Casa powers in regards to aircraft inspection.

[Dash8capt]

Can anyone inform me of what Casa's powers are in regards to going through and inspecting an aircraft without prior knowledge or permission of the owner?
Cheers Dash.

[VH-XXX]

Can you clarify further on that?

Is the aircraft being operated by someone else, like a student or private hire and got ramp checked or similar?

Was the inspection of the aircraft when it was unmanned, such as on a tarmac, in a hangar or on private property?

[j3pipercub]

Do CASA have the ability to enter private property without permission?

j3

[T28D]

Only with a properly issued Search Warrant

[Dash8capt]

Aircraft unmanned and secured on the ramp.

[owen meaney]

Beware of bush lawyers.
You do not have the right to refuse entry to CASA onto a premise that is used to commit aviation.

[TexanPilot]

You can't refuse them but they can't access a hanger etc if no one is in attendance with out warrants. They can however inspect an aircraft parked in the ramp but I don't think they can access the aircraft itself without the owner/representative in attendance.

That my understanding anyway.

[owen meaney]

Who knows what who knows.
Maybe this book knows
http://www.casa.gov.au/enf/009r012.pdf

Under CAR 305 (1A) it is an offence for a person to prevent, or hinder, access by an authorised person to any place to which the authorised person needs access to enable him or her to carry out any of his or her powers or functions under the Regulations.

　
If an inspector needs to inspect an aircraft in the field, the inspector should, where possible, carry out the inspection without requiring the opening of panels, dismantling or jacking. If a further internal inspection is required, then the inspector should obtain the consent of the owner, maintenance engineer in charge, or pilot-in-command of the aircraft. The person providing the consent should remove and replace any access panels. The inspector should generally not do this.

[Old Akro]

I do not have knowledge of the CASA situation. But in other areas of federal government inspectors / representatives you don't need to allow access with no notice or necessarily at the timeframe nominated by the official. It is acceptable to offer to co-operate fully but because of xxxxx (insert appropriate reason), now is not suitable and an appointment is made for another time. The strategy is to buy enough time to collect your thoughts & arrange a lawyer to be present. There is no question about not co-operating. You will co-operate fully when you have the opportunity to re-arrange your affairs. Its a matter of arranging a time to properly do the inspection / interview. It could be argued that a demand that you drop everything to comply at the inspectors timeframe is bullying.

[Dash8capt]

Bullying.... Would just about sum the regulators actions in a lot of situations. No one is preventing/hindering the inspector, nothing at all to hide. It is merely a curtesy. The police don't come up to your car at will and open the door to go through the glove box on a suspicion you might have something of interest in there.

[onetrack]

The police don't come up to your car at will and open the door to go through the glove box on a suspicion you might have something of interest in there.
They do, you know. That's exactly how the Police find drugs, stolen property and illegal weapons. They have to right to stop your vehicle at any time and carry out a search - IF they have a reasonable presumption that a crime has/is or could be/is being committed.

However - it's a big jump from a CASA inspector to a Police Officer. The CASA inspector does not have the same powers as a Police Officer, because Police are sworn officers of the Crown and have powers of arrest.

A CASA officer is merely a Govt official with modest powers to carry out inspections relating to aviation regulations. Despite what many Govt inspectors will tell you, they do not have the same power as Police.

They are not authorised to enter private property and search without permission. They are authorised to enter workplaces and areas where operations that fall under their jurisdiction, operate.
Accordingly, a CASA inspector has the right to access an aircraft sitting on a Govt-recognised airstrip/aerodrome.
There are many Govt inspectors who abuse their power and position, and an arrogant and "pushy" Govt inspector is just what we all don't need.

[T28D]

Theoriginal question was do they have the right to go into private property.

Yes with a search warrant or in company of Federal Police exercising their powers in Probable Cause if a suspectedcrime has or is being committed.

Their right to enter Aviation Related premesis is quite different and a much broader power.

[Ovation]

CASA have the power to detain an aircraft if they choose. They also can, with a warrant, enter premises and seize evidential material. That might be a part, a document (either written or stored on a computer), or even an aircraft, as "evidential material".

32ACA Search with consent for evidence in relation to civil aviation offences
Subject to section 32ACB, if an investigator has reasonable grounds for suspecting that there is on, or in, any premises a particular thing which may be evidential material, the investigator may:
(a) enter the premises; and
(b) search the premises for the thing

32AK Powers in relation to aircraft etc.

