[Peetwo]

Much ado –

The approaching recovery of the Norfolk ditching ‘black box’ is creating a ripple of interest – Ben Sandilands – to the fore, yet again.  Bravo Ben, keep the buggers honest... 

...Read the truly disgusting article in today’s Telegraph; pilot and passengers dead – CASA crowing that they, and only, they are the saviours of aviation and the final word in passenger safety.  The fact that Green hammered the crap out of them at every turn in the AAAT is not mentioned and, they allude to him being a menace, that they, the safety watchdog could not control.  Nothing is further from the truth.

Cynical, self serving, disgusting and very wrong; not to mention the possibility of pre-empting and prejudicing yet another flawed, biased, manipulated ATSB report.

This before the dead are decently buried and properly mourned.

Shame on you CASA.

The above covered here -

CASA shows it's true colours..  


Absolutely disgusting - Less than 24hrs after the tragic discovery of the fatal accident site and already the MSM - aided & abetted by CASA - is dragging Richard Green's past infractions with the regulator to the surface.

[quote pid='2685' dateline='1447138670']

Helicopter crash: No survivors as wreckage found in Watagans National Park

Neil Keene, Richard Noone and Ian Walker - The Daily Telegraph



...In November, 2012, Mr Green struck powerlines with his helicopter, causing “significant damage”, before taking off again in contravention of civil aviation laws.

And he was counselled by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority in 2007 after his helicopter’s rotor blades struck a tree while landing and he undertook unauthorised repairs on the machine...


Richard Green and his wife Carolyn / Picture: Supplied


..Mr Green, who described his aircraft as his “pride and joy”, lost his licence for six months in 2013 after a spate of dangerous flying incidents...

    
From the Oz:

NSW chopper crash pilot suspended in 2013  

• by: By Matt Coughlan
  
• From: AAP
  
• November 10, 2015 3:31PM
  

THE NSW pilot/owner of a helicopter that crashed and killed three people, including himself, had previously lost his licence for dangerous flying.  

THE bodies of photographer Richard Green, his wife and graphic artist Carolyn, and documentary maker John Davis, were discovered in wreckage found on mountainous terrain in the NSW Watagans National Park, near Cessnock, on Tuesday.

In 2013 Mr Green had his licence suspended for six months after four incidents when his helicopter was at risk of colliding with other aircraft and another when he struck overhead powerlines.

The powerlines tore off part of his helicopter, but after landing and inspecting the damage Mr Green took off again, according to an Administrative Appeal Tribunal judgment.

Mr Green unsuccessfully appealed the decision on grounds it was made with "malice" and the transgressions were not serious.

A Civil Aviation Safety Authority spokesman said on Tuesday Mr Green was required to demonstrate his aeronautical knowledge and proficiency before the suspension was lifted in March last year...

[/quote]

From Planetalking & PP 2011:

CASA slapped down again for ‘persecuting’ lawful aviation

Ben Sandilands | Jun 03, 2011 4:32PM |

Plane Talking claims no credit for the following story, written by Paul Phelan and appearing recently in Aviation Advertiser.

The article is about how the safety regulator’s efforts to frame a celebrated wilderness photographer and helicopter pilot over alleged maintenance offences came undone.
It is being reproduced here because that publication isn’t on the radar of readers locked on the activities of major airlines and their regulation, or lack thereof.

Richard Green, the subject of the story, contacted us because of our earlier quizzical look at issues that critics see with CASA’s pursuit, at long last, of a completely new set of fundamental aviation regulations known as Part 91.

We think that producing a paperback sized package of prescriptive and potentially safety impinging measures to deal with the actions of pilots in an emergency that the FAA handles successfully with three paragraphs raising some pretty important questions about CASA’s approach to the industry from general aviation right up to Qantas and Virgin Australia.  We could be wrong of course, but its a discussion that ought to take place.

Here is the Aviation Advertiser story as provided by Richard Green.


Postcript: Richard Green clearly deserves an apology from CASA, and the public deserve some accountability for its disproportionate and often flawed pursuit of individual private pilots over regulatory matters, especially when it seems incapable of understanding manufacturer advice.

He has shared with us his most recent letter to the CEO of CASA, John McCormick.

Dear Mr McCormick

I refer to our earlier correspondence and our telephone conversation of nearly a year ago.  If you recall you made it quite clear that in your opinion I had operated my helicopter dangerously, and that I most certainly should not have the authority to conduct maintenance work on it.

The Senate Estimates Committee has taken some interest in these matters, and for your information I have attached a copy of a recent press article that summarises the outcome of the AAT’s detailed investigation.

After careful consideration Mike Hart had recommended an apology from CASA in relation to the former matter which, I am sure you will remember, you refused to issue. As you will be able to see from the article, perhaps an additional second apology from CASA is now in order.

What is far more important than apologies is the way in which CASA directs its efforts and public resources. CASA’s mandate is essentially to ensure safety for the travelling public.  Is it really good allocation of these resources to expend perhaps a half a million dollars of taxpayers’ funds chasing after one private pilot, who flies only about 100 hours a year and almost exclusively in wilderness areas?

I look forward to hearing your views.

Sincerely

Richard Green

No doubt there will be MTF..P2

[Gobbledock]

CAsA are vermin, and for walking over a dead mans grave before his body is even cold is a travesty of the greatest proportions. CAsA you truly are a morbid, hideous and contemptible pile of sub grade shit. You muppets have no moral compass, ethic, or human decency.

Anybody who actually knows the full story of what Mr Green went through previously with CAsA will be aware that this dredged up smear on this man is a disgrace. CAsA have failed to mention that many of the trumped up charges against him were weak, if not utter bullshit and should be wiped from public records. Also the fact that the ONLY morally aligned, decent, non- corrupt and unbiased independent ICC they have ever had, Michael Hart, said on one occasion that CAsA should apologise to Mr Green for how he was treated. That in my opinion, is one of the highest accolades and pieces of proof that Mr Green was not the 'bad ass rogue' that CAsA painted him to be, instead he was mistreated as has a litany of people before him and after him.
CASA SHAME ON YOU.

As for Mr Greens family, friends and associates, we wish you all the very best in your weeks and months of mourning ahead. You've lost a good man, and industry has lost a good pilot.

R.I.P Richard, you have now reached safer skies, just too early.

In sadness
Gobbledock

[Peetwo]

THE NSW pilot/owner of a helicopter that crashed and killed three people, including himself, had previously lost his licence for dangerous flying.  

THE bodies of photographer Richard Green, his wife and graphic artist Carolyn, and documentary maker John Davis, were discovered in wreckage found on mountainous terrain in the NSW Watagans National Park, near Cessnock, on Tuesday.

In 2013 Mr Green had his licence suspended for six months after four incidents when his helicopter was at risk of colliding with other aircraft and another when he struck overhead powerlines.

The powerlines tore off part of his helicopter, but after landing and inspecting the damage Mr Green took off again, according to an Administrative Appeal Tribunal judgment.

Mr Green unsuccessfully appealed the decision on grounds it was made with "malice" and the transgressions were not serious.

A Civil Aviation Safety Authority spokesman said on Tuesday Mr Green was required to demonstrate his aeronautical knowledge and proficiency before the suspension was lifted in March last year...

From Planetalking & PP 2011:

CASA slapped down again for ‘persecuting’ lawful aviation

Ben Sandilands | Jun 03, 2011 4:32PM |

Plane Talking claims no credit for the following story, written by Paul Phelan and appearing recently in Aviation Advertiser.

The article is about how the safety regulator’s efforts to frame a celebrated wilderness photographer and helicopter pilot over alleged maintenance offences came undone.
It is being reproduced here because that publication isn’t on the radar of readers locked on the activities of major airlines and their regulation, or lack thereof.

Richard Green, the subject of the story, contacted us because of our earlier quizzical look at issues that critics see with CASA’s pursuit, at long last, of a completely new set of fundamental aviation regulations known as Part 91.

