Any news on Barrier? Minus the drift.
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Cairns
Age: 50
Posts: 295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just because I put some balance into this discussion
The point I am making is that Barrier have, over the years received preferential treatment from the northern section. Most know why.
Not just are you unwilling to look at the facts, i.e. court outcome, you are a bitter little man aren't you.
Same challenge to you, man up or shut up, present your name, evidence, time, dates and aircraft registrations,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, I bet you don't.
Evidence was found, and here we are. I think questions should be asked from Canberra as to WHY it has taken a written statement from a former employee for CASA to "discover" what has been occurring for years.
Your village rang, they said they'd take you back.
Last edited by Josh Cox; 26th Feb 2013 at 08:09.
Thread Starter
Dashy, if they found substantial evidence, which would have been shown in court, the judge would have had no worries in yanking Barriers AOC.
But that didn't happen. Did it.
Yes there must have been some evidence for it not to be thrown out of court but you seem to be making mountains out of mole hills.
Soo, not a CAsA stooge, maybe a close competitor then......back in your box jack.
I'm still drifting,
sorry mods 
But that didn't happen. Did it.
Yes there must have been some evidence for it not to be thrown out of court but you seem to be making mountains out of mole hills.
Soo, not a CAsA stooge, maybe a close competitor then......back in your box jack.
I'm still drifting,
sorry mods
This is more fun than watching Neighbours on cable!!
Josh, get a new job ......the Labour Party is looking for a new leader
Crayfish, im thinking you may have been around FNQ for a while
Back to the subject, anybody whom has worked in aviation knows the company they have (are) working for is guilty of something.
Rules are rules, right or wrong,either start a revolution or play by them!
Is BA being unfairly targeted? Yes, but sometimes the squeaky wheel (with the missing dustcap) draws attention to itself .
Josh, get a new job ......the Labour Party is looking for a new leader
Crayfish, im thinking you may have been around FNQ for a while
Back to the subject, anybody whom has worked in aviation knows the company they have (are) working for is guilty of something.
Rules are rules, right or wrong,either start a revolution or play by them!
Is BA being unfairly targeted? Yes, but sometimes the squeaky wheel (with the missing dustcap) draws attention to itself .
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Dark side of the moon
Age: 61
Posts: 124
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My reading is that CASA asked for the mediation.
JustinGA, more like watching the little kids protecting their sandpit.
Maybe they should wear panties, the sand wouldn't be as annoying
JustinGA, more like watching the little kids protecting their sandpit.
Maybe they should wear panties, the sand wouldn't be as annoying
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Cairns
Age: 50
Posts: 295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Incidently Dash,
WRT to your post 48 being some sort of silver bullet, I personally would not be in a single engine IFR turbine aircraft operating in low capacity RPT, in IMC, descending through 4,000ft at circa 20nm from the aerodrome.
When I did my C208 endorsement at Flight Safety in Wichita, they quoted some where in the ballpark of 2.5nm distance over ground to 1,000ft of glide.
Sorry justinga, my clown suit, red wig and big floppy shoes are at the dry cleaners.
WRT to your post 48 being some sort of silver bullet, I personally would not be in a single engine IFR turbine aircraft operating in low capacity RPT, in IMC, descending through 4,000ft at circa 20nm from the aerodrome.
When I did my C208 endorsement at Flight Safety in Wichita, they quoted some where in the ballpark of 2.5nm distance over ground to 1,000ft of glide.
Sorry justinga, my clown suit, red wig and big floppy shoes are at the dry cleaners.
Last edited by Josh Cox; 26th Feb 2013 at 10:09.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: vegas
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good to see some of the dodgy operators getting the run around.
Some of the dodgies in Northern WA and NT have fallen, North Qld is in need of a good shake up. Leave the compliant who can pass any audit, government or public sector to do it properly and make money. This allows them to provide a decent career for their staff.
Josh, haven't you got a history for working for companies that end up in court with CASA, and the ones that don't ask you to leave. Where are you now?
Josh, haven't you got a history for working for companies that end up in court with CASA, and the ones that don't ask you to leave. Where are you now?
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Havana
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WRT to your post 48 being some sort of silver bullet, I personally would not be in a single engine IFR turbine aircraft operating in low capacity RPT, in IMC, descending through 4,000ft at circa 20nm from the aerodrome.
Moving on.
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Cairns
Age: 50
Posts: 295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Roost,
It would appear you have me at a disadvantage, how could I possibly return the kinds words.
I'm guessing your parents didn't name you Roost.
Oh gee, I don't know, how about you tell us.
Haven't you got a history of being sacked by me ?.
