[Peetwo]

RAOz up on criminal charges??

Via Oz Aviation:

Aviation body to face criminal investigation following fatal crash

written by Naomi Neilson | March 10, 2025



Recreational Aviation Australia has been referred to the Victorian Director of Public Prosecutions for allegedly withholding key documents from a coronial investigation into a fatal light aircraft crash.

Recreational Aviation Australia (RAAus) will be investigated by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority and the Victorian Director of Public Prosecutions for the alleged behaviour of key personnel during an investigation and inquest into the death of Matthew Farrell.

Neither Farrell or his light sports aircraft, a Jabiru J230-C (similar aircraft pictured), were equipped to fly into cloud, but he made the decision to venture into poor weather conditions to visit his father on 18 September 2022.

Farrell was airborne for 40 minutes before the aircraft crashed into remote and mountainous terrain in Victoria’s north-east.

By the time of the fatal crash, Farrell had 14.7 hours of flight training, but just 3.6 hours was solo. Of that solo training, 3.3 hours was completed on a single day and he was tested on 22 landings.

Among his many concerns, Coroner Paul Lawrie said it “beggars belief” Farrell – as a student pilot – could be “trained effectively to certificate standard in all the above aspects of flying in one day”.

Over one-and-a-half days, RAAus’ head of flight operations, Jillian Bailey gave often “combative” evidence about the validity of Farrell’s recreational pilot’s license and cross-country endorsements.

Bailey claimed she had no concerns regarding the extent of training or experience underlying Farrell’s cross-country endorsement, and did not consider auditing his trainer as a consequence of the crash.

Plus the UP spin off thread, from that update... Raa aviation body to face criminal investigation following fatal crash

KRviator

It isn't that RAAus is being made a scapegoat. No self-respecting fair-weather pilot would do what Farrel did, so RAAus is in the clear there. The extra flight training wouldn't have made a material difference to his actions that day, judging by (accurate) reports on his attitude & risk appetite.

RAAus is in the #### because they lied to the Coroner. Then, from what I can read into the Coroner's report, they lied about lying to the Coroner and the presiding judge is a trifle miffed about that. And rightly so.

Finally on a different subject I note that GlenB is back:

glenb

Why would the Cohort mislead that it was "sold"

WHY WOULD THE CASA COHORT MISLEAD THE OMBUDSMAN INTO FORMING THE VIEW THAT I “SOLD” THE BUSINESS, WHEN TRUTHFULLY CASA CLOSED THE BUSINESS DOWN

The CASA Cohort misled the Ombudsman into believing that I "sold" the business, rather than recognizing that "CASA closed the business." This misrepresentation likely served multiple purposes, all aimed at covering up misconduct or preventing me from obtaining justice.

If CASA closes a business, they have specific procedures that must be followed to ensure procedural fairness, an appeals process, and adherence to administrative law. By misrepresenting that I sold the business, it appears as a commercial transaction, negating the need for an appeals process.

These two scenarios—an owner selling their business versus having it closed by CASA—require very different approaches. I am confident that the CASA Cohort successfully misled the Ombudsman, concealing the fact that CASA did not grant me the procedural fairness I was entitled to, thereby covering up associated misconduct. CASA operated outside its own procedures in cancelling, changing, or varying a previously issued approval.

Each of the involved CASA employees is fully aware of the proper procedures for closing a business and knew that these were not followed in my case. By falsely representing that I sold the business, they concealed the truth. It should be clear that CASA closed my business, yet there remains significant confusion within the Ombudsman’s office after six years.

This confusion, engineered by CASA, can be resolved through witness testimony. Misleading the Ombudsman to believe I sold the business served several purposes. It implied I received compensation, which was not the case, and obscured the reality that CASA closed my business down on June 30th, 2019.

This can be easily proven. I had an interim approval to operate that extended only to June 30th, 2019. If I was able to continue after that date CASA should be able to produce the document that permitted me to continue operations on the morning of July 1st, 2019, if such a document exists.

For clarity I assert that the CASA Cohort misled the Ombudsman into forming the view that the business was sold to conceal that fact that CASA closed down my business, and in misrepresenting it as a Sold business it concealed the fact that CASA had not adhered to their own stipulated procedures in their manuals when they close down a business.

Those procedures are intended to ensure that the affected person is afforded procedural fairness.

The entire five-year Ombudsman investigation made no assessment against CASAs own stipulated procedures in their manuals when they close down a business.

My expectation was that an Ombudsman investigation would have commenced with an assessment of the procedures CASA followed against the stipulated CASA procedures and any anomalies would be identified and addressed.

It appears that no assessment against these procedures was ever made throughout the investigation.
With the documents that I obtained under FOI that clearly indicate that the Ombudsman was misled into believing that I “sold” the business it has become clear that the Ombudsman made no assessment because the Ombudsman mistakenly formed the view that the business was sold., when it most clearly was not “sold” it was closed down by Mr Aleck.

