Victor2:
Glad to see the regulator is actually regulating the industry. Sounds like the business has some deeper issues than just the failure of some IFR tests. It's simple stuff Hardy - run a compliant and safe operation and you won't get grounded. Cut corners, skimp on safety and training and it will catch up with you! And stop crying about it like you are a victim!
From V2's posting history he must be a Qantas manager, This suggests that maybe Qantas has designs on the business? Why else would he post on this subject?
Socket:
Can't you read, he grounded himself.
Someone lend him their spectacles, he must be blind.
From Sockets post history he must be a CASA employee. However Socket doesnt appear to know that without the IFR rated CP the airline can't take passengers in IFR situations.
Will the loss of the CP's instrument rating be the first stage in CASA driving the company out of business? If so, we should next expect CASA to trot out a long list of "safety deficiencies". This current move is just the opening shot.
This process is known in bureaucratic circles as "File stacking" one simply puts together a long list of documented insufficiencies, a damaged wiper blade here, a missing lifejacket there, a minor incident at XXX., etc. The process can take Five or more years.
When the file is at least an inch and a half thick you strike. You metaphorically throw the file on the judges desk saying "look at all this ! This
proves the airline is unsafe!".
And of course the judge turns to the defendant and says "is this all true?" ..And the defendant says "Yes, but" and the damage is done.
The allegations have been presented in one indigestible lump and the defendant has neither the time nor perhaps the memory and of course the money to dissect the file for the judge and put each tiny incident or infraction in context.
........And I believe the AAT, and senior Judges, fall for it every time.
We wont know if this has happened because all will most likely be sub judice for at least a year, or perhaps never if Hardys goes broke.
Caveat: All this ignores the question of
fact. I wouldn't know if Hardys is safe and/or compliant or not. WHat I am interested in is this seemingly adversarial approach to regulation that leaves the public interest far behind and the taxpayers purse considerably thinnner. There must be a better way.
To put that another way: