[Peetwo]

Embuggerance according to Carmody..Oliver..err McComic   
(My head hurts... )

Listen up Aviation House inhabitants, a word or two from the Ferryman...

Via Domestic Accidents thread: 

Without prejudice; (or even a dog in the fight).

P2 – “Interesting that Comardy is sitting in the position of the decision maker?

It is to hoped that the position ‘decision maker’ (Hoods old job) is vacant; if so, it will one of the very best decisions Carmody ever made; if not ‘the’ best.

P2 – “Will this now be SOP for all 'show cause' enforcement actions or has Carmody sacked anyone else who can make such decisions?”

Dunno mate; but for Carmody’s sake, lets hope he is not basing his decisions on the ‘Enforcement manual’; unless of course he has signed it and now owns it as his very own. I wonder how a serious legal challenge would fare against any ‘action’ taken against a person based on that dreadful ‘McConvict’ drafted section. I reckon that would be ‘interesting’.

Seventeen days after the crash, CASA acting chief executive Shane Carmody wrote to Mr Rhoades to say his air operator’s certificate was suspended immediately because, as chief pilot and business owner, he had allowed flying that “contributes to or results in a serious and imminent risk to air safety”.

All a bit too ‘subjective’ for my taste. I’d expect most reading here have operated in ‘turbulent’ conditions, most have probably operated passenger flights in aircraft without a cockpit door; done ‘joy flights’ and ‘scenic flights’ or even back in the day, ‘commuter’ flights. How would you like a beer in the fridge for every time you’d heard a passenger ‘scream’ or similar when you hit the bumpy bits; or when you level off and come back to cruise power, or ‘crank it over a bit’ so folk can see what they came to see? It is, IMO perfectly understandable that folk are ‘nervous’ when confronted with a tiny, one engine aircraft, a stranger for a pilot and all ‘crammed’ into the small area allotted. The noises (engine and airflow) all perfectly acceptable to the ‘pilot’ heighten sensitivity, and any ‘abrupt’ change of ‘state’ increases the tension level. It is a fair bet that at least one of three passengers in a C172 just did not want to be there anyway. In defence of this pilot, it would be reasonable to argue that unless one of the passengers was an accredited pilot, capable of ‘judging’ the manner in which the flight was handled; then hearsay evidence from passengers is not only worthless, but prejudicial. If this fellah has been ‘acting the goat’; then by all means, string him up, after proof beyond reasonable is accepted by the court.  

"The flight, including the wail of the stall warning horn, is recorded in a video taken by a passenger and recovered by police."

These Qld CASA chaps do seem to like their ‘video’ evidence; the Quadrio matter is not forgotten and there may be a line of defence in those ‘images’ and recordings of ‘passengers squealing’.

Mr Carmody wrote that the video showed Mr Woodall flying at 150-200 feet; risky, because if something went wrong such as engine failure, “he would have only minimal altitude, and therefore (minimal) time, to safely manage the upset”.

Precautionary search? Seems like a very ‘safe’ precaution to landing ‘on the beach’. I would say that not to do so was certainly a risk. The procedure should be cast in stone in the company operations manual; that would be mandatory. Accepted or ‘approved’ by CASA is academic as CASA approve the Air Operators Certificate and by extension – the operations as writ. Had this fellah not done a PS and had an event on the ‘strip’ then crucifixion would be in order. Again the intent to be unsafe can be discredited, a saving of an additional five or perhaps six minutes operating costs could be avoided by ‘skipping’ the PS. So it comes back to just what is ‘unsafe’ and who is making the judgement.

Mr Carmody criticised what he called “aerobatic manoeuvres”, saying the recording “includes an audible ‘squeal’ from a passenger at the beginning of the abrupt pitch inputs”. The CASA chief said Mr Woodall should have kept up his airspeed after the engine failed, not risked a stall by banking hard, and landed on water if necessary. He alleged the plane’s fuel supply might have been contaminated by debris.

