CASA strikes again - with video evidence [Archive]

gobbledock

8th Feb 2012, 21:20

it's got plenty to do with it.
couple of posts mention CASA/CAA/DOT employee's screwing it up in the same way that is available to the rest of us.
Proving they are just as infalliable, when they choose to prosecute us for the slightest mistake.
Spot on. This all ties in with Just Culture. How can a Regulator (and even the Voodoo Witch Doctor is promoting this) be completely punitive without taking into consdieration all the facts. I know for a fact that it is not just aircraft incidents that have affected the Regulator. Wrong/poor decisions, internal bullying, malfeasance and dishonesty have been accurately identified by previous inquiries into the Regulator.
CASA's very own 'acceptance' of Just Culture as a regulated element of the SMS is something they punish us for if we do not 'practise what we preach' in industry, yet they supposedly are beyond the very regulations they enforce and they do not abide by their own rules, they do not treat industry with a 'just approach' from their side of the fence and they do not treat their own internal staff within the context of a 'just culture' either.

VH-MLE, your opinion is noted. I think your comments are a big pile of steaming pony pooh however you are entitled to your opinion as are others.

Frank Arouet

8th Feb 2012, 21:54

I say again: CASA have the worst aviation safety/crash record of any operator in Australia.

The whole sorry saga encompasses the Metro, Bill Lord's prang at Tocumwal, The Port Moresby Gliding Club and many many other's that ended in circumstances any private entity would have been hung, drawn and quartered for. And then, for good measure, chucked off a cliff.

Yes many have talked their way out of wheels up landings, but any one operator has never had so many aircraft either destroyed or damaged.

To his credit, a contributor to PPRune who put the A 36 on it's belly mentioned above, wrote a lengthy educational article in the CASA "blurb" which was intended to help prevent further instances. To take shots now is possibly a bit off. Anyway, we all had a go at him years back.

It happened c43years ago! Get a life please

I had a life once, but CASA fkuced that. Any other suggestions?

VH-MLE

8th Feb 2012, 22:14

"I think your comments are a big pile of steaming pony pooh.." your maturity level (or rather lack of) unfortunately says it all...

gupta

8th Feb 2012, 22:51

Due to its history of U/S episodes, Merlin VH-CAL was at one time in the SA/NT region known as:
"Charlie Alpha Lemon"

john_tullamarine

9th Feb 2012, 02:43

It happened c43years ago

Definitely not anywhere near that far back.

I'm sure that the chap concerned (engineering boss at the time) was quite embarrassed but the incident was a useful example of the holes in the cheese lining up nicely. Talking to him only a month or two ago and he is still doing fine these days.

Sometimes the quids and pros line up nicely also.

Some of you might recall a couple of stalwarts dropping the DH125 (CAO) on its belly at Avalon a long time ago (as I recall a Miracle was shooting circuits and had a problem which set them up for a foul up). As it happened the Flying Unit had been trying to get funding to mod the aircraft to a later variant without any success. The gutser provided a convenient circumstance to do the desired upgrade mod.

And, in respect of the OP's philosophical concerns, there is a whole canyon between a screw up - to which we all are at risk - and deliberately inappropriate behaviour - which most of us endeavour to avoid.

aroa

9th Feb 2012, 04:00

I'll have to remember that one in case of a future foul up...Mirage/Hornet/F35 in the circuit, hence I stopped flying the aeroplane and paying attention to its configuration.

Thing is if you are with CASA yr colleagues will change any criminality/misfeasance to just a simple breach of the "code of conduct"... a CYA doc.if ever there was one.

Remember the AyaToller. (Other) People get crucified for not entering a defect in to ther MR. The recommendation that his go to the CDPP fell off the LSD handcart and into the shredder/rubbish chute/whatever.
Not something that happens to the industry individual.
Bang! Gotcha.!

The Stasi like to go out with a video camera with a view to recording something, anything!!, that in their opine might have a bearing on "safety" as
they think it should be.
We should (must) play the same game. Any approach by any CASA person who wants a chat...you must have that pocket video or sound recorder ON.
Talk to any CASA person on yr own... AT YR PERIL.

As for the BBQ antics..what were they ???
CASA doesnt even have to get a conviction. They can cancel a licence, deem "not a fit and proper person" and the victim has a life sentence without justice. eg.. J Quadrio.

A regulator with a "just culture"? justar$e, rather. :eek:

motzartmerv

9th Feb 2012, 04:49

Chu Mai Huang

9th Feb 2012, 05:42

Word has it... the "hangar BBQ" thing was a simple "administrative oversight." The barbequer (BBQR) did not have a valid Australian Sausage Incineration Card (ASIC) with the usual GFPT endorsements (gloves, flipper, prong, tongs). So he will get porked and probably hauled over the coals.:E

Frank Arouet

9th Feb 2012, 06:14

Lol. I like that. The thread is named "Casa strikes again".. How about, "another d!ckhead' strikes again" and pays the penalty. Fly like a tossa, expect to be dead or at best, getting a letter. Pretty simple.

You obviously have more information than any of us, so let us know what capers the "tossa" was cutting so we can make up our own minds before the year 2025 when it gets to The AAT as a one sided appeal.

I must say people like you are either CASA, CASA stooges, CASA "protected species" or simply someone who hasn't been done over yet.

When, not if, you get the rough end of the pineapple, I'll at least remember your PPRune "handle" Merv.

Remember those immortal words from CASA: pilot's are either criminals or criminals who haven't been caught yet.

blackhand

9th Feb 2012, 06:51

VH-XXX

9th Feb 2012, 06:52

About 10 years ago CASA didn't seem to care about the occasional BBQ "fun," merely a word in your year about it at worst, perhaps, "mate, you could have gone a little lower on that last beat-up" but certainly not these days.

Word has it that the aircraft in question on this occasion was Radial powered.

motzartmerv

9th Feb 2012, 07:11

Frank..People like me?...Sorry mate, im not CASA.. I just find it amusing that so much whinging and complaining goes on about people getting in trubz with the authorities when they break the rules. Not one of you have made a post(in this thread) promoting responsible flying, only complaining how the bad the boogey man CASA is such a big problem. This guy obviously did something that the powers that be deem to be so bad they are taking his licence off him.
And yes, i have had a please explain from them once when i inadvertently busted CTA. AS I BLOODY WELL SHOULD HAVE.
If im ever caught flying in a manner that deserves total stripping of my licence then i DESERVE the rough end of the pineapple.
Hows about promoting some airmenship instead of complaining like a little girl when people get what they deserve.
Ive had a gutfull of watching people get away with crap that could see them or more importantly other people wind up as a smoking crater in the ground.
If you dont wanna play by the rules, let me know when your going flying and ill keep my students out of the air.
Cheers mate, and ill also remember your handle.

VH-XXX

9th Feb 2012, 07:55

Frank is right, it's guilty until proven innocen and you obviously haven't been a victim yet. I've been targeted once for something I didn't do and it was very hard work and a lot of research to prove my innocence. Even after providing fully documented and verified evidence, I got a "consider yourself cautioned," which is in my book an un-earned black mark.

Sunfish

9th Feb 2012, 08:06

There are bold and there are old.......

You can't blame CASA if they are presented with an obvious breach of the rules.

My own intention now is to fit a video camera and a data logger as potential evidence of my own compliance with the rules.

motzartmerv

9th Feb 2012, 08:06

Smoke......fire.... Even in criminal law cases they detain the perpetrator until they are found innocent or guilty. I can understand the (in some cases) urgent need to get blokes out of the air. Where would they stand if while dilly dabbling around you plowed your Jabiru into a schoolbus?

(poor brent the victim):ugh:

Frank Arouet

9th Feb 2012, 09:14

Merv;

I've been flying since 1965 and I'm still alive. Must be doing something right. Haven't managed to prang into anybody yet and have no red marks on my licence. I have been victimised by CASA.

Other than being "compliant" what have you achieved to convince me not to stay on the ground while your students are flying?

You, not the "whingers" and "complainers" here are sticking it to the bloke likely as not to be out of work soon, yet still haven't told us what he did.

And, by the way, all aviation offences are strict liability offences which in turn are criminal offences. You are as guilty as those who use such laws to remove the burden of proof from the regulator and force it onto the accused.

