what bothers me about strict liability...

[dubbleyew eight]

making penalties out of compliance situations that cant be negotiated.

in the CASA (actually CASA's predecessor) authorised flight manual is a requirement that the aircraft not be operated from runways less than 700 metres long.

the builder of the aircraft didnt ask for this. The department in its wisdom decided it somehow.

the reality is though that the aircraft has been operated from a 600 metre grass runway for all of it's 27 year life. Just today I flew it off the grass into a 5 knot at most headwind. at the end of the runway the aircraft was at 100ft over the end. when I landed on the same runway I was turned and backtracking within the first half of the runway. nobody understands why or how the department came to put the limitation in the manual.

in the old world the requirement was nonsense and was ignored.
In the new world of strict liability I am guilty of 2 offences, please forward your cheque in payment.

I liked it better when the legislation made sense to me. douglas bader and all that.

[FokkerInYour12]

Which aircraft type? Go with the pre-pre-CASA version!

[Jack Ranga]

You've just admitted 2 offences, even if you deleted this thread it can be forensically recovered.

I can understand your anger & frustration but you are better off shutting up & complying with the rules?? Otherwise you will be labelled a whinger............

[dubbleyew eight]

Fokkerinyour12 I just love the question 'what type'. Sylvester would kick me for laughing.:D

[RatsoreA]

EVERYTHING....

:hmm:

[Ixixly]

Sooo... basically, if you do something that someone, somewhere sitting in an office has decided is naughty, without due consideration to your circumstances eg. Aircraft Type, Field Type, Obstacles, Aircraft Modifications, other extenuating circumstanes etc... they retain the right to fine you irrespective. Am I understanding Strict Liability correctly?

[Kharon]

W8 - First there is the confession (pprune of You tube), then the discreet tap on the locked cubicle door and a whispered 'we got one'. In a while, after an interlude of breaking wind, the words "nail that bastard" are growled. The rest will then become part of the 'no complaints' record and find you no longer enjoying a peaceful, happy experience but wondering how to fight it all and pay the blessed mortgage. Alternately, you can spend days documenting a reasoned approach; then, wait for a few short weeks (if lucky) after tipping an exorbitant amount of hard earned over and have the joy of seeing your labour and logic thrown out. Probably closely followed by a penalty for bringing the matter of your transgressions to the attentions of powers that be......:D

RatsoreA - Choccy frog – everything, is the only correct answer....http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/thumbs.gif

[Wally Mk2]

'FiY12'' I doubt W8 is referring to any one specific machine it's more a statement/comment maybe of the mythical sense but gets his point across.

We are all liable for our own actions these days but nobody seems to wanna take responsibility anymore, blame it on someone else & the lawyers are playing in that muck of liability with gay abandonment!
In life simply cover yr ass as that's about all we can do especially when it comes to aviation.


Wmk2

[Jack Ranga]

Hey Wal, strict liability goes beyond covering your arse. That won't save you, not even a huge wad of cash to defend yourself will save you. Some of the prosecutions under strict liability are interesting to say the least.

[Horatio Leafblower]

Sooo... basically, if you do something that someone, somewhere sitting in an office has decided is naughty, without due consideration to your circumstances eg. Aircraft Type, Field Type, Obstacles, Aircraft Modifications, other extenuating circumstanes etc... they retain the right to fine you irrespective. Am I understanding Strict Liability correctly?

Ixy - kinda but not quite.

In the normal system of legal liability for your actions, the prosecution must prove two elements:

1/. That you did in fact do the illegal deed and
2/. That you meant to do the deed.

If it is a "strict liability" offence, they merely have to prove:

1/. you did in fact do the deed.
The only defence available to you is

HONEST AND REASONABLE MISTAKE OF FACT.

Charmingly, the onus is now on you to prove all 4 elements of your defence, ie:

1/. it was an honest mistake
2/. It was a mistake that was reasonable in the circumstances
3/. It actually was a mistake
4/. It was a mistake of fact, not mistaken circumstances or a misunderstanding of the law.

Good luck chaps. :ugh:

[Wally Mk2]

.......now JR ya gotta stop whingin' mate:E:E

Yeah I understand where ya comin' from buddy that's why I said all one can do is cover yr ass, it ain't a sure fire way of protecting it (yr ass) as 'HL' has so kindly pointed out to us in a frightening way but what else is a working class pleb to do?
Best not to get out of bed I reckon:ok:


Wmk2

[Jack Ranga]

Alright Wal, I'll stop whinging :ok:

.........................................

:cool: haven't got much to say if I'm not whinging :cool:

[FokkerInYour12]

Perhaps I digress from the issue of strict liability but the reason I mentioned "CASA flight manuals" is simply related the old (and wonderful) takeoff and landing distance plot charts that the Department of Civial Aviation (pre CASA) produced (the lovely ones that allowed you to plot pressure alt/shade temp, runway distance, surface type, slope, headwind etc... and also give you the ability to derive max takeoff weight and takeoff safety speed from all the above too).

