Any news on Barrier? Minus the drift.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Josh# 37 – "If barrier are so naughty, why then hasn't that been proven in the federal court, you know, last week when they were there ?".
Fair point; things that worry me are -(i)- The standard of investigation and evidence probity in FNQ is very suspect, if you weigh it against the Quadrio case: -(ii)- whatever evidence CASA has is not good enough to put Barrier down in a fair dinkum court, but near enough to convince an AAT "member", -(iii)- that if there is to be a 'mediation' then it needs to overlooked by an independent arbitrator, if it is to have a cat in hell's chance of being a 'highly desirable' outcome based safety fix.
If the operator is willing, same - same Tiger, rehabilitated one base at a time; a safety outcome to be proud of, instead of the carnage we always see when CASA gets its panties in a bunch about things that should have been noted and sorted during routine audit. Instant breaches 'discovered' (shock horror) at audit are not overnight events.
The whole thing stinks of 'double jeopardy', can't get you in court, but we can administratively cut your throat. If, and it's a big IF, CASA were known as reliable, honest and above suspicion, the likes of Quadrio, Barrier, Pel Air, Hardy, Polar etc. etc would not get so much as a mention.
Last edited by Kharon; 24th Feb 2013 at 04:02.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Here and there.
Posts: 447
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Josh,
I'm not the one bleating on about how unfair this process is with no knowledge of what CASA have up their sleeve nor any idea as to the alleged wrong doings at said company. That would be you. All you have is a relationship with an ex employer that's assured you that there's 'nothing to see here'. Oh well that should be the end of it. Surely if the operator has told the regulator that they are compliant this should all just go away. It must be true....ignorance really is bliss.
I have no interest in this other than the maintenance (pardon the pun) of an even playing field.
'Chickens coming home to roost' comes to mind.
D
I'm not the one bleating on about how unfair this process is with no knowledge of what CASA have up their sleeve nor any idea as to the alleged wrong doings at said company. That would be you. All you have is a relationship with an ex employer that's assured you that there's 'nothing to see here'. Oh well that should be the end of it. Surely if the operator has told the regulator that they are compliant this should all just go away. It must be true....ignorance really is bliss.
I have no interest in this other than the maintenance (pardon the pun) of an even playing field.
'Chickens coming home to roost' comes to mind.
D
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Cairns
Age: 50
Posts: 295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Defen,
It would appear your emotion will not allow you to see the truth, Casa has had their day at court and could not close the deal, why is that do you think.
I wasn't the judge, so surely there can't be two completely different people that do not agree with your all knowing horse excrement.
I'm prepared to assume the judge knows his job , casa has pre sented their evidence ( if any ) , barrier defended and the judge wasn't convinced, sure that may not mean au thing, otherthat the fact the " if you can't prove it, it didn't happen ".
I'm not bleating about anything other than casa has the right to prosecute, which they did, barrier has the right to defend, which they did, the judge has the job to find guilt and award punishment, Which he didn't, yet Casa, who claims to be a model litigator, apparently does not accept the outcome.
It would appear your emotion will not allow you to see the truth, Casa has had their day at court and could not close the deal, why is that do you think.
I wasn't the judge, so surely there can't be two completely different people that do not agree with your all knowing horse excrement.
I'm prepared to assume the judge knows his job , casa has pre sented their evidence ( if any ) , barrier defended and the judge wasn't convinced, sure that may not mean au thing, otherthat the fact the " if you can't prove it, it didn't happen ".
I'm not bleating about anything other than casa has the right to prosecute, which they did, barrier has the right to defend, which they did, the judge has the job to find guilt and award punishment, Which he didn't, yet Casa, who claims to be a model litigator, apparently does not accept the outcome.
Last edited by Josh Cox; 24th Feb 2013 at 02:25. Reason: android spell correcting
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Havana
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Josh Cox: "From what I've heard this individual was sacked by another operator prior to working for barrier, was universally hated by all at barrier and sacked for multiple dangerous acts in an aircraft."
Josh,
If by multiple dangerous acts in aircraft, you mean flying with serious and known defects, then you are spot on the money!
Let's not mention the other safety issues. A very close shave in IMC with an IFR Caravan and a VFR Islander comes to mind...
Josh,
If by multiple dangerous acts in aircraft, you mean flying with serious and known defects, then you are spot on the money!
Let's not mention the other safety issues. A very close shave in IMC with an IFR Caravan and a VFR Islander comes to mind...
Last edited by Dash 42; 24th Feb 2013 at 02:25.
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Cairns
Age: 50
Posts: 295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No dash 42, apparently intentionally pulling out infront of aircraft on final at remote airstrips, aircraft operated by the company that previously sacked him/her.
I know nothing about the c208 and bn2 event/s, sounds plausable.
I know nothing about the c208 and bn2 event/s, sounds plausable.
Last edited by Josh Cox; 24th Feb 2013 at 02:30.
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Havana
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am aware of the incident you refer, however the other party involved from said company had "finger trouble" with the volume control in the other aircraft, not an intentional act at all. From what I heard, Barrier had their nickers in a not because he tried to report it! I'm not defending anyone here Josh, just pointing out that you aren't only full of it, you're over flowing with it!
The airprox report is here:
Investigation: AO-2010-022 - Aircraft proximity event - VH-WZJ and VH-WRR, 37 km NE of Horn Island aerodrome, 24 March 2010
Feel free to add your valued comments on it.
The airprox report is here:
Investigation: AO-2010-022 - Aircraft proximity event - VH-WZJ and VH-WRR, 37 km NE of Horn Island aerodrome, 24 March 2010
Feel free to add your valued comments on it.
