[Kharon]

The ’need’ for an exchange of views.

Night shift for me again and taking a Bo-Peep at the UP is on the list. One thread of interest is the GA Summit to be held in Wagga-Wagga. There is a battle raging on the UP thread between Sunfish, Look-Left and Lead Sled. I wonder why? They are all, essentially, in furious agreement.

There is a need for a ‘Regulator’ – true. I have seen during the decades some seriously ‘dodgy’ operations, operators and (dare I say it ) pilots who could, should, would; or will create headaches for not only industry but government. It only fair and most reasonable to expect a government agency, charged with the ‘safety’ of air navigation to protect and defend the innocent travelling public. To do this regulations must be developed along with an assurance those regulations are complied with. Compliance is the job of the ‘regulator’ – because; at the end of the wrangle that is what they are responsible for. The government expects this as do the public (who, one way or the other, pay for it). Fury Muff: we can accept that. The FAA do it, the CAA do it, even some outlandish places do it, so lets do it :– lets all comply. “Happily” scream the crowd – just show us how.

And there’s the rub. No one, not the CEO of Qantas down to the lowliest junior flight instructor ‘want’ to be non-compliant. No one, from Qantas operations to the humble one man show out in the GAFA want to fall foul of the regulations, simply because of loss of insurance for being ‘non-compliant’. It is in everyone’s best interests to not only be seen to be compliant; but, in law, actually be ‘compliant’.  No one wants their operation be regarded as ‘dangerous’ – it is simply counter productive.

I have personally worked with several regulators; FAA, UK and a few others. Every operation or proposed operation brings new challenges – not problems – but challenges, real ones. Now, the regulator is obliged by law to make certain that the operation is within ‘compliance’; no other option. The operator may want or need to operate ‘outside’ of that compliance. Sometimes a compromise can be reached; sometimes that is not possible without an ‘exemption’. Often, with a restructure of the proposal, peace and harmony may rule. BUT; the natural, righteous ‘tension’ between operator and regulator must, as a sign of good health, be in place,

You may go to any country on this planet and you will hear ‘bitcin’ and moanin’ about the “bloody regulator”; it is almost a right of passage. You need to be ‘something’ before you start barking. But the basic tenets still apply – them - regulator with obligations; you - operator with an outfit to run. All good and proper, all managed under the natural tension and mostly , over an Ale, managed without too much harm being done to either. I’ve had some stand up shouting matches with ‘officials’ which were laughed about later – they made their point; I made mine – not personal – just business – good sense prevailed (Hallelujah).

Then you bring Australia’s CASA and their regulations into the mix. Here, you open up two lines of argument; Lead Sled (LS) and Look Left (LL) if you like a simple line to follow. Both correct; both wrong; both in furious agreement. LS has a serious track record with inquiry, commission and the formulating of regulation plus an encyclopaedic, in depth knowledge of history, plus an understanding of the way it all works. Good bloke, smart as they come and lethal. Of LL the BRB know little - however it must be said that when ‘on song’ he puts forward the case in support of a ‘good’ regulator very well. It is fair and reasonable that a ‘good’ regulator be given some elbow room and be able to control the more outlandish demands of a commercially challenged operation – rules is rules; etc…

So, to the real problem, as seen by the BRB and the IOS. There is a huge body of untested ‘evidence’ which, if proven, paints a very dark, very ugly and very old portrait if the CASA. There exists a large, well documented and supported list of claims where CASA have acted – outside of the regulations which constrain them, and not in the best interests of the CASA good name, of individuals or of companies. There is a mile of ‘evidence’ which support the notions of fraud, the notion of outright lies and the notion of ‘vendetta’. There is nowhere to have these claims tested. That said, because of the absolutely rubbish reputation CASA have made for themselves within industry, there is a complete lack of trust and faith in anything they do. Sad, but very, very true. The regulations are a pain in the arse; well they are. The FAR’s are much better (and almost ICAO compliant); but the reputation of the CASA is the major stumbling block. Sure, we all want a set of clear cut, easy to comply with rules; but most of all, IM (not so humble) O we need a regulator the industry can support and importantly trust;– not pay lip service to. Thanking the gods when they leave the building – they should be welcome, providing expertise and knowledge. Making matters aeronautical better, alas….Not here.

Until the ’White Hats’, the honest, hardworking, in the best interests of all crew CASA can gain the ascendency; and, the Black Hats are dismissed, there cannot be a mutual understanding of common goals –i.e. a safe, secure, compliant profitable industry. It is, after all what everyone wants.

Happy to send a boatload of ‘evidence’ to anyone who don’t, can’t or simply won’t believe it. Any test you like. LS knows this through direct contact. LL adopts an innocents’, reasonable view: but, yet to be kissed on the arse by a swamp creature – like Inutile Lad, or, Delay Mark I; or any one of the Camp snakes. There now: Challenge issued. For every good, productive, profitable thing those have done; I can show you an aberration of fact and tell you a story which will, perhaps, change forever the way the natural tension between regulator and those they choose to embugger is viewed. Perhaps not - …

There is no happy ending to be had, not before these matters are addressed; fully, openly, under the rules of evidence and matters unbecoming a regulator are scrutinized (on or off camera). Sod the regulations – reform the department.

Selah…

[Peetwo]

A case of embuggerance or a nominee for the Darwin awards? 

Via the AAT: http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdo...s/cth/AATA

NORFOLK ISLAND FLIGHT

On 9 September 2015, the applicant was the pilot in command of a US registered aircraft N154DD, a Piper Aerostar 600 twin-engine aeroplane (“the Aerostar”), which was flown from Camden, New South Wales to Norfolk Island (“the Norfolk Island Flight”). The applicant intended to fly from Norfolk Island to the USA to sell the Aerostar to Dodson International however, the Aerostar was detained by Police and CASA upon landing on Norfolk Island.

In a witness statement dated 23 June 2017, Mr Lawlor, a CASA Flying Operations Instructor, raises many concerns about the way in which the flight to Norfolk Island took place and the ability and competence of the applicant to undertake such a flight. He detailed the following matters and said they must be taken into account:

The applicant only held a Private Pilot License, for operations under the Visual Flight Rules (VFR). This license is almost at the bottom of the hierarchy of licenses.

According to the applicant’s logbook, at the time of the flight he had slightly less than 200 hours of total aeronautical experience, of which approximately 80.0 hours was flight time as the pilot in command (PIC) of single engine aeroplanes.

The applicant has never held an instrument rating or any relevant experience operating in aircraft under instrument flight rules or at night. The only instrument flying experience that has been recorded in his logbook is basic instrument flying training, accrued during the training for his Private Pilot License and annotated in his logbook as “BIF” - from the copies of his logbook available to CASA, this amounts to approximately 2.6 hours of logbook time in an aircraft - the time actually practising instrument flying in the air would be somewhat less.

The applicant had not personally flown this route before, or similar type of routes.
There is no evidence in the applicant’s logbook that he has any experience flying over remote areas, featureless terrain or long stretches of open water.

The proposed flight would have involved long overwater stretches with very few potential landing sites should there have been any in-flight emergencies requiring an immediate landing.

The aircraft flown to Norfolk Island possesses the registration of another state, the United States of America (the U.S.).

The applicant did not hold a flight crew license of the aircraft’s state of registry. Under the provisions of the U.S. Federal Aviation Regulations (FARs) he was eligible to fly the aircraft in Australian airspace on the basis of his Australian license, but this would not assist him when he was outside Australian airspace.

According to the applicant’s logbook:

(i) he had no experience as a PIC for operating a complex twin-engine aeroplane;
(ii) he had no experience in operating a complex multi-engine aircraft equipped with an auxiliary fuel system (required for the ferry flight);
(iii) it appears that he had no experience in operating an aircraft equipped with HF radio equipment, that itself was not installed correctly;
(iv) the time between when he received initial training on the PA-60 type on the flight to Norfolk Island was approximately 21 months;
(v) he had no other experience apart from the 4.8 hours Dual instructional time logged in December 2013 as part of his initial training for the PA-60 type. This additional experience could include follow-up or consolidation type training in the period of time just after his initial training, recent experience just prior to his flight to Norfolk Island.
CASA submits that there are several matters of concern in relation to the applicant’s flight to Norfolk Island which “indicate dangerous over-confidence, lack of judgement and a willingness to mislead CASA officers”. Matters of concern raised by CASA relevantly include alleged defects with the Aerostar; the veracity of the applicant’s records; and the level of planning undertaken by the applicant for the journey. CASA submits that combined, the concerns raised demonstrate that the applicant is dangerously overconfident, displays a lack of judgement and demonstrates that the undertaking of the flight by the applicant was “foolhardy”. Each matter is dealt with in turn below...

 
UDB! - but it gets worse  :

..At hearing, Mr Ekinci was questioned about the sufficiency of the applicant’s flight time of 4.8 hours to warrant his PA-60 endorsement. Mr Ekinci stated that he didn’t think it was exceptionally fast as he only needed 4.8 hours before he was satisfied that the applicant was proficient; this is despite the applicant taking 24.5 hours of solo flying to obtain his pilot’s licence.

It was put to Mr Lawlor in cross examination that Mr Ekinci was the best person to comment on the applicant’s flying ability to which he responded, “I think when you factor in the experience of Mr Grima, his qualifications, lack of them in essential areas, I think Mr Ekinci’s faith in Mr Grima was not warranted”; “it was too early to take the training wheels off”. In Mr Lawlor’s view, the minimum period of time that someone ought to be flying before taking a flight such as the Norfolk Island Flight, is “something like 500 hours with a certain mix of experience on different types of aircraft, and on the particular type of aircraft concerned”. He did not believe that 10 hours of experience was sufficient to let a pilot go solo for the first time as “you can’t cover all the contingencies and the manoeuvres and competencies required, to safely send someone solo, in 10 hours”. Mr Lawlor explained that the minimum time required to be a commercial pilot was 150 hours in relation to one sort of course, or 200 hours in relation to another. When asked to reconcile this position with his view that you need at least 500 hours to undertake a flight of the kind that was proposed here (the Norfolk Island Flight), he stated, when someone comes out of a commercial license course, “they’re not really qualified to do much at all”. He described that a pilot who completes a commercial license course typically then undertakes simple activities such as joy flights and scenic flights to build up flying time or will get a job, all of which are very tightly controlled and the pilot does the same thing each day. In comparison, the applicant, according to his logbook, “has not done anything like that before, and then all of a sudden just launches off over the ocean”. Mr Lawlor states that “with 500 hours you’d have a little bit more of an opportunity to have experienced more of what aviation has to offer. It’s not a be-all and end-all, it’s just an approximate point, and other qualifications, I think, would adjust that amount up or down. But at 200 hours or 150 hours, you’re really not qualified to do much at all”.