Long live Rommany justice:D

VH-XXX

9th Feb 2012, 09:28

Thanks for making this personal Andrew / motzartmerv. You obviously have not witnessed such actions, good for you, I wish you well at your little country field.

Sunfish, great idea, but don't even consider posting the videos on youtube or any forums as people with no lives will pick at them until they find something that might incriminate you and you'll spend the rest of your remaining cash that you haven't spent on flying, on defending yourself. I have a similar video system in my car which has come in very handy and caught the odd accident.

Good work Frank. I'd call that progress. Took 8 years and you got some progress that might help to benefit others.

As for smoke... fire... That means nothing. So you are innocently banging along in your RV one Sunday, but nearby another RV from another state buzzes some guys house. You get the blame because you were in the air at the time and your RV looks similar and even has a couple of similar rego letters. You get the call from CASA and you try getting out of that one.....! I'll speak to you in a year or two when you've sorted it out.

motzartmerv

9th Feb 2012, 10:20

Look fellas, you can all beat your chest as much as you like. It doesn't change anything. My point is pretty simple, if you fly in a manner that is gunna bring the hounds hunting your licence, then you deserve to be hunted.
If you don't, and are compliant, then you should encourage those that aren't, to change their ways. Not attack the regulator.
XXX, if thats what happend then that is a raw deal. But how does it pertain to this incident? Is this guy being falsely accused do you think? I note you started the thread "CASA strikes again." If a P plater gets caught doing 150 in a 60 zone, do we say "the coppas strike again", or do we say, f23kin d!khead p plater?? And who doesn't feel a cops been hard on them with a fine or something before.

Frank, what have i done??..Ive trained them to be compliant, you can rest easy and feel all warm and fuzzy in side with the knowledge none of them will fly through your loungroom (or aeroplane ) window.

gobbledock

9th Feb 2012, 10:42

Frank, don't let Merv wind you up too much mate. Whenever the heat is on CASA one or several of their own pull out an old prune handle or create a new one and target those of us who are vocal in our disgust at the Regulator. Merv will disappear again shortly.

motzartmerv

9th Feb 2012, 11:06

Gobble...thats golden mate...pure gold...im a CASA plant now am I? You blokes are unreal..Someone comes on this crap talkin site and promotes compliance, and they are automatically from CASA..Professional pilots my sweet ass..

Wallsofchina

9th Feb 2012, 19:17

Gobbledock et al

He's real, he's an active CFI, he's passionate, he teaches in a very professional way, and we very badly need a lot more like him.

If he goes away, that's your loss.

john_tullamarine

9th Feb 2012, 20:18

Sorry but you are wrong again. It happened in 1970. His old man wasn't a bad footballer though!

If we're talking about the hangar gutser, that happened after my time at the Flying Unit, definitely not 1970 - mid to late 70s as I vaguely recall. The chap concerned was an ex-footballer of note - perhaps his father also - on the latter point, I have no idea. The 125 prang was early 1967 so I'm a tad confused as to where 1970 might fit into the picture.

Mirage/Hornet/F35 in the circuit, hence I stopped flying the aeroplane and paying attention to its configuration.

You miss my point. The 125 prang was inexcusable and resulted from a breakdown in cockpit discipline. I don't recall anything wilful or reckless, though. We are all at risk of such events - the progressive development of SOP and similar protocols seeks to minimise the likelihood of occurrence.

"mate, you could have gone a little lower on that last beat-up"

Things certainly have changed over the decades.

One of my prized possessions is a photostat of a letter of some considerable vintage to a well-known aviator now long retired. The writer was the then DCA Regional Director of a particular Region and a long time mate of the retired well-known pilot. In respect of a recent aerodrome display by the latter in an ex-warbird of note, the RD's letter (on DCA letterhead) included a comment along the lines of "I am reliably informed that people in the second row had to stand on their toes to see most of your display". Could you imagine a similar letter seeing the light of day these days ?

Nonetheless, pragmatism indicates that the present world, overall, is the much safer place in which to fly even if it is still a long way from being perfect ...

Frank Arouet

9th Feb 2012, 20:54

Kindly inform us about Bill Lord's "prang at Tocumwal" and its relevance to your argument. Thanks.

Bill and another CAA (I think it was then), did a departure presumably on instruments to the west and pranged into a Blanik destroying the Bonanza, themselves, and damaged the glider. I can't remember whether that pilot bailed out at low level or rode it to the ground, but I did met him a few years back. Bill Lord also instructed me on the Bonanza back in 1976 and I know him personally. I didn't post his name to harm his memory.

relevance to your argument

The Bonanza was owned and operated by The Authority and both pilot's were employed in a flying capacity by The Authority. They simply represent one of the tragic episodes all marques of The Authority and added to the record.

I said before, just about all the incidents/ accidents The Regulator had to deal with, probably any one may not have the same consequences for a private operator, but so many over so long a period points to some kind of systemic failure.

I don't think they operate any aircraft now, so they can be educated by the past on some issues.

Nobody has challenged the claim that The Regulator by any name has the worst aviation record of any operator in Australia.

Finally for Merv, Bill Lord was a highly experienced pilot by anyone's measure, yet he still succumbed to human error. When your students eclipse his flying record you can boast to me then with your assurances. In the meantime buddy, I do agree with your sentiments about dumb pilots doing dumb things, but you still haven't given me any indication of what the alleged offence was. That simple point may get a lot of people off your, and CASA's back.

superdimona

9th Feb 2012, 20:56

And this is the downside to having a regulator almost everyone hates. When someone does something unsafe, people will defend him because they are worried CASA will over-react.

Stikybeke

9th Feb 2012, 21:00

Good thread this one.....very spirited and insightful as to regulatory perceptions. It will be interesting to see what time tells regarding all this...Of course, if you're not doing anything wrong it won't matter too much I'd imagine. On the other hand though.....I always try to follow the rules because that's how I was brought up and that's how I was taught....sorry guys, I don't know any different...

Stiky
:ok:

DutchRoll

9th Feb 2012, 21:31

......and Dutchy starts on his 3rd bag of popcorn while watching this thread.

VH-XXX

9th Feb 2012, 21:47

And this is the downside to having a regulator almost everyone hates. When someone does something unsafe, people will defend him because they are worried CASA will over-react.

SD makes a good point there.

motzartmerv

9th Feb 2012, 22:23

Finally for Merv, Bill Lord was a highly experienced pilot by anyone's measure, yet he still succumbed to human error.

Interesting comment Frank. Isn't it sad that it has taken so much bickering back and forth before an experienced pilot such as yourself makes mention of the biggest killer of pilots, and possibly very relevant to this thread.

When your students eclipse his flying record you can boast to me then with your assurances.
What on earth is that meant to mean, what are we 12 years old? I bet my dicks bigger then your dick?

That simple point may get a lot of people off your, and CASA's back.
And right there is my point. Why are we on CASA's back for taking action against someone? If this guy was flying dangerously, shouldn't we and especially YOU who has managed to stay alive in this game for 50 years, be more concerned with the HUMAN FACTORS involved in this and other occurrences like it, and NOT be taking issue with the regulator. I don't like CASA any more then the next person, they are at times impossible to deal with. But I detest whole heartedly hearing of lives being ruined by momentary lapses in judgment, reason or intelligence.
I would expect someone of your experience to have the futures of these students and new pilots that frequent sites such as this, fore most in your mind when making post's.
What example and message are we sending them, right from the get go? That the real problem is with the regulator?? Sure the regulator has issues, no-one would deny that, but human factors accidents are still occurring, and the last year has proven one of the worst despite CASA's attempts to address the problem. And in my humble opinion this is due to the 'culture' you spoke of earlier.
What 'safety' culture are we passing on to new pilots when we complain about the regulator and give NO mention at all to the fact that for a licence to "never see the light of day again" a serious breach must occurred.That safety is a regulatory problem? Pretty sad if it is....

T28D

9th Feb 2012, 22:43

CASA don't stop at the simple and effective control of those who break the rules, the mendatious nature of the whole place has fostered a culture of way out behaviour that baffles the general legal profession who do not see other agencies behaving in the same way as CASA.

CASA hides behind the fact that civil courts and the AAT do not ever rule against them once the "Blood on the ground" argument is trotted out.

