Launceston prosecution – what has happened? (Part 2)

[Dick Smith]

The original thread about the Launceston prosecution has been closed (see here (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=256146&highlight=launceston+prosecution)), however at last I have received an answer from the DPP.

Following is the wording of an answer I have received from Mark de Crespigny, Acting Senior Assistant Director of the Department of Public Prosecutions. I had written to them asking the reason for the delay in the action coming to Court - now over 5 years.

The reference to the readability of the transcript is explaining why one of the delays is caused. It appears that the transcript wasn’t readable!

It would be interesting to know what the “procedural issues” are. Could it be that an organisation is throwing a huge amount of money in making sure every “i” is dotted and every “t” is crossed? Then again, that is their right.

In respect for the people concerned who are quite possibly innocent I have deleted their names from the DPP letter.

Dear Mr Smith

Prosecution of Mr ……………and Mr ……………..

Thank you for your letter dated 1 February 2007 concerning the prosecution of Mr………… and Mr …………….

As you would be aware Mr ………… and Mr ………… were committed for trial on 4 November 2005 for two offences each of breaching sub-sections 20A(1) and 20A(2) of the Civil Aviation Act 1988.

This Office is continuing the prosecution of Mr ……….. and Mr …………. and has been seeking to have the matter set down for trial. The setting down of the matter for trial has been delayed largely due to procedural issues over which this Office has no control. We are hopeful that the issues can be resolved and that this matter can be finalised in the near future.

In your letter you refer to there being discussions at the last mention of this matter before the Court concerning the readability of transcript. I note that the transcript in question is a transcript of the committal proceedings held in November 2005.

Thank you for your enquiry.

Yours sincerely

Mark de Crespigny
Acting Senior Assistant Director

[gaunty]

Thank you Mr Smith for that information.

You would have earned heaps more respect here had you written your letter first, then published the reply here with a comment that you had done so out of a genuine concern for the apparently long delay in getting to trial.

As you yourself agree it is the defendants fundamental right to have every i dotted and t crossed and procedure followed down to the very last letter, if that takes 5 years so be it.

Why was it then necessary for your Part 1 "speculative" post beyond an opportunity to give Qantas, CASA, DPP and anyone else you could draw in, a thorough beating up, something of which you yourself have been most critical of with PPRUne.

Relationship of cart to horse comes to mind.

I cant think for the moment what the journalistic term for it is, beyond a cheap beat up, but it will come to me sooner or later.:rolleyes:

[Shot Nancy]

Dear Gaunty,

I feel the dick has done no wrong. He has merely brought to our attention something that is yet to be finalised.
I assume these poor fellows are still on leave without pay – FIVE YEARS ON.
The parallels to Hicks are not lost.
The wait for the accused is deplorable.
Dick is allowed to further the cause of the represented.

[Knackers]

The parallels to Hicks! That's laughable. Hicks deliberately went to Afghanistan to be part of a murderous regime and to murder and oppress people he didn't even know.

[J430]

Knackers

you just highlighted more similarities, except the sides reveresed or mirror imaged if you like:}

not me, said nuffin.......:ok:

[Enema Bandit's Dad]

Perhaps a better investment would be for Dick to give $60,000 to these blokes defence instead of some goon who deliberately set out to join a terrorist organisation. But I have to agree with him that it seems to have dragged on for far too long.

[Dick Smith]

Derek zoolander, you state:

I don't think anyone is losing any sleep over it. I have heard (admittedly second hand) that the pilots believe they are innocent of the charge and that it has put incredible pressure on them for the last five years. Imagine if you had such a charge over your head and knew that you were going to have to appear in court, in the glare of publicity, for something that you didn’t do.

Five years is also far too long. I just cannot imagine what has been used and what money has been spent to delay the hearing for this long. Every pilot should be concerned.

By the way Knackers, I’m no supporter of David Hicks. If he did deliberately go to Afghanistan to be part of a murderous regime, if he did intend to murder Australians and if he did provide material support to terrorists, he should be punished.

What gets me mad is that the American law specifically precludes any American from being charged by the military commission process because the American constitution does not allow it. However, we are going to allow an Australian to be tried by this process. If they get a conviction using this flawed process, I am concerned that David Hicks will be turned into some type of martyr – which he should never be – and this will do further damage to our relationship with the United States.

I believe the people handling the Hicks case in the United States are completely incompetent. I have obtained legal advice from Professor George Williams BEc LLB (Hons) Macq, LLM UNSW, PhD ANU (the Director, Gilbert + Tobin Centre of Public Law and Anthony Mason Professor at the University of NSW) which said that David Hicks can be tried in Australia. The Government says this is not so but will not release their advice. I have a feeling no one wants him to be tried in Australia, because with a proper jury of 14, they may just decide that he is not guilty!

[Scurvy.D.Dog]

I have heard (admittedly second hand) that the pilots believe they are innocent of the charge and that it has put incredible pressure on them for the last five years. …. incredible pressure? .. if they feel they are innocent then why would they worry? … better to have their day in court to prove their innocence rather than have to cop a ‘fine’ system with less opportunity to establish the ‘admissible’ facts!Imagine if you had such a charge over your head and knew that you were going to have to appear in court, in the glare of publicity, for something that you didn’t do. … better than be hung drawn a quartered without your day in court! … no?Five years is also far too long. I just cannot imagine what has been used and what money has been spent to delay the hearing for this long. …. what in the DPP letter (or otherwise) leads you the conclusion that the thing has been intentionally and unreasonably delayed? …. Must be another conspiracy! Every pilot should be concerned. … IYHO?By the way Knackers, I’m no supporter of David Hicks. If he did deliberately go to Afghanistan to be part of a murderous regime, if he did intend to murder Australians and if he did provide material support to terrorists, he should be punished. … the Military Commission process is less likely to ‘really’ get to the bottom of this ...ins't it?What gets me mad is that the American law specifically precludes any American from being charged by the military commission process because the American constitution does not allow it. However, we are going to allow an Australian to be tried by this process. If they get a conviction using this flawed process, I am concerned that David Hicks will be turned into some type of martyr – which he should never be – and this will do further damage to our relationship with the United States. … agreed, .. have you lunched with ya mate and put that view? … any ‘further’ damage to the US/Oz relationship is down to the insistence of the two leaders on this issue :yuk:
…. watch this whole thing get bogged down until after the Oz election … thing is, most people are smart enough to know that legal appeals to higher courts in the US are a direct result of the insistence of the leaders (ours and theirs) to deny ‘civil’ justice … It seems to me that if the case against Hicks has veracity, their would have been no reluctance to have this resolved much much earlier …. As I recall, they have been wobbling around for years vacillating about what he may have done, trying to ‘fit’ charges .. not to mention the question of accuracy of information supposedly gained under interogation in the military prison ... and how that may be used and tested in the Mil Comm process ...unacceptable …there is simply no excuse for our government permitting the US government this folly with one of our citizens ….. I am embarrassed as an Ozzie that this has occured in our name, led by our lap dog PM!I believe the people handling the Hicks case in the United States are completely incompetent. I have obtained legal advice from Professor George Williams BEc LLB (Hons) Macq, LLM UNSW, PhD ANU (the Director, Gilbert + Tobin Centre of Public Law and Anthony Mason Professor at the University of NSW) which said that David Hicks can be tried in Australia. .. of course he can, Howard does not want the dirty laundry aired in front of our people by 'competent' folks in the civil justice system.. lest the people might be even more revolted by the length of time justice was denied ... particualrly if he is not found to be a 'real' combatant! The Government says this is not so but will not release their advice. .. surprise surprise :suspect: I have a feeling no one wants him to be tried in Australia, because with a proper jury of 14, they may just decide that he is not guilty! … government doe not want it, but I bet large numbers of Ozzies do! …. Just imagine the fallout if he is not guilty, how would Howard and his band of heros defend their actions then? .... they could not!! :hmm:
.
His innocence or guilt is irrelevant to Howard and Ruddock …. This has always been about whipping up GWoT fear in the general populous .. right or wrong! ... it follows that when public opinions swell, anything to do with public popularity is likely to have the media tarts jumping on any bandwagon if there are votes involved!
... Howard and Ruddock are very cross with the US over this issue don't you know :rolleyes: ..... well in the last 5 minutes anyhow :hmm:
... lets not mention the last 5 years of tacit support for detention without charge though! :mad:
.
... you should be making this legal opinion widely known Dick, if you really want justice for this fellow (and presumably the principle in general) .... get into the media and push it hard .... the media could not gloss over the implications of these legal opinions .... particularly if it can be established that the government knew long ago that they could have tried him here, yet chose to ignore that option in favour of solitary detention without charge in a US military prison (remember Abu Grabe)! :ooh:

