Launceston prosecution – what has happened?

[Dick Smith]

On 10 June 2004 Woomera correctly locked off the thread on discussions in relation to a claimed incident at Launceston on 23 October 2001 where it was alleged that Qantas pilots departed at night with the runway lights off.

However I believe we should look again at this issue. It is over 5 years since the claimed incident and the rumour going around is that a particular pilots’ union spent over $100,000 in defending the pilots, then Qantas took over and has spent many more hundreds of thousands of dollars. This has happened yet it appears that the pilots have not had their day in court

More to the point, why didn’t CASA use the simple administrative fines procedure? I would imagine if the union and Qantas have spent many hundreds of thousands of dollars, CASA has spent more. It could be that over $500,000 has been spent on this particular prosecution without it being resolved.

Surely this is something that should be discussed on PPRuNe. Look at the original thread here (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=133152), which includes the article by Steve Creedy in The Australian of 8 June 2004.

[The_Cutest_of_Borg]

Surely this is something that should be discussed on PPRuNe.

Why Dick? If it is still subjudice, what possible benefit to the two pilots will be brought by ill-informed speculation on an anonymous aviation forum?

[Agent Mulder]

Never thought I would say this but,

"Well said Borg"

[Dick Smith]

The Cutest of Borg, I’m not suggesting any “ill-informed speculation” on what happened, however there has been a delay of over five years on this action. I’m sure you’ve heard of the expression “Justice delayed is justice denied.”

I believe it is a fair thing to discuss on this forum why the delays have been so great and why CASA used the court system rather than the administrative fines.

Personally, I find it impossible to believe that two Qantas 737 pilots would intentionally take off with the runway lights off.

[Capn Bloggs]

During the trial I sincerely hope that the background to the lights going off during the takeoff roll (if they did) comes floating to the top. If it were not for some individuals pushing "save dollars at every turn" and "affordable safety", and now having people in the industry who only understand economic rationalism and little of commonsense, then we probably wouldn't have the ridiculous situation where an RPT jet crew could be caught by the auto-off function of the PAL because airport operators will not allow airline staff to manually switch the lights on because it wastes power/globes.

While I am not saying categorically that is what happened in this case, this scenario is played out every night around Australia.

While some will immediately jump on CASA for not having rules in place to prevent this sort of thing happening, I counter that the safety of a system relies to a large extent on a commonsense approach by all in it, not a zealous desire by a few for affordable safety putting irresponsible pressure on people to save a buck and on regulators to keep up with people who do try to save a buck.

[Chris Higgins]

Capn,

That seems just a little bit weak, don't you think?

Surely you can reactivate the lights before take-off like we do everywhere else?

Australia had the light above the primary windsock flashing as a warning when the lights were about done when I flew there.

Doesn't you still?

[gaunty]

On 10 June 2004 Woomera correctly locked off the thread on discussions in relation to a claimed incident at Launceston on 23 October 2001

Time to do so again methinks.

Personally, I find it impossible to believe that two Qantas 737 pilots would intentionally take off with the runway lights off. quite so, when it is not being used mischeivously that is the beauty of the court system. To separate personal beliefs, shibboleths and speculation from the facts. You do not have any more or less publicly available facts than us or any one else, so why dont we just leave it to the lawyers. You know how it works.!;)

[Capn Bloggs]

That seems just a little bit weak, don't you think?
No I don't, Chris. Turn the effing things on manually before I get there and turn them off a few minutes after I have taken off. What is the problem with that? This isn't Africa...

[Torres]

Surely the decision to prosecute is made by the DPP, not CASA, who then conduct the case?

"CASA will do all it can to ensure that a person whose licence, certificate or authority is suspended or cancelled has ready access to full external merits review in the AAT. Once before the AAT, CASA will conduct itself as a model litigant." (CASA, in a document entitled: "A new approach to enforcement". March, 1989.)

One would assume a decision to prosecute through the Court system providing a "full external merits review", rather than CASA's abhorrent and unaccountable "administration procedure", gives the accused their day in court and provides fair, just and equitable justice?

[Dick Smith]

Torres, quite so. One would think that the accused’s day in court would provide equitable justice – but why is it taking so damned long? Surely Creampuff or some other person trained in the law must be able to explain to us how it could take five years, and how it could cost hundreds of thousands of dollars?

There must be something going on behind the scenes, and surely that is the type of situation PPRuNe should expose.

No, we don’t want to second guess the court system, but we want to know why such a simple claim made by CASA (i.e. pilots taking off with the lights turned off) cannot be sorted out in court in a reasonable period.

This seems like the David Hicks situation all over again. He has been locked up for five years without even a charge now, and that is what 76% of Australians are concerned about. Most of us have no views on the guilt or innocence of David Hicks - we just think that an ally of ours should be able to sort out the issue within a five year period.

Surely the same must be said for an action taken by CASA against Qantas pilots.

[Torres]

Dick. If it has taken almost nineteen years - so far - at who knows what cost to re-write the CARs, why do you find five years excessive?

I can't answer your question, but I can remind you that in August 1998 you said: "Anyone other than Dick Smith who joins CASA, becomes 'infallible'".

There's still 'infallibles' in CASA who have developed procrastination into an art form - and an income to retirement!

Considering the "vested interests" in the issue you mention, you may well see the matter terminated by a statute of limitations, if such a statute exists. However, it is interesting to speculate that were the same pilots employed by a struggling GA operator, I'm sure the CASA legal heavies would swoop and justice would be swift. A level playing field never did exist.

And whilst I respect but don't necessarily share your affinity for certain US practices in aviation, please don't compare my democratic Australia with the human rights abuses, rule of the gun and fiscal ineptitude of the US Administration. To Australia's shame it has participated in the Coalition of the Willing but dismally failed to demand immediate justice for it's own citizen. I have "no views on the guilt or innocence of David Hicks", however Hicks should be granted his universal right to immediate judgment by his peers, or released.

Perhaps you should ask your original question of the recently departed CASA Legal Counsel? One assumes he would be a greater authority on CASA's concept of justice, than those who post in PPRuNe?