(1) An investigator may, for the purpose of performing the functions or exercising the powers of an investigator under this Part in relation to an aircraft, vessel or vehicle, require the person apparently in control of the aircraft, vessel or vehicle to do either or both of the following:
(a) to stop and detain the aircraft, vehicle or vessel for such reasonable period as the investigator specifies;
(b) to take all reasonable steps to ensure that the aircraft, vehicle or vessel, or a specified part of it, is left undisturbed for such reasonable period as the investigator specifies.
(2) A person must not fail to comply with a requirement under subsection (1).
Penalty: 30 penalty units.
(3) Subsection (2) does not apply if the person has a reasonable excuse.
Note: A defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to the matter in subsection (3) (see subsection 13.3(3) of the Criminal Code).
(4) An offence under subsection (2) is an offence of strict liability.
Note: For strict liability, see section 6.1 of the Criminal Code.


If an inspector needs to inspect an aircraft in the field, the inspector should, where possible, carry out the inspection without requiring the opening of panels, dismantling or jacking. If a further internal inspection is required, then the inspector should obtain the consent of the owner, maintenance engineer in charge, or pilot-in-command of the aircraft. The person providing the consent should remove and replace any access panels. The inspector should generally not do this.

The operative word here is "should" which is not "shall" or "must". I don't know what powers apply if the owner declines to assist.

With respect to the Police and Motor Vehicles, they have broad powers to search if they believe the vehicle has been used, is being used, or is likely to be used, in the commission of an Australian road law offence. The officer may form the "necessary belief" during or after an inspection or independently of an inspection. They have no power to search a person under this act but no doubt their would be another piece of legislation to provide for this. Note that they can come to that "necessary belief" after the inspection i.e. they can go on a fishing expedition if they so choose.

There is no direction in the legislation as to whether the officer has to advise any reason to the driver or owner of the vehicle prior to the search.

From the South Australian Road Traffic Act 1961

40R—Power to search vehicle on road or certain official premises

(1) This section applies to a vehicle located at a place—
(a) on a road; or
(b) in or on premises occupied or owned by a public authority, whether or not the vehicle is unattended.

(2) An authorised officer or police officer may search a vehicle for compliance purposes, if the officer believes on reasonable grounds that—
(a) the vehicle has been used, is being used, or is likely to be used, in the commission of an Australian road law offence or in the commission of a breach of an approved road transport compliance scheme; or
(b) the vehicle has been or may have been involved in an accident.

(3) The officer may form the necessary belief during or after an inspection or
independently of an inspection.

(4) The officer may enter the vehicle for the purpose of or in connection with conducting the search.

(5) The officer may exercise powers under this section at any time, and without the consent of the driver or other person apparently in charge of the vehicle or any other person.

(6) Without limiting the above, the power to search a vehicle under this section includes any or all of the following:

(a) the power to search for evidence of an Australian road law offence or a breach of an approved road transport compliance scheme;

(b) the power to search for and inspect any records, devices or other things that relate to the vehicle or any part of its equipment or load and that are located in or on the vehicle;

(c) the power to take copies of or extracts from any or all of the following:
(i) any records that are located in or on the vehicle and that are required to be carried in or on the vehicle under an Australian road law or under an approved road transport compliance scheme;
(ii) any transport documentation or journey documentation located in or on the vehicle;
(iii) any other records, or any readout or other data obtained from any device or thing, located in or on the vehicle that the officer believes on reasonable grounds provide, or may on further inspection provide, evidence of an Australian road law offence or a breach of an approved road transport compliance scheme;
(d) any powers that may be exercised during an inspection of a vehicle under section 40Q(5).

(7) The power to search a vehicle under this section does not include a power to search a person.

(8) The officer may seize and remove any records, devices or other things from the vehicle that the officer believes on reasonable grounds provide, or may on further inspection provide, evidence of an Australian road law offence or a breach of an approved road transport compliance scheme.

(9) The officer may use reasonable force in the exercise of powers under this section.

[Volumex]

If some punter arrives on the tarmac and demands to check out my plane, is it permissible to establish the legitimacy of their identity and authority before allowing them to violate my presumption of innocence?

[VH-XXX]

If I've arrived at Essendon airport for example for a business meeting and I've just locked my plane, that's it, nobody is getting inside regardless of who they are (CASA). They can make an appointment if they feel the need and I'll happily give them my business card. If they want to argue with that, they can call my solicitor. If they are a state or federal police officer and they want to have a look for drugs, good on them, they can go ahead, but they will need a search warrant or probable cause which would be hard to prove unless they knew something I didn't.