We think that producing a paperback sized package of prescriptive and potentially safety impinging measures to deal with the actions of pilots in an emergency that the FAA handles successfully with three paragraphs raising some pretty important questions about CASA’s approach to the industry from general aviation right up to Qantas and Virgin Australia.  We could be wrong of course, but its a discussion that ought to take place.

Here is the Aviation Advertiser story as provided by Richard Green.


Postcript: Richard Green clearly deserves an apology from CASA, and the public deserve some accountability for its disproportionate and often flawed pursuit of individual private pilots over regulatory matters, especially when it seems incapable of understanding manufacturer advice.

He has shared with us his most recent letter to the CEO of CASA, John McCormick.

Dear Mr McCormick

I refer to our earlier correspondence and our telephone conversation of nearly a year ago.  If you recall you made it quite clear that in your opinion I had operated my helicopter dangerously, and that I most certainly should not have the authority to conduct maintenance work on it.

The Senate Estimates Committee has taken some interest in these matters, and for your information I have attached a copy of a recent press article that summarises the outcome of the AAT’s detailed investigation.

After careful consideration Mike Hart had recommended an apology from CASA in relation to the former matter which, I am sure you will remember, you refused to issue. As you will be able to see from the article, perhaps an additional second apology from CASA is now in order.

What is far more important than apologies is the way in which CASA directs its efforts and public resources. CASA’s mandate is essentially to ensure safety for the travelling public.  Is it really good allocation of these resources to expend perhaps a half a million dollars of taxpayers’ funds chasing after one private pilot, who flies only about 100 hours a year and almost exclusively in wilderness areas?

I look forward to hearing your views.

Sincerely

Richard Green

As predicted from @smh:

Crashed helicopter pilot Richard Green had decade-long feud with air safety watchdogs

A wealthy pilot and landscape photographer killed when his helicopter crashed near Cessnock had been embroiled in a bitter, decade-long battle with air safety watchdogs about being allowed to do his own maintenance on the $6 million aircraft.


Richard Green, 74, his graphic artist wife Carolyn, 71, and filmmaker John Davis, 72, were killed on their way back to the northern beaches from an anti-mining festival at Breeza, near Tamworth, on Saturday.

The highly regarded environmentalists were working on a documentary capturing the environmental destruction wrought by mining.  

Killed in helicopter crash: Richard and Carolyn Green. Photo: richardgreen.net.au

Mr Green's modified Eurocopter 135, described by him as his "flying campervan", was found in rugged, bushland near Cessnock on Monday evening.
Advertisement

A witness, Jim Bloomfield, said he saw the helicopter fly into a valley near his Hunter Valley home as a severe storm rolled in on Saturday evening. He said the helicopter landed but then took off again and looked in trouble.

"I actually said to my wife I hope that guy is an instrument-rated pilot because he's in trouble if he's not," he told Sky News.

"My pride and joy": the EC135 operated by Richard Green. Photo: www.richardgreen.net.au

The experienced pilot had his license suspended for six months in 2013 over four incidents in one year where he almost collided with other aircraft and one incident in which he struck powerlines and tore off part of his helicopter.

In a submission to an air safety inquiry in 2013, Mr Green had demanded the sacking of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) board and other officials.

The submission reveals that Mr Green had been the first to import the high-performance Eurocopter into Australia and had immediately struggled to find qualified technicians to keep the machine flying. As a result he maintained it himself.

He complained bitterly about being investigated by CASA as far back in 2006 after he hit a tree branch while flying in Cape York in far north Queensland and how the incident had severely affected his authority to maintain the machine.

"I had a minor blade strike on a tree branch in a wilderness area in Cape York. In order to get the helicopter out of that location, I made a repair to the rotor blades," he wrote in the submission to the federal government's Aviation Safety Regulation Review.

"CASA's concern was not the fact I had a blade strike but what happened afterwards.

"My wife and I were stranded in the Cape York wilderness. Drawing on my training and an experienced-based evaluation, I made the sensible decision to effect a temporary repair that would permit a safe two hour flight to Cairns."

Mr Green said his alternative was to leave it "stuck in the wilderness" where it would have been difficult to repair and recover.

He said when he reported his actions to CASA an airworthiness inspector tried to revoke his pilot's licence, deeming the flight "dangerous and illegal".

He said CASA had "dramatically embellished the incident by listing a whole slew of alleged technical breaches of the regulations that flowed on from this primary incident".

Mr Green said he was required to show cause why his licence should not be revoked.

He then appealed to CASA's then head of aviation Greg Vaughan who instead increased Mr Green's authorities to conduct and certify maintenance on his helicopter.

However when the authority required renewal two years later, CASA refused to renew it.

Mr Green then successfully appealed through the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. He also said he faced further allegations of safety breaches as a result of his dispute with CASA.

He lashed out at CASA, saying "in my case alone well over 1000 man hours have been expended in trying to clip the wings of one private pilot who flies his own private helicopter about 100 hours a year and almost exclusively in wilderness areas of Australia".

He finished his submission by calling for "all the senior management in CASA ... to be replaced and the CASA board disbanded".

NSW Greens MP Jeremy Buckingham said the trio "were committed environmentalists who spent their lives making amazing films and taking incredible photographs of our incredible country – and fighting tooth and nail to defend it".

"It is a very dark day for anyone who loves the environment of Australia," he said on Tuesday.

Former independent MP Tony Windsor, who spoke at the Breeza festival on Saturday and met all three crash victims, said Mr Davis, a former Greens candidate for Davidson, interviewed him that afternoon about political lobbying and mining.

"I had a long conversation with John and probably did the last interview John ever did," said Mr Windsor.

"He wanted to have a yarn on a few things, mostly the influence of paid lobbyists in Canberra, particularly in the mining sector. He gave me his card and I'd put it on the beside table."

He said the three victims were keen and passionate environmentalists.

"About 800 people came to that event over the weekend, people travelled from near and far and the three of them really represented that body of people," Mr Windsor said.

"They had come to learn about this magnificent piece of country. They went out of their way to do that so it's tragic to think [the crash] happened on the back of their concerns for other people."

The twin-turbine Eurocopter had been used by Mr Green and his wife as aerial campervan to explore Australia and as part of his photography business and hobby.

He said when he first imported the machine there was nobody in the country who had certification to maintain it and he was the only pilot in the country endorsed to fly it.

A scientist and engineer by training, Mr Green said he purchased his helicopter in the late 1990s as an early unit off the production line in Germany.

He also noted he had flown with the chief flying instructor of Eurocopter Germany.

"Based on my training and experience (after a rigorous) flight test I was given endorsement to train other pilots to fly the machine," he said. He also noted that he had a maintenance hangar at his own home.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/crashed-helicopter-pilot-richard-green-had-decadelong-feud-with-air-safety-watchdogs-20151110-gkv69j.html#ixzz3r55ZDY4Q
Follow us: @smh on Twitter | sydneymorningherald on Facebook

For those interested here is the Richard Green submission to the 'Pilot training' Senate Inquiry:

Dear Sirs

I write in relation to paras.(f) and (g) of this inquiry.

(f) the capacity of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority to appropriately oversee and update safety regulations given the ongoing and rapid development of new technologies and skills shortages in the aviation sector;

Various communications of mine with the Director of Aviation Safety were copied to members of the Committee some months ago. These no doubt formed the basis of a question to Mr McCormick at the sitting on 21 October about a proposed apology to me. This in turn led into questions to McCormick about his dealings with the ex Industry Complaints Commissioner for CASA.

Mr McCormick’s misdirection of the Authority since he took charge has been scandalous and his untruthful answers to Senate questions are par for the course.

I had an AAT appeal running the same day as the referenced sitting. At this the McCormick supported personal attack on me by CASA was thoroughly discredited and my position fully vindicated. My own experiences with CASA provide an indication of the rot within, and can be multiplied many, many times over by the organisation's interaction with the wider aviation community.