&..

...Alarmingly, the applicant submits in his supplementary witness statement dated 4 August 2017, that if he was as incompetent as Mr Lawlor would have the Tribunal believe, he would not have safely made it to Norfolk Island. At hearing, the applicant confirmed the sentiment. This statement highlights the applicant’s lack of judgement and overconfidence, and in my mind, is a dangerous attitude for a pilot to display...

   

And then the decision...

62. Additionally, the applicant’s role in the Maryborough Flight is concerning and the evidence regarding the circumstances surrounding the Maryborough Flight is inconsistent. There are many aspects of the flight that should have caused the applicant more concern such as the fuel drums in the aircraft, the late arrival of the Jneid brothers, the lack of clarity about the destination and the police involvement. Even if the applicant was not the pilot in command, his involvement shows a significant lack of judgement. I do not believe that the evidence is sufficient to make any other findings about the applicant’s involvement.

63. Considering all of the above reasons in its entirety, I find that the applicant is not a fit and proper person to hold a pilot’s license.

64. The question that remains is what is the correct regulatory response?

65. It is plain from the evidence, and CASA accepts, that the applicant is young, hard-working and has displayed an eagerness to get ahead in life. He clearly has a passion for flying and has invested a large amount of his time and financial resources with the aim of one day pursuing flying as a livelihood. I have no reason to doubt that the applicant has the necessary psychomotor skills to be a pilot and has a significant amount of flying time of approximately 200 hours. I think that it is also plain that the applicant has not been served well by his Flight Training Organisation. Mr Ekinci issued the applicant with his multi-engine PA-60 endorsement, in circumstances where, according to Mr Lawlor, the applicant did not complete a sufficient amount of flying time to warrant such an endorsement. This however cannot be said to be the fault of the applicant. In regards to CASA’s knowledge of the endorsement, it was up to Mr Ekinci to file the necessary paperwork and notify CASA of the applicant’s endorsements. Additionally, I have little doubt that Mr Ekinci was the one who the applicant looked up to, as his mentor and teacher, to advise him on his flying ability and to guide him on his capabilities. This has no doubt added to the applicant’s overconfidence and lack of judgement about his abilities.

66. Errors that arise out of mistakes or misunderstandings as opposed to intentional misconduct do not necessarily deserve the position of punitive sanctions, but can rather be dealt with by training and/or counselling.

67. I am satisfied that the applicant’s conduct to date is redeemable and as such I consider a lesser regulatory response is appropriate. I note that the applicant has already completed a significant period of suspension. Accordingly, pursuant to section 43(1) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) I set aside the decision under review and substitute a decision in the following terms:

1. The applicant’s multi-engine aeroplane class rating is cancelled pursuant to sub-regulations 269(1)(b) and (d) of the Civil Aviation Regulations 1998 (Cth).
2. The applicant’s private pilot licence - aeroplane category (PPL-A) is suspended until such time as:
a. The applicant undertakes 15 hours of remedial flying training at a Flight Training School acceptable to CASA including a minimum of:
i. cross-country navigation exercises planned at close to minimum reserves, requiring careful pre-flight planning and in-flight monitoring (including calculation of actual ground speed and fuel flow);
ii. unplanned diversions during cross-country navigation exercises given to the pilot whilst airborne, requiring flight to an unfamiliar destination;
iii. in-flight practice emergency sequences with emphasis not only on accurate flying, but also on sensible decision-making with regard to:
I. assessment of the emergency;
II. continuation/termination flight;
III. chosen flight path;
IV. type of approach;
V. preparedness for deterioration of the situation;
VI. distress calls and passenger handling consideration; and

b. CASA receives a written report from the Flight Training School on the standard of the applicant’s conduct as a pilot during the training period including whether his performance met the competency standards specified in the Part 61 Manual of Standards. The report must include all training records and competency standards achieved, and a final recommendation that the applicant is considered ready to undergo a flight test for a PPL-A; and
c. The applicant undertakes and passes the PPL-A flight test under the supervision of a CASA officer, or an examiner approved by CASA in writing; and
d.The applicant undertakes psychological evaluation by a psychologist acceptable to CASA and provides a psychological evaluation report addressing the applicant’s insight into the conduct which led to the making of the reviewable decision and the likelihood of their being a repeat of such conduct.

If ever I have to appear before the AAT on a case of possible CASA embuggerance I want Senior Member A Poljak to adjudicate...  


https://www.google.com.au/url?sa=i&sourc...8484438853

While on this bizarre case it must have been a slow news day as I note that Ironsider has also picked up on the Grima vs CASA tale...  : https://www.theaustralian.com.au/busines...6f513a7db3

Second chance for banned pilot
ROBYN IRONSIDE

A pilot who lost his licence after attempting to fly to the US without a flight plan has won a second chance to return to the skies.

The Civil Aviation Safety Authority cancelled Martin Grima’s private pilot licence in 2016 after determining he was not a fit and proper person to operate an aircraft. The decision followed two incidents — one in which he flew to Norfolk Island with the intention of continuing on to the US, and another where he allegedly piloted a plane to Maryborough, Queensland, with two wanted criminals on board.

A review of the decision by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal was told Mr Grima was detained by police and CASA on Norfolk Island on September 9, 2015, after landing a US-registered Piper Aerostar 600 twin-engine aeroplane. He told authorities he was flying to the US to sell the Aerostar despite having lodged no flight plan for the multisector trip.

CASA submitted there were “several matters of concern in relation to the applicant’s flight to Norfolk Island which indicate ‘dangerous overconfidence, lack of judgment and a willingness to mislead CASA officers’.”

Australian Federal Police officer Daniel Pyle said Mr Grima, now 29, had not told Customs of his intention to leave Australia.

In regards to the Maryborough incident, the tribunal heard Mr Grima was allegedly the pilot of a PA30 Piper twin-engine aircraft that flew from Camden in NSW on September 21, 2015. On board were Michael Salma and brothers Ziad and Rabih Jneid.

At the time, the Jneid brothers were wanted by police in Western Australia for skipping bail, and are now serving prison sentences for drug-related crimes.

The tribunal found that Mr Grima’s evidence about the Maryborough flight and how he came to be involved was “to say the very least, very odd”.

Despite the findings, Ms Poljak set aside CASA’s decision to cancel Mr Grima’s licence and instead imposed a range of orders he would be required to fulfil to regain his licence.

They included a minimum of 15-hours remedial flying training, a CASA-supervised flight test, and a psychological evaluation.

“It is plain from the evidence, and CASA accepts, that the applicant is young, hard-working and has displayed an eagerness to get ahead in life,” read Ms Poljak’s ruling.

“He clearly has a passion for flying and has invested a large amount of his time and financial resources with the aim of one day pursuing flying as a livelihood.”

Mr Grima and CASA declined to comment on the ruling.

 

MTF...P2 

[Gobbledock]

I wonder if Martin Grima and CAsA’s John Grima are related??

[P7_TOM]

There are many things about this case which leave one wondering,,,,,,,?

[Peetwo]

The not so noble Art of embuggerance - 

In a prelude to tonight's ABC 730 program:

Dying pilot tries to clear his name after fatal plane crash

7.30 
By Adele Ferguson and Chris Gillett


VIDEO: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-10-29/t...d/10439320

The owner of an aviation company involved in a plane crash that killed one passenger and injured three others has raised questions about evidence used by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) to investigate him, his company and the pilot flying the plane.

Bruce Rhoades, who is dying of cancer, agreed to share new information with Fairfax and 7.30 in an attempt to try to clear his name — and the name of the pilot who flew the plane — before he dies.

Mr Rhoades questioned the evidence that CASA relied on to cancel his licence and the licence of Les Woodall, who was flying the plane that crashed.

'Both Les and I have been grossly abused by CASA'



PHOTO: The twisted wreckage of the plane on the beach near Middle Island. (Supplied: Air Transport Safety Bureau)

A 29-year-old British backpacker died and Mr Woodall and two other passengers were seriously injured when the Cessna 172 crashed near Queensland's Middle Island.

Vision, which has never been seen publicly and obtained by the media,
captures the flight and the final moments before and after the plane crashed on January 10, 2017.

The crash sparked an immediate investigation by the transport safety investigator, the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB), which is yet to make a determination on why the plane crashed.

Queensland Police is also investigating the crash and there will be a coronial inquiry, expected to be held in the first quarter of next year.

CASA, the body that licences pilots and oversees safety, raised a few eyebrows when it launched its own investigation into the crash and released its findings — just 17 days after the crash.

CASA defended this action, saying the safety interests of the public were at the forefront of CASA's decision making.

"I am very bitter about this," Mr Rhoades said.

"I feel that both Les and I have been grossly abused by CASA."



PHOTO: Fuel collected in a used Coca-Cola bottle and presented as evidence by CASA. (Supplied)

CASA accused Mr Rhoades's company, Wyndham Aviation, of being "a serious and imminent risk to air safety".

It claimed the plane exceeded its maximum take-off weight but a load and balance sheet for the flight shows it was 15 kilograms below the maximum take-off weight.

CASA said passengers were not weighed prior to the flight, but the pilots disagree.

CASA also said the fuel was contaminated, based on a sample collected in a used Coca-Cola bottle days after the accident.

And it determined that the pilot should have tried to land the plane in water, not on the beach, a move a number of aviation experts, contacted and shown the video, said could have been more dangerous.