MTF...P2

[Kharon]

“Among his many concerns, Coroner Paul Lawrie said it “beggars belief”

Australian Aviation author Naomi Nieilson has (at last) shone a small, but significant light on an event which could bring some significant changes to the RAAus three ring circus. In the center ring we find the Victoria Coroner and his findings into an event which claimed one life and an aircraft. The 'report' may be found and read -HERE-. I suggest starting at about 'item 127' and going through to about the high mid 200 series. Only my opinion from here – but the Coroner has (I believe) seen, ruled on and eloquently elaborated many of the 'private' concerns many have held since RAAus inception.

While the spotlight is on the centre ring, the Coroner remains without the support part of his troop. The research offered to support his findings is 'narrow'; there exists some 'complexities' which, being fully understood and scrutinised, could have presented the authorising body (CASA) with some fairly curly questions to answer. The probity of the RAAus answers to some questions has been allowed to 'slide' around the details related to the event pilot which, once again could have provided a more 'positive' set of findings and brought in the changes required to prevent a recurrence of what was almost a perfectly preventable event. But this was no 'accident' i.e. ” unexpected event, typically sudden in nature and associated with injury, loss, or harm”.

Given the publicly acknowledged 'nature & demeanor' of this pilot, some form of 'event' was more than likely; there was nothing 'sudden' about the event; the forecast was there, the weather conditions were clearly visible; the act of persisting into unfavorable conditions was deliberate. The 'question' for our Coroner is how was this person authorised to conduct the flight? How, is a bloody good question.

Should Ms. Neilson, CASA or the Coroner be 'interested' in ripping the artful 'band-aid' off this boil, I suggest (humbly) that they begin 'at the beginning', with some basic, difficult questions.. For example:- from Coroners para 31 - on (interesting).

“Mr Farrell had 257.5 hours of paragliding experience.”

TO SUCCESSFULLY ACHIEVE THE SAFA PG2 LICENCE, YOU WILL NEED TO ACHIEVE THE FOLLOWING:-

Minimum of 6 flying days.
Minimum of 30 flights (launch & landing) from at least 3 different flying sites.
3 soaring flights of at least 15 minutes duration OR 10 flights of at least 5 minutes duration.
1 high flight of above 500ft.

Vic ?@ p 33 =  "Mr Wood applied for Mr Farrell to be issued a Converting Pilot RPC for Group A (3-axis) aircraft on the basis of his paragliding experience and claiming flight training of 11.1 hours dual and 3.6 hours solo flight time in Group A aircraft."

Aye, all well and good until you try to decipher the tangled mess within the RAAus 'accepted' Operations Manual. It is a horrible buggers muddle (and I am qualified to say that); however; always remember that Farrell wanted a 'Class A' RPC for three axis aircraft.

Class A  3 axis aircraft (E.g. Jabiru). 
Class B weight shift.
Class C Combined control.
Class D powered para .

The individual (tailored) 'training' and 'testing' required depended on the basic level and type of experience presented. For example the holder of a CASA Recreational Pilots License (RPL) on VH aircraft can, with very little 'training' be granted a RAAus equivalent, having ticked all the CASA boxes. Farrell only had a background in 'Paragliding'. The 'manual' is difficult to navigate even for experienced RAAus instructors; so, if the following is incorrect I appologise; but, it does seem to me to be the 'right' road toward what Farrell wanted was avoided; or, at best mapped in error. With only 'paragliding' on the record; to qualify for a Recreation Pilot Certificate (RPC) to operate 'Cross Country' - in a three axis aircraft; the following criteria must be satisfied:-

“Minimum 10 hrs dual cross country /-2 solo cross country/examination/  +1 test flight for 3 axis Class A aircraft.”

I may well have that wrong – the manual is confusing; and I can easily imagine how an instructor (any instructor) could confuse the 'qualifications' presented against the 'requirements' of the manual. Again, if wrong I appologise.

The Coroner is IMO righteously miffed; the sin of attempting to varnish over an error is likely to create more anger than the 'sin' itself. IF (big one) the instructor was led astray and if the manual confused him as much as it did me (on one read) then the forgivable 'error' issuing of a certificate for navigation without the required training is much less heinous than trying to baffle the Coroner with Bull-shit and convoluted operating manual 'allowances'.

Mistakes happen; the 'system' utilised should be as bullet proof as possible; as simple as possible and as complete as possible. For example; had the manuals been constructed to 'classify' the presented 'experience' : say a Class D pilot (powered para gliders) then, the training and qualifying course should immediately follow that experience; fill in the 'gaps' and get the job done in one fell swoop. As you qualify as 'Type D' these are your minimum training requirements and the modules to complete them. End of...........

IMO, the performance in the Coroners court will/ can only produce more restrictive practices. RAAus should get ahead of the game; sort out the internal operational mess and show CASA and the Coroner that the 'errors' have been rectified. 'A stitch in time saves nine?

Apologies for Errors and Omissions etc. But. like most events, this was preventable (almost). Sometimes – Shit happens…....

Toot – toot.