Darwin award candidates and CASA fodder
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Mel-burn
Posts: 4,875
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
and guy in the rear seat
1. they don't drive out of a dam, have a look - there is a bridge across the dam.
And I notice that you base your assumption of Quadrio's 'guilt' on CAsA's determination and ruling, and if you believe or accept that you will always come to an incorrect personal conclusion.
I have read transcripts of ALL (and I mean all) the testimony and we are going to have to disagree, because I think the arguments accepted by the AAT by the CASA expert witnesses (based on only viewing of video footage) to demonstrate JQ's low flying and dangerous hover can be directly re-applied here. Note: I'm referring to the arguments used, not the facts of the case.
Specifically, I mean the methodology the court accepted for the determination of height and lateral clearance to objects to sustain the charge of low flying. And the arguments that were presented by the CASA witnesses supported by data in the Robinson POH to prove the CASA charge (that was accepted by the AAT) that the hover endangered the lives of the passengers.
This new case will have a bunch of other interesting aspects including passenger briefing, use of supplied seats, use of seatbelts, skid load sanctioned by the Robinson POH. Weight & balance issues will get a run as well. All doors were removed. I assume there are specific requirements set out by the Robinson POH for this, it will be an issue also. There are also probably issues about the guys running into a hovering chopper.
Also the venue is a farm, which is probably deemed to be a workplace. If one of the skid ornaments is the son of the owner, then he's probably on the books as an employee. At which point there is a whole new raft of potential workplace safety charges.
But, frankly I'm less offended by the act of this video than I am a sense of injustice if CASA handle this differently than John Quadrio's case. And I think that based only on charges only of low flying and reckless flying, if the same CASA expert witnesses as the JQ case gave opinions based on the same assumptions as used in the JQ case, then this is an ex-pilot in the video.
I have never met John Quadrio, but from what I have read he seems like a good, competent. diligent pilot who has been pursued by CASA and has lost his licence (and livelihood) for doing nothing different that scores of other pilots do every day. He was charged solely on CASA's interpretation of an edited video created by someone the AAT described as an unreliable witness.
I see this as a test of integrity for CASA.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Mel-burn
Posts: 4,875
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The best defence card for these guys to play would be that they didn't know who the pilot was. "I dunno, some guy was flying, I never saw him because I was intoxicated and I don't think I can remember clearly" Probably nobody else in the video is identifiable except a lineup to identify those legs in the back seat.
XXX
Agree, BUT
1. It didn't work for John Quadrio. CASA could never positively identify him as the pilot in command in the video sections that they based the charges on and
2. Probably doesn't work for the CofA holder or operator. The post 9/11 security changes will get them if nothing else.
Agree, BUT
1. It didn't work for John Quadrio. CASA could never positively identify him as the pilot in command in the video sections that they based the charges on and
2. Probably doesn't work for the CofA holder or operator. The post 9/11 security changes will get them if nothing else.
Unfortunately has been formally found guilty by a court. I am not assuming he is guilty. I am stating an (unfortunate) fact.
Creampuff
I may have been imprecise with the term court.
I think correctly, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal of Australia upheld the decision of CASA to revoke JQ's licence on the grounds that he was not a fit and proper person to hold a licence. This was based on CASA's accusations that he: 1. engaged in low flying, 2. engaged in acrobatic flight and 3 flew recklessly endagering the lives of passengers. The AAT (unbelievably) accepted the evidence of CASA's expert witnesses which was entirely based on analysis of an edited video which was made up from excerpts from a number of flights over a number of days and continuity of the pilot across all scenes was in question.
Anyway, an instrument of our fair government has found the charges against JQ to be valid. That probably isn't the same as a court finding him guilty - but its pretty close.
I may have been imprecise with the term court.
I think correctly, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal of Australia upheld the decision of CASA to revoke JQ's licence on the grounds that he was not a fit and proper person to hold a licence. This was based on CASA's accusations that he: 1. engaged in low flying, 2. engaged in acrobatic flight and 3 flew recklessly endagering the lives of passengers. The AAT (unbelievably) accepted the evidence of CASA's expert witnesses which was entirely based on analysis of an edited video which was made up from excerpts from a number of flights over a number of days and continuity of the pilot across all scenes was in question.
Anyway, an instrument of our fair government has found the charges against JQ to be valid. That probably isn't the same as a court finding him guilty - but its pretty close.
No worries, OA. It’s a fairly common mistake.
Administrative processes are not about findings of ‘guilt’ or ‘innocence’. They are about findings of compliance or non-compliance with standards.
Administrative processes are not about findings of ‘guilt’ or ‘innocence’. They are about findings of compliance or non-compliance with standards.
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Australia
Posts: 313
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by chute_packet
Looks like CAsA has noticed.
My mate reckons that video has done the rounds via FF's email system, and that they are all over it. The main issue at the moment apparently is one of proving the identity of the pilot.
at the moment apparently is one of proving the identity of the pilot.