After watching the video, former CASA employee Kenneth Pratt, who worked as an airworthiness inspector for 20 years before retiring in 2008, said landing in the water could have been even more disastrous.

"I don't imagine that the passengers have vests or life preservers on so there would have been a potential for them to drown in an accident like that," he said.

Mr Pratt said if the water was more than "four, five, six feet deep, the wheels would have dug in and the thing probably would have flipped which means it would have been upside down in the water".



PHOTO: Bruce Rhoades when he was flying for Wyndham Aviation. (Supplied: Bruce Rhoades)

Mr Rhoades, who was flying behind the plane that crashed, was on the scene within minutes and said the water was more than 1 metre deep.

He said from engine failure to the crash was 27 seconds.

Mr Rhoades believes Mr Woodall deserves credit for the fact that more lives were not lost.

"From 180 feet, with a failed engine, choices are very limited," he said.

"[Woodall] made a choice and saved three lives in 27 seconds."

CASA alleged that the plane was flying too low, which "significantly and unnecessarily raised the level of risk associated with the flight because it meant that, in the event of an unanticipated in-flight upset (such as an engine failure) he would have only minimal altitude, and therefore time, to safely manage the upset".



PHOTO: Les Woodall in hospital recovering after the crash. (Supplied: Bruce Rhoades)

However, Mr Woodall said he was inspecting the beach for debris prior to landing, something the company had CASA approval to do.

Mr Woodall planned to use this evidence, and more, to appeal against the cancellation of his pilot's licence in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

But in August, CASA offered him a confidential settlement if he dropped the legal action.

Fairfax and 7.30 understands the settlement did not require any admissions of wrongdoing or negligence.

And it allowed Mr Woodall to reapply for his pilot's licence.

The settlement was made before the police, a coronial inquiry, or the official investigator, the ATSB, has finished their investigations into the accident.

Doing CPR on dead girl 'haunts me'



PHOTO: The badly damaged plane on the beach. (Supplied: Lifeflight)

Mr Rhoades, who has been given just weeks to live after being diagnosed with an aggressive cancer in the brain, said his life fell apart after the crash.

"The flashes I get the most, and I guess the thing that disturbs me the most, is doing CPR on that girl for so long," he said.

"That, I guess, is the thing that comes back, if you like, to haunt me."

When CASA cancelled his licence, it not only financially ruined him but destroyed his reputation as well.

Mr Rhoades has been flying for decades. He set up the company in 2008, and said over the years about 30,000 people had taken his chartered flights.

He said in the early days he clashed with CASA, which did not like his adrenalin flights.

More than a decade ago, in 2007, when Mr Rhoades worked for another company, CASA grounded him which resulted in him pleading guilty in the Magistrates Court to four charges.

He was directed to undertake theory and flight examinations to demonstrate that he had the necessary knowledge and skill to continue to hold those licences.

He pleaded guilty to administrative issues with his pilot's log book and maintenance sheets. He also pleaded guilty to a charge of unauthorised commercial operations.

Mr Rhoades said he did charter flights but the company he worked for did not have a charter licence, something Mr Rhoades said he did not know and rectified once alerted.

He also let a tourist get a photo touching the controls mid-flight, which is not allowed.

He said he never did it again and has had a clean slate up until the 2017 plane crash.

The pilot who crashed, Les Woodall, had no incidents and a clean record.

Mr Rhoades said passengers enjoyed "rock and roll flights" but they weren't aerobatic and before each flight passengers were asked to fill in a form if they wanted a flight which included a demonstration of a light aircraft's ability within "normal" procedures.

Passengers signed the form on January 10, before setting off.

'I thought I'd lost my son'


PHOTO: Jason Lonnon's son was injured in the crash. (ABC News: Craig Berkman)


The ATSB released an interim report into the crash in March 2017, but it did not conclusively say what caused the accident.

It is up to the coroner to examine all the evidence and determine the cause of death and make any safety recommendations.

But Mr Rhoades believes there is one lesson CASA could take from his company's accident.

"The passengers on the back of the aircraft were far more severely injured because they did not have over shoulder seat-belting in the back of the aircraft," he said.

"If they mandate that all of those older aircraft all be fitted with that over shoulder seatbelt immediately ... they've not done that."

Families of the passengers on the flight were contacted for comment.

Only the father of a 13-year-old boy who survived the flight agreed to speak.

He is still suffering trauma.

"I thought I'd lost my son," Jason Lonnon said.

"It still amazes me today that he's still alive and walking."

Mr Lonnon was on the second plane that landed minutes after the crash.
"It was a mess," he said.

"It was like it had been chewed up by a dinosaur and spat out."

Mr Rhoades said he decided to speak out because he is determined to restore his and Mr Woodall's reputations, and ensure the truth of what happened is known.

"There's Woody [Les Woodall] and myself being able to hold our heads up amongst our peer group in our own industry," he said.

"The second reason is that the family of the dead girl in particular ... I want to make sure that they know the truth.

"And a third reason, I just can not allow this culture of CASA to go on, without speaking up very, very loudly against it."

Watch the story 7.30 tonight on ABCTV and iview.

MTF...P2  

[Peetwo]

The not so noble Art of embuggerance - Part II

In a prelude to tonight's ABC 730 program:

Dying pilot tries to clear his name after fatal plane crash

7.30 
By Adele Ferguson and Chris Gillett


VIDEO: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-10-29/t...d/10439320

The owner of an aviation company involved in a plane crash that killed one passenger and injured three others has raised questions about evidence used by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) to investigate him, his company and the pilot flying the plane.

Bruce Rhoades, who is dying of cancer, agreed to share new information with Fairfax and 7.30 in an attempt to try to clear his name — and the name of the pilot who flew the plane — before he dies.

Mr Rhoades questioned the evidence that CASA relied on to cancel his licence and the licence of Les Woodall, who was flying the plane that crashed.

'Both Les and I have been grossly abused by CASA'



PHOTO: The twisted wreckage of the plane on the beach near Middle Island. (Supplied: Air Transport Safety Bureau)

A 29-year-old British backpacker died and Mr Woodall and two other passengers were seriously injured when the Cessna 172 crashed near Queensland's Middle Island.

Vision, which has never been seen publicly and obtained by the media,
captures the flight and the final moments before and after the plane crashed on January 10, 2017.

The crash sparked an immediate investigation by the transport safety investigator, the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB), which is yet to make a determination on why the plane crashed.

Queensland Police is also investigating the crash and there will be a coronial inquiry, expected to be held in the first quarter of next year.

CASA, the body that licences pilots and oversees safety, raised a few eyebrows when it launched its own investigation into the crash and released its findings — just 17 days after the crash.

CASA defended this action, saying the safety interests of the public were at the forefront of CASA's decision making.

"I am very bitter about this," Mr Rhoades said.

"I feel that both Les and I have been grossly abused by CASA."



PHOTO: Fuel collected in a used Coca-Cola bottle and presented as evidence by CASA. (Supplied)

CASA accused Mr Rhoades's company, Wyndham Aviation, of being "a serious and imminent risk to air safety".

It claimed the plane exceeded its maximum take-off weight but a load and balance sheet for the flight shows it was 15 kilograms below the maximum take-off weight.

CASA said passengers were not weighed prior to the flight, but the pilots disagree.

CASA also said the fuel was contaminated, based on a sample collected in a used Coca-Cola bottle days after the accident.

And it determined that the pilot should have tried to land the plane in water, not on the beach, a move a number of aviation experts, contacted and shown the video, said could have been more dangerous.

After watching the video, former CASA employee Kenneth Pratt, who worked as an airworthiness inspector for 20 years before retiring in 2008, said landing in the water could have been even more disastrous.

"I don't imagine that the passengers have vests or life preservers on so there would have been a potential for them to drown in an accident like that," he said.

Mr Pratt said if the water was more than "four, five, six feet deep, the wheels would have dug in and the thing probably would have flipped which means it would have been upside down in the water".



PHOTO: Bruce Rhoades when he was flying for Wyndham Aviation. (Supplied: Bruce Rhoades)

Mr Rhoades, who was flying behind the plane that crashed, was on the scene within minutes and said the water was more than 1 metre deep.

He said from engine failure to the crash was 27 seconds.

Mr Rhoades believes Mr Woodall deserves credit for the fact that more lives were not lost.

"From 180 feet, with a failed engine, choices are very limited," he said.

"[Woodall] made a choice and saved three lives in 27 seconds."

CASA alleged that the plane was flying too low, which "significantly and unnecessarily raised the level of risk associated with the flight because it meant that, in the event of an unanticipated in-flight upset (such as an engine failure) he would have only minimal altitude, and therefore time, to safely manage the upset".



PHOTO: Les Woodall in hospital recovering after the crash. (Supplied: Bruce Rhoades)

However, Mr Woodall said he was inspecting the beach for debris prior to landing, something the company had CASA approval to do.

Mr Woodall planned to use this evidence, and more, to appeal against the cancellation of his pilot's licence in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

But in August, CASA offered him a confidential settlement if he dropped the legal action.

Fairfax and 7.30 understands the settlement did not require any admissions of wrongdoing or negligence.

And it allowed Mr Woodall to reapply for his pilot's licence.

The settlement was made before the police, a coronial inquiry, or the official investigator, the ATSB, has finished their investigations into the accident.

Doing CPR on dead girl 'haunts me'



PHOTO: The badly damaged plane on the beach. (Supplied: Lifeflight)

Mr Rhoades, who has been given just weeks to live after being diagnosed with an aggressive cancer in the brain, said his life fell apart after the crash.

"The flashes I get the most, and I guess the thing that disturbs me the most, is doing CPR on that girl for so long," he said.

"That, I guess, is the thing that comes back, if you like, to haunt me."

When CASA cancelled his licence, it not only financially ruined him but destroyed his reputation as well.

Mr Rhoades has been flying for decades. He set up the company in 2008, and said over the years about 30,000 people had taken his chartered flights.

He said in the early days he clashed with CASA, which did not like his adrenalin flights.