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Cairns
Age: 50
Posts: 295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dash42,
Incident in March 2010, did it occur to you that it is Feb 2013, that's nearly three years ago.
Thanks for the feedback, I was infact jus t wondering what you thought of me, I am underwhelmed by your input, thanks.
Defen, neither buddy, do you want another guess ?.
Incident in March 2010, did it occur to you that it is Feb 2013, that's nearly three years ago.
Thanks for the feedback, I was infact jus t wondering what you thought of me, I am underwhelmed by your input, thanks.
Defen, neither buddy, do you want another guess ?.
Yep certainly see how this thread drifted last time and got shut down!! 
What gets me is this is a consistent tactic over a good many years by FF to victimise, totally demoralise and fiscally bankrupt a company that less than 6 months before had been system audited with no hint of an immediate, imminent risk to air safety and the travelling public.
Rightly or wrongly, disgruntled pilots or not, the regulator has again grounded a reasonably stable operation that has been around for twenty odd years (which in FNQ is a remarkable achievement) and one that is still under the same management. Yet all of sudden they're flying cowboys thumbing their nose at the regulator...err does that sum it up Josh??
What gets me is this is a consistent tactic over a good many years by FF to victimise, totally demoralise and fiscally bankrupt a company that less than 6 months before had been system audited with no hint of an immediate, imminent risk to air safety and the travelling public.
Rightly or wrongly, disgruntled pilots or not, the regulator has again grounded a reasonably stable operation that has been around for twenty odd years (which in FNQ is a remarkable achievement) and one that is still under the same management. Yet all of sudden they're flying cowboys thumbing their nose at the regulator...err does that sum it up Josh??
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Here and there.
Posts: 447
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't have to guess Josh. The facts, as you so regularly refer to, speak for themselves. The generalisations printed in the press 
make up only a small part of a much bigger picture. I mightn't have all the pieces but it's clear to me I have many more than you.
I won't be returning to this discussion with you as I have no desire to participate in a gunfight with an unarmed man. By all means have the last word.
Good luck to both you and your former employer.
D
make up only a small part of a much bigger picture. I mightn't have all the pieces but it's clear to me I have many more than you. I won't be returning to this discussion with you as I have no desire to participate in a gunfight with an unarmed man. By all means have the last word.
Good luck to both you and your former employer.
D
Thread Starter
Defenastrator, if as you say, they have been getting away with it for 20 years, don't you think their safety record would reflect it?
You seem to have an axe to grind, just from looking at your posts.
You seem to have an axe to grind, just from looking at your posts.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Here and there.
Posts: 447
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Define safety record for me. I can only assume you refer to the reported incidents?
No axe to grind. I care little for the outcome to the company but greatly for the displaced pilots. But the bull**** bouncing off the walls in here gets hard to stomach. Probably best if I removed myself from this thread altogether.
D
No axe to grind. I care little for the outcome to the company but greatly for the displaced pilots. But the bull**** bouncing off the walls in here gets hard to stomach. Probably best if I removed myself from this thread altogether.
D
Last edited by Defenestrator; 24th Feb 2013 at 03:54.
Thread Starter
Well if they had a raft of incidents or accidents due to maintenance deficiencies don't you think we would have heard about it?
I have only moderate knowledge of what is going on and it beggars belief that CAsA have the authority to do what they are doing solely based on what they think, not what the can prove in a federal court.
How can we maintain a level playing field if the field is not level to begin with?
Sorry Mod's it appears I have become one of the drifters on a thread I asked for no drifting on.
I have only moderate knowledge of what is going on and it beggars belief that CAsA have the authority to do what they are doing solely based on what they think, not what the can prove in a federal court.
How can we maintain a level playing field if the field is not level to begin with?
Sorry Mod's it appears I have become one of the drifters on a thread I asked for no drifting on.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Here and there.
Posts: 447
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Agreed. I also apologise for the drift. However how would anyone know of any incidents if they went unreported? Safety is also measured by the culture not by 'reported' incidents/accidents alone and this doesn't apply to any company inparticular.
D
D
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Cairns
Age: 50
Posts: 295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Def,
Well if you are so well informed and knowledgable, I dare you to step out of the shadows, post your name and contact details and present your evidence.
Or are you just another nancy boy hiding behind a pseudonym in mummy and daddys basement, mailing out resumes and making callous and damaging claims on pprune, against someone who is unable to defend themselves due to you having no nuts.........
Yes, it would appear CASA went to court and didn't make their case, why is that do you think, when:
Sorry which credible sources are you referring too, you know, ones the court would accept.
I think you meant to say " never engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed man ", nice try tiger.
Lamest come back ever, post your name and number up here big man and we'll see who's who at the zoo.
I bet you don't, Meow.
Well if you are so well informed and knowledgable, I dare you to step out of the shadows, post your name and contact details and present your evidence.
Or are you just another nancy boy hiding behind a pseudonym in mummy and daddys basement, mailing out resumes and making callous and damaging claims on pprune, against someone who is unable to defend themselves due to you having no nuts.........
The facts, as you so regularly refer to, speak for themselves
The generalisations printed in the press 
make up only a small part of a much bigger picture.
make up only a small part of a much bigger picture.
I won't be returning to this discussion with you as I have no desire to participate in a gunfight with an unarmed man. By all means have the last word.
Lamest come back ever, post your name and number up here big man and we'll see who's who at the zoo.
I bet you don't, Meow.