Darwin award candidates and CASA fodder
Join Date: May 2010
Location: More than 300km from SY, Australia
Posts: 817
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
R44's attract all sorts
The following in a West Australian Court bears a quiet read:
CALANDRA -v- CIVIL AVIATION SAFETY AUTHORITY [2013] WASC 411 (18 November 2013)
And within the Judges report at 101, the following is noted about the casa "experts..."
In fact [this is about a R44] and a search for Roger Alder on the casa site shows:
CALANDRA -v- CIVIL AVIATION SAFETY AUTHORITY [2013] WASC 411 (18 November 2013)
And within the Judges report at 101, the following is noted about the casa "experts..."
101 Mr Alder was an expert aviation witness called on behalf of the prosecution. He was an in-house employee of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority and called to express his expert views.
The learned magistrate was rather kind in his remarks towards Alder, observing at par 45 that Mr Alder had at times 'confused his role'. By that he presumably meant Mr Alder had confused his role by not behaving independently as an expert witness and instead seeking to express partisan views to advance the case of the prosecution.
102 At par 45, the learned magistrate effectively negated the impact of Mr Alder's evidence by concluding 'there is significant commonality with Mr Pfeiffer's evidence'. Mr Pfeiffer was the expert aircraft (helicopter) engineer witness called at trial on behalf of the appellant.
103 The reasons therefore show Mr Alder's partisan expert evidence was only used in circumstances where it was in harmony with the evidence of the defendant's expert. That accords with my independent review of how Mr Alder's evidence ought to be used.
104 In those circumstances, I assess it as safe to conclude Mr Alder's participation in the trial, in the end, delivered no prejudice to Mr Calandra. In the future, however, it should be said in firm terms that any practice of calling demonstrably partisan in-house experts as prosecution witnesses is both unsatisfactory and unacceptable.
The learned magistrate was rather kind in his remarks towards Alder, observing at par 45 that Mr Alder had at times 'confused his role'. By that he presumably meant Mr Alder had confused his role by not behaving independently as an expert witness and instead seeking to express partisan views to advance the case of the prosecution.
102 At par 45, the learned magistrate effectively negated the impact of Mr Alder's evidence by concluding 'there is significant commonality with Mr Pfeiffer's evidence'. Mr Pfeiffer was the expert aircraft (helicopter) engineer witness called at trial on behalf of the appellant.
103 The reasons therefore show Mr Alder's partisan expert evidence was only used in circumstances where it was in harmony with the evidence of the defendant's expert. That accords with my independent review of how Mr Alder's evidence ought to be used.
104 In those circumstances, I assess it as safe to conclude Mr Alder's participation in the trial, in the end, delivered no prejudice to Mr Calandra. In the future, however, it should be said in firm terms that any practice of calling demonstrably partisan in-house experts as prosecution witnesses is both unsatisfactory and unacceptable.
Why do I like working at CASA?
Roger Alder Senior Systems / Propulsion Engineer
Airworthiness and engineering
I feel I can contribute to air safety.
Roger Alder Senior Systems / Propulsion Engineer
Airworthiness and engineering
I feel I can contribute to air safety.
In The Quadrio case it wasn't even certain that he was the pilot and the published video was constructed from video over a number of flights.
In fact, a person ( and experienced helo. pilot) who was so incensed at the CASA treatment, that he personally funded a forensic examination of the "Quadrio" video. The forensic lab that did the work does most of the WA Police forensic work.
A number of things were established beyond reasonable doubt --- or if that is not the right term, established to a criminal evidence standard.
(1) It was a composite video.
(2) At least one pilot was NOT John Quadrio.
(3) No segment of the video established John Quadrio as one of the pilots.
Sadly, by the time this information was available, the case had been heard by the AAT.
Tootle pip!!
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Lisbon
Posts: 995
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks UITA, another 'Wodger' to add to he list of CAsA people not to be added to the 2014 IOS's Xmas card list.
