[Kharon]

One, of the many,  for the legal eagles pot.

A strange tale (helicopter related). - I would like to ask, if I may what you would call this story, in nice (as in accurate) terms.  The story, as it was recently told to me goes like this:-

CASA 'did' a chopper pilot (Chopper) over,  the whole nine yards: license, reputation, job etc; not in court though; DPP didn't want a bar of it.  So, off to the AAT with their star witness, who was looking at a jail term, (on account of being dopey, naughty and getting caught), in tow.  CASA produced statements, evidence and even video footage in support of their case; they even had the AFP collect and deliver the 'on bail' witness to the AAT.

Well, the case was heard, the decision made the license stripped and a not a fit a proper edict was supported.  In the aftermath, all the usual things occurred after an event like that; divorce, depression, anger and anger management issues.  During the breakdown of normal life, Chopper decided to 'scratch' around a bit; as he knew, for certain sure that he 'didn't do it".  In short; after some judicious searching and some time spent with the now released 'star' witness (SW) revealed some very interesting, provable facts.  Things like SW recanting and reversing all previous testimony.  SW is also reported as stating that subtle hints relating to a longer term at HMP could be provided should cooperation be less than enthusiastic; and, that maybe a room with a view and time off on account o'being good, could be arranged.  Well, the 'paperwork' was all signed, sealed and delivered; evidence, statements, the whole shooting match.  This was all duly despatched, on advice, to CASA legal, in the hopes of having things put to rights; - for Chopper you understand. 

There was much talk of 'mounting' a thorough investigation, through the proper channels; so Chopper waits a while, then waits another little while, wondering, as you would, just WTF is going on.  

Here's the crazy part – Eventually, word filters through that Choppers' plaint and righteous indignation have been ignored, not considered.  It seems that the entire brief has been flipped and conjured into a complaint made by SW - against the 'investigator' (s) and marked for AFP attention : 'cept AFP have never heard of it, no paperwork etc..   

Aye, it's passing strange.  You'll admit that's quite a twist and a puzzle of the legal variety for a lay mind to grapple with.   Not being privy to 'all' the 'paperwork', and only working with 'hearsay', the truth, the whole truth and nothing but etc. SHMG is beyond my short reach.  But, humour me, if it all turns out to be Kosher (or Halal if it pleases) what, precisely are we looking at here?   

Toot toot.

[Onslope]

Email   sent to   Colin Neave re his article in the " Mandarin"  
5 February 2015

Dear Mr Neave
Great story in the Mandarin "Complaints pattern must reach agency heads: ombudsman advice". I believe you need to look and act on what has happened in your own office.

After complaining to the Commonwealth Ombudsman about CASA  I was astounded by the handling of my case, that was until under FOI I received the following along with hundreds of other damming pages.  

The CO officer states in an email to one of his buddies  “Either through collusion or strange coincidence, we have had at least three CASA complaints all involving complaints about ......(CASA officer)”.(FOI)

I  know that it was not collusion on my part and no evidence was ever provided that it was collusion and I do not believe in strange coincidences (fit and proper person and all). This was the actions of someone who needed investigating however the Ombudsman officer asserts that the people bring the complaint are colluding. They shoot the messenger/ s. They didn't think that it may be a systemic issue even when my complaint went up through the CO.

Next a subject of my complaint rings a previous employee now working at the Ombudsman's office and within a week that officer is handling my case.(FOI)

After my complaint reached its conclusion I requested a review. An officer involved in the review was prevented from accessing information in relation to the case  by a senior officer. (FOI)

These  and the many other pages obtained under FOI will continue to make a mockery of the Ombudsman's comments. "What a safety net we have in the Commonwealth Ombudsman" and " Its really important for an ombudsman not to take just a philosophical position, rather it should be based on good evidence".

This is how the Federal Ombudsman handles complaints against CASA. The same CASA that you are referring to when you say  "CASA has a very good system that we were most impressed with.  I think you need to talk to the people who had a complaint against CASA and find out what they thought . You only  need to look at the recent Aviation Safety Regulation Review and the recent comments in the Senate by Senator Xenopon 29/05/2013  "One of the common threads in each inquiry, which was raised specifically in the most recent report, is a prevailing fear of retribution from CASA for speaking out, particularly in the most recent inquiry".

Since being notified on  9th May 2014 your office has failed dismally to even set timeliness standards  "If a matter is complex and will take longer than normal to resolve, the agency should regularly update the applicant on progress of
its investigation."


Regards
.....................  

Collusion is an agreement between two or more parties, sometimes illegal and therefore secretive, to limit open competition by deceiving, misleading, or defrauding others of their legal rights, or to obtain an objective forbidden by law typically by defrauding or gaining an unfair market advantage

[Peetwo]

From recent appearances by CASA LSD in the AAT, I caught this AAT review case which was subject to appeal by CASA after a ruling in the Federal Court - Civil Aviation Safety Authority v Marsh [2014] FCA 1253 (21 November 2014) - that it should be revisited by the AAT Deputy President PE Hack SC.

This case of attempted embuggerance began for the applicant Mr Marsh when he sat the ATPL Flight Planning exam on 12 October 2011 &...

 "..In September 2012 CASA came into possession of information that suggested that Mr Marsh may have cheated in the October 2011 examination and that in July 2012 he may have provided information to another person (who I shall call N) that might have allowed others to cheat in a similar manner. On 8 August 2013, following an investigation, CASA, by a delegate, decided that he had assisted another person to cheat and decided to suspend his various licences for a period of six months..."

This led to Mr Marsh seeking review of those decisions in the AAT on the 10 October 2013, where DP Hack set aside the CASA decisions...

Then we had CASA LSD obviously feeling affronted by this decision and taking it to the Federal Court (see above) and finally back to the AAT (hopefully for the last time... )

Anyway here is DP Hack's decision this time round...

22. Finally, the Authority submits that a licence holder who does not understand, and does not see, that cheating is a threat to a licensing system designed to achieve and protect the safety of air navigation, does not properly understand, and does not discharge, the responsibilities, functions and duties of the holder of a commercial pilot’s licence as those matters emerge from the provisions of the Civil Aviation Regulations.