CASA will not be capable of effectively overseeing any safety regulation until its current senior management is removed and replaced by balanced, informed and experienced individuals.

(g) the need to provide legislative immunity to pilots and other flight crew who report on safety matters and whether the United States and European approaches would be appropriate in the Australian aviation environment;


Unless there is legislative immunity safety matters will remain un-reported.
CASA has already frittered an estimated $250,000,000 on its attempt to rewrite archaic aviation regulations – all with no result. Its current management policy is for more complex unworkable legislation which maximises the number of personnel that the agency can employ.

A sweep with a completely new brush is required. The USA has a very effective and working set of regulations in place - there is absolutely no reason why we should not copy these.

Sincerely

Richard Green

 
And this was Mr Green's submission to the Forsyth (ASRR) review to which the SMH article refers:

21 Mr Richard Green - PDF: 141 KB

..As mentioned at the beginning of this submission, there have been many reports similar to mine of CASA’s misuse of its power. Most of the victims, unlike me, are dependent upon their aviation activities for their livelihoods. They therefore are intimidated into not speaking up. I have personal experience of this through my attempts to get expert witness statements to support me in my own defence. The individuals support my position, however, are not prepared to go into writing for fear of subsequent CASA retribution.


It is my firm opinion that major changes need to be made to CASA. It must be made accountable for its actions. Its focus must be changed to promoting a safety ethos within the industry, rather than merely being a short-sighted policeman only interested in chasing after regulatory infringements. It is not until these changes are apparent that the body will gain the respect that it should have within the industry.

In order for this to come about, I believe all the senior management in CASA need to be replaced and the CASA board disbanded. I believe it is critical and urgent that the chief executive needs to be replaced by an individual who can command the respect of the industry. And the Board should be reconstituted with a group of individuals who have real in-depth experience of all the major areas of the aviation industry.

A new ethos within the body driven by a strong but fair minded CEO should weed out those inspectors who have been misusing their power in order to satisfy their own personal whims.

These changes need to go hand in hand with the scrapping of Australia’s ridiculously convoluted aviation legislation. It should be replaced by legislation modelled upon a system that already works perfectly well – either from New Zealand or from the United States. Further the basic role of CASA needs to be changed to promote the aviation industry in Australia as well as ensuring its safety. CASA’s current charter, just to ensure aviation safety, is being achieved by grounding aircraft and closing down aviation businesses...

MTF...P2

[Peetwo]

Dear Mr McCormick

I refer to our earlier correspondence and our telephone conversation of nearly a year ago.  If you recall you made it quite clear that in your opinion I had operated my helicopter dangerously, and that I most certainly should not have the authority to conduct maintenance work on it.

The Senate Estimates Committee has taken some interest in these matters, and for your information I have attached a copy of a recent press article that summarises the outcome of the AAT’s detailed investigation.

After careful consideration Mike Hart had recommended an apology from CASA in relation to the former matter which, I am sure you will remember, you refused to issue. As you will be able to see from the article, perhaps an additional second apology from CASA is now in order.

What is far more important than apologies is the way in which CASA directs its efforts and public resources. CASA’s mandate is essentially to ensure safety for the travelling public.  Is it really good allocation of these resources to expend perhaps a half a million dollars of taxpayers’ funds chasing after one private pilot, who flies only about 100 hours a year and almost exclusively in wilderness areas?

I look forward to hearing your views.

Sincerely

Richard Green

As predicted from @smh:

The experienced pilot had his license suspended for six months in 2013 over four incidents in one year where he almost collided with other aircraft and one incident in which he struck powerlines and tore off part of his helicopter.

In a submission to an air safety inquiry in 2013, Mr Green had demanded the sacking of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) board and other officials.

The submission reveals that Mr Green had been the first to import the high-performance Eurocopter into Australia and had immediately struggled to find qualified technicians to keep the machine flying. As a result he maintained it himself.

He complained bitterly about being investigated by CASA as far back in 2006 after he hit a tree branch while flying in Cape York in far north Queensland and how the incident had severely affected his authority to maintain the machine.

"I had a minor blade strike on a tree branch in a wilderness area in Cape York. In order to get the helicopter out of that location, I made a repair to the rotor blades," he wrote in the submission to the federal government's Aviation Safety Regulation Review.

"CASA's concern was not the fact I had a blade strike but what happened afterwards.

"My wife and I were stranded in the Cape York wilderness. Drawing on my training and an experienced-based evaluation, I made the sensible decision to effect a temporary repair that would permit a safe two hour flight to Cairns."

Mr Green said his alternative was to leave it "stuck in the wilderness" where it would have been difficult to repair and recover.

He said when he reported his actions to CASA an airworthiness inspector tried to revoke his pilot's licence, deeming the flight "dangerous and illegal".

He said CASA had "dramatically embellished the incident by listing a whole slew of alleged technical breaches of the regulations that flowed on from this primary incident".

Mr Green said he was required to show cause why his licence should not be revoked.

He then appealed to CASA's then head of aviation Greg Vaughan who instead increased Mr Green's authorities to conduct and certify maintenance on his helicopter.

However when the authority required renewal two years later, CASA refused to renew it.

Mr Green then successfully appealed through the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. He also said he faced further allegations of safety breaches as a result of his dispute with CASA.

He lashed out at CASA, saying "in my case alone well over 1000 man hours have been expended in trying to clip the wings of one private pilot who flies his own private helicopter about 100 hours a year and almost exclusively in wilderness areas of Australia".

He finished his submission by calling for "all the senior management in CASA ... to be replaced and the CASA board disbanded".

For those interested here is the Richard Green submission to the 'Pilot training' Senate Inquiry:

Dear Sirs

I write in relation to paras.(f) and (g) of this inquiry.

(f) the capacity of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority to appropriately oversee and update safety regulations given the ongoing and rapid development of new technologies and skills shortages in the aviation sector;

Various communications of mine with the Director of Aviation Safety were copied to members of the Committee some months ago. These no doubt formed the basis of a question to Mr McCormick at the sitting on 21 October about a proposed apology to me. This in turn led into questions to McCormick about his dealings with the ex Industry Complaints Commissioner for CASA.

Mr McCormick’s misdirection of the Authority since he took charge has been scandalous and his untruthful answers to Senate questions are par for the course.

I had an AAT appeal running the same day as the referenced sitting. At this the McCormick supported personal attack on me by CASA was thoroughly discredited and my position fully vindicated. My own experiences with CASA provide an indication of the rot within, and can be multiplied many, many times over by the organisation's interaction with the wider aviation community.

CASA will not be capable of effectively overseeing any safety regulation until its current senior management is removed and replaced by balanced, informed and experienced individuals.

(g) the need to provide legislative immunity to pilots and other flight crew who report on safety matters and whether the United States and European approaches would be appropriate in the Australian aviation environment;

Unless there is legislative immunity safety matters will remain un-reported.
CASA has already frittered an estimated $250,000,000 on its attempt to rewrite archaic aviation regulations – all with no result. Its current management policy is for more complex unworkable legislation which maximises the number of personnel that the agency can employ.

A sweep with a completely new brush is required. The USA has a very effective and working set of regulations in place - there is absolutely no reason why we should not copy these.

Sincerely

Richard Green

 
And this was Mr Green's submission to the Forsyth (ASRR) review to which the SMH article refers:

21 Mr Richard Green - PDF: 141 KB

..As mentioned at the beginning of this submission, there have been many reports similar to mine of CASA’s misuse of its power. Most of the victims, unlike me, are dependent upon their aviation activities for their livelihoods. They therefore are intimidated into not speaking up. I have personal experience of this through my attempts to get expert witness statements to support me in my own defence. The individuals support my position, however, are not prepared to go into writing for fear of subsequent CASA retribution.

