Dom CAR 265 and the legality of CAsA caveats??
Kharon said:
The man who treated James so very shabbily is easily identified; a stand out, with a reputation for administrative bastardry towards 'selected' pilots unparalleled; even within an outfit like CASA Bankstown. The Senate must consider what was done to DJ; there is a quite a large amount of rock solid evidence to support his claims against the CASA willing accomplice who not only happily served as Judge, jury and executioner but still retains an inexorable administrative grasp on the James throat.
It would also appear that the ‘administrative bastardry’ is eagerly supported by that individual’s immediate superior, surprisingly both these individuals have not one iota of commercial experience as a pilot, nor do they fathom the complexity of snagging/retaining a pilot job and then maintaining all the appropriate licences/approvals to keep your job secure and enhance your career progression.
Then there is CAR 265! CAR265 would appear (and I’m not a lawyer so this is only my opinion) to have been originally designed to capture the errant pilot or approval holder to get them back on track and within the rules by administrative action by the regulator. However the two individuals, mentioned above, seem to have a different intention for using CAR265 and that is to completely decimate the errant pilot/approval holder to the point where they are pushed out of the industry. Does that sound familiar anyone??? (probably could question mark for a dozen pages me thinks!)
Note: It is interesting that in the last 30 years there has only been two cases of CAR265 being presented in the AAT. This would suggest that 99.9% of the time that; (a) pilots generally accept their punishment and move on; and (b) generally pilots don’t need the angst and probably can’t afford the legal costs to contest the matter in a court. FF people like tweedle dum and tweedle dee use this to their advantage….
So to DJ and CAR265, which reads…
“265 Suspension of licence or authority for purpose of examination
(1) If:
(a) CASA requires the holder of a licence to undergo an examination under regulation 5.38, 107 or 117; or
(c) CASA requires the holder of an authority to undergo an examination under regulation 33;
CASA may suspend the licence or authority by giving the holder of the licence or authority written notice of the suspension.
(2) Where the result of the examination does not show any ground on which the licence or authority may be suspended or cancelled, CASA shall forthwith terminate the suspension of the licence or authority and, by notice in writing served on the holder of the licence or authority, notify the holder that the suspension has been so terminated.
(3) Where CASA, upon the result of the examination becoming known, does not terminate the suspension in accordance with subregulation (2) but gives to the holder of the licence or authority a notice under subregulation 269 (3), the licence or authority shall remain suspended during the time specified by CASA in that notice as the time within which the holder of the licence or authority may show cause why the licence or authority should not be varied, suspended or cancelled under regulation 269.”
Okay now if we refer to CAIR 09/3 and take a look at what FF originally enforced upon DJ:
To be fair to FF, they did modify and lessen the re-examination requirements (from Hansard 22/10/2012)….“Mr McCormick: No, that is incorrect. On 25 February 2010, following correspondence with Mr James's lawyers, CASA modified the exam requirements requiring Mr James to only pass: flight planning (aeroplane), performance and loading (aeroplane), APLA, meteorology (aeroplane and helicopter), human factors (aeroplane and helicopter)”….
However from Hansard Page 30 Monday, 22 October 2012:
Mr McCormick: On that basis in December 2009 in the interests of safety Mr James's commercial pilot licence, airline transport pilot licence and multi-engine command instrument rating were suspending pending the completion of specified testing and examinations. After Mr James met the examination and testing requirements relating to his commercial pilot licence and command instrument rating, the suspension of those authorisations was lifted on 25 July 2011. Once he completed the remaining requirements relating to his airline transport pilot licence on 27 March 2012, CASA lifted the suspension of his airline transport pilot licence permitting Mr James to seek employment as a co-pilot of a multi-crew aeroplane. Unless and until he first passes the aeronautical proficiency check he has been required to undertake, however, he may not conduct a flight as pilot in command of a multi-crew aircraft for which an ATPL is required. We are waiting for Mr James to tell us when he wishes to take that flight test.
Note: Perhaps there is a sub note here (which also gives credence to Mr Lyon’s sub 18)? Given, that DJ passed all the theory exams within a relatively short time frame, then perhaps (as Mr Lyon points out) the are deficiencies in the FF examination system?
However it would appear there is a ‘passing strange’ FF caveat that has been introduced since the writing of the CAIR 09/3 paragraph 4.3 above, which even the DAS feels is justified under CAR 265…. “Unless and until he first passes the aeronautical proficiency check he has been required to undertake, however, he may not conduct a flight as pilot in command of a multi-crew aircraft for which an ATPL is required. We are waiting for Mr James to tell us when he wishes to take that flight test.”
So question: Does CAR 265 allow tweedle dum and tweedle dee (with DAS support) to introduce such an extra caveat? Also, DJ has apparently met all the other ‘flight test’ requirements including a MECIR and he has also had his licence suspension on his ATPL lifted. So how is it then possible to put a restriction on his ATPL of "co-pilot only of a multi-crew aeroplane"?
Normally such a flight test assessment (ATPL Command upgrade) is a function of an individual operator’s CAR217 and is only undertaken after command upgrade training. I don’t believe I know of any other ATPL pilot in Australia that has ever had such a restriction placed on his or her ATPL licence?
Kharon:
There exists one case, not mine to tell just yet (but soon; very, very soon) a story which I just couldn't credit, let alone believe when I first heard it told, but happily, the evidence was there.
I’ve heard the same story from a reliable source and if the rumours are true the matter involves an even bigger aberration and apparent misuse of CAR 265 by tweedle dum and tweedle dee!
Doing a Kelpie!