Merged: Aero Tropics Grounded. [Archive]

vee1-rotate

27th Jun 2008, 12:01

definately not good for AT at the moment:

from news.com.au

Airline grounded on safety concerns | NEWS.com.au (http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23934312-29277,00.html#)

Airline grounded on safety concernsBy Kim Christian
June 27, 2008 09:45pm
Article from: AAPFont size: + -
Send this article: Print Email
THE Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) has grounded a Cairns-based airline in Queensland after it allegedly failed to meet pilot training and safety standards.

A CASA spokesman said Aero-Tropics, which flies 15 small aircraft to remote northern regions at Cape York, Thursday Island and the Torres Strait, was served with a notice to ground all aircraft at 6pm (AEST) today.

"We believe they pose a serious and imminent risk to air safety," a CASA spokesman said.

The grounding comes after a 10 month investigation into training and the checking of pilots at the airline.

"We've had an investigation going since last September into Aero-Tropics, we have found a number of deficiencies in that 10 months," the spokesman said.

"We've issued a number of notices to the airline... to make improvements and put them on notice that we were dissatisfied with their performance.

"In effect they have not improved anything and in recent days we've done more investigations and in fact found that safety standards have got worse."

He said CASA had uncovered a pattern of failures to meet the aviation safety standards within the airline.

"We've tried to work with the airline to get them to improve the standards, they've failed to do that," he said.

"That also leads us to have a lack of confidence in the management of the airline to actually treat their commitment to safety as seriously as they should."

He said the decision was not made due to any incidents with the fleet of 15 seven to 11-seater aircraft or the pilots operating them.

The airline will be grounded for at least five days.

CASA will now apply to the Federal Court for a 40 day extension to the grounding.

"Within that 40 days we have to build a case to either permanently cancel their certificate, put them on the ground permanently, or of course alternatively, the airline can build a case to say why they should be allowed to continue to fly," the spokesman said.

Air services to the region will be disrupted over the weekend and into next week.

A recorded message left on Aero-Tropics' answering machine said it would challenge the decision in the Federal Court on Monday.

"It is with great regret that I must advise the communities of the Torres Strait that we have been forced by the authorities to cancel all flights until this matter is resolved," the message said.

"It is my expectation that this matter will be tried in the immediate (future) before the Federal Court early Monday morning.

"There is a possibility that Aero-Tropics can recommence operations sometime on Monday."

thunderbird five

27th Jun 2008, 12:11

Reports to hand confirm the fact that no more facts can be confirmed at this time. However, at a date soon to be confirmed, more unconfirmed reports will be denied. This should put an end to all the rumours circulating at the moment.:)

Hasselhof

27th Jun 2008, 12:25

So who's up for the CP job ATAS had advertised a week ago?

404 Titan

27th Jun 2008, 12:50

Doesn’t surprise me in the least. A leopard doesn’t change his spots after all and in regard to this company their history is very well known to those that have been around for a while. I’m just sorry that the staff has to go through something that was completely avoidable.

Jabawocky

27th Jun 2008, 14:21

Unless they have a huge pile of cash, if they do not get back in the air Monday and CASA get a 40 day grounding, its game over!

J

R555C

27th Jun 2008, 14:24

From experience, Comply, be transparent, talk to CASA, gain respect and it ends up a lot cheaper that doing nothing, and u end up having good operation.

Sad to see a orgainsation go bad and many good guys and girls have their jobs in limbo.

Im not sujesting to just give in to CASA, but as an operator you have to develop a working relationshio with them, gain some respect, even if that repect is gained through presenting a diffenence if opinion.

News Hound

27th Jun 2008, 15:06

Is it just me, or can anyone else spot the contradiction here (in the above news report that is)??? I mean, blind Freddy looking thru a stubby full of mud would be able to see it. :confused:

fierylildevil

28th Jun 2008, 00:19

Gees..........,
I'm glad I got out when I did.

LUCKY-1

28th Jun 2008, 00:47

They all left at 0630 this morning i believe...sad to see em (the guys) go...good bunch. We'll be flat out now!

Alice Kiwican

28th Jun 2008, 02:57

Be hard for them to find a new chief pilot if they get out of the mire they are in at the moment. Having said that everyone likes a challenge!!
The boys and girls at Barrier and Regional Pacific on Horn will be busy!

Dick Smith

28th Jun 2008, 04:06

Sounds on the face of it that they were given a lot of time to get their act together.

An aviation business has to be profitable and wealthy as well as having ownership and management with the correct "culture' if it's going to meet the safety standards.