More than a decade ago, in 2007, when Mr Rhoades worked for another company, CASA grounded him which resulted in him pleading guilty in the Magistrates Court to four charges.

He was directed to undertake theory and flight examinations to demonstrate that he had the necessary knowledge and skill to continue to hold those licences.

He pleaded guilty to administrative issues with his pilot's log book and maintenance sheets. He also pleaded guilty to a charge of unauthorised commercial operations.

Mr Rhoades said he did charter flights but the company he worked for did not have a charter licence, something Mr Rhoades said he did not know and rectified once alerted.

He also let a tourist get a photo touching the controls mid-flight, which is not allowed.

He said he never did it again and has had a clean slate up until the 2017 plane crash.

The pilot who crashed, Les Woodall, had no incidents and a clean record.

Mr Rhoades said passengers enjoyed "rock and roll flights" but they weren't aerobatic and before each flight passengers were asked to fill in a form if they wanted a flight which included a demonstration of a light aircraft's ability within "normal" procedures.

Passengers signed the form on January 10, before setting off.

'I thought I'd lost my son'


PHOTO: Jason Lonnon's son was injured in the crash. (ABC News: Craig Berkman)


The ATSB released an interim report into the crash in March 2017, but it did not conclusively say what caused the accident.

It is up to the coroner to examine all the evidence and determine the cause of death and make any safety recommendations.

But Mr Rhoades believes there is one lesson CASA could take from his company's accident.

"The passengers on the back of the aircraft were far more severely injured because they did not have over shoulder seat-belting in the back of the aircraft," he said.

"If they mandate that all of those older aircraft all be fitted with that over shoulder seatbelt immediately ... they've not done that."

Families of the passengers on the flight were contacted for comment.

Only the father of a 13-year-old boy who survived the flight agreed to speak.

He is still suffering trauma.

"I thought I'd lost my son," Jason Lonnon said.

"It still amazes me today that he's still alive and walking."

Mr Lonnon was on the second plane that landed minutes after the crash.
"It was a mess," he said.

"It was like it had been chewed up by a dinosaur and spat out."

Mr Rhoades said he decided to speak out because he is determined to restore his and Mr Woodall's reputations, and ensure the truth of what happened is known.

"There's Woody [Les Woodall] and myself being able to hold our heads up amongst our peer group in our own industry," he said.

"The second reason is that the family of the dead girl in particular ... I want to make sure that they know the truth.

"And a third reason, I just can not allow this culture of CASA to go on, without speaking up very, very loudly against it."

Watch the story 7.30 tonight on ABCTV and iview.

Video segment:

https://www.abc.net.au/7.30/dying-pilot-...l/10444124

7.30 Report
Dying pilot tries to clear his name after fatal plane crash
Posted Mon 29 Oct 2018, 9:14pm

Updated Tue 30 Oct 2018, 6:37am
Expires: Wednesday 29 April 2020 9:14pmus


The owner of an aviation company involved in a plane crash that killed one passenger and injured three others has raised questions about evidence used by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) to investigate him, his company and the pilot flying the plane.

Transcript:

ADELE FERGUSON, REPORTER: It's 10:30 am on January 10, 2017.
European tourists seeking an adventure, are on their way to a remote beach off the coast of Queensland.

Les Woodall, an experienced pilot is flying this Cessna 172.

Everything seems fine. Three passengers are sitting inside the light plane.

The youngest a 13-year-old local boy. Like most teenagers, he's busily filming on his phone.

BRUCE RHOADES, FORMER OWNER, WYNDHAM AVIATION: It was a pretty nice sunny day with a bit of cumulus cloud in the sky.

ADELE FERGUSON: Their destination is Middle Island. It's a short 22 km trip.
Those on board sign a form requesting a rock'n'roll flight to add to the thrill.
Bruce Rhoades, owner of the Adventure Tour company Wyndham Aviation is flying behind them in a second light plane.

BRUCE RHOADES: Les would always go first and that aircraft flew just a little bit faster and that meant he was going to get to the beach before me. He went down to carry out his inspection and I didn't hear another word from the radio from that moment on from him.

ADELE FERGUSON: Queensland local Jason Lonnon was sitting next to Bruce. His son is a passenger in the first plane. He's the one filming the flight.

JASON LONNON, WITNESS: We weren't far behind them. They were just turning around at the point near the campsite getting ready to land and then the plane actually disappeared out of view.

BRUCE RHOADES : I was about three nautical mile behind at that stage. He was doing his descent. He carried out his search and then he disappeared behind a sand dune, which from where I was looking at was quite odd because normally he would continue straight ahead and climb out, in order to do the turn around and he should have made a radio call to me to tell me the condition of the beach and how he was going to do his approach.

ADELE FERGUSON: Seven minutes and 45 seconds into the flight something is wrong.

JASON LONNON: I didn't expect anyone to be alive.

ADELE FERGUSON: The second plane lands and everyone rushes to assist at the crash site.

JASON LONNON: I just yelled out my son's name and he responded. That was a big sigh of relief. We couldn't actually see inside the plane, it was wrecked that bad. It looked like it had been chewed up by a dinosaur and spat out.

There was fuel dripping. We were trying to gather up as much fuel as we could too. It was like in the movies almost, with the fuel running down.

I crawled into the wreck to get to me son. He was hanging upside down with his seatbelt still on.

I had to get a knife to cut him down and drag him out.

He was in a lot better condition than the other passengers on the plane.

ADELE FERGUSON: Vision from the rescue helicopter shows Bruce helping to move passengers. In the wreckage, a 29-year-old UK backpacker is killed.

The three survivors are injured, two seriously.

Do you ever get flashes?

BRUCE RHOADES: The flashes I get the most and I guess the thing that disturbs me the most is doing CPR on that girl for so long and that I guess is the thing that comes back, if you like, to haunt me.

ADELE FERGUSON: The crash sparks an immediate investigation by the Transport Safety Investigator known as the ATSB, but it is CASA, the body who licences pilots and overseas safety that strikes first.

It gathers its own evidence, suspends and cancels the company's licence 17 days after the crash and one day after another light plane, owned by a different company, crashed in Perth.

You ended up getting told that you were negligent in effect by CASA just a few weeks later?

BRUCE RHOADES: In many, many ways, yes.

ADELE FERGUSON: CASA says the plane should have landed in the water, but some aviation experts, including a former CASA worker, said if the Cessna landed in the sea it could have flipped upside down and sunk.

JASON LONNON: Those planes are extremely difficult to get in and out of at any given time, you know.

BRUCE RHOADES: If an aircraft lands with wheels down in the water, it somersaults.

ADELE FERGUSON: So, what would have happened?

BRUCE RHOADES: Then the aircraft would have inverted probably sinking those first because that is where the weight of the engine is. They all would have drowned.

ADELE FERGUSON: Bruce Rhoades doesn't fly anymore. CASA called the company a "serious and imminent risk to air safety" and cancelled his licence, a move that he says cost him his business and reputation as a 40-year veteran of flying.

Les Woodall, known as Woody, lost his licence, too. Now Bruce is running out of time to try and clear his name. He is dying of cancer and has weeks to live.
Why does it mean so much to you to speak up?

BRUCE RHOADES: I guess, if you like, there is Woody and myself being able to hold our heads up amongst our peer group and own industry and the second reason is that the family of the dead girl, in particular, I want to make sure that they know the truth and a third reason I just cannot allow this culture of CASA to go on without speaking out very, very loudly against it.

ADELE FERGUSON: Bruce has been flying for decades. He bought Wyndham Aviation in 2008, a business that flies adventure seekers and backpackers to untouched beaches. He says about 30,000 people have taken his chartered flights.

Bruce claims CASA didn't like his adventure rock'n'roll flights, but never stopped them.

They were never kept hidden as this YouTube video shows.
(LAUGHTER)

More than a decade ago when Bruce worked for another company, CASA grounded him and he pleaded guilty in the Magistrates' Court to four charges.
There were issues with his pilot's log book and maintenance sheets and he did charter flights without the correct licence.

Bruce also let a tourist get a photo touching the controls. But the pilot who crashed Les Woodall had no incidents and a clean record.
They essentially called you cowboys.

BRUCE RHOADES: Very much so, Yes.

And, certainly in our promotion, we tried to display the image, if you will, of the fun Australian, but certainly nothing dangerous and CASA were well aware of our activities.

ADELE FERGUSON: Bruce believes that CASA could have learned a lesson from his company's accident.

DAVID RHOADES: The passengers in the back of the aircraft were far more severely injured because they did not have over shoulder seat belting in the back of the aircraft, which were not required in those slightly older model aircraft. This aircraft was about a '76 model, I believe. Had they consulted with me, which they had never done, I would have recommended immediately that they man date all of the older aircraft, all be fitted with that over shoulder seatbelt immediately or within six months or a reasonable time interval.
They have not done that. They don't have the authority to investigate.
The ATSB do that.

ADELE FERGUSON: Evidence has emerged which raises questions about CASA and the crash. CASA says the plane was overloaded and there were four backpacks, each weighing exactly 5 kg. There is only evidence of two backpacks and they are underweight.

CASA claims the fuel was contaminated, yet evidence shows it was collected in a used Coca-Cola bottle found on the beach days later.

Say they that the plane was too low. Woodall claims he was inspecting the beach for debris prior to landing, something the company had approval from CASA to do.

Woodall planned to use this evidence to appeal the cancellation of his pilot's license, but in August CASA offered Woodall a confidential settlement if he dropped the legal action.

7.30 understands that the settlement didn't require any additions of wrong-doing or negligence and he could reapply for a pilot's licence.

The settlement was made before the police, a coronial inquiry or the ATSB had finished their investigations into the accident.

Kenneth "Ozzie" Pratt worked for CASA for 20 years as an airworthiness inspector. He retired in 2008.

KENNETH PRATT, FORMER CASA EMPLOYEE: He didn't do anything I consider aerobatic. He was doing slight, bumps, where he would pull the stick back. That is not aerobatics, but it is not going to hurt the aircraft.

