WA Air Operator sues CASA and Officials

[Torres]

WA air operator sues CASA and officials

Reported today in AviationAdvertiser (http://www.aviationadvertiser.com.au/2010/05/wa-air-operator-sues-casa-and-officials-2/)

Paul Phelan , 3 May 2010 – 10:20 am

Western Australian charter and flying school operator Polar Aviation and its managing director Clark Butson have lodged a Statement of Claim in the Federal Court in Melbourne seeking damages from the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) and six of its officials and former officials.

In a Statement filed on April 30, the applicants detail a range of alleged breaches of CASA’s and its officials’ obligations under the Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Act 1997 (the CAC Act) and other legislation.

They say the adverse actions began after a heated technical argument between Butson and a CASA official during a routine audit, over operational issues including CASA requirements as to asymmetric flying training procedures. They claim that the subsequent alleged harassment took many forms including officials’ failure to exercise their powers and functions in accordance with the provisions if the Civil Aviation Act, the Civil Aviation Regulations and Orders, the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations and the CAC Act.

Officials named as respondents are Terence Farquharson, now Deputy Director of Aviation Safety, Garry Presneill, formerly a Flying Operations Inspector at the CASA West Office; Robert Collins (now retired), who was then CASA Group General manager of General Aviation Operations; Jim Marcolin, now with CASA Operations in Sydney; Peter John, CASA operations – Eastern; and Alan Cook, former Operations Manager of CASA’s General Aviation Group, who has since left CASA.

Polar Aviation complains that it was flooded with “requests for corrective action” and “show cause notices” from various of the named officials, to all of which it responded, although many of the notices reiterated matters from previous notices that had already been acquitted.

The issue was escalated by a seventh notice on January 14 which cancelled the company’s flying school Air Operator Certificate (AOC) and Butson’s Chief Flying Instructor approval, and revoked his Chief Pilot and approved testing officer (ATO) approvals.

The Statement says: “The Cancellation of Butson’s Chief Pilot Approval and the revocation of Butson’s Chief Flying Instructor Approval immediately prevented Polar Aviation from carrying out any commercial flying operations; immediately prevented the Polar Aviation Flying School from operating; caused the immediate shut down of Polar Aviation’s business; and constituted a breach of the duties set out [elsewhere in the complaint.]

The Statement claims the actions of the respondents:


“constitute a persistent attack on Polar Aviation’s capacity to carry out its flying operations;
evidence a discriminatory approach to Polar Aviation and Butson;
evidence a willingness and intent by the respondents to act outside their authority;
evidence a willingness and intent by the respondents to act contrary to the provisions of the Act, and their obligations and duties under the provisions of the CAC Act;
evidence an intent by the respondents, acting outside their authority, to injure the applicants or, alternatively, evidence a reckless indifference as to whether such acts outside their authority would or would not injure the applicants.”

The applicants say that Polar’s flying school was out of operation for a two and a half years which adversely affected the business, morale, goodwill and reputation of Polar Air and Butson, resulted in the loss of profitable contracts, and caused lost income to Butson. It also details various actions of the six officials which it asserts comprise misfeasance in public office.

A similar statement has been filed in the Federal Court in Perth by WA pilot Gerald Repacholi and his company Repacholi Aviation, involving some of the Polar Air respondents. At least three other aggrieved aviation businesses are understood to be preparing similar claims.

[SIUYA]

This is going to get very ugly indeed for Fort Fumble by the looks of things I'd say.

http://i239.photobucket.com/albums/ff148/Quatsch1/Jackson_popcorn.gif

[Air Ace]

May introduce a new concept to CASA: Accountability?

Wonder if CASA will indemnify their ex staff? Our taxes at work! :ugh:

[illusion]

And the man has the money to carry it through as well- good luck

[V1650]

CASA -we are not happy till your not happy :ugh:

[Centaurus]

over operational issues including CASA requirements as to asymmetric flying training procedures.

What seemed the problem, there?

[topend3]

There is two sides to every story...

[FlexibleResponse]

...a heated technical argument between Butson and a CASA official during a routine audit, over operational issues including CASA requirements as to asymmetric flying training procedures...

It makes you wonder why the Operator didn't just simply comply with what the Regulator was asking for instead of arguing the toss..?

[remoak]

Ah yes but was what the regulator required reasonable? Or was it simply vindictive over-regulation? It wouldn't be the first time... both in Oz and NZ...

[3 Holer]

There is two sides to every story...
There are actually three............his, hers and the truth!:ok:

[Paul Phelan]

It makes you wonder why the Operator didn't just simply comply with what the Regulator was asking for instead of arguing the toss..?

Oh really? Try writing an operations manual and submitting it to half a dozen different district offices (or individual FOIs). When I last counted there were about 90 FOIs and (with some exceptions) they all have different views on a wide variety of operational and training procedures, and they obviously can’t all be right.

This particular FOI was trying to impose on a flying instructor (who had about 14,000 hours of instructional time) a “requirement” that didn’t exist. If you own a fleet of light twins you are obviously aware that sudden shut-downs, particularly at takeoff power where they are usually conducted, considerably increase wear and tear through thermal shock, potential counterbalance damage, torsional transmission stress on geared engines, and other effects, and should only be done where it is necessary in training, and then as gently as possible.

The problem was quite a simple one. Polar at the time operated only two twin types - Cessna 310R and three Barons. It was common at the time to have pilots who had only flown Duchess or similar to join the company. If they had no Baron endorsement or 310 endorsement it was provided by the company, and of course that would require asymmetric training because it was an initial issue.

If however a line pilot in the company had already been endorsed on a Baron and was required to fly the 310, he would also be provided with an endorsement, however It is not necessary to do asymmetric training, if the pilot gives all the correct responses to the asymmetric training on the ground.(as in the CAAP). Barons and 310s have the same engines and about the same MTOW and fly at similar speeds, also have similar asymmetric behavior. It is not a requirement to conduct the asymmetrics in the air, however if the owner felt the pilot lacked the knowledge in asymmetrics, that part of the airborne training would be included in the endorsement.

It should also be noted that due to CASA pressure, Mr Butson agreed to do asymmetric training on all endorsements. This was still not good enough for the regulator. When the court decided on who was right or wrong about that, Polar Aviation was vindicated.

[Joker 10]

I understand the Polar case is VERY well prepared and good to go, watch the out of court settlement on this one !!!!!

[PLovett]

Paul, as you appear to have some knowledge on this matter, is this another case of CASA FOIs' going beyond their statutory power and imposing their opinion on what should be included?

I have hear of other cases where this has applied. If it is the case I hope that a settlement is not on the cards because it is high time that a court took CASA to task over the practice. They need to be taught a lesson that their powers are limited by statute and that anything in excess of them is illegal and should be prosecuted.

[Spikey21]

Scroll down this page and download the Senate Commission Submission

Aircraft for Sale, Plane Sales, Planes for Sale – Aviation Advertiser ? – Online Magazine There’s Still a Mouse in the House at CASA (http://www.aviationadvertiser.com.au/2009/02/theres-still-a-mouse-in-the-house-of-casa/)

Good onya Clark

[601]

A classic example of CASA not being consistent is "Aerial Baiting"

Before 2003 an operator had to have an AOC and aerial baiting on the AOC as an aerial work function before the operator could drop baits from either an aeroplane or a helicopter.

Then in 2003 by an Aviation Ruling, it was deemed to be a private operation. This meant that one could drop wheat laced with chemical as baits for mice (aerial baiting) on a private licence, but one needed an AOC and an ag rating to drop the same wheat without the chemical in it if seeding.

When Part 137 became law, it required an aeroplane operator to have an AOC and the pilot to have an agricultural rating to drop baits.

But a helicopter operator still did not need to have an AOC to do aerial baiting.

So one could have the situation of an operator who operated both aeroplanes and helicopters dropping the same baits, but requiring an AOC and aerial application function on the AOC for the aeroplane operation but no requirements on the helicopter operation. Both a helicopter and an aeroplane could have been dropping baits in the same area on the same day but with completely different requirements.

So what to do. That is easy, just rescind the aviation ruling. Remember this was legal advice in the first place that decreed aerial baiting as a private operation.

Now the legal advice is that aerial baiting requires an AOC.

[Stink Finger]

Clinton,

I suppose I should no longer be surprised about how the same set of circumstances can be perceived and reported in a diametrically opposed way to my reading.


If the AOC / Approval holder is believed to be breaking the law, why not take them to court ?, present the evidence and let the judge decide ?.

Many times in the past this tactic has been used as a perceived punishment system, one that mostly bypasses any external review, or without the need to "prove" their case.

We still live in a society where guilt has to be proven, then the punishment follows.

It is the opinion of many here, this right, and yes it is a right, can be bypassed by an "administrative process", is that natural justice ?.

A good read:

IF CASA SENDS YOU

A 'SHOW CAUSE' NOTICE (http://www.airsafety.com.au/9217aopa.htm)

IF CASA SENDS YOU A 'SHOW CAUSE' NOTICE ...

CASA frequently sends notices to people requiring them to show cause why their license should not be cancelled or suspended. These notices are crude exercises in coercion which effectively say "lick my boots or else".

Don't imagine that you will never receive one of these notices. Many people have said to me that they "operate by the book" or "have a very good relationship with CASA" - and have later come seeking help. If you have an "excellent relationship with CASA" that really means you are in favour with your present CASA inspector. When there is a change of staff you are just as likely as anyone else to get a 'show cause' notice.

WE STILL HAVE RIGHTS - EXERCISE YOURS! DON'T KOWTOW

There is no need to kowtow to CASA when you are issued with a 'show cause' notice. We have rights and you can exercise yours. Read on ...

DECIDE AHEAD OF TIME WHETHER YOU'LL JOIN IN THE GAME IF YOU ARE INVITED

I recommend to members of AIR SAFETY AUSTRALIA that you give careful thought ahead of time to what you will do if you get one of these notices. I have seen a number of cases where the person who received a 'show cause' did himself real harm by unwise handling of it at the very outset.

I also recommend that each member of AIR SAFETY AUSTRALIA give careful consideration to responding as follows:

"I have not been convicted of any of the offences alleged in the 'show cause' notice, and I deny each of them. That is the cause I show. I call on CASA to prosecute me in respect of those alleged offences, and not to [cancel my license] unless I am convicted."

The 'show cause' procedure is fundamentally unjust, because it involves CASA acting as both prosecutor and judge. AIR SAFETY AUSTRALIA's members may do themselves a service by staying well away from it.

A decision to stay away from the "show cause" procedure carries risks of its own, and anyone who does so should seek legal advice at the outset. I also recommend that anyone thinking of following this course should contact me because there are some additional considerations which are not appropriate for inclusion in this article.

Civil Aviation Regulation 269 - the legal basis of this coercion

(1) Subject to this regulation, CASA may, by notice in writing served on the holder of a license or certificate or an authority, vary, suspend, or cancel the license, certificate or authority where CASA is satisfied that one or more of the following grounds exists, namely:

(a) that the holder of the license, certificate or authority has contravened a provision of the Act or these regulations ...

(3) Before taking action under this regulation ... CASA shall ...

(b) allow the holder of the license, certificate or authority to show cause ... why the license ... should not be cancelled, varied or suspended."

This provision is an outrage. It ousts the jurisdiction of the Courts. If CASA is satisfied that someone has contravened the law, the proper course of action is for CASA to see that the person is prosecuted in a Court and, if found guilty, punished by the Court. But CAR 269 allows CASA to act as prosecutor, jury, and judge.

We as pilots should never have allowed Regulation 269 to become law. But having done so, we should have it repealed. And while it remains on foot, we should not allow ourselves as individuals to be trapped by it.

SUPPOSITIONS AND HYPOTHESES - CASA CALLS THEM 'FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES'

Usually the 'show cause' notice is many pages long, and it details a long list of alleged offences called 'facts and circumstances' which may vary from trivial to serious to far-fetched. It's important to realise that just because CASA alleges that you breached the law does not mean that you did. CASA may have simply made a mistake, or may be acting on false information, or you may have done precisely what CASA alleges but it may not be illegal.

Just because CASA sets out a long list of facts and circumstances that does not mean there is a single fact in the list. A better description would be 'suppositions and hypotheses'. If you are charged, a Court won't assume that what CASA claims are 'Facts and Circumstances' really are that - CASA will have to prove each and every one of them. But if you submit to the 'show cause' process you submit to trial not by a Court but by CASA. And CASA itself will, of course, assume that what it calls facts really are facts.

As an example, let's say you are accused of low flying. The story may be completely false - someone may have fabricated it and sent a poison pen letter to CASA. Or there may indeed have been low flying, but someone else did it. Or you may have done the low flying but it was legal (for example, under stress of weather). Or you may have done the low flying, and it was illegal, but the offence was trivial and does not warrant the action CASA proposes to take.

I think it is unwise to respond to a 'show cause' letter with any specifics. No matter how wrong, and how hurtful, an alleged 'fact and circumstance' may be, don't respond to it. The problem is that by doing so you simply give CASA the opportunity to allege that you did something else. If, on the other hand, you keep your cool and CASA eventually takes you to court you can then expose CASA's false accusation for what it is, and thereby damage their credibility in respect of other allegations.

BY PLAYING THE 'SHOW CAUSE' GAME -

YOU THROW AWAY PRECIOUS HARD-WON RIGHTS

It's a fundamental part of Australian justice that the accuser must make his case in full before the defendant has to respond. In the absence of that provision, the accuser could always wear down the defendant by meeting every defence with a slightly or greatly different accusation.

By agreeing to participate in CASA's 'show cause' procedure, you forfeit that essential right. You also forfeit another essential right - the right to absolute acquittal. This means that once you are acquitted of a charge, you can never again be charged with the same offence.

You forfeit yet another essential right. In a Court, the accuser has to prove what he says. In a 'show cause' procedure, you have to disprove what the accuser says. There is a huge difference between the two. And you throw away one more essential right - the right to face your accuser and cross-examine him or her. If CASA prosecutes you, their officer can't stand up and say that he was told such-and-such by an un-named person. The un-named person has to stand up, state his or her name, and make the accusations out loud to the Court. You then have a right to cross-examine that person to show just how good his or her evidence is, and to reveal what his or her motive might be.

In a 'show cause' process your accuser has the luxury of not having to face you and not having to submit to cross-examination. Your accuser has an even greater luxury - he does not have to tell the truth! If your accuser lies in Court, he or she commits the very serious offence of perjury, and (probably) perverting the course of justice. If caught out, he or she faces a stretch in jail. It's neither perjury nor perverting the course of justice if a person lies to a CASA officer conducting a 'show cause' procedure. Your accuser need not fear going to jail if he or she lies during the 'show cause' procedure.

If you participate in a 'show cause' procedure, and CASA subsequently punishes you by (say) cancelling your license, you can still be hauled before the court later on and prosecuted. In all probability you will have damaged yourself by what you said in the 'show cause' procedure, and worse still you will have revealed your defence strategy. You cannot claim double jeopardy because, you see, if CASA suspends your license that's not a punishment. It's only a punishment if a Court does it!

IF YOU NEED TO APPEAL - AAT OR ELSEWHERE?

What if you do say

"I have not been convicted of any of the illegal acts alleged in the 'show cause' notice. That is the cause I show..."

and CASA goes right ahead and cancels your license anyway? A course of action you should consider is to skip the AAT (Administrative Appeals Tribunal) and go straight to the Federal Court and take action against CASA under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act. Needless to say legal advice is essential at this stage.

But you should be clear about one thing - the chance that you will persuade the AAT to give you your license back is very low. If ever any human activity has had a consistent record of failure it is the activity of going to the AAT to get your license back. The AAT works very well for other things, such as bringing over-zealous tax gatherers into line. Where it is just money involved, the AAT is very effective (I know, because I used it myself years ago to recover some thousands of dollars from a government department - I represented myself, the total cost was zero, and I recovered every cent that had been taken from me). But where an aviation license is involved, the AAT's record is dreadful.

The basic difference between going to the Federal Court and the AAT is that the Federal Court will only look at the method by which CASA decided to cancel your license, whereas the AAT will review the decision on its merits. While the latter may sound attractive, it's not. The reason for that is because in order to decide in your favour, the AAT has to say to itself "we know better than CASA does" and accept the mental responsibility for an accident you may have in the future. By contrast the Judge of the Federal Court does not have to second-guess CASA on the merits of your case. He or she simply has to decide whether the proper procedures were followed. If your license is cancelled on the basis of allegations which have never been put to the test in a court, you are off to a pretty good start!

At the beginning of this article I said that it's probably wise to decide what you are going to do with a 'show cause' ahead of time. The reason I say that is that in the vast majority of cases brought to me, the person had already written letters to CASA or spoken to CASA's officers. If you are going to decline to join in the 'show cause' procedure, it's essential that you do so at the very beginning. It's no good joining in the game, and then leaving the field when you don't like the way the ball is bouncing.

Of course it takes big balls to refuse to participate, because you are in effect inviting CASA to prosecute you. There are, however, a couple of things to bear in mind here. Firstly, the very reason CASA has decided to use the 'show cause' procedure against you may well be that CASA recognises that the evidence is shaky, or even that the DPP has declined to prosecute.

Secondly, if CASA does prosecute and you are convicted, the punishment a Court imposes may well be less severe than that which CASA will impose. A court has the power to effectively cancel or suspend your license by imposing an "exclusion period" (under Section 30A of the Civil Aviation Act). If you are prosecuted and convicted, it might be wise to ask your barrister to draw the Court's attention to that power, and suggest to the Judge that he invite submissions on an exclusion period from CASA's barrister, before sentencing you. Why? The Court may be unaware of that power, and may therefore sentence you to a fine alone. A fine alone is likely to be heavier than a fine plus an exclusion period. And if the court fines you, CASA can still suspend your license under the 'show cause' procedure. If you have drawn the attention of the court to its power, you can then use that as your response to the next 'show cause' notice.