[Scurvy.D.Dog]

.. why the interest? :suspect: There must be something going on behind the scenes, and surely that is the type of situation PPRuNe should expose. … errrrm . why must there be something going on behind the scenes?
.
…. Process, silks and the legal system complexities (availability of functionaries blah blah etc) might be necessarily lengthy? ….I dunno, do you?
.
.. have you asked the parties and/or the court system where the process is up to? … surely you must have enquired and received an unsatisfactory response or have other information that would lead you to an unsavoury conclusion to need to ‘come on here’ and suggest ‘something is going on!? … so lets have it then!No, we don’t want to second guess the court system, …. Oh … I do hope not! :ugh: but we want to know why such a simple claim made by CASA (i.e. pilots taking off with the lights turned off) cannot be sorted out in court in a reasonable period. …..who is we .. anyhow, righto, explain why you think the time frame is unreasonable …. There were lots of media reports previously … have you looked to get an understanding of the proceedings (and presumably time frames) of the hearings … ?This seems like the David Hicks situation all over again. …. What the???
.
… an aviation dispute issue is progressing in the Australian courts, yet it seems like the David Hicks situation all over again …. can't quite see it myself? :rolleyes: … He has been locked up for five years without even a charge now, ... ermm, whose locked up without charge in the aviation case?and that is what 76% of Australians are concerned about. … Glad you are one of the 76% of us! … your public profile and lobbying ability .. should have him back in Oz for trial by Christmas!!
.
Re Hicks
.
.. I agree wholeheartedly with Torres … to me it is an international disgrace … has been all along …. There is no excuse for denying a citizen real justice! Most of us have no views on the guilt or innocence of David Hicks - we just think that an ally of ours should be able to sort out the issue within a five year period. …. Sort out the issue? …. meaning giving him access to the Australian justice system!? … or are you suggesting something else ….perhaps more politically expedient?Surely the same must be said for an action taken by CASA against Qantas pilots. ….. nnup .. sorry, you have lost me there?? :hmm:
.
.. and no, I am not making any comment on the aviation issue directly as that would be clearly inappropriate! ;) ... nice cast though :E
.
Good day!

[king oath]

Dick,

We have 2 systems in Oz for activating these lights.
One requires longers tx times than the other. How do you know if the equipment responded to your transmissions. I've personally had to try 3 times to get a response.

The ones reqiring the short burst on CTAF comm frequencies at least answer you so you have some idea of its response.

Why not have ALL pal lighting on the same system? Beats me. Sounds like it was invented by a committee.

[Torres]

Dick Just re-read your first paragraph:
..... the rumour going around is that a particular pilots’ union spent over $100,000 in defending the pilots, then Qantas took over and has spent many more hundreds of thousands of dollars. This has happened yet it appears that the pilots have not had their day in court...

Am I to assume from your statement that the pilots were charged with an offense (by Summons?) but between the Union and Qantas, the matter has been kept out of Court for some period of time up to five years?

What has the "$100,000" and "many more hundreds of thousands of dollars" been spent on if the matter has not gone before the Court?

Surely the matter would have come up for mention? Do you have a Court reference? Or has charges not been made and with the passage of time, may never been made?

[blueloo]

All hypothetical of course, because nobody knows the facts.......but -

What I think should be known, is who were the down to earth good blokes who dobbed them in, rather than re-activating the lights for them.

If the blokes missed it on take-off, for whatever reason, surely some common sense and airmanship would dictate those in another aircraft, nearby and could see the events unfolding, would assist by putting the lights on ?


Surely we havent all dropped down to the gutter?

[Torres]

blueloo All hypothetical of course, because nobody knows the facts...

Well, no. If a Summons has been served, the Summons and alleged facts must be a matter of public record. If that Summons was issued some years ago and the matter has not been settled by the Court, it should be a public concern.

If no Summons has been issued, the matter may have been handled internally to ATSB and CASA's satisfaction.

It is not a matter of "who dobbed them in". I'm sure the incident would be a reportable incident under the Transport Safety Investigation Act 2003 (TSI Act)?

[Ratshit]

What's the big deal?

With all those big lights on a jet, I assume that they could see where they were going!

If they needed to return to the runway - they probably would have turned the lights back on.

Did they crash?

Did the cockpit voice recorder reveal a conversation along the lines of "What do you think George, will we try this one with the runway lights off".

If not then I suspect no real harm was done.

Will they do it again - probably not.

I am not suggesting that taking off without the runway lights should become SOP, but why do we always want to throw the book at someone who flucks up?

Review how the incident came about and look at how we can minimise the chance of it happening again.

If they had been flying a lighty they probably would have been hailed (at least in the press) as heros for using their great skill to save the day.

R:cool:

[bushy]

Is there an ATSB report on this incident? If not why not? Is this supressed because of the "hundreds of thousands of dollars" that has been spent.
Is this something like the payments made by airservices to people in the Solomon islands, or the payments made by AWB?

This should be settled if we are to have any trust in our authorities.

[The_Cutest_of_Borg]

What would there be to report Bushy?

"737 takes off safely, some controversy over whether runway lights remained on for all of take-off roll. End of report"
....and no, none of the 100's of 1000's have been used to repress anything.

P.S. Dick, your tone regarding a particular pilots’ union spent over $100,000 in defending the pilots is somewhat strange.... isn't this what you expect from a union when you pay your dues?

[Keg]

I understand that the allegations that were levelled against the crew as a result of a CAIR report (ATM machine I know!). If this is correct then it is very difficult for the 'witness' to be cross examined in court as to what they observed- unless they have subsequently come forward.

I understand why there is a CAIR system but to use it for something like this shows a fundamental lack of understanding as to what the system is supposed to be able to do.

PS: If I have it correct and it was a CAIR report then a fine or other arbitrary penalty would be massive denial of natural justice. I'd fight it hammer and tong and expect my union to spend whatever it took to clear my name.

[Torres]

Dick. I searched the ATSB Occurrence File (http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/index.aspx?page=15&meth=DESC&sort=odate&mode=avi#sorted) around 23 October 2001; there is no record of an incident at Launceston.

Perhaps the matter has already been resolved to the satisfaction of CASA, ATSB and the airline concerned and there is no current prosecution in process?

[Dick Smith]

Torres, even if the matter has been resolved to the satisfaction of CASA and ATSB, why would the information be deleted from the ATSB occurrence file? That doesn’t normally happen.

Also, after the article by Steve Creedy, why wouldn’t the public and interested parties be informed of what happened to the action? By the sound of it, if it has been resolved CASA must have withdrawn the action as I certainly haven’t heard of any successful prosecution, and I can’t see how that could be kept secret.

I believe this is a very serious issue and should not be covered up.

[Keg]

...why would the information be deleted from the ATSB occurrence file?

Has it been? Do you know for a fact that it has? That's a pretty serious allegation to be making Dick.

