PPRuNe Forums - View Single Post - Senate heavies CASA
View Single Post
Old 17th Sep 2020, 11:27
  #26 (permalink)  
Sarcs
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Go west young man
Posts: 1,733
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Dear Lead Balloon




Originally Posted by Lead Balloon
A valid point, LL. I guess my naive hope was that the same political resistance to the first knee jerk would be brought to bear against the second.

Senator MacDonald (new) is to be respected for voting on the evidence and principle.

It’s a pity that perhaps even Senator Patrick has succumbed to intuition rather than objective evidence. The strongest point against the imposition of more maintenance requirements is not that there is no evidence to suggest there was any maintenance-related causal issue in relation to the accidents (but it’s a strong point nonetheless). Nor is the strongest point the cost of the maintenance (but it’s a strong point nonetheless).

The strongest point is that the imposition of mandatory time-based maintenance based on arse plucks made decades ago increases the risk of Community Service Flights. There are now millions of hours of data gathered from piston engine monitors to show what meddling with a functioning piston engine can do. Same with other aircraft systems. Fortunately for the people unnecessarily exposed to the extra risk, the probabilities move from remote to not quite so remote.

So increased risk for extra cost, with no causal connection with the accidents. That just about sums up the ATSB/CASA team effort these days.
Dear LB,

Would appreciate your considered opinion on this latest development on the ongoing CASA embuggerance of Angel Flight??

Crucial E-mails ruled out in Angel Flight Case

17 September 2020
Comments 0 Comments

The Federal Court in Melbourne last week barred Angel Flight from using certain CASA internal e-mails in the case against the regulator's Letter of Demand sent to pilots, forcing the organisation to withdraw their application.

Angel Flight had taken CASA to court over letters sent to pilots and aircraft owners demanding details of operations conducted under Angel Flight's banner.

The organisation was attempting to have pilots relieved from having to comply with the letters because they were issued for "improper purpose".

Angel Flight relied on four internal CASA e-mails to support their case, e-mails which had been supplied to them in the discovery phase of their primary case against CASA to be heard next March.

However, CASA objected to Angel Flight using the e-mails on the basis that they were disclosed only for the primary case and invoked the rule against using them for another purpose.

"We needed those emails to support our case for Improper Purpose," Angel Flight CEO Marjorie Pagani told Australian Flying. "One would have thought that CASA should be the model litigant, as it is required to be as a regulator, and support transparency. Allowing use of their internal emails would have done that.

"Instead they insisted they not be used and invoked the rule that they should only be used for their discovered purpose. As a consequence we cannot use or publish them so therefore have had to discontinue the Improper Purpose case."

Responding to the accusation that they have failed to be an model litigant, a CASA spokesperson said that their action in blocking the e-mails was consistent with that requirement.

"CASA has acted strictly in accordance with its ‘model litigant’ obligations," the spokesperson said. "To be clear, doing so most certainly does not include countenancing another party’s failure to comply with their legal obligations to the court.

"Neither the court nor the other party saw any basis on which a dubious ‘model litigant’ issue might have been raised in the hearing; and as the obligation is incorporated in the Legal Services Directions, which are made under the Judiciary Act, this is certainly something the court would have been alive to, if it were at all pertinent.

"In short, the documents were excluded because the court found their introduction failed to serve the interests of justice."

The e-mails in question were sent in 2018-19 between CASA Executive Director Legal and Regulatory Affairs Jonathan Aleck, Executive Direction National Operations and Standards Chris Monahan, Director of Aviation Safety Shane Carmody and Executive Manager Stakeholder Engagement Rob Walker.

Angel Flight has said it will use the e-mails in its primary case against CASA to be heard next March, which is an attempt to have the regulations surrounding community service flights struck out.
Does this meet the definitions and guidelines for a best practice government agency model litigant?
Sarcs is offline