"I have been convicted of the offence you allege. The Court had power to impose an exclusion period when it sentenced me. (The Judge even invited pre-sentence submissions from CASA's counsel about an exclusion period.) It would therefore be unfair for CASA to impose a (further) suspension period."

This brings me back to a fundamental point. If CASA wants to talk with you, it's often wise to refuse. And by that I mean refuse. Don't answer any question however trivial or however obvious the answer. If they ask if you hold pilot license number 1234, just say "I do not wish to talk with you" - no more than that.

Be scrupulously careful to tell the truth at all times. If CASA asks you who was flying a particular aircraft on a particular occasion, don't say that you do not know. Simply say "I do not wish to talk with you". No matter how innocent you are, it's most unlikely you'll do yourself any good, ever, by co-operating. CASA's officers may see co-operation as weakness, and respond accordingly. Likewise, if CASA demands any paperwork, say that you wish to consult your lawyer before complying.

BEWARE THE LOG BOOK TRAWL

One of CASA's favourite tricks is the "Log Book Trawl". CASA demands your personal logbook in order to compare it with aircraft logbooks looking for minor discrepancies. It's wise to seek legal advice before handing any documents over, even if the Act or Regulations appear to require you to do so. If, for example, your logbook contained incriminating information you may be protected from having to hand it over by the general principle against self-incrimination. And the vast majority of logbooks DO reveal minor mistakes which are, under Australian rules, crimes.

If you refuse to speak to CASA or to hand anything over until you have received legal advice, it is unlikely that you will come to any harm. When you have legal advice, it will either be that you talk to CASA or that you do not. If your legal advice is that you should speak to CASA, and you then do so, you cannot be criticised. If your legal advice is that you should not speak to CASA you cannot be criticised - and you have probably done yourself a huge favour. If any lawyer ever advised me to talk to CASA or to hand documents over, I'd get a second opinion from a better lawyer!

DON'T HAND YOUR LICENCE OVER TO CASA BEFORE GETTING LEGAL ADVICE

I particularly advise against handing your pilot license over to CASA before getting legal advice. If CASA demands your license, say that you wish to consult your lawyer before complying. Then engage a lawyer - not necessarily right then, but without undue delay. That lawyer can then advise you whether or not you are legally obliged to comply. The problem with handing your license over is that one of CASA's favourite tricks is to refuse to return it - and then you cannot fly because you do not have your license in your personal possession. Gotcha!

WHAT CAN WE DO?

In my opinion CASA's 'show cause' process is fundamentally wrong, and no amount of tinkering with it can make it right. Australia has an excellent court system, and it is that system which should deal with the things which CASA now deals with under the 'show cause' process.

AOPA IS MISTAKEN TO ENDORSE THE 'SHOW CAUSE' PROCESS

I think AOPA is seriously mistaken to lend an air of legitimacy to the 'show cause' process by participating in it. Even if that participation improves outcomes in some individual cases, it seems to me to be mistaken to devote money and other resources to participating in the 'show cause' process rather than devoting that money and those resources to removing the process from the statute books. I fear that AOPA is reverting to the old method of dealing with the bureaucrats and their interpretation of the laws, rather than dealing with the politicians so that we change the laws under which the bureaucrats operate.

AOPA's assertion that "the rules of evidence will be followed" is misleading. The main thing which makes evidence generally truthful is the fact that witnesses know they can be jailed for giving false evidence to a Court. But you can't be jailed for giving false information to a "show cause" procedure. And, come to think of it, AOPA has asserted that "the rules of evidence will be followed" - but what has CASA said?

The basic problem with aviation in Australia is that the underlying law is bad. AOPA's money and resources should be devoted, first and foremost, to changing the underlying law. Sentence by sentence, clause by clause, measure by measure we can achieve that if we work at it relentlessly. CASA's bureaucrats are law-abiding people, and can be relied upon to comply with the law. If we get the bad law changed the problem will be solved.

I believe that the result of AOPA's decision to participate in the 'show cause' process is all too likely to be to advance the interests of the cronies of the committee members at the expense of the rank and file.

WHAT IS CASA'S ALTERNATIVE?

CASA's alternative to the 'show cause' procedure is for CASA to use the normal Court processes. That is, to put their evidence before a Court and allow the Court to decide whether or not you are guilty, and if guilty to decide the appropriate penalty. That, after all, is what the Police do when they believe a driver has offended.

The Court system is often slow, but in urgent cases an injunction can be obtained on a moment's notice. That is, CASA could go to the Court saying that it has evidence of serious wrongdoing and the Court could then issue an injunction which temporarily prevented you from (say) flying. An injunction can be obtained in far less time than is required by the 'show cause' process. The benefit for the accused person is that you have all the safeguards of the Court system. If, for example, your accuser is lying he is very likely to baulk when CASA asks him to swear an affidavit - because doing so would make him liable to charges of perjury and perverting the course of justice. Without that affidavit, CASA won't get the injunction. But under the 'Show Cause' process, an accuser can lie with impunity because his identity is concealed by CASA, and even if his identity becomes known he faces no risk of jail for lying in the course of a "show cause" procedure.

Our forefathers struggled for many generations to achieve a legal system which catches and punishes the guilty but protects the innocent. It is our right to have that system apply to all facets of our lives, aviation included. As aviators we were collectively silly to throw away that right by failing to object when CASA put the 'show cause' procedure on the statute books. But we can reclaim the right by getting the 'show cause' procedure off the statute books again.

CASA's OFFICERS ARE NOT QUALIFIED TO DECIDE WHO HAS BROKEN THE LAW

CASA often issues 'show cause' notices stating that a pilot has breached Section 20A of the Civil Aviation Act. This is simply preposterous. No-one knows what is a breach of that section, because the High Court has never decided on it. I wrote it myself, and AOPA subsequently pushed it into law. When I wrote it, one Sunday afternoon in a Canberra motel room, I wondered what the Courts would eventually decide it meant. It is up to the Courts, not CASA, to determine what that section means. But CASA officers have decided for themselves, and are freely handing out 'show cause' notices telling people they have breached this section. That is an outrage. If CASA's officers are satisfied that someone has breached it, you'd think they would have obtained a good number of convictions but (so far as I am aware) they have not obtained even one. Strange, isn't it?

THIS ALL SEEMS PRETTY SENSIBLE, BUT WHAT ABOUT THE COST?

What I suggest may indeed prove expensive. That is, of course, one of the main methods of intimidation that CASA uses.

But there is a solution. AIR SAFETY AUSTRALIA's members are generous, and they will stand behind you if you are threatened. If you are hit with a "show cause" notice, and yours is a good test case, I will personally donate money to help you and will urge other AIR SAFETY AUSTRALIA members to do likewise. I stress the requirement that yours be a good test case, but if you e-mail me on [email protected] or fax me on 02 9225 9127 I will promptly tell you whether or not it is.

AUTHOR - BOX

The author: Boyd Munro is a businessman and a pilot. He holds a British ATPL, an FAA ATPL fixed and rotary, and an Australian CPL fixed and rotary. He has been flying since 1966. Boyd has never flown for hire or reward, and obtained professional licenses solely to demonstrate that he meets professional standards. He is a previous President of AOPA Australia. He personally wrote the present section 20A of the Civil Aviation Act and led AOPA's fight to get it through Parliament until in 1995 it became law. He has flown the Atlantic Ocean 42 times in Piper Navajo aircraft since 1971. He won the multi-engine division of the 1981 Paris-New York trans-Atlantic race conducted by the Aero Club de France. He won the 1987 Singapore-Christchurch race conducted by the City of Christchurch.

[alpha tango driver]

while it is true to say that aerial baiting may be carried out as a private operation because of the simplification of operations change in 2004 by CASA. It is still subject to state chemical control of use legislation that requires a aerial distribution contractors licence, which is only granted to companys holding a fixed wing/ rotary agricultural airwork AOC.

Just a clarification.
Regards JW

[Checklist Charlie]

Amongst the names I see "Robert Collins", this expert keeps cropping up both here and in PNG doing all sorts of "government" work.

His website RD Collins & Associates | Company Profile | Aviation consultants, executive coaching, Robert Collins, aviation safety regulator, Australian Civil Aviation Safety Authority (http://www.rdcollins.com.au/profile.htm) claims

QUOTE:
values include:
• Honesty
• Integrity and Professionalism,
• Reliability
• Respect and courtesy
• Continuous improvement
• Dedication to timely and high quality service.
UNQUOTE:
I wonder if these values were learned whilst at CASA (in its various guises).
The comment earlier of There is two sides to every story... could equally apply to another mentioned but really meaning "two sides of the Tasman"


One can never be confident of a satisfying outcome to any legal process, that is apart from the lawyers being well paid and having their ego's suitably stroked. One day the regulator will be found out, until then we will just have to aviate inspite of them.

I suppose we will now have to suffer another screaming skull outburst :=about critical comment of CASA. So be it.


CC:D

[ozaggie]

Cant wait for the 'screaming skull' interlude. Welcome back SF, will PM you soon. Cheers, OA

[Frank Arouet]

I can't wait for the AOPA response.

[Sunfish]

What a sad state of affairs....

[Jabawocky]

Frank
Why would you expect comment from AOPA now about Boyd’s comments then? If you checked Boyd’s website, I think the comments were made about ten years ago or a bit before??

Your request for comment is a bit like asking Rudd to comment on the performance of a PM from a decade ago. Why ask?

Now can we get back to the thread topic. After reading about similar things here before this is a bit serious.

Cheers
J

[multime]

Stink.
I have had the pleasure of reading your comments.
Infact twice.
Thanks
M:ok:

[LeadSled]

There is two sides to every story...

Not in this case, there isn't. The company and Butson had something like 20 years of safe and successful operations, with never a previous problem with audits.

The facts about the argument between Butson and one very opinionated FOI will come out in court, but suffice to say that, in my opinion, Butson conducted safe and sensible asymmetric training, with never a previous complaint.

But in his opinion, "CASA" was demanding something dangerous ---- and haven't we already killed enough people on asymmetric training, already.

Tootle pip!!

[Stink Finger]

We've all heard this type of story before, the same game plan etc etc, it has to stop.

Glad to see someone has been organised enough to document the events and engage a law firm to take action against the offending parties.

It suprises me to see Alan Cook and Peter John listed as respondents, I have found them to be fair and reasonable and would not believe that to have changed since dealing with them.

There are some great people working at CASA, imagine how it must frustrate them to see this apparently unjust way of dealing with the industry and generally being powerless to stop it.

Leadsled,

You may be glad to know, rumour has it that the one very opinionated FOI has had the stuffing knocked out of him recently, left CASA to join an operator in the west and "resigned" from this job before the final check, he might be a changed person, perhaps a little more humble which could be a good thing for the future.

[Stink Finger]

Or perhaps having them listed as respondent will get them onto the stand and sworn, surely I do not need to connect the dots for you ?.

I stand by my statement(IMHO) regarding Alan Cook and Peter John, they no doubt had subordinates working for them, wonder what the court looking into that will present ?.

Clinton, if CASA had evidence (anything other than evidence is hearsay, is it OK to punish an operator on the basis of hearsay ?), why didn't CASA drag them into court and do it properly, you know, using the justice system, instead of the, what was the term:
lynch mob

[Stink Finger]

Clinton,

Exceptions, sure, why not, are you suggesting that hearsay that is admissible is evidence enough to convict stand alone ?.

How about answering the questions ?.

If the AOC / Approval holder is believed to be breaking the law, why not take them to court ?, present the evidence and let the judge decide ?.

Is it OK to punish an operator on the basis of hearsay ?.

Longrass,

WTF are you talking about ?.

[Stink Finger]

How about you answer my questions first ?.

[Stink Finger]

Stink: are you really suggesting that false claims have been made against Mssrs John and Cook, merely to get them to court and give evidence. Why wouldn’t the claimants just use the traditional tool for getting people to come to court and give evidence: ask them to please come, or subpoena them to come?

No, trying to stimulate conversation.

So if there is a process by which the court can be used, why in the case of Polar, Uzu etc etc has the show cause process been used to punish operators/individuals by removing approvals & AOC's without the use of the Court system ?, even when the show causes were addressed, then the same show cause returns shortly after with slightly different wording.

In other cases CASA has gone to court very poorly prepared and loses, i.e. Wasn't it CYAS ?, regarding the C208 in the water at Green Island ( turning up with the incorrect flight manual as prosecutions evidence ). So they then revert to the "other method". Whilst the FOI/TL that did this are no longer an issue, the legislation that they "used" is still inplace.

In other case they gone to the court / AAT, been ruled against, ordered to return approval/licenses and still act in a rather mean spirited manner by adding some unusual conditions, usually so limiting the document is virtually useless.

As a Lawyer Clinton I would have expected more from you, the protection of the innocent etc etc, thats what going to court is all about, sure guilty people walk free from the courts everyday.

Some CASA staff try to remove themselves from having to prove guilt by using a system that can effectively remove the onus on the accusor of providing evidence.

CASA is not the power by which pilots licences are issued, it is the government body that administers, if you want to change legislation, it is the federal government in whatever form that makes it law.

CASA is not the law, they are the policeman.

Imagine if the police could jail you because they had a difference of opinion with you over something random ( such as the personal opinion of the police officer regarding multi engine training ).

How about you present a case study for us, where someone is convicted purley on hearsay ? ( there is a very big difference between a conviction based purely on hearsay and hearsay being admissible ).

I guess what I find the most offensive is when:

1) a show cause is issued, then,
2) the CASA people are not satisfied with the response, then remove licences and approvals etc etc.

I believe it should be:

1) a show cause is issued, then,
2) if CASA is satisfied with the response the process ends, if they are not, then,
3) DPP and Court ( at this stage actual guilt is proven or not proven based on actual evidence, testimony and sure Clinton, we'll throw in some hearsay). This IMHO is a fair process.

[Stink Finger]

One further point Clinton,

You might wish to suggest that we are all banging on about things that happened upto ten years ago, these things are still able to occur today as the legislation has still, suprise suprise, not been fixed ( CAR 206, Part 28 and CAR 269 ).

[Stink Finger]

You seem unable to understand that you don’t have to be ‘guilty’ of anything in order to fail to comply with or fall below a regulatory standard

Failing to comply with a regulatory standard is completely different to falling out of favour with your FOI/AWI.

Your example is pretty irrelevant, we are not talking about a medical, we are talking about FOIs and AWIs in the workplace:

* Personal opinions becoming enforced as law,
* Ego in the workplace,
* a "Get them" attitude, very personal.

A mean spirited FOI / AWI can do a lot of damage to an operator, they need to be held accountable for their actions, it is a matter of time untill this will be tested in Court, hopefully very soon if Mr Butson does not settle out of court or drop his case ( which I doubt he will ).

If an operator is no longer meeting the published regulatory standards, CASA should take action, clear and concise, understand that the holder is entitled to take it to court/AAT and for the allegations to be tested and evidence to be presented.

Understand in this example, in the time between you starting the process of taking them to court and actually going to court, the operator may make the required changes to meet the regulatory compliance standard, but this is not what we are talking about.

We are talking about misinterpretation of legislation, personal vendettas and individuals pushing their personal agendas/opinions with out, so far, being held accountable.

How do you think life would change is some of these situations found themselves in court and malfeasance was proven, people having their homes and possession taken from them.

If its not in the legislation is does not exist.

[Mainframe]

Good to see you back stinkie!

Thanks for reminding us that there were some misfits in CASA once upon a time, especially the North Qld Area Office, Townsville.

Despite a report ($84,000 of tax payer's money) that found there was no misconduct going on, the reality was eventually exposed.

There followed a few movements, either out of CASA or to other regions.
No CASA official faced charges, just golden handshakes instead for those departing.

Some that remained received counselling.

There were rogues in the industry, and there were rogues in CASA. Byron, to his credit, sorted some of this out.

Under the new leadership, some of the rogues are being reabsorbed into areas of power, but the new leadership warns us not to criticise.

When CASA and its officials become accountable for misconduct, we may see some improvement.

I doubt that we will ever see accountability.

[Sunfish]

Dear Clinton,

Disclaimer: I know nothing about this particular case.

I am a PPL holder. I have had nothing but good service from CASA. I have seen nothing but good behaviour from CASA towards others, and I try and operate as a law abiding pilot.

However, and this is what concerns me,

The little purple Class D airspace brochure that was mailed to me by CASA last week. contains the following introduction inside the front cover:

"This booklet is produced for aviation safety education purposes. It does not replace information contained in Aeronautical Information Publications (AIP), En Route Supplement Australia and/or NOTAMS. Pilots should always refer to these documents for up to date information.


This is "advisory"(CASA Quotes) material only and is not the only methodology that could be adopted. It is not legally binding.
...........

....This information is a brief outline of the practices and procedures set to be adopted at Class D aerodromes and is designed to provide insight into the general philosophy behind the procedures. The information is not necessarily definitive and the information should not be used operationally without first cross referencing with the appropriate documentation.

Clinton Mate, this same disclaimer can be applied to everything that CASA has ever produced!

The laws, rules and regulations are a confusing mish mash of contradictory legalese such that CASA can not even provide cogent "Advice" as to how to comply with its own regulations without the need for the aforesaid page of disclaimers.

Many of the regulations compound the problem further by being framed in that legally satisfying but totally useless "Thou shalt not .. except for" construction that leaves all of us guessing as to how to comply. Of course you provide "Advisory " information that hints at how we might comply, but it is always covered by the same disclaimer. Maybe you do, maybe you don't.

Do you understand what a mess this makes of our miserable efforts to try to comply?

Do you further understand that then giving public servants considerable latitude to make their own interpretation of what "compliance" means creates a nightmare of a lack of consistency in application of the rules - and that is without having to make any allegation whatsoever about the character and motives of the enforcers or the members of the industry?