They now have the chance of an independent umpire making the decision as to whether they get back into the air or not.

MUNT

28th Jun 2008, 05:44

Sad. While some operators cop the full brunt of CASA's fist, other notoriously dodgy operators seem to go on and on without so much as a decent audit. Disappointing.

Gnd Power

28th Jun 2008, 06:23

Deja Vu,

Aero T started with the hardware, etc, from Wingz N when CASA grounded and took said company to court.

Wonder if it the phoenix will rise again?

biton

28th Jun 2008, 07:33

What you say may be true but I think the situation here is that when you are operating RPT and are a large operator then you inevitably draw greater attention to yourself. RPT seems to be the golden chalice that CASA is very protective of. It's hard to gain on an AOC and from what I've seen, easy to lose.

flyer_18-737

28th Jun 2008, 08:09

Ah well, its all for the better though:ok:

PLovett

28th Jun 2008, 09:57

Mmmmmm.............now if one was cynical it would be possible to think something along the following lines.

1. There is to be a Senate inquiry into CASA real soon.
2. One of the sticks that will be used at that inquiry will be CASA's oversight or lack of it that was a factor in the Lockhart River crash.
3. Aero Tropics was the RPT operator (I know, another company provided the aircraft and crew) and therefore is now at fault for bringing CASA into disrepute.
4. CASA can show to the Senate how big and brave it is and what a really good job it does by removing the AOC of a player that was involved in that crash.

However, I am not that cynical.

Bendo

28th Jun 2008, 11:02

Flying Spike

You're way off the mark.

My experience (1) of dobbing in the dodgy operator resulted in ...

...nothing.

...except I was then sacked for my troubles :{

In my case the allegations were well documented with time, place, aircraft, rego, documentary evidence, witnesses and participants all detailed. The allegations were not vexatious but real legal and safety issues (low flying, illegal instruction, illegal charter, acting as PIC in operations requiring a rating without rating, knowingly flying without valid MR etc) and are well known to other professional pilots in the area, with a number expressing concern to me in my professional capacity.

CASA couldn't make it stick and RAAus not only told him who dobbed but then gave him an instructor rating :ugh:

Don't bother - you may have a duty of care but the only one who cares is you.

All dobbing does is draw the ants :=

Torres

28th Jun 2008, 23:14

"Aero T started with the hardware, etc, from Wingz N when CASA grounded and took said company to court.

Wonder if it the phoenix will rise again?"

Via Coral Sea Air I seem to recall. Perhaps the culture goes with the aircraft?

From the CASA press release, lack of a Chief Pilot and a trickey training and checking organisation may be factors?

OpsNormal

28th Jun 2008, 23:59

Media release - CASA suspends Far North Queensland airline (http://www.casa.gov.au/media/2008/08-06-28.htm)

CASA media release - Saturday 28 June 2008

CASA suspends Far North Queensland airline

The Civil Aviation Safety Authority suspended the operations of Cairns-based airline Lip Air Pty Ltd on Friday 27 June 2008.

Lip Air – which trades as Aero Tropics – was suspended because CASA believes there were serious and imminent risks to the safety of passengers travelling on the airline.

The airline's operations were ‘grounded' immediately. CASA will now make an application to the Federal Court to extend the suspension of their air operators certificate for up to 40 days.

If the extension is granted CASA will complete investigations into safety deficiencies within Lip Air and may seek to cancel the airline's air operators certificate.

CASA began investigations into safety problems at Lip Air in September 2007. The airline and key personnel have been subject to a number of actions by CASA, taken to achieve improvements in safety performance.

However, in recent days CASA has discovered further evidence that safety standards within Lip Air have not in improved and in fact have deteriorated.

CASA has serious concerns about the capacity and commitment of Lip Air's management to manage their safety obligations. CASA believes the deficiencies are indicative of a total failure of the airline's management structure.

This has created an unacceptable risk to aviation safety.

CASA's safety concerns with Lip Air centre on the airline's pilot training and checking systems. Pilot training and checking is a critical safety system within any airline – large or small.

Media contact:
Peter Gibson
mobile 0419 296 446
Ref: MR7108

I recieved this link in one of CASA's "safety alert" emails. Upon actually reading the media release I feel CASA ought take a serious look at the way they word these media releases - especially the last couple of paragraphs, which (only in my opinion) cause me (as a person who has no knowledge of the running of the company or anything at all to do with Aerotropics in any sense or measure) to form an opinion based upon the words of an employee of the Regulator (which must of course have been vetted by a senior manager to the person who issued the release) - therefore causing a pre-formed corporate view held upon the operation to be available to public scrutiny in text that has and have not yet been found a true and correct assessment or representation of the company and/or its management structure or ownership, or indeed tested in an Australian court of law.

