Hiball – if your “mate” knows anything about the details of any prosecutions arising out of these circumstances, then s/he knows a lot more about them than I do. Perhaps the DPP is prosecuting Mr Edwards for only 1 breach of only 1 rule – but that’s all it takes.
Torres – I think we’re in agreement to
some extent. I’ll sing nude in the Tabernacle the day we “totally” agree on anything! You ask rhetorically:
Surely you must agree, comments in PPRuNe and anonymous reporting can hardly constitute substantive evidence!
Your word “hardly” is a telling one: even you’re not sure.
The rules of evidence in administrative proceedings are different from those in criminal prosecutions. The matters an administrative decision-maker may reasonably take into consideration in making an administrative decision extend well beyond those which would be admissible evidence in a criminal prosecution. Nonetheless, it would be surprising if the Tribunal ultimately restored the cancellations on the basis of second hand, untested, hearsay
alone.
My main concern is that anyone can say anything they like in a CAIR, and just about anyone can say just about anything they like on PPRuNe. While CASA and ATSB are well aware of the risk of vindictive and mischievous reports and rumours, the more problematic circumstances arise where the reporter – a “concerned and reputable aviation industry source” - is prepared to ‘swear on a stack of bibles’ that their report is true. Upon further investigation it turns out that the reporter’s earnest and honest belief is entirely mistaken.
You’re the perfect example – you’ve occasionally made posts on PPRuNe containing allegations which you earnestly and honestly believe to be gospel truth, but that I know to be dead wrong. It’s not really a problem, unless someone acts on the allegation before finding out if it’s correct.
That’s what worries me about the Edwards decision – it appears PPRuNe threads and similar hearsay formed the very basis of the decision, rather than the trigger for investigating whether the hearsay was correct and
then making the decision on the basis of
what was discovered.
But we can’t be getting the whole story – I say again, if the DPP is prosecuting then the DPP must have at least one first hand witness who’s going to give evidence admissible in a criminal prosecution, which evidence the DPP believes will withstand cross-examination.
There’s always a lot of chest beating about civil litigation against CASA for ‘loss of earnings’ etc in the rare cases that the Tribunal sets CASA’s decision aside, but I’m not aware of anyone having gone beyond chest beating by actually filing a claim. Making a decision that is set aside by the Tribunal is not tantamount to making a decision negligently. (And can someone tell that fool T what a “stay” decision is) Let’s wait and see what the Tribunal decides first, as the question may become academic.
You picked up another very important issue that I hadn’t: the Tribunal’s “half pregnant” reasoning. Bad news for any commercial pilot if the Tribunal sticks with it. The implications are that if CASA believes a pilot is unsafe
at all, CASA will have to suspend or cancel
every licence she holds or risk the Tribunal deciding that CASA doesn’t really mean it.
One hopes the Tribunal figures out that there may be reasonable grounds for saying that someone doesn’t (for example) meet the standards of an ATPL but continues to meet the standards of a CPL, and therefore that the former might reasonably be suspended or canceled but not the latter. If there are no safety implications arising from the distinction drawn in the rules between PPL, CPL and ATPL, the distinction would be constitutionally invalid – there would be no safety nexus. I think the Tribunal will, upon further reflection, comprehend the issue.