If we then make allowance for the occasional perfectly normal human failings among regulators and regulated, do we now understand how disputes ( regularly chronicled here and elsewhere) may arise? If there are "bad apples" in the industry, then is it not safe to assume that there are "bad apples" in CASA?

I am well aware of the consequences for a public servant of a bad decision. It also behoves of a public servant to be aware of the consequences for a business or pilot.

Were I a Minister of Aviation, would I be forgiven for thinking that the fact that the Buttson matter has even entered the courts points to systematic failure of CASA on many levels?

To put it another way, if any FOI were to give me a ramp check and didn't like me, do you think he couldn't find some infraction if he wanted to?


Now the personal consequences, and I expect these are amplified over thousands of pilots and prospective pilots. I am hoping to build a kit aircraft. I have succeeded in finding some information regarding registration from both the web and one or Two personal enquiries, however that has been like getting blood out of a stone.

I am aware that registering as VH experimental requires that CASA has to satisfy itself as to airworthiness etc., etc. I am also aware that I have to comply exactly with the kit manufacturers instructions. These leave considerable latitude in engine choice, positioning of radios and antennas, autopilots, fuel system component location, etc.. I am aware that some or all of this requires clearance from the manufacturer.

But in the back of my mind, amplified by events like the Buttson case, is the fear: "What if the FOI doesn't like me or my project? What if he takes it upon himself to decide I haven't complied? What if he takes it upon himself to apply restrictions?" If you think this is an exaggeration, talk to the boys at Gippsland Aeronautics.

Such questions are weighing on whether I will forget the whole thing. There must be thousands of similar people who are in exactly the same situation.

[Mainframe]

Sunfish,

Firstly, go ahead with your homebuilt aircraft. You will have an AWI (Airworthiness Inspector). not an FOI, assigned to you and your project.

AWI's assigned to such projects usually come from a solid Civil avaiation background, usually General Aviation.

You can expect the AWI to be helpful and able to offer the benefit of considerable experience.

This is usually a true case of "we are from the Government and are here to help you".

AWI's without a GA background, i.e. ex Airline or ADF, can sometimes be a problem due to cultural differences.

I can recall a particular AWI who issued a defect report on a C182 because the rudder trim was "notchy".

His background was exclusive of single engine exposure and didn't know that most SE types use a bungee or spring assisted deflection of the rudder,
with its associated detenting mechanism, rather than a trim tab with its smooth opertaing mechanism as found on multi engine aircraft.

FOI's are a breed of their own, even the good ones are subject to peer group pressure from within.
Treat them with respect and great caution.
If you have a twisted shoelace on parade, they will find it.

The horror tales are regrettably mostly true. A targetted victim is the usual approach, and rather than look for compliance,
they are more focused on issuing "RCA's" (Request for Corrective Action).

Not only is the number of RCA's issued a measure to their leaders of their effectiveness, (bit like a quota of bookings for a police officer),
but it helps to sway a lay judge or magistrate if numerous RCA's can be presented.

It does not matter how trivial the RCA is, or whether in fact it is valid, it serves to reinforce their agenda.

Having said all of that, there are many fine and respected FOI's with their integrity still intact.

And as for the rules and regulations fiasco, as has been reported before, the Australian Government funded the overhaul of the PNG regulations.

Papua New Guinea adopted, with fine tuning, the USA FAR's.

Almost all Civil Aviation Authorities in the South West Pacific have done like wise, including New Zealand, Solomon Islands, Vanuatu, Fiji etc.

They have even formed a mutual organisation, PASO, Pacific Aviation Safety Organisation.

Australia is obviously incapable of adopting the US FAR's, being inclined towards the mish mash JAR's and the franchise type execution and adoption of them.

After more than twenty years of progress with our regs, we can expect at least another twenty,
rather than a common sense approach as taken by New Zealand and PNG.

And of course there will be justifications as to why the regulations of the world's pioneering
and foremost aviation nation cant possibly be adopted here.

[LeadSled]

Clinton,
I stand by what I said about Polar Air, but pprune is not the place to go into detail, beyond saying that CASA "closed ranks" behind an individual, rather than having a somewhat more dispassionate look at what was going on.

I am aware that registering as VH experimental requires that CASA has to satisfy itself as to airworthiness etc., etc. I am also aware that I have to comply exactly with the kit manufacturers instructions.


Sunfish & Mainframe,

A bit off beam here, by definition, any Experimental Amateur Built is NOT AIRWORTHY, in the conventional sense, hence the system of limiting operational conditions attached/annexed to the Experimental Certificate, with the intent of ensuring "the safety of other airspace users and those under the flightpath of the aircraft".

If a builder is building an Experimental Amateur built ( NOT an LSA) from a kit, he or she can make whatever changes they like along the way, the producer of the kit has no power to require or direct otherwise, and is not liable for anything the builder does.

It would be a very rare thing for either a CASA FOI or AWI to get involved in "certification" of such aircraft, and the "airworthiness" is entirely the responsibility of the registered owner/operator.

With very few exceptions, all Experimental and Limited Cat. certificates are issued by industry delegates, CASA persons who might have a suitable delegation are actively discouraged. The person who does issue the certificate is NOT certifying the airworthiness of the aircraft.

Since mid-1996, CASR 21 has produced a completely different set of procedures, compared to the preceding AABA and the highly restrictive processes that Australian builders had suffered for years.

There is no relation between the hell that Gippsland, Seabird and others have suffered at CASA's hands and Experimental Amateur Built aircraft.

Jim Erwin,

Re. PNG,

They have NOT adopted the FARs.

The BALUS program, paid for with Australian aid $$$, put the "new" ( in 1996) NZ rules in place in PNG. Previously, PNG used the Australian rules, but they were considered no longer usable. This was no cut and paste job, two legal experts from NZ CAA were part of the BALUS team.

Doug Roser, former head of CAA, pre. CASA, was the leader of the BALUS program, which covered far more than just rules.

The NZ rules have been adopted, with local variations, by a number of countries, including an increasing number of CIS states, and several small nations in the Caribbean. Fiji has always closely followed NZ.

It has always struck me a curious that Australia paid to install NZ rules in PNG, because Australian rules were considered no longer suitable or usable.

Tootle pip!!

[Paul Phelan]

Sorry for the delayed response, I haven't visited this thread for some time.

Re the question: "Why didn't he just do what CASA wanted him to do" or words to that effect:

I think Clark was concerned (as many others are) that compliance with the requirements of this particular individual were either dangerous to the pilots or carried an unacceptably high risk of unnecessary damage to engines due to shock cooling, all without any safety plus-side at all.

[LeadSled]

Folks,
Re. Paul's last post ---- and put another way, a CASA individual demanding a sequence in an aircraft, for which the aircraft was not certified --- based on a very literal interpretation of the CAO ---- that to demonstrate an engine failure, you must fail the engine.

Reducing the power to idle at a safe hight, going through the identify, verify, secure then set zero thrust was "not acceptable".

FAR 23 aircraft ( ex. "Commuter category) are not certified to demonstrate a "V1 cut and continue the takeoff". That some aircraft, at favorable weights and in favorable conditions, may be able to do this is beside the point.

Further, the "technique" required for the training ( pull the mixture) induces far to great a probability of engine damage and a real engine failure.

We have killed far more pilots with (so called) Asymmetric Training and Checking, than with actual engine failures --- Polar Air was not going to be pressured into increasing the record of asymmetric training fatalities.

The rest, "as they say" is history, with the final chapter about to be written.
Tootle pip!!

PS: To the naive a question. How do you "do what CASA wants" ---- when every second CASA FOI wants something different??

[Henry The Octopus]

Hi there Leadsled, you state:

“Reducing the power to idle at a safe hight (sic), going through the identify, verify, secure then set zero thrust was "not acceptable".”

Are your sure assertions are accurate with this comment, or are you relying on second, third or fourth hand information on this? In any case, please provide the full (and accurate) evidence where a CASA person demanded this?

If many of the comments concerning CASA and some of its staff are not true (or contain significant inaccuracies), then such comments would be either ill informed or misrepresenting the truth. On that basis, it would seem fair to wait until all the evidence is heard whereby a more objective assessment can be made one way or the other. However, until such time, only hearing one side of this matter will not provide a balanced perspective.

Henry

[Sunfish]

With the greatest respect Clinton, the mere fact that you are arguing the right of a CASA to extend to its employees the power to choose the method of compliance with the regulations that suits them personally destroys your, and CASA's case (assuming that CASA holds your views) totally and completely.

You are completely missing the point of criticism of CASA.

IT IS ABOUT OBTAINING CERTAINTY AND REPEATABILITY IN DEALINGS WITH THE ORGANISATION!!!!!!!!!!

Nobody gives a flying :mad: if you want to pull the mixture or the throttle, or how you require the performance of any other test or act involved with flying...

What all of us want is:

1. For the exact same requirement to apply from one end of Australia to the other.

2. For CASA to test for compliance with that requirement in exactly the same way every time.

3. For the method of compliance and acceptance criteria to be stated in writing and available to all pilots and organizations all the time.


In other words, Clinton, it should be possible for an operator or pilot, by reading coherent documentation, to determine exactly what compliance requires and exactly how it must be demonstrated.

Most importantly, it also constrains the testing officer or official involved, from exercising undue personal bias or partiality either for or against the subject.


The FACT that disputes catalogued in threads like this even exist is proof that CASA is a failed bureaucracy!!!

To put it yet another way Clinton, if shock cooling is a myth, and pulling the mixture is the way to go, then CASA MUST publish a directive to all FOI's and ATO's and the industry, requiring that this is the only acceptable way for these tests to be performed and specifying the exact test conditions.

DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND THAT THE REASON BUREAUCRACY WAS CREATED???????? TO DO AWAY WITH POINTLESS AND COSTLY ARGUMENTS CAUSED BY DIFFERING INTERPRETATIONS OF "RULES" BY PETTY OFFICIALS


And what does this thread contain? Petty arguments about the correct way of demonstrating engine out procedure. And please don't resort to arguments about differences between types. it's differences between CASA Officials that are at the root of the problem.


..and I say this in a caring and sharing manner in the hope that all of us will benefit.

[Frank Arouet]

great a probability of engine damage

Probability or possibility? Whatever- a mishandled engine "could" lead to a catastrophe, but correct handling.......... well, why would you tempt fate?

I thought you had more sense Clinton.

[SIUYA]

The FACT that disputes catalogued in threads like this even exist is proof that CASA is a failed bureaucracy!!!

Some definition(s) of Bureaucracy:

WIKIPEDIA
Bureaucracy is the combined organizational structure, procedures, protocols, and set of regulations in place to manage activity, usually in large organizations. As opposed to adhocracy, it is often represented by standardized procedure (rule-following) that guides the execution of most or all processes within the body; formal division of powers; hierarchy; and relationships, intended to anticipate needs and improve efficiency.

MAX WEBER: ON BUREAUCRACY (refer John Kilcullen, Macquarie University)
'Bureaucracy' is rule conducted from a desk or office, i.e. by the preparation and dispatch of written documents - or, these days, their electronic equivalent.

MERRIAM WEBSTER
1 a : a body of nonelective government officials b : an administrative policy-making group
2 : government characterized by specialization of functions, adherence to fixed rules, and a hierarchy of authority
3 : a system of administration marked by officialism, red tape, and proliferation.

The failure of CASA as a bureaucracy Sunfish is because it IS a bureaucracy, and one that regrettably seems to be totally divorced from the day-to-day realities of the aviation industry AND its need for an effective and responsive (responsible??) and capable regulatory authority that's overseen by an effective and responsive (responsible??) and capable Minister.

Wiki provides information that adhocracy is "any form of organization that cuts across normal bureaucratic lines to capture opportunities, solve problems, and get results". Maybe that's the direction in which CASA needs to head?

Clinton...

Indeed, and it should be a very interesting judgment. I wonder what the mob will do if the court finds the claims against the named officers to be without merit.

Good point, innocent till proved guilty and all that, but have you considered what the mob will do if the court finds the claims against the named officers ARE valid?

..and like Sunfish, I also say this in a caring and sharing manner in the hope that all of us will benefit.

[Sunfish]

Clinton, you are once again completely missing the point, and your own words convict you yet again.

as a general rule,

As a bureaucrat, you don't get to abide by "general rules" at all, ever, unless your own internal procedures spell out, in writing, available to all, exactly under what circumstances an official is allowed to use their own discretion and apply "general rules", and that, in my experience in working in a bureaucracy is almost never.

The fact that in 2010 people are even arguing about the behaviour of officials in performing an engine out procedure is complete and damning proof that CASA has failed, not necessarily as a regulator, but as a bureaucracy.

Were CASA actually focused on being a good bureaucracy (in the best sense of the word) the "pull mixture" and other finer points of some of these discussions would have been settled Thirty years ago and committed to print for the guidance and compliance not only of students and organisations but also FOI's etc.

To put it another way Clinton, the fact that we are even having these discussions invalidates your argument that a lynch mob exists.

To put it yet another way. Nobody but a criminal does not want to comply with regulations, but there appears that there is ample evidence that "compliance" is in the eye of the CASA official. This is simply wrong.

CASA should direct how an engine is to be "failed" for testing purposes, then all this BS automatically goes away. This of course leaves CASA with the responsibility for accidents if such detailed procedure produces unwelcome ATSB statistics.

[Frank Arouet]

Clinton;

I didn't attribute that quote to you, simply used it as an example to highlight my point, (which you missed), about probability vs possibility of shock cooling.

Having owned five aircraft, (still own one), I am vindicated in my decision to never allow others to hire any of them. Anyone doing a BFR with me would regret the day he mishandled my engine in a demonstration of engine failure.

Of course if you only ever hire someone else's aircraft you wouldn't bother would you???

However the thrust of the sunfish arguement holds more merit in the discussion.

[Sunfish]

Suiya, with respect Bureaucracy is not a dirty word. It is a system of work designed to ensure that Government officials cannot be corrupt and enrich themselves and their friends, or persecute their enemies, by a partial or biased application of the laws of the land.

Yes, it is slow and cumbersome, but it beats the alternative.

The system was first developed and applied in Germany to stamp out just such corruption. It embodies, among other things:

1. Rigid definitions of authorities and responsibilities.

2. Written procedures for the making of decisions.

3. A written system of checks and balances.

4. Transparent decision making on the basis of objective published criteria.

5. Open systems of competitive appointment and promotion strictly on written published criteria.

I can't be bothered with the rest, I'd have to drag out my notes from organisational behaviour at Melb Business School, and I need breakfast.

[peuce]

I know that in Air Traffic Services there is a whole Department responsible for 'Standardisation'... so that individuals don't need to, and can't, interpret or mis-interpret the rules. Most of the time it is successful, as lives depend on it.

Does such a system exist within CASA?
If so, it appears, from what we read, to have failed.
If not, why not?

[Brian Abraham]

I have in front of me a CASA approved flight manual for a widely used twin and I quote,

"Experience has shown that the training advantage gained by pulling a mixture control or turning off the fuel to simulate engine failure at low altitude is not worth the risk assumed. Therefore, it is recommended that instead of using either of these procedures to simulate loss of power at low altitude, the throttle be retarded slowly to idle position. Fast reduction of power may be harmful to the engine."

A certain CAR,

Pilot to comply with requirements, etc of aircraft’s flight manual, etc
(1) If a flight manual has been issued for an Australian aircraft, the pilot in command of the aircraft must comply with a requirement, instruction, procedure or limitation concerning the operation of the aircraft that is set out in the manual.
Penalty: 50 penalty units.

Does CASA regard a flight manual recommendation not to be a CAR requirement, instruction, procedure or limitation?

[Stink Finger]

Well Clinton,

By your very own logic on previous topics, not being able to prove something in court, does not mean it didn't actually happen either.

If CASA has made the choice of not mandating items in writing, such as approved methods of failing an engine for training purposes, why allow representatives of their organisation to present their own opinions to the industry as "law".

CASA opens themselves to a considerable amount of liability by doing so.

[Arnold E]

Stink – if you think they are liable, make a claim against them. That’s what I do when I think someone is liable to me. That’s how the world works
No mate, that's maybe how Your world works, but not everybody is out to screw everybody else. At least I am not like that, maybe that's dumb, but I feel good within myself. ( and I have no doubt you feel good within yourself, that's the type you have shown yourself to be here.)

[peuce]

Clinton,

With that background, I agree that if the current flight manual – as defined in the current regulations - continues to include the recommendation you quoted, I would comply with that recommendation in the operation of that – repeat that - aircraft.


Don't you think that if one manufacturer deams it unsafe to undertake a certain procedure in his equipment, that it would be prudent for other operators to err on the side of safety by not doing a similar procedure in his (possibly) different, but similar make of aircraft?

Or should the operator be forced to undertake that procedure ... because it's not specifically forbidden in the manual?

[Sunfish]

Clinton puts his foot in it again:

Jim: I don’t see the connection between Lindy Chamberlain’s wrongful conviction and the comparative, objective safety of lean pulls versus throttle pulls. If your point is that judges aren’t smart enough to understand the complexity of aviation-related issues, and that a meritorious argument will be lost on them, we’ll have to agree to disagree.

Brian – that extract was the subject of a discussion on a different thread that was unfortunately, but I’m guessing necessarily, ‘pulled’ by the moderators.

Before addressing the substantive example you’ve raised, I’d suggest you do a search of the term ‘CASA Approved Flight Manual’ in the current regs, and then work out what will currently satisfy the current regulations in respect of flight manuals for an Australian aircraft. I’d also note that over the years a number of changes have been made to flight manuals, as a consequence of regulatory authorities realising that some of the content simply perpetuated myths. LOP is a case in point.

With that background, I agree that if the current flight manual – as defined in the current regulations - continues to include the recommendation you quoted, I would comply with that recommendation in the operation of that – repeat that - aircraft.

What I wouldn’t do, and don’t do, is extrapolate the underlying assumption to the operation of every piston GA aircraft. That’s because I know that not all fuel/mixture/induction systems fitted to all piston GA aircraft are the same. I’m guessing that’s why there are different practices out there.