It is not logic and support of the "rules" that CASA relies on, more like supposition, suggestion and outright distortion of the facts.

For the General Industry nobody will support errant behaviour and on balance the Industry is self reliant and compliant.

Trojan1981

9th Feb 2012, 23:02

I have had no dealings with CASA regarding flying incidents, but I have looked at aviation legal case studies very closely. I have to agree with motzartmerv (who is anything but a CASA stooge) in that if you fly like an idiot you deserve to get pinged. Many times I have seen people come extremely close to death through reckless flying.

That said, the main issue with CASA as far as I can see is that when they prosecute an individual, that person is not subject to due legal process. Politicians are completely ignorant when it comes to aviation and have absolutely no idea how to legislate for it. This is because most have never made anything of themselves in the real world, outside politics or government.
As a result we have a regulator that is a law unto itself; able to bypass the courts and investigate / prosecute on it's own behalf (even after a case is rejected by the DPP on it's merits). There is no level forum in which both sides can meet and argue their case before an independent arbiter.

Quite frankly CASA's role needs to be restricted. Legislation must be introduced to require all prosecution preceedings for breaches of the regs/act to be conducted by the DPP (or CASA prosecutors) through the court system, or not at all. And further to that, CASA must not be allowed to restrict operating certificates/crew licences for any period exceeding 30 days without court order. End of.

I have worked as a commercial pilot, still do on occasion, but this is one of several reasons why I would never, ever stake my livelihood on it.

VH-XXX

9th Feb 2012, 23:37

Something that really hurts when fighting them is that when you head to the AAT you can't be awarded costs even if you "win." It's a bottomless money pit.

Frank Arouet

9th Feb 2012, 23:46

a serious breach must (sic) occurred

WTF happened then, that justifies your ardent interest? I thought it may have been a gas BBQ explosion or someone got a bad snag at first, Now at least we know someone was actually "flying" and doing "something" (which to CASA usually means a criminal is flying).

What on earth is that meant to mean, what are we 12 years old? I bet my dicks bigger then your dick?

It may well be if that's where your brain is. The point, obviously lost on you, is until you, or your students pass the experience of people like Bill Lord you are just as likely as he to succumb to human error judgements.

Now don't change the subject to claim human error was your lolly in the first place. You damned a person for "something" nobody knows anything about, who did "something" that "must" have been bad because CASA, (you know that mob with the worst aviation safety /crash record in Aust), said so.

Anyway, re BBQ's, stick to rissoles. I've never had a tough one yet. You can also chuck them at anybody seen with a movie camera. Oh, and never invite CASA. They don't invite you to their christmas bash's. (or do they)?

motzartmerv

10th Feb 2012, 00:23

Frank

The point, obviously lost on you, is until you, or your students pass the experience of people like Bill Lord you are just as likely as he to succumb to human error judgements.

So are you saying that there is an experience level that can be obtained where human error is not going to be an issue?. If so, can you tell me what this is? Me and im sure everyone else would love to know.

Now don't change the subject to claim human error was your lolly in the first place.

If you read my first post (my lolly)...
How about, "another d!ckhead' strikes again" and pays the penalty. Fly like a tossa, expect to be dead or at best, getting a letter. Pretty simple.

Sounds like a human factors statement to me old buddy...
keep feeding that culture frank. Id expect more from you.

Frank Arouet

10th Feb 2012, 00:35

Pedant.:suspect:

Aviation Human Factors are a CASA idea if I recall the syllabus. I'm sure I passed. The problem is that with strict liability any mitagating circumstances brought about by any human factors are ignored in any legal prosecution of that law. (there are no excuses under strict liability, and it is up to you to prove you're innocent, not CASA prove you're guilty).

I'm now going to take my Fathers advice and stop responding to you. He was right about educating some folk.

AEROWASP

10th Feb 2012, 00:36

None of us can afford to let our guard down - not even for 1 minute! I remind readers of Les Morris and his 40,000 hours. Les was about as capable, competent and committed as any pilot whom ever sat behind a control column yet he still managed to make that 1 mistake that cost him his life!
I'm with Merv; the difference of opinion here is not about whether anyone else in the past has made mistakes, be they CASA or anyone else, but about someone willingly and willfully breaking the rules - all of us should be intolerant of such behaviour regardless of who the culprit is!:mad:

gobbledock

10th Feb 2012, 00:40

Spot on T28D, spot on -
CASA don't stop at the simple and effective control of those who break the rules, the mendatious nature of the whole place has fostered a culture of way out behaviour that baffles the general legal profession who do not see other agencies behaving in the same way as CASA.
CASA hides behind the fact that civil courts and the AAT do not ever rule against them once the "Blood on the ground" argument is trotted out.
It is not logic and support of the "rules" that CASA relies on, more like supposition, suggestion and outright distortion of the facts.
For the General Industry nobody will support errant behaviour and on balance the Industry is self reliant and compliant.

As for the other nupty's on this thread more or less making out that CASA exists for the good of aviation and safety you are sort of correct because that is what they are meant to do, it is how they go about it that proves they are incapble of doing the task they are meant to do.
If you actually believe they are effecient at bringing about safety you are living in denial.
The CASA charter is risk management by way of protecting the fare paying public first. How is that achieved when they spend millions and hundreds of manpower hours chasing helicopter pilots who tow skiiers? Am I saying that act was perfectly safe and within the bounds of aviation safety? NO. And I am NOT defending the chopper pilot. What I am saying is that priority oversight, based on risk ranking should be given to the big end of town who are carrying the bulk of fare paying public, CASA say that themselves, but it is obvious with the accidents that have occurred since the 90's, the current state of the big end of town and CASA's inability to complete the most basic of tasks, AT ALL, that chasing chopper pilots as a priority is a backwards sense of thinking. If you understand safety and regulations then you will understand what some of us are saying. By some posters own admissions they have never had to deal with the regulator so how can they critisize those of us who have been unjustly dealt with? Very naieve indeed.

Frank Arouet

10th Feb 2012, 01:02

they have never had to deal with the regulator so how can they critisize those of us who have been unjustly dealt with?

Good point. My outstanding losses still amount to over $100,000. That's probably a cheap entry level that give's one the right to criticise.

blackhand

10th Feb 2012, 05:26

and on balance the Industry is self reliant and compliant.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^:eek:

cficare

10th Feb 2012, 07:00

i'm with you Frank..

motzartmerv

10th Feb 2012, 07:34

Surprise surprise. Birds of a feather...I bet he feels better now your on his team...lol

LeadSled

10th Feb 2012, 07:42

The CASA charter is risk management by way of----

Gobbledock,
How I wish that was the case!!!! In reality, we have gone back 20+ years in the approach to regulation, and the administration of aviation regulation.

The backslide is government wide, with much of government regulatory activity specifically exempt from cost/benefit analysis, the biggest example being the NBN.

Early on, John McCormack announced that risk management was not mentioned in the Act, therefor it did not apply:

3A Main object of this Act
The main object of this Act is to establish a regulatory framework for maintaining, enhancing and promoting the safety of civil aviation, with particular emphasis on preventing aviation accidents and incidents.

was to be taken quite literally.

More recently, many CASA proposals have referred to something called the "precautionary principle", with a quote from a 1982 (or was it '83) Gibbs High Court decision that is the precedent for "duty of care", such "duty" being widely misquoted and thoroughly misunderstood in the aviation sector.

In the 1990s and , on, the Productivity Commission, Office of Regulation Review, ORR, and later, the Office of Best Practice Practice Regulation, OBPR (the result of a major inquiry into excessive and ineffective but costly regulation ) set the "whole of government policy" standards for a risk management approach to regulation, with cost/benefit analysis being mandatory, and the Legislative Instrument Act 2003 imposing mandatory sunset clauses on a wide swathe of regulation.

With this government, that has all gone, the only thing better than more regulation is more and more regulation, and to hell with the cost of effectiveness.

CASA is even quoting a passage from the said HCA decision in NPRM etc., to justify the "precautionary principle" --- a very new invention that will and is costing aviation dearly.

All a great leap backwards.

Tootle pip!!

halfmanhalfbiscuit

10th Feb 2012, 08:17

CASA don't stop at the simple and effective control of those who break the rules, the mendatious nature of the whole place has fostered a culture of way out behaviour that baffles the general legal profession who do not see other agencies behaving in the same way as CASA.

