legislation: Civil Aviation Act 1988 (Cth) ss 3A, 9A(1), 30DB, 30DC, 30DE(2) and (3), 30DH, 30DI
Civil Aviation Regulations 1988 (Cth) reg 42G
Cases cited: Civil Aviation Safety Authority v Bell [2008] FCA 1049 applied
George v Rocket (1990) 170 CLR 104 applied
Date of hearing: 22 February 2013
Place: Sydney
Division: GENERAL DIVISION
Category: No catchwords
Number of paragraphs: 17
Counsel for the Applicant: Mr I Harvey
Solicitor for the Applicant: Legal Branch, Civil Aviation Safety Authority
Counsel for the Respondent: Mr S Ferrier
Solicitor for the Respondent: Ferrier & Associates Lawyers Pty Ltd
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION NSD 2240 of 2012
BETWEEN: CIVIL AVIATION SAFETY AUTHORITY
Applicant
AND: BARRIER AVIATION PTY LTD ACN 056 643 531
Respondent
JUDGE: RARES J
DATE OF ORDER: 22 FEBRUARY 2013
WHERE MADE: SYDNEY
Dated: 14 March 2013
Last edited by Up-into-the-air; 15th Mar 2013 at 00:26. Reason: Full details
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Classified
Posts: 314
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Until the evidence is revealed, we can keep talking about it forever drawing up analogies that probably don't apply. I can't wait.
I guess the down side of signing an affidavit that ends up in federal court is that your name then becomes attached to decisions which end up a part of the public record.
I suppose you know what you are doing though.
Won't it make it very difficult to get a job in the future though? I mean imagine if you were on hold with a company like Virgin? I'd be nervous that they would find out and then remove me from the hold file! Oh well I'm sure you'll be fine as it's a big country.
If you are interested to know who started all this, the first demoted then fired, disgruntled employee this link should work: Federal Court Action [Barrier] | Assistance to the Aviation Industry
Check out section 8.
I suppose you know what you are doing though.
Won't it make it very difficult to get a job in the future though? I mean imagine if you were on hold with a company like Virgin? I'd be nervous that they would find out and then remove me from the hold file! Oh well I'm sure you'll be fine as it's a big country.
If you are interested to know who started all this, the first demoted then fired, disgruntled employee this link should work: Federal Court Action [Barrier] | Assistance to the Aviation Industry
Check out section 8.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: adelaide
Posts: 95
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why are so many people blaming CASA here?
CASA found evidence which were serious breaches of the law.
They got caught, so they got shutdown.
The only real people to blame here is the company for having such a piss poor safety culture, and the pilots for flying broken aircraft - I mean some of those defects in that report above are just shocking. Are you kidding me?
The link above said CASA only looked at 3 out of 8 aircraft. No doubt the remaining aircraft would have had the exact same problems.
Barrier got everything they deserved.
Good riddance!
CASA found evidence which were serious breaches of the law.
They got caught, so they got shutdown.
The only real people to blame here is the company for having such a piss poor safety culture, and the pilots for flying broken aircraft - I mean some of those defects in that report above are just shocking. Are you kidding me?
The link above said CASA only looked at 3 out of 8 aircraft. No doubt the remaining aircraft would have had the exact same problems.
Barrier got everything they deserved.
Good riddance!
Last edited by rep; 16th Mar 2013 at 03:08.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Australia
Age: 41
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
15 Mr Richardson gave evidence that early in his employment, he formed the view that an aircraft was unfit to fly after carrying out a daily pre-flight inspection. He could not recall, he said, what the issue was or the aircraft concerned, but he had refused to take that aircraft that he had been assigned to fly, because he considered it to be unserviceable, and instead flew another one. When he returned from the flight, he said he had been surprised to see that the aircraft which he refused to fly was missing, and apparently, according to his inquiries, had been flown by another pilot who had not identified the same defect.
Will CASA thoroughly investigate what would appear to be a serious non compliance with the rules and regulations by MR Richardson?
Will CASA, if this is found to be the case, be issuing MR Richardson with an infringement notice?
Lost wing nut, are you joking there's no way casa would have a go at their pet!
In fact casa called around offering pilots immunity from prosecution if they too would sign affidavits. All the guys i know who were called declined as nothing in the affidavit was factual.
Cheers,
Greaser.
In fact casa called around offering pilots immunity from prosecution if they too would sign affidavits. All the guys i know who were called declined as nothing in the affidavit was factual.
Cheers,
Greaser.
There's probably a really good lesson in this for GA pilots, and hopefully a coming paradigm shift in that part of the industry...
By that, I would suggest that Mr Richardson and his pilot colleagues have some serious questions to answer for operating these aircraft with these known defects. Mutual liability, and all that jazz, and the "Nuremburg Defence" they might offer should not be allowed to stand...
It is worth noting that maintenance cannot fix problems that are not reported to them (correctly) and although I do not assert for one moment that Barrier are innocent, I have seen on many occasions aircraft get flown by pilots with defects because the pilot "doesn't want the delay" the rectification would cause, or have to make the effort to change aircraft. Also, it is a common pilot mindset in the early career phase to just "hope I don't get caught out with this until I've got my hours up" - which doesn't help the issue.
Barrier are an example of a company that has evidently gone too far down the dodgy path and their demise perhaps sends a message to the other GA operators that they need to perform better than this. The pilots should also shoulder some blame and get a message - have the courage / discipline to manage defects / airworthiness standards correctly using company procedures and it should never get to the "dobbing to CASA" stage - pilots do have an obligation to be loyal to their employer, which often is difficult if they are recalcitrant, but companies will fix their airplanes if no one will fly them.