[jaded boiler]

Hi Dick, sorry to change the subject, but would you like to share with pprune readers your opinion of the proposed APA takeover of Qantas?

[gaunty]

Oooop Shot Nancy sorry Knackers mate.
You miss my point entirely.

Mr Smith chose to discuss the issue and raise a number of speculative questions that were most probably sub judice, the answer to which was always available to him as above. But that did not seem to be the agenda if you read the previous threads.

He is most certainly correct in questioning the length of time the procedure is taking but he is not entitled to speculate on alleged mischeivous actions by the respondent parties. That there are tedious "procedural" questions is a natural function of the meticulous fair and open operation of our courts.

Particularly for the defendant as it is for the prosecution to prove its case not the defendant to prove its innocence as they are deemed to be so until a jury or the court decides otherwise.

Conflating the Hicks case/agenda with this case is not only IMHO mischeivous but irrelevant. I suspect the pilots involved would not appreciate their case being compared to Mr Hicks'. Were I to be selected for jury duty on the Hicks case I would have to disqualify myself as I suspect would most Australians. In fact I suspect they would have trouble finding an unbiased jury of any sort. Australians at large IMHO are fed up with these Indiana Jones adventurers who scream blue bloody murder when they look like getting rooly trooly shot at or prosecuted.

Furthermore conflating;
I have obtained legal advice from Professor George Williams BEc LLB (Hons) Macq, LLM UNSW, PhD ANU (the Director, Gilbert + Tobin Centre of Public Law and Anthony Mason Professor at the University of NSW) which said that David Hicks can be tried in Australia. so two opinions, but the courts will decide that.

with;

The Government says this is not so but will not release their advice. theirs is equally valid as the above, it is for the courts to decide which is more so.

and deducing therefore that;

I have a feeling no one wants him to be tried in Australia, because with a proper jury of 14, they may just decide that he is not guilty! for one does not follow, for two is idle speculation and for three the charges laid by the US Govt have the ring of truth about them. BUT they still have to be proven and Hicks actual status in regard to his capture established.

Whether there or here will be decided in the proper jurisdiction. I dont believe the Australian people are going to elect a Government on the basis of who brings him home or not, at least not the Australians I know.

[Dick Smith]

Scurvy.D.Dog, you obviously do not understand CASA’s administrative fines system. You state:

better to have their day in court to prove their innocence rather than have to cop a ‘fine’ system with less opportunity to establish the ‘admissible’ facts! The administrative fines system is similar to the road system. Imagine if you were a motor coach driver and it was alleged that you drove with your lights off. You could either pay the fine – probably $150 or so – or refuse to pay it, go to court and ask for the evidence to be produced. This court action would happen in a reasonable time because justice delayed is justice denied.

In the CASA administrative fines system (which I introduced) there is no obligation to pay the fine. If you do not pay the fine CASA has to make a decision whether to go to court or not. That is how it should be.

You ask what makes me think there has been some type of intentional or unreasonable delay in this case. I’m using commonsense. How could such a simple case go on for over five years and still not have its day in court. I want someone to explain the reason for the delay. It is grossly unfair, especially when these blokes claim they are innocent.

Jaded boiler, you ask me to comment about the proposed APA takeover of Qantas. I have stated very publicly in the radio media on many talkback shows and in the print media that I believe it is totally against the interest of Australia. I believe it is just utter greed. Someone smart and ruthless can take over Qantas at a huge price, put up the fares, rip out costs in the short term and make a small fortune – you only have to look at what has happened to Sydney Airport.

Qantas shares were valued at what the market considered they should be valued at – that is even with Geoff Dixon making his very tough and sometimes ruthless management decisions. The people at Macquarie Bank and their associates know that they can’t lose by paying 50% more for Qantas than it was valued at on the share market.

If you think Qantas air fares to LA are expensive at the moment, just wait until the consortium takes over. It will be the mug public who pay.

Don’t believe anything about this claim of retaining Australian ownership. Most of the money will come from US banks and they obviously will call the shots.

There is just a chance that our present Government will see the electoral damage that such a takeover (if it succeeds) could do, and stop it. After all, the Treasurer prevented Woodside from being taken over as he considered it was important to have it in Australian hands.

Personally I believe Qantas is a fantastic airline – one of the best in the world. Even though I do not believe it is perfect, I will do everything I can to prevent the pirates from succeeding.

By the way, if anyone wants a copy of the legal advice written by Professor George Williams, just contact my office – either by email or phone – and we will email a copy.

[gaunty]

Eeerm I'm quick to agree totally with Mr Smith on this one.

There will be only one winner out of this proposal and it wont be the punters nor Australia.

