R44's attract all sorts
 

The following in a West Australian Court bears a quiet read:

CALANDRA -v- CIVIL AVIATION SAFETY AUTHORITY [2013] WASC 411 (18 November 2013)

And within the Judges report at 101, the following is noted about the casa "experts..."

In fact [this is about a R44] and a search for Roger Alder on the casa site shows:

Folks,
In fact, a person ( and experienced helo. pilot) who was so incensed at the CASA treatment, that he personally funded a forensic examination of the "Quadrio" video. The forensic lab that did the work does most of the WA Police forensic work.

A number of things were established beyond reasonable doubt --- or if that is not the right term, established to a criminal evidence standard.
(1) It was a composite video.
(2) At least one pilot was NOT John Quadrio.
(3) No segment of the video established John Quadrio as one of the pilots.

Sadly, by the time this information was available, the case had been heard by the AAT.

Tootle pip!!

Thanks UITA, another 'Wodger' to add to he list of CAsA people not to be added to the 2014 IOS's Xmas card list.

Leadsled, it was a crying shame that JQ didn't take it all the way and then some. He had a few things going for him in his defence :ok: And at least he had better taste in Chopper colours!!

So why didn’t Mr Quadrio merely assert that he’d never flown the helicopter the subject of the video, or had never flown a helicopter in the manner suggested by the video?

Answer: Because he’s honest.

The ‘you can’t prove it was him’ line is therefore interesting but irrelevant.

The important analysis is the analysis that seems to show that the video provides an exaggerated and therefore misleading impression of the extent of the angles of bank, and also seems to show a flock of birds. It is very unfortunate for Mr Quadrio that that analysis was conducted after, rather than before or during, the AAT hearing. :confused:

Quadrio
 

If you all would like to see the video that convicted JQ, here it is:


The dash is shown and I would like to know from all you armchair specialists:

1. How the angles-of-bank purported in the video, can occur at 20" manifold and 60KTS.
2. Where the birds are and how casa missed them [Clue around 32secs], claiming "...they are defects in the videos...";

By the way, the R44 takes off and lands in a southerly direction.

3. Anyone like to give the wind conditions for the day??

That's the first time I've seen that, and I'm pretty surprised there are people here sticking up for him. That's some pretty loose flying in a SE piston over water....

I ain't any sort of expert but I am totally flabbergasted that this piece of ****ty video taken by some vocal passenger could cause a bloke so much grief. Totally gobsmacked even!

I am not a heli pilot but to me it looks like nothing more than normal bank angles exaggerated by uncoordinated camera angles. There is nothing that shows pilot, registration, date or time and no real evidence of any misdemeanor.

Conclusion
 

Same conclusion as a lot of people and a casa FOI [helicopter]

So, for the posters who, unlike Aussie Bob, are heli pilots and experts, what does the video suggest about the pilot/s of the helo/s in the composite doctored video (whoever the pilot/s may have been)?

Perhaps this helicopter pilot need not bother to apply to CASA for a Licence?

expert witnesses
 

Hey Creamie,

Can you explain the background to:

I would have thought that it was perfectly normal for CASA to call inspectors as witnesses and for them to give testimony about what they thought was normal, acceptable, reasonable, etc or the alternatives. Am I missing something here?

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).

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. :=

Yes Mr Puff, but an old but true saying that has stood the test of time, "he who pays the piper chooses the tune".

casa and the prosecution of pilots
 

Maybe the cause of the turn, is as below - make up your own mind:

Exhibit E at 32 seconds |Those Damn Birds - There they are again!!

A question [again]:

How can, at the power settings [PAT???] shown, allow more than a gentle rate 1 turn???

Simple, they can't

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!

power question
 

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

or

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. := :hmm: :suspect:

Stay Alive,

thanks
 

Creamie and others,

Thank you for explaining - I very clearly was missing something, now corrected :ok:

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?