That doesn’t normally happen.
....why wouldn’t the public and interested parties be informed of what happened to the action?

Maybe because the media decided that there was no 'news' in it.

I believe this is a very serious issue and should not be covered up.

Alleging a cover up is a pretty serious issue Dick. It appears to be a great attempt at dissembling the situation. There is no evidence to suggest that the issue has been covered up yet your final comment suggests that as fact.

Very disappointed. :=

PS: My sincere thanks to a colleague for giving me the word dissembling....it's my new favourite word and has SO many applications in this day and age whether talking about QF or Dick. :cool:

[blueloo]

Dick, I personally think we should be examining why aviation in Australia has come down to dob in a fellow aviator, instead of trying to assist others in preventing things going pear shaped.

Why didn't the onlookers attempt to re-activate the pal, if they saw it flashing?

Airmanship & Professionalism - its a wonderful thing isnt it!

[Wombat35]

My opinion Dick, is that it wasn't a "very serious issue".

I used to take off with no lights frequently, even landing lights, with PAX from commercial fields. It's really no big deal so I wouldn't be surprised if no further action came from it.

Why do you think it's such an issue? What danger do you think existed?

I’d seriously like to know.

Cheers

Wombat

[Dick Smith]

I have received a number of extraordinary private emails in relation to this Launceston issue. There are claims that I shouldn’t mention this at all as it is completely a non-issue and the DPP may decide to drop the action.

I don’t agree at all. I understand that many hundreds of thousands of dollars have been spent on this court action, and if the DPP drop the action now because they believe they do not have a case, this is extraordinary. Is that the normal practice from the DPP? If so, why isn’t it exposed?

Is the DPP operating on false information? If that is so, that should be exposed as it has cost a small fortune and no doubt caused the Qantas pilots an incredible amount of anguish.

I have also been told that at the present time there is “no litigation.” Surely that is impossible. The Creedy article mentions that action was taken. How can the action stop without the DPP giving a major reason for their back down?

I believe it is important for all of us to find out what has happened. Was it a completely trumped up claim in the first place – without any basis or foundation? If this is so, the situation should be exposed.

No doubt we will await further information.

[Dick Smith]

Blueloo, you state:

Dick, I personally think we should be examining why aviation in Australia has come down to dob in a fellow aviator I tend to agree with you, however we don’t even know if the pilots actually did what it was claimed that they did. I find it difficult to believe that the DPP would allow hundreds of thousands of dollars to be spent by the union, Qantas, and (I understand) CASA, when nothing has been finalised in five years.

Could it be that the whole claim was a fabrication to damage someone? I’ve heard rumours that this is so. Because of this, it is important that the true situation be exposed. I can assure you that I believe the pilots are innocent until proven guilty.

[Wombat35]

Dick,

I see that you probably not that worried about the safety aspect, (My opinion was that it was not dangerous at all.) rather the DPP stuff, well fair enough, however some thought.

Far be it for me to mention the effort that you must have gone through to research all of this, but why is it your area of concern? Are you looking out for the professional pilots? If so, what about the appalling conditions that some work in and the pittance that instructors get paid? Is that not of more concern to you?

That's something that you COULD do something about, something positive that might help our industry, rather than all this other stuff, that looks like it's going to send you to an early grave.

Why not use you time to inspire? You have such potential, why not go out to somewhere like Camden and see some of the younger members of our industry and really try to help them..

Just a thought, myself, I'm gunna head out to the field and take a young guy/girl up for a free ride and some aeros. :ok:

Cheers

Wombat

[Enema Bandit's Dad]

What about an annual Dick Smith scholarship to help someone that is less fortunate who would like to persue a career in aviation who otherwise would not be able to afford to do so? And that could include secondary schooling as well as a contirbution to flying lessons. :)

[king oath]

Dick,
The DPP often drops cases that are too weak to stand up in court. Saves everyone money and egg on the face.

Why were charges laid in the first place? Did someone not understand the full story?

These are questions you need to ask. Maybe the DPP could answer them. But I don't think the answer lies here on this forum.

[No Further Requirements]

Dick,
The DPP often drops cases that are too weak to stand up in court. Saves everyone money and egg on the face.
Why were charges laid in the first place? Did someone not understand the full story?
These are questions you need to ask. Maybe the DPP could answer them. But I don't think the answer lies here on this forum.

And that, my friends, about sums it up.

:ok:

Cheers,

NFR.

[gaunty]

And its the same reason the Governments Dorothy Dixers get handed around to the backbencher MPs that would otherwise not ever be heard, then they can tell their constituents they are a power in the land. :\ It's an attention getting device that enables the party to bang their drum on a particular issue.

[Air Ace]

I think I can see where Dick is coming from:

The incident occurred five years ago.
The matter has been listed with the Launceston Court of Petty Sessions.
The prosecution was initiated by CASA.
The evidence may be flawed and/or subjective.
The Australian and Dick allege very significant waste of public funds.

Why five years and why the excessive expenditure of public funds to get the matter to Court where, even if the prosecution is successful, the likely outcome would be a relatively minor punishment or penalty?

[triadic]

Those of us that get about will be aware that this alleged event is perhaps not all that uncommon. I know of at least two other cases around the same time where RPT departed with no runway lights (the a/c lights are pretty good) and in one case the crew did not know, but self reported anyway. There was no action or comment. In the other case there were 300+ witnesses (and nothing followed). What ever the circumstances, I don't believe it to be a big deal and certainly not worthy of the regulator doing anything but perhaps writing a letter to the operator.

Like some 3rd world countries that try and prosecute someone/anyone after an accident, we learn nothing from that event because all lips shut tight. It would be far better to acknowledge that it is possible for pilots to depart without runway lights due to many factors and to work on a solution that would minimize such occurrences.

The person/s responsible for sending this to court deserve to be :mad: :mad:

[The Voice]

The australian judicial system could not cope with the amount of actions that could be pursued. The prosecutors regardless of whether they are DPP employed or not, must assess the evidence, and if there is a reasonable chance of a successful prosecution they will proceed to a court hearing.

It is an expensive business litigation - at some point the decision to not continue and save the $ involved in a costs claim against them for an unsuccessful prosecution will over-ride the risk factor in maybe jagging a conviction on weak/tenuous evidence.

I'd have thought if this issue was of real concern this would have finished a long time ago.

