[Peetwo]

A case of embuggerance or a nominee for the Darwin awards? 

Via the AAT: http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdo...s/cth/AATA

NORFOLK ISLAND FLIGHT

On 9 September 2015, the applicant was the pilot in command of a US registered aircraft N154DD, a Piper Aerostar 600 twin-engine aeroplane (“the Aerostar”), which was flown from Camden, New South Wales to Norfolk Island (“the Norfolk Island Flight”). The applicant intended to fly from Norfolk Island to the USA to sell the Aerostar to Dodson International however, the Aerostar was detained by Police and CASA upon landing on Norfolk Island.

In a witness statement dated 23 June 2017, Mr Lawlor, a CASA Flying Operations Instructor, raises many concerns about the way in which the flight to Norfolk Island took place and the ability and competence of the applicant to undertake such a flight. He detailed the following matters and said they must be taken into account:

The applicant only held a Private Pilot License, for operations under the Visual Flight Rules (VFR). This license is almost at the bottom of the hierarchy of licenses.

According to the applicant’s logbook, at the time of the flight he had slightly less than 200 hours of total aeronautical experience, of which approximately 80.0 hours was flight time as the pilot in command (PIC) of single engine aeroplanes.

The applicant has never held an instrument rating or any relevant experience operating in aircraft under instrument flight rules or at night. The only instrument flying experience that has been recorded in his logbook is basic instrument flying training, accrued during the training for his Private Pilot License and annotated in his logbook as “BIF” - from the copies of his logbook available to CASA, this amounts to approximately 2.6 hours of logbook time in an aircraft - the time actually practising instrument flying in the air would be somewhat less.

The applicant had not personally flown this route before, or similar type of routes.
There is no evidence in the applicant’s logbook that he has any experience flying over remote areas, featureless terrain or long stretches of open water.

The proposed flight would have involved long overwater stretches with very few potential landing sites should there have been any in-flight emergencies requiring an immediate landing.

The aircraft flown to Norfolk Island possesses the registration of another state, the United States of America (the U.S.).

The applicant did not hold a flight crew license of the aircraft’s state of registry. Under the provisions of the U.S. Federal Aviation Regulations (FARs) he was eligible to fly the aircraft in Australian airspace on the basis of his Australian license, but this would not assist him when he was outside Australian airspace.

According to the applicant’s logbook:

(i) he had no experience as a PIC for operating a complex twin-engine aeroplane;
(ii) he had no experience in operating a complex multi-engine aircraft equipped with an auxiliary fuel system (required for the ferry flight);
(iii) it appears that he had no experience in operating an aircraft equipped with HF radio equipment, that itself was not installed correctly;
(iv) the time between when he received initial training on the PA-60 type on the flight to Norfolk Island was approximately 21 months;
(v) he had no other experience apart from the 4.8 hours Dual instructional time logged in December 2013 as part of his initial training for the PA-60 type. This additional experience could include follow-up or consolidation type training in the period of time just after his initial training, recent experience just prior to his flight to Norfolk Island.
CASA submits that there are several matters of concern in relation to the applicant’s flight to Norfolk Island which “indicate dangerous over-confidence, lack of judgement and a willingness to mislead CASA officers”. Matters of concern raised by CASA relevantly include alleged defects with the Aerostar; the veracity of the applicant’s records; and the level of planning undertaken by the applicant for the journey. CASA submits that combined, the concerns raised demonstrate that the applicant is dangerously overconfident, displays a lack of judgement and demonstrates that the undertaking of the flight by the applicant was “foolhardy”. Each matter is dealt with in turn below...

 
UDB! - but it gets worse  :

..At hearing, Mr Ekinci was questioned about the sufficiency of the applicant’s flight time of 4.8 hours to warrant his PA-60 endorsement. Mr Ekinci stated that he didn’t think it was exceptionally fast as he only needed 4.8 hours before he was satisfied that the applicant was proficient; this is despite the applicant taking 24.5 hours of solo flying to obtain his pilot’s licence.