Private equity funding is simply the old pea and thimble trick dressed up as something new.:rolleyes:

Buy it, privatise it, strip it, load it up with debt, and sell it back to the long suffering punters trapped in the super funds. And that doesn't include the outrageous fees going in, during and and going out. McBank have a lot to answer for in this country. :mad: Count the number of pollies who have jumped from Govt to these sort of boards, its disgraceful.
More civiised countries have an embargo on the time one can shift from pollie/public service to private enterprise, we still live in the age of the Visigoth and Hun. Both sides are as guilty as the other, I can hear the rumble of the tumbrels in the distance.

[Scurvy.D.Dog]

I do understand the fine system .... what would be the fine (and presumably the employment implications) in this case?
.
... and for the record (although I have tried to refrain) .. I absolutely agree with both of you regarding the PE buy out .... vile :yuk:

[Eastwest Loco]

Scurvy, I would like to make a point about your suggestion that innocence does not place incredible pressue on the accused.

Anything that involves litigation of any kind and the prospect of huge legal bills will nearly drive any person over the edge.

Consider the amount of money it could cost you and your family just to prove your innocence, the fact that every call to your attorney is logged and charged to your account even if you are just querying a bill.

There is of course the possibility that if you win, the plaintif can lodge an appeal and if you lose you may have to lodge an appeal.

It is a bloody scary neighbourhood and the law is indeed an ass, as it is set up to ensure maximum return to its purveyors.

I had a recent incident with having to remove a less than honest staff member despite having a bullet proof case and with all evidence from her emails in print, I had to bite the bullet and pay the mole out as that was cheaper than following through and going further in court. Not happy Jan, but that is the way it works.

These guys would just like to have closure. It is a huge weight on their shoulders that should have been well gone by now.

best all

EWL

[Scurvy.D.Dog]

EWL ... no argument .. except :E (as I understand from comments made here), they are being provided 'assistance' (.. as they should) by the association and the company :ok: ... the point being the considered alternative :hmm: .. if you get my drift without me having to say it (lest it might feed the trolls) :ooh: :O
.
.. I know exactly what you mean though, seen the 'ass' in action many times ..not pretty, perhaps better than the alternative though :mad: :suspect:

[Torres]

Knackers

"The parallels to Hicks! That's laughable. Hicks deliberately went to Afghanistan to be part of a murderous regime and to murder and oppress people he didn't even know."

How you can make that statement of guilt when the matter has not been expediently tested in an open and accountable court of law, where Hicks may defend himself against the allegations and be judged by his peers?
Justice delayed is justice denied.

Whether Hicks or the Qantas crew it appears to me the same legal principals and rights apply, which we expect in a democratic society.

Jaded Boiler

"One thing alone will stop it, the federal government fearing an electoral backlash."

Well, no.... not totally. If I wished to sell something I owned, whether my house or Qantas shares, I would not want Government to dictate my decision, although I respect Government's right to set conditions.

However if appears from media reports some significant share holders are having second thoughts. The sale of Qantas appears to be far from a "done deal".

[peuce]

Dick Smith said:

"You ask what makes me think there has been some type of intentional or unreasonable delay in this case. I’m using commonsense. How could such a simple case go on for over five years and still not have its day in court. I want someone to explain the reason for the delay. It is grossly unfair, especially when these blokes claim they are innocent.
"

I know bugger all about the legal system, and even less about this case, but from a mug's point of view, perhaps one of the parties is conducting a scientific investigation into the ability of humans to see in the dark or something similar. So the whole thing has to come to a standstill till that's finished.

[gaunty]

Torres

How you can make that statement of guilt when the matter has not been expediently tested in an open and accountable court of law, = easy. ROE for combatants in an armed conflict. There are only two sides, theirs and yours, if you are captured or found on their side, trained and armed by them yet, you have quite a different legal problem to the Qantas pilots. This wasn't Iraq this was Afghanistan and direct retaliation for the Al Quaeda attack on the US. I guess next we'll be disputing whether they actually conducted the 9/11outrage.

Nah our Indiana Jones friend has a bit to answer to or maybe he was just a bit confused about life.:rolleyes: 5 years is a long time but to conflate his situation with the 5 years of civilian legal process surrounding the Qantas pilots is seriously ingenuous, if not jus horsefeathers.

Oh and it seems the real story of the murder of Balibo 5 is being confirmed. Moral of the story being if you are in a conflict zone for whatever reason and under whatever circumstances you pays your money you take your chances.

I have a number of close friends who operate in some seriously dangerous places where young children dressed up as soldiers carrying (just barely) serious weapons, which were they to fire them in anger, or most probably fright would take out everybody standing nearby. You do exactly what they say and at all times try not to make unnecessary eye contact. These kids have been taken from their villages after the whole village has been shot and made into soldiers.:{ So how would you try them in a court.

I would not want Government to dictate my decision, although I respect Government's right to set conditions eeerm can't put my finger on the definition but what you just said was.

If the Government says I can't sell it I cant. The responsibility for the decision and or the "rightness" of that action has been moved from you to them. You don't actually have a say except through an examination of the Qantas Sale Act through the High Court or the ballot box.

[Torres]

"In our country you are innocent until proven guilty. Its up to the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt their case."

Yes, Derek. But our democratic society expects that prosecution occur expediently. Whether your name is Hicks or you are a couple of Qantas pilots who allegedly tried to make the punter's day, five years is hardly "expedient".

Even for a bureaucrat!

Unless of course you work for CASA re-writing the CARs! :ugh:

[Creampuff]

'Expedient' prosecutions, or 'expedient' avoidance of prosecutions, is precisely what you do not want in a civilised democracy based on the rule of law.

The US and Australia are expediently avoiding prosecuting Hicks, because they fear the outcome and need to use him as a political pawn in the interim

[bentleg]

gaunty re Qantas takeover
You don't actually have a say except through an examination of the Qantas Sale Act through the High Court or the ballot box
If you bought QF shares when the takeover was first mooted you have a say by declining to sell your shares to the consortium. It ain't over until the fat lady sings.....

[Torres]

Yes, Creampuff. Late night post........ :uhoh:

And my guess CASA/DPP are expediently avoiding prosecuting the Qantas pilots, because they fear the outcome........

[Shitsu_Tonka]

Dick,

I totally agree with you on Hicks and on the selling of QANTAS.

Two excellent causes for you to devote your considerable energy, resources, time and money to.

The Howard government have abandoned their first duty - protection of one of their citizens and ensuring his human right to a fair trial - whether guilty or not. If only some of the blind right wing conservative supporters can seen through their ideology, and consider how they would feel if John Howard was sending their child to the American gallows.

[gaunty]

Torres

And my guess CASA/DPP are expediently avoiding prosecuting the Qantas pilots, because they fear the outcome........ eerm the prosecution is already on foot, the only people who can stop or withdraw it is the DPP.

Were they to do that without a very very good reason it would deny the pilots their day in court and the opportunity to clear themselves. If I were the pilots I would then sue their socks off.

I've said it before in another thread and I'll say it again, the charges were laid in the context of the times and according to the rules.