[Dick Smith]

Wombat35 and Enema Bandit’s Dad, I agree wholeheartedly with your comments. My main interest is to get more pilots in jobs and more pilots flying. That is why I concentrate so much on necessary reform and having a viable aviation industry.

I have helped people with money to gain their pilot’s licence, but that is for others to comment on. Donating money to something like this is easy. Working many hours to try to achieve reform is a lot harder. My satisfaction will come when we have a booming general aviation industry – including flying training and recreational aviation – and the industry is as successful as the three businesses I have been involved in.

I fly regularly in the USA and I can see from that how fantastic our own aviation industry could be – as long as we can remove all unnecessary costs and regulations. That is what I am aiming for, and that is what I consistently work for.

[Keg]

See what is interesting Dick is that for some of us it is very different to reconcile what you think you are doing and what your posts indicate that you're doing.

Initially I believed that you were alleging a cover up between CASA and QF and that both parties had made the issue 'go away'. Your posts weren't very clear that it you were actually trying to track down whether or not CASA had been fiddling around onthis one.

If the post put forward by Air Ace is closer to the mark then you have my full support. I always felt the initial charges (which from my understanding were on the basis of a CAIR report) were entirely un-prosecutable- hard to have natural justice when you can't cross examine your accuser in court.

To follow on from that point I believe you when you say that you want to encourage more people into aviation and for it to be more affordable. The issue that many of us would have with your contributions on both PPRUNE and the wider media is that what you state you wish to happen actually looks to make the wider aviation environment less safe and more regulated and more costly.

I too would like to see an aviation environment in Australia that is philosophically aligned with the US- cheaper flying, greater encouragement of GA rather than seeing it as a 'user pays' cash cow, etc. I don't want to see lower standards of services to achieve that.

So if you're on the hunt for CASA to be up front as to the charges against the crew and why it hasn't been sorted yet then have at it. If you're alleging a cover up by QF or trying to hang the pilots then I reckon you're barking up the wrong tree.

Regards,

[rmcdonal]

...Did the cockpit voice recorder reveal a conversation along the lines of "What do you think George, will we try this one with the runway lights off".

Cockpit voice recorders are not allowed to be used in any case where there is at least one surviving crew member.
Have to admit with 2 types of PAL to play with and there not always being an AFRU installed it can be very easy to not switch them on and think you have.

[permFO]

"Cockpit voice recorders are not allowed to be used in any case where there is at least one surviving crew member."
Under the TSI Act, CVR's are routinely accessed and listened to during investigations. Not sure where the one surviving crew member bit come into it.

[blueloo]

The one surviving member, is the bloke who presses the erase button :}

[rmcdonal]

Under the TSI Act, CVR's are routinely accessed and listened to during investigations. Not sure where the one surviving crew member bit come into it.
My apologies, I was thinking about aircraft involved in a crash.
My Bad :O :\

[Air Ace]

Keg. I agree - I don't think Dick explained his intentions at all clearly.

I simply think he was questioning why it is alleged by the media that CASA and others have spent allegedly huge public funds prosecuting an alleged offense, based on what he believes may be subjective evidence.

Seeing the matter in that perspective, I support his quest. :D

Comment from others who should know tends to confirm that he may have a very valid point!!

[Dick Smith]

The Voice, you state:

It is an expensive business litigation I agree wholeheartedly. That is why my Board at CASA introduced the administrative fines system. That is, a system based on the system we have for surface transport – i.e. driving on the roads throughout Australia. Not that many people object to it.

In this particular case, why weren’t the pilots simply given an administrative fine of, say, $500? They could have either paid it if they were guilty, or refused – and CASA would have had to look again thoroughly at their claim and see if it was worthwhile to take it to court.

If I am right and over $500,000 has been spent, and the pilots have not yet had their day in court, this is a similar miscarriage of justice to what is happening to David Hicks.

Keg, you state:

Initially I believed that you were alleging a cover up between CASA and QF and that both parties had made the issue 'go away'. No, I was not alleging this in any way. I can’t see how CASA and QF can be involved in a cover up because it is in the hands of the Federal DPP.

You also state:

what you state you wish to happen actually looks to make the wider aviation environment less safe and more regulated and more costly. You probably have this erroneous view because you have never actually met or had a discussion with me. Why didn’t you come to the meeting organised by Richard Higgins? You would find that I have a consistent plan to reduce unnecessary costs and regulations, and to encourage more people to fly. I find that if I have a conversation with my claimed adversaries, they normally say, “What you are saying is just commonsense. We did not understand it before.”

Of course, answering claims on a forum is quite different to having a reasonable discussion. I find it amazing that not one of my adversaries on PPRuNe will actually phone me or allow a meeting. What is going on? How can people understand my true beliefs unless they are prepared to talk to me, see my body language, and then make a reasoned evaluation? I’ve never seen anything so pathetic in all my life. That is, people I can actually assist attack me because they are not prepared to talk to me.

I can understand what is going on in Iraq now. People are killing each other so democracy can’t work, when both sides would actually benefit from democracy. I know – I’ve just done a trip to the Middle East for the Australian Government and wandered through the streets of Dubai and Cairo, where Sunnis and Shiites get on really well together in a friendly way. Could it be because they actually meet and talk to each other? I think so.

Air Ace, you are absolutely right. I am questioning what is alleged by the media and CASA. I want to know if there is any truth in it, and I want to know why huge amounts of money have been spent, why the action has not been withdrawn, or why the pilots have not been given a chance to give their side of the story in front of an independent judge or jury.

Something very strange is going on. I do not know of any other claimed air safety legal action that has taken five years and has not yet had a hearing. I would have thought if it was a genuine safety matter there would be a push to resolve the matter quickly. As stated previously, I believe it is a terrible situation for the pilots involved. It is all totally unfair and unnecessary.

Happy Christmas to everybody. By the way, my phone numbers are 02 9450 0600 and 0408 640 221. I would be delighted to talk to anyone about these important aviation issues over the holidays.

[gaunty]

Mr Smith

Your last post is just plain patronising horsefeathers.

Of course, answering claims on a forum is quite different to having a reasonable discussion. really, I think most PPRuNeRs would be of the view that anonymous forum discussion is often the only way that views contrary to recieved wisdom is the only real opportunity there is for a reasonable discussion. Your use of PPRuNe to ask the thread question seems to support that view.

And another thing; there a very large number of aviation advocacy organisations and indeed Government Departments including CASA and Airservices working faithfully together to reduce unecessary costs as far as it is possible within Government policy, the law and regulations. Including continuing reform and redefining roles and reassesing work methods. Your personal efforts are to be applauded but they are not the final word. Your high public profile in my view brings with it a high level of responsibility. If you are going to support the QF pilots rights then please for their sake do it responsibly.