It is my firm opinion that major changes need to be made to CASA. It must be made accountable for its actions. Its focus must be changed to promoting a safety ethos within the industry, rather than merely being a short-sighted policeman only interested in chasing after regulatory infringements. It is not until these changes are apparent that the body will gain the respect that it should have within the industry.

In order for this to come about, I believe all the senior management in CASA need to be replaced and the CASA board disbanded. I believe it is critical and urgent that the chief executive needs to be replaced by an individual who can command the respect of the industry. And the Board should be reconstituted with a group of individuals who have real in-depth experience of all the major areas of the aviation industry.

A new ethos within the body driven by a strong but fair minded CEO should weed out those inspectors who have been misusing their power in order to satisfy their own personal whims.

These changes need to go hand in hand with the scrapping of Australia’s ridiculously convoluted aviation legislation. It should be replaced by legislation modelled upon a system that already works perfectly well – either from New Zealand or from the United States. Further the basic role of CASA needs to be changed to promote the aviation industry in Australia as well as ensuring its safety. CASA’s current charter, just to ensure aviation safety, is being achieved by grounding aircraft and closing down aviation businesses...

Remembrance Day 2015 - Hung strung & quartered

Update - Absolutely disgraceful from Creepy... - Courtesy the Oz with no fanfare, no pics, just barebones filthy journalism:

Pilot Richard Green’s final, fatal outing had no flight plan

The 74-year-old helicopter pilot involved in a fatal crash near the NSW Hunter Valley once flew his damaged aircraft from the Northern Territory to Sydney after fixing the main rotor blades with Araldite and was viewed by authorities as a maverick who flouted the rules.  

Millionaire businessman and photographer Richard Green was regarded as an eccentric who ­believed that he was being persecuted by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority.
Mr Green and his wife, Carolyn, 71, were also remembered yesterday as a “dynamic duo” who were “Green by name and green by nature”.
“They flew to the remotest of remote places like the Kimberly or in Tasmania to document these pristine wilderness places in the hope that people would recognise that these things are worth protecting,” National Library of Australia curator Nat Williams said.
The Greens and their friend and documentary-maker John Davis, 72, died on Saturday when Mr Green’s Eurocopter crashed in rugged NSW bushland south of the Hunter Valley. The trio were on their way back to Terrey Hills, in Sydney’s north, after attending an anti-mining rally south of Tamworth.
They were flying in bad weather and Mr Green did not have an instrument flight rules rating ­allowing him to fly in low visibility using cockpit instruments. He also failed to send a notification to authorities outlining his intentions for the flight.
The millionaire was known to dislike bureaucracy and had his private pilot’s licence suspended for six months in 2013 after CASA accused him flying dangerously near several aircraft and flying his helicopter in an unsafe condition after he clipped powerlines.
He had been on the regulator’s radar for several years before its attempts to rein in his behaviour were successful.
He came under the spotlight in 2007 based on an incident in the Northern Territory where he damaged his main rotor blades when he clipped some trees while landing. He failed to report the damage and allegedly used Araldite glue to make an on-the-spot repair before flying to Cairns and then on to Sydney.
In 2010, the regulator refused to give him an authority to perform wide-ranging maintenance on the Eurocopter but was later forced to partly back down by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.
CASA had more success in 2013 after Mr Green had struck power lines the previous year and ripped off the top part of a component on the tail.
Helicopter veteran Dick Smith knew all three victims and said yesterday he was appalled that Mr Green had not sent a flight notification and did not appear to have a real-time aircraft tracker installed in the helicopter.
“I don’t have one friend with a helicopter who does not have one,” Mr Smith said. Keen flyer Joe Lorincz told his wife that the pilot of the missing helicopter must have been “bloody insane” to fly in such bad weather before he even knew his friend of 43 years Mr Davis was also aboard the chopper.
“I feel very angry about it because if that helicopter was flying under the instrument flight rules, he would have lodged a flight plan and been given a responder code to track him the whole way,” he said. “Anyone who thinks they can meddle with bad weather is completely insane.”
Mr Williams, however, said Mr Green was “utterly fastidious” about safety aboard his chopper.
“I remember him telling me about fixing the blade with Aral­dite and it was a hairline crack; the guy was a physicist, not a risk-taker,” he said.

  
Remember this??

 If you needed any further proof that the toxic culture of persecution & embuggerance by CASA continues unabated, go no further than the above - UFB!

In one foul, disgusting, swoop, CASA have effectively made any 'real', unbiased, independent investigation of this tragic accident by the ATSB, NSW Police & Coroner's office - nugatory, null, void, zip, zero..   

It should be remembered that under the ICAO SARPs (Annex 13&19) the Minister of the State & Crown (& his moribund Department), has certain obligations to protect the integrity and credibility of any active AAI. 

The following is a quote from 'John Goglia' off this - 7K-9268 - thread post:

..The highly unusual comments Monday from senior officials of Metrojet that the crash of one of its jets Saturday morning in the Sinai Peninsula was definitely caused by “external factors” does not bode well for the proper and thorough investigation of what brought down the airliner.

By already ruling out “technical fault of the plane or pilot error,” the airline violated one of the cardinal rules of accident investigation, which is to keep an open mind as all the facts are gathered and analyzed. By concluding mere days after the accident, that the fault was outside the airliner’s control, it is making a mockery of the investigative process, which should be based on factual data and appropriate conclusions from that data...

...In the United States, the NTSB has on more than one occasion excluded technical representatives from an accident investigation for making public comments that could be construed as interfering with the proper and impartial conduct of the investigation... 

..This would be a small but significant step in reassuring the families of the victims of the impartiality of the investigative process.

Do you think this Miniscule, this (Dolan led) ATSB will now have the balls (like the NTSB) to exclude the morally corrupt regulator as a DIP to investigation AO-2015-131

Remember this??- The current CASA smear/embuggerance campaign is occurring under DAS Skidmore's tenure. This means that he is either endorsing this pre-emptive character assassination before the facts  ('A priori'), or he is not in control and being blindly guided by Dr A & the Iron Ring...


MTF...P2

[ventus45]

The writing is on the wall, in the media, for all to see, both inside and outside the aviation community.

Re ATSB:
Clearly, yet another Beaker report, not worth reading, coming up (eventually).
They have their "template" from the "Pelair-Mk-1" saga.
Just change the names, dates, places - a little edit here - a little edit there.
Done and dusted.
Get it out fast too.
Got to get those "completed" stats up.

Re CASA:
Clearly, a carbon-copy re-run of DJ's charge sheet coming up, but this time, no doubt, with a few more thrown in for, let's just say, "spice".
Look at it from the regulator's viewpoint.
This time, the guy can be charged, tried, and convicted, in absentia, and best of all, no likely appeals to that pesky AAAT.
Everything is in their favour.
They will want to savour this one, salivate even.

It makes one wonder.
What is the real definition of tyrany ?

Is what is happening clearly not a "perversion of due process", perhaps even an "outright contempt of due process" ?

To hell with the impotent miniscule.

Perhaps it is time for the Federal Court to intervene, promptly, and directlly.

[Kharon]

“V” – “Perhaps it is time for the Federal Court to intervene, promptly, and directlly.”

Good idea, alas doomed.  CASA and recently ATSB have had everything – bar the kitchen sink thrown at them over the past two decades, to no avail.  Gods alone know the final impost on the public purse.  Many have tried, none, not one even got close to denting the façade, let alone throw a brick through the window.  Reform must have political support, although rumour has it that Truss is as frustrated as industry, then there must be a leader who is unafraid to swing the axe.  The Board and Minister want the quandary resolved, industry demands it – CASA just fart in the general direction of change and go back to dressing up as and playing at Tigers and talking about how best to appear busy, whilst doing SFA except keeping the door locked, the curtains drawn and deciding who is next up for right royal Woddgering.  True dat.  Watch the Green case develop.

Toot – toot.

[Peetwo]

The writing is on the wall, in the media, for all to see, both inside and outside the aviation community.