I will again suggest - as I suggested on the other thread - to those with open minds, that they find out what the actual fuel/mixture/induction system fitted to the actual aircraft they operate actually does. That way they may be able to do an objective assessment of the comparative risks of lean pull versus throttle pull on that aircraft. A first step would be a review of the publicly available material on websites like Avweb and Beechtalk.

Stink – if you think they are liable, make a claim against them. That’s what I do when I think someone is liable to me. That’s how the world works – it’s not something I made up. We will eventually see what the Federal Court thinks about the claims the subject of this thread, and some of will accept it and move on.


All that is required Clinton is an instruction from CASA, published to the industry, as to what CASA credentialed officials are to require in the matter of simulated engine failures. Argument over the matter demonstrates complete failure as a Bureaucracy (in the best organizational sense of the word).

All you are doing is digging a deeper hole. CASA must have an official position on this and other matters that deny FOI's etc. the ability to "interpret" the rules.

Leaving them "discretion" over pull mixture etc. must in equity, leave operators with the right to challenge that discretion without fear or favour.

To put it another way, what is acceptable to one FOI must by law be acceptable to every other FOI. Furthermore, every pilot and operator must know exactly what is acceptable and what is not. "Discretion" is not tolerable in a Bureaucracy unless the limits of that discretion are publicly acknowledged and available and agreed by all.

[peuce]

Clinton,

But what does ‘(possibly) different, but similar make of aircraft’ mean, FFS? If your employer said to you: ‘Your pay next week will possibly be different but similar to what we owe you’, are you really not going to worry about that? Really? If you purchased a part for your engine, and the LAME said: ‘It’s possibly different but a similar part, but she’ll be right’, would you be happy with that? Really? If the PIC in an aircraft in which you were a passenger said: ‘We’re going to climb at a possibly different but similar speed to the best angle of climb speed, to miss that mountain’, would you be happy with that? Really?

You lost me .....

If I’m digging myself a hole by pointing out that not all fuel/mixture/induction systems are the same, and therefore the objective and comparative safety of the method for simulating an engine failure is not the same for all engines, then pass me my Spear & Jackson #5.

Perhaps I should be more clear also. If the manual for a C310 says don't cut the mixture .... then I'm going to be a bit worried about cutting the mixture in my Baron ... even if the manual doesn't say so .... and even if they have different engine/induction systems. I'm going to err on the side of safety. Why go looking for trouble ?

[peuce]

Clinton,

To take it further ...

As SUNFISH alludes to, If CASA believes I'm being unreasonable by erring on the side of safety, then shouldn't they 'decree' something along the lines of ... "unless prohibited in the Flight Manual, you shall conduct engine failure training by pulling the mixture" ?

Then we all know where we stand. That's the issue.

P.S. In the above scenario, is the ME Endorsement of someone trained in a 'pull the mixture' aircraft better than that of somone who did a 'pull the throttle' endorsement?

Can you see how silly this is getting?

[skycatcher]

Clinton mon vieux, having sat through a trial or two with competent judges presiding, properly instructed juries and competently briefed barristers, I am sure you would agree, they rarely get it wrong and if they do there is always the appeal process.

A recent one in which the judge found for the plaintiffs against the pilot and operator was sufficiently technically complex to be beyond the ken of even some of the so called "aviation expert" witness. Point being the judge cut right through the smoke and mirrors defence and despite some rank incompetence by the investigators, got it, plain and simply and exactly, in its essence.

[LeadSled]

Henry The Octopus,

One major part of the problem is that there is no standardization - Whether amongst FOIs or sundry instructors/ATO at large. As Clinton says: "Where do you think FOI's come from", or words to that effect.

In short, there are a wide variety of "techniques" being used in Asymmetric Training, and as the fatality record quite clearly shows ----- a significant proportion are deadly.

Yes! I do know what has been "required" (informally of course, nothing goes on paper) by certain FOIs in recent (and not so recent) times. Read the Polar Air story for a "not so recent".

A later post on this thread is calling for standardization on a training program that minimizes the risk of loss of control ---- the primary risk, and also recognizes the potential for engine damage to powerplants working at high stress levels and high temperatures ---- that binds all FOIs ----- I have been waiting for that for years ----- we could do worse than copy FAA requirements on the subject.

And, I might say, recognizes as valid the recommendations of the manufacturer's POH, by whatever name. It is a of bane of my existence that persons of limited understanding continually demand Operations Manual insertions that are contrary to the aircraft certification and POH requirements, by whatever name.

In one case recently, requiring a demonstration of a maneuver that is strictly prohibited by the manufacturer.

I do not accept the "position" that a manufacturer's "recommendations" made on clear safety grounds are "only recommendations", and do not need be observed in training. Before you jump on me, I am not talking about "Cautions" to be observed, but safety recommendations by whatever name.

Observation of such recommendations is a good way to stay alive.

Tootle pip!!

[Brian Abraham]

One brilliant blue sky day I was forced by the sound of a familiar hum to dash outside, in time to admire the lines of a 707 sailing overhead the house. The following day I endured the sorry sight of the same aircraft lying on the seabed, having crashed while practicing asymmetrics only 5 minutes after flying over the house.

Australia is replete with stories of asymmetric, for real and in practice, ending up other than the participants would wish. Off the top of my head.
King Air Sydney - all died
DC-3 Sydney ditched with no injuries
404 Jandakot - survivors and fatalities
402 Essendon - no survivors
RAAF C-130 spin safe recovery
RAAF P-3 ditto
Brasilia Darwin fatal
B55 Port Lincoln - one fatal, others injured
B76 Camden - one fatal, one injured

Clinton, I think that you are missing the point that the issue has absolutely nothing to do with a particular aircrafts fuel/mixture/induction system design. It has everything to do with conducting the training in as safe as possible manner.

From page 13 of FAA “FLYING LIGHT TWINS SAFELY”, produced under their Aviation Safety Program.

TRAINING RECOMMENDATIONS

Regular training and practice with a qualified instructor is essential for proficiency in any airplane.

• Thoroughly brief simulated engine failures in advance. The pilot under instruction should know how such failures will be introduced, and what action is expected in response. Unannounced engine failures are suitable only in testing and checking scenarios, and when both pilots have agreed to such before the flight.

• Low altitude engine failure practice is never worth the risks involved. Multiengine instructors should approach simulated engine failures below 400 feet AGL with extreme caution; failures below 200 feet AGL should be reserved for simulators and training devices.

• All simulated engine failures below 3,000 feet AGL should be accomplished by smoothly retarding the throttle.

• Recognize that aircraft systems knowledge is critically important. Practice systems failures too, including partial panel instrument training.

• Occasionally practice OEI flight with a yaw string to observe bank angle and ball position for zero sideslip, particularly at Vyse.

• Do not alter the airplane configuration on the runway after landing unless there is a clear operational need. A striking number of inadvertent landing gear retractions have occurred when the pilot intended to retract the flaps.

From “Engine out Booby Traps for Light Twin Pilots”

An analysis of light twin accidents following engine failure in the initial climb after take off showed that 57% of these accidents and 75% of fatal/serious injuries resulted from situations in which control was lost. Low airspeed results from vain attempts to climb or hold altitude under conditions which render this impossible. Loss of control typically results from low airspeed combined with too much or too little bank angle, i.e., either more or less than that corresponding to zero sideslip.

Analysis was conducted of light twin engine out stall/spin accidents in the initial climb out after take off. During a 28 month period there were at least 7.7 accidents and 24 fatalities per year with a 95% fatality rate for occupants.

Fatal stall/spin accidents over a six year period comprised 10% of all multi engine fatal accidents. Half of these accidents occurred during training situations.

Compared to a 95% fatality rate in stall/spin accidents, controlled force landings of light twins are virtually 100% survivable. During the 28 month period cited earlier showed 41 controlled force landings, including several into trees, with a total of 106 individuals involved. There were no fatalities and only 9% received serious injuries. The remaining 91% experienced minor or no injuries.

[Sunfish]

Clint, with respect, you still don't get it.

It is not up to CASA to speculate, or pontificate. The rules and compliance requirements and objective standards should operate from North to South and East to West. There must be no discretion. If I comply in Tasmania, I comply in the Pilbara.

We can then have discussions about mixture pull, etc. on a nationwide basis (type by type if necessary) and an end to uncertainty.

This is what is killing GA. "Maybe you comply, and maybe you don't".

It will kill RA too in due course. It has already deterred me from $60,000 worth of investment until (if ever) I can obtain certainty about construction and operational requirements.

[D B Cooper]

Clinton,

Could you please tell us what ...

"the differences between the risks arising from pulling the throttle on a carburetted engine, compared with a fuel injected engine,"

are, and if ....

"All of the simulated engine failures of which (you are) aware that turned into real engine failures occurred when the throttle was advanced after the failure was simulated by pulling the throttle."

were carbureted engines, or fuel injected engines?

[mattyj]

this is a discussion about terminology..what you need to understand IMHO is that once the mixture is pulled and the engine stopped you are now dealing with a REAL EMERGENCY and not a simulation!

This is undesirable especially with training as you may not know the capabilities of the student and once a real emergency is happening there is no longer any room for error!!

[maralinga]

Further to MattyJ,

Do any of that in a GTSO and you've just killed that engine.

[The Green Goblin]

Further to MattyJ,

Do any of that in a GTSO and you've just killed that engine.

You mean a GTSIO? I'm not aware of any GTSO's.

I don't see how it would kill it. Provided you chopped the throttle quickly without a slow retard to prevent gear 'chatter' then it would be the same as any other engine. obviously repeated assaults wouldn't be kind to the engine and I don't know to many operators that are happy for training to be conducted in their C404s.

[maralinga]

GTSIO....my bad

Rapid throttle pulls can de-tune the crankshaft counter weights, setting the engine up for catastrophic failure.

The engine is highly heat stressed and sensitive to rapid temperature changes. The easiest way to stuff a GTSIO is through bad temp management.

Negative torque. The engine/gearbox was not designed to have the prop driving it, i.e. a simulated engine failure.

I wouldn't like to be the next guy to fly the aircraft after this type of training had been conducted.

Anyway, back to the engines ain't engines when it comes to training debate.

[Sunfish]

At the risk of being a broken record, it does not matter what the procedure is provided it is administered exactly the same way by FOIs throughout Australia.

Note: That does not mean "centrally administered" it means that each and every FOI is going to ask for the same thing in the same manner and expect the same response.

ie: Compliance is repeatable. No more of this "new kid on the block syndrome." If you satisfy one, you satisfy all.

Furthermore, if nobody satisfies anyone, then there is dialogue until a common understanding is reached and written in stone.

To put it another way: The arguments immortalized here are not supposed to happen in a well functioning bureaucracy!

[Joker 10]

Sunfish, absolutely correct.

The sort of nonsense we see repeated time after time from the pathetic observance of public policy that is the regulator is symptomatic of a leaderless society or organisation.

Until we see true leadership there will be no consistent application of balanced regulation, there will be the same behavior that we have seen for the past decade, leaderless, opinionated, biased, and absolutely lawless only depending on the lack of economic ability to fight the total power vested in the Commonwealth when that power is used unilaterally against individuals who lack the will or ability to defend themselves.

[LeadSled]

---- who lack the will or ability to defend themselves.

Folks,
Mostly the ability, as in $$$$ ability to hire competent aviation lawyers.

Believe me, $100,000 goes nowhere, even in the AAT, to properly defend a case ---- whether the CASA case has merit or not.

And therein lies the real power of CASA to dictate ---- the very un-level playing field. CASA is insured against major legal expenses ---- are you??

Even the two pilot unions don't have the resources for long court actions.

Tootle pip!!

[Andy_RR]

As the FAA, GFA, SAAA, RAAus, ASRA, LAA/PFA et al demonstrate to varying degrees, having some skin in the game (a.k.a. self regulation) goes a long way to making for more efficient, if not perfect regulation.

We kid ourselves that the industy is regulated when in effect it is only meddled with. I'll bet the regulatory oversight per passenger-flight in RPT is miniscule compared to GA/the rest simply because those involved have a reputation to protect.

If GA was self-policing by a regulatory industry association, would half the alleged shenannigans remain within the industry, both in terms of enforcement actions and regulation violations? I doubt it.

[The Green Goblin]

Andy you raise a pretty good point.

If I were a GA aviation business I would want to be part of a co-op who had the resources to defend my business along with peers to exchange notes with (especially with CASA issues).

Perhaps it's time for 'The Australian General Aviation Industry Association' to grow some legs, and basically fight for survival of the industry.

[superdimona]

Why not just abolish CASA but require everyone to be insured? The insurance companiy requirements would do a better job at preventing crashes.

[Henry The Octopus]

The sooner this matter gets to court, the sooner it will hopefully get resolved, as I don’t believe this particular issue has anything to do with how CASA tries to enforce how engines are failed in the conduct of asymmetric endorsement training (i.e. by mixture ICO, retarding the throttle or by waving of magic wand), but rather a very erroneous belief in this thread that the operator involved was being forced to “fail” engines in a certain way. If anyone can provide evidence that this operator was being forced to shut down engines in a certain manner at an unsafe altitude, then please post the evidence for all to see (that includes you Mr Phelan - if that is really you on this thread), as it seems clear to me that arguing about a lack of standardization on how engine failures are allegedly being enforced by CASA (in this case) are just red herrings fed to the masses to deflect the real issue in question and unfortunately it would seem that many on this thread have taken the bait hook, line and sinker.

Whether "we have killed far more pilots in (asymmetric) training" is not really the issue (although I agree it is potentially a high risk activity that should be only conducted by suitably trained and supervised pilots). I think the vast majority of pilots would acknowledge that asymmetric training conducted within set parameters by suitably trained and competent pilots is an essential part of obtaining a obtaining a multi-engine endorsement.

Obviously if a simulator (that is realistic and specific enough for the task) is available, then commonsense would dictate that that is obviously the preferred way to go. Anyone who believes that flight training in emergency procedures is not a requirement for an endorsement in a Baron type aircraft should read the relevant section of CAO 40.1.0.

On another related matter to this thread, Stink Finger you stated earlier to Leadsled on this thread that:

“You may be glad to know, rumour has it that the
Quote: one very opinionated FOI (Leadsled quote)
has had the stuffing knocked out of him recently”

I assume you are referring to the relatively recent death of that persons wife and the three young children he is now endeavouring to raise. Why would anyone other than perhaps yourself be “glad” to hear that???

[LeadSled]

If anyone can provide evidence that this operator was being forced to shut down engines in a certain manner at an unsafe altitudeHenry,
Go read Butson's (Polar Air) submission to the recent Senate inquiry into CASA for full details of how the Polar Air problems started.

As to somebody having to bring up three children, I have absolutely no idea what you are alluding to, or what it has to do with "chopping engines at V1" versus carefully using zero thrust to demonstrate/simulate engine failure on takeoff.

Tootle pip!!

PS: For anybody who doesn't know what "de-tuning" a crankshaft means, go do some homework --- it means destroying the crankshaft, and probably the engine.

For those of you who have only flown normally aspirate or turbo-normalized direct drive engines, a geared turbo or supercharged engine is totally different animal, and must be handled very carefully, whether it is a flat, straight, V or radial engine.

[Henry The Octopus]

Leadsled,

I read Mr Butson's submission some time ago however I don't recall any facts being presented on the manner in which asymmetric training operations were to be conducted - only his view of the entire situation which seems to have been taken as gospel by many. His submission is only one side of the whole issue and doesn't automatically make it fact.

Also, where exactly do you have the evidence to back up your assertion that this operator was being forced to "chop engines at V1"? If you can provide that I would love to see it.

The other comment was directed to Stink Finger.

[Sunfish]

I just went to the link below and randomly chose the last submission. Please note, I personally have had nothing but good service from CASA. What I am trying to understand is if there is a fire associated with all the apparent "smoke".

Parliament of Australia:Senate:Committees:Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport:Inquiry into the Administration of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) and related matters - Submissions received (http://www.aph.gov.au/SEnate/committee/rrat_ctte/casa/submissions/sublist.htm)


SUBMISSION – ENQUIRY INTO ADMINISTRATION OF CASA.
This submission deals with only one aspect of CASA administration, but a very vital aspect.

Bluntly put, the administration is, I believe, institutionally corrupt.
Up until about 1990 CASA was an organization that was respected by the General Aviation section of the business, since that time everything has changed.

Each different state interprets and administers rules and regulations differently, yet it is supposed to be a national body. Consistency across the organization is non-existent, the rules/regulations applied to one GA company are not applied to another, with no explanation for the discrimination.

My more recent experience is with the N.T. area. which appears to ignore or not reply to letters or queries, and when a copy of that letter was sent to CEO Byron, there was still no response.

They are an arm of government but they are not answerable to anyone. They still act as judge, jury and executioner, when their role should be in administering the rules and regulations, not prosecuting or making administrative decisions to bypass any court action, having made their own judgments on a situation.

They are quite happy to misuse the Freedom of Information laws to support their own decisions, when questioned by an organization.

Their decisions have been based on personalities, not on proven facts and their decisions have been made on untested allegations, not facts.

My experience shows that 99% of allegations that have been tested in a proper court have been shown to be baseless, and yet CASA has taken punitive action based on these allegations, without any recourse available to the person or organization affected.

Decisions are made on personal interpretations of regulations, and decisions have been based on allegations of perceived personality traits, not on known and proven facts.

The present situation has seen the demise of the commercial General Aviation section of the industry, with the resulting loss of training of pilots and thus the loss of experienced pilots ready to move to airlines/regional RPT. For forty years the GA sector was the training ground for airline pilots, and with a healthy GA sector there was no shortage of good pilots for the airlines, now it is such a problem that some RPT services have had to
be cancelled because of a lack of suitably qualified pilots. This can be directly linked back to the destruction of the GA sector by CASA.