Administrative processes are not about findings of ‘guilt’ or ‘innocence’. They are about findings of compliance or non-compliance with standards.
line 66:
As we hope we have made plain we are satisfied that Mr Quadrio did fail in his duty. He did so,
But nowhere in the AAT decision can I see any hint of a reference that the members scrutinised the CASA process.
The AAT is concerned with determining the correct and preferable decision, by finding, itself, the applicable legal criteria and the facts relevant to those criteria, then applying, itself, those facts to those criteria, then choosing, itself, the preferable decision if more than one decision is open.
Alleged defects in CASA’s decision making process do not automatically mean the decision was wrong on the merits.
I’ll try to explain.
Let’s assume you apply for a pilot’s licence. If you satisfy specified statutory criteria, you are legally entitled to the licence.
Your application comes to me as CASA delegate. I’m very busy – long lunch to get to - so I decide to toss a coin to determine your application. Heads you get a licence; Tails you don’t.
I toss the coin, it comes up Tails. I decide not to issue your licence. I write you a letter in which I say that I decided to reject your application on the ground that I tossed a coin and it came up Tails.
That process resulted in a decision that was wrong in law (in so, soooo many ways….). But that doesn’t mean the decision was wrong on the merits. It may be that you don’t satisfy the specified statutory criteria for the licence.
That’s why, when you stand up in front of the AAT and say: “Look at all the mistakes in the process and the defects in that CASA b*st*rd’s decision!”, the AAT will say “Be that as it may and the doubts we share as to the marital status of Mr Creampuff’s parents at the time of his birth, we have to work out whether you are entitled to a pilot’s licence. That means we have to decide whether you do, in fact, satisfy the applicable criteria to be issued that licence. Let’s get on with that.”
Join Date: May 2002
Location: North Sydney
Posts: 83
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gees, you guys have turned this into a huge saga! Simple fact is the guys hanging off the skids and the pilot driving that ridiculously ugly 44 are dipsh*ts! The pilot deserves to have his licence CANCELLED....there is no defence for his action IMHO.
(Helicopter Pilots are steely eyed, weapons systems managers who kill bad people and break things. However, they can also be very charming and personable. The average helicopter pilot, despite sometimes having a swaggering exterior, is very much capable of such feelings as love, affection, intimacy and caring. (However, these feelings don't usually involve anyone else.))
(Helicopter Pilots are steely eyed, weapons systems managers who kill bad people and break things. However, they can also be very charming and personable. The average helicopter pilot, despite sometimes having a swaggering exterior, is very much capable of such feelings as love, affection, intimacy and caring. (However, these feelings don't usually involve anyone else.))
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Lisbon
Posts: 995
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Helicopter Pilots are steely eyed, weapons systems managers who kill bad people and break things. However, they can also be very charming and personable. The average helicopter pilot, despite sometimes having a swaggering exterior, is very much capable of such feelings as love, affection, intimacy and caring. (However, these feelings don't usually involve anyone else.)
(I wouldn't fly an orange one though 
)
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Oz
Posts: 331
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Creampuff
What a crock.....How about getting back to the subject, light and enjoyable as it has been, failing that just start your own "anti establishment" thread.
FMD, what a hijack!!!
Your application comes to me as CASA delegate. I’m very busy – long lunch to get to - so I decide to toss a coin to determine your application. Heads you get a licence; Tails you don’t.
FMD, what a hijack!!!
Last edited by Square Bear; 17th Jan 2014 at 12:28.
Actually, SB, if you’d been paying attention you’d have noted that my post is directly relevant to the subject of this thread.
When the pilot of the helicopter has his licence suspended shortly, then cancelled, by CASA, on the strength of the video, he’ll run off to the AAT to try to get his licence back. If he screams ‘process’ and ‘natural justice’ and ‘laws of evidence’ and ‘CASA corruption’ he’ll be … hmmmm … what’s the legal term … hmmmm … I know:
Stuffed!
F you D indeed!
When the pilot of the helicopter has his licence suspended shortly, then cancelled, by CASA, on the strength of the video, he’ll run off to the AAT to try to get his licence back. If he screams ‘process’ and ‘natural justice’ and ‘laws of evidence’ and ‘CASA corruption’ he’ll be … hmmmm … what’s the legal term … hmmmm … I know:
Stuffed!
F you D indeed!
I thought Cactus Jack's post was useful & illuminating. He used one flippant line to illustrate a point which, in context, was not inappropriate.
Aside with having some fun with a couple of bogan's, this thread has had some useful content.
None the least of which was the helicopter pilot quote. Makes me wonder if I should get a chopper licence.
Aside with having some fun with a couple of bogan's, this thread has had some useful content.
None the least of which was the helicopter pilot quote. Makes me wonder if I should get a chopper licence.