CASA-Bennetts-AAT-Fice.
The evidence before me on this stay application comprised a number of documents provided by CASA pursuant to s 37 of the AAT Act as well as an affidavit sworn by Mr Hanley on 7 March 2012. These 37 documents contained a statement provided to CASA by Mr Michael Andrew Hope on 8 December 2011. Mr Hope is the owner of the helicopter which was damaged in the heavy landing incident and he was also the student pilot receiving training from Mr Hanley at the time of the incident.
Initially, Mr Hope informed CASA investigator, Mr Shaun Bennetts, that following the heavy landing, the helicopter was not taxied back to the hangar. However, some six weeks after the heavy landing incident, Mr Hope changed his evidence stating in his statement to CASA that after Mr Hanley inspected the helicopter following the heavy landing, it was taxied back to the hangar, a short distance of approximately 100-200 m from where the landing occurred. Mr Hope gave no reasons for changing the evidence which he gave to CASA.
In his affidavit Mr Hanley said that following the heavy landing, he and Mr Hope sat in the helicopter for about 2 minutes and completed the steps necessary to shut down the engine. He said that they got out of the helicopter, walked around it and noticed there was damage to the tail which consisted of a kink to the lower side of the tail boom and damage to the left rear skid anchor point. Mr Hanley said he told Mr Hope that there would not be any more flying on that day. Mr Hanley said Mr Hope became agitated and he told Mr Hope to go home. He said Mr Hope returned to his car, which was parked adjacent to the flying school hangar, and left the airfield. Mr Hanley said he then walked to the hangar and hooked up a quad bike and tow bar which is usually used to move large helicopters into and out of the hangar. Using the quad bike and a set of dual wheels which were affixed to the helicopter, he towed the helicopter back to the hangar.
It is not clear to me whether there were any other witnesses to this incident. While CASA did not refer to any witnesses who may have observed the incident, in an Investigation Report dated 12 December 2011 the investigator, Mr Bennetts, stated that Mr Hopewas subsequently contacted following industry intelligence being received which indicated that the information Mr Hanley provided to CASA was false. According to Mr Bennetts, the industry intelligence was received on 5 December 2011 and, following the discussion with Mr Hope, he apparently confirmed that the information he previously gave to CASA was false and that the helicopter had in fact been flown after the heavy landing.
In the course of the stay application hearing, Mr Anthony Carter, a lawyer with the legal branch of CASA, indicated that CASA would provide further information about the industry intelligence said to have been received by Mr Bennetts. Despite the conversation between Mr Hope and Mr Bennetts apparently being the trigger for Mr Hope changing the statement he provided to CASA on 10 November 2011, no reference is made to it in the show cause notice or the notice of cancellation issued by CASA. In fact, the cancellation notice states that Mr Hope approached CASA of his own volition to correct the record concerning the events which occurred following the heavy landing.
Does the proposed punishment fit the 'alleged' crime?.
What does a jury of peers think ?.