. Engineering is no better, with the lack of commercial G.A. there is not the ability to provide apprenticeships, and for those that do have apprentices the cost of examinations is ridiculous and prohibitive.

Qualified engineers are treated like ignorant school- children by many of the CASA staff, so it is no wonder that they leave the industry.
The continued invention and over application of regulations to a sector that does not need such regulations has proven to be the death knell of that sector of the industry, and has discouraged many qualified people to leave the industry.

The time taken to approve even the simplest addition to an AOC is destructive of business expansion and to take twelve months or more to approve an AOC for a small G.A. company indicates either a lack of ability or lack of will in CASA.

Good employees of CASA leave because of the corporate culture of that body.

Any person who depends upon CASA for the continued operation of their business is afraid to speak out, because past actions have shown that those who do speak out are no longer welcome in the industry, with their businesses destroyed.

Maxine Reid

[Sunfish]

Extracts of the submission by Barrister McKeown:


3. I submit the principal issue for consideration is the fact that there is no
separation of the function of administration from that of enforcement.
I submit that while ever there is an enforcement function there will be a
reluctance or reticence of industry to talk and deal with CASA. The
above term of the enquiry, with respect, is not capable of satisfactory
deliberation if the Committee proceeds on the premise that CASA must
also be a “firm safety regulator” thereby implying a policing role.

.....


However, there needs to be a protection to the consumer/client from
administrative delay and misfeasance. This is currently addressed by
AAT proceedings to review administrative decisions of CASA. There is
a catch; the playing ground is not level. An individual or company rarely
has the resources of CASA. CASA can currently delay matters in the
AAT by presenting dubious evidence to support their decision and
thereby remove the applicant from the proceedings merely by attrition. I
am not suggesting this always happens or happens intentionally, but it is
a concern which I think is real. One way of levelling the playing field
might be to award costs against CASA but not in the first instance to
award costs against an applicant Currently, CASA can administratively
shut an industry participant down. I submit, this should not be possible
and while it exists, industry and CASA will not have a good relationship.
The question might be asked of CASA, how many cancellation or
suspension notices has it served on a Friday afternoon?

Sunfish notes: Wasn't this done again Two weeks ago in Sydney?????

.....

Regulation 269 is an example of how industry is concerned, I submit,
about the power CASA holds over industry participants. CASA is
effectively the judge, jury and executioner. Certainly there is a review
facility in the AAT but there is no compensation (costs order) for an
industry participant who is successful on review, and no compensation
for the lost business a participant might have suffered when the AAT
agrees with the applicant. CASA does not strengthen its relationship with
industry when it publishes on its website or makes a media release (see
Civil Aviation Safety Authority - Media release - CASA suspends Far North Queensland airline (http://www.casa.gov.au/media/2008/08-06-28.htm)) that an operator has
been suspended. The very fact that it is a suspension indicates there are
review provisions open to the operator. CASA publishes these types of
broadcasts before the operator has exhausted their rights of review. Thus
the operator possibly suffers financial loss immediately rather than at the
conclusion of their review rights. If the operator obtains a stay and
continues their operations do CASA publish this fact?


.....



Therefore how can industry feel comfortable dealing with CASA
concerning operations or proposed operations? Why would industry feel
comfortable when the material provided to CASA can be then, or later,
used against it?

(Which is why I won't even ask CASA anything at all about kit aircraft. I'm afraid of the answer.)




There are many more submissions in exactly the same vein.

This suggests to me that CASA still has a case to answer.

[Sunfish]

...And with the greatest respect, Henry the Eight armed one:

I read Mr Butson's submission some time ago however I don't recall any facts being presented on the manner in which asymmetric training operations were to be conducted - only his view of the entire situation which seems to have been taken as gospel by many. His submission is only one side of the whole issue and doesn't automatically make it fact.

Also, where exactly do you have the evidence to back up your assertion that this operator was being forced to "chop engines at V1"? If you can provide that I would love to see it.

Isn't that the trouble Henry?

CASA only bases its decisions on proven factual evidence that has been tested in a court of law, and even then only after long, careful and mature deliberation.......

The GA industry, on the other hand, only ever makes wild, unproveable assertions and shoots from the hip.

[peuce]

Henry,

I agree that we possibly persued the 'pull the mixture' example a bit too far ... as that is all it was ... an example.

Standardised policy and decision making is the real issue for us.

as it seems clear to me that arguing about a lack of standardization on how engine failures are allegedly being enforced by CASA (in this case) are just red herrings fed to the masses to deflect the real issue in question and unfortunately it would seem that many on this thread have taken the bait hook, line and sinker.


What actually is your 'real issue in question'?

[GADRIVR]

Sunfish notes: Wasn't this done again Two weeks ago in Sydney?????

Yes Sunfish, it did happen....after three people had died, after multiple engineering failures over a period of time, after aeroplanes continually coming to grief in some way shape or form,after the forced demotion of the previous CP...the list goes on.

Really does beg the question of how far one lets an organisation go on.

I doubt that the thread you were commenting in much resembles the situation in Sydney.

[peuce]

GADRIVR,

I know nothing of this example, but, yes, it does appear to beg that question!

In fact, this example may be more relevant than you think .... is there any standardised/formal process for dealing with 'suspect' operators or organisations?

Or does it rely on a CASA employee deciding 'enough is enough'?

Often, after the event ...

[Sunfish]

GAdriver, if the allegation made is true - that a letter was delivered to the letterbox by CASA hand at 4.30pm, followed by a CASA telephone call saying "look in the letter box", suspending the AOC, then this is the sort of puerile, insulting, contemptible, disreputable, inequitable, dispicable and downright sh1tty legal tactic that gives the lie to CASA's claim to aspire to being a model litigant.

To put it another way GAdriver, the purpose of doing it at 4.30 pm on a Friday is to maximise the pain the action causes to the person concerned. It causes pain because it is highly unlikely that the operator can obtain legal advice at such an hour, let alone go to a judge for an immediate injunction. This causes the operator to have a miserable weekend and lose at a bare minimum Two days worth of business, probably at least Three, before he has any hope of responding.

I've had this done to me by a very well known merchant bank while tap dancing around through Sixty million dollars of research and development contracts I was involved with, and in this case the Friday 4.45 pm. Fax was a deliberate attempt to make me drop the ball in the negotiations.

To put it another way, this sort of trick, is learned in about second year law school, but most solicitors are honourable enough to grow out of it. It is the legal equivalent of sending an envelope of feces to someone.

Please do not come back with the "we only decided at Friday 4.00pm to..." defence. Apart from being unlikely considering its previous use elsewhere, It is unnecessary, at least a telephone call could have been made much earlier foreshadowing the decision and alerting the operator.

Furthermore, don't come back regarding "How far one lets the organisation go.." and their litany of errors. If CASA is a competent organisation, how did it let that relationship get so dysfunctional? Furthermore, I thought CASA was supposed to be proactive, not reactive. But all I seem to hear of is the continual punishment of those left alive after an accident.

[dhavillandpilot]

I would humbly suggest that GADRVR has an axe to grind against the operator he speaks about. Could it be he is in competition with the said operator and sees a benifit by "stirring the pot"

Also the accident he talks about has yet to be decided as to the cause - does GADRVR has some higher knowledge even the ASTB has yet to discover.

These type of comments just fuel the somewhat challenged employees of CASA to continue on their merry way.

[Sunfish]

I forgot to mention that I think i have read elsewhere on Pprune about some attempt to discipline some one caught red handed at CASA and the first words out of CASA's mouth were "Procedural fairness" and "Natural justice" for the accused. Wouldn't the industry expect those same courtesies to be extended to them?

And as a P.S. before I go off to a well earned lunch, I'm concerned about the state of CASA not because of anything it has ever done to me, but because as a member of the public and a former airline person, I cannot think of a worse situation in terms of value for money and public safety that to have an antagonistic relationship existing between the regulator and the aviation industry.

[GADRIVR]

Dhavillandpilot,
That wasn't really my intention but as I reread what I'd written I guess it could be interpreted that way. Apologies to any that were offended.
I guess my point was that Sunfishs comment did not relate to the Syd situation. Apart from that...nope, I'm not in competition with anyone... something about small fortunes in aviation and the like.
If you'd like me to amend the post, please don't hesitate to ask.:ok:

[LeadSled]

Genesis of the problems with CASA
4. During a routine operational "audit" conducted by CASA at the premises of
Polar Aviation in May 2004, Butson became involved in a heated argument
with one of the CASA "audit" officers in relation to an operational matter
concerning asymmetric practices (being a procedure involving flight with "one
engine out" simulation) and training requirements in light multi engine
aircraft, and in relation to the carriage of life jackets on certain flights.

http://www.aph.gov.au/SENATE/committee/rrat_ctte/casa/submissions/sub47.pdf

Folks,
The above is from the Polar Air submission to the last ( but far from the first) Senate Inquiry into CASA.

Then, and again now, some FOIs are taking a very literal position on what "engine failure" means for the purposed of training re. CAO 40 ( 40.1.0 ---- from memory).

As the CAO ( "The Law" and unlike certain CASA advisory documents that are not "The Law") makes no reference to "zero thrust", or running the "failed" engine at idle, such "advisory" practices --- despite being in CASA publications --- are not The Law, and are, therefore, not in compliance with The Law.

Hence (informal, never in writing) demands that the engine failure on takeoff sequence requires the engine to be shut down on the mixture. Sadly, this approach is not limited to a few in CASA, there are still too many industry pilots adopting such procedures.

In a similar fashion, recent demands that to "do stalls" in a Metro, the stall warning/stick pusher had to be de-activated ---- contrary to the AFM, otherwise The Law would not be complied with.

That the Metro 111/23 in question have a stick pusher for a bloody good reason was of no interest to the said FOI, only "legal compliance".

In a morbid sort of way, I suppose you could say that writing off a Metro in an un-recoverable deep stall would at least make a change from investigating Metro asymmetric training and other accidents and incidents.

Tootle pip!!

[Brian Abraham]

Be a good chap and remind us what CAO 40.1.0 Appendix III paragraph 1(d) - the law - actually says.

To whom is this directed and about what exactly Clinton. And yes I know what the relevant para has to say, just that you seem a bit cryptic in your post. Might be just me. :confused:

The problem with communication is the illusion that is has occurred

[Sunfish]

The reg:

Asymmetric flight: The attainment of optimum performance following a simulated engine failure on take-off (at least twice). The speed at which the failure is simulated must be as follows:

(i) in the case of an aeroplane for which the take-off performance is predicated on the establishment of a V1 — failure of the engine must be simulated at a speed greater than V1;

(ii) in the case of any other aeroplane — failure of the engine must be simulated at a speed greater than:

(A) the 1 engine inoperative best rate of climb speed; or

(B) the take-off safety speed plus 10 knots;
whichever is the higher.

If the aeroplane is capable of the manoeuvre, going around again with 1 or more engines simulated failed (at least twice). Cruising flight with 1 or more engines inoperative — feathering and unfeathering propellers. Medium and steep turns with and against live engines.


My ignorant questions:

Does this mean that the failure has to be performed "on take off" or can it be performed elsewhere at the required speeds and configuration?

Exactly what determines what the aircraft is capable of? The POH? I also assume this is done IAW the MEL.


....And of course there is that word "simulated", How?

[Brian Abraham]

Well I must admit to a measure of confusion because Appendix III applies to

Syllabus of flying training for a type endorsement specified in Part 2 or Part 4 of Appendix I or a class endorsement specified in Part 3 or Part 5 of Appendix IA

FAR 23 GA twins are listed under Appendix IA Part 1. Question, what reference re training requirements then applies to Appendix IA Part 1 aircraft? It's not Appendix III as far as I can see from its header.

[Brian Abraham]

P'raps APP III is being applied as a general rule, rather than just to the specified sub-sets …

Perhaps, but by what directive.

[tipsy2]

Bit of an update at

Aircraft for Sale, Plane Sales, Planes for Sale – Aviation Advertiser ? – Online Magazine Federal Court win for WA operator (http://www.aviationadvertiser.com.au/2010/09/federal-court-win-for-wa-operator/)

QUOTE:
Federal Court win for WA operator
Paul Phelan , 22 September 2010 – 10:24 amMake a Comment

Western Australian air operator certificate (AOC) holder Gerald Repacholi has won an appeal to the Full Federal Court against an earlier judgment of Federal Court Justice McKerracher, which had refused an application for an extension of time and for leave to appeal from an interlocutory judgment refusing further amendments to a statement of claim.

The claims surrounded a CASA regulatory action against Mr Repacholi, who seeks damages from CASA, from senior CASA official Terence Farquharson and from five other officials for alleged breaches of statutory duty.

Justice Gilmour has determined that the Judge in the Court below, Justice McKerracher, appeared to have erred, and leave has now been granted to Mr Repacholi to file his appeal to the Full Court.

CASA contested this matter with considerable energy, but it appears from the judgment of Justice Kenny in the earlier matter of Polar Aviation (Mr Repacholi’s company) v CASA, that Her Honour had referred extensively to the original judgment of Justice McKerracher when formulating her own judgment in that case.

Justice Gilmour ordered that:

1. The time for the applicants filing an application for leave to appeal against the orders of Justice McKerracher made on 11 December 2009 be extended to 25 January 2010 to validate an appeal already filed.
2. The applicants have leave to appeal against the orders limited in substance to grounds as to the refusal to allow further amendments to the statement of claim to plead misfeasance in public office and the issue of an alleged duty of good faith.
3. The issue of costs was reserved.

Applicants were Repacholi Aviation Pty Limited and its proprietor Gerald Repacholi, represented by represented by Maitland Lawyers, who appeared and instructed Mr P G Nash QC appearing with Mr P W Lithgow. Respondents were CASA and separately Mr Farquharson, represented by Mr Ian Harvey appearing with Mr N Manuchehri, instructed by Blake Dawson.

The decision is of considerable interest to a number of other aviation businesses who are either contemplating similar actions against CASA and individual employers, or have already initiated them.
UNQUOTE:

I imagine there are a number of fellow PPRuNers that will not be surprised at some of the "names" representing CASA.

tipsy:ok:

[Charlie Foxtrot India]

I am a bit surprised that Polar Aviation is said to be owned by Gerald Repacholi...? I expect Clark Butson could find that quite a surprise too?

[gobbledock]

The claims surrounded a CASA regulatory action against Mr Repacholi, who seeks damages from CASA, from senior CASA official Terence Farquharson and from five other officials for alleged breaches of statutory duty.


I am confident that the recently promoted Assitant Director as named above will do just fine out of all this and escape untarnished as per normal. The Government and ultimately the taxpayer will foot the bill/cost of any legal bills and/or penalties, while the little man with a big ego continues to reap the rewards of a senior salary while continuing his career of incompetence and foolishness. And you wonder why the regulator commands such little respect ?

[Josh Cox]

From my understanding:

Gerald Repacholi owns Repacoli Aviation ( Ag company, his car is often parked in a suburb near JT ), and

Clark Butson owns Polar ( charter etc etc, Port Hedland ).

Pretty sure they are different entities.

[gobbledock]

Any updates on this matter ?
Perhaps Senator Xenaphon can update us ?
More light reading here;

http://www.pprune.org/dg-p-general-aviation-questions/414063-wa-air-operator-sues-casa-officials.html (http://www.pprune.org/dg-p-general-aviation-questions/414063-wa-air-operator-sues-casa-officials.html)
and
http://www.pprune.org/dg-p-reporting-points/159810-casa-reply-pprune-email-re-tvl-13.html\ (http://www.pprune.org/dg-p-reporting-points/159810-casa-reply-pprune-email-re-tvl-13.html/)

[Sunfish]

It's pretty devastating when an institution alleges that a person has a condition requiring psychiatric treatment.

[Frank Arouet]

I hear The High Court is fashionable these days.:D

[PLovett]

Perhaps the appellants will now go to the High Court, on the ground that they shouldn’t have to provide any evidence to support their allegations.

Mr McKenzie, I do hope that comment was tongue in cheek as you know better than that. :rolleyes:

For all non-lawyers, it seems to be a wide-spread view that because you make an allegation against someone they are then required to disprove it. Not so. := If you are the applicant in a court action then you have to prove your case, the respondent can sit back and say nothing if you can't. :hmm:

Perhaps the applicants in this case should have taken better advice before rushing to court. :ugh:

[Frank Arouet]

Working overtime mate or just a quicky from the Wig and Pen?

Friday of all things. Must be serious or you're on the wagon.

I'm having one for you now.

Cheers.

[flyingfiend]

Clinton,

Repacholi will most probably need to seek leave to appeal to the High court. It would be surprising if he was successful from this judgement but he may have the option of trying to convince the High Court directly to hear this but he better go out and find a bus load of rabbit feet or faires from the bottom of the garden to increase his likelyhood of success.

Frank,
From the other thread, too late for me to name people...:sad:
FF

[thorn bird]

Well Mr Fiend,
newby PPruner..Hmm?..wouldnt be acting on Instructions would you?
Well the Cohorts from CASA legal are probably high fiving each other now..
Another "little" person crushed by the might of unlimited, unaccountable, public funds, and malignant intent.. "Model Litigants?"..Yeah right!!
So the bottom feeders can grovel about in the muck fighting over the spoils..
Who wins the bonus out of this one??
In the end its futile, win you may, for a time, but ultimately the corrupt come unstuck.
I just pray that come the revolution the AFP have the balls to ignore political pressure and actually prosecute and jail the corrupt...notice a recently departed one of yours!!..didnt have his nose in the trough did he?

[Up-into-the-air]

Using an allegation that the person has a 'few loose in the belfry' is a tactic used by the public service in the mid-nineties.

To pull someones medical on that type of allegation certainly goes to malfeasance.

In fact in NSW, that type of activity seems to have disappeared, but can have a long lasting effect on someone when it gets into public documents.

