Polar down the drain?

[Continental-520]

Have heard a rumour that Polar aviation based in Port Hedland/Newman have come to grief and have had ceased operations as of this week sometime...

Any news?


520

[bowelshift]

According to ABC Radio - Radio National - yesterday, yes. CASA representative was interviewed, claiming breach of assortment of safety issues (what would you do with life jackets over the desert anyway!?) and pilot training issues and stuff.

Have to find out if we need to get a raincheck on the charter we booked for next week.

[PRD]

http://www.casa.gov.au/hotopics/action/polar.htm

[alidad]

Unfortunate news for the pilots (best of luck moving on) but GOOD news for the industry- bye bye BUTHEAD; it should have happened years ago.
Well done CASA.

[Continental-520]

Well, that's the end of an era then.

Anyone know what "Buthead's " :ok: intentions are?

Heard he may be buying/leasing another company's AOC...?


520.

[Woomera]

Heard he may be buying/leasing another company's AOC

I'd like to see that?? NOT.

[PennyBenjamin]

This is a typically cynical and incorrect stream of this most reputable of gossip forums. As with most gripes on this site, it sounds more like a conversation in a hair dressing salon than a legitimate forum. It is about time some of you guys woke up and realised that the reason you are not in the airlines and thus in such a GA forum is because of your cynical and bitter attitudes.

I know the Polar guys well and they are back in the air with their own AOC. From all who know him Clark Butson is a great bloke and very widely respected, maybe Alidad has a tall poppy syndrome he would like to address.

From what the evidence available on the case suggests CASA victimised and blackmaled polar and thus they had to fight for their survival. I hope they fight hard and beat CASA all the way back to Canberra, and I will be putting my resume in with them when i become qualified since it is inspiring to see a company with enough backbone to take on the over-powered legislators.

Here's to enjoying your flying, supporting your colleagues in your own and in different companies and a big thumbs down to the cynicism and jeleously to which this website thrives. Or as Richard Prior once put it 'Have a coke and smile and shut the *%$" up!!!

[slice]

YOU ARE FULL OF IT PAL!!. You have registered today (14th Feb) but over many years POLAR have broken every rule imaginable to their commercial advantage. Try PD-BM vv night VFR freight charter overloaded pilot nil IFR rating for a start. It is all documented in previous CASA action - no rumour, just fact. Ask anyone involved with aviation in the Pilbara - what they have gotten away with is, quite frankly, Staggering! If you know the Owner you are either incredibly naive or just his stooge - but you are fooling nobody. As for the 'over-powered' regulator who blackmails and vitimises operators - well do tell how exactly have they been blackmailed and/or vitimised?? CASA deserves to be criticised often but in THIS CASE a Panzer division in the blitzkrieg would be about the right amount of regulatory action for this operator.

[swh]

slice,

You talking freight or pax PD-BRM?

?

[exmexican]

Armed with a very persuasive QC and more front than Myer, Uncle Clark is back! You only have to look at his face to realise he's taken bigger punches than this and bounced back. It is, however, amazing that it took CASA this long to act against the Marlon Brando of GA. "What're you rebellin' against Johnnie?", "What you got" Go you good thing, go!

[slice]

Freight (in a single) - as far as I know!?! Don't know many pax that would want to travel at 3 am.

[exmexican]

Travel at 3am for a bottle of scotch of or slab of cans? You'd be surprised at the standby queue.

[Woomera]

PennyBenjamin

Your enthiusastic support for the subject operator and their rights are to be applauded, however as you yourself reveal that you are not yet qualified, it hard for us to take you and your diatribe seriously. Especially given that you seem to have registered here specifically to raise your point.

If you have direct personal experience of suggests CASA victimised and blackmaled (sic) polar and thus they had to fight for their survival at this stage of your career we might be driven suggest you consider another.

The publicly known facts are;

Polar Aviation Pty Ltd
Cancellation of Air Operators CertificateAir Operators Certificate W073061 cancelled from 31 January 2005

Reason
A show cause notice was issued to Polar Aviation Pty Ltd in July 2004 asking why its air operators certificate should not be cancelled or suspended. After carefully considering all available evidence - including a written response to the show cause notice, a meeting held between the operator and CASA and a special audit of the operator's bases - CASA is satisfied grounds exist to cancel the certificate.

The facts and circumstances demonstrate Polar Aviation on many occasions over an extensive period of time did not comply with requirements of the Civil Aviation Act and Civil Aviation Regulations. The operator did not take all reasonable steps to ensure all activities were done with reasonable care and diligence and did not maintain an appropriate organisation with appropriately qualified personnel and a sound and effective management structure.

Issues identified by CASA included the conduct of flight operations, maintenance of aircraft and a lack of a safety culture and systems.

On 11 February 2005, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal extended Polar Aviation Pty Ltd's AOC until the hearing of the application for review of CASA's decision to cancel the AOC.

Due process is in train under the new enforcement regulations, Polar are flying on their own AOC until such time as the issues and future actions are finally determined by the AAT.

Polar, under the new enforcement regulations are fully entitled to and have taken the case to the AAT for determination by them.

That the AAT has allowed that they may continue to operate does not mean that the AAT has made a determination as to the validity of the actions of CASA, nor that Polar does not have a case to answer.

It simply means that the new enforcement regs are working to allow the benefit of the doubt to Polar, who may continue to operate, until they, the AAT, can properly consider all of the evidence and make their finding.

CASA are operating in a new regulatory environment and are fully aware that any and all of their actions are liable to this intense form of scrutiny. It should be assumed therefore that they do not act frivolously.

FYI it is not possible nor should it be, to borrow or lease an AOC, to be able to do so would make a mockery of the reason for their issue.

The Friday AAT hearing transcripts will not be available for a bit but I am sure would be educational for you.

Perhaps then;
when i become qualified since it is inspiring to see a company with enough backbone to take on the over-powered legislators. you and we might become better informed on the obligations we incur when we seek to transport the travelling public.

You see, and it might be a disappointment to you, but, it's got not much to do at all with just being a pilot.

[Sheepdog]

Hear hear! the bloke is a has been cowboy. In these days safety awareness there is no room for his type .

[swh]

Slice,

Under CASR part 136 freight will be aerial work http://rrp.casa.gov.au/casrcreate/136.asp, and a freight only operator will not need an AOC, just an OC. I know some parts of CASA view night freight as aerial work as the risk assessment has been done for part 136.

I dont think the allegations you raised would be the reason why, and woud be fool hardy to make any allegation regarding any operator on here unless you are willing to use your real name so that they can take you to court for liable at a later stage.

Think what Woomera has said is all anyone can say with fact, anything else you will need to wait for the AAT to complete its due process.

Many in our industry are quick to forget that every individual or organisation has a right to natural justice, and we should preface any suggested activity of an individual or organisation as an allegation. What is posted here is not a balanced argument, no cross examination, no experts, and no decision from a court.


:rolleyes:

[Frank Burden]

On the AOC v OC issue, I have heard two different views. The first is that they will be two very different processes with the OC being far less onerous and issued within a very short period of time after application assuming all appropriate information is included when submitted. The other view is that the AOC and OC will be virtually the same and the name only changes to show what type of operation that is being conducted. View?

[Sunfish]

Natural Justice? Tell that to Christine Rau and Whatsisname Habib. Whoops of topic!

[flyingmouse]

Whatsisname Habib would probably reply

"fully sik maaate you leh, they took me passport away... homo god !

[JSM]

http://www.abc.net.au/northwestwa/news/200502/s1302347.htm

:ok: :ok: :ok: :ok: :ok:

[Creampuff]

Woomera is correct on the AOC issue. The inaccurate and irresponsible twaddle being peddled by people who should know better on another website will hopefully be corrected by that Association’s President. Or at least it should made clear that the people are speaking in their personal capacity and their views do not represent the views of the Association.

Subsection 27(8) of the Civil Aviation Act says:An AOC is not transferable.[my bolding]

When people say they have “bought” an AOC, what they usually mean is that they have purchased a controlling interest in a corporate entity which owns an AOC. In a case like this, the AOC continues to be owned by the same corporate entity. However, CASA will be all over it like a rash, to find out whether the new controllers and their key personnel, procedures etc comply with the regulatory requirements. If they don’t, CASA will suspend or cancel the AOC.

