Did the CAsA purge on CVD pilots happen just to spit in the eye of the Forsyth review. Or was it a previously determined change to the rules to neuter any AAT decisions with contemporary as opposed to historic "facts" on the table?
It wouldn't be the first time the rules have been changed to suit the situation. If you look carefully at the Fawcett video he seems to support this notion by suggesting the AAT CVD matter be funded from "Public Interest and Test Case" scheme" money. (Watch from about 6:25 onward ABC 7:30 report).
http://www.pprune.org/pacific-genera...pilots-11.html
Whatever the answer, CAsA's actions are harsh and unconscionable and proof that they will do what they do until somebody stops them in their tracks. If you can't cut off their wasteful access to the taxpayers purse at least try to fund your action with those same funds which are available through the above scheme. This has the effect of leveling the uneven theatre of battle and gives rise to a permanent decision one way or the other. 50/50 odds are the best one could hope for in cases like this.
I understand "The Public Interest and Test Case Scheme is funded via The Attorney General. These funds will get matters to the High Court if necessary. A lot of significant High Court decisions come from actions like these including many with varying terms of access including Aboriginal Land Titles and Discriminatory conduct. See link below.
The only problem, (that will show itself if there is any merit to the suggestion), is that Governments don't usually back two horses in the same race if they have a predetermined view that suits their agenda.
Commonwealth public interest and test cases | Attorney-General's Department