23. The submissions for Mr Marsh set out in considerable detail his career in aviation following the original hearing. As the Authority points out, those matters have not been the subject of evidence. As the parties agreed to proceed on the basis of the evidence at the original hearing, supplemented by written submissions, I consider that I am not able to have regard to the matters set out in Mr Marsh’s submissions beyond inferring, from the absence of any suggestion to the contrary from the Authority, that Mr Marsh has not come adversely to the notice of the Authority since the last hearing.
24. The submissions otherwise stress the absence of any serious or imminent breach of air safety by Mr Marsh, and the time that has elapsed since his transgressions. Given that the Authority does not suggest any serious or imminent breach of air safety, the first submission rather misses the point. But I regard it as a lawyer’s flourish rather than a demonstration of a continuing lack of insight on the part of Mr Marsh.[22]

25. I said in my earlier decision that I had been favourably impressed by Mr Marsh and concluded he had a proper understanding of the need for integrity in his dealings with the Authority and, more generally, in his aviation career. Having referred to evidence that suggested that model answers to frequently repeated questions were freely circulating amongst candidates, I said of his conduct:

Mr Marsh participated in this system. He did not himself cheat (using the word in its popular sense). At worst he may, by his actions, have assisted others to do so and gained some potential benefit from receiving the four pages. That benefit could only have been slight given that the four pages contain far more suggested answers than were contained in the examination that Mr Marsh took. His minor role in a widespread system does not satisfy me that he is not a fit and proper person when I have an otherwise favourable impression of him.[23]

I accept that conduct amounted to a contravention of reg 298A(1)©(iii) and 298A(1)(e) (as I have sought to explain in paragraphs [19] and [20] above). As I earlier said, there are two critical aspects of Mr Marsh’s conduct – receiving the document, with the potential to benefit from it, and passing it on to another where others might benefit from it. But I rejected the case of actual cheating and remain of that view. In the context of what was obviously a widespread practice Mr Marsh played a minor role. He was wrong to do so but his transgressions at that time do not lead me to conclude that he is not a fit and proper person. I do not doubt that Mr Marsh has learned significant lessons from this experience and that the Authority can have confidence in his integrity. I do not doubt that he appreciates, probably more than most, the need for absolute honesty in his dealings with the Authority.

26. As I am not satisfied that Mr Marsh is not a fit and proper person to have the responsibilities and exercise and perform the functions and duties of a commercial pilot I would set aside that decision of the Authority.

 
One has to wonder how much that 4 year trail of attempted embuggerance cost us taxpayers?? I also question whether any of this was could in anyway be regarded as adhering to the principles of the Government Dept/Agencies Model Litigant Rules...

MTF..P2  





  

[Peetwo]

"..M'lord this is a clear case of attempted embuggerance.." - Fadlalla v CASA AATA 331 (15 May 2015) 

From the above decision by Egon Fice , Senior Member of the AAT, it is becoming apparent that the jig is up when it comes to CASA attempting to persecute individuals that have genuinely made an honest mistake/contravention of the regs. This case is also a classic for it shows how CASA manipulates a situation to suit it's own purpose with a dodgy investigation, with little to no factual evidence (sounds familiar hey?? ) and by using underhanded, morally corrupt tactics in an attempt to discredit the applicant.

SM E Fice at paragraph 101..

"..We were concerned by the use of Mr Fadlalla’s personal files by CASA and RACWA/WAAC to discredit his character. None of those matters have anything to do with flight safety or the operation of an aircraft during flight time. They are concerned with issues that RACWA/WAAC had with a customer in a commercial context. Those matters are simply not relevant in determining whether Mr Fadlalla is a fit and proper person to hold a pilot licence. Furthermore, we should say that we were appalled by the way in which CASA/RACWA/WAAC regarded as a fact that Mr Fadlalla was dishonest and had stolen an iPad. No such theft was proved against Mr Fadlalla and he has, from the outset, strenuously denied having stolen that device. There was no evidence of a police investigation or conviction. Yet CASA, in its Show Cause Notice and in its Notice of Cancellation has treated that as a fact..." 

This matter is also interesting because CASA LSD tried unsuccessfully to make this the first case of pilot embuggerance under the new Part61 - fortunately for the applicant, Senior Member Fice would not have a bar of it...

6. We should also briefly mention that at the time Mr Fadlalla’s PPL and SPL were cancelled in June 2014 the new provisions dealing with flight crew licensing now found in Part 61 of the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 (CASR) had not come into effect. The Civil Aviation Legislation Amendment Regulation 2013 (No.1) removed the flight crew licensing provisions from Part 5 of the CAR (sch. 2) and was to commence on 4 December 2013 (Reg 2). However, that Regulation was itself amended by the Civil Aviation Legislation Amendment (Flight Crew Licensing Suite) Regulation 2013 by omitting 4 December 2013 as the start date and substituting 1 September 2014 (sch. 1 pt. 1). That new commencement date was also the date on which the Civil Aviation Order (CAO) 40.1.0 was repealed (Civil Aviation Order (Flight Crew Licensing) Repeal and Amendment Instrument 2014 (No. 1) reg 30, sch 27 pt 1). Because the matters before us concern events which took place in the first half of 2014, Part 5 of the CAR dealing with qualifications of flight crew and CAO 40.1.0 dealing with the issue of special design feature endorsements are the relevant legislative provisions.

   
{Reference: Read paragraph 105 below}
 
Phew..imagine the many, many more means of persecution at CASA LSD's disposal  if they had of been able to use Part61, mate the poor bugger would be hung, strung & quartered and on the next flight home to the Sudan by tea time at the cricket...

Anyway the following is the conclusion to the Fice decision - but I suggest the full decision is worthy of a read...

CONCLUSIONS

93.CASA exercised its discretion to cancel Mr Fadlalla’s PPL and SPL because it found:

• • (a) Mr Fadlalla had failed in his duty in a matter affecting the safe operational navigation of an aircraft; and
    
  • (b) Mr Fadlalla was not a fit and proper person to be the holder of the relevant licences.
    

94. Regarding (a) above, this finding was based on the actions Mr Fadlalla took in the course of a flight on 19 February 2014 in an M20J aircraft. CASA claimed Mr Fadlalla:

1. • © was not trained or qualified to fly at night;
     
   • (d) was not qualified to fly the M20J aeroplane;
     
   • (e) was not qualified to fly from the right-hand seat of the aeroplane;
     
   • (f) was not authorised to fly to the aerodrome in Geraldton; and
     
   • (g) had three passengers on board the aeroplane whose lives were put at risk.
     

95.We have found that Mr Fadlalla was not qualified to fly at night because he did not hold a night VFR rating as required by CAR 174C. He did not deliberately set out to fly at night but did so nonetheless due to delays in departure from Geraldton; an extended flight time which Mr Fadlalla claimed was due to headwinds; and failure to determine prior to embarking on that flight the time when official last light would occur.

96.We do not agree with CASA that Mr Fadlalla was not qualified to fly the M20J aircraft. He undertook and completed the appropriate flying training for a special design endorsement required for that aircraft. He also satisfied a Grade 1 QFI who conducted an endorsement test flight that he was safe to fly that aeroplane as pilot in command. Although CASA claimed that the endorsement had to be entered in to Mr Fadlalla’s personal log book before he could lawfully operate that aircraft as pilot in command, that action was outside of his control. In fact, having met the flying training requirements and having passed the flight test for the endorsement, CASA was bound to make the endorsement in his personal log book. CASA gave no explanation for the delay in endorsing his log book.

97. CASA has not explained what qualification is required for a pilot in command to fly an aircraft with dual controls from the right-hand seat. We are unable to locate any such regulatory requirement. While we accept that is the convention and is sometimes necessary in certain aircraft, in an aircraft such as the M20J, operating under the VFR, we do not see that as being significant as far as flight safety is concerned.

98. We do not agree with CASA that Mr Fadlalla was not authorised to fly to Geraldton. While that flight may not have counted for his flying training with RACWA/WAAC for his CPL, an Authorising Instructor signed the hire authorisation form after checking that Mr Fadlalla had completed and was carrying all appropriate documentation. He held a valid PPL and was authorised to fly the M20J aircraft as pilot in command.

99. CASA is correct in stating that there were three passengers on board on the flight undertaken by Mr Fadlalla on 19 February 2014 and that their lives were put at risk because Mr Fadlalla appeared not to have taken into account the time when official last light occurred on that day and that caused him significant problems in locating Jandakot airfield and performing a safe landing. He did so with the assistance of ATC. Although he did not inform ATC that he did not hold a night VFR rating, that is understandable in the circumstances and the pressure which Mr Fadlalla must have been under when attempting to land. We also take account of the fact that Mr Fadlalla’s flight experience levels at that time were low.

100. Nevertheless, we are satisfied that the significance of the danger in which he put himself and his passengers has been absorbed by Mr Fadlalla and that he is not at risk of repeating such a flight. Nor do we find that his actions taken on that flight are indicative of his attitude to the safety of air navigation or his inability to recognise and manage threats. We had no evidence from any of his flying instructors to that effect and the few flight test reports we had in evidence make no mention whatsoever of such inability. In fact, they record a satisfactory performance on those measures.

101. We were concerned by the use of Mr Fadlalla’s personal files by CASA and RACWA/WAAC to discredit his character. None of those matters have anything to do with flight safety or the operation of an aircraft during flight time. They are concerned with issues that RACWA/WAAC had with a customer in a commercial context. Those matters are simply not relevant in determining whether Mr Fadlalla is a fit and proper person to hold a pilot licence. Furthermore, we should say that we were appalled by the way in which CASA/RACWA/WAAC regarded as a fact that Mr Fadlalla was dishonest and had stolen an iPad. No such theft was proved against Mr Fadlalla and he has, from the outset, strenuously denied having stolen that device. There was no evidence of a police investigation or conviction. Yet CASA, in its Show Cause Notice and in its Notice of Cancellation has treated that as a fact.

102. We were similarly concerned with allegations that Mr Fadlalla lied to CASA officers in the course of his interview with them on 7 March 2014. It appears that no account was taken of Mr Fadlalla’s ethnicity and background let alone his imperfect command of the English language. To cap it off, CASA was unable or unwilling to make good those allegations by evidence from persons who were present at the meeting. We should also express concern about the lack of evidence from persons directly involved in Mr Fadlalla’s flight training. It disappoints us that CASA did not insist on obtaining such evidence despite Mr Currey being unwilling to allow those persons to give evidence following Mr Fadlalla’s request that they do so. We should not have to remind CASA of its obligations under s. 33(1AA) of the AAT Act.

103.We find that Mr Fadlalla is a fit and proper person to have the responsibilities and to exercise and perform the functions and duties of a holder of a pilot licence.

104. It follows that we find CASA’s decision to cancel Mr Fadlalla’s PPL and SPL was not the preferable decision. We set aside that decision. The effect of our decision is that Mr Fadlalla’s PPL and SPL remain valid and must be treated as never having been cancelled.

105. Although Mr Carter in his closing submissions suggested there would be no utility to set aside the cancellation of Mr Fadlalla’s SPL because of changes made to the regulatory framework by the commencement of Part 61 of the CASR which effectively substituted a recreational pilot licence (RPL) for the SPL, respectfully, we do not agree. That is because s. 43(6) of the AAT Act provides:

A decision of a person as varied by the Tribunal, or a decision made by the Tribunal in substitution for the decision of a person, shall, for all purposes (other than the purposes of applications to the Tribunal for a review or of appeals in accordance with section 44), be deemed to be a decision of that person and, upon the coming into operation of the decision of the Tribunal, unless the Tribunal otherwise orders, has effect, or shall be deemed to have had effect, on and from the day on which the decision under review has or had effect.

106. Accordingly, the effect of our decision is that Mr Fadlalla’s aviation record needs to be corrected so that no cancellation of either the PPL or SPL is recorded.

107. By way of a postscript to our decision, for Mr Fadlalla to complete his flying training for the CPL, he should enrol with an approved flying training organisation other than RACWA/WAAC. His flight training records from RACWA/WAAC should be transferred to the new training organisation in accordance with reg 141.280(2) of the CASR.

 My estimation of Senior Member Fice is heading for the stratosphere...

Just Culture within CASA - Yeah right Skates and pigs fly!

MTF...P2

[Gobbledock]

Mr Fice has been sent a permanent IOS membership card this morning, welcome sir. He will also be happy to know that there are no silly rules or fit and proper person tests to pass to receive this membership, all you need to do is display common sense and expose a load of bullshit when you stumble upon it.

As for Team Flyingfiend and friends, it would appear that their dynasty, their oligarchy may be coming to an end? Perhaps, perhaps not. Either way it seems that their 'cover' is becoming redundant. I would like to know how many millions are spent on pointless witch hunts such as Mr Fadlalla's which ultimately cost the taxpayer millions of dollars every single year. If you combined those costs along with CAsA's annual budget, payouts for legal findings against themselves, inquiries, the regulatory reform program, plus the amount of lost revenue to the Australian economy from CAsA incompetence and malfeasance you would find that annually CAsA is a billion dollar black hole to Australia. A billion dollar turd that is beyond polishing. No wonder Government keeps gouging more out of the taxpayer when it props up such woefully mismanaged bureaucracies such as Fort Fumble.

"No CAsA bang for your buck for all"

[Kharon]

P2 – "My estimation of Senior Member Fice is heading for the stratosphere

Not in mine, tall building level, maybe.  Fice has, in recent times made some very sound, sensible decisions, this latest one indicates that he, like several other AAAT members have had just about enough of the OTT behaviour of CASA when they are 'on a mission'.  It is most refreshing.