And I dont suppose any body asked if it is in fact the pilots who are insisting as is their inalienable right on proper procedure who are "causing" the "delay". I guess not because that would remove a perfect opportunity for a bit of media heroics.:{

[PLovett]

I have some serious doubts about the answer supplied to Mr Smith by the Deputy DPP.

"Procedural issues ........... 5 years ........... beyond our control"

What rot!

I have appeared for clients in the Launceston Magistrates Court and never did it take 5 years to get a matter to hearing. In fact, an unresolved matter sitting on the books for 5 years is likely to get the less than pleased attention of the presiding magistrate.

Far more likely is that there are extensive negotiations between the parties and at their request the matter has being delayed.

However, the delay is unfair to the pilots concerned. Despite what some posters have said an unresolved prosecution does create pressure on the accused. I would have thought that their legal representatives would have forced the issue before now, its quite amazing what can happen when you demand a hearing. The majority of settlements are forced at the court door.

[Creampuff]

PLovett

In your experience, what kind of 'negotiations' can occur between the parties to a prosecution?

[PLovett]

Creampuff

Everything from why a prosecution is a waste of time and effort in that the evidence does not support the charge to haggling over facts to be presented in return for a plea.

However, it does not take 5 years. I cannot comprehend anything that could take that long. It raises suspicion that there is some other agenda at work.

[gaunty]

PLovett

Far more likely is that there are extensive negotiations between the parties and at their request the matter has being delayed. is quite probably so.

However IMHO it does not necessarily follow that;

the delay is unfair to the pilots concerned. Despite what some posters have said an unresolved prosecution does create pressure on the accused. when one is unaware of the meat of the likely;

extensive negotiations between the parties

One could support the argument that the DPP went off sorta half cocked in the context of the political and social concerns on foot at the time of the offence and now find it difficult to withdraw without redress for the damage to the pilots reputations etc. If I were the pilots I would be dug in pretty deep.

[Dick Smith]

PLovett, you state:

However, it does not take 5 years. I cannot comprehend anything that could take that long. It raises suspicion that there is some other agenda at work. You may have seen the Steve Creedy article in Saturday’s Australian newspaper. (See here (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21278339-23349,00.html)).

Unbelievably it says in relation to the delay in prosecution:

Sources said this was because investigations by the airline and the Australian Transport Safety Bureau found there was no case to answer. Steve Creedy is normally accurate and his sources are normally accurate. What an amazing claim by the Australian Transport Safety Bureau – that “there was no case to answer.” Surely this explains what is going on. Does anyone else have a comment?

****su Tonka, in relation to my actions regarding Hicks and Qantas you state:

Two excellent causes for you to devote your considerable energy, resources, time and money to. Do I get a hint that you want me to devote my time to causes that you support, and then not devote any time to causes which you do not support? I’m sure you understand that human beings quite often have different views – we may agree on most things but not all. That is pretty healthy as far as I’m concerned.

I will continue to devote my time on aviation causes. Of course, I could be wrong. My suggestion is to give me a phone call and we will arrange to have a cup of coffee and a talk.

Justapplhere, you query whether I introduced the administrative fines system. The original system was introduced in 1990-1991 when I was the Chairman of the CAA. When I came back to CASA in 1997 I found that the legislation had gone through but no action had been taken. I then produced a document entitled A New Approach to Enforcement which stated that we would go ahead with the administrative fines system. The decision was made by my Board at that time and the administrative fines system was introduced.

[Torres]

Interesting article and Creedy is usually correct:
"Despite the legal action, the pilots were not stood down and Qantas confirmed yesterday they were still flying.

Sources said this was because investigations by the airline and the Australian Transport Safety Bureau found there was no case to answer."

Unbelievable!!! :confused: :confused:

[bushy]

What's happening here is seriously eroding my perception of the integrity of the organisations concerned.

[Shitsu_Tonka]

No hint implied Dick.

On many things aviation-wise I do tend to have a contrary point of view to you - it is true.

On some I actually agree with you, but sadly realise that the enormous bureaucracy has an incredible momentum - be it slow - of it's own that is difficult for individuals to change. (When you shake your head in bewilderment so often, you just get a headache!)

My comment, if anything, implied that you would have more chance of success - and probably more public support generally - addressing those other excellent issues.

[Higs]

Dick,
I read the paper yesterday and was not aware of this "matter" i use this choice of word because I believe it should be an internal matter and used as a way of learning from it. Not something to be "draged through courts" and especially not with you acting as some kind of whiping boy stiring on the masses.
What about all the other "events" that have happened in QF.? Do you want to drag them into the courts as well?
I feel this is a bad reflection on you.

[PLovett]

OK, after a bit of research a few things have become clearer.

Firstly, I understand that the prosecution did not commence until late 2004 so its hardly been 5 years before the court.
Secondly, the matter is to be heard in the Supreme Court of Tasmania, not the Magistrates Court. There is no District or County Court jurisdiction in Tasmania hence the hearing in the Supreme Court.
Thirdly the committal hearing has already been held and there were transcript problems arising from this. In Tasmania court proceedings are taped and transcripts are then prepared. Sometimes the recording equipment throws a wobbly. The tapes had to be enhanced to provide the transcripts.
Fourthly, I understand that one Supreme Court Judge has expressed his displeasure at the time taken to progress the matter.
Fithly, the procedural delays referred to by the Deputy DPP are defence applications for the provision of inordinate amounts of evidence and requests for deferral of the matter by defence counsel.
Finally, I understand that both the DPP and CASA are ready for the matter to proceed to a hearing.

IIRC, gaunty posted the DPP guidelines for a prosecution on the first incarnation of this thread. The DPP is an independent person who is not subject to the whims and dictates of others. The office he heads is very busy which will not waste court time or public money on matters where there is little chance of success. That the DPP is willing to pursue this matter suggests that the evidence meets their guidelines which may also explain the delaying tactics employed by defence counsel.

A final point. The administrative fines system cannot apply to the matters before the Tasmanian court as I understand the offences relate to a breach of the Act, not the Regulations.

Please posters, do not take what I have written as being critical of either party or suggesting the guilt or innocence of the pilots. Delaying tactics are part of a defence counsel's bag of tricks and there can be very good reasons for using the tactic.

[EXFOI]

Plovett...............
Q? why, if the so-called 'offense' took place well before 2005 has the matter taken so long to come before the court?
You state:
gaunty posted the DPP guidelines for a prosecution on the first incarnation of this thread. The DPP is an independent person who is not subject to the whims and dictates of others. The office he heads is very busy which will not waste court time or public money on matters where there is little chance of success. That the DPP is willing to pursue this matter suggests that the evidence meets their guidelines which may also explain the delaying tactics employed by defence counsel.