It was put to Mr Lawlor in cross examination that Mr Ekinci was the best person to comment on the applicant’s flying ability to which he responded, “I think when you factor in the experience of Mr Grima, his qualifications, lack of them in essential areas, I think Mr Ekinci’s faith in Mr Grima was not warranted”; “it was too early to take the training wheels off”. In Mr Lawlor’s view, the minimum period of time that someone ought to be flying before taking a flight such as the Norfolk Island Flight, is “something like 500 hours with a certain mix of experience on different types of aircraft, and on the particular type of aircraft concerned”. He did not believe that 10 hours of experience was sufficient to let a pilot go solo for the first time as “you can’t cover all the contingencies and the manoeuvres and competencies required, to safely send someone solo, in 10 hours”. Mr Lawlor explained that the minimum time required to be a commercial pilot was 150 hours in relation to one sort of course, or 200 hours in relation to another. When asked to reconcile this position with his view that you need at least 500 hours to undertake a flight of the kind that was proposed here (the Norfolk Island Flight), he stated, when someone comes out of a commercial license course, “they’re not really qualified to do much at all”. He described that a pilot who completes a commercial license course typically then undertakes simple activities such as joy flights and scenic flights to build up flying time or will get a job, all of which are very tightly controlled and the pilot does the same thing each day. In comparison, the applicant, according to his logbook, “has not done anything like that before, and then all of a sudden just launches off over the ocean”. Mr Lawlor states that “with 500 hours you’d have a little bit more of an opportunity to have experienced more of what aviation has to offer. It’s not a be-all and end-all, it’s just an approximate point, and other qualifications, I think, would adjust that amount up or down. But at 200 hours or 150 hours, you’re really not qualified to do much at all”.

&..

...Alarmingly, the applicant submits in his supplementary witness statement dated 4 August 2017, that if he was as incompetent as Mr Lawlor would have the Tribunal believe, he would not have safely made it to Norfolk Island. At hearing, the applicant confirmed the sentiment. This statement highlights the applicant’s lack of judgement and overconfidence, and in my mind, is a dangerous attitude for a pilot to display...

   

And then the decision...

62. Additionally, the applicant’s role in the Maryborough Flight is concerning and the evidence regarding the circumstances surrounding the Maryborough Flight is inconsistent. There are many aspects of the flight that should have caused the applicant more concern such as the fuel drums in the aircraft, the late arrival of the Jneid brothers, the lack of clarity about the destination and the police involvement. Even if the applicant was not the pilot in command, his involvement shows a significant lack of judgement. I do not believe that the evidence is sufficient to make any other findings about the applicant’s involvement.

63. Considering all of the above reasons in its entirety, I find that the applicant is not a fit and proper person to hold a pilot’s license.

64. The question that remains is what is the correct regulatory response?

65. It is plain from the evidence, and CASA accepts, that the applicant is young, hard-working and has displayed an eagerness to get ahead in life. He clearly has a passion for flying and has invested a large amount of his time and financial resources with the aim of one day pursuing flying as a livelihood. I have no reason to doubt that the applicant has the necessary psychomotor skills to be a pilot and has a significant amount of flying time of approximately 200 hours. I think that it is also plain that the applicant has not been served well by his Flight Training Organisation. Mr Ekinci issued the applicant with his multi-engine PA-60 endorsement, in circumstances where, according to Mr Lawlor, the applicant did not complete a sufficient amount of flying time to warrant such an endorsement. This however cannot be said to be the fault of the applicant. In regards to CASA’s knowledge of the endorsement, it was up to Mr Ekinci to file the necessary paperwork and notify CASA of the applicant’s endorsements. Additionally, I have little doubt that Mr Ekinci was the one who the applicant looked up to, as his mentor and teacher, to advise him on his flying ability and to guide him on his capabilities. This has no doubt added to the applicant’s overconfidence and lack of judgement about his abilities.

66. Errors that arise out of mistakes or misunderstandings as opposed to intentional misconduct do not necessarily deserve the position of punitive sanctions, but can rather be dealt with by training and/or counselling.

