What about the 'RM Jackboot wearing team lead FOI' from Brisbane? Un vere did he dissapear to yah? Oon got sidelined and vent to the turd floor in fort fumbles asylum in ze Brisbane oon never to be heard from nor harass industry again!
Cactus Jack (Esq) – sorry mate barred from competition; CASA rules, there were no RM's in the video clip (no flaming birds either). You can of course contest this at an AAT (Innuendo) hearing, near you within the next 3 years and $60, 000. NEXT!.
Big time. Thanks.
Last edited by Kharon; 19th Aug 2012 at 11:48.
Reason: Yes Mum, you can stop peddaling now.
I notice that Albo's circus is off to the AAT, it will be interesting to see if the circus adheres to the MLR! Or maybe it will all fizzle out into some ADR then get noted by the OLSC and the ROLIA in their annual reports. Then eventually be tabled in Parliament by some obscure MHR backbencher and consigned to history in the volumes of Hansard....but maybe not!!
This Archerfield Airport Chamber of Commerce and various stakeholders are packing a bit of a punch, check out their joint Media Release..wow!
Talking of the AAT if there is anyone who is out there prepared to give a bit back and perhaps hold a beacon for the GA industry, sure would beat the current RAAF jocks etc, well take a look at this advert:
Oh and there is also a slot for Creamy!
...although I'm not sure if I should be encouraging him
So for those with a slightly legal bent and concerns for the industry, who are semi-retired and after some beer money it could be a good gig!
Please Note: All former CASA employees need not apply!
ps I guess that counts you out creamy, sorry mate!
Yeah Gobbles your probably right the AAT is more than likely another one of those EOI jobs that they advertise cause they have to...just extending the trough outside or is that takeaway pig trough? Oh well back to the two Dumbos in the corner....let's call it eleporn!
"power to prosecute by civil aviation safety authority"
We have traditionally adopted an approach where regulators are mandated to detect and prosecute corruption. This approach empowers industry regulators such as the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, Australian Prudential Regulation Authority and Australian Securities and Investments Commission, auditors-general, ombudsmen, law-enforcement agencies and state-based commissions to fight against corruption. But the approach has become a patchwork quilt. There is no uniform legislation across Australia in areas such as fraud prevention, anti-corruption commissions, or whistleblowing; and little evidence of the costs and benefits of our fight against corruption. The anecdotal evidence that exists suggests the fight is highly inefficient; the failure to effectively prosecute the AWB and Reserve Bank of Australia cases of bribery suggests a culture of non-compliance that is tolerated by regulators and policymakers. We depend too much on investigative journalists for transparency.
or the final para which says:
In the fight against corruption, Australia must now consider a market-based approach that gives whistleblowers incentives. As the US experience has shown, this confers substantial pay-offs to governments and taxpayers. It is an insurance policy for a culture of compliance. And it would permit Australian whistleblowers the opportunity to show the real benefits of the public-private partnership called whistleblowing.
From the November 2012 Senate inquiry and casa's response:
Note 5.10.11 above and in casa's web site, the following is a direct cut and paste:
Where CASA receives information that suggests that there may have been a breach of the legislation, the matter may be considered for investigation and referral to the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (CDPP) in accordance with CASA’s enforcement strategy and procedural guidelines and having regard to the Prosecution Policy of the Commonwealth. This would generally include any contraventions that:
1. Are deliberate and serious or that demonstrate a reckless disregard for the safety rules; 2. Are part of a pattern of similar contraventions by the same individual or organisation; 3. Involve knowing or reckless breaches of the Civil Aviation Act; or 4. Seriously endanger the safety of persons other than the person committing the contravention.
11.2 Purpose The purpose of this Chapter is to explain the process of referral of matters to the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (CDPP), the use of prosecution as an enforcement tool, the responsibilities of CASA and its officers in relation to such referrals and the procedures to be taken when such action is being considered.
Surely that means ALL infringements should be referred and casa has the power to prosecute.
Just do some careful reading of the Manual and how the process has been misused by casa.
Last edited by Up-into-the-air; 17th Nov 2012 at 15:19.
These are 27 occurrences of actions against pilots. I posted some time ago the number of active medicals in aviation, which is less than 30, 000 people at the end of 2011. This of course includes ASA, CPL's, PPL's and maintenance personnel.
This is for co-ordinated enforcement, which is [from the manual]:
Coordinated Enforcement is a policy aimed at achieving better-informed and consistent enforcement across CASA. As a result of a decision taken at the Chief Operating Officer’s (COO) Meeting on 10 August 2005, a process of ‘Coordinated Enforcement’ was introduced on a trial basis. Since February 2008, the Coordinated Enforcement Process has been a formal CASA policy, endorsed by the Director of Aviation Safety and Chief Executive Officer. The Coordinated Enforcement Process includes the following elements:
Retention of formal decision-making responsibility for Administrative and Civil Action by the delegates at senior management level
Retention of formal decision-making responsibility for the referral of matters to the CDPP and for the issuance of Infringement Notices with the Manager, Enforcement Policy and Practice (MEPP)
Discussion and consultation involving (at least) the responsible operational manager(s) and the MEPP, and including, where appropriate, other operational and legal officers.
However the differences between large and small is obvious here:
There are and will necessarily be certain differences between the ways in which aspects of CASA’s dealings with larger and smaller operators proceed, and between the approaches CASA might adopt in addressing particular safety issues in relation to different, and different kinds of operators.
The answer ??
Make sure you have the matter heard in Court to ensure that the proper Rules of Evidence apply