ADELE FERGUSON: CASA declined to be interviewed on camera. In a statement, it said unauthorised
aerobatic manoeuvres were done by both pilots. Any issues with the collection of evidence was a matter for attending police.

They also said passengers were not asked for their weight prior to the flight. The pilots disagree.

VOICEOVER: CASA actively and continuously monitors the safety performance of Australian aviation to identify emerging risks or issues that should be addressed.

ADELE FERGUSON: It's been one year and nine months since the crash.
The Australian Transport Safety Bureau is still investigating.
So are the Queensland Police.

The ATSB released an interim report in March 2017, but it didn't conclusively say what caused the accident.  But, at the end of the day, it will be up to the Coroner to examine all the evidence in detail and determine the cause of death and make any safety recommendations.

Meanwhile, the families are still waiting for answers.

JASON LONNON: Every time I hear one of them planes flying around, it just reminds me of that day. It is stuck with me for life, I am sure of that.

CASA response to 730 questions pg 1 to 5:

And Carmody reckons the Big R-regulator has changed it's spots - yeah and pigs might fly...  

MTF...P2 

[Peetwo]

Oversight of CASA inquiry - Opportunity knocks?

Reference Senate Estimates thread post: http://www.auntypru.com/forum/thread-37-...ml#pid9546

Ben Morgan and the other AGAA representatives have done great service in the Senate Committee. Ben in particular has drawn together the various threads and shown how CASA’s wrong policy, the creation of separate entities to be privately run in competition with each other, is against the national interest and out of step with the most effective and successful General Aviation environment, namely that of the USA.  

But towards the end of the videos attached to this thread, from yesterday’s, hearing a remarkable exchange between Carmody and Senator Sterle. I don’t think we’ve ever seen anything quite like it. In the video Carmody emphatically declaring that AOPA and the other GA organisations “signed up” to CASA’s Part 149.

The signatures that purported to be AOPA’s (and other GA industry’s reps) agreement were on a paper that was a meeting attendance sheet. No wonder that an angry and swearing Senator Sterle was spitting chips. 

If Morrison has any antenae tuned in towards this dismal display of blatant bureaucratic degeneracy he might be calling in McCormack for some serious discussions. 

Wonder if the media picks up on this astounding scene. Let’s hope so.

For the benefit of Sandy and others - in pictures the attempted discrediting/deception of AGAA evidence given by Carmody and the CASA executive vs the RRAT committee discovery of the attempt by Carmody to once again potentially mislead the Senate: 

Hmm...not trying to mislead the Senate again are we Mr Carmody??

Ref: FRMS & the timeline of regulatory embuggerance

     

Vs 

& deception 2:

Vs

This disgusting but typical behaviour by our STILL Big R-regulator has much documented evidence going back nearly 3 decades of the little regard the likes of Carmody as a professional bureaucrat and the Iron Ring cohort, have for the Senate oversight of CASA..

However I would argue that this time AGAA, the RRAT committee are developing an appetite to take CASA on and expose them for the bullies that they are. 

Reference from tailend of AGAA session :

Somewhat ironically, the RRAT committee Chair has opened up an opportunity for the many industry victims of CASA embuggerance (past & present) and duplicity in process, to finally have their say. However the clock is ticking 2 weeks and counting before the AGAA get the right of reply in a public hearing and to table the A-Z 'evidence' for the committee scrutiny....  

MTF...P2        

Ps A quick check - ref: https://www.casa.gov.au/publications-and...ent-manual - still indicates that the Foreword still contains the former CEO of CASA John McCormick's signature:

---

---

It beggars belief that the current CASA Iron Ring cohort led by Carmody, want industry to ignore the embuggerances of the past and trust the regulator has their interests at heart when arguably the worst CEO to oversee the worst period of Big R-regulator intimidation and therefore industry distrust still has his moniker attached to their still discriminatory, black letter law enforcement manual...

[Peetwo]

Video segment:

https://www.abc.net.au/7.30/dying-pilot-...l/10444124

7.30 Report
Dying pilot tries to clear his name after fatal plane crash
Posted Mon 29 Oct 2018, 9:14pm

Updated Tue 30 Oct 2018, 6:37am
Expires: Wednesday 29 April 2020 9:14pmus


The owner of an aviation company involved in a plane crash that killed one passenger and injured three others has raised questions about evidence used by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) to investigate him, his company and the pilot flying the plane.

Transcript:

ADELE FERGUSON, REPORTER: It's 10:30 am on January 10, 2017.
European tourists seeking an adventure, are on their way to a remote beach off the coast of Queensland.

Les Woodall, an experienced pilot is flying this Cessna 172.

Everything seems fine. Three passengers are sitting inside the light plane.

The youngest a 13-year-old local boy. Like most teenagers, he's busily filming on his phone.

BRUCE RHOADES, FORMER OWNER, WYNDHAM AVIATION: It was a pretty nice sunny day with a bit of cumulus cloud in the sky.

ADELE FERGUSON: Their destination is Middle Island. It's a short 22 km trip.
Those on board sign a form requesting a rock'n'roll flight to add to the thrill.
Bruce Rhoades, owner of the Adventure Tour company Wyndham Aviation is flying behind them in a second light plane.

BRUCE RHOADES: Les would always go first and that aircraft flew just a little bit faster and that meant he was going to get to the beach before me. He went down to carry out his inspection and I didn't hear another word from the radio from that moment on from him.

ADELE FERGUSON: Queensland local Jason Lonnon was sitting next to Bruce. His son is a passenger in the first plane. He's the one filming the flight.

JASON LONNON, WITNESS: We weren't far behind them. They were just turning around at the point near the campsite getting ready to land and then the plane actually disappeared out of view.

BRUCE RHOADES : I was about three nautical mile behind at that stage. He was doing his descent. He carried out his search and then he disappeared behind a sand dune, which from where I was looking at was quite odd because normally he would continue straight ahead and climb out, in order to do the turn around and he should have made a radio call to me to tell me the condition of the beach and how he was going to do his approach.

ADELE FERGUSON: Seven minutes and 45 seconds into the flight something is wrong.

JASON LONNON: I didn't expect anyone to be alive.

ADELE FERGUSON: The second plane lands and everyone rushes to assist at the crash site.

JASON LONNON: I just yelled out my son's name and he responded. That was a big sigh of relief. We couldn't actually see inside the plane, it was wrecked that bad. It looked like it had been chewed up by a dinosaur and spat out.

There was fuel dripping. We were trying to gather up as much fuel as we could too. It was like in the movies almost, with the fuel running down.

I crawled into the wreck to get to me son. He was hanging upside down with his seatbelt still on.

I had to get a knife to cut him down and drag him out.

He was in a lot better condition than the other passengers on the plane.

ADELE FERGUSON: Vision from the rescue helicopter shows Bruce helping to move passengers. In the wreckage, a 29-year-old UK backpacker is killed.

The three survivors are injured, two seriously.

Do you ever get flashes?

BRUCE RHOADES: The flashes I get the most and I guess the thing that disturbs me the most is doing CPR on that girl for so long and that I guess is the thing that comes back, if you like, to haunt me.

ADELE FERGUSON: The crash sparks an immediate investigation by the Transport Safety Investigator known as the ATSB, but it is CASA, the body who licences pilots and overseas safety that strikes first.

It gathers its own evidence, suspends and cancels the company's licence 17 days after the crash and one day after another light plane, owned by a different company, crashed in Perth.

You ended up getting told that you were negligent in effect by CASA just a few weeks later?

BRUCE RHOADES: In many, many ways, yes.

ADELE FERGUSON: CASA says the plane should have landed in the water, but some aviation experts, including a former CASA worker, said if the Cessna landed in the sea it could have flipped upside down and sunk.

JASON LONNON: Those planes are extremely difficult to get in and out of at any given time, you know.

BRUCE RHOADES: If an aircraft lands with wheels down in the water, it somersaults.

ADELE FERGUSON: So, what would have happened?

BRUCE RHOADES: Then the aircraft would have inverted probably sinking those first because that is where the weight of the engine is. They all would have drowned.

ADELE FERGUSON: Bruce Rhoades doesn't fly anymore. CASA called the company a "serious and imminent risk to air safety" and cancelled his licence, a move that he says cost him his business and reputation as a 40-year veteran of flying.

Les Woodall, known as Woody, lost his licence, too. Now Bruce is running out of time to try and clear his name. He is dying of cancer and has weeks to live.
Why does it mean so much to you to speak up?

BRUCE RHOADES: I guess, if you like, there is Woody and myself being able to hold our heads up amongst our peer group and own industry and the second reason is that the family of the dead girl, in particular, I want to make sure that they know the truth and a third reason I just cannot allow this culture of CASA to go on without speaking out very, very loudly against it.

ADELE FERGUSON: Bruce has been flying for decades. He bought Wyndham Aviation in 2008, a business that flies adventure seekers and backpackers to untouched beaches. He says about 30,000 people have taken his chartered flights.

Bruce claims CASA didn't like his adventure rock'n'roll flights, but never stopped them.

They were never kept hidden as this YouTube video shows.
(LAUGHTER)

More than a decade ago when Bruce worked for another company, CASA grounded him and he pleaded guilty in the Magistrates' Court to four charges.
There were issues with his pilot's log book and maintenance sheets and he did charter flights without the correct licence.

Bruce also let a tourist get a photo touching the controls. But the pilot who crashed Les Woodall had no incidents and a clean record.
They essentially called you cowboys.

BRUCE RHOADES: Very much so, Yes.

And, certainly in our promotion, we tried to display the image, if you will, of the fun Australian, but certainly nothing dangerous and CASA were well aware of our activities.

ADELE FERGUSON: Bruce believes that CASA could have learned a lesson from his company's accident.

DAVID RHOADES: The passengers in the back of the aircraft were far more severely injured because they did not have over shoulder seat belting in the back of the aircraft, which were not required in those slightly older model aircraft. This aircraft was about a '76 model, I believe. Had they consulted with me, which they had never done, I would have recommended immediately that they man date all of the older aircraft, all be fitted with that over shoulder seatbelt immediately or within six months or a reasonable time interval.
They have not done that. They don't have the authority to investigate.
The ATSB do that.

