CASA conduct
"Reason to believe" uninvestigated and unsubstantiated allegations may be enough to cancel a certificate and shut down a business or end a career, but it doesn't cut much ice in the real world where the rule of law still applies. In this case it is simply a cheap and unconvincing slur.
I have no idea whether the lawyer concerned was certificated or working under the supervision of somebody who was. In my observation most of CASA's conduct in the enforcement area has all the symptoms of a total absence of competent supervision. The comparison with a chook with its head cut off comes to mind.
Writing editorials gives the writer an opportunity to express an opinion. It should be based on fact, and the article referred to is based on fact. If there are any errors of fact in the editorial I would be interested to know what they are.
Somebody asked if there was any published data on the cases referred to. I have a copy of the entire transcript of the WA seaplane matter. I have adequate documentation on the chief pilot case, and I don't think the facts related to the license cancellation are in dispute. If anybody is interested in a transcript of the WA matter, e-mail me and I'll send it to you.
Some people may wonder why such a staunch defender of CASA's misfeasances is not still working for that organisation. I don't wonder, I know.
PS: I started typing this and it vanished off the screen, which will explain why (and if) an uncompleted copy appears in this thread.