Re ATSB:
Clearly, yet another Beaker report, not worth reading, coming up (eventually).
They have their "template" from the "Pelair-Mk-1" saga.
Just change the names, dates, places - a little edit here - a little edit there.
Done and dusted.
Get it out fast too.
Got to get those "completed" stats up.

Re CASA:
Clearly, a carbon-copy re-run of DJ's charge sheet coming up, but this time, no doubt,  with a few more thrown in for, let's just say, "spice".
Look at it from the regulator's viewpoint.
This time, the guy can be charged, tried, and convicted, in absentia, and best of all, no likely appeals to that pesky AAAT.
Everything is in their favour.
They will want to savour this one, salivate even.

It makes one wonder.
What is the real definition of tyrany ?

Is what is happening clearly not a "perversion of due process", perhaps even an "outright contempt of due process" ?

To hell with the impotent miniscule.

Perhaps it is time for the Federal Court to intervene, promptly, and directlly. - Here, here ; long overdue I would have thought??

Comet's comment , COTY??- “…the main casualty will be our democracy”

Combined with the "V" post (above) and in light of the atrocities in Paris, I thought the following chain of excellent commentary on Ben's blog piece - ATSB now has only one set of black boxes lost at sea; or here on AP - ending with perhaps a nomination for 'comment of the year' by comet was worth regurgitating..   

2
Seth Knoepler
Posted November 13, 2015 at 6:52 am | Permalink

Comet:
As a relatively recent and distant (California) reader of Ben’s blog I’ve been struggling to gain a basic grasp of the Pel-Air affair. On its face it sounds incomprehensibly bizarre that authorities in a technologically sophisticated First World country like Australia could decline to recover a pair of easily recoverable black boxes from a crash whose ultimate causes have never been beyond dispute. The best that I’ve been able to glean so far is that for some reason or combination of reasons, senior bureaucrats at the relevant agencies have been extremely reluctant to retrieve and interrogate those black boxes, and that despite a series of government changes since the Pel-Air crash (equally difficult for this non-Australian to comprehend) until now none of the politicians who, at least in theory, are the bureaucrats’ bosses have had “the guts, wits, or courage” to demand that the bureaucrats do what they’re being paid to do. Will that pass for a not-bad executive summary?

3
Sam Jackson
Posted November 13, 2015 at 6:59 am | Permalink
Choc Frog Comet. Beat me to it –“[but] a government crash investigation department waited six years to recover them” is not quite accurate – it took a Senate Inquiry to persuade the Minister to force the retrieval. Had it not been for those two events, make no mistake, the CVR would still be where it finished up. The truly abhorrent part is the ATSB had to be forced to effect recovery and to be dragged screaming to reopen the investigation. One can only wonder why.

4
Ben Sandilands
Posted November 13, 2015 at 7:06 am | Permalink
Seth,
That’s a good start. I feel guilty knowing that perplexed readers abroad have been lured toward the edge of the black hole and been sucked toward despair and destruction.

5
Sam Jackson
Posted November 13, 2015 at 7:16 am | Permalink
Thanks Ben. Seth some, but not all of the sad, sorry saga may be explored @Aunty Pru.
http://auntypru.com/forum/-The-search-fo...19#pid2719
There is a lot to plough through, grab a coffee, find a quiet 10 minutes; the outline is there.

6
comet
Posted November 13, 2015 at 10:41 am | Permalink
The ATSB hasn’t made it easy for the media to cover this.
They didn’t put out a press release to say when the flight recorders would be recovered.
One day they announce they’re going to do it. The next day it’s done. No time for film crews to get out there.
I know Four Corners has covered the story before, but this would still make an interesting subject for a 1-hour documentary, wouldn’t it? Not that the ATSB would cooperate.

7
Aero Eng Aviator
Posted November 13, 2015 at 11:21 am | Permalink
Because of the past record of the ATSB on this investigation, there needs to be an independent, technically competent, oversight of the storage of and data retrieval attempt from this CVR and FDR. Too easy to make a finding that the data has faded or was corrupted.
It is unacceptable that the reputation of the ATSB has been so damaged that there is widespread lack of confidence in their objectivity and competence. Those responsible must as a matter of urgency, set about transparently repairing the ATSB so that public confidence in its independence and competence can be restored.

8
Blackstone
Posted November 13, 2015 at 11:30 am | Permalink
The May 2015 judgment from the NSW Supreme Court in the matter of Casey v Pel Air was also informative where in the opening paragraphs it was agreed that the crash was caused by the negligence of the crew – how could that conclusion be reached when the ATSB report had been withdrawn and investigation reopened?

9
Giant Bird
Posted November 13, 2015 at 11:44 am | Permalink
Comet,
I wrote to Cineflix in Canada 5 years ago suggesting they do an Air Crash Investigations program on this crash outlining how it would make a good program. No reply.

10
comet
Posted November 13, 2015 at 12:00 pm | Permalink
Air Crash Investigation usually concentrates on the accident itself. Here we have an investigator that cannot be trusted.
People are expecting transparency, but the ATSB won’t do that willingly.
The retrieval of the flight recorders must have taken a lot of planning. I understand there was a barge and a floating crane. These things don’t happen on the spur of the moment.
Yet the ATSB announced it would retrieve the recorders only hours before it retrieved them. The only …only… explanation is to keep the media off its tail.

11
Dr_Bill
Posted November 13, 2015 at 12:45 pm | Permalink
But why keep the media at bay? Why so many years elasped before the the bleeding obvious is done and the flight recorders recovered?
Who is hiding what – was there something on that plane that was to be kept secret?

12
Dr_Bill
Posted November 13, 2015 at 12:45 pm | Permalink
But why keep the media at bay? Why so many years elasped before the the bleeding obvious is done and the flight recorders recovered?
Who is hiding what – was there something on that plane that was to be kept secret?

13
Giant Bird
Posted November 13, 2015 at 2:23 pm | Permalink
Comet,
I outlined a story which would make good viewing for them. However I think that they always get co-operation with accident investigation authority and in this case they would be unlikely to and they always like to finish on a note that flying has been made safer after the accident. In this case nothing has been to the rules and oversight to stop a repeat. I believe that is why they have not shown interest.

14
Seth Knoepler
Posted November 13, 2015 at 5:15 pm | Permalink
Sam: Thanks very much for the auntypru link.
Ben: In the U.S. a public servant at the state or local level will sometimes forget to vacuum up the trail of crumbs leading from the cookie jar back to his den. However, by the time a 21st century American politician or bureaucrat is ready for the Big Time he will almost always have learned how to make sure that the fingerprints which are found at the crime scene belong to someone else.

15
Ben Sandilands
Posted November 14, 2015 at 8:50 pm | Permalink
Ghost, Joe and all,
There were some outages and losses of comments (including by me) on Plane Talking today during the IT equivalent of a C check, if not a D check.
Apologies to all. All of the news of the day has needless to say been in Paris, something deeply shocking and disturbing.

comet
Posted November 15, 2015 at 5:47 am | Permalink

The Pel-Air story is about government opaqueness.

We don’t know – and can only guess – why the governent safety investigator didn’t want to get to the truth, or why two government ministers (Albanese and Truss) took no interest in forcing the ATSB into line.

Unfortunately the atrocities in Paris will give governments around the world the cover they need to become more opaque and less open, while at the same time monitoring their citizens’ every move, and introducing harsher penalties for whistleblowers.

A bad event gives governments the excuse to start other bad events (eg Iraq wars). Aviation will suffer, but even worse, the main casualty will be our democracy.