67. I am satisfied that the applicant’s conduct to date is redeemable and as such I consider a lesser regulatory response is appropriate. I note that the applicant has already completed a significant period of suspension. Accordingly, pursuant to section 43(1) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) I set aside the decision under review and substitute a decision in the following terms:

1. The applicant’s multi-engine aeroplane class rating is cancelled pursuant to sub-regulations 269(1)(b) and (d) of the Civil Aviation Regulations 1998 (Cth).
2. The applicant’s private pilot licence - aeroplane category (PPL-A) is suspended until such time as:
a. The applicant undertakes 15 hours of remedial flying training at a Flight Training School acceptable to CASA including a minimum of:
i. cross-country navigation exercises planned at close to minimum reserves, requiring careful pre-flight planning and in-flight monitoring (including calculation of actual ground speed and fuel flow);
ii. unplanned diversions during cross-country navigation exercises given to the pilot whilst airborne, requiring flight to an unfamiliar destination;
iii. in-flight practice emergency sequences with emphasis not only on accurate flying, but also on sensible decision-making with regard to:
I. assessment of the emergency;
II. continuation/termination flight;
III. chosen flight path;
IV. type of approach;
V. preparedness for deterioration of the situation;
VI. distress calls and passenger handling consideration; and

b. CASA receives a written report from the Flight Training School on the standard of the applicant’s conduct as a pilot during the training period including whether his performance met the competency standards specified in the Part 61 Manual of Standards. The report must include all training records and competency standards achieved, and a final recommendation that the applicant is considered ready to undergo a flight test for a PPL-A; and
c. The applicant undertakes and passes the PPL-A flight test under the supervision of a CASA officer, or an examiner approved by CASA in writing; and
d.The applicant undertakes psychological evaluation by a psychologist acceptable to CASA and provides a psychological evaluation report addressing the applicant’s insight into the conduct which led to the making of the reviewable decision and the likelihood of their being a repeat of such conduct.

If ever I have to appear before the AAT on a case of possible CASA embuggerance I want Senior Member A Poljak to adjudicate...  


https://www.google.com.au/url?sa=i&sourc...8484438853

While on this bizarre case it must have been a slow news day as I note that Ironsider has also picked up on the Grima vs CASA tale...  : https://www.theaustralian.com.au/busines...6f513a7db3

Second chance for banned pilot
ROBYN IRONSIDE

A pilot who lost his licence after attempting to fly to the US without a flight plan has won a second chance to return to the skies.

The Civil Aviation Safety Authority cancelled Martin Grima’s private pilot licence in 2016 after determining he was not a fit and proper person to operate an aircraft. The decision followed two incidents — one in which he flew to Norfolk Island with the intention of continuing on to the US, and another where he allegedly piloted a plane to Maryborough, Queensland, with two wanted criminals on board.

A review of the decision by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal was told Mr Grima was detained by police and CASA on Norfolk Island on September 9, 2015, after landing a US-registered Piper Aerostar 600 twin-engine aeroplane. He told authorities he was flying to the US to sell the Aerostar despite having lodged no flight plan for the multisector trip.

CASA submitted there were “several matters of concern in relation to the applicant’s flight to Norfolk Island which indicate ‘dangerous overconfidence, lack of judgment and a willingness to mislead CASA officers’.”

Australian Federal Police officer Daniel Pyle said Mr Grima, now 29, had not told Customs of his intention to leave Australia.

In regards to the Maryborough incident, the tribunal heard Mr Grima was allegedly the pilot of a PA30 Piper twin-engine aircraft that flew from Camden in NSW on September 21, 2015. On board were Michael Salma and brothers Ziad and Rabih Jneid.

At the time, the Jneid brothers were wanted by police in Western Australia for skipping bail, and are now serving prison sentences for drug-related crimes.

The tribunal found that Mr Grima’s evidence about the Maryborough flight and how he came to be involved was “to say the very least, very odd”.

Despite the findings, Ms Poljak set aside CASA’s decision to cancel Mr Grima’s licence and instead imposed a range of orders he would be required to fulfil to regain his licence.

They included a minimum of 15-hours remedial flying training, a CASA-supervised flight test, and a psychological evaluation.

“It is plain from the evidence, and CASA accepts, that the applicant is young, hard-working and has displayed an eagerness to get ahead in life,” read Ms Poljak’s ruling.

“He clearly has a passion for flying and has invested a large amount of his time and financial resources with the aim of one day pursuing flying as a livelihood.”

Mr Grima and CASA declined to comment on the ruling.

 

MTF...P2