Socket, you obviously don't understand the issues.
1. The laws and regulations under which CASA operates are demonstrably bad law and regulation.
(a) They are badly written.
(b) Ambiguous.
(c) Convoluted.
(d) Imprecise.
(e) Subject to interpretation because of (a) through (d). That of course begs the question of whether the actual content of the regulations is even appropriate.
These are not mere assertions, they are fact as demonstrated by a Twenty plus so called period of reform that has not produced a comprehensive single set of regulations. By way of example, FAA part 91 is apparently contained in Fifty pages. The Australian equivalent draft is Two hundred and Fifty pages.
What makes it even worse is that all these stipulations are backed up by criminal sanctions - most of them automatic. Carl Williams and Ned Kelly had more chance!
2. CASA has discretion over the matter of Safety. This allows CASA to make use of NEGATIVE evidence. To put that another way. No actual unsafe behaviour has to occur for CASA to act. Merely the apprehension of unsafe behaviour is enough.
When taken into account with CASA's bottomless legal resources and the commercial characteristics of aviation businesses (no flight = no money = no ability to fight CASA in Court) this produces a horrid state of affairs where there is virtually no appeal to even the most egregious charges.
The best example of that was a Northern Territory operator who had a "Milk run" to variatious stations. CASA alleged it was "regular public transport". She lost her business some years ago and another operator has only just succeeded in winning an AAT appeal against this stupid ruling.
3. Human nature. When we take into account (1) - rubbery law and regulation. and (2) Unfettered discretion in the application of (1) all it needs is the addition of a tiny bit of human nature - our failing and the opportunities for and anticipation of official corruption, and demonstration of all the other human vices.
For example, we have the case of Three CASA who were caught lying themselves blind when they alleged that a pilot was doing prohibited maintenance on an aircraft.
To put it simply mate, there have been big greasy gobs of black smoke coming out of CASA for a very long time, and to suggest that this is not the result of a fire is stretching it a bit thin.
P.S. I wish CASA well. They have always been nice to me. Nothing in this post is to be construed as suggesting that there are not shonky operators in Australian Aviation, however I would suggest that CASA is less likely to be able to effectively police them then an organisation with clear and simple rules, enlightened management and an auditing and quality control system to monitor its own decisions.
P.P.S. If what Butson alleges is true - that he was subject to administrative harassment, then I don't give a ***** if it was legal.
One of the principles of Bureaucracy is that all customers receive exactly the same treatment regardless of who, where or what they are.
To apply that to one aspect of Butsons case, if an FOI allegedly determined that passengers were to be required to wear life jackets for the approach to a particular runway that was over water for a few minutes, then that interpretation of the rules must immediately be applied to EVERY OPERATOR IN AUSTRALIA ALL THE TIME BY EVERY CASA FOI IN EXACTLY THE SAME MANNER.
Last edited by Sunfish; 23rd Sep 2011 at 22:05.