It would appear you have me at a disadvantage, how could I possibly return the kinds words.
I'm guessing your parents didn't name you Roost.
Josh, haven't you got a history for working for companies that end up in court with CASA, and the ones that don't ask you to leave.
Haven't you got a history of being sacked by me ?.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Australia
Age: 41
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Following on from the above comment by That Guy, I heard from a few sources that CASA Darwin's office even commended the Barrier operation and aircraft standards.
Apparently the Cairns FOI sent to Darwin for the audit was on a mission to find specific faults, faults which were not found, even when Darwin based AWI's were asked to come down and help. Heard from the engineers that CASA Darwin refused to fall into line with CASA Cairns mission and instead made it a point to write a positive internal report on Barrier - a report that never made it through to Cairns, Canberra or Sydney.
I got the distinct impression there are a few people in Darwin scratching their heads over the whole thing, especially the MIA report from CASA Darwin.
Apparently the Cairns FOI sent to Darwin for the audit was on a mission to find specific faults, faults which were not found, even when Darwin based AWI's were asked to come down and help. Heard from the engineers that CASA Darwin refused to fall into line with CASA Cairns mission and instead made it a point to write a positive internal report on Barrier - a report that never made it through to Cairns, Canberra or Sydney.
I got the distinct impression there are a few people in Darwin scratching their heads over the whole thing, especially the MIA report from CASA Darwin.
No Josh you've never sacked me.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I listen to the debate occuring back and forth across this thread and I really have to wonder if the "Reason model" so despised by our safety investigator and perhaps our regulator has some substance after all.
Unlike the country with the largest aviation industry in the world whose regulator rose from the civilian world, ours rose from the military where you do as your told. No problem, because way back then the "expertise" lay with the military. Unfortunately that "Attitude" infected the regulator and as time went by and civilian expertise rapidly outstripped the military. Our regulator was forced to recuit from ever lower levels of the expertise pool, the attitude remained, "Do as your told" "we are the experts" and so the layers of swiss cheese began to line up as the regulator began scraping the bottom of the barrel.
We as an industry were too busy trying to stay afloat to challenge the regulator as increasingly incompetent clowns filled the shoes of competent ex military experts and the rule of the regulator was born. Using clever manipulation of politics they gave themselves ever increasing powers, divested themselves of accountability, and endowed themselves with the mystical mantra as the custodians of "Safety".
To better control the masses a clever shift of the regulations into the criminal code, a tinker here and there with administrative sancions and they became unassailable.
Trouble is they set out to modernise our regulations, unfortunately you need expertise to do that so they relied on the lawyers.
Therefore we ended up, after 25 years and a quarter of a BILLION dollars or so,with around 1500 regulations that are impossible to comply with.
Can someone tell me WHY a manual submitted and accepted in Queensland is non compliant in NSW, or WHY one compliant in VIC is unacceptable in WA. WHY can we have five different operators of the same aircraft operating it differently, and contrary to the manufacturers procedures placing themselves in legal limbo at the whim of an expert FOI.
WHY are our regulations so out of step with the rest of the world that we have become a laughing stock. WHY does it cost three times as much to operate the same aircraft in this country than anywhere else?
Why is our regulator at WAR with the industry it purports to regulate?
Why are young pilots so terrified of making a "Command" decision and following the safest course of action for fear of retribution.? WHY are experienced individuals in the industry reluctant to accept administrative positions. WHY can an audit by the regulator be accepted as compliant one month and non compliant the next with a different set of auditors trawling up issues that were acceptable then but not now.
I have no idea how compliant barrier were or were not, but they were "Safe" for a lot of years. Knowing just how "Corrupt" our regulator is I have no idea if Barrier is being treated fairly or not. What I do know is that with the best will in the world it is impossible to be in Compliance in this country because compliance rests within the "Opinions" of the individual of the day, not the LAW as written, because nobody understands the LAW. Until a Judge, in a court, rules one way or the other the opinion wins and a lot of us know that opinion can change from one day to the next.
Unlike the country with the largest aviation industry in the world whose regulator rose from the civilian world, ours rose from the military where you do as your told. No problem, because way back then the "expertise" lay with the military. Unfortunately that "Attitude" infected the regulator and as time went by and civilian expertise rapidly outstripped the military. Our regulator was forced to recuit from ever lower levels of the expertise pool, the attitude remained, "Do as your told" "we are the experts" and so the layers of swiss cheese began to line up as the regulator began scraping the bottom of the barrel.
We as an industry were too busy trying to stay afloat to challenge the regulator as increasingly incompetent clowns filled the shoes of competent ex military experts and the rule of the regulator was born. Using clever manipulation of politics they gave themselves ever increasing powers, divested themselves of accountability, and endowed themselves with the mystical mantra as the custodians of "Safety".