Peter Gibson, This is just an observation: Parts of that media release may have caused me to form an opinion on a company that may well not prove to be true and correct. The fact that people may now talk between themselves about this CASA media release means that should your case fail in court you've opened CASA up to what may be significant damages payout for libelleous and slanderous content of that media release.

Just an observation.... :oh:

Regards,

OpsN.;)

PinkusDickus

29th Jun 2008, 01:12

I know exactly how you feel.

In my case the allegations were well documented with time, place, aircraft, rego, documentary evidence, witnesses and participants all detailed. The allegations were not vexatious but real legal and safety issues (low flying, illegal instruction, illegal charter, acting as PIC in operations requiring a rating without rating, knowingly flying without valid MR etc) and are well known to other professional pilots in the area, with a number expressing concern to me in my professional capacity.

As an "insider" I know for a fact the CASA at Bankstown was given a detailed report on a number of alleged breaches by a well known Bankstown training/charter operation, with some of their actions carrying penalties of up to 2 years in jail.

The most effective deterrent is adverse publicity and legal action in accordance with the legislation. What is the purpose of having draconian powers if they don't act on proven and documented breaches?

I firmly believe that CASA are selective in their application of their powers, and any outsider trying to discover whether they have taken action will be blocked by FOI.

This operation has had a number of hull losses, and CASA stands to be crucified for their failure to act over recent allegations when they have another accident.

Lefthanded_Rock_Thrower

29th Jun 2008, 02:53

Flying Spike, Bendo and Pinkusdickus,

You are not alone, what should be and what actually is when it come to blowing the whistle to CASA especially is disgraceful, as Bendo stated, have your personal operations wired tight, that is the best we can do, unfortunately it is not an ideal world.

Whilst I have never worked for A/T's, I have met RL, IMHO he seemed like a good guy, a business man trying to make money in the cut throat aviation industry, he survived the previous regime in FNQ, he would probably have a very distrustfull view of CASA as a consequence (search the CASA FNQ threads of a few years ago).

Historically speaking, CASA have not done very well in either the AAT or the open Court system, but also historically speaking (UZU for example, Hi Torres ), CASA does not need to win in Court to have the "desired" effect.

Pinkus, Hull losses ?.

Are there any FOI's from FNQ on "extended, leave without pay or stress leave" ?, that would tell an interesting story.

Two_dogs

1st Jul 2008, 00:42

I have no interest in whether Aeros get up and running again or not. I heard they were trying to get an stay through the relevant court procedure and were hoping to be running by Monday afternoon.

I do feel a bit sorry for the pilots and other staff involved, although one would assume the demand for services is still there and the work is available to other operators. It would of course have to be done as charter rather than RPT. Looking at the Aeros online booking system, (where tickets for scheduled services are still available) there does not appear to be much difference in price between RPT and charter anyway!

Alice Kiwican

1st Jul 2008, 01:30

Word is today is D Day for Troppo's.Good luck boys and girls hope it works out for you. The victims in these situations are always the hard working people at the front line whether it be pilots,maintenance guys,reservations staff,check in or aircraft loaders!

gravelbusdriver

1st Jul 2008, 02:07

Guys, more importantly what is going to happen the big house and the legacy of all previous campaigners?

Under Dog

1st Jul 2008, 04:02

Does the Trickster still do the Training and checking up that way?Cos If he does then thats who Casa is after.

Regards The Dog

clapton

1st Jul 2008, 11:25

LRT

Historically speaking, CASA have not done very well in either the AAT or the open Court system, but also historically speaking (UZU for example, Hi Torres ), CASA does not need to win in Court to have the "desired" effect.

Where do you get your facts - or do you just make them up as you go along - or just prefer to regurgiate what you hear second hand>

I suggest you actually do some research before making such comments. Go to the Austlii website and look up all the AAT cases involving CASA.

This is what you'll find.

Between 1997 and 2008 there are some 87 cases reported where CASA's decisions have been challenged in the AAT. So what is the break down?

41 cases affirmed CASA's decisions (ie the AAT said it was the correct decision).

5 decsions were affirmed in part but also varied in part.

6 applications for review were dismissed.

11 CASA decisions were set aside.

8 decisions to cancel a licence were changed to suspensions.

2 decisions were sent back to CASA for consideration.

8 applications for a stay were granted.

6 applicatons for a stay were refused.

Hardly seems like CASA has not done very well in the AAT.

Lefthanded_Rock_Thrower

1st Jul 2008, 12:30

Clapton,

Only 87 in 11 years ?, the few that I have seen / followed from the sidelines, I have not seen the CASA recommendations accepted/up held without major changes to the actual outcome, Mainframe or Torres care to add comment ?.

Even if your statistics are thorough, 41 time out of 87 they made their case unconditionally, that is terribly low in my opinion, and disappointingly so.

Hardly seems like CASA has not done very well in the AAT.
Hardly seems to me that they should not be trying to do better or be more effective.

I am a big supporter of CASA, there are many fine persons within the organisation, but unfortunately litigation has not been as productive a tool as one would hope.

Bruce Byron has in the past talked about CASA and the industry working hand in hand, get on the bus or get out of aviation, there are more direct, honourable and effective means of reprimanding offenders.

Facts, ????, my opinion, why so agressive ?.

Incidently what makes you so sure of your omniscience, or is it your opinion that differs to mine ?

Pluto's gone

1st Jul 2008, 12:43

If the statistics are correct then it is absolutley dismal on CASA's side.

41 only won unconditionally, well below 50%. You would think that if CASA is going to pull somoeone's life to shreds then they would have solid evidence before acting. But hey as a few have mentioned, who cares really (when it comes to the CASA opinion), the damage is done well before it gets anywhere near the ACCC.

Out of curiosity has anyone that has kicked CASA's Ass ever turned around and sued them for what ever one could imagine. Or is that a protected area where they can just do what they like and don't have to suffer the consequences?

clapton

1st Jul 2008, 14:02

LRT/Pluto

Facts, ????, my opinion, why so agressive ?.

Incidently what makes you so sure of your omniscience, or is it your opinion that differs to mine ?

No, I don't claim omniscience. But I do care about facts. You have none - but appear happy to make unsubstantiated statements pretending to be facts.

And if you and Pluto read the statistics properly you would see that 14 of the cases dealt with stay hearings - not substantive merits hearings. So CASA's success rate in substantive hearings is well above what Mr Pluto suggests. Only 11 decisions have been set aside.

As you now admit, you have only seen a few cases from the sidelines - so on what basis can you then make the sweeping generalisation about the totality of AAT cases as you did in your earlier post. By the way, what constitutes a few?

Pluto, you could sue CASA is you wanted to in order to test your theories. It certainly is not a protected area. Remember that Dick Smith changed the legislation to remove CASA's immunity (this was going to fix all of industry's problems) - so you can feel free to sue whenever you feel like it.

I suggest you and Pluto actually go and read the cases and see what the AAT has actually said in all of the cases - you may be more informed.

By the way Pluto, the ACCC has nothing to do with CASA. It's the AAT (do you know what those initials stand for?)

Lefthanded_Rock_Thrower

1st Jul 2008, 14:49

Clapton,

Four.
1) CASA wanted prison and AOC got circa $20K and removed one function on AOC,
2) CASA wanted to revoke AOC, got squat,
3) CASA wanted the removal of AOC/Approvals and Licences, got squat,
4) CASA wanted to not give new types on AOC, got squat.
Play the player or play the game, Hmmmm ?.

Wouldn't be in this situation if someone didn't reinvent the wheel on CAR 206 now would we ?.

nungry

1st Jul 2008, 17:08

This is more of a question than a statement, and being non legal CASA mumbo jumbo endorsed, as a by-stander seeing the effectively police of the skies at work here, how can they do what they've done, without it being a witch hunt or show pony event?
I mean, it looks like they've got to back themselves up with a truckload of evidence, and it seems a bit shakey at the outset, to follow through with what they've done.
On a laymans level, if I drink, then drive my car, and get pulled over by the cops, they've got me. Balls and all. No questions asked. Easy. If I rob a bank, it's on camera, and witnesses identify me, then yes, I'll go in quietly. When I kill someone, my fingerprints are there, my DNA is on the body, someone sees me, CSI works its wonders and I'm busted. If I didn't know all this from the outset, obviously I've been living under a rock all my life and didn't know I could be busted for drink driving, robbery and murder. I know where the goalposts are. Thats what makes us a society.
What I don't understand is this sort of behaviour where one FOI will come in and say all is hunky dory, then the next will come and say, with a bad cop expression, fix this fix that, but really all is cool, then another, you guys should be grounded, but if you fix it by Thursday, cause Friday's my flexi day, we're sweet, then the next one is number two, and so on and so on, where are the goal posts!!??!!
Yes, we have CAR's and CAO's to upkeep and maintain, yes we have company ops and training to keep, and we do that, but if you really want to get rid of someone, for whatever reason, thats easy. No one is perfect, and companies are run by people, as is CASA.
I dunno, it just seems like such a witch hunt to me. And if they've got a 50% rate in court, imagine if you were a soliciter in the real world with that strike rate, you'd wish you did take that plumber's job back in high school.