Try to define ‘aerobatic’ in this context. Provided the aircraft was not operated outside of the specified envelope, then a steep turn, or whatever is quite legal. A badly executed ‘manoeuvre’ may demonstrate a lack of skill and/or judgement; but can it be considered ‘dangerous’ without the benefit of a 'G' meter record? It is all very well to say Mr Woodall ‘should’ have done this or that after the event, indeed most pilots who have been involved in any sort of ‘event’ can recount exactly what they ‘should’ have done; and would do, if it ever happens again. I wonder if CASA ever mandated a training requirement, specific to that beach area, dedicated to establishing ‘best practice’ in the event of an engine failure, at low level on the go-around after the precautionary search? If not why not, surely that would be ‘proper’ oversight of the safety of the operations approved by CASA.

Perhaps this was a cowboy operation; perhaps not. But consider all the evidence, before pronouncing a sentence.

When we teach someone to fly – what is the noise heard during the flare and touch down? What is the purpose of that noise? Is it absolutely safe to slow the aircraft down to stall warning speed? What does the pilot have at his ready disposal to maintain the speed at which the warning occurs?

Nope, no quarrel with CASA shutting down a rogue, non at all; provided they have got all the ducks lined up and back ‘em up with proof, beyond reasonable doubt; and, perhaps adjust their thinking toward ‘prevention’ rather than prosecution.

My two bob for its worth.

Toot toot.

Then I noticed today an update to the FF attempted embuggerance of the 2013 aviation Darwin award nominee, via the other Aunty... :

Ultralight crash survivor cries poor after four-year legal 'saga' since 2013 ordeal

By Sallese Gibson and James Dunlevie
Updated about 8 hours ago Tue 14 Mar 2017, 11:50am

Photo: Shayd Hector has said he has exhausted his finances due to the long-running case. (ABC News: Sallese Gibson)

A pilot who ditched his ultralight plane into Bass Strait and survived with his passenger by clutching on to air mattresses has said he is broke after 11 court appearances since the event.
Shayd Hector, 27, was flying the Thruster ultralight plane from Bridport in Tasmania's north to Flinders Island when engine trouble forced him to ditch into the sea in October that year.

Photo: The Thruster ultralight that ditched into Bass Strait (Supplied)

Hector and passenger Joel Nelson, both from Newcastle, managed to survive the impact and swim out from the plane, which had flipped after hitting the sea.
"I told my passenger to brace ourselves, seat belts off and get ready, doors open," Hector told media once back on dry land.

The pair clung to air mattresses and said they had feared shark attacks due to the fact they were bleeding from cuts and abrasions sustained in the crash.

Hector's flying instructor described his former student and his passenger as "very, very lucky" and said as far as he was aware "it's the first saving of anybody from an aircraft ditching in Bass Strait ever since the first aeroplanes".

Hector was charged with reckless operation of an aircraft, flying without a licence and piloting an aircraft after having consumed alcohol within eight hours before departure.
He pleaded guilty to reckless operation of an aircraft, with the other charges were withdrawn. After failing to appear at sentencing in January this year and arrest warrant was issued for him.

'Saga' needs to be resolved, magistrate says

Hector later presented to police and travelled to Launceston for today's sentencing where he told the Magistrate's Court he was broke after nearly four years of legal proceedings.

Defence lawyer Evan Hughes told the court he had only recently taken on Hector's case, after he had exhausted all funds on previous legal representation.

Mr Hughes said he was not in a position to advance the matter, as Hector's application for LegalAid had been refused and an appeal was still pending.

Magistrate Sharon Cure said the case as "a bit of a saga", which was still unresolved after 11 court appearances.

"It's becoming very old," Ms Cure told the court. "It's four years after the event. It makes things very difficult."

Ms Cure adjourned the case until May.

And off the UP Lead Balloon (aka Creampuff) hits the nail on the head with this sorry tale of attempted embuggerance... :

Lead Balloon

As this wends its way to the almost inevitable slap on the wrist for the offence to which the accused has pled guilty, we should ask: What will have been achieved?


Will we all decide to fly an ultralight, unlicensed, across the Bass Strait with an inflatable 'lilo' as emergency floatation equipment and a few drinks under our belts in the previous 8 hours? Nope.

Will the people with a propensity to fly an ultralight, unlicensed, across the Bass Strait with an inflatable 'lilo' as emergency floatation equipment and a few drinks under their belts in the previous 8 hours, decide not to do so? Nope.

Other than the occasional amusing headline, what will have been achieved?

 
No further comment required me thinks...  
MTF...P2

Ps Embuggerance manual tracking update: Download preface.pdf

It would appear that J Mac is still the real DAS/CEO at Aviation House - UDB!