David Hicks, Sunni's v Shiiite, Dubai, Cairo and Iraq, linked with QF pilots allegedly continuing a takeoff with no runway lights and unsupported suggestions of Government/regulatory/DPP skullduggery, gimme a break.

If you really believe that

Something very strange is going on.

I can assure you that the answer will not be found here.
and;
Why don't you try your usual method of public outcry or a much simpler and direct method might be to simply enquire of the DPP or the pilots union of the status of the case.
My instinct tells me it is being well and truly looked after by their lawyers and they are hoping that outsiders with other agendas will leave well enough alone.

[4SPOOLED]

Wombat35 and Enema Bandit’s Dad, I agree wholeheartedly with your comments. My main interest is to get more pilots in jobs and more pilots flying. That is why I concentrate so much on necessary reform and having a viable aviation industry.
I have helped people with money to gain their pilot’s licence, but that is for others to comment on. Donating money to something like this is easy. Working many hours to try to achieve reform is a lot harder. My satisfaction will come when we have a booming general aviation industry – including flying training and recreational aviation – and the industry is as successful as the three businesses I have been involved in.
I fly regularly in the USA and I can see from that how fantastic our own aviation industry could be – as long as we can remove all unnecessary costs and regulations. That is what I am aiming for, and that is what I consistently work for.

Dick the US aint that great, pay for your endorsment, earn less to fly a jet than what we earn flying a 210 over here! 3 hour delays to get through security to fly a 45 minute domestic flight. It may seem like peaches and cream when you have the money to have customs waiting for you at your hanger etc.

What you should concentrate on is letting the public know that driving the price of flying down is reducing the conditions of the industry and in the future could raise some safety issues.

The public seem to trust you, so rather than meddling in garbage that is meaningless and will do nothing for our industry, use your name for the good of all! inspire joe bloggs to gain a PPL on the w/e so a junier grade 3 can get some hours in the log!

If you want my name and contact number PM me, dont spend 30,000 dollars to track me down when that money could be granted to a CPL scholarship

4S

[Time Bomb Ted]

C'mon Dick, comparing David Hicks to the pilots of a QF 737 who may or may not have made a mistake is just plain silly. David Hicks took up arms against the US and others in the cause of terrorism. He was not in Afghanistan on a peace keeping mission fer gawd sake. He was caught trying to break other Taliban soldiers out of prison.

I don't agree that he should have to wait as long as he did, however technically he is a prisoner of war isn't he. US declared war on Terrorism in the same way it would declare war on a country.

Big Leap Dick...Big Leap.

TBT

[Wombat35]

Well Dick,

I'm not sure that you are going to get anywhere, however good luck to you. I support your quest about the DPP, however surly there is more important issues.

Case in point, the comments about Bankstown from an important player when asked about moving the tower...... Well if they can't see we'll just shut the runway! What about the maintenance organisations that are being forced to close due to lease and rent issues....?

I for one would like to appreciate what you have done that is positive for Aviation in the last year. I'm sure there will be a list and that you will have a positive plan for next year. Why not use PPrune to drum up some support for some common objectives?

As a suggestion why not use some of your media clout to sort out Bankstown and expose the crap that's going on there after having a good future direction debate on here?


Cheers

Wombat

P.S I think we have all read the sticky... time to move on?

[Dick Smith]

Time Bob Ted

You have pre-judged David Hicks just as it looks as if the people in CASA have pre-judged the Qantas pilots.

I can assure you that David Hicks was not caught “trying to break other Taliban soldiers out of prison”. The US claim is that he was caught on a taxi rank in tears.

The evidence is that David Hicks has never fired at any person in his life. He currently has no charges against him. If he had, surely he is innocent until proven guilty, the same as Qantas pilots.

I don’t think there is any difference. I believe in the last few years Australia has gone down a road, which has allowed the terrorists to win, i.e. they are taking away the basics of the judicial system that our forefathers fought for.

[4SPOOLED]

Time Bob Ted
You have pre-judged David Hicks just as it looks as if the people in CASA have pre-judged the Qantas pilots.
I can assure you that David Hicks was not caught “trying to break other Taliban soldiers out of prison”. The US claim is that he was caught on a taxi rank in tears.
The evidence is that David Hicks has never fired at any person in his life. He currently has no charges against him. If he had, surely he is innocent until proven guilty, the same as Qantas pilots.
I don’t think there is any difference. I believe in the last few years Australia has gone down a road, which has allowed the terrorists to win, i.e. they are taking away the basics of the judicial system that our forefathers fought for.

Back on topic anyway, we are not getting into a debate about david hicks and for one it has nothing to do with aviation. Comparing the two are like chalk and cheese and its just clutching at straws.

If the aircraft in question was a PA31 with pax in the same situation would you even care?

How bout flying instructors in flying schools hired as contractors working all week for a few flying hours when you cant legally be a contractor if you spend more than a certain % of your time in the one organisation and are expected to be at work on a certain roster.

How about the charter pilot up north sitting under a tree all day on a hot airfield getting paid per hour of flying and blowing 10 hours duty for a 45 minute flight?

maybe you should focus some energy in this direction, spend some money helping operators promote tourism, flight training and maybe even help out with modernising fleets with low interest loans or something! DICKS FINANCE, maybe even cheap affordable finance for pilots to get some cash for a MECIR or ATPL exams. Its a big leap for a pilot to take a month of work unpaid to get the MECIR out the way, without even thinking about the 3-6 months of ATPLS......

Affordable accomodation in the citys while doing exams, places to rent up north, did you know its almost $500 per week to rent a house in Broome, Kununurra? and most of the time Pilots are black listed so you wont get a house even if you chip in with a group of other pilots? maybe something at ground level rather than worrying about what the boys with the big salarys are up too!!

Few ideas for you anyway mate!

Now about that loan for the MECIR :)

[Dick Smith]

4SPOOLED, you just don’t get it do you. You state:

If the aircraft in question was a PA31 with pax in the same situation would you even care? Yes, I would. That is why I see the situation of David Hicks and the Qantas pilots to be the same. If the pilot of a PA31 had been taken to court, an alleged half a million dollars had been spent on the court action, and after five years the pilot had still not been able to have a trial, I would be just as concerned – possibly more so, because Qantas pilots seem to have a little more power than PA31 pilots.