As far as I'm aware they automatically included a fudge factor in there... I think it was about 15%.

Those charts were a real eye-opener when learning to fly... so what does short wet grass do to my takeoff distances?

Similarly, things like what should my approach speed be given a particular landing weight? Also, on a given day, with temps and pressures at X can I get into airfield of length Y? Let's recalc that and arrive early the next morning instead... now can I get in?

Try plotting all that from a 1960s or 1970s lightie manual and getting anything meaningful without figuring out all of the non-linear factors. You just won't do it (at least at a PPL/CPL level).

[Howard Hughes]

Note A defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to the matters in subregulation (3). See subsection 13.3 (3) of the Criminal Code.Stuff like this bothers me (taken from part 135).

Am I now required to carry a copy of the criminal code when flying? Or should I just take a lawyer on each flight to be sure? :eek:

How does this promote sound decision making and 'just culture'? It's just counter productive in terms of safety.

[Captain Nomad]

It sounds like the opposite of the old "innocent until proven guilty."

Where does 'reasonable doubt' fit into this? Can that be assuaged also?

[601]

takeoff and landing distance plot charts

Oh the ones that only went to 20kts headwind component and 30C when we were or could operating in much stronger winds and higher temps.:ugh:

During an investigation into an accident, we pointed out to DCA that the charts provided to us by DCA did not represent the real world conditions and that the aircraft, if operated in a country other than Oz would be legal, they, in their words, "buried the investigation in the basement".

[deadcut]

What are they gonna do? Backtrace the cyberwebz and get the Internet police to arrest them?

[dubbleyew eight]

for wal mk2. the runway limitation is written in my departmental approval.
neither I nor the 29,000 hour pilot who preceded me as owner have ever been concerned by it because we were operating totally safely.

if the regulator made a stuff up in the days before strict liability you could do the bader thing and be guided by what they intended and make the error a non event.
now that the lawyers have introduced strict liability you cant interpret what they intended and make the system work in spite of errors in paperwork.
you are in a position of peril if you dont follow the written word.

although in the regs it is the pilot's discretion to determine the suitability of a runway this written requirement means that if I fly safely from a 600m strip (as in fact we have done for 27 years) I am breaking the law...supposedly.

australian aviation law only worked because it wasnt enforced and we had discretion to use the guidance of wise men thing.
enforcing it means revealing all the errors they have made.
at least they no longer have indemnity and we can sue them.

[Horatio Leafblower]

It sounds like the opposite of the old "innocent until proven guilty."

Where does 'reasonable doubt' fit into this? Can that be assuaged also?

Any criminal offence needs to be proven beyond reasonable doubt- but now they only have to prove that you commited the act beyond reasonable doubt, they no longer have to prove you meant to do it beyond reasonable doubt.

And if you ask John McCormack about it he trots out the old line of "well if you don't do the wrong thing you've got nothing to worry about".

In my view, they are effectively criminalising human error.

[Sunfish]

The rule is now simply: "don't get caught".

Some of you, in moments of relaxation and weakness, may end up watching the Criminal Investigation channel on cable television (aka Foxtel).

The standard fare you will observe is American police car video of an American policeman chasing an alleged offenders car at lethally high speeds. This is followed by either a car crash or an interception by another police car.

At this point, the alleged offender, who is almost invariably Black, runs from his car and the police as fast as he can until brought down by a policeman, or a police dog, or is shot and wounded. The voice over then opines about how stupid it is to run from the police.

Now inquiring minds might like to ask themselves a question: why would an adult black male almost invariably try and run away from police? Surely he must know his chances are very slim of escaping alive and that running wil only result in further penalties?

The answer to that one comes from neurolinguistics training:- People always do what they believe is best for them at the time.

Using that yardstick, we can now answer the question; why run?

The answer to that is simple. The Black man knows that;

(a) The police will most probably beat him to a pulp when he is apprehended, no matter how compliant he is.

(b) The Police wil lie about his behaviour.

(c) The Police will be unbending and no amount of argument or discussion will convince them he is not guilty of something. He won't ever be believed. He will be jailed pending trial.

(d) He has not a hope in hell of ever receiving a fair trial. He cannot afford a competent defence and the judicial system is totally corrupt.

(e) He will receive a manifestly severe punishment by the courts for his alleged crime - more than a white man will ever get.

(f) Punishment will continue in jail and of course long after he is eventually released because he has been branded a "felon".

That is why they run folks, they believe that even perhaps the Five percent chance that they may escape is worth taking because they know what is in store for them if they don't.


The alleged behaviour of the Australian Aviation regulator is going to provoke similar behaviour, if it hasn't already, and for exactly the same reasons as apply to the American Black man.