There is however a rather large blot on the Fice copybook and I hope on his conscience.  The incredible amount of damage his ruling on and behaviour during the Airtex case caused was, IMO a disgraceful travesty.  The ramifications of that hearing still, to this day have a direct and dire affect on the lives of several people.  The parallels of twisted 'evidence', vicious character assassination and well gilded 'Lillys' highly visible, were accepted by Fice as gospel in previous hearings.  The pure spite, malice and ruthless disregard for 'context' and the prostituted use of the NFFP clause, which CASA happily brought into the Fadlalla tribunal indicate that nothing has changed; bar Fice has had an epiphany, a brush with logic, truth, the law; and, hopefully his conscience.

Well he may seek redemption, for Airtex may well be the heavy matter against which his soul is measured, come judgement day.  What a pity that epiphany has come later, rather than sooner – his approach to Fadlalla, applied to Airtex would have straightened CASA out five years ago.  Anyway – I'm very happy to see good sense prevail, it makes such a pleasant change.

Right, back to my knitting I think.

[Gobbledock]

The problem in all of this is ourselves. You see the problem is not one of civil disobedience, it's one of civil obedience. We accept the ridiculous rules, laws and regulations thrust upon us and we comply implicitly. We allow these unworkable, generally unsafe and unfair frameworks to enter our lives and we sit back and accept it with hardly any pissing or moaning. Our lives, income, careers, health, sanity and futures get f#cked up by horse pooh like Part 61 yet what do we do? We comply implicitly. Like a lapdog waiting for a command from its Master we sit back and we accept whatever we are given. We are conditioned to 'accept', not to question. We are conditioned to obey, not disobey. We are conditioned to receive, not give. We act like an aviation community that has been muted by some dark insidious force. Yes we suffer from CASS - Civil Aviation Stockholm Syndrome. We have been bullied, threatened, cajoled and tricked into absolute submission, and most of us don't even know it.

So again I raise the hypothesis that the problem is us, not them, and that our insistence on civil obedience rather than civil disobedience is the root cause of the decline in our once glorious industry.

"Safe mind control games for all"

[Peetwo]

That man Repacholi - Again??

Caught this off the AAT recent decisions filed - this time from the land of the GWM i.e.WA

Repacholi and Anor & CASA [2015] AATA 374 (28 May 2015)

Here was the decision:

PILOTS LICENCE

118. The Tribunal sees no reason why the above conclusions ought deny Mr Repacholi of the ability to fly aircraft (subject to him obtaining the necessary medical certifications).

119. None of the evidence before the Tribunal indicated that Mr Repacholi was not a safe pilot. In short, the respondent’s position was that someone who had the approach to the respondent and the obligations imposed upon the holder of a certificate of approval and aircraft licence such as that shown by Mr Repacholi ought not be permitted to fly an aircraft. In this regard, it was submitted that someone who had such a disregard for authority and the regulations relating to the holders of a certificate of approval and an aircraft licence would in a similar way likely disregard the regulations with respect to flying an aircraft.

120. The Tribunal rejects that submission.

121. Put simply, there was nothing in the evidence to suggest that Mr Repacholi was anything other than a safe and careful pilot who complied with all relevant regulations in that regard.

122. For those reasons, the respondent’s decision to cancel Mr Repacholi’s flight crew licences and flight radiotelephone licence is to be set aside with the effect that Mr Repacholi remains the holder of such licences.

  MTF...P2

[Peetwo]

That man Repacholi - Again??

Caught this off the AAT recent decisions filed - this time from the land of the GWM i.e.WA

Repacholi and Anor & CASA [2015] AATA 374 (28 May 2015)

Here was the decision:

PILOTS LICENCE

118. The Tribunal sees no reason why the above conclusions ought deny Mr Repacholi of the ability to fly aircraft (subject to him obtaining the necessary medical certifications).

119. None of the evidence before the Tribunal indicated that Mr Repacholi was not a safe pilot. In short, the respondent’s position was that someone who had the approach to the respondent and the obligations imposed upon the holder of a certificate of approval and aircraft licence such as that shown by Mr Repacholi ought not be permitted to fly an aircraft. In this regard, it was submitted that someone who had such a disregard for authority and the regulations relating to the holders of a certificate of approval and an aircraft licence would in a similar way likely disregard the regulations with respect to flying an aircraft.

120. The Tribunal rejects that submission.

121. Put simply, there was nothing in the evidence to suggest that Mr Repacholi was anything other than a safe and careful pilot who complied with all relevant regulations in that regard.

122. For those reasons, the respondent’s decision to cancel Mr Repacholi’s flight crew licences and flight radiotelephone licence is to be set aside with the effect that Mr Repacholi remains the holder of such licences.

  MTF...P2

Paul Phelan has picked up on the Fadlalla AAT decision - which compliments the yet again attempted embuggerance of Repacholi...

Getting it wrong – AAT blasts CASA processes


Paul Phelan, June 1, 2015

In a comprehensive rejection of CASA’s decision to cancel a WA private pilot’s licence Administrative Appeals Tribunal Senior Member Egon Fice has bluntly told the authority:
“The decision under review is set aside. The Applicant’s Private Pilot (Aeroplane) Licence and Student Pilot Licence remain valid and must be treated as never having been cancelled.”

The decision is all the more notable because the pilot conducted his AAT appeal and subsequent responses without legal representation and because the Tribunal was highly critical of several aspects of CASA’s management of the case, explaining why “…….. we have concerns about the way in which this matter was investigated and dealt with.”
The Tribunal also declared:

“Having examined the evidence with some care, we find that CASA’s decision to cancel Mr Fadlalla’s PPL on the ground that he was not a fit and proper person to have the responsibilities and exercise and perform the functions and duties of a pilot licence was not the preferable decision. In fact, we find that the evidence does not establish that he is not a fit and proper person to hold a pilot licence.” The decision did briefly discuss the arrival last light, it also briefly mentioned possible contributing factors such as changes of altitude to meet ATC requirements, re-routing and variance between actual and forecast winds.

ProAviation has discussed the fit and proper person issue with numerous pilots over the past 60 years and our perception has been that arriving two minutes after last light does not rank highly among available infractions in their minds, in terms of relative safety significance.

