[Peetwo]

Carmody - Just Culture, Just’a Smokescreen.
 
The following are some comments/observations I made on a PAIN email chain in relation to the ongoing CASA embuggerance of DJ :

From CASA LSD Officer:

...I refer to  the documents released to you by CASA recently which included a copy of an SFR from March 2012 that was not signed by the delegate. I also refer to our recent telephone conversation where I identified a signed version of the SFR in CASA's records, and that is attached.

I note that even if the delegate had not signed the SFR, the fact of the delegate sending the attached decision letter to you would clearly have signified the delegate accepted the recommendations in the SFR...

ref http://auntypru.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Dominic-James-documents-released-19-Oct-17-Volume-1.pdf

AA refers to the wrong SFR. The one associated with the 27 March 2012 'notice of variation'; 'notice of revocation' letter (references pages 3 to 10 of Vol 1, 19 October 2017 released documents) was signed by Greg Hood (ref pg 7):

The SFR that wasn't signed (or apparently even forwarded to Greg Hood) was dated 18 July 2012 (reference pages 20 to 22). Nor it would seem was it accompanied by a further 'notice of variation' (as I believe is required under the CASA EM) by the original delegate/decision-maker Greg Hood; or someone designated to act on behalf of Greg Hood. However the person who the SFR correspondence was addressed -re: Mark Taylor Manager Permissions Application Centre cc Joe Rule - has seemingly accepted the unsigned - by delegate - SFR as good enough to action placing the ATPL variation condition back on DJ's FCL (reference page 23):

  
Now it could be Mark Taylor has the legal authority to take over the role as the delegate/decision-maker but if that was the case shouldn't he have counter-signed the SFR; and shouldn't Joe Rule as assigned legal counsel, then drafted a further amended 'notice of variation' on the conditions imposed on DJ's ATPL FCL?

Finally if you refer to page 68 of the Vol 1 released documents you will note the ALC (assigned legal counsel) Joe Rule would appear to have directed the 'Permissions application officer' to take down the alert on DJ's FCL:

This would seem to indicate in the mind of the ALC that the CEP of DJ was expired/closed/irrelevant. This assumption would also seem to be indicated by the fact that there was no 'caveats'/ conditions mentioned or referred to in any of the Flight Safety 'command' Falcon 20 type rating (CASA approved) paperwork (reference page 37 onward:

http://auntypru.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Dominic-James-documents-released-19-Oct-17-Volume-2.pdf.

It is also worth noting that had Flight Safety (probably at their amusement) been made aware of the condition on DJ's ATPL licence they more than likely could have arranged for the wx diversion exercise to be demonstrated and recorded in the final type rating test. Because remember that the exercise only has to be observed by a CASA FOI or FTE (ref IV below):

And courtesy of this week's SBG: A Galah event….

...But to put an end to the Carmody/ James argument consider this. At the time James accepted the conditions imposed (on legal advice – not mine) he had little option and it was the only way forward. Since then he has passed, at no less an August institution than Flight Safety a type rating, instrument rating and Command proficiency check. He is now asking, quite reasonably and politely for CASA to accept those qualifications as the evidence they demand of ‘competency’. They flatly refuse. Now they want a ‘CASA’ expert to oversight the same check.

 This is a pure case of embuggerance and a double insult to Flight Safety. The notion that only a CASA nominated inspector may judge the James performance is risible; furthermore if FS say ‘Pass’ and the FOI says ‘Fail’ what then? If and it is a big IF the proposed CASA FOI was a ever a professional pilot with real experience, ever operated as Captain, multi crew, international operations or even as a charter pilot in ‘class’ turbine then maybe he could argue against the FS ‘Pass’. Problem is, the proposed man is not any of these things; is he CEO Carmody

Now I have been reliably informed that the many tell-tale aberrations, errors and deletions etc. in due processes normally required in the administration of a CASA enforcement process (referencing the CASA EM), are not necessarily legally compromised in the DJ case because of the CASA v DJ out of court agreement.

However I would argue that this fact was obviously not conveyed and/or completely ignored by Roger Chambers as he attempted, up to a point, to comply with the normal processes associated with an ongoing CEP i.e. the striking up of a new SFR etc.

The fact that Chambers omitted to CC. to the original delegate/decision-maker Greg Hood could be interpreted as an admission of guilt that the terms of the original CASA v DJ agreement had now been breached without proper consultation with DJ's legal counsel. 

This guilt/admission is perfectly highlighted by the following extract from the 18 July 2012 SFR:

---

   

---

Because Chambers did not recommend (b), IMO from that point on CASA were operating in total 'legal' contradiction of the CASA v DJ out of court agreement. This should have automatically made that 'agreement' and any enforcement actions after the 18 July SFR letter NULL & VOID.

Reference this year's Malcolm Campbell reply email:

UNCLASSIFIED
Dear Mr De Stoop,
 
On 12 September 2017 you wrote to CASA on behalf of Mr Domenic James ARN 519777 requesting relief from the conditions attached to his ATPL as a result of his part in the Westwind accident on 18 November 2009.
 
CASA has considered the request taking into account the adherence to the conditions placed on Mr James’ ATPL and the accompanying safety implications of the request.
 
Civil Aviation Regulation (CAR) 249 prohibits the carriage of passengers on certain flights. A proficiency check as required in the conditions involves practice of emergency procedures so could not be conducted during a charter/aeromedical flight as suggested.
 
As the assessment not only involves a proficiency check but ‘an assessment of the holder’s management of an unplanned weather related diversion designed to assess the holder’s in-flight command decision making’ this will involve a flight of significant duration with a diversion near a critical point in the aircraft’s flight range. It would be impractical and unsafe to conduct this assessment during actual flight so the assessment will need to be conducted in a flight simulator.
 
To reduce the cost impact of this assessment CASA will not charge for the inspector’s time or travel however it would need to be coordinated with sufficient time for this travel to be combined with the inspectors recurrent training program.
 
When you have some proposed dates for the assessment please let me know so we can confirm our availability.
 
Sincerely,
 
 
Malcolm Campbell
 
Certificate Team Manager
Safety Assurance Branch

 

Again, here are the terms of the original agreement:

Therefore  M'Lud, the BRB defence rests and simply calls this a classic case of CASA embuggerance...

Next and in reference to this SBG quote:

...Nope. James is simply the distraction, shifting focus away from the real story. Carmody dare not, indeed cannot undo the arbitrary restrictions placed on James; nor can he shred the evidence trail of some very shaky paper work doings to support the unseemly restoration to service of Pel-Air. Pel-Air remains untouched and unadmonished under the high speed, slippery edicts and decisions made by Chambers, supported by McCormack, approved by Hood, executed by Campbell, Worthington and others. The paper trail and supporting research all point to a major question? What the hell was CASA playing at? One could also ask why? Or; conversely one could speculate why a Virgin and Qantas crew got away with a slightly more dangerous, similar incident at Mildura, Scot free? The really bold questioner may even ask why is Hood running the ATSB?...

Inevitably this will bring PAIN to the next chapter of the PelAir re-cover-up investigation & DJ embuggerance, which I believe will call into question the original 24 December 2009 CAR 265 'NOTICE of SUSPENSION' decision letter to DJ...  

Hint - extract from that letter:

This line IMO is extremely important: "...Auckland reveals that you received a weather forecast for Norfolk Airport at 0904 UTC..." 
   


MTF? - You betcha...P2

Ps TBC on PelAir MKII