[Wally Mk2]

'sunny' although what you wrote here is most likely what would happen in the scenario (especially in the crazy States!) & you see it all the time on 'TV' I seriously doubt that such a scenario would be the case here to that extent with any reference to aviation. I guess what essentially is the crux of the matter is humans have two traits when faced with a situation that is or appears desperate & that is 'fight of flight', the latter is what yr describing & road rage for Eg is the 'fight' aspect of those traits. Yr story is more about persecution about a particular race & am sure it can/does happen in aviation but it would be rare & most of us are law abiding citizens..

"Don't get caught" is something we figured out at primary school or even earlier at home as a very young child being naughty we try to save our asses & that goes all the way thru our lives 'till we breath no more & if yr journey along the way happens to have aviation in it then some of that 'don't get caught' still applies for some.
Remember humans are an intelligent species of the animal kingdom (well meant to be) so we can canive, scheme & deceit & we seem to be good at it sadly!
The secret is don't be that mythical black man being chased in the first place, there's plenty of 'black' people out there (the colour is irrelevant) that do the right thing in life & never end up getting chased by the cops.


40 yrs of driving & I have a clean driving record, there doesn't have to be a 'chase' in ones life:ok::ok:

Wmk2

[Mach E Avelli]

Or, Wally, you could look at at the driving analogy another way. Take moi - 50 years of driving and heaps of speeding tickets. But what fun I had collecting them! As they were nearly all committed on a motorcycle, I justify them by saying the only danger I posed was to myself. Not to mention that the tickets only represent a tiny proportion of the number of times I have exceeded the speed limit, so the penalties were paid without rancour. Even the one in Victoria for being 64 in a 60 zone......
The same happens in aviation daily. Pilots and operators knowingly stetch the law to its limits - or break it - and manage the resultant risks. As well as the chances of being caught.

This strict liability stuff will give the bureaucrats a warm fuzzy feeling to know they have the power, but it is unlikely to modify our behaviour or contribute meaningfully to aviation safety.

[Wally Mk2]

Well that's yr choice I guess to speed 'Mach'. I don't think it's too clever ( I wouldn't be proud either) & you wouldn't be the only one your hurting in an accident as children for Eg can simply cross a rd without looking, the result?..........well 10 yrs in the RFDS was enough for me to know that some out there shouldn't even be allowed out. It's just plain crazy what some people do to themselves or others.

In my mind you can never justify breaking the law, but that's just me I guess.

Stay safe out there:)


Wmk2

P.s....owned a bike myself for most of my teenage/adult life, never got booked for speeding not once, since sold off my bikes as the risk simply isn't worth it.

[garrya100]

The more I drive on our roads the two things I have observed are re-enforced. There are no road rules really, they are only 'road suggestions' and they don't really apply to 'me' only to 'everybody else' :ugh:

I would hope in the air we would take them a little more seriously, the stakes are somewhat higher.

[Mach E Avelli]

Lectures duly noted. I have slowed up a little in recent years but that is due to the aging process and lessened reflexes, not through any respect for some of our arbitrary limits, nor through any great fear of injury. Risk acceptance is an individual thing which in most of us varies according to many variables - the environment, the machinery, whether or not fatigued etc.

The point is, rules do not necessarily modify our behaviour, nor guarantee a consistency in behaviour across individuals. Heaven forbid that we all become lobotomised to do exactly the same thing because some government department dictates that it should be so. Either because we may see the law as too restrictive, may read it differently, or because other rewards MAY over ride the possible penalties, risks will continue to be taken in many of our daily endeavours. In aviation we see duty times busted, aircraft over-loaded, flown with defective equipment, shaving the minima by 50 feet etc. Now it can be an offence not to wear a hi-vis vest on certain airports. Oooh ahh, how naughty is that? Sometimes rules are broken by a 'smidge' and sometimes more blatantly. After so many years, of course I have been guilty at times of being a 'smidge' person, if need be to get the job done, and if I a) reckoned I could get away with it, and b) it wasn't dangerous - well not any more dangerous than the act of being in the air in the first place. Every now and then I still run the gauntlet without the hi-vis vest.
I think all pilots would have to admit to some 'crime' against the rules at some stage of their careers. This strict liability environment will indeed make it a crime to do the aviation equivalent of 64 in a 60 zone, and some will always push back against that culture.

Or maybe there are pilots (and motorists) out there who can lay claim to have never sinned? I did know an otherwise-normal 60 year old virgin who was not a priest (he was also very law-abiding as it happened), so I suppose it's possible.

[601]

australian aviation law only worked because it wasnt enforced

I would also add

"because it has not been tested in the High Court"

I justify them by saying the only danger I posed was to myself.

I hope you have filled out your organ donation card

As a Chief Pilot, I would let a prospective employee drive me to the local cafe for lunch. This was part of the interview process.

If they treated the car with respect and the road rules in the same way, they would move onto the next stage. If they drove as though they we at Bathurst, that would finish the process.