Leadsled, it was a crying shame that JQ didn't take it all the way and then some. He had a few things going for him in his defence And at least he had better taste in Chopper colours!!
Leadsled, it was a crying shame that JQ didn't take it all the way and then some. He had a few things going for him in his defence And at least he had better taste in Chopper colours!!
So why didn’t Mr Quadrio merely assert that he’d never flown the helicopter the subject of the video, or had never flown a helicopter in the manner suggested by the video?
Answer: Because he’s honest.
The ‘you can’t prove it was him’ line is therefore interesting but irrelevant.
The important analysis is the analysis that seems to show that the video provides an exaggerated and therefore misleading impression of the extent of the angles of bank, and also seems to show a flock of birds. It is very unfortunate for Mr Quadrio that that analysis was conducted after, rather than before or during, the AAT hearing.
Answer: Because he’s honest.
The ‘you can’t prove it was him’ line is therefore interesting but irrelevant.
The important analysis is the analysis that seems to show that the video provides an exaggerated and therefore misleading impression of the extent of the angles of bank, and also seems to show a flock of birds. It is very unfortunate for Mr Quadrio that that analysis was conducted after, rather than before or during, the AAT hearing.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: More than 300km from SY, Australia
Posts: 817
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quadrio
If you all would like to see the video that convicted JQ, here it is:
The dash is shown and I would like to know from all you armchair specialists:
1. How the angles-of-bank purported in the video, can occur at 20" manifold and 60KTS.
2. Where the birds are and how casa missed them [Clue around 32secs], claiming "...they are defects in the videos...";
By the way, the R44 takes off and lands in a southerly direction.
3. Anyone like to give the wind conditions for the day??
The dash is shown and I would like to know from all you armchair specialists:
1. How the angles-of-bank purported in the video, can occur at 20" manifold and 60KTS.
2. Where the birds are and how casa missed them [Clue around 32secs], claiming "...they are defects in the videos...";
By the way, the R44 takes off and lands in a southerly direction.
3. Anyone like to give the wind conditions for the day??
That's the first time I've seen that, and I'm pretty surprised there are people here sticking up for him. That's some pretty loose flying in a SE piston over water....
I ain't any sort of expert but I am totally flabbergasted that this piece of ****ty video taken by some vocal passenger could cause a bloke so much grief. Totally gobsmacked even!
I am not a heli pilot but to me it looks like nothing more than normal bank angles exaggerated by uncoordinated camera angles. There is nothing that shows pilot, registration, date or time and no real evidence of any misdemeanor.
I am not a heli pilot but to me it looks like nothing more than normal bank angles exaggerated by uncoordinated camera angles. There is nothing that shows pilot, registration, date or time and no real evidence of any misdemeanor.
So, for the posters who, unlike Aussie Bob, are heli pilots and experts, what does the video suggest about the pilot/s of the helo/s in the composite doctored video (whoever the pilot/s may have been)?
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 123
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
expert witnesses
Hey Creamie,
Can you explain the background to:
I would have thought that it was perfectly normal for CASA to call inspectors as witnesses and for them to give testimony about what they thought was normal, acceptable, reasonable, etc or the alternatives. Am I missing something here?
Can you explain the background to:
...any practice of calling demonstrably partisan in-house experts as prosecution witnesses is both unsatisfactory and unacceptable.
perfectly normal for CASA to call inspectors as witnesses
Yes, it’s very common for officers/employees of the agency which made the regulatory decision to appear as witnesses in the AAT if there is a review of the decision, and as witnesses for the prosecution in a prosecution under the legislation administered by the agency.
These officers/employees can have two related but very different roles.
The first is to be witnesses of fact: What actually happened, when?
The second is to be witnesses of opinion.
Normally evidence of someone’s opinion is inadmissible. However, an exception is the opinion of an independent expert in the subject matter of something relevant to the review/claim/prosecution.
