PPRuNe Forums - Paul Phelan 's latest

PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/)

- The Pacific: General Aviation & Questions (https://www.pprune.org/pacific-general-aviation-questions-91/)

- - Paul Phelan 's latest (https://www.pprune.org/pacific-general-aviation-questions/467879-paul-phelan-s-latest.html)

Paul Phelan 's latest

Birds? what birds?
http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/sr...ies/thumbs.gif

Even in amongst the mess and and fuss of the Tiger/ Qantas tales, this saga must give many professional aviators pause for serious thought.

How long must this industry tolerate the absolute mendacity, incompetence and piss poor management of the “authority”.

Again and time again, no discussion, no guidance, no tolerance, no probity, no accountability and no bloody conscience.

I wonder if the “director” understands the effect of his words on the lower ranks he commands ?; the level of support he offers his 'troops' is admirable, laudable and infinitely sensible. I just wonder if he is aware of the travesties and injustices committed 'in his name'.

If he is not, then he should examine some of the cases with the same energy he would apply 'to the letter of the law' (even bad law) matters placed in front of him. If he is, then resignation, with apology is the only option available to him.

D. Allwood is now prosecuting another victim; it is a very bizarre tale. But, not my story to tell. If it were told, here and now, the entire aviation world would call a halt to this madness.

Question, Is McCormick cognoscente of the loose interpretation of his edicts or; is he complicity aligned with the current flagrant abuse of 'powers'.

Selah.

I love how the CASA folk tried the old character assassination trick. Picked the wrong enemy there:= :ugh:

So are they going to contest it?

Unreliable and simply lies from a witness who was in jail for one is a good reason to have a fresh look at this case.

The problem Jaba, is the poor sod is now probably bankrupt, so again a public servant and I use that phrase with tongue firmly planted in cheek, servant he aint! can totally destroy the well being, reputation and career of a citizen of this country without a proper judicial hearing.
The fact that the dpp declined to prosecute should have been enough to end this sorry tale. Unfortunately the Allwoods of this world have ego's inversly proportional to the size of their d..ks, they cannot be wrong and will move heaven and earth and evidence to make sure they aint.
I cant imagine how someone with the apparent probity and ethics displayed by Allwood can sleep straight in bed at night.
I hope this sorry tale makes it to the senate committee...."something is rotten in the state of Denmark"..read OZ

One only has to look at this thread: Kool Video (which I suspect, in part, is about the same guy), to work out that there is none worse than a fellow pilot to make a judgement on another pilot.

When that fellow pilot becomes a CASA employee then the problem is exacerbated tenfold. Highly opinionated, judge, jury and executioner and gossip artist, not to mention, quick to judge and quick to report to authorities spring to mind when thinking of aviation industry employees, CASA or otherwise. What is worse is that in this industry we favour judgment by peers over resolution by the court.

Poor fellow my industry.

Sad indictment on pilots too isn't it? How do we attract more real people into the industry? Are there any left..

Did anyone think to:

(a) Locate an R44 helicopter.

(b) Acquire a video camera of approximately the same make and model used.

(c) Acquire a person of the matching shape.

(d) Duplicate the footage with a synchronised camera photographing the instruments?

As for birds on barrier reef pontoons, I can attest to that, so can others.

I think it will bring a "No Camera" policy from a lot of operators in future.

Sure the operations were not nice gentle turns, but when you look at the physics of it, and the reality of it they have only conned a judge who knows know better. The embarked on a discredit the expert witness process on the defence experts and the power of authority was misused in doing so.

Fit a baby Dynon or similar device in your helo and connect it to a GPS, download the data every night. If you have done wrong it will be clear, if not you will have the data every second of the trip.:ok:

Note to self...........remind me to clear my data logs :}

Jaba ... I know of an Ag pilot, falsely accused of something, went straight to his flight data logger... and could prove all that they had to say was patently WRONG. It proved then and there that THEY didnt know the rules.!!
Exit stage left 4 FOIs..!:ok:

So the messsage is.. protect thyself... by whatever means available.

After being falsely accused of something by 3 SAWIs, I sent a circular letter around FNQ advising folk in GA to NEVER speak to a CASA person alone.
And if you do talk, you had better have a recorder,a witness, a note taker or some method of countering the falsities that will arise if you dont.

It is truly amazing how and what these morally bankrupt illegitimates can twist and modify, what is said, what was done. Bloody magicians!!