I think everyone should be aware about what has happened to aviation and to Australia. This action in Launceston is the first action of this nature that I have heard of. As I stated at the start, why wasn’t a simple administrative fine used if CASA genuinely believed that there was a case to answer?

4SPOOLED, I would suggest you put yourself in the position of the Qantas pilots. I wonder how they sleep at night knowing that this ongoing action is continuing.

Yes, I am concerned about the other issues you have raised, however I see those issues only being solved when we gain a viable general aviation industry again. I believe we can only gain a viable industry by removing every unnecessary cost, and having a Government which is not hostile to general aviation. That is what I have continually been working for. At the same time, I believe that our prosecution and enforcement system in aviation should be fair.

Happy Christmas.

[Shitsu_Tonka]

Dick,

Not that it has anything to do with Aviation, but I absolutely support your position on David Hicks, and agree with you that the Australian Government have allowed the terrorists to win by winding back our civil rights.

I only wish a few more Australians would start to open their eyes (51% of the electorates would be a good start).

It started with the Tampa, and they have not looked back - assisted by the right wing nut jobs of talk back radio, and dare I say it, Internet forums.

Fortunately, I sense the tide is turning on this lunacy.

On your stand on this, I doff my hat to you.

[Air Ace]

justapplhere

The original media articles:

Tues "The Australian"

Qantas pilots charged over 'reckless' takeoff
By Steve Creedy, Aviation writer
June 08, 2004

A QANTAS captain and first officer are facing charges of reckless operation of a Boeing 737 with 77 people on board after a late night takeoff.

The Civil Aviation Safety Authority alleges the pilots took off from Launceston, Tasmania, for Melbourne about 11pm on October 23, 2001, without activating the airport runway, taxiway and obstacle lights.

The lights can be activated from within the aircraft cabin and provide a vital reference point if the aircraft hits trouble and has to turn back.

Charges laid by the commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions under the Civil Aviation Act are due for a first mention today in the Launceston Court of Petty Sessions.

The two sections relate to reckless operations that could endanger the life, property or person of another individual.

The fact that CASA opted for the unusual course of prosecuting a major airline, rather than issuing an infringement notice or taking other regulatory action, indicates the seriousness with which it views the alleged incident.

CASA's enforcement manual says officers should refer to the commonwealth DPP for prosecution any matters that are deliberate and serious or that demonstrate a reckless disregard of the safety rules; are part of a pattern of similar contraventions; that involve knowing or reckless breaches of the act; or that seriously endanger the safety of people other than those committing the offence.

The act provides for a variety of penalties ranging from licence suspension to fines and demerit points.

A Qantas spokeswoman said it was inappropriate for the airline to comment. However, it is understood the airline is defending the matter.

==========================================

abc.net.au/news

Pilots breached safety laws says CASA

Two Qantas pilots charged with recklessly operating an aircraft have had their case adjourned in the Launceston Magistrates Court this morning.

Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx of Eltham in Victoria and Xxxxxxxxxxx of Essendon in Victoria are charged with two counts of reckless operation of an aircraft.

Around 77 people were on board on the Qantas Boeing 737-400 which flew from Launceston to Melbourne in October 2001.
The Civil Aviation Safety Authority alleges Qantas pilots Xxxxxxx and Xxxxxxxx failed to activate the Launceston Airport's runway, taxiway and obstacle lighting system before take off, around 11 pm.

CASA says the flight arrived in Melbourne without incident but it believes the alleged actions breached the Civil Aviation Act.

The men were not required to enter a plea or be present for their first appearance.

The court heard the men's defence lawyers are yet to receive a detailed brief from the Commonwealth Department of Public Prosecution.

The matter was adjourned until the middle of next month.

==========================================

I guess Dick has his own source of information regardling the various party's "investment" in the legal fraternity, but considering the time factor and CASA modus operandi the alleged cost may not be unreasonable?

Would you care to comment on whether you feel almost six years - and still running - is a reasonable time for a prosecution to be heard in Australia?

[gaunty]