Well if that's the case then I'm buggered if I can understand WHY after 5 years the matter still isn't in court if it HASN'T been the subject of:
the whims and dictates of others
and that this whole 'episode' of legal process isn't just a total waste of time, effort, and taxpayer funds. :ugh:

[Scurvy.D.Dog]

.... so in summary ... no lets not :hmm: ... over to you Mr Smith .... what exactly were you trying to achieve? :suspect:

[Clown Act]

Dick, please - i am begging you, for the good of everyone, never say :mad: anything to do with aviation ever again as long as you live. I feel sure if you do this we will all be a lot happier and aviation safety will not be compromised. Fly your whirlybird around the south pole again if you really need something to amuse yourself. Get your law degree and represent Mr Hicks. Hell, run as an independent against Maxine and L'il johnnie in Bennelong.:D

[gaunty]

PLovett

Thank you for that bit of enlightenment. :D I am not at all surprised and a little bit, no a lot comforted that due process is in train. :ok: The Supreme Court Judge can harumph all he likes, the defence is entitled to take whatever steps are are available to them.

EXFOI you may better ask Mr Smith why with the resources available to him, he was not able to gain the same information as PLovett. I expect the same information would have been available to him and I dont doubt PLovett has neither used nor revealed any privileged information.

So I guess in the interests of personal integrity we can soon expect an explicatory piece in the Australian as a follow up to the last.

[Dick Smith]

Higs,you state:

What about all the other "events" that have happened in QF.? Do you want to drag them into the courts as well? I feel this is a bad reflection on you. The only way I knew about the original prosecution was because I read it in The Australian newspaper. It has been made extremely clear in one of my posts that I believe the administrative fines system can be used for this type of enforcement action. After all, that is what it was designed to do.

I do not know what other “events” you are referring to, however if they are safety related I do not wish to drag them into the courts but I believe they should not be kept hidden. This works against everyone – Qantas passengers, flight crew and the owners of the airline.

Justapplhere, believe what you want about the administrative fines introduction. It is interesting that you say the system has proved largely unsuccessful. I understand there were about 70 successful administrative fine actions last year. I don’t know what you mean by unsuccessful. Presumably if the people paid the fine they decided that was better than going to court. Possibly you are referring to the fact that no one powerful has been taken on with the administrative fines system – i.e. Qantas or any other major airline, or even smaller airlines such as Transair. In my view this is a pity – everyone should be treated without fear and favour by CASA.

EXFOI, I note the quote from your posting (since removed):

Look beyond your present crusade and ask the ATSB why they continue to lose very experienced staff in alarming numbers – as I understand the case to be. The answer is pretty obvious I’d have thought. EXFOI, I had no idea they were losing experienced staff and I do not know what you are alluding to. Would you be able to explain what is “obvious” to you – that is, why the experienced staff are leaving? Is it to do with morale in the organisation? Is it because they have pretty well been captured by the big end of town, or do you have another explanation? Do you know the name of an experienced person who has left the ATSB that we could talk to?

[Torres]

So, this statement which started a previous thread may be correct:
"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."

[gaunty]

Torres

And your point is?

It's simply amazing isn't it.

The DPP frames and presses charges see PLovett's post prior and mine re DPP rules http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=256146&page=3

The defendants at some considerable expense exercise their legal rights to the fullest, in the process of which it takes 5 years and requires considerable expense by the prosecutor and the regulatory agency to date.

Here is a case where the deep pockets of a prosecutor or plaintiff can't bully the defendants with the threat of determined legal process. Also a reason for the DPP rules, there are nonesuch for regular plaintiffs.

PLovett points out

The administrative fines system cannot apply to the matters before the Tasmanian court as I understand the offences relate to a breach of the Act, not the Regulations.

Notwithstanding it is your right to either cop the fine or take it to court and in this case even if there had been a cop it sweet option I suspect these professional pilots and their employer would on what has been revealed here have chosen to take it to court. There is also the matter of reputation and governance.

So the legal process is as it should be, working correctly.

It is the utterly inalienable right of the defendants to conduct themselves so for as long as it is necessary and at whatever expense, it is not for media heroes, PPRuNers nor anyone but them to decide or attempt by media to influence the result.

[spirax]

I understand this sorry saga returns to the court in LST in the next week or so.

I find it difficult to understand what the DPP expects to "gain" out of this, so long after the event, especially when I hear the Captain has retired.

The amount of $$'s required to support the legals on both sides, not to mention all the air fares and accommodation of the numerous witnesses called is most likely in the millions and at the end of the day (if found guilty?) what might the penalty be?? A token fine perhaps?? And if not guilty, it is you and I that pay the DPP costs!!:mad:

My silly mind suggests something sinister in why this (non-event [if proven]) has been pushed so hard by the DPP. Anti QF perhaps?? Especially when others have done similar and those events have not been followed up in such a way.

It will be interesting to follow these 'goings on'...............:ugh::ugh:

[tasdevil.f27]

Starts tomorrow (tuesday)

[spirax]

This court case has not been going for a week and to date there does not seem to be any media coverage whatsoever?

I understand 3 weeks have been allocated for the case and it has a full jury of 12.

Who is justifing the cost of this and for what benefit to the community at large?


:ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh:

[spirax]

Strange that at least one Pruner in LST is not following this case?

It has been going for 3 wks now and no reports!!! Anyone??

[MaxHelixAngle]

Case has been concluded in the pilots favour.

[The Chaser]

Details would be interesting if anyone (who was there in court) could provide a brief summary!
.
In any event, as long as the pilots are in the clear. IMHO that is the result that should have occurred right from the get go! :ok:

[spirax]

Thanks Max... some details would be good

[shadowoneau]

I don't know how long it will take, but it should come up on Australasian Legal Information Institute (AustLII) (http://www.austlii.edu.au/) eventually.

[Tankengine]

Lets hope they win a settlement from CASA for their years of purgatory!:mad:

[PLovett]

I don't know how long it will take, but it should come up on Australasian Legal Information Institute (AustLII) eventually.

I am not to sure about that. AUSTLII usually only publishes appeal cases rather than hearings "at first instance".

I remember searching AUSTLII for another CASA debacle that too and froed from court case to the High Court and back again. The reports of the appeal cases were on AUSTLII but not the initial facts.

Ultimately CASA lost the case but on the way won an appeal on the interpretation of the legislation together with costs. They are now trying to use that costs order as a weapon to bankrupt the pilots concerned.

[grip-pipe]

:D Thank goodness, sanity of twelve good men and true has prevailed and justice has been done. I am sure the gentlemen involved can now have their legal bills paid by CASA but I am sure they will get no apology. :(

[Dropt McGutz]

I wonder if they would have any legal comeback for defamation?

[triadic]

There is a rumour going around that the case has been adjourned - no decision??? Anyone know details that can be confirmed, one way or the other?

[bushy]

Did anyone really expect CASA to win a dispute with qantas???