There are enough mechanisms in place to protect pilots (AFAP, FWA and yes, CASA) who set and maintain standards. But the best thing to protect pilots will be the correct safety culture - but as is often the case, pilots are their own worst enemy and there is no shortage of those who will fly dodgy aircraft just to "get their hours up"...
But nothing in this excuses Barrier - DK is an experienced operator - and it ultimately falls to him to ensure the viability of his company, the safety standards maintained by it and to have the integrity to do what is right. Through this, he might have been able to keep safe the livelihoods of those who entrusted a phase of their careers to him.
By that, I would suggest that Mr Richardson and his pilot colleagues have some serious questions to answer for operating these aircraft with these known defects. Mutual liability, and all that jazz, and the "Nuremburg Defence" they might offer should not be allowed to stand...
It is worth noting that maintenance cannot fix problems that are not reported to them (correctly) and although I do not assert for one moment that Barrier are innocent, I have seen on many occasions aircraft get flown by pilots with defects because the pilot "doesn't want the delay" the rectification would cause, or have to make the effort to change aircraft. Also, it is a common pilot mindset in the early career phase to just "hope I don't get caught out with this until I've got my hours up" - which doesn't help the issue.
Barrier are an example of a company that has evidently gone too far down the dodgy path and their demise perhaps sends a message to the other GA operators that they need to perform better than this. The pilots should also shoulder some blame and get a message - have the courage / discipline to manage defects / airworthiness standards correctly using company procedures and it should never get to the "dobbing to CASA" stage - pilots do have an obligation to be loyal to their employer, which often is difficult if they are recalcitrant, but companies will fix their airplanes if no one will fly them.
There are enough mechanisms in place to protect pilots (AFAP, FWA and yes, CASA) who set and maintain standards. But the best thing to protect pilots will be the correct safety culture - but as is often the case, pilots are their own worst enemy and there is no shortage of those who will fly dodgy aircraft just to "get their hours up"...
But nothing in this excuses Barrier - DK is an experienced operator - and it ultimately falls to him to ensure the viability of his company, the safety standards maintained by it and to have the integrity to do what is right. Through this, he might have been able to keep safe the livelihoods of those who entrusted a phase of their careers to him.
Last edited by Flying Bear; 16th Mar 2013 at 03:55.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: More than 300km from SY, Australia
Posts: 817
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
casa and control of the aviation industry
Let's get to the real part of this whole sorry saga of BA.
We have the regulator - casa doing, a surveillance less than two months prior to grounding BA.
No issues - re-issue the AOC.
Then the re-calcitrant pilot fronts up.
CASA grounds BA, but no evidence is mounted at a proper level that can be disputed.
Today is a week short of 3 months without any income for BA.
Death by a thousand cuts.
We have the regulator - casa doing, a surveillance less than two months prior to grounding BA.
No issues - re-issue the AOC.
Then the re-calcitrant pilot fronts up.
"I will get even with DK................."
Today is a week short of 3 months without any income for BA.
Death by a thousand cuts.
Last edited by Up-into-the-air; 16th Mar 2013 at 08:07. Reason: missed something
Join Date: May 2010
Location: More than 300km from SY, Australia
Posts: 817
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
casa and the effect on commercial operations
UA - Read from this:
and:
Barrier Judgement – 2013FCA0227 | Assistance to the Aviation Industry
8 First, Brad Cowan, an airworthiness inspector employed by CASA, with what appeared to be significant expertise, stated that CASA officers had conducted an audit of Barrier Aviation from 29 October 2012 to 12 November 2012 in which they identified a number of instances of non-compliance with the Act. Secondly, CASA relied on the affidavit of Craig Richardson, a pilot who, the parties agreed, was currently disaffected with his former employer, Barrier Aviation.
15 Mr Richardson gave evidence that early in his employment, he formed the view that an aircraft was unfit to fly after carrying out a daily pre-flight inspection. He could not recall, he said, what the issue was or the aircraft concerned, but he had refused to take that aircraft that he had been assigned to fly, because he considered it to be unserviceable, and instead flew another one. When he returned from the flight, he said he had been surprised to see that the aircraft which he refused to fly was missing, and apparently, according to his inquiries, had been flown by another pilot who had not identified the same defect.
Last edited by Up-into-the-air; 16th Mar 2013 at 08:03. Reason: more stuff
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Sydney
Posts: 148
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What are the chances Mr Craig Richardson will ever have the chance to be "disaffected" by an employer is aviation ever again........Douche.
Craig Richardson - Australia | LinkedIn
Craig Richardson - Australia | LinkedIn
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Lisbon
Posts: 995
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tis interesting how DK has led a fairly comfortable existence relatively hassle free since the Falcon drama of the 90's and the Wheelahan report?
Perhaps DK screwed somebody in CASA a few decades back and that somebody who has spent 15 plus years wandering the halls of FF until such a time that they became powerful enough to be in a position to deliver some robust payback to DK through BA as the means for that payback?
As for the 'informant' who threw the poo grenade at BA, don't worry as I am sure he will jag a job with APNG. It's new CEO and HOFO are as smart as moon dust.
Perhaps DK screwed somebody in CASA a few decades back and that somebody who has spent 15 plus years wandering the halls of FF until such a time that they became powerful enough to be in a position to deliver some robust payback to DK through BA as the means for that payback?
As for the 'informant' who threw the poo grenade at BA, don't worry as I am sure he will jag a job with APNG. It's new CEO and HOFO are as smart as moon dust.
Last edited by Cactusjack; 17th Mar 2013 at 03:53.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Over the Rainbow
Posts: 148
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote:
"I will get even with DK................."
Still waiting to hear where you got that quote from UITA. You wouldn't deliberately print something that was untrue would you?
"I will get even with DK................."
Still waiting to hear where you got that quote from UITA. You wouldn't deliberately print something that was untrue would you?