I found over the years that the attitude on the road carried over to the attitude in flight.

[Wally Mk2]

'601' I like yr idea of the interview process BUT even a well behaved driver on the day trying to impress you (& lets face it we've all been there, to impress) may very well be Evil Knievel in disguise:-) Still yr process would most likely filter out a lot:ok:

Hey 'Mach' it wasn't a lecture as such it's just the way I view the road rules & act accordingly. EVERYONE breaks rules (jnc me:E) but not intentionally for me such as speeding as a deliberate act.

Can you imagine what our society would be like lawless? Devoid of any rules? Christ there would be chaos in the streets & the Airlines would have 400+ all standing on a Boeing 737:-)

Rules are a bit like locks to some people, they are only there for the honest thieves:)


Wmk2

[Mach E Avelli]

No one said anything about driving as if they were at Bathurst. Being a motor-cyclist I am quite intolerant of hooning or stupidity on the road and have kicked in more than one car door in my early days (not any more - I can't outrun them now!). As a former CP, I too, have used the drive to the cafe (or pub, more likely!) test to assess candidates. I was looking for co-ordination and smoothness, care for the machinery and general anticipation rather than whether the speedo went a few kays over the limit. Then I would look at how they behaved after three beers. If they were two-pot screamers, game over.

Can we reasonably be a bit over the legal limit in some areas of aviation and remain safe, if not strictly compliant? Or are all rules totally inviolate?

Take the B200. The AFM says the MTOW is 12,500 lb. Many of our regulations centre around below 5700 kg and above 5700 kg, which is within a bee's dick of (but not exactly) 12,500 lb. However, that was the intent - to capture a number close to 12,500 lb which in the first place was arbitrary. CASA dictates that the MTOW of the King Air should be 5670 kg, because that is the number when you apply the exact conversion of Lb to Kg. But, say I want that extra 30 kg of fuel on every flight and therefore l always carry it because it could mean the difference between being able to do a leisurely instrument approach and having to rush it a bit. In respecting that ultimate document - the AFM - and in order to have my evil way, I have applied a 'near enough' (and often accepted) conversion of lb to kg. In so doing, I have committed an offence of strict liability by putting the aircraft some small number over CASA's MTOW. I say a 'small number' because I don't know EXACTLY what it is. The pax weights are a bit of a guess anyway, fuel quantities and fuel consumption are always an estimate because the indicating systems are never exact, aircraft put on weight with time (just like us), and so it goes.
Here is another one. We are on approach to a remote island in our B737, having had a cracking tailwind all the way to top of descent. It is a filthy night, with the weather fluctuating around minima. My ever-diligent (and somewhat anal) F/O informs me that the FMS predicts that our landing weight will be 300 kg over MLW. Being the sensitive new-age, CRM guy that I am, I explain to him that the MLW on this aeroplane is not a structural limit - it is an arbitrary number that a former operator adopted and had an AFM amendment raised to dodge higher landing fees. The real structural limit is several hundred Kg more. We get visual right on minima. We may not have another chance at this, so we land. What to do? Park the aeroplane, fill in endless paperwork, call out the engineers to a remote island to sign off an overweight check, or make 300 kg of fuel go away?
So, here is the question - in my deliberate disregard of the law in the examples given, I have most certainly committed offences of strict liability (or just plain vanilla offences, because the acts have been intentional) but have I really, really posed any danger to aviation or my passengers? Or have I actually had safety in mind, coupled with common-sense? Is such an attitude really wrong?

[Tomahawk38]

The real worry of strict liability shouldn't be focussed on operating 'legally' and the potential penalties, but consider the Damage By Aircraft Act if something goes wrong and you have an accident.

Damage by Aircraft Act 1999 (http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/C2013C00130)

This effectively means if you cause death/injury/property damage, you're up for it with unlimited liability (not capped like for charter/RPF passenger claims). Importantly, just by being owner of the aircraft you can be held stricly liable for an accident, with unlimited damages awarded:


11 Recovery of damages without proof of intention, negligence etc.

Damages in respect of an injury, loss, damage or destruction of the kind to which section 10 applies are recoverable in an action in a court of competent jurisdiction in Australian territory against all or any of the persons who are jointly and severally liable under that section in respect of the injury, loss, damage or destruction without proof of intention, negligence or other cause of action, as if the injury, loss, damage or destruction had been caused by the wilful act, negligence or default of the defendant or defendants.


(2) If this section applies, the following people are jointly and severally liable in respect of the injury, loss, damage or destruction:
(a) the operator of the aircraft immediately before the impact happened;
(b) the owner of the aircraft immediately before the impact happened;
(c) if the operator of the aircraft immediately before the impact happened was authorised to use the aircraft but did not have the exclusive right to use it for a period of more than 14 consecutive days—the person who so authorised the use of the aircraft;
(d) if the operator of the aircraft immediately before the impact happened was using the aircraft without the authority of the person entitled to control its navigation—the person entitled to control the navigation of the aircraft.


safe flying... (just don't ponder the consequences if something goes wrong!)