The AATl’s decision identified several erroneous statements by CASA employees, deficiencies in its evidence gathering and processing, its avoidance of independent witnesses, references to regulations that were not in force at the relevant times, relationships between and within the training organisation and CASA officials, and CASA’s well-recognised use of the “fit and proper person” process to back adverse administrative decisions. CASA was also taken to task for repeating untested allegations by College staff of larceny [of an iPad], later shown to be untrue, but which were repeated in CASA correspondence and in any case were irrelevant to air safety issues:

“The fact that CASA treated the information regarding the theft of the iPad given to it by WAAC as if it were true without making any further enquiries is deeply disturbing. In fact it appears in its Statement of Facts and Contentions as if that had been established as a fact. It causes us concern about the relationship that the investigating officers from CASA have with RACWA/WAAC. No such relationship has been disclosed in any of the evidentiary material.
Mr Fice delivered a comprehensive analysis of “fit and proper person” concepts which if heeded, might have been expected to reverse numerous CASA decisions ProAviation has researched in the past.

Nagid Fadlalla, a Sudan-born Australian citizen living in Perth, had held a private pilot (aeroplane) licence since July 2013 and had obtained an endorsement on Mooney M20. He arrived back at Jandakot about two minutes after official last light after a round trip to Geraldton.

The pilot was enrolled in a 150 (flying) hour commercial pilot training course conducted by Western Australia Aviation College (WAAC), the flight training content of which was provided by the Royal Aero Club of Western Australia (RACWA) at Jandakot.

CASA’s action against Mr Fadlalla was based on the fact that he did not hold a night VFR rating, and he was issued a notice of proposed action to vary, suspend or cancel his PPL and SPL (a “show cause” notice.)

The pilot responded to the notice in detail, but although it noted his response, CASA informed him on 16 June 2014 that it had cancelled his PPL and SPL on the grounds set out in CAR 269 (1) © and (d).

The relevant parts of that regulation are:

CIVIL AVIATION REGULATIONS 1988 – REG 269
Variation, suspension or cancellation of approval, authority, certificate or licence
(1) Subject to this regulation, CASA may, by notice in writing served on the holder of an approval, authority, certificate or licence (an authorisation), vary, suspend or cancel the authorisation if CASA is satisfied that one or more of the following grounds exists, namely:
© that the holder of the authorisation has failed in his or her duty with respect to any matter affecting the safe navigation or operation of an aircraft;
(d) that the holder of the authorisation is not a fit and proper person to have the responsibilities and exercise and perform the functions and duties of a holder of such an authorisation;

The AAT noted that CASA had said in its “Statement of Facts and Contentions” that “at no time was Mr Fadlalla authorised to operate the [Mooney] M20J aircraft because he did not hold any special design feature endorsements.”

The CASA Statement had then added:

Although the application has claimed that prior to 19 February 2014 he undertook the training necessary to be endorsed upon the M20J and to operate the special design features of that aircraft type, there is no evidence presented in support of that contention.

In fact, there was ample evidence, which people intent on harming the pilot’s reputation appear to have either deliberately ignored or negligently overlooked.

Following a total of 7.5 hours of endorsement training including a check flight by RACWA Grade 1 flying instructor James Sturrock, Mr Fadlalla qualified for a “special design feature” endorsement allowing him to fly the Mooney M20J in which he conducted the return flight to Geraldton,. The AAT deemed that following the check flight, Mr Fadlalla had met all the requirements for a Mooney endorsement and that the flying training organisation (RACWA) should have entered the endorsement in his personal log book and on his PPL.

Despite that, CASA apparently failed to identify significant matters that didn’t support its decision, including a statement in its “show cause notice regarding the alleged larceny.

The AAT also noted there was no evidence from Mr Sturrock, nor did CASA produce any of the documents which related to Mr Fadlalla’s endorsement training and check flight:

“In fact, despite Mr Fadlalla stating in his response to the Show Cause Notice that he believed he was endorsed to fly the M20J having completed a check with a Grade 1 senior instructor, in its notice of cancellation CASA simply noted that he flew the M20J aircraft………..without being appropriately endorsed: “There was no evidence that CASA had attempted to ascertain or to obtain documents from RACWA to the effect we have described above,” said the Tribunal.

The Tribunal also commented on another bizarre CASA assertion in its “Statement of Facts and Contentions”:

“CASA contended that it would be open for the Tribunal to conclude that Mr Fadlalla’s cancelling what was supposed to be a solo flight in a Cessna 172 on 18 February 2014 and instead conducting the flight in the M20J aircraft on 19 February 2014 with his three friends was simply a social event and to show off.”

Why could his motivation not be to broaden his experience base by flying a newly-authorised type?

In any case Mr Fadlalla denied that was the case. He asked, rhetorically, why would he pay $5000 per month to show off to his friends?

As readers can see from the complete report, the interactions between CASA and the training organisations also leave us open to question whether a student pilot caught up in matters such as this can expect those bodies to act primarily in their interests. In his closing summary, Mr Fice commented:

By way of a postscript to our decision, for Mr Fadlalla to complete his flying training for the CPL, he should enrol with an approved flying training organisation other than RACWA/WAAC. His flight training records from RACWA/WAAC should be transferred to the new training organisation in accordance with reg 141.280(2) of the CASR.

CASA officials and FTO staff might find some useful guidance by reading reading the the entire AAT decision, as might anybody who is contemplating an action that might identify them as unfit and/or improper. The Director may also find it informative if one of his trusted lieutenants draws it to his attention.

 
What is it with WA, tyranny of distance (or just tyranny)??- Didn't they get the memo or something, McComic is gone & the Don is on his way out. Also the new DAS (whose name is Mr Skidmore.. ) stated here - CASA Briefing Feb 2015 - that...   

"..In the coming months, I will be leading CASA in the implementation of a just culture approach to aviation safety regulation in Australia.  We will work to develop a regulatory and an operational environment where genuinely honest mistakes are recognised for what they are—opportunities for learning and improvement.  CASA’s response will be to understand why the mistakes were made and how the likelihood that the same mistakes will occur in the future can be reduced.  Where the people and organisations involved demonstrate a willingness and ability to address errors and omissions in a responsible and constructive way, CASA will not need to take enforcement action.  Certainly no punitive action will be necessary.  We will encourage the individuals and organisations involved to identify and understand the factors behind mistakes.  We will then support them in their efforts to develop and take the most appropriate course of action to prevent a recurrence of a mistake through further training and education, while effectively minimising  risks to safety in the meantime..."

So come on CASA WA get with the program...FCOL!

MTF...P2
 

[Peetwo]

Also the new DAS (whose name is Mr Skidmore.. ) stated here - CASA Briefing Feb 2015 - that...   