Just having the matter refuted is not enough, it needs to be pursued vigourously by the Commonwealth Ombudsman. In fact this organisation is not having much effect in this total argument.

This is the organisation (Ombudsman), together with the Parliament, that must ensure that the issue of malfeasance in public office cannot continue and to do that, it must be dealt with by summary dismissal, fines and a jail term.

Come on Parlimentarians and the Ombudsman - make CASA become a model litigant and stamp out these underlying practices.

This is not about SAFETY, it is about ultimate contriol and making the most money for one-self.

Start Mr CASA in getting rid of the "nasty regs", get on with using the FAA or NZ model and "move on"

[thorn bird]

Mate,
the old "screw loose" excuse to ground a pilot has long gone.
Much easier these days since the introduction of DAMP.
Just let CASA medical know you want to nail someone, tell them you thought he was drunk three or four months ago and voila! Medical vanishes.
No Damp test, no investigation, no accountability, just a word in the right ear.
Bit like a copper pulling you over and charging you with DUI because four months ago he thought you were drunk...wonder where that would go in a proper court?
Incidently the one that pulled this would probably be a prime candidate for the "Screw loose" Technique, serious anger management issues.

[gobbledock]

I just pray that come the revolution the AFP have the balls to ignore political pressure and actually prosecute and jail the corrupt...notice a recently departed one of yours!!..didnt have his nose in the trough did he?
Ha! Nice one. It is rumoured to be more a case of 'what goes around comes around' for that complete as#hole. The toecutter had his own toes cut off, the powers to be offered up a sacrificial lamb, which is a good indicator that the upper echelon is feeling the heat, considering that nobody has bothered to walk the aforementioned ****e bag out the door after all these previous years of the individual doing whatever he wants whenever he wants under the watchful and approving eyes of his cohorts. Perhaps the bloated board of bureaucrats is getting a little restless also and fearing that their 'money for jam' paypackets are also in danger, hence now is a good time to 'offer up' an already well known lamb? Unfortunately in biblical times a 'lame sacrifice' was not enough to appease the gods, and a quality sacrifice was expected. So over to the modern day 'Abraham', Senator Xenaphon, and let's see if he can come up with some better quality lambs to offer up?
Anyway, just because one mire covered pig has it's snout cut off from the trough doesn't fix the indemic, ingrained disgrace that they are. There are plenty more 'legacy bottom dwellers' hiding deep inside the bowels of 'malfeasance central' that still need to be outed and sacrificed so to speak. CASA know who they are, the government know who they are, the aviation community know who they are and I am sure Xenaphon know's who they are by now.

Oh, flyingfiend, I could apologize for lambasting your mentors, idols and favourite 'faceless men' but I won't.

[LeadSled]

Folks,
The far more interesting one to watch, and far more important to the industry, is the Polar Air/Butson case.
Tootle pip!!

[gobbledock]

Unlike many of the posters in this thread, government authorities usually have a basic understanding of the law. Might be something to do with the fact that the government takes and spends the taxpayers money (endless bucket of incoming cash flow) on some of the most brilliant, shrewd and educated legal entities out there, so of course they have a highly trained legal advisory service(s). That is the first reason, the second reason is that they need all that well educated firepower to thoroughly crush the little man into oblivion. David vs Goliath is not just a fairytale, it is the modern day ethos of a so-called democratic society.

[Jabawocky]

Clinton,

Toss a coin.

I have seen, as I am sure we all have, some of the most disturbing and bizzare results come from the courts at all levels.

In some cases the folk presiding are clearly incompetent, and often not well enough equipped to see through all the various variety of bovine excrement on offer.

Its not unlike asking your LAME to perform heart surgery. Sure he has a workshop full of tools, and its beautifully clean, and he knows heart surgery involves chopping your chest open, but thats where the experience and competency ends.

Toss a coin. :sad:

[Frank Arouet]

People;

This gets down to basic honesty not "the law" as it is writ.

Picture this in the context of the Reno Galloping Ghost. Seems fairly indicitave of elevator trim flutter, pictures show it broken and then missing. At nearly 500kts after instinct pull up to get out of the way, tailwheel deploys, pilot disappears possibly after a massive "G" force and the matter is out of his hands.

Another one. Bloke buys a Maule in which the previous owner has cut the rudder/ aileron connect cables and in the event, cuts the elevator trim cables half way through. (among other things).

Some mob with a documented association with The Director of Aviation Safety sign same Maule out with a fresh MR prior to the bloke taking delivery.

On inspection by new owner's LAME CASA become involved and sieze all evidence and log books.

CASA engineering are seen and recorded as taking bets on how far the new owner would get before he crashed.

All the evidence then mysteriously vanish including the offending trim cables.

CASA spend 8 years defending their stance until a Commonwealth Ombudsman finds them at serious fault.

The Director offers a "lame duck" apology.

The owner is seriously out of pocket despite an Act of Grace payment from The Department of Finance.

CASA never admitted any liability.

Please tell me, why some people who post here defend the indefensible based, I assume, on the fact they got away with it.

Well people, and especially those posting here who, in my opinion, are as culpable as any recorded Despot in history, continue to openly live their lives as if that owners life had no significance.

Those creeps who see that owner as somehow inferior to their own elevated yet mid "turd" status in the big sewer of life.

People like you are beyond comprehension and form the base of human life form as we know it. Horrid Horrid individuals.

Further words fail me.

[onetrack]

To those who would comment on the saga of Repacholi VS CASA, perhaps it would be better if you studied the relevant cases involving Mr Repacholi and CASA, before forming opinions and making statements... because virtually all these case are laid out, on-line, for the public to see.

The evidence tendered, the statements of both plaintiff and defendant, the presiding judges summary (many of which are very revealing, as judges are largely very astute when it comes to summing up individual peoples personalities, and the persons value, as to reliability of evidence given)... and dozens of other highly relevant facts pertaining to cases, are presented in the precise form and manner that they were presented to the Court.

Notwithstanding that there are judges who have erred, and judges whose interpretations have been reversed in later appeals... the facts, summaries and judgements, as presented in these cases, are laid out for all to peruse and gain their own insight... and perhaps correct the views they might have previously held, that were gained by obtaining information that was far less reliable, than that presented to the Court, under our standard laws of admission of evidence.

AustLII Results - Gerald Repacholi (http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinosrch.cgi?query=Gerald+Repacholi&results=50&submit=Search&mask_world=&mask_path=&callback=on&method=auto&meta=%2Fau)

[gobbledock]

So how do you explain the recent High Court decision about the 'Malaysian Solution'? On my reading, the court decided that the government (and. by implication, all of the advice of its highly paid lawyers) was wrong.
Clinton, so how is it that one week a paedophile who commits over 100 offences doesn't get to serve time behind bars, however the next week a ped who is charged with 3 lesser offences (which still does not make his acts acceptable or any less relevant) gets 14 months in the big house. Then in the same week a nupty high on Ice robs a servo (and no, it is not an acceptable or tolerated crime but it is far different from interfering with toddlers) and gets 3 years ?
I rest my case. The law in general is an ass, and so are those upholding it or metering it out. Knowledge is power and power corrupts.

Clinton, Flyingfiend et al don't waste your time posting about Malaysian fukcing solutions or Repacholi as being the prime examples of correct and perfect case studies in justice.
We we are talking here about decades of aviation regulatory shennanigans by people permitted to operate as 'untouchables and unaccountables'. It's got to change.

[Frank Arouet]

With due respect for all involved, I believe, (in fact know), that Clinton has been agitating for a completion of The Regulatory Review process for years.

This doesn't alter the fact that I believe his legal arguments don't always support common sense.

[LeadSled]

Clinton,
I am well aware of the current state of the proceedings in the Polar Air matter, we await the latest decision on the Commonwealth application with great interest.

In my opinion, as a layman, there is a far more solid case for Polar Air, the "possible" reasons why this case has been so strung out are worth a study in themselves.

Tootle pip!!

[flyingfiend]

Gobbledock,

Everyone is entitled to their opinion and your view of the law is an old one.

However, you do realise that the freedom to make such criticism of the legal system is protected by the very same legal system?

Or, do you diasagree with all legal process including those actions which result in judgements being handed down with which you agree?

I thought not...

[LeadSled]

After all, you did say, in this very thread, that there is only one side to the Polar Air story.

Clinton,
You can do better than that, the only opinion I expressed was that the Polar Air case was more important to the industry.
However, as you have brought the matter up, my personal opinion is that the Polar Air case has a better foundation for the current action than our old mate Gerald.
Whether the courts see it that way is another matter altogether.
Will we see a trial of the substantive matter? Won't that rather depend on the outcome of the present application, and an appeal, if any, if the outcome is against Polar Air.
I await the decision on the present application with great interest.
Tootle pip!!

[gobbledock]

Aagh flyingfiend, so you wish to put me on trial I see? Some nice wankery, spin, deflection and directional change thrown into the discussion. Do I need to point out that this is a rumour network discussion point and I not need to lower myself into a pi#sing contest with you.
My comment stands in place, CASA on occasion has abused it's moral, ethical and some would say legal obligations and done so due to the structure of government and it's legal might. To put things another way most people on this thread who have a gripe with the regulator do so due to mistreatment in ways that you could obviously never fathom. The same people simply seek a fair and level playing field which I agree is more fantasy than reality.

All arguments aside as to who does and who doesn't like the Regulator it is plainly obvious that at a minimum a review o CASA's structure, accountability framework, ethics, systems, direction and past and previous activities is warranted, in the least to ensure that Australia does have the beat safety system and governance in place.

[flyingfiend]

Gobbledock,

I assume you have read what I posted.

YOU were expressing your opinion of the legal system. I said nothing about CASA, any other entity or person.

It is not surprising that you have gone off in another direction.

Answer the question: Do you accept legal determinations with which you agree or not?

Stay focussed.

And I won't lower myself to personal abuse or 'crapping' on people (this is terminology that you understand judging by your previous postings); I prefer to rely on evidence.

So, answere the question: Do you reject ALL legal decisions even those with which you agree?

Put up or shut up.

[gobbledock]

flyingfiend, I should warn you, I love to play.
So, just for you -
I assume you have read what I posted. I confess, I did skip through it a little bit. I think your postings are 'crappy' (to quote my own terminology) and not worth analysing in great detail. Also you seem to contradict your own method of reasoning, you expect cut and dry answers yet you yourself say 'I assume'. Are not assumptions something that are themselves considered risky in their context?

So, answere the question: Do you reject ALL legal decisions even those with which you agree? I won't answer that question solely based on the fact that you are seeking an answer so as to self assure an already preconceived dermination in your mind. You won't get that satisfaction out of me by legal hound.
Any my my, very forceful and demanding in your line of questioning your honor!

I prefer to rely on evidence. Better tell that one to those who are occasionally convicted and imprisoned even though a lack of evidence existed.

[Frank Arouet]

Flyingfiend, (here to help you), you wrote;

Do you reject ALL legal decisions

May I be so bold as to reply, that is the reason we have Appeals Courts.

It may be of interest for someone to look up the success/ failure rate of CASA prosecutions overturned in The AAT. I believe, but cant be bothered checking the figures, that CASA have about a 75% failure rate.

But don't let figures like that alarm anyone at CASA or The Incumbants in Government, it's all paid eventually by the Taxpayer. After all, it's not their own money they are playing with, and they can always get more in the next budget.

May I also add, the reason I believe the Regulatory Review Process will take forever, is that they haven't finished rewriting the amendments to existing rules that contradict what they want to rule, and until that is done, The Regulatory Review process, or the amendments should be abandoned.

Regulations that serve only to confuse the target of whatever violation and the Courts are bad regulations.

[Frank Arouet]

Thank you Clinton.

The answer I was hoping someone like you would come up with.

So where do those who don't agree with the Court decisions go?

High Court doesn't wash mate. I'm white, christian, hetrosexual, right handed impecunious Australian male who doesn't give a rat's about China polluting my atmosphere because there's nothing I can do about it.

Oh, and I'm a pilot for what that's worth.

Can someone post a large target under this post.

[Kharon]

Marcellus:
Something is rotten in the state of Denmark.` ` (Hamlet)."There's a reason he says "state of Denmark" rather than just Denmark: the fish is rotting from the head down— all is not well at the top of the political hierarchy".

ICAO know it, FAA know it, the Pollies know it and the poor bloody industry knows it.

Don't waste wind, water or ammunition here. To put up, get 's you done, to shut up allows the win.

There is a system, we just need equal rights. Unlimited access to funds, legal opinion, the ear of the Minister and a large brass pair of wings, (which qualify us as 'expert in aviation); what would we know.

Selah.

[Frank Arouet]

Of lawyers;

Let me tell you, Cassius, you yourself
Are much condemn'd to have an itching palm,
To sell and mart your offices for gold
To undeservers.

(Julius Ceasar. Act 4 Sc3, 7-12).

[Brian Abraham]

“The lawyer's truth is not Truth, but consistency or a consistent expediency.”

Henry David Thoreau, American Essayist, Poet and Philosopher, 1817-1862

[flyingfiend]

Frank, Kharon et al;
So, you think that Shakespeare or others are the fathers of all that is right and morally correct.

That is the refuge of those who are devoid of logical argument or evidence. I am not talking about allegory; I am talking about reliance on a 'play' to tell us the nature of the world!!

The only difficulty that I have with your postings on PPrune is not related as to whether the thread is about CASA or someone else, it is about the probity of what you do and say.

You may say, 'Or it is a rumour network and what I post are rumours' and in that you may be correct.

The problem arises when you post some completely incorrect 'fact', albeit with some sort of motherhood statement, and then in many, many more postings, you quote your posting as the demonstration of fact! You make your 'rumours' FACT by the action of time.

And that sort of rationality my friends, is totally without merit.

Fools; seen for what you are.

Leadslead,
BTW, I also am looking forward to your summary of the Commonwealth position re POLAR Air.

If you wish to wait until the whole thing is over, I completely understand; no-one said you were a Barrister or a Solicitor.

However, an easier task than the one you have been set by someone else here, would be for you just to give me the ratio in any of the decisions so far in this saga.

After all, what would I would know?

[Frank Arouet]

The only thing more sickening than an ALP apologist is a CASA apologist.

Try this one, you "morally correct" thespian;

"The past lies like a nightmare upon the present".

Karl Marx. (AKA another Red Prawn).

[blackhand]

Having read through this thread and also the court ruling linked previously it appears to me that Gerard is a most lovable rascal.
But he appears to have a horrendous history of disregard of rules and regulations, not just CASA regs.
It would seem that he his not a fit and proper person to hold an aviation document for commercial operations.
But I reckon he would be a great bloke if you were in strife and needed a hand.

Cheers
BH

[Frank Arouet]

I believe The House of McKenzie Crest says;

"Tarus Excreta Conundrum Cerebellum". Is flyingfiend a relative?:)

have a horrendous history of disregard of rules and regulations So did Brian Walker, Bobby Gibbs, Reg Ansett, Arthur Butler, and...

The Port Moresby Gliding Club;

A group of young enthusiasts
Met at a local pub
To talk about a common love
"The Port Moresby Gliding Club"

Their membership was very low
The running costs were high,
They needed some dramatic act
To catch the public eye.

"I've got a good idea" said one
"Been planning it all day
I'll try it out tomorrow
When coming back from Lae."

The flight to Lae was wonderful
The aircraft right on track,
They had no reason to suspect
The drama coming back.

Their business done - they climbed aboard
One had a bulging bilum
The Captain chuckled to himself,
"The last ten miles will thrill 'em

This trick will have no impact
If I fill her up with fuel
I'll take enough for Top of Climb
And glide in from Mount Yule."

They flew along as smooth as silk
With not a single jolt
But as they got to Galley Reach
Both donks ground to a halt

The Captain said "Thank Christ they've stopped
They make a dreadful din
I'll now complete this exercise
And glide this bastard in."

A glider is a lovely thing
You see them everywhere
Some metal - others wood and glue
But never a KINGAIR

With noses flat against the glass
The victims watched in horror
And none of them had any doubt
They'd all be dead tomorra

He held her on the centre-line
He called the Tower and said
"For Christ's sake make me number one
I'm landing straight ahead"

He put it down right on the "keys"
And made sure he was clear
Then smilingly he turned and said
"I think we need a beer"

"The Aero Club looks very nice
Looks like it's just been painted"
But there was no-one to answer him
The bloody lot had fainted

Wes turned and looked him in the eye
He said "Thank Christ that's ended
It really won't surprise me
If your licence is suspended!"

Those passengers we've got on board
Look like they're in a trance
But now you must excuse me
Cos I think I've **** my pants"

When Joe Wal heard it on the phone
His hands flew to his head
His eyes stood out like organ stops
"F*** me" was all he said

But when he heard the details
Of this history making flight
His eyes lit up with interest
And he thought of it all night.

For Joe had always longed to fly
Although it made him dizzy
But this bloke here could show him how
On days he wasn't busy

So Joe signed up on the spot
They headed for the pub
Now Joe's the latest member
Of the Moresby Gliding Club

Sir Jules picked up his phone and heard
A voice known far and wide,
"This Grumman that arrives next month
- I wonder how they glide"

by Dean Darcey

[Fantome]

If the shot old memory is not too awry Frank, the 'glider' in question was the government's plane. Incidentally, lumping all those late operators together as disregarders of the law is a trifle sweeping old son.

Regarding those who have posted here their thoughts on Shakespeare's lack of relevance today, maybe a little dose of Rumpole, could , if not restore balance, at least lighten the brief.

Horace Rumpole: [startled at seeing an empty breakfast table] There are no bacon and eggs, Hilda!
Hilda Rumpole: Claude doesn't like a cooked breakfast, Rumpole, but there's plenty of muesli. I got it for him specially.
Horace Rumpole: [looking in horror at the jar of muesli] What's that? Sawdust and bird droppings?"