17
Crocodile Chuck
Posted November 15, 2015 at 6:22 am | Permalink
“…the main casualty will be our democracy”
Comment of the Year. - P2: '2nd that motion Croc"


18
Seth Knoepler
Posted November 15, 2015 at 10:00 am | Permalink
Comet:
One interesting aspect from a U.S. perspective is that it sounds like neither of Australia’s two major political parties has tried to taint the other by linking it to the ATSB’s apparent cover-up. At least since the Watergate scandal 40 years ago, at various times both the U.S. Democratic and Republican parties have been willing to go to extraordinary lengths to allege that the other party is rife with corruption. A federal (i.e. national) air crash investigation which appears to have been “fixed” to arrive at a particular conclusion would be low hanging fruit for whichever party happened to be in opposition at the time.

Another 1/2 dozen CF's 4 comet -


'Vive la France!'-  P2

[ventus45]

Sir Humphrey Appleby to Bernard Woolley:

"Prime Ministers come and go,
It is us who are running the country."

Substitutions: (first)
Ministers come and go.
Senators come and go.
Coroners come and go.

Substitutions: (second)
CASA who are running aviation.
CASA who are running aviation.
CASA who are running aviation.

(ATSB is Bernard)

QED

[Peetwo]

The writing is on the wall, in the media, for all to see, both inside and outside the aviation community.

Re ATSB:
Clearly, yet another Beaker report, not worth reading, coming up (eventually).
They have their "template" from the "Pelair-Mk-1" saga.
Just change the names, dates, places - a little edit here - a little edit there.
Done and dusted.
Get it out fast too.
Got to get those "completed" stats up.

Re CASA:
Clearly, a carbon-copy re-run of DJ's charge sheet coming up, but this time, no doubt,  with a few more thrown in for, let's just say, "spice".
Look at it from the regulator's viewpoint.
This time, the guy can be charged, tried, and convicted, in absentia, and best of all, no likely appeals to that pesky AAAT.
Everything is in their favour.
They will want to savour this one, salivate even.

It makes one wonder.
What is the real definition of tyrany ?

Is what is happening clearly not a "perversion of due process", perhaps even an "outright contempt of due process" ?

To hell with the impotent miniscule.

Perhaps it is time for the Federal Court to intervene, promptly, and directlly. - Here, here ; long overdue I would have thought??

Comet's comment , COTY??- “…the main casualty will be our democracy”

Combined with the "V" post (above) and in light of the atrocities in Paris, I thought the following chain of excellent commentary on Ben's blog piece - ATSB now has only one set of black boxes lost at sea; or here on AP - ending with perhaps a nomination for 'comment of the year' by comet was worth regurgitating..   

2
Seth Knoepler
Posted November 13, 2015 at 6:52 am | Permalink

Comet:
As a relatively recent and distant (California) reader of Ben’s blog I’ve been struggling to gain a basic grasp of the Pel-Air affair. On its face it sounds incomprehensibly bizarre that authorities in a technologically sophisticated First World country like Australia could decline to recover a pair of easily recoverable black boxes from a crash whose ultimate causes have never been beyond dispute. The best that I’ve been able to glean so far is that for some reason or combination of reasons, senior bureaucrats at the relevant agencies have been extremely reluctant to retrieve and interrogate those black boxes, and that despite a series of government changes since the Pel-Air crash (equally difficult for this non-Australian to comprehend) until now none of the politicians who, at least in theory, are the bureaucrats’ bosses have had “the guts, wits, or courage” to demand that the bureaucrats do what they’re being paid to do. Will that pass for a not-bad executive summary?

3
Sam Jackson
Posted November 13, 2015 at 6:59 am | Permalink
Choc Frog Comet. Beat me to it –“[but] a government crash investigation department waited six years to recover them” is not quite accurate – it took a Senate Inquiry to persuade the Minister to force the retrieval. Had it not been for those two events, make no mistake, the CVR would still be where it finished up. The truly abhorrent part is the ATSB had to be forced to effect recovery and to be dragged screaming to reopen the investigation. One can only wonder why.

4
Ben Sandilands
Posted November 13, 2015 at 7:06 am | Permalink
Seth,
That’s a good start. I feel guilty knowing that perplexed readers abroad have been lured toward the edge of the black hole and been sucked toward despair and destruction.

5
Sam Jackson
Posted November 13, 2015 at 7:16 am | Permalink
Thanks Ben. Seth some, but not all of the sad, sorry saga may be explored @Aunty Pru.
http://auntypru.com/forum/-The-search-fo...19#pid2719
There is a lot to plough through, grab a coffee, find a quiet 10 minutes; the outline is there.

6
comet
Posted November 13, 2015 at 10:41 am | Permalink
The ATSB hasn’t made it easy for the media to cover this.
They didn’t put out a press release to say when the flight recorders would be recovered.
One day they announce they’re going to do it. The next day it’s done. No time for film crews to get out there.
I know Four Corners has covered the story before, but this would still make an interesting subject for a 1-hour documentary, wouldn’t it? Not that the ATSB would cooperate.

7
Aero Eng Aviator
Posted November 13, 2015 at 11:21 am | Permalink
Because of the past record of the ATSB on this investigation, there needs to be an independent, technically competent, oversight of the storage of and data retrieval attempt from this CVR and FDR. Too easy to make a finding that the data has faded or was corrupted.
It is unacceptable that the reputation of the ATSB has been so damaged that there is widespread lack of confidence in their objectivity and competence. Those responsible must as a matter of urgency, set about transparently repairing the ATSB so that public confidence in its independence and competence can be restored.

8
Blackstone
Posted November 13, 2015 at 11:30 am | Permalink
The May 2015 judgment from the NSW Supreme Court in the matter of Casey v Pel Air was also informative where in the opening paragraphs it was agreed that the crash was caused by the negligence of the crew – how could that conclusion be reached when the ATSB report had been withdrawn and investigation reopened?

9
Giant Bird
Posted November 13, 2015 at 11:44 am | Permalink
Comet,
I wrote to Cineflix in Canada 5 years ago suggesting they do an Air Crash Investigations program on this crash outlining how it would make a good program. No reply.

10
comet
Posted November 13, 2015 at 12:00 pm | Permalink
Air Crash Investigation usually concentrates on the accident itself. Here we have an investigator that cannot be trusted.
People are expecting transparency, but the ATSB won’t do that willingly.
The retrieval of the flight recorders must have taken a lot of planning. I understand there was a barge and a floating crane. These things don’t happen on the spur of the moment.
Yet the ATSB announced it would retrieve the recorders only hours before it retrieved them. The only …only… explanation is to keep the media off its tail.

11
Dr_Bill
Posted November 13, 2015 at 12:45 pm | Permalink
But why keep the media at bay? Why so many years elasped before the the bleeding obvious is done and the flight recorders recovered?
Who is hiding what – was there something on that plane that was to be kept secret?

12
Dr_Bill
Posted November 13, 2015 at 12:45 pm | Permalink
But why keep the media at bay? Why so many years elasped before the the bleeding obvious is done and the flight recorders recovered?
Who is hiding what – was there something on that plane that was to be kept secret?

13
Giant Bird
Posted November 13, 2015 at 2:23 pm | Permalink
Comet,
I outlined a story which would make good viewing for them. However I think that they always get co-operation with accident investigation authority and in this case they would be unlikely to and they always like to finish on a note that flying has been made safer after the accident. In this case nothing has been to the rules and oversight to stop a repeat. I believe that is why they have not shown interest.

14
Seth Knoepler
Posted November 13, 2015 at 5:15 pm | Permalink
Sam: Thanks very much for the auntypru link.
Ben: In the U.S. a public servant at the state or local level will sometimes forget to vacuum up the trail of crumbs leading from the cookie jar back to his den. However, by the time a 21st century American politician or bureaucrat is ready for the Big Time he will almost always have learned how to make sure that the fingerprints which are found at the crime scene belong to someone else.

15
Ben Sandilands
Posted November 14, 2015 at 8:50 pm | Permalink
Ghost, Joe and all,
There were some outages and losses of comments (including by me) on Plane Talking today during the IT equivalent of a C check, if not a D check.
Apologies to all. All of the news of the day has needless to say been in Paris, something deeply shocking and disturbing.

comet
Posted November 15, 2015 at 5:47 am | Permalink

The Pel-Air story is about government opaqueness.