T28d and Gobbledock have managed to summarize a lot in a couple of paragraphs.

Just to add it takes a long time and money to get redress via the legal system. CASA will do all they can to keep you from getting there. Franks $100,000 gives us an idea. $ and time wasted to correct injustice.

I spotted a casa employees profile on linked in and he put his job title as '**** kicker'. It has been there a good time and explains a lot about this guys attitude. I won't post his name.........

Sunfish

10th Feb 2012, 18:14

Merv, nobody condones "breaking the rules", especially when a breach of the rules demonstrates a total lack of common sense.

What I think annoys people about CASA is that they allegedly always go after the low hanging fruit (trawling through YouTube videos) and attempt to impose draconian penalties for what we would perhaps regard as trifles while condoning and/or not prosecuting far more serious transgressions.

The result is perhaps misplaced sympathy for someone CASA pounces on like a certain North Queensland helicopter pilot who was punished on Youtube evidence of alleged dangerous flying (John Quadrio).

To put that another way, when was the last time Qantas appeared in court, being prosecuted on behalf of CASA for a safety breach?

To put that yet another way, as a low time PPL flying out of YMMB and around the Melbourne area, it was obvious at least Six years ago that the influx of foreign students with less than perfect language skills and a somewhat different attitude to regulatory compliance had the potential to cause problems. Where was a proactive regulator then? I'm still amazed that there aren't more accidents, and when the Oxford boys and girls get in the circuit, and I hear the ATC controllers voice go up an octave, I clear out real quick.

The aviation regulatory climate in Australia reminds me of the old joke about treating a case of "crabs":

1. Shave half the pubic hair.

2. Dowse the other half with petrol and set it alight.

3. When the crabs run out of the burning hair, stab them with an ice pick.

cheerio.

Wallsofchina

10th Feb 2012, 19:53

Sunfish, after reading your fantasy, I sometimes wonder how I managed to stay out of trouble with CASA and its predecessors for 30 years.

VH-XXX

10th Feb 2012, 20:36

As interestingly as you have described it Sunfish, you are exactly right. They have started the "easy" form of policing these days, by sitting behind a computer screen watching YouTube and looking through aviation forums.

Say even 10 years ago was a different story where you would actually see them on a weekend at airports, talking with pilots, attending flyins, I'd even know who they were, talk to them by name and greet them with a hello. Not these days; it's enforcement almost by proxy, with the proxy being the legal system and the AAT.

Those that say this isn't the case either rarely fly more than 2 hours a year or haven't set foot behind a control column for a long time and ironically also the same types that troll YouTube and forums looking for things to bitch about and feeding on the misfortune of other.

As for the foreign student situation, some would say its only a matter of time before something bad happens, however some would argue that it already has on many occasions.

Sunfish

10th Feb 2012, 20:37

I've stayed out of trouble with CASA too, and intend to continue. It appears from the pages of Pprune that there are signifigant numbers of cases that make it all the way to the AAT at considerable cost that suggest that where there is smoke there is combustion going on.

....Or are you suggesting that Qantas has never breached the regulations?

Wallsofchina

10th Feb 2012, 20:44

halfmanhalfbiscuit

10th Feb 2012, 21:42

Why would CASA spend taxpayers money driving cars to airfields and tourist spots all over the country when they can collect from YouTube readily available evidence of the idiot factor doing the antics we've all (or the responsible people) condemned them for for years.

What's wrong with that?

Ok, I'll bite. Regulating by you tube and not getting out to industry:

1) Stasi like or secret police approach

2) Anybody advocating that clearly is afraid to engage with industry, auditing, ramp checking or the like. Competent staff would see job as knowing what is happening in industry not via dodgy you tube clip.

3) further creates the us and them attitude.

4) sitting in office in Bris Mel or wherever watching video with like minds sipping a latte til you find some target to bully and convincing selves of some wrong doing.

Sunfish

10th Feb 2012, 22:05

Walls:

Why would CASA spend taxpayers money driving cars to airfields and tourist spots all over the country when they can collect from YouTube readily available evidence of the idiot factor doing the antics we've all (or the responsible people) condemned them for for years.

What's wrong with that?

Ask John Quadrio. He lost his licence on a charge of "dangerous flying" from a dubious Youtube video.

Search Pprune and you will find threads with a considerable amount of information on the antics CASA went through.

http://www.pprune.org/dg-p-general-aviation-questions/467879-paul-phelan-s-latest.html

http://www.pprune.org/dg-p-general-aviation-questions/470112-support-john-quadrio.html

http://www.pprune.org/dg-p-general-aviation-questions/466520-warning-kool-video-loss-licence.html

Quadrio and Civil Aviation Safety Authority [2011] AATA 709 (12 October 2011) (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/AATA/2011/709.html)

There are however some great videos of idiots like this one in Kazakhstan, a Zenith 701 is not an aerobatic aircraft:

I loop and roll my Zenair with Gulnara - YouTube

How would you like it having CASA trawl through every scenic flight video on Youtube looking for evidence of your infraction of the rules?

Lets start with this video of a takeoff - since aren't electronic devices supposed to be switched off for takeoff and landing? Did the pilot maintain runway heading to 500 feet? Are we watching dangerous low flying here?

Taking off Fraser Island - YouTube

Here is another one 500ft terrain clearance?

VFR?

How many regulation breaches can we spot here?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0dsQEcH8FME

Wallsofchina

10th Feb 2012, 22:54

You just don't get it do you Sunfish, the Quadrio thing destroyed itself in the end with the open admissions on this site.

Regardless of the way evidence is collected, unsafe behaviour is unsafe behaviour, and we frequently read how ****** mates allowed it to continue until the person finally took out himself and sometimes others.

halfmanhalfbiscuit

10th Feb 2012, 23:13

Walls,

You seen happy to advocate guilty until proven innocent. Can you enlighten readers as to how this works under Australian law? This is the key to many of the issues with casa and people that want to play the role of judge jury and executioner.

I suggest you look at how our laws are supposed to operate in oz. I agree and nobody is supporting breaches in regs or unsafe behavior but there is a right and wrong way to investigate.

Frank Arouet

10th Feb 2012, 23:46

It would appear from private contacts, the thread topic was about somebody doing a "beat up" at a social function.

While it shows bad airmanship and possible dangerous flying, (depending on what he was "beating up"), in days past such things would generally be the subject of a warning.

The real danger of a "beat up" is not the actual low flight if it is over the runway. We all fly close to the ground during T/O, landing and we are taught precautionary inspection of a suitable forced landing ground if daylight or weather forces it. The AG guys do it for a living. The real danger that needs to be addressed is the history of stall spin at low level after an ubrupt pull up after the event.

This is an education thing, not necessarily a criminal matter.

Wallsofchina

11th Feb 2012, 00:25

biscuit
You seen happy to advocate guilty until proven innocent. Can you enlighten readers as to how this works under Australian law? This is the key to many of the issues with casa and people that want to play the role of judge jury and executioner.

I suggest you look at how our laws are supposed to operate in oz. I agree and nobody is supporting breaches in regs or unsafe behavior but there is a right and wrong way to investigate.

I'm advocating following regulations and not doing dumb ego strokers like beat ups. Then you may never have to worry about CASA.

Thank you for your advice, I suggest you look at how our laws DO work in Australia, a good example being camera speeding fines - try asking the police to prove you were guilty of driving the car, and there are increasing areas of guilty until proving innocent.

Wallsofchina

11th Feb 2012, 00:39

Frank
It would appear from private contacts, the thread topic was about somebody doing a "beat up" at a social function.

While it shows bad airmanship and possible dangerous flying, (depending on what he was "beating up"), in days past such things would generally be the subject of a warning.

The real danger of a "beat up" is not the actual low flight if it is over the runway. We all fly close to the ground during T/O, landing and we are taught precautionary inspection of a suitable forced landing ground if daylight or weather forces it. The AG guys do it for a living. The real danger that needs to be addressed is the history of stall spin at low level after an ubrupt pull up after the event.

This is an education thing, not necessarily a criminal matter.

Frank, you're another one who cries innocent of the nasty CASA, then blow your credibility to us, CASA, the legal profession and anyone else trawling through this site.