[Sunfish]

Thanks for that. No one else is ever going to get to fly my aircraft. When I cease to use it I will give it a Viking funeral just to be sure.

The problem I was referring to earlier relates to a system that is as bad as the hypothetical system encountered by my example. If you know you are going to get screwed no matter what the circumstances, then your response to a threatened pRosecution is going to be different to one where you know you are going to get a fair hearing.

I will not elaborate further on what this might mean, but it could be extremely bad for all concerned.

[thorn bird]

Sunny,
and aint that the truth!!!!
Those bottom feeding lawyers have set things up nicely aint they.
Perhaps the answer is make sure your net worth on paper is zero!!
If there's no money in it lawyers tend to vanish.

[owen meaney]

The thing I like the most about Strict Liability is the fact that the Pprune DG experts have no idea what it means.

[Jack Ranga]

Stop whinging Wal :ugh: You sound like the Police :cool: (:E)

[thorn bird]

Owen,
could you enlighten us on what strict liability means, you being an expert on law and all.
Might be very educational as to why its so good for us as well, so far I only see negatives to aviation safety. Strict liability dosnt seem to be applied universally elsewhere around the world and they seem to get much better safety outcomes than we do.

[Jack Ranga]

Nah thorn bird, it is so good it must kept a secret. It's for the smartest men in the room to know and the future criminals to find out :ok:

[owen meaney]

The explanation of strict liability, as applied to aviation regulations, is explained at the CASA web site.
From memory, Creampuff has explained it at least once on this site.
CASA did not instigate the concept, the government legal department did.

It's probably to stop bush lawyers from drawing out a simple infringement notice into a Grand Jury trial.

The only mitigation for a Strict Liability offence is the "external force" defence.

Please don't let facts stop you from posting your risible thoughts.

[Horatio Leafblower]

The only mitigation for a Strict Liability offence is the "external force" defence.

What is an "external force" defence?

...and do we have "Grand Jury" trials in Australia?

...and since when did CASA actually prosecute anything in a court, when the AAT will do the job without all those pesky criminal standards like "beyond reasonable doubt"?

[LeadSled]

Folks,
Just to be a tiny bit anal, it is the CDPP that prosecutes Cth aviation offences, not CASA.
Owen, most of us actually do understand what strict liability (or the absolute liability of the various "Damages by Aircraft" acts, whatever their correct names). Your post rather illustrates you do not. Look up the meaning of actus rea, it has already been set out precisely, in plain English, in a post on this thread.
Tootle pip!!

[owen meaney]

Leadsled
If you consider Absolute Liability and Strict Liability the same I rest my case that the usual suspects on DG know not what they talk about.

[thorn bird]

Owen old mate,
Quote:

"Please don't let facts stop you from posting your risible thoughts."

I didnt post any "Facts" I simply asked a question in the hope that you would give us the "facts".

My risible thoughts are now perhaps you dont have any "facts" to give us.

[owen meaney]

Hi Thornbird
Sunny, and aint that the truth!!!!
Those bottom feeding lawyers have
set things up nicely aint they.
Perhaps the answer is make sure your net
worth on paper is zero!!
I didn't say your facts, I said your risible thoughts.
and the facts are what Strict Liability means - argue with that my thorny feathered friend.

[aroa]

the Guvmin did invent 'strict liability'..but they did not afaik, intend it to be applied to EVERY "THING', however minor as does CAsA , who took to it like a rottweiller with a tasty bone....and wont let go.:mad:

The Guvmin also requires the regs to be in plain english, simple and to be understandable by the pilots, engineers and those to which they apply.
NOT a room full of Philadelphia Lawyers..altho like AWIs and FOIs, due to the complexities and words used...there could be "other"/personal interpretations of what its all supposed to mean.:confused:
And you could get sh*t on, in their process. As we know.:{

[Creampuff]

So, how many people know someone who’s actually been convicted of a strict liability offence under the aviation law? Not a mate who told you about a mate. Someone you know first hand.

Round dozens will do. :ok:

[Horatio Leafblower]

Creampuff,

I have seen dozens of Strict Liability offences committed by aviation personell, reported a few and had a few of my own reported. :ouch:

Many many more go by the way, because that is the way of our (real) Australian culture.

In my observation, even when it is a lay-down-maizaire "gotcha", CASA has failed to follow through because the evidence was lacking.