We don’t know – and can only guess – why the governent safety investigator didn’t want to get to the truth, or why two government ministers (Albanese and Truss) took no interest in forcing the ATSB into line.

Unfortunately the atrocities in Paris will give governments around the world the cover they need to become more opaque and less open, while at the same time monitoring their citizens’ every move, and introducing harsher penalties for whistleblowers.

A bad event gives governments the excuse to start other bad events (eg Iraq wars). Aviation will suffer, but even worse, the main casualty will be our democracy.

17
Crocodile Chuck
Posted November 15, 2015 at 6:22 am | Permalink
“…the main casualty will be our democracy”
Comment of the Year. - P2: '2nd that motion Croc"


18
Seth Knoepler
Posted November 15, 2015 at 10:00 am | Permalink
Comet:
One interesting aspect from a U.S. perspective is that it sounds like neither of Australia’s two major political parties has tried to taint the other by linking it to the ATSB’s apparent cover-up. At least since the Watergate scandal 40 years ago, at various times both the U.S. Democratic and Republican parties have been willing to go to extraordinary lengths to allege that the other party is rife with corruption. A federal (i.e. national) air crash investigation which appears to have been “fixed” to arrive at a particular conclusion would be low hanging fruit for whichever party happened to be in opposition at the time.

Another 1/2 dozen CF's 4 comet -


'Vive la France!'-  P2

Continued with some excellent byplay from "K" in reply to Ben's resident troll (you know where the key to the TimTam cupboard is ):

19
PAIN_P2
Posted November 15, 2015 at 10:56 am | Permalink

Comet & Seth: Excellent contributions to the discussion and I 2nd Croc Chuck’s nomination for COTY – 1/2 dozen choc frogs 4 comet.

With Ben’s indulgence comment’s are reproduced on AP here – http://auntypru.com/forum/-Overdue-and-O...46#pid2746

20
joe airline pilot
Posted November 15, 2015 at 11:53 am | Permalink

In an ideal world every accident would be investigated with the same level of detailed forensic analysis as the likes of MH17 or AF447. However, in the real world of budget and staffing constraints, a relatively straight forward accident in a non RPT flight whereby everyone survives and first hand witness accounts are available, the report will be rather more basic compared to a high capacity RPT accident where everybody is dead, the cause is unknown, and the most minute details of the cause must be known to potentially avert a common fault from causing widespread catastrophe. That of itself isn’t a conspiracy. In this case the raising of the CVR is of great curiosity value, but I can’t see any new “truth” coming out of another report.

It reminds me of a remake of the Titanic movie, the ending will always be the same – the ship hits an iceberg and sinks. In the sorry saga of the Titanic there was a lack of regulatory oversight, but that didn’t cause the accident. What caused the accident was the Captains decision to drive a ship at full speed into an ice field.

21
Ben Sandilands
Posted November 15, 2015 at 12:42 pm | Permalink

In this case the accident investigation spiraled out of control because the regulator and investigator we caught out through a lack of candor and disclosure.

The regulator was found to have discovered that it failed to correctly oversight the operator, but then, contrary to the requirements of the law, withheld from the investigator an internal document outlining its failings (which had major implications for its broader responsibilities).

The operator had no fuel policy for its Westwind operations, or no plan B was its chairman was to admit, if it found itself unable to land at a refueling point without sufficient reserve to make a missed approach and then fly to an alternative strip.

The investigator failed to inquire into the regulatory requirements of the operation, and was indifferent to the situation that a non RVSM compliant jet was being required to fly through such an environment, where its optimum altitude would have the potential to put it into conflict with scheduled large capacity movements.

There was an important question as to what met data had been passed on to the flight by Auckland control as the jet reached and then passed its point of no return in relation to Norfolk Island. A question for which the cockpit voice recorder was critical in answering, but which the investigator seemed incredibly keen not have retrieved, preferring instead to pursue the objective of blaming the pilot for everything.

These factors began to feed the storm of disquiet about the integrity of the investigation and the conduct of the regulator. The peer review by the TSBC uncovered evidence of internal divisions in the ATSB over the direction of the much delayed investigation.

Perceptions of unfairness and victimisation naturally began to gain momentum.
After the final and now withdrawn report by the ATSB was issued, it was found to have bungled the issue of what met data the pilot had actually received about conditions at Norfolk Island earlier in the return medical evacuation mission as well.

All of these components caused much mistrust and anger in the sector.

What would you do if confronted in your country by prima facie evidence of a lack of integrity and a case for victimisation by authority? I would think, in the US context, that these matters would be of serious concern.

It’s one thing for a captain of a ship to disregard principles of navigation or even common sense. It’s another for government bodies, anywhere, to lie, conspire and persecute, and those concerns, rightly or wrongly, are centre stage in the Pel-Air saga.

22
joe airline pilot
Posted November 15, 2015 at 3:30 pm | Permalink

Some good points Ben and I don’t wish to defend any organisation nor argue report dot points.

That said, I’m familiar with remote island and ems flying and I find some of the decision making processes (or lack thereof) that led to continuing on to a remote island at night in marginal weather conditions in a reduced fuel state, quite strange. (And leaving passengers and an unconscious crew member for dead in order to be first out of a sinking vessel is incomprehensible.) I look forward to seeing the next report, but I suspect that many of the salient points will remain the same. (Or may even reflect worse apron the crew). Time will tell.

23
Sam Jackson
Posted November 15, 2015 at 8:26 pm | Permalink

But Joe, Shirley: the point is the pilot has admitted and paid (dearly) for his publically acknowledged errors. Did he make some?– damn straight, as any professional will tell you. But that is beside the point Joe, isn’t it? A Senate inquiry, supported by an independent review declared that both ATSB and CASA were – to put it kindly – remiss and not quite ‘open’. After the fact that James made and admitted, whether due fatigue, lack of training or ingrained culture several 20/20 hindsight mistakes is irrelevant. The behaviour of the Regulator and it’s influence on the ‘investigator’ reveals a deeper, darker world.

You know; I am always intrigued by folk who publish claimed ‘expertise’ on a Blog – I mean, why bother? I am always curious about an alleged ‘pilot’; who will persist in an attempt to distract attention from the real issues and to denigrate a fellow aviator, claiming only ‘pilot error’ as the main cause. Did Dom make errors? – an admitted given. But what happened afterwards was pure travesty. That’s why there was a Senate inquiry, and the Forsyth report and a TSBC peer review. Were they investigating ‘pilot error’? NO they were not. Or, did I perhaps miss that bit?

Much like the Chambers report – added to those three ‘other’ reports presents a commentary on the easily determined, now revealed flaws within the ‘safety watchdogs’. Except, Chambers was never (not ever) meant to be published. The Chambers report was, and remains a self serving, damning attack on opposition CASA officers, as means of covert removal of those who dared to disagree, simply to raise the Chambers kudos against his very own crew. Read it – then come back with an answer which does nor beggar belief; or, confront all sworn testimony. The Chambers report may be rightfully deemed – unfortunate; for whom, is yet to be determined.

Meanwhile, if you can; provide me the supporting numbers, for the James worst case OEI (Dep) PNR from the FOB on departure. Then, perhaps I will acknowledge you may even be a pilot with the experience you claim. Tell me how you, as an airline pilot would have done the journey. Don’t ask me to do it – I did mine for the Senators – in camera – on invitation; did you?

MTF..P2

Ps Gobbles this JAP troll on Ben's blog is strangely familiar in toxic, Sociopathic, writing style - hmm...Lefty perhaps or even Blackhand? Nah Blackie wouldn't pretend to be a pilot for love nor money...any ideas??     

[Gobbledock]

P.S Gobbles this JAP troll on Ben's blog is strangely familiar in toxic, Sociopathic, writing style - hmm...Lefty perhaps or even Blackhand? Nah Blackie wouldn't pretend to be a pilot for love nor money...any ideas??    