The REAL real danger of a beatup is the six people who died near a mining site when their pilot did a farewell beat up of the strip, then an impressive rate 2 turn straight into the radio mast, or the Aerobat pilot (non-display) who watched an airshow at Berwick then took a girl out and did a beat up of the strip followed by a graceful wingover, recovering against the ground. Rescuers were relieved to see the two sitting upright in the aircraft, then found they were dead, or the guy who flew over to the neighbours for lunch and found it necessary to fly between two hangars as a goodbye, catching a power line and incinerating himself in front of them.

Manslaughter IS a criminal matter old chap.

You also genuinely don't seem to be aware of the difference between flying near the ground on TO and landing and flying near the ground away from the strip. Suggest you get some advice from an instructor on that.

I wouldn't put Ag skills and most of ours on the same balance either.

halfmanhalfbiscuit

11th Feb 2012, 01:01

and there are increasing areas of guilty until proving innocent.

That is what concerns me and others. At least a speed camera is set up, calibrated and measures one criteria actual speed against legal speed limit for that road. There is also a margin to compensate for error. Actually you can contest who was driving and also challenge the result.

Whereas as the you tube clip is being subjectively determined. If you want a good example take a look at a flying display from the public viewing point and compare to being outside that area. Very different picture emerges.

First paragraph on dfat website regarding principles of Australian law
The Australian legal system is based on a fundamental belief in the rule of*law, justice and the independence of the judiciary. All people—Australians and non-Australians alike—are treated equally before the law and safeguards exist to ensure that people are not treated arbitrarily or unfairly by governments or officials.

Frank Arouet

11th Feb 2012, 01:42

Wallsofchina;

If it is illegal to do a "beatup" because of the stall spin scenario I mentioned, or any of the examples you quote, and people are still doing "beatup's" then: This is an education thing

You can't legislate against stupidity, lapses of concentration, or spontaneous brain farts.

It should only become a criminal "thing" after it all turns to ****. Until then it is an administrative matter and the reaction to the offence should be to deal with it accordingly.

It says something of training standards or the concept of airmanship.

Again, this is, an education thing and tells me there is a serious problem when the regulator is the most feared danger to a pilot, yet they ignore the rules. Instilling fear cannot possibly be a better option than respect for the institution. Unfortunately, few respect CASA because of the historical data of abuse, cronyism and incompetence.

Lets also not forget, they have the worst aviation safety/ crash record of any organisation in Australia.

Wallsofchina

11th Feb 2012, 02:15

Biscuit
I have some sympathy for your position; I think the British "innocent until proven guilty" was very fair to the individual, but an element of smart alecks in the community habitualy flouted the law and it changed.

My point is these laws now exist, including Quango regulators, so we just have to get on with it, or if you've got a spare hour or two lobby the politicians to change it back.

In some respects that was Australia's answer to solving the problem that Frank has just put.

Frank, Murder is a crime and in New York, murder got to endemic levels despite the laws and judgements of the day (so far meeting your argument).

The programs Rudi Giuliani introduced reduced it to negligible numbers in a very short time, so that's an example of solving an issue, without resorting to reducing penalties and "educating", which, with some of the people I know could only be effective with a tyre lever.

Kharon

11th Feb 2012, 02:15

In context of the alleged incident: but, 'beat ups' are dangerous if you know how to do them; they are bloody lethal if you don't.

CASA will for a small fee provide a low flying rating, providing you have had the training; they will for a similar fee grant you an Ag pilots rating, on proof that you have had the 'proper' training. So for those with a penchant for messing about in the weeds and an affinity with bugs on the windscreen it's a simple enough matter to get 'legal'. This will validate your insurance should you come unstuck.

I love to watch a low fly past, done well, done safely. I enjoy watching a well managed aircraft doing a precautionary search, and the Ag boys in the cotton at night or fires during day, watch it for hours. Nothing but admiration for a job well and safely done.:Dhttp://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/thumbs.gif

But the idea of an un trained Bozzo playing the damn fool anywhere makes my blood run cold. .http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/censored.gif :ugh:

Apples to apples though, JQ was a low act, unproven in court and the benefit of the doubt must (at present) go his way.

There are so few facts presented here about this incident it's hard to weigh it up, but one thing is for sure; CASA were on the paddock. To even think about starting an engine was foolhardy let alone buggering about at low level.

If this is a genuine, ridgy didge gotcha, then a little suspension, followed by remedial training (attitude adjustment) and perhaps a fine may provide a lesson to the 'wannabe' dopes out there.

Nuff said.

halfmanhalfbiscuit

11th Feb 2012, 03:19

I have some sympathy for your position; I think the British "innocent until proven guilty" was very fair to the individual, but an element of smart alecks in the community habitualy flouted the law and it changed.

Are you sure on that one?! Please use facts to support the changes of Australian law principles. Or would you like to educate me with the attitude of "with some of the people I know could only be effective with a tyre lever."

Wallsofchina

11th Feb 2012, 03:46

Go and do some research biscuit, I'm not the one complaining about CASA and their methods.

Frank Arouet

11th Feb 2012, 07:11

It's amaing that some posts here would appear to have been made by a RA-Aus instructor/ flying school operating under a jurisdiction that is not CASA.

Go and do some research biscuit, I'm not the one complaining about CASA and their methods

I eagerly await that advice also, but I suspect as Mr Walls brought the matter up and he should prove the existence of such a radical change from the rule of law as I know it.

A hint may be the drafting of strict liability laws and the subsequent criminalising of matters that may involve human factors. This I have first hand knowledge of as I was part of a representative body that made a deal with the then Democrats for a dis-allowance motion but was shafted by a fifth columnist on that same board.

This side deal hangs around the perpetrators neck like a dead albatross and did not represent the majority of thinking.

Strange, this impacted on the recreational aviation sector but some here think it's a good thing.

Gormless twats yet to be impacted by it's potential!

Arnold E

11th Feb 2012, 07:54

This side deal hangs around the perpetrators neck like a dead albatross and did not represent the majority of thinking.

Strange, this impacted on the recreational aviation sector but some here think it's a good thing.

Gormless twats yet to be impacted by it's potential!

Tell us what you really think Frank, but then again none of this makes any sense unless we know what you are talking about, please enlighten us???

gobbledock

11th Feb 2012, 08:20

Why would CASA spend taxpayers money driving cars to airfields and tourist spots all over the country when they can collect from YouTube readily available evidence of the idiot factor doing the antics we've all (or the responsible people) condemned them for for years. CASA Inspectors do not reap overnight travel allowances or frequent flyer points by watching YouTube. So although they will use YouTube (perhaps when they aren't meeting the monthly budget) they prefer to get out of the office and away from the foolish managers. Nothing beats 1 hour of field work followed by 6 hours at the pub, paid for by yours truly - the taxpayer.

Just for you Kharon -
http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRgwoRhQUyR_fhBT8xvUTo3vStNtm6Glqstqm4IQ2N 3iwhUfG_c

VH-MLE

11th Feb 2012, 11:54

Gobbledock,

Please grow up!!! You are making an absolute fool of yourself with your childish remarks...

Unfortunately you have several others of similar ilk in your camp making similar comments which doesn't help.

Kharon

11th Feb 2012, 18:51

In this fight; seems to be 3 subjects available here for sensible discussion. The use of video evidence appears to be worth a few electrons when you look at the range of cases where it has figured large.

If this incident was committed 'on camera' in front of witnesses and CASA was there with a loaded gun, it's a fair call for them to record and take action. The original cleft stick, damned if they do, damned if they don't. No wriggle room for CASA here, video evidence just icing on a cake donated by the guy allegedly 'in breach'. May turn out, on investigation that the low pass was entirely kosher, may not. But the use of video is acceptable in this instance.

The other side is the treatment of the likes of JQ and the guy who made 'that' TV series; in both cases there is room for doubt (a big room); the 'movie' may provoke investigation and perhaps, some alleged 'wrong doing' may be discovered and prosecuted under the criminal code of law we endure. Why they don't use it though is for another day.

Anyway, it's the half assed investigation of the facts, the manipulation of evidence and the subsequent trial by administration that gets me off side.