Samuel 'Soapy Sam' Ballard Q.C.: I believe it is the first time in our long history, Rumpole, that these chambers have contained... a chancellor!
Samuel 'Soapy Sam' Ballard Q.C.: [Rumpole is so shocked, he sits down] Yes, Rumpole, unworthy as I am.
Horace Rumpole: [regaining his composure] Well, that's the understatement of the year!"

"Mr. Glassworth: [referring to life in prison] Do they still have slopping out?
Horace Rumpole: Yes, I'm afraid they do.
Mr. Glassworth: I spent my life in the acquisition of beautiful objects.
Horace Rumpole: [sarcastically to his instructing solicitor] I suppose that's what the three years were for!
Mr. Glassworth: Slopping out! How could I live through it? And the sickening sexual advances of beefy warders.
Horace Rumpole: [muttering] Oh, I wouldn't count on that, old darling.
Mr. Glassworth: What did you say?
Horace Rumpole: Oh, nothing."

Jean Pierre O'Higgins: What do you say then, Mr. Horace Rumpole? Will you take me on?
Horace Rumpole: Well, I'll have to think about that.
Jean Pierre O'Higgins: Be honest. Is it my personality that makes you hesitate? Do you find me objectionable, Mr. Rumpole?
Horace Rumpole: Mr. O'Higgins, I find your restaurant pretentious and your portions skimpy. Your customers regale themselves in a dim religious atmosphere more fitting to evensong than a good night out. I find you an opinionated and self-satisfied bully. However, unlike you, I am on hire to even the most unattractive customer."

Hilda Rumpole: So, you think that men and women are entirely equal?
Horace Rumpole: Everyone is equal in the dock, Hilda.
Hilda Rumpole: And in the home?
Horace Rumpole: Oh, well, naturally, yes, of course, yes, naturally, although, I suppose, some are born to command.
Horace Rumpole: [to himself, whispering] She who must be...
Hilda Rumpole: What?
Horace Rumpole: I said trust me, Hilda. I shall always be a staunch supporter of women's rights."

"Horace Rumpole: [musing to himself] Ah, the Timsons, en famille, in all their glory. It's like an old school reunion. I've never seen so many ex-clients at one go.
[out loud]
Horace Rumpole: Ah, Mr. Bernard. You're instructing me?
Mr. Bernard: Always, in a Timson case, Mr. Rumpole.
Fred Timson: Nothing but the best for the Timsons. Best solicitor, best barrister going. Shall I do the honours? Vi, my wife.
Horace Rumpole: [to himself] I got Vi off on a handling charge, after the Croydon bank raid. Well, there was really no evidence.
Fred Timson: ...Uncle Cyril...
Horace Rumpole: [to himself] What was his last outing, exactly? Carrying housebreaking instruments by night.
Fred Timson: ...Uncle Dennis. Oh, you remember Den, surely ?
Horace Rumpole: [to himself] Oh yes. Conspiracy to forge log books.
Fred Timson: ...and Den's Doris...
Horace Rumpole: [to himself] A bit of receiving a vast quantity of stolen scampi. Yes, acquitted by a majority.
Fred Timson: ...and yours truly, Frederick Timson, the boy's father.
Horace Rumpole: [to himself] Ah, we had a slip-up with Fred's last spot of bother. I was away, with flu. George Frobisher took it over. He got three years. He must only just have got out.
Fred Timson: Well, now you know the whole family, Mr. Rumpole.
Horace Rumpole: [to himself] A family to breed from, the Timsons! Without them, the Old Bailey would go out of business."

Horace Rumpole: You know, it's a most extraordinary thing, my Learned Friend. We go through all the mumbo-jumbo, we put on the wig, and the gown, we mutter the ritual prayers, "If your Lordship pleases", "Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury", abracadabra, fee fie foe bloody fum. And just when everybody thinks you're going to produce the most ludicrously fake piece of cheesecloth evidence, there it is, clear as a bell! The truth! Don't you find it? You know, it's bloody scary sometimes, ha ha, but there it is, the truth. Naked and embarrassing!"

Horace Rumpole: All we have is a large soak patch in the crook of the left arm.
Mr. Thistleton: Yes.
Horace Rumpole: Totally consistent with my client having supported the deceased's head as he lay bleeding in his arms.
Mr. Thistleton: [after pausing, hesitantly] Not inconsistent.
Horace Rumpole: [exasperated] Not inconsistent! Mr. Thistleton, doesn't "not inconsistent" when translated into plain English mean "consistent?"
Mr. Thistleton: Yes, it does."

[Socket]

Well said Clinton and Flyingfiend, it has been painful reading the rants, raves and in most cases self serving diatribes from some members.

It seems some people love to quote regulation, but hate to follow it. When caught out they spin the fact that they have gone to the AAC ( and lost) into a defence. Unfortunately for them, complaining does not make it legal.

I would also point out that accusing people of being corrupt can be challenged in court at considerable expence to the accuser if no evidence is forthcoming.

The fact CASA hasnt done so yet is in my humble opinion an example of extreme forebearance on their part. I would have your house.

Lets remember, everyone has to work under the same regulations. Why is it that these very few members have the right (in their eyes) to do something in a manner that no other person is permitted to do, or has done.

They would have us all believe that their transgresions of the regulations are a common occurence and they have been singled out for reasons undisclosed. I believe otherwise. I believe most follow the regulations in the best interest of all, which is after all why they are there. It follows that those that transgress are doing so for their own personal or commercial reasons.

[Frank Arouet]

WHAT?

My trangressions?

You are, in my opinion an ignorant pompous pious PRAT! Someone who has lost nothing, probably, as a result of lies and self serving bureaucratic bile and your post is offensive.

But lets not get away from ourselves here, CASA are never wrong, never anything but the model litagent, never anything but honest and hardly ever persue private vendettas.

The fact CASA hasnt done so yet is in my humble opinion an example of extreme forebearance on their part

Proves what? My past is an open book if they want to revist it.

I've nothing left to loose you clown.

[Kharon]

It's a credibility and respect thing, really.

I, for one would love to think that had CASA, as a model litigant, taken 'Bodgit and Leggit Airways' to task, in court there was a bloody good reason for it. Bravo and well done. If the law, (as writ), operational sense and mutual respect failed, then fine, prosecute the buggers. Vigorously.

The 'learned counsel' earn their keep, doing what they do. 'They' are not the problem, it's their duty to act on behalf of whichever side of the court they sit on. So far, all good, in theory.

The industry is not always a model citizen, there have been some very shaky operations, all good at the approval stage, but operational and commercial expediency creep into the mix, Chief pilots get 'seduced' by the dark side and generally a firm hand is needed to oversee operations and where required, a judicially applied 'thick ear' is warranted. No argument from me.

But sadly, there are too many documented instances of this not being the case.

I am not anti an honest, competent 'Authority', not at all, but I cannot abide liars and bullies, at any cost, especially when this is repeatedly proven, beyond reasonable doubt, several times a year.

The WA cases will run their course, CASA may win, they may loose. Who cares?.

The fact is even if the operator was dead bang to rights out of order, the industry will sneer (behind their collective hands) shrug and say 'CASA what do you expect'. This is a shame, embarrassing, totally counter productive and drives open discussion underground.

Total lack of credibility leading to an absolute lack of respect?; yes I believe so. Time for a change - from all concerned.

Selah.

[Kharon]

In a basic, Anglo Saxon, biblical sense, very much.

Buy my own and enjoy it to, sans bull and indigestion

Voltaire rules. :D http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/pukey.gif

[Up-into-the-air]

Well a check on the Dr Gupta and the quotee by Clinton McKenzie:

"Author is Dr M C Gupta — a doctor turned lawyer. He has earned a MBBS and an MD in Medicine from the All India Institute of Medical Sciences."

Well, maybe a pal for the Dr. Aleck??

[Frank Arouet]

Clinton;

Funny you should mention William Creek.

I have another project that involves a channel from Port Augusta to flood Lake Eyre, which is below sea level of course, (and with the indiginees permission pending), and then let Coriolis force and convection, drought proof the Eastern States and save my water entitlments for irrigation purposes as I legally purchased them for with my now rooted and useless farm.

Hopefully the torrential water let forth will drown the bloody blue toed wombat and all the Greens and their followers. And an inland sea will have Islands that can be used for offshore processing of wogs.

Perhaps Mr Wright should move his operation to higher ground, (on shore), and we can meet somewhere else for drinkies.

BTW, Are you banned from The Wig and Pen?

More chance of getting me pissed there and I should have backup pending his soberiety.

[gobbledock]

Up-into-the-air, way too much talk about all these 'voodoo witch doctors'. Perhaps Clinton and Flyingfiend are also members of the aviation industry voodoo witchdoctor fraternity? Spending their time poking pins into dolls and drinking goat blood while reciting well memorized regulations while eagerly using intellectual dialect and a plethora of bureaucratic wank words?
Hell, they probably all sit around in a group circle (nude of course) and tug themselves senseless over words like diatribes, malfeasance and overarching?

[LeadSled]

ff
After all, what would I would know? Not very much, by the sound of it.

As to Polar Air, I did not suggest I would lay out the history, only that I awaited the results of the current application by the Commonwealth.

However, a search of articles by Paul Phelan should turn up an exhaustive chronology to just short of the present state of play. Paul's story on the subject has had a legal ruler run over it for accuracy ( and not just for defo.), in my opinion you can rely on its accuracy.

As a matter of interest, do you even know of the events that precipitated the whole Polar Air matter??? Maybe you should find out.

Socket,
Why is it that these very few members have the right (in their eyes) to do something in a manner that no other person is permitted to do, or has done.

What planet do you live on, certainly not planet earth, postcode AU.

Perhaps you would like to explain to us all why there have been so many Parliamentary inquiries into CASA and its predecessors, including "Morris", which was the longest running inquiry since Federation.

Try the Parliamentary library, they can probably tell you, but inquiries, major and minor, involving either or both the Reps and the Senate, but the answer will be over 20 since mid 1980s.

I can only remember one that was not precipitated by concerns at the adverse behavior of CASA or its predecessors, and that was the HORSCOTS inquiry into Sports Aviation, that gave rise to the AUF, now Recreational Aviation Australia.

But I guess this is not part of the syllabus for induction training for CASA staff.

Tootle pip!!

[Henry The Octopus]

Leadsled says: “As a matter of interest, do you even know of the events that precipitated the whole Polar Air matter??? Maybe you should find out”.

You never cease to amaze me with your ignorance - especially coming from someone who pontificates about just about eveything aviation related. If anyone should try and establish the real events that "precipitated this matter" it is YOU, rather than the one sided and uninformed position you continually take....

By the way, how is "Craig" these days?

Clinton, you're on the money once again....

[Socket]

Perhaps you would like to explain to us all why there have been so many Parliamentary inquiries into CASA and its predecessors, including "Morris", which was the longest running inquiry since Federation.

Try the Parliamentary library, they can probably tell you, but inquiries, major and minor, involving either or both the Reps and the Senate, but the answer will be over 20 since mid 1980s.

I can only remember one that was not precipitated by concerns at the adverse behavior of CASA or its predecessors, and that was the HORSCOTS inquiry into Sports Aviation, that gave rise to the AUF, now Recreational Aviation Australia.


Lead sled,

I am a little confused at why you continue to link CASA today with its predecessors the CAA and DOT, they are all quite different bodies.

I am sure you will be willing to educate everyone and provide this list of over 20 parliamentary inquiries precipitated by concerns at the adverse behavior of CASA and its predecessors, and I am confident they will all support your inference that CASA and its predecessors are and were infested with corrupt and out of control bureaucratic Nazis. Time for you to put up or shut up.

Well the Cohorts from CASA legal are probably high fiving each other now..
Another "little" person crushed by the might of unlimited, unaccountable, public funds, and malignant intent.. "Model Litigants?"..Yeah right!!
So the bottom feeders can grovel about in the muck fighting over the spoils..
Who wins the bonus out of this one??

Thorn bird,

So if someone breaks the law, gets caught, loses the case and then keeps appealing (in spite of the fact that they have no cause for appeal), loses loads of money while they are at it and forces the regulator to continually spend taxpayers money to ensure the law is upheld, its all the fault of those "bottom feeders". That would certainly make them a "little" person in my eyes.

And where did you get the stupid idea that CASA pays its staff bonuses?

"Unaccountable" - You need to go see Lead sled, apparently there have been over 20 parliamentary inquiries all about keeping the CASA Nazis accountable.

If someone has a real case, and Polar Aviation may be one, more power to them and go for it. That hardly indicates a corrupt organisation.

[Sunfish]

Socket, you obviously don't understand the issues.

1. The laws and regulations under which CASA operates are demonstrably bad law and regulation.

(a) They are badly written.

(b) Ambiguous.

(c) Convoluted.

(d) Imprecise.

(e) Subject to interpretation because of (a) through (d). That of course begs the question of whether the actual content of the regulations is even appropriate.

These are not mere assertions, they are fact as demonstrated by a Twenty plus so called period of reform that has not produced a comprehensive single set of regulations. By way of example, FAA part 91 is apparently contained in Fifty pages. The Australian equivalent draft is Two hundred and Fifty pages.

What makes it even worse is that all these stipulations are backed up by criminal sanctions - most of them automatic. Carl Williams and Ned Kelly had more chance!


2. CASA has discretion over the matter of Safety. This allows CASA to make use of NEGATIVE evidence. To put that another way. No actual unsafe behaviour has to occur for CASA to act. Merely the apprehension of unsafe behaviour is enough.

When taken into account with CASA's bottomless legal resources and the commercial characteristics of aviation businesses (no flight = no money = no ability to fight CASA in Court) this produces a horrid state of affairs where there is virtually no appeal to even the most egregious charges.

The best example of that was a Northern Territory operator who had a "Milk run" to variatious stations. CASA alleged it was "regular public transport". She lost her business some years ago and another operator has only just succeeded in winning an AAT appeal against this stupid ruling.

3. Human nature. When we take into account (1) - rubbery law and regulation. and (2) Unfettered discretion in the application of (1) all it needs is the addition of a tiny bit of human nature - our failing and the opportunities for and anticipation of official corruption, and demonstration of all the other human vices.

For example, we have the case of Three CASA who were caught lying themselves blind when they alleged that a pilot was doing prohibited maintenance on an aircraft.

To put it simply mate, there have been big greasy gobs of black smoke coming out of CASA for a very long time, and to suggest that this is not the result of a fire is stretching it a bit thin.

P.S. I wish CASA well. They have always been nice to me. Nothing in this post is to be construed as suggesting that there are not shonky operators in Australian Aviation, however I would suggest that CASA is less likely to be able to effectively police them then an organisation with clear and simple rules, enlightened management and an auditing and quality control system to monitor its own decisions.

P.P.S. If what Butson alleges is true - that he was subject to administrative harassment, then I don't give a ***** if it was legal.

One of the principles of Bureaucracy is that all customers receive exactly the same treatment regardless of who, where or what they are.

To apply that to one aspect of Butsons case, if an FOI allegedly determined that passengers were to be required to wear life jackets for the approach to a particular runway that was over water for a few minutes, then that interpretation of the rules must immediately be applied to EVERY OPERATOR IN AUSTRALIA ALL THE TIME BY EVERY CASA FOI IN EXACTLY THE SAME MANNER.

[Socket]

Sunfish,

I understand the issues all to well. I don't ( and I don't think anyone would) dispute your points a through e. However the current regulations are the ones we all have to deal with. If it takes a trip to the AAT to get a ruling on the application of those regulations then unfortunately that's what will have to happen until our legislators come up with a better way of resolving those issues. If all legislation was concise and clear cut there would be no need for all our levels of courts and all those lawyers. Hysterical and offensive outbursts from some and the exaggeration of statistically isolated incidents just isn't going to change that.

On to some of your other points.

No actual unsafe behaviour has to occur for CASA to act. Merely the apprehension of unsafe behaviour is enough.

Are you suggesting that CASA has to wait for a smoking hole in the ground before acting. That if CASA suspects that could be an outcome it should sit on its hands and wait?

When taken into account with CASA's bottomless legal resources and the commercial characteristics of aviation businesses (no flight = no money = no ability to fight CASA in Court) this produces a horrid state of affairs where there is virtually no appeal to even the most egregious charges.


It costs you nothing to go to the AAT. If you have a solid case, the member sitting is not an idiot and will find in your favor as has occurred. No amount of lawyering up by CASA will change that fact. What is a fact is that more and more the AAT is used as a time wasting exercise by people who know they have no case.

For example, we have the case of Three CASA who were caught lying themselves blind when they alleged that a pilot was doing prohibited maintenance on an aircraft.

To put it simply mate, there have been big greasy gobs of black smoke coming out of CASA for a very long time, and to suggest that this is not the result of a fire is stretching it a bit thin.

You have quoted one case of dishonesty and built it into a fire, isn't that stretching it a bit thin, mate. I would guess that with human nature being what it is, most organisations and a fair few family's have a tiny minority of members who are dishonest, I guess by your standards there are great big greasy gobs of black smoke all over the country. Try to keep things in perspective. Mate.

These are not mere assertions, they are fact as demonstrated by a Twenty plus so called period of reform that has not produced a comprehensive single set of regulations. By way of example, FAA part 91 is apparently contained in Fifty pages. The Australian equivalent draft is Two hundred and Fifty pages.

I would suggest you don't understand the issue. Do some homework on how legislation is drafted and by whom, how it is approved and why our form of legislation doesn't follow the sparse style of US law. Ask around about why the previous version of the Regs based on the FAR's was recalled on its way to Parliament house (they were done years ago) and CASA had to start all over again.

Also, are you sure you want our regs to move away from the current "criminal" style, the other option is harder to defend against, the burden on CASA to prove its case would be significantly lowered and CASA wouldn't have to refer every enforcement action to the DPP for prosecution to fine offenders, it would be a simple matter of writing a ticket and see you in court if you don't pay the fine. How many tickets written by police, fisheries inspectors, etc are successfully defended in court? Fairly low percentage I would suggest. Put plainly, under the current system it's just too much trouble for CASA to pursue fines and other sanctions so most cases are dealt with administratively through counseling and education. Are you sure you want to change that?