"..In the coming months, I will be leading CASA in the implementation of a just culture approach to aviation safety regulation in Australia.  We will work to develop a regulatory and an operational environment where genuinely honest mistakes are recognised for what they are—opportunities for learning and improvement.  CASA’s response will be to understand why the mistakes were made and how the likelihood that the same mistakes will occur in the future can be reduced.  Where the people and organisations involved demonstrate a willingness and ability to address errors and omissions in a responsible and constructive way, CASA will not need to take enforcement action.  Certainly no punitive action will be necessary.  We will encourage the individuals and organisations involved to identify and understand the factors behind mistakes.  We will then support them in their efforts to develop and take the most appropriate course of action to prevent a recurrence of a mistake through further training and education, while effectively minimising  risks to safety in the meantime..."

IOS vermin control campaign (IVCC) - Time to wodger Wodger...

From AOPA's President Marc De Stoop latest bi-monthly report... 

"..The perception is that the entrenched CASA bureaucracy, many of whom have weathered successive changes in leadership and policy, are blocking the real reform and need to be eliminated before genuine reform can occur.."  

I have also heard from a reliable source, that De Stoop does not have anytime for the Sociopathic, GA marauding, wily, wascily, Wodger wabbit and is very keen to run Wodger & his parasitic mates to ground.

From the dark side of the Fort Fumble inspectorate ranks, IMO there is no better example of a CASA Sociopath that is hell bent, with malice & a forethought, on victimizing individual pilots, engineers or Operators than Wodger...  For that reason Wodger truly deserves to be No1 on the list for eradication.  

However, although I now strongly believe that the DAS quote (above) is merely weasel words, in the interest of natural justice and supposedly 'just culture' let us now mount the case for Wodger's eradication. 

Where better to start than with the high profile embuggerance of Dominic James in relation to the Norfolk Island ditching and the subsequent CASA/ATSB flagrantly biased investigations and final reports.

So to kick it off please refer to the following documents which were released to DJ under the FOI Act by CASA: FOI2, FOI3, FOI4, DJ FOI5 68pages 

In particular FOI3, FOI4 & parts of FOI5 IMO highlight perfectly the lengths that Wodger was prepared to go to in the blatant persecution, through black letter law, of Dominic James.

FOI3 is at the tale end of a Wodger induced embuggerance of DJ's application for issuance of a CPL Helicopter licence nearly 2 years after the Norfolk is ditching. DJ had already passed the theoretical & flight testing for the issuance of the licence. However as can be seen Wodger was not happy to let DJ operate as a CPL Helicopter pilot unencumbered without restriction...FFS :  



 Para 16 of Hoody's 26 July 2011 decision letter:



Is it any wonder that DJ has not been able to gain fulltime or even consistent employment ever since the ditching of VH-NGA. Most Operators would take one look at those restrictions on DJ's licence, consider the possible future grief that could be inflicted by a vindictive CASA FOI and move onto the next candidate.

Much..much MTF..P2

Ps Again from a reliable source, I heard that although Wodger had gone quiet with the changes at the top, he is now back to his old tricks and lining up potential future embuggerance victims with gay abandon...FFS!
  

[Gobbledock]

I second P2's motion. You may place P_666 signature on the minutes.

P2 also said;

Ps Again from a reliable source, I heard that although Wodger had gone quiet with the changes at the top, he is now back to his old tricks and lining up potential future embuggerance victims with gay abandon...FFS!

This is most correct squire. Wodger did go to ground for some months, hid between a few cracks, dodged the roaming spotlight and tread cautiously after the commencement of Skid-Marks new reign.  But in true sociopathic and anti-social fashion, Dr Jekyll has gone and Mr Hyde has re-appeared (or is it the other way around? Who cares) and is back to his old tricks of pineappling, buggerising, intimidating and harassing those who are less fortunate in the aviation society - pretty much anyone thy dare stand up to him, make a point, or be correct. Does the guy really just hate anybody who can fly a plane or fix one? Is that his 'beef'? Is he pissed with God because others were born blessed with the ability to handle hundreds of tonnes of fast flying tin, or the ability to strip and repair a modern airliners avionics system with their eyes shut and one hand tied behind their testicles, while poor old Wodgers claim to fame is 'baggage handling'! Hmmm makes you wonder about just how serious Skid-Mark is about reform when he allows a bob-tailed Wabbit to run amok without a care in the world? What a joke.

Dear Skates, the Wodgers of your organisation are holding back change and creating a high level of operational and reputation risk to CAsA as the growing chorus of dissatisfaction with him reaches epic proportions.  

Dear Miniscule, it is only a matter of time until some of the 'characters' in your alphabet soup organisations (like Wodger) put a foot (or paw) out of place and end up before a senate inquiry, or worse. And believe me dear Miniscule, if the Senators get Wodger before the committee they will eat him for breakfast, lunch and dinner, and as a late afternoon snack. Tick tock Miniscule, you can only roll the dice so many times sir.

Tick tock

[Kharon]

Perspective gents; perspective.  Seems the IOS declared open season on vermin, varmints and deviants.  Jolly good.

We have I believe been patient long enough with the new boy; the dismal lack of progress in any direction is justification for war drums; although he does seem to have mastered  writing endless exemptions.  

Let’s start with the Senate recommendations on Pel-Air; it is as clear as day from the evidence presented to the inquiry that there is a systemic aberration and that certain CASA officers are up to their necks in it.  It is understandable that Skidmore cannot easily and quickly enforce the recommendations; what is difficult to understand is why he has tolerated those same people to remain in positions where they can and will discredit the service and tarnish his reputation.  Some of the tales coming out of Bankstown and other offices reflect either his lack of control; and/or their complete disrespect for the direction Skidmore is taking.  Whatever, the end result is that at ground level, the Skidmore name is being associated with the same acts of embuggerance.  There are serious questions going back to the Bankstown CASA handling of the Pel-Air debacle; there are volumes of evidence, detailing some highly questionable acts, edicts and embuggerance.  Jeff Boyd knows most of it; Skidmore should be across the bulk of it and yet as close as last week, two more almost unbelievable tales are emerging from that very same area.  

I would dearly love to explain the cases; in detail.  I cannot, simply because to rock the boat and start crying foul would bring all manner of problems home to those who have patiently and diligently paid the outrageous fees; jumped through the hoops; satisfied some of the most inutile, infantile demands and; where possible, complied with pedantic, manipulated ‘reasoning’, all designed to prevent progress.  All driven by the same office.  This should be a good place for Skidmore start to gain industry confidence.  I’d bet many beers the new boy barely knows where the office is, let alone where the threats emanate from, how they are enforced; or, even their root source.  Can’t possibly open his eyes, unstop his ears, roll his sleeves up and get his hands dirty, no, far too busy poncing about in ducking Mildura.  