How do they get away with it. Its pretty simple really. They are a protected species, not an endangered one, unfortunately. You only have to read the Senate spray from the CEO some years back to see where their intent lies.
If you have no accounability, integrity or moral backbone at the top..it can only mean free reign down at the bottom of the dung heap.
All ar$es covered and funded by the poor unsuspecting/disinterested taxpayer.:suspect:
CASA employes behaving badly? No worries! They're saving the world from falling aeroplanes, remember?
Anything can be done in the name of "safety" And they do.:mad::mad:

The conduct of 28 September 2008, we think, demonstrates that Mr Quadrio was prepared to disregard the requirements of safety to satisfy a need to entertain the passengers. It is not open to a pilot, a fortiori a commercial pilot, to determine which rules ought be obeyed. And it is not open to a pilot to ignore the manufacturer’s recommendations regarding performance. We need not recite the findings that we have already made. They satisfy us that Mr Quadrio was not a fit and proper person.
And that conclusion is fortified by Mr Quadrio’s subsequent actions. We do not intend to include in that Mr Quadrio’s initial denial of being the pilot in charge of HTE on 28 September 2008. As we have said criminal proceedings had been threatened. Mr Quadrio was not obliged to provide any evidence that might tend to incriminate him. The Authority points to no duty that obliged him to assist the Authority to prosecute him or to take steps to cancel his licence.

I can't see where Mr Quadio has been unfairly dealt with. Please elucidate.

Cheers
BH

"FOR ONE SWALLOW DOES NOT MAKE A SPRING, NOR DOES ONE SUNNY DAY."

I don't believe that two 'cherry picked' paragraphs from the hundred or so pages provide anything like a fair assessment of this issue.

Hopefully, neither will any 'reasonable' person assessing the matter as being 'beyond reasonable doubt'.

That means in court, within the rules of evidence.

Flaming Casasexuals. http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/sr...lies/pukey.gif

@Kharon

Quote:

I don't believe that two 'cherry picked' paragraphs from the hundred or so pages provide anything like a fair assessment of this issue.

Apologies if it appears to be "cherry picking".

I know nought of the issue, only what the AAT has written.
Can you explain why you feel the ruling is in error - the paragraphs I choose seemed to sum up AAT's reasoning.

Para 36 states
The same is true of the Authority’s reliance upon the statement of Mr Coglan’s companion
If the Authority wished to rely upon that statement as evidence of the truth of its contents it was bound to call the witness to permit Mr Quadrio to cross-examine the witness. Whilst the Tribunal is not bound by the rules of evidence, reliance on a statement of a witness, not called in the proceedings and whose absence is not explained, would deny procedural fairness to the other party.

Para 36 is in Mr Quadrio's favour, not CASA's
BH

Blackhand,
A judgement is meant to be read in the Whole to make absolute sense.

Cherrypicking paragraphs as if they are authorities is simplistic and invites criticism.

Mr Quadrio is neither a rogue or a reprobate, he may be a Heli CPL that did a couple of low turns prior to landing.. that may have breached the Ops Manual... BUT is that a valid reason to crucify some one, obliterate their Licence, ask his employer to give him the bump, long before any evidence or investigation has occurred, thus destroying his income and right to work,
BEFORE it is proven??? :eek:

Try this MO with a bureaucrat and they would be, and have the PSU screaming like a stuck pigs at the abattoir.

Do tell what Robinson manufacturers performance parameters were ignored.

The dead mans curve?? As far as I am aware, you cant operate a helicopter without going there at some stage of the flight.....No?
Take off and climb out, approaching to land..... mustering ???? Will that have to cease.?? The engine might stop, the mast might seperate... geezus why do they do it.
Unsafe, unsafe !! , ..the sky is falling. the sky is falling.!!

And of course, none of the CASA heli pilot witnesses would ever have done anything like that, would they..? So clean and righteous!

As is the history of Oz aviation, never have so many CASA people spent so much (taxpayers) time and money, to achieve so little in the name of "safety"

And done much harm to a few in the process. :mad::mad::mad:

Quote:

A judgement is meant to be read in the Whole to make absolute sense.
Cherrypicking paragraphs as if they are authorities is simplistic and invites criticism.

I asked a question and used the paragraphs as way of introduction.
I am not at all interested in CASA the bogeyman, I want to know under which paradigm the pilot is innocent and both CASA and AAT are in the wrong.

Cheers
BH

What I found rather interesting, was the the CDPP, saw fit not to pursue charges, and yet, the AAT can still uphold CASA's decision to cancel the guys licence.

LUDICROUS!!

Guilty when innocent seems to be the tune.

From the article by Phelan (my bold):

Quote:

One of the most disturbing aspects is that once again events have highlighted the apparent existence of an unacceptable culture permeating some elements of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority that not only allows the kind of misconduct we have detailed to continue, but either supports it or stolidly denies it exists. That kind of a culture cannot survive without the awareness of senior management. It is relevant that some of the names associated with these events he go back more than fifteen years.