[onetrack]

Blackhand, I believe your judgement of Gerald is pretty accurate. I personally believe that Gerald and other mavericks of his ilk are their own worst enemies.
To carry out an ambitious, locally-disallowed, seaplane launching exercise from a towed trailer, in a highly-regulated industry, without inviting regulatory inspection and approval of the method, prior to carrying out that exercise, seems to me to be classic maverick and ill-disciplined behaviour.
Given that being an operative in aviation requires total discipline and strict attention to regulatory requirements, actions such as Geralds original infringement action, indicate that he was prepared to work outside regulations, and outside any regulatory scrutiny.

Such actions are the equivalent of confronting a cop who has just pulled you up in your car for a trivial offence, and then jumping out and lambasting the cop for having the temerity to do so.
There are many people in this world who have power to create grief for us, and to inflame them with actions and words seen as outside "the regulations" to them, only inflames an already volatile situation created by our own actions.

In these cases, the submissive, "Yes, Sir"... "No Sir"... "Three Bags Full, Sir"... works just fine to deflect these regulatory peoples aims to less costly levels.

However, there are many people who see regulatory constraint as a severe impediment to their own independent aims... and Gerald would almost certainly rate as being in that group.

As a matter of interest, I do know Gerald personally, and have had business interaction with him many years ago, in the farming environment (in which he was raised)... and I believe that many people of rural background are excessively independent, and chafe at the restrictiveness of regulation and external discipline.

[blackhand]

and I believe that many people of rural background are excessively independent, and chafe at the restrictiveness of regulation and external discipline.

Same in western Queensland, heli mustering.

[LeadSled]

---- about why the previous version of the Regs based on the FAR's was recalled on its way to Parliament house

Socket,
Who told you this fairy story ---- no such event has occurred in my lifetime, and I have been around for quite a while.

Or perhaps you would like to give us chapter and verse, because I have no idea what you are talking about. Sounds to me like more internal propaganda --- CASA is always right, industry is always wrong.

As a matter of fact, the first time I came across a recommendation that the FARs were the way to go, was in a Ministerial report to Parliament in1966, consequent on a DCA study tour of the US.

The very great bulk of the industry has supported this position, ever since. At the commencement of the CASA Review in 1996, it was the unanimous position of all industry representative bodies, and the individual corporate positions of QF and AN.

The one set or regs. that were withdrawn at the last minute, because of united industry opposition, from QF down, and believe me, they were an amazing CASA concoction that was about as FAR from the FARs as it would be possible to get, indeed they were FARout.

The Minister of the day, John Anderson, thought, probably correctly, that there were the numbers in the Senate for a motion to disallow to get up ---- given the united industry opposition.

I refer to a set of regs. for continuing airworthiness, about 2003 or thereabouts. They were so FARout, that it even attracted the interest of FAA, have a look at the results of the FAA and ICAO audits for another take on CASA.

CASRs 21-35 are largely based on the FARs --- they work well, except in the opinion of the usual diehards and recalcitrants.

By the way, how is "Craig" these days?

Henry,
I have no idea who you are referring to, please enlighten us.

I am a little confused at why you continue to link CASA today with its predecessors the CAA and DOT, they are all quite different bodies.

Socket,
Grow up, get unconfused, there is a direct lineal history through all the iterations of the "Department of Changing Names", and a continuity of employees.

Indeed, fiddling with the enabling legislation, many times over the years, had done nothing do curb a culture that does nothing to achieve the best air safety outcomes, and does much to inhibit the Australian aviation sector.

That the "commercial" parts of the the old DCA have been split off into various quangos over the years is irrelevant to the continuing and enduring culture of the "bit" that is the air safety regulator.

It costs you nothing to go to the AAT.

You obviously have no idea of the AAT in the real world, or the serious shortcomings of the AAT in the eyes of much of the aviation sector, often as the result of very expensive and unsatisfactory experiences ---- but, of course, in your eyes that is the AAT properly upholding the CASA position. It is a great pity that the rules of evidence in not followed in the AAT, and hearsay "evidence" is allowed.

Sunfish,
On the mark, as usual.

Tootle pip!!

[Kharon]

Thank you Clinton for a first class demonstration of CASA tactics in action, now all the noisy rabble have been silenced. Well drilled under a culture of fear to keep their collective heads down when 'Daddy' is angry. E' Brava that man, Brava.

What a smug, self satisfied little rant that last was; a typical court strategy to bamboozle the unwashed, un shriven who genuflect at the great altar of needing to earn a living. Shut up or we'll do you.

I note you only use the parts that suit you, use esoteric threats on people who cannot defend themselves and take great delight in making challenges you know cannot be met in this forum.

Your a bit of fraud Clinton old mate, probably a bully , and perhaps just a bit light on your feet.

There was a little more (just a bit) in Staunton than you use and a hell of lot more in Lockhart River' than you'll admit to.

There is a deeply entrenched moral and operational corruption within the CASA as it operates today.

He who laughs last laughs longest, they say.

Selah

[gobbledock]

Thank you Clinton for a first class demonstration of CASA tactics in action, now all the noisy rabble have been silenced. Well drilled under a culture of fear to keep their collective heads down when 'Daddy' is angry. E' Brava that man, Brava. Kharon do not fear, the likes of Clinton (aka the 'President of Skull Cave') can only dream of silencing the critics. The silence may have more to do with some people flying abroad rather than bowing to Lord Clinton's mumblings.
Flyingfiend has been rather quiet of late, perhaps busy condcuting an audit, or maybe he is on an ICAO junket, or then again maybe he is bogged down writing RCA's for 'operators failing to place a capital at the beginning of a sentence' or some other similar high level atrocity?

Maybe the upper echelon have issued an edict that he no longer post on pprune, perhaps as he says 'the feds are investigating'?
Clinton/Flyingfiend, you two nupties should really get back to your 'core work' and contribute something to the regulatory reform program, after all, you work for such a competent and robust organisation that it has only taken 22 years thus far! Yes indeed folks, world's best practise alright, 22 years and counting, Nimrods.

[Greedy]

Clinton Mackenzie,
I ,for one, am a person Sunfish could contact to have their "CASA File" opened for the public. Indeed CASA have already been found to have breached my privacy in a preliminary report by the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner. I do not expect that report to change.
In your post you accuse people complaining of being a rabble. You state that you and CASA ignore them. That is the problem!
As Kelpie says "more to follow". I mean that.
Greedy

[LeadSled]

Clinton and all,

Firstly, my apologies for calling Clark Butson Craig, a digital disfunction, must have been the hour of the day, or any other convenient excuse.

Clinton, as to your, in my opinion, selective quotes from Seaview etc., in my view, that by no means gives the full flavor of the evidence presented at the inquiries, or the overall tone of a complete report.

Even in interpreting the words of a report, I would suggest that that you need to be multilingual, including fluent written and spoken bureaucratese --- or be an aficionado of "Yes! Minister".

Clinton, I guess you and I will never ever agree on the most basic point, why we have safety regulations in the first place, let alone agree that CASA is extraordinarily uneven in its interpretation of, and enforcement of a body of law that has been, and continues to be, criticized by a broad cross section of the involved community, including competent aviation legal circles, from solicitors to eminent counsel, and most levels of the judiciary --- as I am sure you are well aware.

One thing I will never agree with, is the view, put quite forcibly by a former head of Office of Legal Counsel at CASA, well known to you: "Aviation law is for lawyers and judges, for the safe conviction of pilots and engineers".

When one considers the aviation safety outcomes in US, compared with Australia, that alone should tell us something about which approach to achieving the best results works, and which has been, to say the very least, somewhat less successful at bringing down accident rates.

Frankly, I don't think you have a clue about what goes on in far too many CASA audits, and the way so much "so called" enforcement ( or selective non-enforcement) activity is conducted.

What may wind up in the courts or at the AAT ( the latter a very imperfect place to do business) is a small part of the story of a thoroughly demoralized GA sector of Australian aviation.

Very few operators or individuals can even afford the cost of pursuing what rights and remedies may be open to them.

Sadly, if you cannot afford the price of justice, you do not get justice, and as you and I know, justice and the law are not quite the same thing.

Tootle pip!!

[YPJT]

As to the question as to why Australia has the regulations it has, you’d have to argue with the people who make important decisions about aviation safety regulation, rather than CASA, about that. Clinton, are you suggesting that the relevant minister dreams up the regulations by themselves?

[YPJT]

Clinton,
but surely the minister and parliament would be largely influenced by their appointed experts, in this case CASA?

[gupta]

Are you suggesting that the current state of the current regulations is as a consequence of successive governments being unable to see through smoke and mirrors?



"You may well think that - I couldn't possibly comment" - Francis Urquhart
House of Cards, Michael Dobbs 1989

But Clinton, Bill Pike & others have the truth of it - there aren't enough votes in it for a pollie to risk taking "courageous" action, so CASA by default has the ability to make unilateral decisions in regard to aviation regulations, unhampered by electorate political considerations or informed dissent.

[Aussie Bob]

Clinton: in the light of all that has been said on this post, can you tell me:

Is there anyone at all in CASA who can look me in the eye and state that their time in CASA has done anything good for general aviation in this country?

Is the anyone who has activly tried to expand the industry? Anyone who has tried to increase the number of operators or the number of GA aeroplanes in Australia?

Anyone who has tried to expand employment opportunities?

Anyone who has suggested that we need more Australian students and more flying schools?

Or is leglislation, policing and the ever increasing rule book all you folk aspire to in your careers? Do you care that it now takes up to 2 years to get an AOC? That casual employment is all but a thing of the past? That the number of small flying schools has decreased markedly in the last decade?

How good could general aviation be if CASA activly tried to expand the industry?

[Dangly Bits]

Is there anyone at all in CASA who can look me in the eye and state that their time in CASA has done anything good for general aviation in this country?


Visual Flight Guide

VFG

[Up-into-the-air]

Well Clinton, you are certainly a piece of work. You just astound me in what you say.

I have worked for a body [25 years], similar to CASA, charged with looking after and promoting an industry as well as performing a regulatory function. It is difficult to be able to do both functions, but possible to achieve, if there is a will to do so.

I think that is the issue - fee-for-service which has an entirely different focus to that of "regulator".

The seperation of functions certainly makes the process easier and fairer.

However, across the little [duuch] and big pond, both NZ and FAA seem to do the dual function better.

While we are looking at making reviews of decisions and examples of where the regulator "got it wrong" - take a re-visit of the Whyalla incident and the independent US Supreme Court findings.

It makes a very interesting read and the "take home" message certainly supports the assertions of many posts that CASA is not doing it's job very well at all

The 22 year review and the independent ICAO [poor card] certainly supports that view as well..

I read on with bated breath, if Clinton you would like to give us all your view of Whyalla and the ICAO report.

[flyingfiend]

Judgement handed down today.
It should be on Austli tomorrow or soon thereafter.

For those who cannot wait:

'...consideration of elements of tort of unlawful interference with trade or business interests - elements not present in pleading - failure to adequately to particularise tort of misfeasance in public office - pleading embarrassing - pleading struck out - no leave to re-plead'


'...summary dismissal application pursuant to... applicable tests-where entirety of pleadings struck out - where ample opportunity to plead a reasonable cause of action - whether proceeding has no reasonable prospect of success - application dismissed'

I have merely supplied the catchwords to give you a flavour of the judgement which runs to 44 pages.

Butson is not permitted to bring a pleading (amended statement of claim) again. Cost awarded to CASA but in an amount yet to be determined (separate submissions).

And for those who 'wonder'; 'embarrassing' may very well apply to this ridiculous saga and the actions of Polar Aviation; however, the term has a specific meaning in the 'Federal Court Rules 1879' Cth.

Now I await all those who say that once again justice should not be searching for Proof when the allegations before it should be just taken on face value.

Or, conversely, this decision may very well be a continuation of the 'conspiracy' that dismissed Repacholi's action.

FF

In a nutshell, the court found that Mr Butson had produced no evidence in his (numerous) attempts to support an action of 'misfeasance in public office'. His pleading (the information he must lodge with the court and the defence such that the defence know exactly what they are accused of) was deficient. Most probably always was and remains so.

[Aussie Bob]

Errrrm, all I did was state a fact about what its powers and functions are and why the parliament (not me) made that decision. Executing the messenger won’t change anything, but if it makes you feel better ….

But Clinton we all know the politicians are bunnies and will pass whatever (sensible) legislation that CASA or any other regulator puts to them. CASA are in fact the messengers to parliament. CASA have been the messengers to MANY MANY parliaments. Politicians come and go, CASA remains.

CASA could in fact reform the Australian aviation industry for the better without compromising their position as regulator or having a dual mandate.

I won't hold my breath waiting.

[Kharon]

IT IS NOT the Reg's that create the problem, antiquated and contradictory though they be.

The problem; free ranging interpretation by 'bar room barristers' applied, as and when required to operational matters, very definitely is.

No one (very few) set out to be deliberately 'in breach'.

Conflict arises when; just for example: A Manufacturer flight manual states “this” (whatever it be) is not a recommended procedure, and a better result can be achieved – by the following AFM procedure (etc.). So far so good.

Say, the Company Operations Manual reflects this. Still all good,

Then; some half-wit decides that despite an AFM prohibition, manufacturer stated (written), best advice and recommended procedure “this” has to be done to comply with the letter of the law. One man's opinion against the spirit and intent of the 'Order', the manufacturer manual and experienced crew good sense.

We all know it's daft to do it, but now we are obliged to “comply” with a Worthless judgement, based against an agenda, not a rule.

The rules are old and based against 'the way it was' 30 years ago, not as the 'experts' now see them. (Back then DCA/ CAA had experts).

When this is then 'transmogrified' to policy, driven by bull**** through a Tribunal it becomes anarchy. Created by a half-wit, supported by an idiot and backed up by the full weight of the Commonwealth coffers, all in the disguise of air safety.

The lunatics are indeed running the asylum.

PLEASE. Give us set of rules which can be translated (by a Chief Pilot) into operational compliance and become a legend, instead of the hack lawyer hired to sink the concept of regulatory reform in it's infancy.

Well the body count will continue to rise, ask the Braz crew, sorry they have departed the fix.

Selah.

[Sunfish]

Clinton, I had more respect for you:

Are you suggesting that any Civil Aviation Regulations, Civil Aviation Safety Regulations, or amendments to either of them, are not endorsed by the Minister or, by implication, by the parliament through a decision not to disallow them?

Are you suggesting that the current state of the current regulations is as a consequence of successive governments being unable to see through smoke and mirrors?

You know perfectly well that Ministers do nothing without ADVICE they will do absolutely nothing at all.

CASA or its predecessors must have advised the Minister to make the rules and regulations in exactly the form that they are, otherwise they would not have been made. There is no one else who could have or would have advised the Minister without first seeking CASA's advice on whether it believed they were to CASAs liking. I write this as someone who did a little work in the public service and I know what I am talking about.

Regarding my post regarding the helicopter incident, I stand by my unimpeachable source and what they said. You will have to take my word for it.

[Frank Arouet]

You know perfectly well that Ministers do nothing without ADVICE

And of course all parliamentarians are gullible and stupid

Well perhaps they do get advice but are gullible and stupid or simply don't understand. Perhaps they are just incompetent.

Well the following from The Ministers speech 20SEP at The Aviation Forum Parliament House appears contradictory to what is law regarding non-commercial aviation.

"I know that a number of you here today represent the non-commercial general aviation sector. You have a rich history in this country and you perform an essential role providing services such as charter flights, search and rescue, surveying and aerial photography, aeromedical services and pilot training".

[LeadSled]

"I know that a number of you here today represent the non-commercial general aviation sector. You have a rich history in this country and you perform an essential role providing services such as charter flights, search and rescue, surveying and aerial photography, aeromedical services and pilot training".Folks,
Worth reading the Minister's whole speech, which can be politically summarized as: "Aren't you lucky to have me as a Minister".

I have also had the scary thought, maybe Albo is right. Maybe the words in the speech were not just a matter of Ministerial/Adviser ignorance.

Thanks to various Government imposts, sins of omission and commission, of which over-regulation is only one, the result is that charter, SAR, firefighting, aeromedical , pilot training etc. have been rendered non-commercial.

Tootle pip!!

[Jabawocky]

Yep. You got it!

the result is that charter, SAR, firefighting, aeromedical , pilot training etc. have been rendered non-commercial.

Scary thought = Reality Nightmare

Sad but true.

[Brian Abraham]

Jaba,

Well, it would put to bed the discussion as to who is permitted to take a photograph.

Old thread http://www.pprune.org/dg-p-general-aviation-questions/446465-policy-not-law-aat-buckets-casa-decision-3.html

[T28D]

Flyingfiend now we wait for the appeal, not over yet, next time 3 real judges.

[Henry The Octopus]

T28D – what is a “real” judge?? I haven’t seen the Polar decision as yet - it would seem that some have as it has been implied that the judgement went against Polar. Where or why were the judge(s) in error?

LeadSled – Clinton kindly “enlightened” you on my behalf regarding the “Craig” Butson comment. I think Clinton’s comment “The main reason you and (others) get nowhere,…… is that all it takes is a slight scratch of the surface to demonstrate fundamental errors or omissions of fact in the horror stories you tell.” is particularly apt – both in this case and others.

Cheers.

Henry

[VH-MLE]

Unfortunately, the only winners in this case would appear to be the lawyers representing Polar Aviation and CASA – I do hope Polar Aviations’ lawyers are doing the right thing by their client and not just endeavouring to make a quick buck (read fortune) given the apparent lack of evidence in this case.

I look forward to reading an article along the lines of "CASA staff vindicated!!" from Paul Phelan in due course.

Ciao for now.

VH-MLE