To better control the masses a clever shift of the regulations into the criminal code, a tinker here and there with administrative sancions and they became unassailable.
Trouble is they set out to modernise our regulations, unfortunately you need expertise to do that so they relied on the lawyers.
Therefore we ended up, after 25 years and a quarter of a BILLION dollars or so,with around 1500 regulations that are impossible to comply with.
Can someone tell me WHY a manual submitted and accepted in Queensland is non compliant in NSW, or WHY one compliant in VIC is unacceptable in WA. WHY can we have five different operators of the same aircraft operating it differently, and contrary to the manufacturers procedures placing themselves in legal limbo at the whim of an expert FOI.
WHY are our regulations so out of step with the rest of the world that we have become a laughing stock. WHY does it cost three times as much to operate the same aircraft in this country than anywhere else?
Why is our regulator at WAR with the industry it purports to regulate?
Why are young pilots so terrified of making a "Command" decision and following the safest course of action for fear of retribution.? WHY are experienced individuals in the industry reluctant to accept administrative positions. WHY can an audit by the regulator be accepted as compliant one month and non compliant the next with a different set of auditors trawling up issues that were acceptable then but not now.
I have no idea how compliant barrier were or were not, but they were "Safe" for a lot of years. Knowing just how "Corrupt" our regulator is I have no idea if Barrier is being treated fairly or not. What I do know is that with the best will in the world it is impossible to be in Compliance in this country because compliance rests within the "Opinions" of the individual of the day, not the LAW as written, because nobody understands the LAW. Until a Judge, in a court, rules one way or the other the opinion wins and a lot of us know that opinion can change from one day to the next.
Last edited by thorn bird; 26th Feb 2013 at 11:12.
Thread Starter
Great Post Thorn Bird. 
So how do we change it? Nobody sticks together in this industry. Everyone's out for themselves and if it's not them that's in the gun than who cares seems to be the thinking. Until we stand together as a unified front and say enough is enough nothing will change.
Hope yas like the song cos it's stuck on repeat.
So how do we change it? Nobody sticks together in this industry. Everyone's out for themselves and if it's not them that's in the gun than who cares seems to be the thinking. Until we stand together as a unified front and say enough is enough nothing will change.
Hope yas like the song cos it's stuck on repeat.
Great post by Thorn bird.
Dash 42, your argument condenses down to: "where there is smoke there is fire". I have no knowledge of Barrier or its transgressions,
What I object to is the apparent abuse of process designed to destroy a business without ever letting them have their day in court if at all possible.
To put that another way what would you think if you saw a gang of police lynching a driver by the side of the road after alleging he was a "speeder"?
Judge, Jury, and executioner, it has to stop.
Dash 42, your argument condenses down to: "where there is smoke there is fire". I have no knowledge of Barrier or its transgressions,
What I object to is the apparent abuse of process designed to destroy a business without ever letting them have their day in court if at all possible.
To put that another way what would you think if you saw a gang of police lynching a driver by the side of the road after alleging he was a "speeder"?
Judge, Jury, and executioner, it has to stop.
--- and contrary to the manufacturers procedures placing themselves in legal limbo at the whim of an "expert" FOI.
And contrary to the CAR 138, with FOI's demanding non- CAR 138 compliant procedures be included in the Operations Manual. I, for one, don't want to be involved in the financial consequences of any serious incident, when the insurance payout is refused, because the "CASA" ("expert" FOI) demanded procedures are in breach of CAR 138 -- that is, contrary to the AFM.
Tootle pip!!
Similar wailing and gnashing of teeth occurred in the Butson/Polar matter. The outcome of all the Federal Court claims and appeals in that matter is a neat compendium of the duties that CASA and its officers don’t have.
Polar and Mr Butson claimed that CASA owed them a common law duty to take reasonable care in the exercise of CASA’s statutory powers. Polar and Mr Butson also claimed that CASA owed them a common law duty not to act beyond power, intending to cause harm to either Polar or Mr Butson, or knowing that their acts were beyond power and that harm to Polar or Mr Butson was foreseeable, or recklessly indifferent (a) to whether their acts were beyond power and (b) to the likelihood of harm to Polar and Mr Butson.
The Federal Court held that the duty as pleaded did not exist.
Polar and Mr Butson also claimed that CASA owed them a statutory duty to exercise CASA’s statutory powers lawfully, reasonably and in “good faith” for the purposes for which those powers were given.The Federal Court held that:
Polar and Mr Butson also claimed that CASA owed a common law duty generally to the same effect as one of the above claims, but also involving a common law duty not to exercise CASA’s statutory powers “in such a way as unlawfully and intentionally to interfere with the trade or business” of Polar or Mr Butson.