Lets say they, all three of them are proven guilty (beyond reasonable doubt) by a court, where the investigation was balanced, reasonable and accurate, the evidence clear cut and the circumstances understood by the court. Then you may be able to say "furry muff" and have some faith in the system.

But as it stands right now, as long as there is any doubt about an alleged incident, the lack of any credibility CASA has created (all by themselves) will continue to taint anything they attempt to do. The real safety issue is that almost any decent lawyer could destroy their credibility and one day a really bad boy (or girl) could get let loose. On who's hands would the blood be then I wonder.

But I forget, they don't like courts do they.
AUD $00.20. GD> http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/thumbs.gif

Sunfish

11th Feb 2012, 19:31

Wallsofchina please understand the following:

1. Nobody here is condoning dangerous behaviour or the deliberate flouting of the regulations.

2. What some of us are saying is that based on a study of numerous cases that make it to the AAT, and not just to the pages of Pprune, we might be forgiven for coming to the following conclusions:

(a) CASA has a long history of paying lip service to the concepts of procedural fairness and natural justice, to the point where its behaviour attracted enough official attention for it to have to promise to be a "Model Litigator".

(b) That promise - to be a model litigator, as well as adhering to those Two concepts does not appear to have been honoured. The case of Butson and Polar Air being one example and that of a the owner of PZL Wilga accused of committing maintenance, where Three CASA officers allegedly perjured themselves, being another. Then of course there was the disgraceful behaviour of certain North Queensland CASA employees which is before my time, but where it appears even CASA was finally prompted to act.

3. The entire regulatory reform process (Fifteen(?) years and counting) as well as the structure and content of the regulations plus the draconian penalties attached, have created a regulatory system that is not only highly inefficient and expensive to administer (Lawyers feast) but creates an environment which tempts CASA officers to be judge , jury and executioner - or worse. In other words, they are an invitation to maladministration.

Look at CASA's persecution of one charter operator for allegedly running "regular public transport" according to their definition - which was overturned by the AAT. Would you like to consider the economic cost to the community, not just the operator and the taxpayer, of this stupidity?

So there we have it Walls. Bad laws and regulations, capriciously and severely enforced.

Let me tell you my guess about what will probably happen to this alleged criminal who flew low:

(i) He will be invited to incriminate himself via a CASA "Show Cause" process.

(ii) At 4.45 pm one Friday (a scummy lawyers trick) he will receive notice that his licence is cancelled.

(iii) Some time after that, he will be prosecuted and receive a criminal record. He becomes a felon with restricted emplyment and travel opportunties.

The chances of procedural fairness and natural justice being applied are slim.

Aaaah! You say, but safety demands that.....!!!

The trouble is Walls that safety is a state of mind. You cannot regulate safety, you have to inculcate it into the fibre of the participants in the industry so that it applies itself when there isn't the threat of a regulator looking over your shoulder with the threat of punishment. To put that another way, an "us and them" attitude is lethal to safety, we should be aiming for a cooperative process on the basis that the need for safety transcends the regulations and their penalties. Based on that model Walls, not only did the pilot fail to fly safely, CASA itself failed because it hadn't inculcated a safety state of mind in said pilot sufficient for self discipline to apply.

Let me give you an example. A certain newly qualified pilot was endorsed on a C172. The endorsement was done at YMMB with a hot Northerly blowing. All went well. The instructor really wasn't worried that the student was crossing the fence at about 70 knots. Neither was the student.

A week later the pilot goes to practice his newfound skill, but with no headwind. 70 knots..... and kangaroos down the runway - three times before the tower calls him in for a chat.

The result? A bent firewall. Off the aircraft goes to Flight Safety - where there are Five other C172's all with severe firewall damage from exactly the same thing, from multiple schools, sitting in the hangar!!!!

And now CASA steps in..... is it about sins of omission across multiple flight schools? Is it about the PPL syllabus? Is it about poor training of junior instructors?

No. It's "you must write "aircraft unserviceable" in the maintenance release".

Wallsofchina

11th Feb 2012, 19:58

One of the most artistic efforts at missing the point I've ever seen Sunfish.

Your credibility is zero.

VH-XXX

11th Feb 2012, 21:01

Don't worry about it Sunfish, you are arguing against a wanna-be politician and will never win.

All excellent points though and most informative. The 172 firewalls are interesting.

Argue the topic people and not the person, personal attacks are un-necessary.

Sunfish

11th Feb 2012, 21:19

Whats your point Walls?

That CASA is a role model for the worlds regulators?

flying-spike

11th Feb 2012, 21:28

I do love it when there is passionate debate but only when the arguments are reasoned and hopefully based on fact. It is nit-picking I know but the term is QANGO which stands for Quasi Autonomous Non Government Organization. CASA is a government authority. That is why they have .gov in their URL.
You must talk proper English to make a gooderer arguments.

Wallsofchina

11th Feb 2012, 21:43

Sorry flying-spike, got it wrong, this is occurring in semi-Government operations where regulations are established which allow the entity to make rules and apply its own penalties.

Sunfish
Hearsay and statements like "where three CASA officers allegedly perjured themselves" destroy your arguments. They either perjured themselves, in which case you can provide proof and have them prosecuted, or they didn't in which case there's no point in mentioning them.

VH-XXX you're wrong once again, I have no political aspirations, and perhaps we should look at the actions, such as the person who boasted that the weather was so bad coming home from Natfly that he had to fly on instruments for a while in his little Jabiru.

thorn bird

11th Feb 2012, 21:49

Walls, and your point is???
Am I correct in imagining you believe govenment institutions should have enfetted power to penalise citizens, without review by any independant body simply based on their "belief" that an offence occured?
Very short step from there to the "Gulag" old mate.
Since our Aviation regulations are written in the criminal code, and given aviation is such a complex business, and the regulations themselves deliberately written in such a convoluted fashion that the average judge would'nt understand them, guess it might be easier, and a whole lot cheaper to just let the "regulator", who of course are the undisputed experts on all things aviation, to bypass the whole court system and do the sentencing as well, they could then set up CASA re-education camps "outback".

Sunfish

11th Feb 2012, 21:56

It was perjury but apparently charges haven't been pressed.

Dad (http://www.aviationadvertiser.com.au/news/2009/04/dad%E2%80%99s-army-rides-again/)

Dad’s Army Update – Investigations Begin (http://www.aviationadvertiser.com.au/news/2009/05/dads-army-update-investigations-begin/)

Wallsofchina

11th Feb 2012, 21:59

Well who is arguing that you are innocent until proven guilty?

Frank Arouet

11th Feb 2012, 22:32

thorn bird;

You may wish to ask him why he has brought, what appears to be an RA-Aus matter, to a GA forum and siding with CASA for effect, did not take the matter up with RA-Aus in the first place.

VH-XXX

11th Feb 2012, 22:40

perhaps we should look at the actions, such as the person who boasted that the weather was so bad coming home from Natfly that he had to fly on instruments for a while in his little Jabiru.

Turboplanner / Wallsofchina,

Here we go again as per my last post about "attacking the person." You are embroiled in a discussion with Sunfish et al and everyone is asking you the hard questions now, so you decide in a vein attempt to make things personal again and to drag up something that you personally misinterpreted from a post made on a forum approximately 4 years ago?

I challenge you to find me the post that specifically said that someone flew a jabiru on instruments coming home from natfly or at least partially. It doesn't exist an never did.

You should apply for a position at CASA. You sit there behind your PC trolling forums looking to misinterpret what actual pilots have written in a vein attempt to discredit them to prove a point that is unrelated.

I'd delete this thread due to your arrogance and personal attacks except that so many people have offered many words of wisdom thus far it would be a shame to lose their valued input.

Kharon

12th Feb 2012, 00:16

Nicely put Sunfish - about the only 'blue' on the page was.

Sunny - No. It's "you must write "aircraft unserviceable" in the maintenance release". Not so; ask anyone who has had the dubious pleasure of the CASA version of 'telling' engineering what you believe is wrong. "Son, you are not a LAME and therefore, not qualified to define the problem, how can you a mere pilot decide if the aircraft is or is not unserviceable".

No joke, know a fellah who wrote "No2 propeller needs dressing" on a MR; I wish I had a beer in the fridge for every word written backwards and forwards, a dollar for every long phone call and $10 for every man hour wasted; no work for this little black duck for a month and free booze for about a year.

