[Peetwo]

Su_Spence & Co try to dodge liability on Croc Wrangler case??

Via Oz Aviation:

CASA asks to be dropped from ‘Outback Wrangler’ lawsuit
written by Jake Nelson | April 8, 2025


CASA is seeking the dismissal of a lawsuit against it over the death of Netflix star Chris Wilson in February 2022.

The case, brought by Wilson’s widow Danielle in the Federal Court, also involves Helibrook, the operator of the Robinson R44 that crashed near King River in the NT, and Helibrook owner Matt Wright. Should CASA’s bid be successful, the suit would likely continue against Helibrook and Wright.

CASA had approved the use of a “human sling” underneath the helicopter, VH-IDW, which was on a mission to collect crocodile eggs near the King River when it ran out of fuel.

The ATSB said in its report that during the autorotation emergency forced landing procedure that followed, the pilot, Sebastian Robinson, released the hooks and sling line carrying Wilson “above a height that would likely be survivable”.

The helicopter subsequently hit the ground without enough energy from the main rotor to cushion the landing, causing Robinson severe spinal injuries.

In court, CASA’s barrister Peter Ward said the regulator bore no responsibility for the accident, and pointed out that Danielle Wilson’s claim itself acknowledged that Helibrook was not complying with CASA’s approval for the human sling.

“The only way CASA could be said on this pleading to have caused or contributed to the death of Mr Wilson was by approving the operations that involved him being slung underneath the helicopter,” he said, as reported by The Australian.

“If a party knows one set of facts to be true, it is embarrassing and legally impermissible for them to plead in the alternative a case that is based on different facts.

For the latest GlenB embuggerance update refer to his recent UP posts - HERE

Ombudsman investigation cont.

---

Consideration One- Mr Aleck wrote my complaint, not I.

It was CASA that passed my complaint to the Ombudsman Office, not I. It was not my preference as I articulated in writing to CASA.

The manner the Ombudsman investigation commenced was highly unconventional and provided a unique opportunity for Mr Aleck to provide disinformation to the investigation, if he chose to do so, as I have no doubt he did.

Presumably, the normal course of submitting a complaint to the Ombudsman Office is that the Complaint would be submitted to the Ombudsman by the Complainant, and then the Ombudsman would commence its process and establish contact with the Agency that the Complaint was made against.

For clarity, my assumption was that the Ombudsman would investigate the complaint that I would have submitted, had I been provided the opportunity.

In this case, the Ombudsman was investigating my complaint, although it was Mr Aleck himself that submitted that complaint on my behalf.

The significance of this is that for almost the entirety of the five-year investigation and including the from the initial response to the Ombudsman Mr Aleck was in total control of the narrative.

An investigation into the actions and decisions of Mr Aleck, is being managed by Mr Aleck, including how my complaint was framed, and submitted to the Ombudsman.

FOI requests have left me in no doubt at all that the Ombudsman has been investigation a different narrative that the narrative provided to me by CASA.

It must be acknowledged that considering the “expertise” and extensive experience of Mr Aleck, and the highly specialised nature of Mr Alecks role, the seniority, and his length of service, and the significant power associated with his position, it is likely he would be fully aware that he operates with a high level of autonomy within CASA and exerts significant influence, and would be well placed to be confident that he could provide disinformation to a Commonwealth Ombudsman investigation, with little or no real scrutiny.

It must also be acknowledged that Ms Spence, on taking over the role as the CEO of CASA had no credible aviation experience at all, and it must be accepted that it is likely that it would take Ms Spence a significant period of time in the role, probably many years, to be able to understand the industry and legislation to an “expert” level.

It is quite feasible that as Mr Aleck reports directly, and only to Ms Spence the CEO of CASA, it is possible that Ms Spence may have allowed herself to be misled, and be more dependent on Mr Aleck being truthful with her, although my expectation of the CEO is that she has fully satisfied herself that Mr Aleck has been truthful, and has not been deceptive.

Ms Spence advised in writing that she has full confidence in Mr Alecks submissions to the Ombudsman investigations.

I was not provided with a copy of my complaint that Mr Aleck submitted on my behalf, and I am not privy to how Mr Aleck submitted my complaint.

Its akin to someone assaulting someone, and the person that submits the complaint to the police is the perpetrator of the crime, and the victim doesn’t even receive a copy of the complaint that the perpetrator submitted to the police on behalf of the victim.

Consider then that the victim has an abundance of witnesses, but the investigation chooses not to engage witnesses.

There must be a reasonable suspicion that the process is unlikely to result in a fair outcome, and the alleged Perpetrator would have been presented with a most unique opportunity to provide disinformation to the investigation to conceal the truth of that matter, and most especially if the Perpetrator was aware that the lengthy investigation would not draw on any of the Victim witnesses.

As simple as that analogy is, that is effectively what has happened here, and as this matter progresses the nature of the compliant submitted on my behalf Mr Aleck will most likely become available.

Presumably once I can access my complaint that Mr Aleck wrote and submitted for me, I believe that the true extent of the false and misleading information will be exposed.

I am confident that Mr Aleck manipulated the narrative at the handover stage to the Ombudsman Office, presumably to conceal the fact that he had acted with targetted malice by closing my business only.

I feel confident in stating that a substantial body of false and misleading information was provided to the Ombudsman Office at this early handover stage, and if a FOI request accessed this information, it would be highly incriminating and indicate a high level of disinformation.

An AFP investigation would most likely call on documents that were initially provided to the Ombudsman investigation to determine the nature of the complaint that was submitted to the Ombudsman by CASA

I can confidently state that the provision of false and misleading information commenced at the handover stage to the Ombudsman by Mr Aleck because the entire 5-year Commonwealth Ombudsman investigation did not even make a passing mention of the matter as presented to me, which can leave me in no doubt at that the narrative was altered entirely at this stage.

The matter as presented to me, and in writing from CASA was that

For a Flying Instructor to deliver flight training under my CASA issued Authorisation, that flying instructor had to be directly employed by the same Company that CASA issued that Authorisation, they could not be employed by another Entity.

The matter in its entirety. was one of the requirements that flying instructors are also employees of the same Company. Had all flying instructors been directly employed then the matter would have been fully resolved.

That was the basis that CASA used to close my business down in June of 2019, and as the basis for not permitting operations to continue after June 30th, 2019.

Had I agreed with CASAs interpretation of the legislation and transferred all flying instructors from other Companies or Entities; to become Employees of my Company, they could operate under the CASA issued Authorisation. The matter would have been completely finalised, and I could have immediately returned to business as usual.

MTF...P2