..I have been both grateful for, and frustrated at, this failure of the system. :suspect:

In a 20-year GA career I have never, ever known of any pilot or engineer of my acquaintance to be prosecuted. :ooh:

I have, however, seen a few AOCs and CPLs and LAMEs cancelled or suspended through administrative action without the chance to defend the (possibly) defensible :mad:

[Creampuff]

Strict liability has nothing to do with suspension or cancellation action.In a 20-year GA career I have never, ever known of any pilot or engineer of my acquaintance to be prosecuted.That's zero so far. :ok:

[owen meaney]

Hi Creampuff
I know of two MROs in the last ten years ttohave been issued with infringement notices.Both were blatant violations of allowing maintenance to be performed without the certifying LAME present, one case he wasn't in the same town.

I have read of some on Pprune, although as you said, they seem to be mostly third hand.

[Creampuff]

But were the either or both of the "MROs" prosecuted?

[Horatio Leafblower]

Strict liability has nothing to do with suspension or cancellation action.

Quite aware of that mate. I am posting in support of your proposition.

I say again: In a 20-year GA career I do not know of anyone actually prosecuted, despite (in several cases) very compelling evidence of reasonably serious and deliberate breaches provided to, and secured by, CASA.

[owen meaney]

Creampuff, no they took it on the chin and paid the statuary penalty.
We're warned severely though.

[Creampuff]

So, still zero so far. :ok:

[Jack Ranga]

I'm dying to hear your point Creampuff?

Strict liability, no prosecutions? The point then of strict liability?

[dubbleyew eight]

Creampuff
I know one. wouldn't show his logbook to them.
strict liability $110 thankyou.
now show us your logbook.
no.

the rest you dont need to know about. he never showed them.

[LeadSled]

Owen,
Two things come to mind, one is that you seem to be rather dim, and second, whatever you'r smoking must be really something else again.
At no time did I say that Strict Liability and Absolute Liability were one and the same, what I very clearly said (for anybody with a clear head) is that most people actually in the aviation business understand both Strict Liability and Absolute Liability.
And it is quite clear you are the ones who doesn't understand either or both.

because the evidence was lacking.
Horatio,
If there is no evidence, where is the offence? For a criminal conviction for any offence, the offence must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt -- and most of us understand that, as well. Those of us who are actually in the aviation business also understand the administrative fine system.

Tootle pip!!

[owen meaney]

And a pleasant good evening to you Leadsled,
most of us actually do understand what strict liability (or the absolute liability of the various "Damages by Aircraft" acts, whatever their correct names).Mmmm, someone else posting with your name?most people actually in the aviation business understand both Strict Liability and Absolute Liability. SO logically then most people posting here are not actually in aviation Two things come to mind, one is that you seem to be rather dim, and second, whatever you'r smoking must be really something else again.And lastly, for all those who have wondered what an Ad Hominem Abusive is, above is a prime example of this.

Pittle Toop

[Creampuff]

So that’s one so far.

My point isn’t about strict liability per se. Strict liability offences are the policy of many and successive governments, so it’s here to stay. The words about an offence being strict liability repeated ad nauseam are the result of a court decision, so they are here to stay. (And don’t confuse absolute/strict civil damages liability for absolute/strict civil penalty offences for absolute/strict liability criminal offences. It might also be worth reading the Criminal Code Act 1995 to get a first hand understanding of the criminal stuff.)

My point is that all the prophets of doom predicted that strict liability would result in mass prosecutions of inadvertent criminals in aviation. I predicted a continuation of the prosecution rate that has prevailed for about 6 decades.

Any advance on one?

[Sunfish]

Probably right Creampuff, very few prosecutions.

However are you implying that this lack of prosecution is due the application of the firm, benevolent and ultimately merciful hand of CASA?

Being an old cynic with a little experience of Government, I could perhaps be forgiven for thinking that it would be the absolute mountain of paperwork that would be required of an FOI before approval was received from multiple CASA levels to approach the DPP, AG Department or whatever and ask for prosecution that actually is responsible for the dearth of prosecutions.

To put that another way, I would blame laziness and inertia, not benevolence.

Furthermore, I would imagine that the CASA system of Administrative fines, show cause notices, licence and AOC removals, etc. is both much easier to administer, requires little or no work, creates far more misery and stress, and is therefore far more entertaining for CASA managers than merely submitting a brief to the DPP.

[LeadSled]

Mmmm, someone else posting with your name?

Owen,
No, not somebody else, it's just you having a little trouble reading and comprehending, the matters of absolute liability were separated by brackets, to indicate that the people I deal with in aviation understand the practical meaning of strict liability, and, as Creampuff points out, the separate matters of absolute liability in criminal law, and absolute liability in civil law.

SO logically then most people posting here are not actually in aviation


Quite possibly, but perhaps, once again, you are misinterpreting the meaning of those posts.

for all those who have wondered what an Ad Hominem Abusive is, above is a prime example of this.


I'm so happy that I have provided that small service for you. However, I would think most readers of this thread would take my rather mild aspersion as to your capabilities as some what less than abuse, and more a comment on the contribution that your posts bring to the discussion.

pprune(or aviation) is hardly the place for shy and sensitive little precious petals.