[LeadSled]

Bushy,
Has it occurred to you that the two pilots concerned, charged with offenses where the penalty could be jail, are actually NOT GUILTY!!!

I hope you understand the idea of a "presumption of innocence". This is a criminal matter, the charge must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, no easy matter in a very technical case. Do you have any idea as to the number of countries, to which they would be denied entry, if they have a criminal conviction for any aviation matter, no matter how minor, as quite a few Australian pilots have found out, the hard way.

Those charged were pilots, not QANTAS, ask the union (AIPA) how much $$$$$ they expended on their members behalf. It was/is a frightening number, if you were an individual having to fund your own defense. Unless you are otherwise wealthy, the cost of justice is beyond the means of the great majority of pilots, as far too many have found out the hard way, even having won their case.

It is an absolute disgrace that this matter has gone along for so many years. In a reasonable world, after the case is concluded, there should be an inquiry (not conducted by CASA or the DPP) into the whole sorry tale.

In large measure, two pilots live have been on hold for years.

Tootle pip!!

[cogwheel]

Nowhere have I yet seen any confirmation from a formal source on the present position of this sad story which we are all going to pay for.

Has anyone access to information that can be confirmed from a named source?

[grip-pipe]

Well until confirmation about the cases outcome no further comment. :*

[Dick Smith]

In Post #24 PLovett stated

I have appeared for clients in the Launceston Magistrates Court and never did it take 5 years to get a matter to hearing. In fact, an unresolved matter sitting on the books for 5 years is likely to get the less than pleased attention of the presiding magistrate.

Of course it now looks like the whole matter took considerably longer than five years and no prosecution was recorded.

I, too, would like to know the history of what happened, and if there is a report on this I believe it should be posted on PPRuNe.

As a previous poster mentioned, justice delayed is justice denied. More to the point, I understand that over $600,000 was spent by one particular pilot’s union and Qantas on the defence. Does anyone have any information on this?

[Going Boeing]

Dick, I don't know anything about the legal costs but I know that both Qantas Flight Operations management and AIPA believed the two pilots to be innocent of the charges that they faced and consequently assisted financially in their legal defence. If any less than that had happened then I would have resigned from AIPA - the biggest reason for a pilot to be a member of a professional industrial organisation is if he/she finds themselves in a legal predicament then the full resources of that organisation is made available for their defence.

[PLovett]

Dick, since posting that I have subsequently found out that the prosecution was through the Tasmanian Supreme Court, not the Magistrates Court. Prosecutions through the Supreme Courts can often take a long time to be resolved, especially in situations where no-one is in custody. However, that said, 5 years is still a long time.

As an aside, the State Supreme Courts take on a Commonwealth jurisdiction for cases such as this and Commonwealth legislation is applied to all aspects of the hearing.

Now, as I understand it, the reason for the long delay was essentially due to the defence team requesting huge amounts of prosecution material that was not going to be used at trial. The Crown is obliged to release its trial evidence to the defence prior to the hearing. In this case the defence was making repeated requests for delay as the prosecution had not provided all that the defence had requested.

I do not know what has happened in this case but I will see if I can track down any information. It may take some time as I am not in the north of the State where the trial was held (or was to be held).

[wombat watcher]

no conviction.

[triadic]

As I understand it, the court sat for about 3 weeks in late Nov/early Dec 2009 and heard quite a number of witnesses (at some cost I expect) To not have a result that is made public is not the norm I would guess? Maybe 60 minutes should look into this one??:(:(

[PLovett]

My internet trawl has come up with nothing apart from the fact that it was last listed in the Supreme Court in Launceston on the 9th and 10th December before the Chief Justice.

There is no reported decision that has been published to date, although there is a decision regarding costs arising from a failed attempt to summons further witnesses for depositions.

I have requested further information from the Supreme Court registry but am unsure as to whether they will provide such.

[TheOtherGuy]

The original hearing was held in early 2008 in an unreported judgement. A permanant stay of proceedings was granted on the basis the loss of evidence and delay could constitute an unfairness or injustice. The DPP sought special leave to appeal from the High Court on 5 December 2008. Special leave was granted. The appeal was heard in the High Court on 21st May 2009. The Crown was successful in that appeal and the permanent stay was dismissed, with the case remitted back to the Tasmanian Supreme Court for hearing. Not sure where its is at from there.

[PLovett]

TheOtherGuy,

Thank you for the reference to the High Court appeal. From that appeal this is their summary of the Crown case:

The respondents are airline pilots who were the pilot and first officer of a Qantas Boeing 737-400 aircraft on a flight to and from Launceston, which took place during night hours on 23 October 2001. Each of the respondents was responsible for the operation of the aircraft. The Crown alleges that the aircraft took off from Launceston Airport ("the airport") in darkness, without the necessary lighting being turned on. Qantas did not provide scheduled services to Launceston. This was a relief flight that was arranged in order to collect 70 passengers who had been stranded as the result of a mishap.
The control tower at the airport was unmanned between the hours of 10.00pm and 6.00am. The apron and terminal lights at the airport operated 24 hours a day. The taxiway, runway edge lights and the illuminated wind direction indicator ("IWDI"), or windsock lighting, (collectively, "the runway lighting") were not illuminated when the control tower was unmanned. During these hours it was the responsibility of pilots arriving at, or departing from, the airport to turn on the runway lighting. This was done with the Pilot Activated Lighting system ("the PAL"). The PAL was activated by a signal that was transmitted from the aircraft's radio to a receiving device at the control tower. Once activated, the runway lighting remained illuminated for a period of 32 minutes.
The aircraft touched down at the airport at 10.32pm. Before this a signal had been transmitted from the aircraft to the control tower, which had activated the PAL. Thus the runway lighting was on. The aircraft arrived outside the terminal building at 10.34pm. The interval between activation of the PAL and the aircraft's arrival is not known. Accordingly, the end of the cycle of runway lighting commenced by the initial activation of the PAL cannot be determined with precision.
The aircraft moved from the terminal building at 11.01pm. It travelled along taxiway A, instead of taxiway C. Taxiway A was usually reserved for smaller aircraft. It taxied past the Royal Flying Doctor Service ("RFDS") hangar and prepared for take-off at 11.03pm. Its wheels left the runway at 11.05pm. The take-off was observed by Mr Griffiths and Mr Withers, two RFDS pilots, a paramedic and two nearby residents, Mr Walker, an aircraft enthusiast, and Mr Dergacz, a pilot.
Mr Griffiths telephoned the duty operations officer at the airport shortly after the aircraft's departure to enquire whether there was a problem with the operation of the runway lights. The following day he reported the matter to the Civil Aviation Safety Authority ("CASA"). Mr Withers reported the matter to the Air Transport Safety Bureau ("ATSB") on 29 October 2001.

