Mainframe
It is my understanding that actions such as this, cannot be undertaken unless it is approved by HO.
They are very aware of the consequences and were a constructive party to the evolution of the new enforcement regulations.
It is also my understanding that said actions could not be generated by a single person without peer review within and therefore it would be safe to assume that
someone is directing the game play
is a little ambitious
Either that, or there is an unofficial manual of standards for dirty tricks.
are perilously close to slander
The misconduct and impropiety is somehow orchestrated to the same score, and it continues unabated.
is flat out paranoid.
The regulatory system is empowered to regulate according to powers and the rules given to them in the interests of the travelling public.
The
new enforcement regs recently passed as part of the Civil Aviation Amendment Act, make the process as fair as it is possible without removing the regulator from the system altogether.
They provide a clearer and fairer framework and structure than before, which is intended to provide protection and relief for an operator to continue operations in the event the operator believes he is being unfairly dealt with until such time as a determination is made by an appropriate external review body.
So what is the regulator to do if it finds in the execution of its duty to the public, that an operator has not in the regulators view fulfilled the regulatory obligations required for the holding of its AOC.
If you get copped for not wearing a seatbelt and the rules say you must, then you either were or were not wearing a seatbelt?
The same regulations that apply to every other AOC holder?
You suggest on another thread that there is a goose and gander scenario in play I assume the will be subject to the same regualtory scrutiny.
Either way the process which is available to all, is in train in the hands of the AAT, they are the
only ones now in full possesion of the facts as seen by both sides.
The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) provides independent review of a wide range of administrative decisions made by the Australian government and some non-government bodies.
They will either agree with CASA and there will be predictable outrage from the usual suspects about draconian regs blah blah designed to drive GA operators out of business.
Or they will agree with the operator and there will be predictable outrage from the usual suspects about misuse of draconian regs blah blah designed to drive GA operators out of business.
Or a maybe in between and there will be predictable outrage from the usual suspects about misuse of draconian regs blah blah designed to drive GA operators out of business.
Lets see what the AAT have to say.
In the meantime AOC holders including the subject operator just getting on with it.
In the meantime CASA who are required by law to regulate the business in the public interest in accordance with the powers and responsibilities given to them by Parliament will be just getting on with it.
So the problem is???
The 2 Bs with the best will in the world are not going to turn the whole thing around overnight, and even were they able to, the regulatory system is empowered to regulate according to powers and the rules given to them in the interests of the travelling public.
It's their job.
Lets move on shall we.