I suspect the point being made is the differing standards applied by the CASA FNQ office. For example, in three recent cases of alleged aircraft being bogged:[list=1][*]An aircraft with a politician on board was bogged late October at a Cape York airstrip when the pilot taxied outside the cone markers. No CASA action.
[*]An aircraft was bogged at another remote Cape York airstrip, after receiving a satisfactory strip report. Incident contributed to suspension of RPT AOC.
[*]Incident of aircraft being bogged at Brampton following alleged brake failure. Aircraft departed without LAME check. Appears no CASA action.[/list=1]
Getting bogged at a remote, unsealed airstrip, in tropical northern Australia during the wet season would not appear to be a particularly onerous “crime”. Departing after an alleged brake failure, without a LAME check (I wonder what was entered on the MR?) should warrant the fullest investigation.
The inconsistent standards in these “incidents” applied by CASA in FNQ (over a number of years) should be a point of grave concern.