Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Worldwide > The Pacific: General Aviation & Questions
Reload this Page >

Darwin award candidates and CASA fodder

The Pacific: General Aviation & Questions The place for students, instructors and charter guys in Oz, NZ and the rest of Oceania.

Darwin award candidates and CASA fodder

Old 20th Jan 2014, 14:56
  #61 (permalink)  
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 1,652
perfectly normal for CASA to call inspectors as witnesses
When CASA calls its own employees as expert witnesses they can no longer be considered impartial or objective. Indeed, the courts where I have given evidence as an expert witness would not have accepted my testimony if I had a commercial relationship with one of the parties (beyond the report / testimony in question).
Old Akro is offline  
Old 20th Jan 2014, 19:37
  #62 (permalink)  
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Salt Lake City Utah
Posts: 3,052
Yes, it’s very common for officers/employees of the agency which made the regulatory decision to appear as witnesses in the AAT if there is a review of the decision, and as witnesses for the prosecution in a prosecution under the legislation administered by the agency.

These officers/employees can have two related but very different roles.

The first is to be witnesses of fact: What actually happened, when?

The second is to be witnesses of opinion.

Normally evidence of someone’s opinion is inadmissible. However, an exception is the opinion of an independent expert in the subject matter of something relevant to the review/claim/prosecution.

Would this injury result in a probability of seizures greater than that in the normal population? What are the likely causes of a sudden increase in the EGT of a single cylinder of a normally aspirated IO520?

The expert must express an independent opinion about the technical/specialist subject matter, not be an advocate for the decision made by the regulator or the guilt of the defendant.

There seems to be a spate of CASA witnesses called to give opinion evidence but are considered by the Court/AAT to be partisan rather than independent.
Creampuff is offline  
Old 20th Jan 2014, 21:35
  #63 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 769
Yes Mr Puff, but an old but true saying that has stood the test of time, "he who pays the piper chooses the tune".
T28D is offline  
Old 21st Jan 2014, 01:18
  #64 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 769
Simple, they can't
T28D is offline  
Old 21st Jan 2014, 01:19
  #65 (permalink)  
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Sydney
Posts: 14
When people are called into a case as an EXPERT witness, their role is to advise the court......not to side with either party! This is a fact often lost on participants at court when called in that capacity and it is one of the main reasons that CASA often loses cases when they call their own to provide expert testimony. Also often lost is the term EXPERT; just being employed in a particular industry DOES NOT qualify one as an expert....in the medical fraternity, there is a very specific definition that is often lost on other industries!
As for the question about conducting a steep turn in a helicopter at 21" MAP......it is very likely and indeed possible due to the application of 'other' forces such as aft cyclic.
IMHO, whoever was flying that machine deserved to have his licence suspended although it is not apparent that that person was JQ unless someone fingered him for the job! Those types of manoeuvres, low level and over water, are unacceptable on a fare paying passenger (read Charter) flight!
Guilders is offline  
Old 21st Jan 2014, 01:44
  #66 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Australasia
Posts: 362
power question

I think the problem in analysing (or purporting to analyse) the power setting "data", such as:

Simple, they can't

As for the question about conducting a steep turn in a helicopter at 21" MAP......it is very likely and indeed possible due to the application of 'other' forces such as aft cyclic.
is moot when the continuity and clarity of the "data" is particularly suspect and the interactions of rotor (aero)dynamics and the engine governor behaviour is assuredly complex.

Stay Alive,
4dogs is offline  
Old 21st Jan 2014, 01:48
  #67 (permalink)  
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 122
Smile thanks

Creamie and others,

Thank you for explaining - I very clearly was missing something, now corrected
scrubba is offline  
Old 21st Jan 2014, 02:06
  #68 (permalink)  
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Salt Lake City Utah
Posts: 3,052
No worries, scubba.

On the technical issues, I thought the upshot of the post-AAT decision analysis of the video was that the apparent steepness of the turns was an optical illusion, mainly due to the curve of the strip at the centre of the canopy bubble?