For the conspiracy and chemtrail theorists amongst us.
Prosecution Policy of the Commonwealth
Contents
Introduction
The decision to prosecute
The institution and conduct of Commonwealth prosecutions
Control of prosecutions for a Commonwealth offence
Some other decisions in the prosecution process
Conclusion
Note on prosecutions for the bribery of foreign public officials under Division 70 of the Criminal Code
Open as an Adobe Acrobat PDF document
The Prosecution Policy of the Commonwealth is a public document which sets out guidelines for the making of decisions in the prosecution process. It applies to all Commonwealth prosecutions whether or not conducted by the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP). The Prosecution Policy has been tabled in Parliament, and is publicly available. A copy is available on this web-site.
The main purpose of the Prosecution Policy is to promote consistency in the making of the various decisions which arise in the institution and conduct of prosecutions. The Prosecution Policy outlines the relevant factors and considerations which are taken into account when a prosecutor is exercising the discretions relevant to his or her role and functions. The Policy also serves to inform the public and practitioners of the principles which guide the decisions made by the DPP.
The decision to institute (or continue) criminal proceedings is an important one, and careful consideration is given to each matter. The Prosecution Policy sets out the relevant guidelines for determining whether it is appropriate to institute a prosecution (or continue that prosecution). All State and Territory Directors of Public Prosecutions have a prosecution policy which takes a consistent approach to the decision to prosecute.
Under the Prosecution Policy there is a two-stage test that must be satisfied:
there must be sufficient evidence to prosecute the case; and
it must be evident from the facts of the case, and all the surrounding circumstances, that the prosecution would be in the public interest.
In determining whether there is sufficient evidence to prosecute a case, the DPP must be satisfied that there is prima facie evidence of the elements of the offence, and a reasonable prospect of obtaining a conviction. The existence of a prima facie case is not sufficient.
In making this decision, the prosecutor must evaluate how strong the case is likely to be when presented in Court. The evaluation must take into account such matters as the availability, competence and credibility of witnesses and their likely effect on the arbiter of fact, and the admissibility of any alleged confession or other evidence. The prosecutor should also have regard to any lines of defence open to the alleged offender and any other factors that could affect the likelihood or otherwise of a conviction.
Having been satisfied that there is sufficient evidence to justify the initiation or continuation of a prosecution, the prosecutor must then consider whether the public interest requires a prosecution to be pursued. In determining whether this is the case, the prosecutor will consider all of the provable facts and the whole surrounding circumstances. The factors to be considered will vary from case to case, but may include:
Whether the offence is serious or trivial;
Any mitigating or aggravating circumstances;
The age, intelligence, health or any special infirmity of the alleged offender, any witness or victim;
The alleged offender’s antecedents;
The staleness of the offence;
The availability and efficacy of any alternatives to prosecution;
The attitude of the victim;
The likely outcome in the event of a finding of guilt; and
The need for deterrence.
These are not the only factors that can be considered, and a full list of the relevant factors is contained in the Prosecution Policy.
Generally, the more serious the alleged offence is, the more likely it will be that the public interest will require that a prosecution be pursued.
The decision to prosecute must be made impartially, and must not be influenced by any inappropriate reference to race, religion, sex, national origin or political association. The decision to prosecute must not be influenced by any political advantage or disadvantage to the Government.
Prosecution Policy of the Commonwealth
Contents
Introduction
The decision to prosecute
The institution and conduct of Commonwealth prosecutions
Control of prosecutions for a Commonwealth offence
Some other decisions in the prosecution process
Conclusion
Note on prosecutions for the bribery of foreign public officials under Division 70 of the Criminal Code
Open as an Adobe Acrobat PDF document
http://www.cdpp.gov.au/Prosecutions/Policy/ProsecutionPolicy.pdf
but wait there's more.
Statement on Prosecution Disclosure
Contents
Introduction
Disclosure of the Prosecution's case
Disclosure affecting credibility or reliability of a prosecution witness
Disclosure of unused material
Disclosure to CDPP by investigation agencies
Open as an Adobe Acrobat PDF document
http://www.cdpp.gov.au/Prosecutions/Disclosure/ProsecutionDisclosure.pdf
It is an important part of the criminal justice system that prosecutions be conducted fairly, transparently, and according to the highest ethical standards. It is a long standing tenet of the Australian criminal justice system that an accused person is entitled to know the case that is to be made against him or her, so that the accused person is able to properly defend the charges. An accused person is entitled to know the evidence that is to be brought in support of the charges as part of the Crown case, and also whether there is any other material which may be relevant to the defence of the charges.
In November 1998, the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) issued a Statement on Prosecution Disclosure with the support of the Heads of Commonwealth Law Enforcement Agencies. The Statement has been recently reissued and is publicly available. A copy is available on this web-site.
The purpose of the Statement is to provide a framework for investigators and prosecutors who need to address the question of disclosure in each prosecution.
The Statement sets out the DPP's disclosure obligations in the cases it prosecutes. It covers the disclosure of material which the prosecution intends to use to prove its case, disclosure affecting the credibility or reliability of a prosecution witness, and disclosure of unused materials including exceptions to the requirement to disclosure unused material. The Disclosure Statement deals with the obligations of the prosecution to make advance disclosure of the prosecution case as well as to disclose to the defence any other material gathered in the course of the investigation which may be of assistance to the defence.
The Disclosure Statement does not provide for separate disclosure by the investigating agency to the accused. Rather, the obligation on the prosecution to disclose material extends beyond the DPP to the investigating agency and to other relevant Commonwealth agencies. Compliance requires that the investigating agency inform the DPP of the existence of any material which may be required to be disclosed in accordance with the Statement. It is the practice of the DPP to discuss disclosure obligations with investigating agencies, and to consider material which is brought to the DPP’s attention.
Enjoy.

[Chris Higgins]

Gaunty, your very detailed outline of criminal prosecution and defense is the very reason that Dick Smith sees this as a miscarriage of justice and a waste of taxpayers money. If they had simply paid a fine, been subjected to a brief suspension and been able to take advantage of an appeals process like any other form of transportation, we wouldn't still be discussing it...and it would have saved a fortune.

If the reasoning had come from anyone other than Dick Smith, I'm sure you would all be agreeing with him!

[Feather #3]

And, Chris, should they be innocent, then they're also entitled to defend themselves in Court!!:D
I hasten to add that I'm not against the admin fine system if appropriate.
What does stagger me is that this thread has gone on for quite a while and nobody has answered the original question?? :confused:
G'day & a Happy New Year ;)

[kellykelpie]

I don't think it matters if Dick is right or wrong. At least he brings about discussion.
I like the fact Dick posts here, under his own name, regardless of the flack he cops.
I admire that he is willing to give out his phone number to discuss aviation issues. Thanks Dick and Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year:) .

[boeingwest]

I don't think it matters if Dick is right or wrong. At least he brings about discussion.
I like the fact Dick posts here, under his own name, regardless of the flack he cops.
I admire that he is willing to give out his phone number to discuss aviation issues. Thanks Dick and Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year:) .

Here here Kelly. And more frankly, he is one of few on this website that has the balls to say who he is and not hide behind anonymity. Though I may not agree with somethings he says or his motivation at times, atleast he doesn't play the pprune 'oh hehe no one knows who I am' game. Onya Dick!

[gaunty]

Feather #3

What does stagger me is that this thread has gone on for quite a while and nobody has answered the original question??

Quite so.?

The answer was given in the second post on the thread. As The Cutest of Borg avers.

Why Dick? If it is still subjudice, what possible benefit to the two pilots will be brought by ill-informed speculation on an anonymous aviation forum?

All the rest is then usual specious grandstanding (David Hicks, Sunni's v Shiiite, Dubai, Cairo and Iraq, linked with QF pilots allegedly continuing a takeoff with no runway lights and unsupported suggestions of Government/regulatory/DPP skullduggery, gimme a break.) and applause from the usual sycophants.

And what this has got to do with Mr Smiths idea that General Aviation is not viable because he says so, escapes me for the moment. It has never been more so and is getting better almost by the day the further we get away from the shiboleths, received wisdom and meddling of the past, but hey why spoil a good soapbox.:= :rolleyes:

Come on Mr tailwheel do your job and lock this thread.

[Scurvy.D.Dog]

.. et continue ainsi l'équilibre de quille contre le mêlée collectif de chaos ..
.
... bravo sir! :D

[tail wheel]

et continue ainsi l'équilibre de quille contre le mêlée collectif de chaos
“and continues thus the balance of skittle against the fray collective of chaos” :confused:

Vous m'avez perdu là, Scurvey? :}

Media reports tend to confirm this matter is still before the Courts and unresolved. Five years and three months since the alleged offense would appear to be a grossly excessive period of time to resolve what should be a simple issue.

“Justice delayed is justice denied”. William Gladstone British Statesman and Prime Minister.