Some A-grade trolling indeed! To start with Lookyloo is a desperado who seeks acceptance within the pilot fraternity. Unfortunately he is a Neville nobody who gets nobody's attention because he is full of piss and wind, as well as being an arrogant sociopath. The ramblings are his style, and in true aviation fashion pretty much everyone ignores what the Dickhead writes.
As for his 'mechanic' Blackhand, the washed up postie bike repairer from PNG, well he couldn't string two sentences together without mentioning queers or some white racist comments. Plus he is a porch monkey who can't read or write so it's probably not him.

Either way whoever the Troll is every time they write a comment on one of Bens articles it simply shows up who the master writer is, and Ben wins the round hands down every time.
Perhaps Lookyloo is bored or banned on UP? He certainly doesn't get a guernsey on AuntyPru. He should stick to flying his little bug smasher in Victoria and picking up ladyboys with Blackhand on Grinder for fun, or writing letters to Women's Weekly or to the One Directionnfan club.

[Kharon]

Encouragement, not derision needed.

The benefit from the JAP postings is it gives us all an opportunity to drag all the stinking evidence against the ATSB and CASA out into the spotlight – once again.  I hope ‘Joe’ keeps posting – everyday, lots of venal, spiteful crap which we can pick up and throw right back while keeping CASA firmly in the spotlights.  It’s called ‘lamping’, a technique used for clearing out vermin, such as ‘Wabbits’.

The good thing in posting the way JAP does is it accomplishes little except highlight the regulator.  CASA went down the persecution line in an attempt to divert attention from the bloody disgraceful mess Pel-Air had become – with their full approval.  The Senate and Forsyth dragged that out and offered remedy; which CASA have ignored, despite both Minister and Board insistence on compliance.

The McComic legacy lives on, those who could not be browbeaten into submission and had options left the party.  Those named by Chambers as the ones who allowed the Pel-Air pantomime to continue understood the implied blackmail and with no other options stayed and towed the party line.  

DJ was hung, drawn and quartered and when he had paid the penalty, the administrative actions began and the Chinese whispers started. None of this improved risk mitigation one iota.  The speed at which the Pel-Air dog and pony show got back into business still beggars belief.  

At every turn during the inquiry it became clearer where the real, underpinning cause of the accident lay – DJ the last line of defence became, on McComics say so, a handy scapegoat, which is bad enough – considering.  But to now become a piñata for those who take pleasure in waiting till the man is down and rushing to put the boot in, is despicable, cowardly and indicative of a sick mind.  

Cheers Joe, keep it coming.....

[Gobbledock]

In fact it is because of people like Lookleft that Aunty Pru was born! So I would personally like to thank Lookleft for encouraging parts of industry to create an even greater voice against the bureacratic malfeasance thrust upon this industry. Good to see you contributing!

P. S Lookleft, two points to take note of; a) Your long suffering wife still had a face like a dropped pie and b) your moustache doesn't actually hide the DAS's balls. Sorry, we can still see them!
And please pass on my love to your lapdog from PNG, Blackhand. Toot toot goes the postie bike.

Cheers
Your pal

Gobbledock

[6317alan]

Late last week I happened to see on the Wikipedia listing for Partenavia P68 that in the “Incidents and Accidents” section I noticed that the crash of VH_PNW was not listed! As this was a major accident I felt obliged to edit the entry so I added the following-

“On July 10, 1978.a P68B crashed on Take-off at YMEN due to Trim Run-away. BASI Report attempted to blame Pilot Flying. Subsequent investigation by P.I.C. found Trim Design fault & Certification failure for Auto-Pilot installation in Australia”

Imagine my surprise when in the next days the entry had been modified as follows-

“On July 10, 1978, a P68B registered VH-PNW crashed shortly after take-off from Essendon Airport. Six people on the ground were killed, and one person injured. Three people on the the aircraft were seriously injured.’[2]

I can document the reality of what happened if need be!

Looks like the ATSB still cannot face reality even after 37 years!

MTF,  6317alan

P2 edit - Here is what 6317alan is referring:

Incidents and accidents[edit]

On July 10, 1978, a P68B registered VH-PNW crashed shortly after take-off from Essendon Airport. Six people on the ground were killed, and one person injured. Three people on the the aircraft were seriously injured.[2]

And footnote [2] 
 
^ "Partenavia P68B Aircraft VH-PNW near Essendon Airport, Victoria, on 10 July 1978" (PDF). Australian Transport Safety Bureau. Air Safety Investigation Branch. Retrieved 15 November 2015.

[ventus45]

I can document the reality of what happened if need be!

Looks like the ATSB still cannot face reality even after 37 years!

MTF,  6317alan

P2 edit - Here is what 6317alan is referring:

Incidents and accidents[edit]

On July 10, 1978, a P68B registered VH-PNW crashed shortly after take-off from Essendon Airport. Six people on the ground were killed, and one person injured. Three people on the the aircraft were seriously injured.[2]

And footnote [2] 
 
^ "Partenavia P68B Aircraft VH-PNW near Essendon Airport, Victoria, on 10 July 1978" (PDF). Australian Transport Safety Bureau. Air Safety Investigation Branch. Retrieved 15 November 2015.

6317alan

If you have the evidence - you most defintely should.

The "senators" would love it.

[6317alan]

Special investigation report 79-1

This Accident Investigation Report prepared by the Dept while appearing to be extensive and detailed in its investigation of this accident is in fact deficient in its pursuit of the subject matter to its logical extension of the ramifications of the total assessment of all the facts.

The Dept have touched on the matter of pilot strength when they investigated control system failure caused by pilot input loads but chose to not detail in a similar manner the requirements of FAR 23-143© which limit the force required to be exerted by a pilot on a temporary basis not to exceed 75 pounds.

This report also omits to detail any reference to the fact that the position of the trim tab actuator was in a position that indicated that the trim tab travel was other than that certified in Australia

This report omits to admit to the fact that the Dept failed to obtain flight test reports as required by ANO 101-22 prior to certifying the Autopilot/Electric Trim system.

This report omits to detail that the Trim Tab Travel Range was excessive to that required to comply with FAR23-689(f) which establishes total trim capacity required for an aircraft.

This report fails totally to address the fact that the Electric Trim System was never flight tested correctly as required.

This report by not completely investigating all aspects of the Electric Trim System was able to minimize the design and certification deficiencies to enable the claim of pilot error to be raised by stating. “However, the more likely explanation is that the command trim switch was activated unknowingly.”

This cannot be supported by any evidence as the coroner found at the inquest.

The CAUSE as listed in this report is incorrect and misleading and would be more accurate if listed similar to the following.-

Cause
The cause of the accident was that the aircraft became grossly out of trim at a height which did not permit time for the crew to affect recovery. The trim system design allowed control forces to be generated that exceeded pilot control force limits to be exceeded by a substantial amount. The manner in which the out of trim condition occurred has not been determined and the pos- sibility of a trim system malfunction cannot be eliminated.

This is the short answer!

Alan C Baskett - P_6317alan.

[ventus45]

In other words, the base systemic reason the accident happened at all, was that:

The aircraft was "dangerous by design", in that the "modification" to install the "Electric Trim System" was not properly designed to comply with existing regulatory requirements, nor was it flight tested prior to "certification".

Which means that:
The CASA (of the day) was "derelict in it's duty".

Correct ?

[6317alan]

Correct!

Alan

[6317alan]

I should have said Correct and then covered up by the then ATSB

6317Alan

[ventus45]

Send it to the Senators.

It effectively "documents" a "start point" for a long "history" of the "investigator" sneakily "exonerating" the "regulator".

"V"

[Gobbledock]

Which means that:
The CASA (of the day) was "derelict in it's duty".

Agreed!

Don't be surprised if you see Ian Harvey walking in the door!