Bent firewall, not qualified to judge, U/S not qualified to judge; a humble written confession is all you may write. "hard landing followed by multiple bounces, difficult to taxi". That's your lot. := :ugh:

Creampuff

12th Feb 2012, 02:18

47 Maintenance release to cease to be in force

(1) If:
…
(ac) a flight crew member of
…
an aircraft in respect of which a maintenance release is in force becomes aware:

(a) that:
…
(ii) the aircraft has suffered major damage or has developed a major defect, other than damage or a defect that is a permissible unserviceability; [or]

(iii) abnormal flight or ground loads have been imposed on the aircraft

and

(b) that there is a likelihood that the aircraft will be flown before:
…
(ii) the damage or defect referred to in subparagraph (a) (ii) has been remedied; [or]

(iii) any damage caused by the imposition of the abnormal loads referred to in subparagraph (a) (iii) has been remedied

as the case may be

he or she shall … enter on the maintenance release, or other document approved for use as an alternative to the maintenance release for the purposes of this subregulation, an endorsement signed by him or her setting out the facts of the situation and stating that the aircraft is unairworthy, and thereupon the maintenance release ceases to be in force.Bolding added.

halfmanhalfbiscuit

12th Feb 2012, 03:47

Walls,

I think you've lost the argument by resorting to a personal attack and not being able to support your argument with facts. Am I right in thinking this is why you support CASA not being accountable and that pesky 'innocent until proven guilty' thing? So much easier not to have to prove somebody guilty with fact far easier to use your opinion to judge them 'not a fit and proper person'.

Frank Arouet

12th Feb 2012, 04:08

Arnold E;

AOPA had a deal with The Democrats for a dis-allowance motion to proceed that would have blocked the strict liability law that CASA put forth.

One of the AOPA Vice Presidents took it upon himself to do a midnight deal and he offered as proof concept his opinion that we really didn't mean it, and the matter was passed into law against the wishes of the majority.

I believe for this reason the deal was illegal and the law is illegal, however what would I know, I'm not a lawyer. I'm just a bottom feeder who is impacted by his inglorious attempt to curry favour with the political force at the time and CASA.

I may add this same bloke wanted all commercial piston aircraft grounded and replaced with turbines.

I think he's selling hair restorer to rabbits now.

Frank Arouet

12th Feb 2012, 04:18

Creampuff;

I sat through the Gregadoo crash inquest and noted the arguements for and against "snag sheets". That transcript denies a "snag sheet" is another document approved for use as an alternate.

Therefor it is encumbant upon the pilot who is engineeringly unqualified to write up all defects as he or she sees fit and put them on the MR.

Mate of mine who operated turbine helicopters said the machine was the best thing God had made man capable of building and a wonderment to all mankind. Only one thing fkuced them;

A Pilot.

Why isn't a snag sheet good enough to put the problem to someone more experienced for evaluation of whether or not it goes on the MR and save valuable downtime? I'm talking about full ash trays incidentally, not prop failures.

blackhand

12th Feb 2012, 04:36

Frank
I see your point about "snag" sheet, and most operators I do business with have/do use them.
The case of a heavy landing etc may be somewhat different as most pilot write this up.

I have also seen a CASA "observation" that there appeared to be not enough defects on a maintenance release.
"Son, you are not a LAME and therefore, not qualified to define the problem, how can you a mere pilot decide if the aircraft is or is not unserviceable".Now there is a big pile of smelly bovine poo!!

Cheers
BH

Creampuff

12th Feb 2012, 05:18

50
(1) This regulation applies to each of the following persons:
(a) the holder of the certificate of registration for an Australian aircraft;
(b) the operator of an Australian aircraft;
(c) a flight crew member of an Australian aircraft.
(2) If:
(a) there is a defect in the aircraft;
….;
a person mentioned in subregulation (1), who becomes aware of the defect or damage, must endorse the maintenance release of the aircraft or other document approved for use as an alternative for the purposes of this regulation, setting out the particulars of the defect or damage, as the case may be, and sign the endorsement.Defects may be endorsed on a ‘snag sheet’ rather than the MR, if - and this is a big 'if' - the ‘snag sheet’ is approved for use.

When the blind lead the deaf, the outcome is a belief that any entry on an MR ‘automatically grounds the aircraft’.

If I endorse the MR for an aircraft with “Ashtray full”, is the aircraft ‘grounded’?

If I endorse the MR for an aircraft with “R/H Altimeter inaccurate beyond IFR limits”, is the aircraft ‘grounded’?

blackhand

12th Feb 2012, 05:52

If I endorse the MR for an aircraft with “Ashtray full”, is the aircraft ‘grounded’?
No, it is still serviceable.
If I endorse the MR for an aircraft with “R/H Altimeter inaccurate beyond IFR limits”, is the aircraft ‘grounded’?
A bit more complex.
If the MEL allows flight with that instrument US then is ok.
If the aircraft is single engine VFR, is still serviceable for VFR flight.

Kharon

12th Feb 2012, 06:10

I seriously meant no offense against either the spirit or the intent of the law, as writ. But simply to mention a long standing joke, amongst a large group of working GA pilots who suffered greatly at the hands of the AWI who is the butt, of it.

Pardon the thread drift, twas tongue in cheek. Allow to me rephrase – Good one Sunny. endit.

tail wheel

12th Feb 2012, 06:38

How did we get from this:

Heard from a little birdie that a pilot was very recently witnessed performing some antics at a hangar BBQ close to Melbourne and that CASA happened to be there complete with video camera.

To this page of diatribe? :confused: :confused:

Walls, do PPRuNe a favour and toddle off to your toy airplane forum, there's a good lad.

This forum is for real airplanes and preferably, commercial airplanes with commercial drivers. :=

Thanks.

Creampuff

12th Feb 2012, 06:49

Blackhand wins the kewpie doll.:ok:

For all those who are reticent to enter defects or damage on an MR, please find someone like blackhand who knows what s/he’s talking about, and listen. Listen hard.

Entries on MRs don’t automatically ground an aircraft. Entries on MRs do reduce the risk of the next pilot who flies the aircraft killing themselves and others.

flyingfiend

12th Feb 2012, 06:57

There seems to be some confusion about offences of 'strict liability'.

In law, for a criminal offence (with some notable exceptions such as Treason in time of war, Sedition etc) to be proven there are two elements that must be proved by the prosecution.

I will spare you the latin but in plain English they are:

1. That the accused had the action in his / her mind, i.e. 'evil intent', and
2. That an action was actually carried out.

It is not an offence to 'think' or 'say' something, 'liable' to one side in the latter case, with some exceptions as I have already stated. We are talking about offences of 'strict liability' here.

If it was an offence to merely 'say' something than some people on here would be doing very hard time indeed.

There is no 'reversal of the burden of proof' which is set at 'beyond reasonable doubt' in criminal matters.

'Strict Liability' means that the prosecution does not have to prove that the mental element existed.
The prosecution still have to establish, via evidence to the evidential standard, that you did it.

Most traffic offences under the various road codes are offences of 'strict liability'.
E.g. The police do not have provide evidence that you intended to break the speed limit, they only have to provide evidence that you did exceed the speed limit. The 'action' proved; the 'intent' irrelevant.

If the law allowed for 'civil penalties' such as now in use by the ACCC and others, it is very tempting to say, 'great, that will stop all this nonsense about 'strict liability', then we have to bear in mind that with 'civil penalties' the burden of proof is not reversed; however, the evidential standard lowers to the civil standard, i.e. from 'beyond reasonable doubt' to 'on the balance of probabilities' for which it is much easier to educe evidence.

There could easily be an increase in the number of convictions.

Hope this helps.
FF

gobbledock

12th Feb 2012, 08:17

So Walls of China (appropriate name actually for a CASA pruner considering they love putting up those big barrier walls) is put in his box, and then comes along the legal eagle from Canberra - Flyingfiend who is obviously bored at his work station in Canberra.

One thing doesn't change regardless of the Trolls input. The facts remain very observable that the regulator is an intimidator and bully, is not capable of safely regulating Australian aviation and when found to be in want it simply hides behind a government department title and bottomless pit of taxpayer money.

kaz3g

12th Feb 2012, 08:44

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.

