The
Quadrio case gets another hit in the ekinci matter.
In Quadrio and Civil Aviation Safety Authority [2011] AATA 709 the Tribunal observed that it is possible to say that a fit and proper pilot is one who has an appreciation of the statutory responsibilities and one who discharges them.
The Tribunal observed that:
17. “It is not open to a pilot, a fortiori a commercial pilot, to determine which rules ought to be obeyed. And it is not open to a pilot to ignore the manufacturer’s recommendations regarding performance. ...”
In Quadrio the Tribunal [at 69] stated: “In determining whether [the applicant] is a fit and proper person we are not concerned to enquire into [the applicant’s] competence. On the evidence it would appear that [the applicant] is a technically competent pilot.”
The Tribunal found there, as does the Tribunal in this matter, that what is most important is the applicant’s attitude to compliance with the civil aviation regulatory regime.
In fact:
A. casa never identified the pilot who actually flew - Quadrio denies he was the pilot of the "offending flight" Exhibit "E";
B. casa never established that the helicopter was flown outside normal operating standards [Robinson did not concur with casa's view, neither did their expert witness at the Criminal charges that CDPP declined to prosecute in Cairns] and
C. casa did not provide all the evidence in order that Quadrio could defend himself properly.