There is merit in the question being asked in this forum.

[Bleve]

Yes there is merit in the question being asked - but do you really expect an answer here? The question can only be really answered by the appropriate Attorney General and/or DPP. Do you think they read this forum?
:hmm:

[Scurvy.D.Dog]

…. Yes well, a bit cryptic :E
.
.. an observation of the ‘balance’ of argument/questioning/opinion within the collective chaos of wide area cyber audience! ... (thank goodness) :rolleyes:
.
.. the question is of course valid, the reason and answer/s would seem to lye elsewhere though as Bleve suggests!
.
.. were the question asked with knowledge (from the judicial system) of unacceptable reason/s for the delay in justice proceedings ..then fine and beaut, I would join the posse of indignation!.
.
I wonder about the motivation though, when a comparison is drawn with Hicks! :suspect:
.
…. All the best to one and all for 2007! :) :ok:

[Dick Smith]

Justapplhere, you ask me to advise who has alleged that half a million dollars has been spent, and the actual evidence that shows this amount has been spent. Unfortunately I can’t oblige with either. The estimated $500,000 was calculated after talking to a number of people. Unfortunately these people cannot be named as their careers could be prejudiced. However, as stated by others, I would imagine that after five years of to-ing and fro-ing in the court system, that this type of money could easily be spent – perhaps more.

Feather #3, you state:

What does stagger me is that this thread has gone on for quite a while and nobody has answered the original question?? In fact, it is worse than that – one poster has even suggested that the thread should be locked! Why doesn’t someone from CASA come on and explain the situation? Surely such an important prosecution should be completely open.

Come on CASA! How about getting one of your legal experts, or someone from PR, to explain how a simple action (which you put to the DPP) can take over five years and still not get to court.

Of course we have seen this happen in some high profile ASIC cases, where the person being charged has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars (if not millions) to frustrate the court action and stop information from being made available.

I don’t believe this case could be anything like that. There must be a simple explanation on why it has taken so long to get to court.

Scurvy.D.Dog, you state (possibly in reference to my original post):

I wonder about the motivation though, when a comparison is drawn with Hicks! I thought I had explained this clearly. I believe the situation with David Hicks could be similar to the situation with the Qantas pilots. That is, five years is far too long a time for Hicks, or the Qantas pilots (whom I notice have been named in an ABC report) to have the chance of justice being administered.

I find it amazing that no one from the DPP, CASA, the Department, or someone in the know from Qantas or the pilots’ union, will come on this site and state what is going on. I’m not a conspiracy theorist – being Patron of the Australian Skeptics – however I would simply like to know what is behind the delay. It doesn’t sound to me as if it is all above board.

[Bleve]

Dick what makes you think that anyone you mention bothers to read this site? If you are concerned surely a better way to find out is to ask those people/organisations directly.

[Creampuff]

Dick
The defendants could also “come on this site and state what is going on”, but appear not to want to do so. Perhaps they don't want a fuss made about this, or would prefer to remain anonymous?

[Dick Smith]

Creampuff, the defendants may wish to remain anonymous, however if you look at one of the postings above it is clear that the ABC has named them. It is a bit hard to remain anonymous when you have already been named, don’t you think?

Could the real story be that Qantas considers that they are untouchable – that no one ever takes them on? Qantas has never had administrative fine action taken against them, even though they have had many breaches of the regulations – as undoubtedly any organisation with 15,000 or so staff would. Could it be that Qantas are ‘showing CASA who is in charge of aviation in Australia’ by spending an absolute fortune in preventing the action from ever going to court? Will this show CASA bureaucrats that they should never take on Qantas – in effect, Qantas is above the law.

[The Voice]

So, reading your last post, your argument and the entire reason for beginning this thread is not that the 2 pilots concerned have not had their day in court to either finalise the matter and clear their names or be penalised, but that Qantas is above the law?

I'm sure that there must be something else more pressing for you to be challenged by.

[The_Cutest_of_Borg]

Could the real story be that Qantas considers that they are untouchable – that no one ever takes them on? Qantas has never had administrative fine action taken against them, even though they have had many breaches of the regulations – as undoubtedly any organisation with 15,000 or so staff would. Could it be that Qantas are ‘showing CASA who is in charge of aviation in Australia’ by spending an absolute fortune in preventing the action from ever going to court? Will this show CASA bureaucrats that they should never take on Qantas – in effect, Qantas is above the law?
Or maybe Qantas is just defending it's employees whom it considers are the victims of a dubious and jumped up charge?
Dick, you are looking for answers in the wrong place. The pilots are sub-judice so they aren't going to pipe up here; Qantas is not going to answer you because there is nothing to answer for; CASA definitely won't be posting here and the regular members of PPRUNE have zero input.
I suggest you write a letter to the Tasmanian DPP. They are the only people who can answer your allegations/charges/queries...

[PLovett]

Cutest, writing to the Tasmanian DPP will have absolutely no effect at all. It is the Commonwealth DPP who you need to write to but I suspect you know that. :}

As for the pilots, if a prosecution is still hanging over them, then they would be taking legal advice to keep the mouth shut lest they fall into the Jack Thomas trap.:uhoh:

As for legal costs they are as long as a piece of string. How much actual time has been spent in court, how much preparation, or more pertinant, how much negotiation has been indulged in between the parties. I suspect the answers are, in order, very little, a bit more but not much, heaps. It is often the last that can consume a lot of time and therefore money.:mad:

I suspect that a decision has to be made on advice from the DPP and the matter is now in the "too hard basket" of the decision maker (CASA or Minister). It would be helpful in concentrating the mind if there was a time limit on deciding whether a matter should proceed or not and not just one in which a charge has to be laid. :ok:

[Dick Smith]

The Cutest of Borg, you state:

Or maybe Qantas is just defending it's employees whom it considers are the victims of a dubious and jumped up charge? If this is so (and it could be), I’m sure you will agree that it is very serious. Why would CASA present to the DPP a “dubious and jumped up charge”, and why would the DPP take it on in the first place?

I’m not sure if the real story is that “Qantas considers that they are untouchable”. I just believe it could be one of the explanations.

In the USA, the UK and Europe, all airlines are regularly fined by the regulator for breaches of the regulations. Why is it that in Australia, of the 70 or so administrative fines given in the last 12 months, not one is against a powerful airline? Are they lily white? Do they actually make no errors? I don’t think so. I think this is the type of thing we should be discussing on this forum, and I believe the Launceston case could lead us to some interesting findings.