And what, Axiom, would you have had CASA do to the person who issued the MR to which you referred? There was no personal or property damage when the aircraft flew on the authority of that MR – must be OK merely to smack him on wrist. You wouldn’t be so hypocritical as to say that he should be prosecuted and his licence taken away, would you?
Ignorance is an exquisite flower, and one not lightly to be bruised with facts. It’s especially exquisite and lush in Australian aviation. I’ll try to prune, not bruise.
CASA does not prosecute anyone. The DPP prosecutes. CASA makes its decision as to whether to send a brief to the DPP, and the DPP makes a decision whether to launch the prosecution, on the basis of the Commonwealth’s prosecution policy.
The people who subscribe to the ‘smoking hole’ enforcement policy – that is, you don’t prosecute someone or take their licence away until
after they’ve caused a smoking hole with an aircraft at the bottom of it – might ask why should CASA refer anything other than a smoking hole to the DPP.
Australia has ratified the Chicago Convention. Article 12 of that Convention says:
Article 12.
Rules of the air.
Each contracting State undertakes to adopt measures to insure that every aircraft flying over or manoeuvring within its territory and that every aircraft carrying its nationality mark, wherever such aircraft may be, shall comply with the rules and regulations relating to the flight and manoeuvre of aircraft there in force. Each contracting State undertakes to keep its own regulations in these respects uniform, to the greatest possible extent, with those established from time to time under this Convention. Over the high seas, the rules in force shall be those established under this Convention. Each contracting State undertakes to insure the PROSECUTION of all persons violating the regulations applicable.
[emphasis added.]
The words ‘insure’, ‘prosecution’, ‘violating’ and ‘regulations’ have meanings in the Convention that are not too far removed from what you might understand them to mean.
Australia – note,
not CASA – has signed up to a Treaty that obliges it to prosecute all persons who violate the applicable rules and regulations relating to the flight and manoeuvre of aircraft within its territory or with VH on the tail, or to notify ICAO of a difference. Australia has not notified ICAO of any difference from at least the quoted part of Article 12.
CASA’s – yes CASA’s - obligations include the obligation that:
CASA shall perform its functions in a manner consistent with the obligations of Australia under the Chicago Convention and any other agreement between Australia and any other country or countries relating to the safety of air navigation.
That was the legislature’s idea. It’s the law.
Hands up those who think CASA should ignore the law.
Some politicians, and indeed some industry demagogues, take advantage of the ignorant by suggesting or failing to refute the suggestion that CASA is autonomous and can effectively do what it likes, however it likes.
Don’t be sucked in.
There is a suggestion in this thread that CASA’s administrative powers are somehow unique and unconstitutional. Bollocks. The last fool lawyer who argued that in the Federal Court had costs awarded against him personally. See:
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/c...2002/1532.html