Seems that many CASA employees are ex Police officers and these are the ones that you want to worry about especially when they think they still are cops ;)

If some punter arrives on the tarmac and demands to check out my plane, is it permissible to establish the legitimacy of their identity and authority before allowing them to violate my presumption of innocence?

Absolutely yes. Same with the Police.

[pcx]

32AA Appointment of investigators
(1) CASA may, in writing, appoint an officer to be an investigator for the purposes of this Part.
(2) CASA must not appoint an officer as an investigator unless CASA is satisfied that the officer has suitable qualifications and experience to properly exercise the powers of an investigator.
(3) An investigator must, in exercising powers as an investigator, comply with any directions of CASA.
(4) If a direction is given under subsection (3) in writing, the direction is not a legislative instrument.

Does anyone know if all airworthiness and flying operations inspectors are appointed as investigators?

[onetrack]

If some punter arrives on the tarmac and demands to check out my plane, is it permissible to establish the legitimacy of their identity and authority before allowing them to violate my presumption of innocence?

Most certainly. Anyone who is claiming to represent authority over you has to be able to back that claim up - with ID or other worthy credentials.
I've done it to a plain-clothes policemen in an unmarked car, when he pulled me up and started acting a little "bolshie".

He only had some red and blue flashing lights on the dashboard and he was wearing a suit. After he started coming on a little "bolshie", I requested - and I was entitled to request - ID verifying his claim as a Police Officer.
He didn't object and immediately produced photographic Police ID - and I would expect any Govt inspector to do the same, if requested - no matter what field of industry he operated in.

There was a recent case here of an idiot selling his cars who posed as a Qantas FO, without any qualifications. He went to the trouble of acquiring a uniform and forged papers to impress potential buyers.
The two vehicles he sold still had money owing on them. He was duly nicked - for impersonation as well as fraud. He wouldn't have fooled me, of course - everyone knows FO's are nearly all broke. :)

'Fake pilot' admits car sale fraud - The West Australian (http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/breaking/13538937/fake-pilot-admits-car-sale-fraud/)

[aroa]

pcx..I dont think they pay too much attention to 32 AA (2)...

I am aware of one ex cop that didnt do the job properly, practised his "verballing " sklls, cobbled up some home made facts, leavened with some malicious untruths in his sworn statement.

Having been with CASA for only a few weeks, and knowing Mr J Sh*te about aviation and the regs...he could only exercise all his previous cop-that "skills".

And after that taxpayer funded jolly, back at FF a week later he was signed in as a Part 111 "investigator" Jesus wept.!

Recycling of paper, cans, and bottles is all good...but these sort of people ????:mad:
Never mind..."CASA is satisfied" So that's all right then.:eek:

RE inspectors etc..obliged to state their name, show their ID, state the reason/requirements of the visit and convenience of, and ask permission to enter the hangar / premises.
Unless of course its a raid with the Feds and I hear tell some funny story about one of those in CNS...!:sad:
FF can also stand for Funny Farm.

[thorn bird]

If CASA breaks into an aircraft or premises to conduct an alleged "Investigation" are they liable for any damage they do?.
If they are permitted to enter premises without a search warrent then they have been given the same powers as customs which police found rather handy at times until they kicked in the front door of a wrong house.
Of course the next question is when will hopalong FOI's be issued with kevlar vests and glocks.

[Ovation]

If CASA breaks into an aircraft or premises to conduct an alleged "Investigation" are they liable for any damage they do?

I vaguely recall (circa 1997 at YPPF) a Mooney owner complaining about CASA doing some sort of tear down on his avionics loooking for some "unauthorised wiring". They never found anything, nor did they bother to reinstate the aircraft to the condition it was when they impounded it.

[601]

The person providing the consent should remove and replace any access panels

And get into trouble for committing maintenance when not approved to do so.
Sorry Sir, but I have not been trained and issued with a Maintenance Authority for that procedure and it outside Schedule 8.

[Sunfish]

Schedule 8, by inference, allows removal by the pilot of non structural cover plates and fairings since this task is incidental to the others specfied (see item 16 in CAP 42).


To go back to Dash 8's original question, I would have thought that any Inspection involving entry to an aircraft by a CASA operative, authorised or not, in the absence of the owner or person responsible for the aircraft, had better be followed by:

(a) The written notification, left either in the aircraft or some other convenient location, containg the name, position, date , time and purpose of the inspection together with details of anything removed, or the result of the inspection.

(b) A follow up phone call or email if practicable.

Furthermore, the only "inspection" I can think that could reasonably be made by CASA would be to:

(1) Check that the aircraft is properly immobilised as required by law.

(2) Examine either for a leak or an apparent external defect.

If they want to see the maintenace release or other documentation they will be out of luck if its my aircraft because when travelling I always take all of it to the motel for security and the aircraft is locked anyway.

There are laws against tampering or interfering with an aircraft and if you ain't authorised that is what you are doing whoever you think you are.

[Up-into-the-air]

That's it in a nutshell Sunny!!

[tnuc]

Fly, Operate, and Maintain your aircraft in accordance with the rules and you won't have to worry about what casa's powers are

[LeadSled]

Fly, Operate, and Maintain your aircraft in accordance with the rules and you won't have to worry about what casa's powers are

Folks,
The words of the ultimate naive babe in the woods.

Tnuc, Haven't you noticed the multiple threads, over a long period of time, about the difficulty of deciding what the regulations actually mean, what actions are required, and the ever shifting sands of CASA individuals interpretations of what the rules require, including a comprehensive knowledge of all the Legislative Instruments that alter the meaning and/or application of individual regulations.

I assume you must believe these many thousands of posts are all by individuals who are too dumb to have you comprehensive, definitive and unchallengeable knowledge.

Just to try that knowledge, please let us all know exactly what flight deck documentation must be carried for a VFR flight ---- in comprehensive detail, with legislative references.

Even Mr. McCormick has made public statements about the use of Legislative Instruments where the rules don't work/fit.

Tootle pip!!

[sms777]

What really hurts is when your aircraft gets grounded by an ex friend who has been working for the same company as I have been and suddenly gets a job with CASA. Next thing so called friend goes out of his way to inspect my aircraft in someone else's hangar me not being there so i receive latter of indefinate grounding due to not displaying Avgas only sticker next to fuel cap. Mind you he conducted my IFR renewal in same aircraft only months before he got his new appointment with no sticker near fuel cap.
It's just my experience with Gestapo that's all. I am still p###ed off.

[VH-XXX]

So is a missing avgas sticker an indefinite grounding? Wouldn't you just replace said sticker and you're good to go?

I get frustrated with some CASA people with the classic "do as I say and not as I do" philosophy when they are as crooked as a crankshaft.

[owen meaney]

So is a missing avgas sticker an indefinite grounding? Wouldn't you just replace said sticker and you're good to go?
Missing decal would require rectification before next flight, not indefinite grounding.

[601]

see item 16 in CAP 42

A pilot, in theory, can remove non-structural covers from an airframe.

However also in the CAAP;

2.5 Pilots and Part 66 B1 and B2 licence holders, carrying out Schedule 8 tasks, are responsible for ensuring they are familiar with, and are able to satisfactorily comply with, any manufacturer’s instructions regarding the maintenance before undertaking any of the tasks identified. CASA strongly recommends guidance should be sought by pilots from a relevant Part 66 licence holder on the correct aircraft maintenance practices and procedures.

If the pilot works for an AOC Holder, this gotcha puts a requirement on the AOC holder to ensure that a pilot has been trained in the identification of non-structural covers, the use of the correct tools, the correct fitment of the cover and the required torque of the fasteners holding the inspection plate.

So if the pilot has not completed the training required for the above, the pilot should refer the CASA Official to the AOC Holder.

[sms777]

The missing avgas sticker was just one of the small defects he found but it had prompted a full audit which led to grounding.
The point I was trying to make that he helped himself to sniff around my aircraft without my consent because the hangar door happened to be open at the time. I have only found out when I have received the letter in the mail.:ugh::mad:

[onetrack]

sms777 - Really, you have no grounds for complaint. The bloke was carrying out his job which authorises him to inspect aircraft in an aviation environment where the aircraft can be put into the air at any time.

It's no different to you driving your car on a public road and being pulled up and stickered by the cops for a mechanical fault. By driving on a public road, you are essentially putting yourself under the authority and discretion of traffic police.

The same thing applies if I operate a workshop with employees. An authorised Govt safety inspector can arrive at any time and demand to inspect any machinery that requires a safety inspection, such as an air compressor.

If I refuse him entry, he can get a warrant to enter my premises. I can tell him now it not a convenient time and try to arrange an inspection at a more convenient time - but he still has the authority to enter and inspect equipment he is authorised to inspect.

