POST 1186- The obligation on CASA.
Bendy and Sunfish, you hit the nail on the head. That is the crux of the issue.
But it is important to recap the Civil Aviation ACT. The ACT that establishes CASA. I will quote from PART II which deals with the establishment and functions of CASA, in sections 8 and 9)
“CASA is a body corporate and may be sued in its corporate name……. The Public Governance, Performance, and Accountability Act 2013 applies to CASA. That Act deals with matters relating to corporate Commonwealth entities, including… the use and management of public resources……..CASA has the function of developing and promulgating appropriate, clear, and concise aviation safety standards.”
So if CASA, and specifically, Mr. Martin and Mr. Aleck, are unable to produce any supporting safety case after more than two years, then I have a reasonable expectation that they can direct me to a regulatory breach that is “clear and concise”. Surely they are obligated to do so. Especially when one considers the negative impact on safety and the loss of business and jobs that has resulted from their actions and decisions.
If I cannot be directed to a supporting safety case, then there must be a regulatory breach. If neither of those exists, then I reasonably have to assume that their motivation lies elsewhere.
CASA has thrown everything at me. They have tried the Aviation Ruling, bullying and intimidation, breaches of Administrative law, Procedural fairness, and natural justice. They have falsified audit results, made completely unsubstantiated allegations, placed restrictions on the business's ability to trade, etc etc. Nothing sticks.
They now move into “operational control”. It doesn’t appear in any CASA definition, so I will be dealing yet again, with the opinion of Mr. Aleck and Mr. Martin. I am sure they will have a “different opinion”.
I firmly believe my opinion to be correct, and relish the opportunity to challenge them on this one. They will be digging an even deeper hole, be assured!