The Federal Court held that:
Polar and Mr Butson also claimed that Terrence Farquharson, Garry Presneill, Robert Collins, Jim Marcolin, Peter John and Allan Cook were guilty of “misfeasance in public office” because:
(1) their knowledge of the limits of their powers was to be inferred from their position and experience;
(2) their knowledge of the likely consequences of their conduct was similarly to be inferred from their position and experience;
(3) their intention to bring about those consequences was in turn to be inferred from that knowledge, the actions themselves and the “pattern of conduct” described in the claim;
(4) their reckless indifference was to be inferred “from the conduct of CASA and the officers of CASA taken as a whole” as set out in the claim and from the “pattern of conduct” set out in the claim.
The Federal Court held that:
[All bolding added]
I realise the Federal Court is replete with lazy judges who couldn’t possibly see behind CASA’s nefarious machinations and breaches of the Legal Services Directions, but its decisions are nonetheless the law.
Polar and Mr Butson claimed that CASA owed them a common law duty to take reasonable care in the exercise of CASA’s statutory powers. Polar and Mr Butson also claimed that CASA owed them a common law duty not to act beyond power, intending to cause harm to either Polar or Mr Butson, or knowing that their acts were beyond power and that harm to Polar or Mr Butson was foreseeable, or recklessly indifferent (a) to whether their acts were beyond power and (b) to the likelihood of harm to Polar and Mr Butson.
The Federal Court held that the duty as pleaded did not exist.
In all the circumstances, it cannot be said to be open to the applicants upon the [statement of claim] to prove the facts at trial which would constitute a reasonable cause of action in negligence against the respondents. In so far as the [statement of claim] endeavours to plead negligence against the respondents, this pleading should be struck out.
[T]here is no statutory or common law duty of the kind alleged in the statement of claim, to the extent that these paragraphs plead breach of statutory duty. Furthermore, there is no basis for a claim that [Terrence Farquharson, Garry Presneill, Robert Collins, Jim Marcolin, Peter John and Allan Cook] were under any personal duty under the Act that would support a cause of action of this kind against them. The pleading of breach of statutory duty should be struck out in accordance with these reasons.… Further, it is plain enough that there is no tenable basis on which Polar and Mr Butson could bring an action in tort against CASA and the other respondents for breach of a general duty to act in good faith.
The Federal Court held that:
[T]he cause of action described as wrongful interference with trade or business interests should be struck out.
(1) their knowledge of the limits of their powers was to be inferred from their position and experience;
(2) their knowledge of the likely consequences of their conduct was similarly to be inferred from their position and experience;
(3) their intention to bring about those consequences was in turn to be inferred from that knowledge, the actions themselves and the “pattern of conduct” described in the claim;
(4) their reckless indifference was to be inferred “from the conduct of CASA and the officers of CASA taken as a whole” as set out in the claim and from the “pattern of conduct” set out in the claim.
The Federal Court held that:
There is nothing that supports the hypothesis that the respondents had the intention or acted with reckless indifference as claimed, and this must be established if the cause of action is to be made out. … The pleadings reveal no more than that CASA and its officers differed with Polar and Mr Butson as to the correct exercise of CASA’s statutory powers and that, by accepting an enforceable voluntary undertaking under the CAA, the matter might be resolved in conformity with CASA’s understanding of its obligations.
Further, the pleadings, as particularised, fall well short of supporting any claim against the individual respondents of misfeasance in public office… The pleading as against the individual respondents is thus fundamentally deficient. Even if Polar and Mr Butson were to establish legal error in the relevant exercises of statutory power, this would do no more than support a finding of deficient administration. …
Accordingly, the applicants’ pleading of misfeasance in public office is embarrassing within the meaning of the Federal Court Rules and should also be struck out.
Further, the pleadings, as particularised, fall well short of supporting any claim against the individual respondents of misfeasance in public office… The pleading as against the individual respondents is thus fundamentally deficient. Even if Polar and Mr Butson were to establish legal error in the relevant exercises of statutory power, this would do no more than support a finding of deficient administration. …
Accordingly, the applicants’ pleading of misfeasance in public office is embarrassing within the meaning of the Federal Court Rules and should also be struck out.
I realise the Federal Court is replete with lazy judges who couldn’t possibly see behind CASA’s nefarious machinations and breaches of the Legal Services Directions, but its decisions are nonetheless the law.
Last edited by Creampuff; 26th Feb 2013 at 20:16.