If you’re the holder of an AOC and considering “lending it” to someone, that is, letting them operate under the authority of your AOC, watch out:

CAO 82.0 subsection 3 imposes the following conditions on all AOCs authorising charter or RPT:3 CONDITIONS RELATING TO “BORROWED” CERTIFICATES

3.1 Each certificate authorising charter or regular public transport operations is subject to the condition that its holder (“the AOC holder”) must not, without the prior written approval of CASA, enter into an arrangement with a person whose certificate is suspended or cancelled (“the other person”) under which
the AOC holder agrees:

(a) to use, in any operation covered by the AOC holder’s certificate, any aircraft that the other person was authorised to operate under the certificate that is suspended or cancelled; or

(b) to use, in connection with any operation covered by the AOC holder’s certificate, any person employed or engaged by, or otherwise working for, the other person in connection with any operation covered by the certificate that is suspended or cancelled; or

(c) to conduct any operation, or any part of an operation, that the other person intended to conduct under the certificate that is suspended or cancelled.

3.2 Each certificate authorising charter or regular public transport operations is subject to the condition that its holder (“the AOC holder”) must not, without the prior written approval of CASA, enter into an arrangement with a person whose certificate has been varied (“the other person”), under which the AOC
holder agrees:

(a) to use, in any operation covered by the AOC holder’s certificate, any aircraft that the other person:

(i) was, immediately before the variation, authorised to operate under the other person’s certificate; but

(ii) is no longer authorised to operate under the certificate as varied; or

(b) to use, in connection with any operation covered by the AOC holder’s certificate, any person employed or engaged by, or otherwise working for, the other person in connection with any operation that the other person:

(i) was, immediately before the variation, authorised to conduct under the other person’s certificate; but

(ii) is no longer authorised to conduct under the certificate as varied; or

(c) to conduct any operation, or any part of an operation that the other person:

(i) intended to conduct under the other person’s certificate as it had effect immediately before the variation; but

(ii) is no longer authorised to conduct under the certificate as varied.

3.3 Each certificate authorising charter or regular public transport operations is subject to the condition that its holder (“the AOC holder”) must not, without the prior written approval of CASA, enter into an arrangement with a person whose application for a certificate is still pending (“the other person”) under
which the AOC holder agrees:

(a) to use, in any operation covered by the AOC holder’s certificate, any aircraft proposed to be covered by the certificate sought; or

(b) to use, in connection with any operation covered by the AOC holder’s certificate, any person proposed to be employed or engaged by the other person in connection with any operation proposed to be covered by the certificate sought; or

(c) to conduct any operation, or any part of an operation, proposed to be covered by the certificate sought.

Even if those conditions don’t apply in the circumstances, just remember: if you have indeed ‘loaned’ your AOC to someone and they damage persons or property, it’s your AOC, insurance and house that’s on the line.

[Woomera]

Creampuff

Thank you sir. I was hoping someone would be able to find the time to present the black letter law on it. :cool:

Common sense in these matters appears to be in very short supply.:mad:

[kimwestt]

Butt Clark.............

[Mainframe]

Sunfish, Creamie et al,

You are now seeing a repeat performance of the NQAO's bag of dirty tricks.

There is either an unofficial Manual of Standards for dirty tricks,
or someone in HO is directing the game play.

The similarities in tactics go beyond coincidence, the similarity in the victim's longstanding history of safe operations,
the "losing" of their DOTRS contracts and awarding them to political friendly's may warrant closer scrutiny.

The same pattern of discrediting the operator to it's clients prior to AAT hearings is not new,
just the conduct of a rogue regulator aware of it's ability to act with impunity and without accountability.

Whilst there is not the political will for a Royal Commission, there is a genuine need.
Only then will the truth be revealed, and what could be exposed may shock.

While some posters have a problem with this new victim's possibly abrasive style,
or are just proponents of the Tall Poppy syndrome, CB and Polar are entitled
to be presumed innocent until proven guilty and are entitled fair and impartial treatment.

That the possibility exists of political undertones in some of the regulator's activities
is something the naive may not understand.

No conspiracy theories, just the everyday facts of life, the election is over, the debts may have been settled.

[slice]

"victim's longstanding history of safe operations"

BWahahahahahahaha!!

Good one MF!:p

[Mainframe]

No further comment on this thread, signing out.