An aviation researcher, writer, aviation participant, pilot & agricultural researcher. Author of over 35 scientific publications world wide.


Good reads

Oil Prices


John Quadrio

Brief about the Quadrio affair [ Published on: Mar 2, 2013 @ 11:26]:

John Quadrio lost his helicopter licence following the publication of a YouTube video in October 2008 and despite maintaining his innocence in the matter and having a criminal case being withdrawn by the CDPP, still has not had his licence re-validated four years later.


Note: 22nd June 2015 where CASA fail to assist the AAT


He faced up to:

1. A YouTube video made by a known criminal [“YouTube poster”] and up-loaded on/ about 6th October 2008 and as a basis for a casa prosecution for dangerous flying, facing 5 years in jail;

2. What is the relationship between the Investigator, the FOI and the Chief pilot??? And “YouTube poster”.

3. The exhibit video [E] that could not have been made on the alleged day;

4. From the Court and AAT evidence there appears to be at least three video versions of the event.

5. Pieces are missing from the video [“E”], used as the prime evidence [1:38 minutes long];

6. A description of the YouTube video has the final frame with a different ending than Video “E”;

7. The evidence shows four flights of birds, Video “E”, which would have been seen by a pilot and required “avoidance action”.

Casa denies the presence of any birds:

8. The original YouTube video was not supplied by CASA to John despite a series of subpoenas and directions by the AAT to CASA;

9. An allegation that the YouTube videos “..had been left behind in Canberra…”, when in fact, the CASA investigator had them in his bag at the AAT hearing;

10. There is a current ATSB inquiry into this accident of a squirrel, which crashed in October 2011 80 km north of Rockhampton killing two people.and the relationship of the CP and the Squirrel’s pilot;

11. Authorisation of a CP by the same Flight Operations Inspector [FOI] as the FOI who prosecuted JQ;

12. An un-declared “break-in” into John’s employer’s premises on 13th December 2008, some 5 days before the accusations were made against JQ – the information was struck out of the AAT evidence;

13. JQ was never shown by CASA, “The YouTube video”;

14. The recording [18th December 2008] of the JQ/CASA/CP/FOI interview, which was denied later by casa;

15. A record of Interview by the FOI with “YouTube poster”, which made promises that “There will be no prosecution against you…”;

16. No corroboration of information by casa investigator, FOI and any independent witnesses [except “YouTube poster”’s friend The CASA investigator could not find the “passengers” in the alleged incident;

17. A successful attempt by the casa investigator to influence the statement by another casa FOI;

18. No correct collection by the casa FOI or investigator of the videos to ensure a proper “chain of custody”;

19. A casa FOI who “was not available” for the CDPP prosecution and the alternate person not agreeing;

20. The “unavailable” FOI working in Tasmania at the time required for the hearing and subsequently leaving CASA;

21. A charge by the CDPP being withdrawn at the last moment and the charges against JQ being formally dismissed:

There are a number of serious and un-answered questions in this [at 15th August 2012]:

Before examining the anomalies noted in the case against John, the clarification of the following points is required:

1. Why was the investigation carried out in the way it was: to incriminate the pilot;
2. Why CASA continued with a prosecution using a “Show Cause” notice and using the same “evidence” as before;
3. This left John’s only avenue, although the CDPP case was dismissed, as an appeal to the AAT;
4. The AAT upheld CASA’s findings, taking the word of a known [poster on YouTube] criminal [7 pages of charges] and
5. Knowing that evidence had not been provided to JQ, despite the AAT on more than one occasion directing CASA to supply the information;
6. Through all this process, CASA have used statements, with dubious provenance;

John still does not:

 Have his licence conditions re-instated;
 Has been unable to earn an income as a pilot for almost four years and
 Has lost the value of his licence.