Considering the amount of back door whispering CASA do;
Jay-D McLean Also, it's not libellous defamation if it is true, or even if you believe it to be true. Certainly, there is no expectation that a court must first rule something to be true before it can be said publically. This is an unusual mix of bullying, complete ignorance of tort law and extremely poor strategy. These people definitely belong in government.
No doubt the legal eagles would be able to fund another year of schooling for the kids from that argument, it is after all, what they do – and welcome to it. Myself, I like to look a bit deeper than endless bickering over academic matters. For a start, I’d like to know why the engine quit; ATSB have not offered any explanation (far as I’m aware). It was the root cause of the accident. Where it quit was probably (looking at the video) at the very worst possible place. I can’t see where the pilot had many options – but I wasn’t there and it is very difficult, very difficult indeed, to draw any ‘solid’ conclusions as to what else could have/should have been done. Armchair flying is fraught with peril. We can hope the ATSB provide definitive data – regarding the actual height and airspeed at the time of the engine failure. This would provide tangible data for speculation – given a weight, configuration, glide speed, glide ratio, wind component, based on the ambient conditions matrix. At least then an informed appraisal of exactly what options the pilot had could be made. Then, perhaps a safety determination can be made as to developing a better system for preventing a reoccurrence of same.
The slightly hysterical CASA response and blood curdling threats are, to say the least, counterproductive, uninformed, inflammatory and stand in the way of determining a balanced safety oriented result. The Crawford Hissy O’gram will do more harm to the diminished CASA reputation than good; and, it also highlights exactly why many in the industry will not speak out against the actions of the regulator. The response to the Crawford letter also, very deftly highlights exactly why CASA is distrusted; if the CAA or the FAA say an operation is unsound; the majority of operators in the UK or the USA will accept that due process has been followed and a balanced, safety based course of action has been take. Not so with a CASA ruling – the first thoughts are always the same; as reflected in the published comments.
Will CASA ever become a responsible, honest, model regulator? That; is a question unanswered now for thirty long, weary years.
![[Image: Untitled%2B2.jpg]](https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Cm_HajunJBQ/Vuc7mMGoOSI/AAAAAAAAISU/PLJPRoRPvKUtliZvp7KwgHIZKQm9J3TpQ/s1600/Untitled%2B2.jpg)
Jay-D McLean Also, it's not libellous defamation if it is true, or even if you believe it to be true. Certainly, there is no expectation that a court must first rule something to be true before it can be said publically. This is an unusual mix of bullying, complete ignorance of tort law and extremely poor strategy. These people definitely belong in government.
No doubt the legal eagles would be able to fund another year of schooling for the kids from that argument, it is after all, what they do – and welcome to it. Myself, I like to look a bit deeper than endless bickering over academic matters. For a start, I’d like to know why the engine quit; ATSB have not offered any explanation (far as I’m aware). It was the root cause of the accident. Where it quit was probably (looking at the video) at the very worst possible place. I can’t see where the pilot had many options – but I wasn’t there and it is very difficult, very difficult indeed, to draw any ‘solid’ conclusions as to what else could have/should have been done. Armchair flying is fraught with peril. We can hope the ATSB provide definitive data – regarding the actual height and airspeed at the time of the engine failure. This would provide tangible data for speculation – given a weight, configuration, glide speed, glide ratio, wind component, based on the ambient conditions matrix. At least then an informed appraisal of exactly what options the pilot had could be made. Then, perhaps a safety determination can be made as to developing a better system for preventing a reoccurrence of same.
The slightly hysterical CASA response and blood curdling threats are, to say the least, counterproductive, uninformed, inflammatory and stand in the way of determining a balanced safety oriented result. The Crawford Hissy O’gram will do more harm to the diminished CASA reputation than good; and, it also highlights exactly why many in the industry will not speak out against the actions of the regulator. The response to the Crawford letter also, very deftly highlights exactly why CASA is distrusted; if the CAA or the FAA say an operation is unsound; the majority of operators in the UK or the USA will accept that due process has been followed and a balanced, safety based course of action has been take. Not so with a CASA ruling – the first thoughts are always the same; as reflected in the published comments.
Will CASA ever become a responsible, honest, model regulator? That; is a question unanswered now for thirty long, weary years.