Does anyone have Mr Phelan’s article in convenient reach?
Creampuff is offline  
Old 21st Jan 2014, 04:00
  #69 (permalink)  
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Salt Lake City Utah
Posts: 3,052
I received this PM from Mr Phelan:
If you're sitting in the RH front seat an R44 and you're average height, the windscreen pillar isn't straight ahead of you; it's off to your left and where the pillar intersects the horizon it's probably sloping back about 20-30 degrees. Try sitting in your car and looking across to where the LH windscreen intersects the horizon. Depends on the slope of the windscreen, yet to listen to all the helo pilot "expert witnesses" it seems they think it's at right angles to the horizon. How the hell can anybody sit in a Bell for 12,000 hours and still think the windscreen is vertical? This may explain why they're still helo pilots.
Creampuff is offline  
Old 21st Jan 2014, 04:37
  #70 (permalink)  
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 1,652
Creampuff, additional to the curved windscreen issue, the camera is handheld and the operator twists it as he moves away from the straight ahead position which increases the apparent angle of bank.

This whole case leaves me speechless
Old Akro is offline  
Old 22nd Jan 2014, 01:48
  #71 (permalink)  
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Tockley
Age: 34
Posts: 2
Cool X spurt witness s

You guys should of seen who the CASA expert witnesses were , I doubt very much if total hello time between the whole lot of them would of been more than 700 hours combined , also you could ask where their star witness has been residing on and off these past 4 years , ( hint ,motel style accommodation out side of Mareeba, with armed doorman)
Shame CASA shame
Tic Toc is offline  
Old 22nd Jan 2014, 04:03
  #72 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 50
Posts: 6,879
You should have seen the feeble attempt at discrediting the defending expert witness. One who allegedly knew nothing about aerobatic flight and landing on floating platforms.

Of course a LtCdr from the RN who flew SHAR's and other jets off aircraft carriers would hardly know what he was talking about.
Jabawocky is offline  
Old 9th Feb 2014, 02:54
  #73 (permalink)  
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 1,652
Any news on this? Its pretty much been a month now.

I'm interested to see if CASA's actions are consistent with the way they dealt with John Quadrio.
Old Akro is offline  
Old 25th Feb 2014, 03:36
  #74 (permalink)  
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Maccas
Posts: 1
CASA is at it again at the AAT......


The Hon B J M Tamberlin, Deputy President

10:30AM Interlocutory hearing - Hearing Room 4, Level 5
Stay application
2014/0575 Ekinci and Civil Aviatation Safety Authority

(2014/0576, 2014/0577, 2014/0578, 2014/0579, 2014/0580)
2014/0583 Cloud Nine Helicopters Pty Ltd and Civil Aviation Safety Authority

2014/0595 Air Combat Australia Pty Ltd and Civil Aviation Safety Authority

2014/0598 Air Combat Australia Pty Ltd and Civil Aviation Safety Authority
Jimminy is offline  
Old 5th Jul 2014, 09:01
  #75 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Sydney Central
Age: 66
Posts: 1
Darwin Award Candidates

CA$A have struck again
Ekinci and Ors and Civil Aviation Safety Authority [2014] AATA 424 (27 June 2014)
ZEDLAG is offline  
Old 6th Jul 2014, 01:44
  #76 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Sydney Australia
Posts: 128
I was shocked to see the new AAT member sitting in judgement on people:

Re Avtex Airservices Pty Limited; International Pilot Training Course Pty Limited; Dieter Siewert and Paul Lange v Ronald Ian Charles Bartsch; David Lee; Anthony Hugh Webster; Peter James Punch; Aviation Dynamics Pty Limited; Axis Aviation Pty Limited [1992] FCA 187 (4 May 1992)

Justice Hill's opinion of the new AAT member:

74. I formed an unfavourable view of Mr Bartsch in the witness box. He is, as his degrees in science and law suggest, an intelligent man, but in my view was prepared to give evidence which at the very best was a half truth and was prepared to shift ground in his evidence when the occasion appeared to suit him.
78. This whole episode reflected badly upon the credit both of Mr Bartsch and Mr Lee. But there were other matters that were also damaging to the credit of Mr Bartsch. He was shown a document of projections of profits of the APTC business which was given to a bank manager in connection with a loan to purchase a house in August 1989. That document showed a contemplated profit mark-up on the APTC course of $3,050 per student. Mr Bartsch denied knowledge of the document. Mr Lee deposed that it had been produced to the bank manager and discussed at a meeting at which Mr Bartsch was present. I have no doubt that Mr Bartsch was not telling the truth in respect of this matter and that Mr Lee was.
80. In addition, counsel for the applicants referred to an informal prospectus for AAA Airlines in which Mr Bartsch was featured as being a "qualified lawyer". In one sense he was, as he did have a law degree, although it may be said that the expression "qualified lawyer" suggests someone who is qualified to practise. In various places Mr Bartsch described himself as a Qantas pilot or second officer. The fact of the matter was that he was employed by Qantas as a trainee pilot but failed to pass an examination on a flight simulator. His employment with Qantas was subsequently terminated although he later passed the flight simulator examination. He was never re-employed. While the correspondence left scope for argument about Mr Bartsch's status, it was, in my opinion, misleading of him to describe himself as having been employed by Qantas as either a pilot or second officer.
At 106:

Mr Bartsch put himself in a position where his interest and duty conflicted in organising, apparently for his employer, a venture for an integrated system of flying training. He chose not to reveal, initially, that through the medium of a company in which he, Mr Lee and their wives participated, he had priced the course so that there was a substantial profit to accrue to that company. Not only did he not reveal this, but he told Messrs Siewert and Lange that there was no mark up on the flying component. In other words, he fraudulently concealed the profit, choosing to open a bank account at a bank unconnected with Avtex and failed to comply with the request that an account be opened with Avtex's bank and the flying moneys banked in that account.
108. The liability of Mr Lee and the fifth respondent arises because each participated with knowledge in the dishonest and fraudulent design put into effect by Mr Bartsch;
scavenger is offline  
Old 6th Jul 2014, 03:13
  #77 (permalink)  
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: America's 51st State
Posts: 186
"I was shocked to see the new AAT member sitting in judgement on people:"

Welcome to the "justice" system of Australia... While not commenting on the example above as I'm not overly familiar with that case, you do see on many occasions lawyers with marginal ethics/behaviour appointed as judges or other high legal office positions). At least three spring to mind over here in the West.

I'm looking forward to the day a Judge Rayney is appointed (only those in WA will understand that sorry).

VH-MLE is offline  
Old 6th Jul 2014, 04:44
  #78 (permalink)  
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,053
Raison d'ętre.

Aircraft weren't around when the Divine Comedy was written. The stanza which contains the "Abandon all hope, ye who enter here" quotation was not intended to reflect the Australian Administrative Appeals Tribunal. But it fits damned neatly; CASA have their act refined to fine art status and the game sewn up to a fare thee well. I did not believe the Bartsch appointment when it was first mooted, dismissed it for heresy, a prank or the usual disinformation. Clearly, I was very wrong, and yet so right at the same time. No one to blame but ourselves really, a bit like pregnancy; – easy to achieve – bloody hard to undo.

Hope Truss cracks on and makes the reform work; then we can be like the rest of the world and not need to be dragged into the tribunal to defend the family jewels.

Take care and do not get caught, lest the smallest thing is parlayed into another Quadrio event. The AAT where even if you prove you were not even there, let alone guilty; your nuts are 'raisons'.
Kharon is offline  
Old 6th Jul 2014, 07:09
  #79 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,383
I heard a story one of the individuals from CAsA who so corruptly pilloried John Quadrio has left the organization for a cushy little number back in the GA. Wouldn't it be interesting to see who signed off on all their shelfware before they left?
thorn bird is offline  
Old 6th Jul 2014, 07:42
  #80 (permalink)  
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Everywhere
Posts: 377
They wouldn't be flying big helicopters at a very remote northern West Australian airport would they?

Checklist Charlie is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.