Of blame, shared equally.
"Of each particular thing, ask: 'What is it in itself? What is its nature?'"
That quote must be the key to a reasonable man's thinking on the much publicised case relating to the self styled 'Croc-wrangler' - recently finished in Darwin. Round two in the offing. I wonder, had this been some lonesome cowboy, out on the muster who smashed up a chopper and took a spotter with him, would there have been such a furore? Or, would it be just another entry in the ATSB' s long list of chopper related incidents? But the 'Wright' case has had some serious media exposure; Barristers at 10 paces; jury, media (lots of) and much in the way 'opinion' both pro and con. But, what are we looking at behind the smoke and mirrors?
“The Auditors fluttered anxiously. And, as always happens in their species when something goes radically wrong and needs fixing instantly, they settled down to try to work how who was to blame.
The charges are laid; the defence works out a plan to defeat the expected 'prosecution' argument and beat the case against. The Prosecution must find ways and means of beating that argument; and, both must attempt to sway the jury. Bread and butter to the legal eagles; just another day at the office. Reality has little to do with it all: not really. The prosecution case is 'framed' to ensure the 'best' chance of conviction; the defence case is parlayed to create reasonable doubt. And so, it begins; result to follow.
“You pays your money and you takes your choice.”
Whilst all is fair, democratic and 'legal' (Bravo) and totally reasonable; sat at the bar, in the pub, are those who can not only accurately predict the outcome, understand the process, but also can 'read' between the lines on an 'operational' basis, supported by accurate local information. Two out of three counts of guilty for Wright is a good innings for the prosecution and it paves the way for what - exactly? For that we must wait and see. Who gets the crown now? Will the transition of power be for weal or more woe? 'Tis a fair question. But I ramble.
To asses 'real' guilt will take more (a lot more) than just a couple of Barristers slugging it out, in court over the niceties of law. One man dead, another crippled, a widow and kids, and yet had the oversight of the operation been holistic, then the gross liberties taken could have been curtailed long before the fatal event. Just because the operation is remote, specialised and inherently dangerous; that is no reason to just let it slide into massive 'non-compliance'. Compliance could have been simply and effortlessly achieved in this day and age; remotely. Simple operational tenets; trip logs which defined the operations; fuel log; operational edicts; MR and flight record systems. Easily audited and a snap shot of 'how' the operation was 'legal'. CASA could make this happen; or, no AOC issued.
There should be an accurate account of fuel on board (landing) fuel added; fuel used and requirements written related to fuel uplift for range of operations _ reserves. Every operator in Australia provides this data and more for regular audit. A roster system to protect flight and duty times. A MR safety system must be to protect the integrity of airworthiness. An Operations manual to clarify what may be, how and; what is not to be done. But, above all the 'system' is designed to protect those within and the investments made. So, when CASA call for an audit the data is clear, concise and bullet proof. Changes may be discussed, then implemented, this is the working heart of a safety management system.
As clearly demonstrated in Darwin; this is not some 'tick-a-box' paperwork job that may be ignored once the CASA has departed. It matters in safety, investment and legal obligations, under the law, as writ. This Darwin operation thumbed it's nose at the Authority; the Authority chose not to pay close attention. 50/50 blame I'd say. CASA have equal share ; it would be farcical for them to deny it. The evidence is, as they say, undeniable. Shame on them; for Broome and the tragic end of two lives. "No matter how much you shake and dance; the last few drops go down your pants."
“The search for a scapegoat is the easiest of all hunting expeditions."
Aye, it is grim business; . perhaps now, Spence will finally get off her flaccid rump and employ some with a working knowledge of 'how' to run an operation which is small, remote and could, potentially, put her Ivory castle in even more jeopardy than it is now. CASA needs to refocus on core business. Darwin - Fuel exhaustion; no trip records; MR not filled in; no Operations management; no roster; no maintenance tracking; no flight time tracking; time expired parts; Hobbs disconnected etc. etc. This is NOT the business of the Courts; it is the raison d'être CASA exists; at, I might add, at a phenomenal cost. But, these operations are NOT based in Canberra.; nor are the solutions found in the 'coridors of power'. Quite the reverse I'd say...
Time methinks to Piss or get off the pot.
Selah.
Notes:-
Pro hac vice is a Latin term meaning "for this occasion"
"The third respondent [Mr Wright] denies that he was Mr Wilson or Mr Robinson's employer pro hac vice and denies that he was vicariously liable for the acts of Mr Robinson as alleged or at all," it reads.
"But in a cross-claim filed with the court last month, CASA claims Mr Wright "was the person ultimately responsible" for ensuring Helibrook and its workers complied with the terms of the regulator's approval".
"The third respondent contends that the applicant and Mr Robinson were independent contractors and not employees of Helibrook or the third respondent."