Tootle pip!!

[Jack Ranga]

Lead :ok: I'm with ya!

In any bulletin board discussion or even face to face I've never come across a bigger pack of fairy's, screaming ABUSE, ABUSE, BULLY, BULLY. Can't argue a point so resort to trying to shame their opponent with garbage, politically correct crap.

Not even going to google 'ad hominen crap'

Grow up & harden up :ugh:

[Creampuff]

So anyway, any advance on one?

[Horatio Leafblower]

OI.

Who you calling fairy? :suspect:

[PLovett]

Creamie, I try not to get involved with the minutia of legal proceedings these days but wouldn't any government (CASA) prosecution these days involve strict liability?

If so then the unsuccessful prosecution of the two QANTAS pilots for allegedly taking off at YMLT at night without the runway lights being on would be an example.

Another would be the legal hounding of the commercial operator and his chief pilot for taking off from a road in South Australia as the nearby airport was under water. The last of that case that I heard was that it was on its way to the High Court. Their names completely escapes me now.

Similarly, the prosecution of a private pilot in Tasmania in the late 1990s' for low flying would have been with strict liability applying. That was a successful prosecution.

The fact that an offence is one of strict liability does not mean that the prosecution has a hands-down winner. It still has to prove that the offence was committed and sometimes that proves very difficult indeed, even with witnesses.

[thorn bird]

Perhaps the questions that should be asked are:

Why was "Strict liability" introduced in the first place?
What other countries have incorporated their aviation Regulations into criminal law?
Has "Strict Liability"had a positive effect on aviation safety? or
Has "Strict liability" had a negative effect on aviation safety?
What economic impact has "Strict Liability" had on the aviation Industry?
What has CAsA's preference for using administrative sanctions rather than the courts cost in terms of livelihoods lost and businesses destroyed?
Do those countries who have not incorporated their aviation regulations into the criminal code achieved better "Safety" outcomes than Australia?

[Mach E Avelli]

Good questions Thorn Bird. My answers, not based on any real prior study.

1. potential source of easy revenue with minimal legal costs and processes for the prosecution
2. probably most prevalent in dictatorships and countries recently emerged from dictatorship, though democracies would not be exempt (India, perhaps?)
3. no - but how can it be quantified?
4. no - but as above
5. probably none, other than for those caught as in 6 below. There would be some baddies who have not been trapped yet who would reap profit from the demise of a competitor, so heartless cynics could say that it all balances out
6. most examples would be in FNQ, a couple in the Kimberley, one possibly in S.A. - but others who may well be more deserving of this are still trading. CASA's 'preference' of which organizations to target appears to be merely random, otherwise how do we explain away some of the cowboy operators still trading under their noses while others who were probably no worse have been run out of town?
7. some would, some would not - but no thanks to their criminal code whichever way the results stack up. Give some credit (or blame if need be) to the people who actually operate aircraft

[004wercras]

Mach, they don't target at random. It is rumoured that it is when one disagrees with them, or worse, makes a complaint about one of them to the ICC or takes them on in the AAT that is when one is 'marked for execution' generally.

Why do cowboys robustly dodge regulatory scrutiny? Well again it is rumoured that often when the cowboy does receive a regulatory pineapple he simply bends over and compliantly takes said pineapple - no fuss, no complaint, life goes on. As long as said cowboy doesn't do anything that tarnishes the reputation of a regulator, impedes a regulators promotion by making a complaint to the ICC or action in the AAT, and does not cause the Regulator to come under a spotlight, life goes on.

And again the rumour is that some backyard operators (and some bigger players) have 'mates' inside the regulator (aviation is a small incestuous industry) and again this allegedly explains why some operators are left pretty much unscathed.

The biggest liability is an operators mouth when they attempt to expose an alleged miscarriage of justice, complain about unfair treatment including threats, intimidation and bullying. Best to roll over and take it like a man unless you wish to end up sitting in a star chamber beneath a bright spotlight.

[owen meaney]

Leadsled et al

My bad for assuming Pprune would be populated by the type of pilot I am used to working with.
Snappy repartee and intellectual discussion.
Instead mainly anal retentive passive aggressive individuals.

Apologies to Creampuff, Thornbird and Lookleft, you are the exceptions.

Pittle poop

[RatsoreA]

The future...

:E

Headline - Daily Telegraph 6th of June 2019

CASA REFORMS COMPLETE

After many decades and many millions of dollars spent, CASA have finally released the final version of the aviation law framework.

The most notable change and biggest enhancement to safety has the introduction of legislation requiring all air crew to have a law degree and be practicing members of the Bar. This has reduced air traffic to pre 1900 levels due to the lengthy and involved appeals process most 'pilawyers' file before leaving the ground due to the requested clearance not available.