This is their record of the lost evidence:

The lost evidence comprises the electronic record of the activation of the PAL made by a Monitor at the airport ("the Monitor List") and the information recorded on the aircraft's flight data recorder ("FDR").
The Monitor List contained a record of the last 13 activations of the PAL. A print-out of the Monitor List was obtained two days after the incident. This only contained records of activations on 24 and 25 October 2001.
The FDR recorded the keying of the VHF radio system, the time of transmission and its duration. It did not identify the specific frequency or the purpose of the transmission. Given the time of night at which the incident occurred and the absence of staff in the control tower, an inference could be drawn from the FDR data that a radio transmission was made in order to activate the PAL. Data recorded on the FDR was overwritten after a time. The evidence established that the information recorded on the FDR during the aircraft's flight on 23 October 2001 could have been retrieved within 13 to 15 days of that day.
The PAL was activated by the transmission of three pulses on a frequency specified by the manufacturer. Each pulse was required to be between one and five seconds in duration and it was necessary for all three to be transmitted within a 25 second span. Once activated, the PAL operated for an interval of between 30 and 60 minutes depending on the timer setting. The timer setting at the airport provided for a period of 32 minutes illumination. The system was designed to warn of the impending extinguishment of the lights; during the final 10 minutes of the cycle the IWDI flashed continuously.
There were two distinctive features of the operation of the PAL at the airport. First, if the final pulse was transmitted during or after the 25th second, the lighting cycle defaulted to the concluding 10 minute phase, which was accompanied by the flashing of the primary IWDI ("the straddle effect"). Secondly, Civil Aviation Order 92 required the primary IWDI to be located on the left side of the runway, unless this was impractical. The primary IWDI at the airport was positioned on the right side of the runway. There were two IWDIs at the airport. Only the southern IWDI was configured to flash during the concluding phase of the PAL cycle. The northern IWDI, which was closer to the terminal, remained constantly alight throughout the PAL cycle.

And finally the judge's reasoning for applying a stay of proceedings which was overturned on appeal:

Accepting that the aircraft spent some four minutes in taxiing and the PAL transmission sent during pre-flight procedures some six minutes previous, the differing accounts of the RFDS pilots that there was no runway lighting with the claims of activation by the pilots, could be reconciled. The lighting sequence ended during take-off and the observation of the RFDS members made during that take-off, following their hearing the aircraft's acceleration. That might be conjecture but could be a matter advanced at trial. That conjecture is relevant to the initial question of whether or not the runway lighting was on at the relevant time. Less problematic is its relevance to the issue of recklessness. The sequence, especially the 'straddle' possibility, is whether the pilots were reasonably entitled to assume that the lighting was in operation.
The above matters are made more complex and significant if, at trial, the jury accepted the prosecution evidence that the aircraft had moved along runway A, whereas it ought to have exited the terminal apron upon taxiway C before executing a 180 degree turn at the southern end of the main runway. This course would have impinged on the capacity of the pilots for observation of the IWDI. Thus even if the jury were to be satisfied, on the evidence, that the runway lights were 'off' at the time of take-off, the issues of timing, straddle, activation by transmission, and the like, remain cogent matters on 'recklessness'. The jury would be well able to consider whether the differing views of the pilots and the RFDS pilots, the position of the windsocks, the use of runways A or C for taxiing, the effects of other illumination from the terminal or apron lighting, and various inconsistencies between the evidence of observers, both inside and outside of the aircraft in their general consideration of a verdict. But the PAL related matters require a journey into conjecture and/or complex evaluation exposing the [respondents] to the risk of an unfair conviction.

And no, I am not going to provide a link as it will identify the pilots. They have gone through enough without another outing.

[peuce]

These drawn out Court cases always leave me somewhat bemused....

If a Judge asked me to swear on a stack of Bibles and detail my exact actions and thoughts on a certain day .... 4 or 5 years ago ....I'd probably laugh at him.

I can't even remember that I promised my wife that I would wash up last night !

[PLovett]

The Librarian at the Supreme Court of Tasmania has advised me as follows:

The case was then relisted for trial in the Supreme Court and on 10
December 2009 both defendants were found not guilty.

There is no published account of the trial, as yet.

My supposition is that without the missing evidence referred to in my previous post there was not sufficient evidence to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.

It has revealed one thing that I didn't know previously, that is the "straddle effect" of activating a PAL system.

Now can we draw a veil over this matter?

[CharlieLimaX-Ray]

PAL lighting systems do work in mysterious ways.

[tasdevil.f27]

Yes like mysteriously activating in the dead of night, not an aircraft or person insight. Maybe little green aliens can turn them off to....:}

[obie2]

If Mr Griffiths and Mr Smithers had just minded there own bloody business...none of this nonsense would have seen the light of day!

No doubt they're still flying RFDS operations.

And they should stay there!!

[Wally Mk2]

Not wanting to say too much on this particular incident as I haven't really been following closely it but recently we (as in some of our flt crew) where chatting about flashing PAL when about to launch as it's sometimes easy to get distracted with checking it prior to line up especially SP Ops in our line of business but also added at the time was someone mentioned the Skipper of this said alleged incident (ref was made about this case in question) was early 60's?? at the time meaning he'd be retired now one way or another.
Not a pleasant blight (if that's what it ended up as) on ones flying career. It's obviously a mistake that such an event occurred so dog like chasing & punishment where the story is bigger than Ben Hur achieves what at the end of the day in this case?

Lets all hope that this can be put to rest sooner than latter as the amount of money spent on this one case so far could no doubt pay for a hell of a lot more safety all round!


Wmk2

[Capt Fathom]

It's obviously a mistake that such an event occurred

What event occurred again? It was thrown out of court!

[PLovett]

justapplhere,

About the lost evidence. What was missing was the monitor list of the PAL usage and the FDR from the aircraft.

The monitor list only contains records of the last 13 activations and it was recovered two days after the alleged offence. Launceston is the RFDS base in Tassie and as well there are night freight flights. They "used up" the 13 recorded activations in the following two days.

In respect to the FDR what I didn't post earlier was that there was some delay in QANTAS being contacted in relation to the investigation. This is an excerpt from the facts as found by the High Court:

Qantas was first notified of the incident on 9 November 2001.
On 14 December 2001 CASA appointed an investigator to enquire into the incident.

The incident in question was on 23 October. I suggest that the FDR was well and truly overwritten by that time.

I know of no appeals, which in any case, would be next to impossible as the case was apparently decided on its facts as an appeal cannot be made against a finding of fact. So, yes, the matter is closed.

Capt Fathom,

The case was not "thrown out of court". Either the judge sitting alone or the jury (I cannot remember what the Commonwealth legislation provides for in such a case as this) found the two pilots "not guilty" of the offence. There is a difference.

[Wally Mk2]

Okay "CF" lets just say the "event" wasn't proven but it cost a LOT of money to find that out. Something must have happened as I don't believe it would have gotten thus far if there was no 'event' at all.