Of further interest since this event first started, messrs Hood and Campbell have received promotions, as well as the head of internal legal, to Associate Dirctor.

Blackhand, I rarely get involved on this site but you obviously haven't read my analysis. If you take the trouble to read the last few pages on aviationadvertiser.com.au you will find that with the exception of the low flying allegations CASA's entire case was based on the proposition that Quadrio was flying "aerobatic" manoeuvres, and that was based on analysis of the videos by various CASA "experts". Quadrio didn't even recall the particular flight but I know (because I've been there) that flying in that environment you sometimes spend half your time dodging formations of migratory birds so bird encounters are the norm and you don't remember each one individually. And while they were scratching through the videos looking for evidence, it was staring them in the face; they actually stopped it at the 32 second point to measure the bank angle and STILL didn't see the birds. I found the birds on the second run because I wound it back to see what the apparent smudges on the windscreen were. The two paragraphs you quoted, and many more, were full of scorn and derision for the bird evasion proposition, and were the basis of what has now been shown is a totally incompetent and negligent process that has cost this mature and stable pilot three years of abuse, $80,000 in legal fees and loss of three years income. Have a look at the video on our site and see if you can spot the birds. If you can't, don't make a habit of flying over the Great Barrier Reef belw about 10,000'. The birds are in a two-second sequence starting at the 30 seconds point. I think you should consider posting something on this thread when you are thus enlightened.

Paul Phelan

@Paul Phelan
PM sent

Cheers
BH

Good retort Paul! I couldn't agree more, the bird life out on the reef pontoons, helipads and shipwrecks is very much alive and well!:ok: It is just a matter of time before a bird (usually cormorants) is injested by a low flying chopper or fixed wing.

Regulatory sanity

This makes more sense to me. Breath of fresh air.

Quote:

Dear Mr. Phelan,

How can this be? I refer to your article regarding the prosecution of Mr Quadrio.

CASA is a Regulator and its role is clearly defined in the Act, Regulations, Orders etc, but there is a fundamental lie in the way Mr. Quadrio has been hounded. This has now resulted in the AAT upholding a decision, an administrative decision by CASA, the basis of which had been rejected by the public prosecutor.

How can any person or operator, without matching financial resources to CASA’s, ever seek protection from the abuses of power and privilege, or receive justice, against the methods employed by CASA as you have described in your article?

The procedures described in this case can only be described as draconian and applying administrative persecution of an individual until CASA’s agenda has been satisfied i.e. win at all costs, regardless of the safety result.

This win, I doubt would have provided little, if anything, in the way of an improvement in flight safety. Certainly it would have caused much heartache and financial loss for Mr.Quadrio. Here is another pilot forced from the industry due, in the main, to the procedures applied by several CASA persons.

In my time as Regional Manager in the previous, CAA, reporting to the then CEO, now renamed “Director”, we battled, sometimes successfully, at times unsuccessfully, several minor “Fiefdoms” that evolved during a restructure. I lament what I now see what CASA has become – one very large “Fiefdom” and one that seems to have unlimited legislative manpower resources and what can be perceived as an almost fanatical desire to use them.

Regardless of what the Director advises in his monthly newsletter, some of the staff identified in your article have become corporate bullies, seemingly protected and allowed by senior management to intimidate the industry with little regard for the real issues of flight safety. Tactics born from dictatorial attitudes, dogmatic agendas, innuendos and intimidation, not to mention threats to an employee’s employer, create nothing but contempt for the individuals. Furthermore, those attitudes tarnish those staff trying to operate professionally and in accordance with the published Government and CASA Charter.

Indeed, the good personnel in CASA all become typecast and stereotyped when the poor behavior and processes you describe are placed in the public arena.
In respect of the CASA Charter, I wonder how many staff, managers especially, actually know of it and how it describes clearly the methods CASA staff are to conduct business?

Here is the link for those who would like to acquaint, or reacquaint themselves with the document.
http://www.casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:STANDARD::pc=PC_92927

I wonder also how the industry feels about the value of the monthly advisories of Director Mr McCormick, compared to the actions of some staff and the Charter? It would surprise me if many did not reach a conclusion where one or both documents were classified as meaningless Spin.

I would hope that not to be the case.

In my own CASA executive life I sought to achieve clear objectives, the first being to seek out the “cowboys”. The good operators actually needed little regulation – only communication and some education as to both organisation’s responsibilities. There are still policies mandated by CASA either as Regulations, Orders and/or Policies that are counter-productive to safety.

Power can be a seductive influence; but with power there must also be responsibility, accountability, reasonableness and a focus oy n real aviation issues. It should not be used as a cloak for a near paranoid legislative determination in the false name of safety.

Yours sincerely,
Maurie Baston.

Aviation Advertiser 4/11/11.