Which puts the Forsyth review into space; if ever a new boy had a clear road map to Reform city, Skidmore was gifted the ASSR.  This review also leads to Bankstown; the picture clear as crystal.  Here again, it is understandable that all Forsyth will all take time; but it will never begin happen while the people who operate in direct contravention of those guidelines retain their positions, immunity and are clearly untroubled by the mouthing’s of the toothless leader.

Put all of that to one side and what have you left?  The same rotten governance we had before Pel-Air.  There are several outstanding acts of bastardry on the table DJ not being the worst or most brutal.   Right now, there are operators tearing out hair and looking at dwindling bank accounts, CP burning midnight oil and wearing out pencils; pilots laying about, unemployed or, unemployable, aircraft sitting idle etc, all due to the flourish and twirl of one golden pen.  

Ayup: count me in boys; I’ve got just a couple (or three) mates who are more than willing to help with a Wabbit hunt in Sleepy Hollow.  It is well overdue and the gamekeeper is asleep on the job.

Toot toot.

[Peetwo]

kharon - ..We have I believe been patient long enough with the new boy; the dismal lack of progress in any direction is justification for war drums; although he does seem to have mastered  writing endless exemptions. 

Let’s start with the Senate recommendations on Pel-Air; it is as clear as day from the evidence presented to the inquiry that there is a systemic aberration and that certain CASA officers are up to their necks in it.  It is understandable that Skidmore cannot easily and quickly enforce the recommendations; what is difficult to understand is why he has tolerated those same people to remain in positions where they can and will discredit the service and tarnish his reputation.  Some of the tales coming out of Bankstown and other offices reflect either his lack of control; and/or their complete disrespect for the direction Skidmore is taking.  Whatever, the end result is that at ground level, the Skidmore name is being associated with the same acts of embuggerance.  There are serious questions going back to the Bankstown CASA handling of the Pel-Air debacle; there are volumes of evidence, detailing some highly questionable acts, edicts and embuggerance.  Jeff Boyd knows most of it; Skidmore should be across the bulk of it and yet as close as last week, two more almost unbelievable tales are emerging from that very same area...

Well done "K" nailed it in one.. ..& no doubt we'll have to stay tuned for the further tales of embuggerance emanating from Bankstown..

To continue with the wabbit named Wodger, the following is snitched from a post I made on '..round the Mulberry bush..' which exemplifies perfectly the next part of the DJ tale of embuggerance...

Quote:
It could also be that she knows that "keeping mum" about the business will allow her to progress in the industry. It is a sad fact that anyone having the temerity to complain or assist others to complain invites retribution. As I understand it Dominic James is still not employed within the aviation industry. I think the difference in circumstances of each says it all.

Your post followed by the "K" post (along with many of the 269 publicly available ASRR submissions) reflect a sad indictment of the current culture permeating the halls of Aviation House & the regional offices of CASA (in particular Bankstown).

The Wodger instigated, manipulated, black letter enforcement process inflicted on DJ IMO is 2nd to the worst case of embuggerance by CASA that I have had the sickening privilege to review in all it's corrupt, shonky well Wodgered glory...

The following are excerpts from documents/emails released to DJ from CASA under the FOI Act; see here & here

The 1st one highlights what Greedy says in regards to those who dare to speak up:

In the 2nd boxed statement you can feel the affront that the Sociopath Wodger still holds for DJ after nearly 3 years of CASA (Wodger) inflicted purgatory.  

Okay now let us refer to the rest of the SFR from Wodger to Hoody:

 



Kind of gives you an idea of how much contempt the former RAAF baggage flinger has for pilots, it also highlights how Wodger managed to hoodwink former senior exec Hoody...

So how was he able to get away with it?? Well firstly refer to the Wodger email header on the bottom of page 1 of the FOI4 pdf and see just who was kept in the picture with the DJ embuggerance. Now refer to the other FOI (68 page) pdf link.

In particular page two where Wodger sends Deputy dog an email at 7:04 am:

...In Greg's absence l am referring to you the amended CAR 5.38 notice for Domlnlc James for consideration and approval.

The amendment is to ensure the objectives of the flight test requirements specified in. the original notice can be achieved
using simpler aircraft types requested by James due to his financial situation. The attached correspondence provides
deta iled explanation for the amendment.

The draft notice was prepared by Adam and reviewed by Bankstown FOis and myself. I recommend signing the notice.

Once signed please return a scanned copy and I will arrange for TRIM and emall dispatch to James. Note that James has booked flight tests for Monday 17 January.

Kind regards,

Roger Chambers

Then refer to page 11 which is part way through an email chain that starts at page 14 with an email from the Doc to Hoody.

From page 11:

From: Hood, Greg
Sent: Friday, 15 April 201115:54
To: CHAMBERS, ROGER
Subject: Fw: Dominic James (SEC=IN-CONFIDENCE:LEGAL]

DAS is obviously interested in this issue

                                                                                 
From: McCormick, John
To: Hood, Greg; ALECK, JONATHAN
Cc: FARQUHARSON,TERENCE; HUTTON,CAROLYN
Sent: Fri Apr 15 15:33:38 2011

Subject: RE: Dominic James [SEC=IN-CONFIDENCE:LEGAL]

lt would have to be ' ... by CASA or a person specifically approved by CASA for the purpose of conducting any
renewal ... ' otherwise any ATO could do the check.

Hmm...I thought all ATOs were regarded as delegates of CASA?? Oh I get it...FFS!  

MTF...P2

Ps Hot off the AP press and definitely another case of embuggerance, this time by CASA Executive Management (both former & present) - Not contempt, but I'll be Wodgered?

[Peetwo]

Sunfish on 'Sound & reasoned' -

The following UP post could probably be a nomination for POTW but since it was written by the man who originally brought us 'embuggerance' and is particularly relevant to the revival of this thread, I though it best to be regurgitated here...

AOTW:


Quote:

I'm not implying that at all, just saying they're not all evil arseholes either, and seeing as we're saying please, please don't tell me what I should and shouldn't say. I will use what I believe to be sound and reasoned arguments and not take the easy option of venting, a la Sunfish's 'get f%%&ed CASA' masterpiece on the Part 91 thread! Good reading, but just over the top.

"Sound and reasoned arguments" don't work when you are dealing with arseholes. I have been through about $60 million worth of "sound and reasoned arguments" with venture capitalists who still want your children's shoes and a pint of your blood no matter how "sound and reasoned" you care to be - and they talk real nice too. They are basically no different from biker gangs, just with suits and manners. CASA has proved no different judging by the Forsyth review.