Wmk2

[TheOtherGuy]

Why close this thread down? There are important issues for pilots that have arisen in this discussion, not the least being the role/activities of CASA and the DPP. You may not want to know about it but others do. Don't read the thread if you don't want to know.

[triadic]

This type of event I suggest is not all that uncommon. Of course a pilot participating in such an event would I suggest not do it on purpose, therefore he is unlikely to know that he has in fact done it! Hence no report!!

This was the case in two such events that I am aware of elsewhere.

CASA would have been better off to address this deficiency and use its resources in an attempt to place mitigators in place to minimise re occurrence. And not to waste our money with such a charge!

(There was a jury and the court sat for the best part of 3 wks)

[le Pingouin]

Iminded there own bloody business...none of this nonsense would have seen the light of day!This is directed at your comment & not the LT case:

How do you think pilots get away with dodgy procedures that end up flying a plane load of people into the ground? By people not saying anything.
:ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh:

[tasdevil.f27]

It is my understanding that the RFDS pilots asked questions as they wanted to know if the PAL had gone unserviceable. They had jobs on the go & would need to make other arrangements. They were not out to dob in anyone, but rather make sure they could do there own flights.

[Stationair8]

Bad luck if Qantas were recruiting and your resume showed you were based in Launceston with the RFDS in 2001?

[Waghi Warrior]

Being a good friend with one of the witness's,I can assure everyone that if they knew this was going to be the outcome they would have kept their mouth's shut.
The reason why they reported it is because they are proffesional pilots,(RFDS pilots). I would have done exactly the same thing and I can honestly say that most proffesional pilots would have done the same thing given the situation,not to dob another pilot/s in,but from a "SAFETY POINT OF VIEW !"
If this did really happen,how and why ? Was there a problem with the PAL system or were the pilots involved fatigued or whatever ete etc ? This kind of sh!t put on by CASA,dragging it through the courts for years does absolutly nothing for aviation safety,infact it has a negative effect on aviation safety.
The Qantas pilots should not be named publicly,nor should have the witness's to the incident. The only people making money out of this are the lawyers. The ATSB or CASA,who ever was responsible for pulling the FDR screwed this whole case up completely,for not acting when they got the initial report.
The case should have been thrown out of court and the case closed years ago,nothing has been achieved apart from the lawyers deep pockets getting full,and a hell of a lot of stress put onto the people concerned.
CASA and the ATSB have failed to do there jobs in regard to this case. If someone would have acted within the appropriate time from at least one of these government departments,this mess wouldn't have occurred,maybe there should be an inquiry into why the report wasn't investigated untll after most of the hard evidence had been destroyed (FDR).

[chimbu]

WW-

Even if the FDR was not 'lost', its decoding was valueless. Thus:

"The FDR recorded the keying of the VHF radio system, the time of transmission and its duration. It did not identify the specific frequency or the purpose of the transmission."

[Waghi Warrior]

What about the CVR then,something must have been spoken about the runwaylights/PAL system on the flight deck. They would have made some remark somewhere in their arrival and departure briefings about the runway lights and their activation.
If a mistake has been made by whoever,we as pilots, taxpayers and Qantas customers are entitled to know what happened,especially given the amount of taxpayers money that has gone into this.

[bobbobbob]

Whats this about?

The above matters are made more complex and significant if, at trial, the jury accepted the prosecution evidence that the aircraft had moved along runway A, whereas it ought to have exited the terminal apron upon taxiway C before executing a 180 degree turn at the southern end of the main runway.

Is there taxi restrictions on a B737 at YMLT?

[tasdevil.f27]

No restrictions on 737s, only 767 sized aircraft.

[chimbu]

WW-

Regarding the CVR. Flight Crew are perfectly entitled to erase recordings after every flight. Indeed many airline pilots do so as a matter of course.

Even if they do not, the tape is constantly reused. It only holds the last 12 hours cockpit records.

[mrdeux]

The CVR holds between 30 to 120 minutes, depending upon type. Utterly useless in a case where it's wanted months after the event.

[Waghi Warrior]

Well I'm an airline pilot and I'm even a Captain,I have never found the need to erase the CVR,and I have been involved in a few serious incidents that required a lot of report writing by myself,and I have never even thought about erasing the CVR,and yes I do know where the erase button is. Is this a common thing in Qantas ? And if so why ? No disrespect to the crew involved,but I think this whole incident has been a coverup by Qantas and CASA.

[PLovett]

I think this whole incident has been a coverup by Qantas and CASA

W W, you can't be serious. :suspect:

CASA brought the prosecution in the first place. If they then wanted the whole thing to go away they had a chance when the original trial judge agreed to a permanent stay, but no, CASA appealed to the High Court for orders that the trial proceed. Those orders were granted and the trial ground to a conclusion last December. :ugh:

I don't even think QANTAS had much to do with it either. The CVR and FDR would have been well overwritten by the time they knew of the incident without any need for the flight crew to have erased the CVR. :rolleyes:

There is, I think, a serious issue to be raised which is why CASA are pursuing the line of prosecution rather than education? Is there some directive from within government circles that there should be prosecutions? Has it come from the Attorney General's office? Has the Department of Finance directed it for cost recovery purposes?

It runs totally counter to all the accepted advice as to the best way to manage a safety culture by having an open exchange of safety issues. For pity's sake I can recall attending a CASA seminar on safety management schemes which promoted the non-retributive approach to safety. Why the change now? :confused:

[PLovett]

justapplhere,

Actually I was aware of that but am guilty of generalisation here. :ouch: Will give myself a good bollocking. :}

However, I cannot believe, having had some contact with the Commonwealth DPP in a previous life, that they would proceed with a prosecution without consultation with CASA on the merits and substance of the evidence.

That said, I still don't understand the rush to prosecute and the generally poor results that the Commonwealth is obtaining from them. It is counter-productive to the result that CASA is supposedly trying to attain, a safer sky.

[Keg]

Is this a common thing in Qantas ?

Common? No. Does it happen? Yes. Some individuals never forget to do it. Other individuals never remember to do it.

And if so why ?

Invariably the logic surrounds a prang on the subsequent departure and the desire to not have the previous sectors sledges against all and sundry broadcast to the world.

Personally I couldn't give a stuff. I don't say anything on the flight deck that I wouldn't say to someone's face anyway.

I think this whole incident has been a coverup by Qantas and CASA.

:rolleyes: :ugh: :suspect:

[Stan van de Wiel]

The incident took place in 2001, it wasn't until the matter was again raised with Bruce Byron in mid 2003 that CASA had to take action. The whole matter had been dropped within a few months of it starting by an order issued within CASA to the investigating officer. Once the DPP got wind of it they started action, unfortunately most of the evidence had inadvertently been destroyed????