Would this injury result in a probability of seizures greater than that in the normal population? What are the likely causes of a sudden increase in the EGT of a single cylinder of a normally aspirated IO520?
The expert must express an independent opinion about the technical/specialist subject matter, not be an advocate for the decision made by the regulator or the guilt of the defendant.
There seems to be a spate of CASA witnesses called to give opinion evidence but are considered by the Court/AAT to be partisan rather than independent.
These officers/employees can have two related but very different roles.
The first is to be witnesses of fact: What actually happened, when?
The second is to be witnesses of opinion.
Normally evidence of someone’s opinion is inadmissible. However, an exception is the opinion of an independent expert in the subject matter of something relevant to the review/claim/prosecution.
Would this injury result in a probability of seizures greater than that in the normal population? What are the likely causes of a sudden increase in the EGT of a single cylinder of a normally aspirated IO520?
The expert must express an independent opinion about the technical/specialist subject matter, not be an advocate for the decision made by the regulator or the guilt of the defendant.
There seems to be a spate of CASA witnesses called to give opinion evidence but are considered by the Court/AAT to be partisan rather than independent.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: More than 300km from SY, Australia
Posts: 817
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
casa and the prosecution of pilots
Maybe the cause of the turn, is as below - make up your own mind:
Exhibit E at 32 seconds |Those Damn Birds - There they are again!!
A question [again]:
How can, at the power settings [PAT???] shown, allow more than a gentle rate 1 turn???
Exhibit E at 32 seconds |Those Damn Birds - There they are again!!
A question [again]:
How can, at the power settings [PAT???] shown, allow more than a gentle rate 1 turn???
Last edited by Up-into-the-air; 21st Jan 2014 at 04:46.
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Sydney
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When people are called into a case as an EXPERT witness, their role is to advise the court......not to side with either party! This is a fact often lost on participants at court when called in that capacity and it is one of the main reasons that CASA often loses cases when they call their own to provide expert testimony. Also often lost is the term EXPERT; just being employed in a particular industry DOES NOT qualify one as an expert....in the medical fraternity, there is a very specific definition that is often lost on other industries!
As for the question about conducting a steep turn in a helicopter at 21" MAP......it is very likely and indeed possible due to the application of 'other' forces such as aft cyclic.
IMHO, whoever was flying that machine deserved to have his licence suspended although it is not apparent that that person was JQ unless someone fingered him for the job! Those types of manoeuvres, low level and over water, are unacceptable on a fare paying passenger (read Charter) flight!
As for the question about conducting a steep turn in a helicopter at 21" MAP......it is very likely and indeed possible due to the application of 'other' forces such as aft cyclic.
IMHO, whoever was flying that machine deserved to have his licence suspended although it is not apparent that that person was JQ unless someone fingered him for the job! Those types of manoeuvres, low level and over water, are unacceptable on a fare paying passenger (read Charter) flight!
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Australasia
Posts: 362
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
power question
I think the problem in analysing (or purporting to analyse) the power setting "data", such as:
or
is moot when the continuity and clarity of the "data" is particularly suspect and the interactions of rotor (aero)dynamics and the engine governor behaviour is assuredly complex.
Stay Alive,
Simple, they can't
As for the question about conducting a steep turn in a helicopter at 21" MAP......it is very likely and indeed possible due to the application of 'other' forces such as aft cyclic.
Stay Alive,
No worries, scubba.
On the technical issues, I thought the upshot of the post-AAT decision analysis of the video was that the apparent steepness of the turns was an optical illusion, mainly due to the curve of the strip at the centre of the canopy bubble?
Does anyone have Mr Phelan’s article in convenient reach?
On the technical issues, I thought the upshot of the post-AAT decision analysis of the video was that the apparent steepness of the turns was an optical illusion, mainly due to the curve of the strip at the centre of the canopy bubble?
Does anyone have Mr Phelan’s article in convenient reach?