"Sound and reasoned" only works when both sides are looking for a win/win outcome and CASA has demonstrated over Two decades at least that they have absolutely no interest whatsoever in "win/win" outcomes which is why it is necessary to rewrite The Aviation Act to make it a requirement that CASA foster the industry.

AS for "good people" being in CASA, so what? The good people aren't making the decisions. I had a lawyer working for me who was a classic "good people" I eventually had to put him on a tight leash because when he was let loose he turned into an attack dog from hell.

Don't you understand the concept of "Litigation privilege"? Once CASA is in court or the AAT they can and will do anything and everything to win their case, no matter how underhanded and dishonest it is. "Model litigant" you say? Just ask the victims.

To put that another way, there is nothing "sound and reasoned" about CASAs approach to enforcement or conduct at all.

"Sound and reasoned" has got us precisely no where for Twenty plus years! Skidmore is as I correctly suspected a "nodding donkey" (to use the description of some Lloyds insurance brokers prior to the Piper Alpha disaster) because the senior management of CASA will do everything in their power to resist change and there is an endless supply of ex RAAF officers standing in a queue ready to replace them and continue the embuggerance.

Oh wait! Aren't we supposed to be improving air safety?

Let me put it this way. My CASA approved training to fly an aircraft left me simply astonished at the gaps. Once I realised that, I started on a quest to find out what else I didn't know and there was plenty that I had to remedy, starting with some basic acrobatics training for "recovery from unusual situations". However is CASA a resource for any of this? A freindly old Uncle who can point you in the right direction? Even a stern but fair trainer? Not a hope in hell! I discovered it would be better to kiss a crocodile than have anything to do with CASA beyond the bare minimum required by law because they have produced nothing beyond the VFR Guide that helps me be safer and a whole lot of regulation that does the reverse, and that regulation is backed up by capricious and unfair prosecution. I would assume, judging by what happened to Dominic James, that the situation for commercial pilots is no different.

Sorry for the rant "Sound and reasoned" argument has proved pointless in dealing with CASA. A New political party or, sadly, a major accident is the only hope of change.

No further comment required...P2

[Kharon]

Yeah and good on Sunny for speaking out; however, clearly it’s not enough. I notice P2 and Sunny both mention the DJ case and it is without doubt the second worst case of absolute bastardry committed within the past five years; Quadrio running a close third. Skidmore clearly has no intention of dealing with these and other matters which could, if addressed properly, do more to enhance the reform process and build trust with industry than almost anything else. As Sunny and many others have pointed out dishing out the ‘exemptions’ like bottle tops serves little purpose, except the obvious.

Jeff Boyd and board, several Senators, David Forsyth and most of the industry ‘heavies’ know where the problems lay and moreover, how to fix them. Some on the Up are calling Skidmore the messiah of the new broom; I call Bollocks.

[Peetwo]

Creampuff with a ne-fairy-ous tale   

Gather 'round, UPuners ....



Once upon a time, in a far away land, there was a pilot named Jominic Dames.

Like most commercial pilots, Jominic worked in an environment that meant he was almost always in a double bind: He was expected to comply with his employer's operations manual (most of whose content was dictated by the regulator) and the aircraft flight manual, plus all the rules including rules about fatigue and fuel management and diversions. But, alas, all of those documents contained mistakes and the rules were ambiguous.

One dark and stormy night, Jominic took off while tired, in an aircraft whose fuel capacity and performance were not suited to the mission at the altitude he was forced to fly. He didn't notice that In the seat beside him there was a mannequin rather than a co-pilot.

Along the way, he was given erroneous weather information, and some relevant weather information was not provided. This meant he was misled about the weather conditions and trends at his destination. He then made the mistake of pressing on to his destination, and had to ditch in the ocean when a safe landing at the destination was not assured. All POB survived and were recovered, but some suffered lifelong physical and other injuries.

It was, of course, all Jominic's fault. There were no systemic issues. The performance of the life vests was Jominic's fault. The procedure for preparing the raft for ditching was Jominic's fault. The erroneous and withheld weather information was Jominic's fault. The unsuitability of the aircraft allocated by the operator for the mission was, of course, also Jominic's fault.

The regulator and transport safety investigator reached the obvious conclusion, and launched an investigation to prove it, accordingly.

Fortunately, the regulator and transport safety investigator were not distracted by irrelevant issues like the commercial and political connections of the operator which employed Jominic, the content of reports of audits of the operator carried out by the regulator before the accident, or the circumstances in which flight information services had been withdrawn by Airservices from the Australian territory that was Jominic's destination. Nor were the regulator or transport safety investigator diverted to trivialities like the content of the CVR or a proper analysis of the actual fuel capacity and performance of the aircraft in question. An earlier transport safety investigator report about the unreliability of weather forecasts at the destination was irrelevant. The 50/50 split between FOIs on the question whether Jominic was obliged to divert was neither here nor there. A competent pilot would, of course, have known the correct answer: yes and no. A competent pilot would have known that there were errors in the weather information provided by flight service, and that relevant weather information had been withheld.

In accordance with contemporary accident investigation techniques, just culture and the systems approach to identification of the causes of errors, Jominic was proved to be the cause of the accident.

In a happy coincidence, the matter could be dealt with 'flexibly' by the regulator.

Accordingly, the operator was given the flexibility to continue operations as if nothing had ever happened, and everyone else came to the same conclusions about themselves: FIGJAM.

Except, alas, for Jominic. He received a different kind of 'flexibility' because he had embarrassed all of the wrong people. Such was his level of incompetence that the regulator considered that gathering the evidence to support a prosecution would not be in the interests of air safety. The appropriate regulatory response to such a heinous safety risk was to f*ck Jominic over administratively, indefinitely.

And to this day, Jominic appreciates the benefits of the regulator having "flexibility".

Of course, it's all just a fairy tale and could never happen in the real world.

Definitely one for the archives...

[Gobbledock]

I gotta admit it and it pains me to do so but that is one of the best bloody posts......ever! However I was surprised that there was no mention of Jominic being buggered by a Wabbit?

[Ziggy]

Ditto that Gobbles,

...no mention of a Smooth Shark that chewed him up and spat him out either...

[Ziggy]

D'oh,

Oh yes there is.

The one who has Political Connections.

QON??

[Peetwo]

D'oh,

Oh yes there is.

The one who has Political Connections.

QON??

Well done Ziggy, worked it out.. ..refer post #10-13, the man who truly holds the key to the truth of the DJ (& certain others) embuggerance is one G. Hood - wascily wabbits here we come! 

MTF...P2