1. I don't think CASA invented Human Factors... seem to recall they have been implicated in poor decision-making since Adam let Eve into the orchard.

2. I don't like strict liability offences more than you but you are incorrect if you are saying that mitigating factors are not taken into account in the judicial determination of them... they aren't considered in deciding guilt, but they are considered in deciding penalty.

3. And you don't have to prove your innocence. The Prosecution must still prove your guilt. What the Prosecution does not have to show is your "guilty mind" or your "intention" to commit the offence. It's the same with Drink driving, speeding and parking offences in a motor vehicle.

Yes, i'm a pedant, too!

Fathers often have to tell children how to behave, even down to sharing their bats and balls when they are playing a game.

And I know MM and respect both his professional skill as an instructor and his personal integrity

kaz

Frank Arouet

12th Feb 2012, 09:35

And you don't have to prove your innocence

Pardon?????

Sunfish

12th Feb 2012, 10:19

Kaz, the penalty is immaterial. Once you have a criminal record, you have a criminal record. That is what does the damage. It doesn't matter if you were lightly brushed with a feather as penalty.

aroa

12th Feb 2012, 11:02

WoC... if CASA impose a penalty without first knowing all the facts, then apart from placing themselves on the lowest rung of the moral ladder, they are in breach of the Compliance Manual as well as the code of conduct
But let not small legal niceties get in the way of trying to stitch someone up.

Not hearsay and allegations of perjury... FACT. Proven by two investigations.
And written clear as day in sworn statements to be used with a view obtain a criminal conviction in a court of law.
Case struck out, tho, due falsehoods, oh dear !

How does this sound as concise, objective "investigation" by a CASA person.
LAME : "there is no case to answer, the a/c did not have an MR"
"Investigator" (sic) " I dont know about that, there are people in CB who think they can make this stick" :eek:

Of all the BS that occurred in the sorry Wilga tale, that was the scariest.
A sure sign it all about 'WHATEVER IT TAKES" to knock someone down and out.

So far, I have 2 down ( 1 fled, 1 retired) and counting, and I havent even been in court yet.
Justice from CASA, AFP, APSC, QPS..NO, not from any of. NONE.
But believe me, I'm pressing. The end game is nigh. BOTH jurisdictions. :ok:
TBA

Wallsofchina

12th Feb 2012, 19:24

I'm sorry if I was over the top.

Gobbledock, Walls of China is the name of a local landscape feature, I have no association or friends in CASA.

As the title of this thread implies, people are critical of CASA's methods of enforcement, and plenty of posters have reinforced that.

CASA didn't invent this thrust of the application of law, it's in widespread use, particularly in enforcement, because it is possible to get convictions which previously were evaded by slippery defence tactics.

The same thrust is used widely in the community today, Local Government parking regulations being one not mentioned so far, Chain of Responsibility in the transport industry, where you don't need to be anywhere near the vehicle or to have even spoken to the driver to be convicted is another.

Things have changed.

My issue is that by not spending the time to research this, and learn the relatively simple culture required to live with it, and just publicly attacking CASA there will be no sympathy from the Federal Government who made the changes to catch the slippery operators, and we can just expect a retaliation and tighter rules from CASA.

The way an organization goes about collecting evidence is irrelevant, and the thrust of this thread, the evils of self conviction because of public videos, public statements on public websites and so on are not confined to CASA, but also widespread in the community.

I was involved in an issue where a voice mail was critical evidence, but had been deleted by the phone provider. I was stunned to find that within 20 minutes, from the millions of conversation histories in Australia, an agency armed only with the phone number, date and time, was able to confirm they had the actual wording permanently secure.

Tail Wheel, I'm a PPL, I may have mentioned Natfly and I may have mentioned Jabiru, but the aircraft involved was VH registered, and the boast of flying in IMC is still out there on the web. Anyone who wants to look at it, just PM me.

Publicly blasting CASA about the way they collect their evidence, provided it is done legally, will also invite retaliation, and even tighter scrutiny, and once again those of us who try to do the right thing are the ones who have to cope with more restriction.

You are on tape when you drive down our freeways, walk on our streets, go into a convenience store, catch a train, have a McDonalds, and your home is on camera from the air. If you get a delivery of damaged goods, you just send an Iphone photo back to the supplier.

Things have changed, you can't single out CASA.

I'm not advocating this method of enforcement, I too was a victim of it (non aviation), but I am saying you have to suck it up and live with it.

Sunfish

12th Feb 2012, 20:33

I don't think anyone is too concerned with detection or prosecution of offences Walls, we all agree that there is a cowboy element that needs removing from time to time. There is also criminality, for example, a former airline pilot suggested to me the other day, in apparent seriousness, that the way to keep maintenance costs down was to record one hour flown for every Two on the basis that maintenance schedules are too conservative.

What I think concerns me, even though I've never had a run in with CASA and don't intend to, is that CASA does not appear to be too particular about actual evidence of wrongdoing when it gets an idea into its head, it would appear that it then tries to club the victim senseless via legal stratagems and finally gelds them with a very blunt and rusty knife.

There is apparently ample evidence that such behaviour is ongoing and it worries me because the outcome is potentially a criminal conviction.

To put that another way, I have a magistrate and now a (probationary) Constable in the family and the procedures they have to apply to the detection and punishment of malefactors makes CASA look like a Neanderthal. Just ask Mr. Aroa, he apparently tells one CASA bloke to piss off and the next minute he has three of them perjuring themselves by stating he was doing illegal maintenance on an aeroplane, followed by prosecution. Don't you agree that this isn't a good look? Aren't we all striving for safe outcomes? Apparently not.

Wallsofchina

12th Feb 2012, 20:45

The system was introduced by the Commonwealth Government, so its members are the ones you have to convince to change it.

Where the system is abused by a Department, the aggrieved party can write to the Commonwealth Ombudsman. He can't change the system, but he can see that it's not abused.

gupta

12th Feb 2012, 21:10

but he can see that it's not abused
New keyboard please!!!!:ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh:

halfmanhalfbiscuit

12th Feb 2012, 21:26

He can't change the system, but he can see that it's not abused. This is the link if you feel worthwhile to complain to the Ombudsman. Perhaps they need to see a number of complaints and the same issues. Perhaps should also make senators aware of these complaints?
Contact us - Commonwealth Ombudsman (http://www.ombudsman.gov.au/pages/contact-us/)

The question to be asked though is it worthwhile? I have no idea and would be interested to know.

Below is a good summary by Paul Phelan from the article Birds? What birds? (http://www.aviationadvertiser.com.au/news/2011/11/5328/)

These events have numerous aspects in common with numerous similar cases I have examined in which CASA appears to have single-mindedly pursued the destruction of an individual’s life, career, reputation and financial well-being using similar tactics to those described here. These activities, many of which I have documented, seem to be characterised by:

Eagerness to run with almost any allegation against an individual as fact without adequate and competent investigation, and to take action simply on a ‘reason to believe’ basis, sometimes (as in this case) without any formal regulatory action at all;
Willingness on the part of senior managers to close ranks behind its employees, rather than concede that errors may have been made, and apparently ignoring the duty of care to test the validity of the allegations and decisions:
An apparent preference for dealing with individuals who are perceived to be (relatively) financially defenceless;
Formal signed statements by CASA individuals which often reveal a lack of awareness of case-relevant technical issues;
Failure to assess and evaluate witness statements and credentials accurately and competently;
Determined reluctance to provide in a timely manner information which CASA is legally obliged to furnish;
Apparent wasteful manipulation of court processes in order to prolong matters to the financial disadvantage of the other party;
A lack of documentation which would identify participants, managers, deliberations and processes in the decision-making process;
Flouting of the “model litigant” obligations by which government agencies which are bound;

One of the most disturbing aspects is that once again events have highlighted the apparent existence of an unacceptable culture permeating some elements of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority that not only allows the kind of misconduct we have detailed to continue, but either supports it or stolidly denies it exists. That kind of a culture cannot survive without the awareness of senior management. It is relevant that some of the names associated with these events he go back more than fifteen years.
And almost everybody in the industry knows who they are. It is really time for an independent external investigation. AviationAdvertiser and (we’re sure) others can provide some suggested terms of reference.