Another notable change is that aviation will be made an offence of strict liability, punishable by being enslaved in the "Jigsaw" style basement of CASA HQ and made to escape, or "C squared divided by pi" penalty units.

A CASA Spokesman said they look forward to the next round of reform where the requirement to be a QC with at least a 55% case win ratio will be required to fly anything larger than a predetermined MTOW. In determining the weight limit for each pilot the following formula has been released in the form of a CAAP -

"You take the ratio of cases won for the last year, multiplied by the wigs worn by the prosecution during those cases, divided by the number of unsuccessful appeals at the AAT; add the inverse square of the sped of an African swallow carrying a coconut in 20 knot headwind. The answer is next Tuesday."

CASA has hailed the new reforms as a triumph of common sense, enhanced readability, understandability and safety.

[Creampuff]

Creamie, I try not to get involved with the minutia of legal proceedings these days …How can you possibly function each day without involving yourself in those minutia? Are you not frozen in fear by all that strict liability and all those impenetrable rules used by government bully boys to repress you? [B]ut wouldn't any government (CASA) prosecution these days involve strict liability?No. Not all offences are offences of strict liability. Some offences have a fault element as well as a physical element. If so then the unsuccessful prosecution of the two QANTAS pilots for allegedly taking off at YMLT at night without the runway lights being on would be an example.They weren’t prosecuted for a strict liability offence. They were prosecuted for reckless operation of an aircraft, endangering life. “Reckless” is a fault element. (As an aside, others have suggested that stalling tactics were used by Qantas, resulting in the matter being dismissed. Also as an aside, I wonder what all the “take me to court rather than take administrative action” brigade thought about the judge’s comment. The judge said disciplinary action against the pilots, such as suspension or retraining, “might have provided a more effective response to the needs of public interest and safety than a prosecution some six years later".) Another would be the legal hounding of the commercial operator and his chief pilot for taking off from a road in South Australia as the nearby airport was under water. The last of that case that I heard was that it was on its way to the High Court. Their names completely escapes me now.I’m not sure about that either.Similarly, the prosecution of a private pilot in Tasmania in the late 1990s' for low flying would have been with strict liability applying. That was a successful prosecution.Let’s count that.The fact that an offence is one of strict liability does not mean that the prosecution has a hands-down winner. It still has to prove that the offence was committed and sometimes that proves very difficult indeed, even with witnesses.Correct.

That’s why there are so few of them.

That’s my point.

So we’re up to two. Any advance on two?

[Jack Ranga]

OI,

Not you :E

[PLovett]

How can you possibly function each day without involving yourself in those minutia? Are you not frozen in fear by all that strict liability and all those impenetrable rules used by government bully boys to repress you?

Very easily, thank you for enquiring. I keep myself safe and therefore my passengers as well. A by-product of that is that I keep myself within the regulations as well. But the safety comes first. Shock, horror. :eek:

They weren’t prosecuted for a strict liability offence. They were prosecuted for reckless operation of an aircraft, endangering life. “Reckless” is a fault element. (As an aside, others have suggested that stalling tactics were used by Qantas, resulting in the matter being dismissed. Also as an aside, I wonder what all the “take me to court rather than take administrative action” brigade thought about the judge’s comment. The judge said disciplinary action against the pilots, such as suspension or retraining, “might have provided a more effective response to the needs of public interest and safety than a prosecution some six years later".)

Thank you for clearing that up. So strict liability does not extend to breaches of the Civil Aviation Act for that is what they were charged under. I can't comment about stalling tactics by QANTAS but the original charges were summarily dismissed and the matter went to trial only after CASA/DPP took it to a Court of Appeal. Because the charges was under the Act, it could not be dealt with by administrative action.

From my memory of what evidence I did read of there was a very strong presumption that the lights may have been improperly re-activated during the last 10 minutes of the PAL cycle and the lights extinguished during the take-off roll.

My imperfect memory is that strict liability offences were brought down during one of the Howard government's time and was basically mandated by the Justice Department as was the prescription that offences were to be prosecuted. It was all to do with cost recovery and making the Commonwealth public service more cost neutral. Hah - fat chance! :mad:

I do, however, agree with your basic premise that strict liability has hardly opened the floodgates with a rush to court. There are far more grievous sins out there in regulatory land than that. :=

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Creamie, wouldn't all the offences written up at numerous shows and various fly-ins and gatherings be enforced under strict liability? Carrying documentation with the wrong colour is something I would consider as criminal according to strict liability. You seem to be applying those charges that are processed to the courts by provision of a summons. If you look at it the same way as how the coppers handle traffic offences....strict liability....ticket..pay up, your choice. Or, choose to front a magistrate and prove it wasn't you what did it.

So, would a better comparison be...how many written up offences...tickets...processed under strict liability as opposed to the old 225 regime? Are there more occurrences of ticket writing FOIs descending on congregations of pilots compared to pre strict liability?