By leaving your aircraft in a hangar on a location defined as an aviation location, you are putting your aircraft up for inspection at any time, just as your car is liable for inspection at any time on a public road.

[neville_nobody]

Really, you have no grounds for complaint. The bloke was carrying out his job which authorises him to inspect aircraft in an aviation environment where the aircraft can be put into the air at any time.

It's no different to you driving your car on a public road and being pulled up and stickered by the cops for a mechanical fault. By driving on a public road, you are essentially putting yourself under the authority and discretion of traffic police

You are talking about two different things here.

The scenario quoted is akin to the police turning up to your house whilst you are away entering without a warrant and defecting your car whilst it sits in the garage then as a result impounding your car.

That is very different from being pulled over on the side of the road whilst out driving.

Same with CASA. The question being raised here is does CASA have the right to enter a locked hangar and search and defect aircraft whilst in there?
I would highly doubt it.

You could for example realise that the aircraft is defective so therefore leave it in the hangar whilst waiting for parts (and/or sticker in this case)

If you had a private airport for example there is no way they could enter and search without going to a judge and showing reasonable cause.

So for CASA to start entering and searching without a court order anywhere is a very big call on their behalf.

[Sunfish]

The problem involves the legal concepts of materiality and proportionate response which seem to be unknown to CASA

[Checkboard]

The scenario quoted is akin to the police turning up to your house whilst you are away entering without a warrant and defecting your car whilst it sits in the garage then as a result impounding your car.

That is very different from being pulled over on the side of the road whilst out driving.

You think they should only be allowed to pull you over whilst flying? :confused:

[thorn bird]

So no clear idea what they can and cant??
Hypothetically, can CASA legally break into a hanger, jemmy an aircrafts door lock breaking the lock, remove documents and copy them, then leave the hanger wide open to whoever wants to enter and steal, tell no one and deny they were ever there, until the RCA turns???and there's no way they could have gained the information without breaking in, Then still deny they committed larceny.
It happened!!
Same powers as Customs, if you have anything to do with aviation they can, at will, without judicial approval, kick your front door in, terrorise your family while they ransack your home, and leave without so much as a sorry.
These are the powers they have endowed themselves with.

[neville_nobody]

You think they should only be allowed to pull you over whilst flying?

Well they certainly can't just go on fishing expeditions in hangars.

[onetrack]

If an inspector from any Govt organisation broke into my private building on my private property, then I would have him rightfully charged with breaking and entering.
The fact that Police have to obtain a search warrant to search private property shows that to enter and search private property in an unauthorised manner is trespassing - and damage to private property is criminal damage, no matter who you are.
However, public or designated areas are different to private property, and different laws apply. "Designated areas" are typically aviation centres for pilots and aircraft owners, and workplaces for industry.

CASA inspectors are no different to OH&S inspectors. They are empowered by legislation to conduct inspections, in areas where they consider the laws they are employed to uphold are perhaps being broken.
However, in all situations, "reasonable" is the word used, and "reasonable" behaviour is expected.

Breaking into premises without authority (i.e. - no warrant) and conducting inspections outside reasonable hours does not fall under the category of "reasonable" behaviour.
Damage to another persons property, even under a claim of "investigation", is completely unacceptable, and most certainly a breach of law.

[lk978]

I am reading through the Civil Aviation Act (1988) at the moment.

For an Investigator to enter the premises they need;
- Consent.
- Warrant.

For an aircraft;
The investigator may require the person apparently in control of the aircraft, vessel or vehicle to do either or both of the following;
- detain the aircraft, for a reasonable time.
- to ensure that the aircraft is undisturbed.

They can't even make you answer questions without a warrant.

Be careful because if you want to be a smart ass they can get a warrant over the phone pretty easily and I am sure they are always waiting for the next Johnnie Corchran (OJ's Lawyer)

[dubbleyew eight]

I would suggest that this entire discussion is further evidence of CASA being totally off the trolley.

how on earth such behaviour results in safety is totally beyond me.

[ozbiggles]

That's right CASA should have no rights to enforce the regulations...
It's amazing how there is always more to the story then what you first here from some one complaining isn't it.

[dubbleyew eight]

if you have regulations that make sense to everyone then they get followed by everyone.

if you have regulations that are a crock of poo you'll have a lot of people ignoring them.

I will bet my bottom dollar that the Canadians achieve greater regulatory compliance for the regulations they have in place now than CASA will ever achieve with even if they ramp checked every aircraft in Australia.

The mindset in CASA is an aberration that needs fixing.