ADELE FERGUSON: Evidence has emerged which raises questions about CASA and the crash. CASA says the plane was overloaded and there were four backpacks, each weighing exactly 5 kg. There is only evidence of two backpacks and they are underweight.

CASA claims the fuel was contaminated, yet evidence shows it was collected in a used Coca-Cola bottle found on the beach days later.

Say they that the plane was too low. Woodall claims he was inspecting the beach for debris prior to landing, something the company had approval from CASA to do.

Woodall planned to use this evidence to appeal the cancellation of his pilot's license, but in August CASA offered Woodall a confidential settlement if he dropped the legal action.

7.30 understands that the settlement didn't require any additions of wrong-doing or negligence and he could reapply for a pilot's licence.

The settlement was made before the police, a coronial inquiry or the ATSB had finished their investigations into the accident.

Kenneth "Ozzie" Pratt worked for CASA for 20 years as an airworthiness inspector. He retired in 2008.

KENNETH PRATT, FORMER CASA EMPLOYEE: He didn't do anything I consider aerobatic. He was doing slight, bumps, where he would pull the stick back. That is not aerobatics, but it is not going to hurt the aircraft.

ADELE FERGUSON: CASA declined to be interviewed on camera. In a statement, it said unauthorised
aerobatic manoeuvres were done by both pilots. Any issues with the collection of evidence was a matter for attending police.

They also said passengers were not asked for their weight prior to the flight. The pilots disagree.

VOICEOVER: CASA actively and continuously monitors the safety performance of Australian aviation to identify emerging risks or issues that should be addressed.

ADELE FERGUSON: It's been one year and nine months since the crash.
The Australian Transport Safety Bureau is still investigating.
So are the Queensland Police.

The ATSB released an interim report in March 2017, but it didn't conclusively say what caused the accident.  But, at the end of the day, it will be up to the Coroner to examine all the evidence in detail and determine the cause of death and make any safety recommendations.

Meanwhile, the families are still waiting for answers.

JASON LONNON: Every time I hear one of them planes flying around, it just reminds me of that day. It is stuck with me for life, I am sure of that.

CASA response to 730 questions pg 1 to 5:

And Carmody reckons the Big R-regulator has changed it's spots - yeah and pigs might fly...  

Update to the ongoing CASA embuggerance of Bruce Rhoades - 

From Mr Rhoades FB page the Scottish Git Crawford (aka the White Rabbit) shows his true colours:




Also: 

 

Mr Rhoades has also written to the miniscule with a standard gutless no response to this date : links - https://1drv.ms/w/s!At3MDHGvpfttgdRd1I75...3f2OqPH90c 

(Thank you Wannabe -   ):

My Introduction letter to the Minister to which he has not responded.

Good Afternoon Minister,

I believe my brother-in-law has given you something of a “heads up” on this after the story going to air?

He has further advised me to correspond with you directly in the hope that you will be prepared to have the Commonwealth Ombudsman carry out an inquiry.

As I am sure you are aware "7:30 Report" did a comprehensive story regarding the corrupt culture within CASA last Monday night.

7:30 Report did a great job in the time available but could not possibly cover all points in such a complex story in such a small time frame.

One very notable point they did highlight was CASA’s “backdoor” deal done with my pilot Les Woodall and his lawyer to withdraw evidence from the public record in return for a “get out of jail free card” for Les.

It is hardly his fault that they offered him such a deal and he took it even though he was not guilty of anything other than saving three lives!

Little did CASA realise that I was the one who compiled the brief of evidence they were trying to suppress.

That is the brief I am now attaching for your interest and labelled 7:30 Report.

You will find that my report refers to a 60 page affidavit where CASA have done there best to vilify both myself and Les dragging up minor transgressions largely of a clerical nature from 11 years ago combined with blatantly falsifying evidence in the crash of WTQ on 10 January 2017.

I am sure CASA will be happy to provide you with a copy, it is too large to email.

The 7:30 Report also obtained the opinions of independent professionals within the industry who universally agreed that Les made the right decision in not landing ahead into the water in contradiction of CASA's opinion.

I have also attached a very recent confidential communication from the ATSB to me which clearly refutes many of the allegations that CASA have made against Les Woodall.

CASA in all forums have made a great issue in alleging that virtually on a daily basis both our aircraft were doing aerobatics. 

Why then 18 months later is the sister ship JER still flying (having been sold) without being grounded by CASA and subjected to an Air Worthiness Inspection? 

Quite obviously they do not believe their own allegations or have no interest in safety at all.

Another good question to be asked is "Why have both mine and Les Woodall's licence's been cancelled and yet no charges have been laid against either of us in 18 months?" Not that either of us will now fly again for medical reasons.

There exists today a very adversarial relationship between CASA and charter operators to the degree that charter operators will not report safety issues to CASA. They will make every effort to resolve them in house without reporting for fear of punitive actions by CASA that will prejudice their business.

I know of at least two in flight emergencies with charter operators who had mechanical failures in flight which related to sub standard work by maintenance organisations that were never reported for this reason.

The issue I have raised regarding over shoulder seat belt restraints in the rear of the aircraft typifies how far CASA have drifted from their primary mandate of SAFETY!

I am quite certain that had these over shoulder belt restraints been fitted in the rear of WTQ then all passengers would have been recovered alive and with significantly less life debilitating injuries, and yet CASA have not made any moves to remedy this situation in older aircraft.

Why is this not an imperative for them?

I have encouraged aviators to write to me with their stories of CASA’s corruption.

I have attached some of these also for your interest.

These stories expressed the extreme frustration and bitterness of the aviation industry towards CASA.

CASA have become an arrogant police organisation who will not listen to safety concerns of the industry.

There is no bilateral relationship between the industry and CASA where aviation operators can freely express their concerns regarding aviation safety.

Instead we have a very adversarial relationship between CASA and industry which has resulted in an extremely contra safety relationship today simply because no one trusts CASA.

Unfortunately this corrupt and endemic culture is rife throughout CASA and has been worsening for the last 30 years.

Corruption starts at the top and rots down through the rest of the tree.

The two individuals who are clearly responsible for the blatantly false evidence shown in the affidavit against me and Les Woodall are Craig Martin (Eastern Region Manager) who is responsible for its preparation and Anthony Carter head of legal in Canberra who signed off on it in spite of the obvious inconsistencies and blatant errors in the affidavit.

No doubt CASA believe that once again the story will be forgotten after one flash on national media, however I will not be allowing that to happen.

I have 9 days until I go in for debulking surgery on this brain tumour therefore if you require any further advice or testimony from me then please do so before the 12th of November.

I do request that you advise me before the 12th as to what action you propose to take on this matter, I will not let this rest.

Should you choose to carry out an investigation of this matter it will be difficult to find investigators with sufficient knowledge of the industry who are uncontaminated by CASA.

Regards,

Bruce Rhoades

Ph 0427717707

---

&..

Emailed this to Federal Minister for Transport a moment ago.

To Aviation Advisor to the Minister,

Good afternoon Steve,

In response please advise your last name.

You will remember that I rang you this afternoon to discuss the 24 page expose I sent you regarding corruption within CASA specifically by two individuals Anthony Carter and Craig Martin. 

You continued to respond to me by saying that as this was under investigation by the ATSB you could not comment to me nor was it a political role to investigate until the ATSB ( Australian Transport Safety Board) had completed their inquiries and released a final report.

You seem to have missed the point. 

I was not asking you to pre-empt the ATSB enquiry.

I was asking you to investigate the fabrication and falsification of evidence in an affidavit prepared by these two individuals (CASA officers not ATSB) and which is quite obvious in the expose that I sent you, should you have bothered to read it.

You should also be concerned that it is the belief of the vast majority of of general aviation community that this type of corruption is rife from the top to the bottom of CASA. (Civil Aviation Safety Authority)

You should also be concerned by the extreme police culture of CASA which intimidates the Aviation community from speaking out against them unless assured of anonymity.

You should be concerned that SAFETY is the first victim of this adversarial relationship between CASA and the aviation community.

Do you need me to be clearer on precisely what items of evidence they fabricated?

It Is most definitely your role to root out corruption within your the ministerial bureaucracy or advise me who I should be speaking to in order to achieve that.

It appears very much that you hope this will all be forgotten and swept under the carpet.

Let me also advise you that I will inform and publish on all media platforms of your incompetence and dare I say deliberate mishandling of this matter given that you did not respond to my original email 10 days ago.

That will include this letter.

Regards,

Bruce Rhoades 

Also read some of the supportive FB comments: https://www.facebook.com/bruce.rhoades.7...fM&fref=nf

Examples:

Tom Green Oh CASA is saying that what you have printed on Facebook is inaccurate. According to them, they live with the angels on their side an, therefore, they can do no wrong! However you have stated honestly and accurately that CASA have thrown away their own rule book. Nothing new here - ask Dick Smith!

---

Bruce Rhoades Hi Tom Green, I find it amusing that they object so strenuously that I have defamed them and react so aggressively.......but it is just fine for them to defame me with impunity.
Nor do they realise how laughable such threats are to someone with my circumstances.

---

---

Jay-D McLean Gross! The argument that exposing their corruption is a public hazard in that it could compromise public confidence in their corrupt bureaucracy... sounds like something right out of old Joey Stalin's play book.

---

Jay-D McLean Perhaps they should think through their strategy here.
.
Step 1: fraudulently and with extreme prejudice, destroy an individuals business and eliminate their ability to earn an income in the future.
.
Step 2: Ignore them when the plead for fair treatment, a thorough investigation or even to be heard at all.
.
Step 3: when individual goes public threaten to sue him for that which you have already taken.
.
In summary, they starved a wolf. The starving wolf bit them, so they threatened to take away the food that the wolf no longer had. Wow.

---

Jay-D McLean Also, it's not libelous defamation if it is true, or even if you believe it to be true. Certainly, there is no expectation that a court must first rule something to be true before it can be said publically. This is an unusual mix of bullying, complete ignorance of tort law and extremely poor strategy. These people definitely belong in government.