"Of each particular thing, ask: 'What is it in itself? What is its nature?'"
That quote must be the key to a reasonable man's thinking on the much publicised case relating to the self styled 'Croc-wrangler' - recently finished in Darwin. Round two in the offing. I wonder, had this been some lonesome cowboy, out on the muster who smashed up a chopper and took a spotter with him, would there have been such a furore? Or, would it be just another entry in the ATSB' s long list of chopper related incidents? But the 'Wright' case has had some serious media exposure; Barristers at 10 paces; jury, media (lots of) and much in the way 'opinion' both pro and con. But, what are we looking at behind the smoke and mirrors?
“The Auditors fluttered anxiously. And, as always happens in their species when something goes radically wrong and needs fixing instantly, they settled down to try to work how who was to blame.
The charges are laid; the defence works out a plan to defeat the expected 'prosecution' argument and beat the case against. The Prosecution must find ways and means of beating that argument; and, both must attempt to sway the jury. Bread and butter to the legal eagles; just another day at the office. Reality has little to do with it all: not really. The prosecution case is 'framed' to ensure the 'best' chance of conviction; the defence case is parlayed to create reasonable doubt. And so, it begins; result to follow.
“You pays your money and you takes your choice.”
Whilst all is fair, democratic and 'legal' (Bravo) and totally reasonable; sat at the bar, in the pub, are those who can not only accurately predict the outcome, understand the process, but also can 'read' between the lines on an 'operational' basis, supported by accurate local information. Two out of three counts of guilty for Wright is a good innings for the prosecution and it paves the way for what - exactly? For that we must wait and see. Who gets the crown now? Will the transition of power be for weal or more woe? 'Tis a fair question. But I ramble.
To asses 'real' guilt will take more (a lot more) than just a couple of Barristers slugging it out, in court over the niceties of law. One man dead, another crippled, a widow and kids, and yet had the oversight of the operation been holistic, then the gross liberties taken could have been curtailed long before the fatal event. Just because the operation is remote, specialised and inherently dangerous; that is no reason to just let it slide into massive 'non-compliance'. Compliance could have been simply and effortlessly achieved in this day and age; remotely. Simple operational tenets; trip logs which defined the operations; fuel log; operational edicts; MR and flight record systems. Easily audited and a snap shot of 'how' the operation was 'legal'. CASA could make this happen; or, no AOC issued.
There should be an accurate account of fuel on board (landing) fuel added; fuel used and requirements written related to fuel uplift for range of operations _ reserves. Every operator in Australia provides this data and more for regular audit. A roster system to protect flight and duty times. A MR safety system must be to protect the integrity of airworthiness. An Operations manual to clarify what may be, how and; what is not to be done. But, above all the 'system' is designed to protect those within and the investments made. So, when CASA call for an audit the data is clear, concise and bullet proof. Changes may be discussed, then implemented, this is the working heart of a safety management system.
As clearly demonstrated in Darwin; this is not some 'tick-a-box' paperwork job that may be ignored once the CASA has departed. It matters in safety, investment and legal obligations, under the law, as writ. This Darwin operation thumbed it's nose at the Authority; the Authority chose not to pay close attention. 50/50 blame I'd say. CASA have equal share ; it would be farcical for them to deny it. The evidence is, as they say, undeniable. Shame on them; for Broome and the tragic end of two lives. "No matter how much you shake and dance; the last few drops go down your pants."
“The search for a scapegoat is the easiest of all hunting expeditions."
Aye, it is grim business; . perhaps now, Spence will finally get off her flaccid rump and employ some with a working knowledge of 'how' to run an operation which is small, remote and could, potentially, put her Ivory castle in even more jeopardy than it is now. CASA needs to refocus on core business. Darwin - Fuel exhaustion; no trip records; MR not filled in; no Operations management; no roster; no maintenance tracking; no flight time tracking; time expired parts; Hobbs disconnected etc. etc. This is NOT the business of the Courts; it is the raison d'être CASA exists; at, I might add, at a phenomenal cost. But, these operations are NOT based in Canberra.; nor are the solutions found in the 'coridors of power'. Quite the reverse I'd say...
Time methinks to Piss or get off the pot.
Selah.
Notes:-
Pro hac vice is a Latin term meaning "for this occasion"
"The third respondent [Mr Wright] denies that he was Mr Wilson or Mr Robinson's employer pro hac vice and denies that he was vicariously liable for the acts of Mr Robinson as alleged or at all," it reads.
"But in a cross-claim filed with the court last month, CASA claims Mr Wright "was the person ultimately responsible" for ensuring Helibrook and its workers complied with the terms of the regulator's approval".
"The third respondent contends that the applicant and Mr Robinson were independent contractors and not employees of Helibrook or the third respondent."