---

---

Ian Smith we can all identify who are the cowboys in this saga. Sacking might be too good for them, if it was me I would like to castrate them but that might be difficult as they and the minister seem to be a bit light on in that department

---

Bruce Rhoades I thank you Ian Smith there seems to be a wave of support now, especially after that stupid letter CASA sent.

MTF...P2  

[P7_TOM]

Considering the amount of back door whispering CASA do;

Jay-D McLean Also, it's not libellous defamation if it is true, or even if you believe it to be true. Certainly, there is no expectation that a court must first rule something to be true before it can be said publically. This is an unusual mix of bullying, complete ignorance of tort law and extremely poor strategy. These people definitely belong in government.

No doubt the legal eagles would be able to fund another year of schooling for the kids from that argument, it is after all, what they do – and welcome to it. Myself, I like to look a bit deeper than endless bickering over academic matters. For a start, I’d like to know why the engine quit; ATSB have not offered any explanation (far as I’m aware). It was the root cause of the accident. Where it quit was probably (looking at the video) at the very worst possible place. I can’t see where the pilot had many options – but I wasn’t there and it is very difficult, very difficult indeed, to draw any ‘solid’ conclusions as to what else could have/should have been done. Armchair flying is fraught with peril. We can hope the ATSB provide definitive data – regarding the actual height and airspeed at the time of the engine failure. This would provide tangible data for speculation – given a weight, configuration, glide speed, glide ratio, wind component, based on the ambient conditions matrix. At least then an informed appraisal of exactly what options the pilot had could be made. Then, perhaps a safety determination can be made as to developing a better system for preventing a reoccurrence of same.  

The slightly hysterical CASA response and blood curdling threats are, to say the least, counterproductive, uninformed, inflammatory and stand in the way of determining a balanced safety oriented result. The Crawford Hissy O’gram will do more harm to the diminished CASA reputation than good; and, it also highlights exactly why many in the industry will not speak out against the actions of the regulator. The response to the Crawford letter also, very deftly highlights exactly why CASA is distrusted; if the CAA or the FAA say an operation is unsound; the majority of operators in the UK or the USA will accept that due process has been followed and a balanced, safety based course of action has been take. Not so with a CASA ruling – the first thoughts are always the same; as reflected in the published comments.

Will CASA ever become a responsible, honest, model regulator? That; is a question unanswered now for thirty long, weary years.

[Gobbledock]

The CAsA methodology of bully, intimidate, lie and deceive is nothing new and it has flourished and become art form under the Witchdoctor’s influence. By some strange coincidence that fu#kwit has also been there almost 30 years.

The only option is to gut the joint entirely, wash away the stain of the last 30 years and get rid of the putrid stench of people like Wingnut, Dr Voodoo, Garaeme Crayfish and others. However as I’ve said before, it will take a giant smoking hole with a Roo tail sticking out of it before anything is done about CAsA.

[Kharon]

4 Down. - Panties in a bunch?

Life's a beach. Seems to me CASA have gotten their collective knickers in a knot because of the ‘adrenalin’ element touted in the ‘come-on’ ads for the punters and tried very hard to parlay this into an operational ‘danger’. This implies the company and pilots were involved, somehow, in illegal activities. If you think about it all, for just a moment, it becomes clear that without tangible evidence, CASA have, yet again, made themselves appear the amateurish outfit we all know and love.  

Adrenalin sells; Bungee jumping, parachuting, hang gliding, white water rafting, mountain bikes, base jumping, racing motor vehicles; etc. There is a long, long, long list of ways for folk to obtain both a vicarious and real life ‘thrill’. Hells bells – go to Luna park or Disney Land they queue up for hours to take a ‘thrill’ ride; aerobatics and even ‘fast jet’ rides. All freely available to the thrill seeker. So why should some gentle manoeuvres in a C 172 be viewed any differently. ‘Bit of Rock and Roll’ on the way to spend a day on a beach seems, to my mind, a fairly mild form of ‘thrill’.

The real ‘adrenalin’ would emerge when the noise stopped; the pilot would be as much part of this as anyone. Low, slow, engine failure, with limited options – a nightmare. The ‘beach inspection’ demands ‘low and slow’. The percentage chances of something dangerous on the beach are a lot higher than those of a serviceable engine failing at a critical time. – I can’t even begin to calculate the odds against that. I appears that the majority of ‘risk mitigation’ protocols were observed, in order of magnitude. You’d place an engine failure very low down that risk analysis list; and, a complete failure at the point it actually occurred even lower.

And yet, almost before the ATSB has had a chance to get ‘on site’ let alone complete their work CASA are hurling accusations of gross negligence, dangerous practices and all manner of ‘charges’ at a couple of pilots; one physically and mentally damaged, ‘tuther in deep shock. Traumatised is an overly worked word; but, outside of a battle field, I’d say these two guys were as close to the definition as is possible.

Next we have the bizarre stories of ‘deals’ and secret agreements. Without first hand knowledge, speculation is off the table. But the whole thing of pulling the second pilot’s licence and offering some form of indemnity to the other is all ‘passing strange’. It smacks of CASA suddenly realising they had a cluster-duck on their hands and trying, desperately, to get out from under without the world and it’s wife knowing they’d shot themselves in the arse.

In typical CASA fashion, once anything vaguely resembling the ‘facts’ starts doing the rounds; or, their ‘investigative’ integrity is challenged- out come the big legal guns and blood curdling threats are issued. Non of which improve either the quality of safety analysis or improve the CASA image to it’s peers and betters. P7 – HERE – is on the right track; in the beginning, the engine failed; why? What options did the pilot have? Has anyone recreated the event in a simulator? Etc. There is, you’d admit, scope for exploring whether there was indeed any pilot error; or did the pilot make the best of a very bad hand? I’d like to know before I started flinging accusations about the place; wouldn’t you?

This is just another log on the fire that CASA themselves lit. Some say they set their own feet to fire – just to keep their hands warm Whatever; it all simply adds fuel to flames of a full inquiry into CASA methodology, integrity and lack of knowledge on how a regulator should conduct their business. Reformed regulation, without reform of the regulator has cost over 300,000,000. Time to stop the haemorrhaging – before the patient dies.

Another disgraceful chapter, writ in blood, of the never ending story of the Australian aviation safety regulator. Disgusting behaviour.

Toot – toot.

[Peetwo]

Bruce Rhoades response to Crawford's bullying letter -   

Via FB: https://www.facebook.com/bruce.rhoades.7...uU&fref=nf

Dear Mr Crawford.

I must admit to having read your letter with some amusement, especially your threats of legal action and punitive punishments.

How would you propose to punish a dead man walking?

You have destroyed my business already, destroyed my income and deprived me of all extra assets and funds.

You have referred to my having made allegations of fabrication of evidence by Craig Martin and his team as well as Anthony Carter.

Perhaps you should read the affidavit Craig Martin’s team made up against me for yourself and read the conflicting evidence of ATSB, Qld Police and your department who, to this day, have not visited the site.

Or alternatively just watch the 7:30 Report story again!

I will include a link for your edification.

https://www.abc.net.au/7.30/dying-pilot-...6hCyTxNn-g

And this is an abbreviated version.

https://onedrive.live.com/?authkey=%21AI...ot&o=OneUp

Your officers truly blundered in offering inducements to have my pilot withdraw and suppress evidence at the AAT hearing, obviously unaware that I had gathered that evidence. Oops.

Perhaps you are also not aware that comments or statements made are not defamatory if it is true?

But of course the truth has never been a high priority with your department.

I would welcome any action for defamation by CASA or its officers (why is the department speaking on behalf of these officers?) as this will give me an opportunity to expose your officers and your department in a real court, not a kangaroo court run by CASA.

Or an AAT hearing where CASA officers are perceived to be “professional aviators” in spite of the fact that all you do is fly desks covered in an ever deepening pile of “Regulations”.

As for your comment that. “Publishing such comments also has the potential to undermine public confidence in CASA and therefore prejudice the important work we do in seeking to ensure the safety of civil aviation”.

Are you serious? What planet do you live on? That comment just had me rolling on the floor laughing, and just goes to show how out of touch your department is with the general publics and aviation industries perception of CASA.

I have written many times that the adversarial, hostile and mistrustful relationship between CASA and industry has resulted in a scenario where industry will not report safety issues to CASA, if it can be avoided, and kept in house.

As a result the ramifications for safety are very negative now and long term and will result in many more deaths indirectly attributable to your department.

As for your last threatening paragraph “requiring me to desist from publishing such comments and apologising to your officers”, I can assure you that neither of those things will be happening as I have this unfortunate habit of telling the truth and standing by it.

Regards

Bruce Rhoades

---

---

&..

MTF...P2 

[Peetwo]

Bruce Rhoades off Facebook 

Bruce Rhoades
December 2 at 4:11 PM · 

I certainly do not want sympathy for my health condition.

Though It certainly makes me angry that my life will be abbreviated at such a relatively young age and I most certainly attribute that to stress induced by CASA.

However I have had a most fulfilling life where I have influenced thousands of young people from Europe mostly and shown them the freedom of our Australian way of life.

1770 Castaway is or was my greatest invention throughout my life which CASA came along and simply destroyed in a knee jerk reaction to a horrible accident.

What has truly humbled me is the accolades and best wishes that have come in from thousands of these young people from O/S who tell me that I forever changed their perspective on life. Some even travelled from Canada, NZ and UK to visit me here after they heard about my prognosis.

A man cannot ask for more than that and can but think “that is a life well lived”.
I have no regrets other than CASA have destroyed my legacy and have done this to many others before me.

I will now devote the rest of my time, whilst able, to exposing them to maximum public scrutiny.

I don’t think that anyone to date has used short video clips of the truth combined with social media to wage war against an utterly corrupt bureaucracy.

It does seem to be effective and must come as quite a shock to them to see their own deceits exposed in these clips.

I hope many others will feel the same way.

I can appreciate that many who work in the aviation industry will be wary of openly supporting me for fear of intimidation and retaliation by CASA.

However all I need is for people to share the exposure clips on CASA as widely as possible.

I am quite happy to be the “tip of the spear”.....I just need everyone else to drive it in deep.

&..

Bruce Rhoades shared a post.

17 hrs ·

https://www.facebook.com/1224969532/post...495093447/

For those who have not seen it, this is the video which apparently annoyed Graeme Crawford (CASA) so much that he has threatened me with a defamation suit on behalf of two of their officers Craig Martin and Anthony Carter.

CASA must just hate the right to freedom of speech and especially social media.

BR's videos now on Youtube:

MTF...P2 

[Kharon]

Bloody annoying..

There I am, quietly working at the bench, or sitting at the traffic lights or doing anything that does not need much in the way of front brain attention and this sentence from the Crawford missive to Rhoades surfaces. The sentence infuriates me;

"I therefore require that you desist from publishing your comments in the future, and immediately remove or cause to be removed the video recording from your Facebook page" etc…

It’s probably the way “I therefore require” is used which raises my hackles. The breath taking arrogance of it. No a scrap of law to back it up – just that he and his masters ‘require’. Bollocks. The belief that if CASA bark, the world will cower. The insane notion that on their say-so, no manner of criticism will be accepted; despite the law and freedom of speech. The Crawford super-ego, the wiles of a legal department and the colossal CASA paranoia all together in a witches brew. Rather than acknowledge any fault on the CASA side, they get all upset and precious about ‘the facts’ being openly and honestly made available and freely discussed. It is incredible the lengths CASA will go to in avoiding any form of question of competence or honesty; and, the gods help you if you try to take ‘em to task.

The Rhoades response is a classic:-

"Are you serious? What planet do you live on? That comment just had me rolling on the floor laughing, and just goes to show how out of touch your department is with the general publics and aviation industries perception of CASA.

I have written many times that the adversarial, hostile and mistrustful relationship between CASA and industry has resulted in a scenario where industry will not report safety issues to CASA, if it can be avoided, and kept in house.

As a result the ramifications for safety are very negative now and long term and will result in many more deaths indirectly attributable to your department.

As for your last threatening paragraph “requiring me to desist from publishing such comments and apologising to your officers”, I can assure you that neither of those things will be happening as I have this unfortunate habit of telling the truth and standing by it.

He’s a lot more patient than I am – my response would have shorter and succinct –

Oh, Bugger off you idiot; or perhaps even – “Bring it on Bitch”.  Not certain, but one thing I am certain of – bullies need to be hammered, hard and often, until they learn either good manners; or, fear. Bullies are the worst kind of coward; and when they have legal impunity and may hide inside of an edifice which will move heaven and earth to protect it’s pet bullies; it is time for the civilised world to pay attention and get something done about it.

What say you Senators? Will you stand by and watch the bullies kick the crap out of natural justice, shake your heads and walk away bemoaning the sad state of affairs; or, will you step up and toe the line, for democracy?

I still can’t believe CASA would sanction the Crawford letter to Rhoades and expect everyone to ‘obey’. “What planet do you live on?” Is a fair question; one which demands an answer.

Aye well; we shall, as we always do, see what we shall see. The ‘Book’ is open for the Race to the Bottom Cup.

Toot- toot.

[P7_TOM]

The Race to the Bottom Cup.

The smart money will get on now; “K” say’s the book is open. Talking out of school here; but the odds are still generous as the entrants have not been ‘vetted’ and there is no new form to guide the bookie. But after today’s events at the RRAT hearings; it seems AMSA, ASA, ATSB,  CASA, the DoIT and even the minister (and his ‘advice’) all must front entries.

There is great scope for the parliamentary opposition to enter; we all wonder if Albo will be able to resist taking a huge pot shot at the disgraceful performance of the incumbent government (whoever that is) related to ‘matters aeronautical’. So, it won’t surprise if there is a strong entry from ‘tuther side of the house. It is, when all said and done about employment, investment security, public safety, national pride and piss poor ministerial action; based against ‘in-house’ advice. We may even see some Independent action. Who knows.

So, boys and girls, the rules are the same as always – you pays your money and you takes your pick.  

There is a side book running:-

Judicial Inquiry. 15/1.
Royal Commission. 5/1.
Senate Inquiry. 4/1.
Sweet Duck All. Odds on.

Happy punting………………"Yes please; same again; thank you"..............

[Gobbledock]

PLEASE MISTER, can we have some more?

I am wondering whether potentially we have enough discussion material now, and to come, to dedicate a thread all of its own to the intestinable Bruce Rhoades?

It would be a fine way to honour this brave, serious and at times amusing fellah and fellow aviator. There is nothing finer than watching a man speaketh the truth, in fine opposition to the mealy mouth horse shit that pours out of CASA’s mouth every time they dareth to speaketh.

Dear Bruce, bravo good sir, bravo. Keep it coming old mate. Release that fire in your belly and stick it to those lying sacks of shit. Make CAsA your personal piñata and smack that giant tub of shit as hard as you can with the biggest god-damn stick you can find.

‘Hell hath no fury like an aviator scorned’

Tick Tock.........hopefully. Bruce, STEAM ON son!!!

[Peetwo]

PLEASE MISTER, can we have some more?

I am wondering whether potentially we have enough discussion material now, and to come, to dedicate a thread all of its own to the intestinable Bruce Rhoades?

It would be a fine way to honour this brave, serious and at times amusing fellah and fellow aviator. There is nothing finer than watching a man speaketh the truth, in fine opposition to the mealy mouth horse shit that pours out of CASA’s mouth every time they dareth to speaketh.

Dear Bruce, bravo good sir, bravo. Keep it coming old mate. Release that fire in your belly and stick it to those lying sacks of shit. Make CAsA your personal piñata and smack that giant tub of shit as hard as you can with the biggest god-damn stick you can find.

‘Hell hath no fury like an aviator scorned’

Tick Tock.........hopefully. Bruce, STEAM ON son!!!

Here you go GD...

While on the subject of potential CASA embuggerance it looks like the Fort Fumble wing of the AFAP have been tasked to weigh into the Vortex whirlpool...

Vortex Air, whose pilot overshot landing while asleep, accused of underpaying staff
By Declan Gooch
Updated Fri at 2:00pm
PHOTO: The Vortex plane was flying from Devonport to King Island, but overshot its landing. (Instagram: Vortex Air)

The airline employing a pilot who fell asleep at the controls last month is being accused of underpaying its staff.

Key points:

• The pilot's union said there were allegations Vortex Air is paying pilots less than the award rate
  
• Vortex Air has acknowledged it is in discussions with the union
  
• Last month, a Vortex Air pilot on a flight from Devonport to King Island fell asleep at the controls
  

On November 8, a Vortex Air flight from Devonport in Tasmania overshot its destination on King Island by almost 50 kilometres because the pilot fell asleep.

The incident is under investigation by the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB), which said the pilot was the only person on board the freight flight on November 8.

The Australian Federation of Air Pilots (AFAP) said it was working with a group of members who had been employed by Vortex Air.

"The AFAP is aware of allegations that pilots at Vortex Air are paid less than the award rate," the union's executive director Simon Lutton said in a statement.

"The AFAP is currently assisting members regarding claims of underpayment arising from their employment at Vortex Air."

Mr Lutton said the union was "negotiating with the company on behalf of our members".

Vortex Air acknowledged it was in discussion with the union, but declined to comment.

Incident prompts discussion about fatigue

The Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) said it was conducting a review of Vortex Air's fatigue management practices in light of the ATSB investigation.

"This includes site visits and interviews with key personnel," CASA spokesman Peter Gibson said.

"As this is an in-depth review, it will take some time to complete."

The ATSB said its investigation into the King Island incident would be complete in the first quarter of next year.

It is the second recent investigation into an incident involving Vortex Air.
On the morning of March 29, 2017, a Piper PA-31-350 being flown by a Vortex Air pilot clipped a truck as it was landing at Barwon Heads, near Geelong in Victoria.

The ATSB found the pilot came in too low over Barwon Heads Road, and the landing gear hit the truck.

The pilot, who was the only person on board, landed the aircraft safely after radioing another pilot on the ground to ask if there was any visible damage.

There were no injuries and the aircraft and truck received minor damage.

In its report, the ATSB said it was told the pilot had recently taken on extra duties as the company's maintenance controller and was distracted during the landing by the additional pressures.

The ABC understands the aircraft was on loan to Vortex Air from a different operator.



PHOTO: King Island in Bass Strait, north-west of Tasmania. (ABC Rural: Margot Kelly)

MTF...P2 

[thorn bird]

"I therefore require that you desist from publishing your comments in the future, and immediately remove or cause to be removed the video recording from your Facebook page" etc…

The Scottish git displays disturbing symptoms of being somewhat sociopathic. A look at his employment profile reveals he never remained in the same job for very long, I wonder why? Perhaps he was an honours graduate from the Screaming Skull school of big R regulators, after all the skull was the grand champion of bullies, and the Git obviously is cast in the Skulls mould.

Rather than "another" inquiry, would'nt it be grand to see an open debate between CAsA and its protagonists, ALA the presidential debates, the participants given the same protections as parliament to say what they think without fear and favour. The Git, wing nut, and the Voo do Doctor in verbal contest with the Ken Cannan's, Clinton Mckenzies, Sunfishes and Kharons of the real world...ahh one can dream.

[Kharon]

“[pilot clipped a truck as it was landing at Barwon Heads, near Geelong in Victoria.”

Indeed, a rare event, I though they had banned trucks from landing at Barwon. (Chuckle).

Lucky though, and a great warning; that ‘incident’ could have got really ugly, really quickly. Just goes to show that no matter how much ‘safety’ pony-pooh is written into manuals, you can’t draft in common sense, airmanship or even a radio procedure to get the truck out of harms way.

[thorn bird]

Funny thing Kharon,

I seem to recall a tail of a B727 landing at Cant'berra, blowing over a truck as it passed over a too close road
on the threshold. The story goes quite a few bucks were expended to keep that quiet.