Lefthanded_Rock_Thrower

2nd Jul 2008, 00:30

Nungry,

Good point,

With the Police if you are doing 90kmshr in an 80 zone, done.

With CASA, so much comes down the ones "interpretation" of legilsation, quite often incomplete and vague in nature, very difficult.

tail wheel

2nd Jul 2008, 00:50

Justiceseeker is currently in Canberra, has emailed the following post and asked I post on his behalf:

flying-spike: "Or do you suggest that CASA wait until there is an accident and then take action."
A very reasonable suggestion, given that this is how CASA has operated previously and MOST DEFINITELY in the Lockhart River scenario. That's on the public record.
virgin-driver "Rick will get through..I don't think he is that dodgy."
Come on..you can't have your cake and eat it too. He is either dodgy or not!

left-handed rock thrower. "I have met R.L. IMHO he seemed like a good guy, a business man..."
So have I...the day after LHR, 08 May 2005 and in the Coroner's Inquest. Denied evidence presented, was aggressive and rude and mislead CASA (questionable that they didn't know) over the types of operations he started into Bamaga and then Lockhart R. Both runs advertised in the Cairns Post at the time. Was also mixed up in some regulation-breaking dealings with a Micheal Keating and a Cairns Travel Agency. Ask other operators in Cairns what they think of him.......

Jabawocky

2nd Jul 2008, 02:09

TW

I could email Justiceseeker or phone him if I could find his number...... but knowing his profession I wonder why he is in Canberra!

Unusual place to spend ones school holiday break......so maybe there is more to all this than meets the eye.

I can also appreciate his passion in the matter!

J:ok:

bushy

2nd Jul 2008, 02:10

Was all this to do with the commercial restrictions CASA places on chaarter operators???
All charter operators have problems with the confusion that can exist between the definition of these categories, and most of it has nothing to do with safety. Rather it is commercial regulation. i wonder if CASA is really there to regulate the commercial side of aviation. I thought they were there for regulating things that affect safety.
Whether you sell individual seats, or run scheduled flights does not make it less safe. It is a commercial issue. And I believe CASA is not authorised to regulate commercial issues.
But many times this has been used to shut down charter companies.
At the moment there is a startup "charter airline" in Alice Springs.
It seems this treatment may be selective.

Justin Grogan

2nd Jul 2008, 07:48

:ouch:

Federal Court of Australia has overturned CASA's case against Lip Air Pty Ltd this afternoon.

Lip Air/AeroTropics can be back in the air as soon as they can crank engines over.

tail wheel

2nd Jul 2008, 08:36

Jaba and flying-spike.

Don't shoot the messenger!

Justiceseeker was unable to post and sent me his post by email asking I post on his behalf, which I did as Moderator.

I am not entering the debate.

Tail Wheel

Torres

2nd Jul 2008, 09:07

Spike. Surely you did not mean to post these statements???? :confused:

"...selling single seats has nothing to do with the argument.There are bucketloads of joyflight/scenic operators around doing that quite legally on charters. When you start running scheduled services, open to the public on a ticket basis that is RPT."

So, you're saying that a charter operator, selling single seats on a scenic flight that is advertised (by whatever means) as departing at a certain time (or why else would those who purchased seats know when the scenic departs...), over a specific scenic route, is somehow different to "....scheduled services, open to the public on a ticket basis (that) is RPT."

I am aware, as you obviously are, of "bucketloads of scenic" flights that are advertised by various mediums, depart at the same time each day, over the same scenic route, for which individual tickets are sold - and are being operated on a charter AOC.

Read CAR206 and particularly the differences between 1 (b) and 1 (c).

Back at post # 83, we agreed that for a flight to be legally classified RPT, five conditions must exist:

* Transporting passengers or cargo;
* For hire and reward;
* In accordance with fixed schedules;
* From fixed terminals;
* Over specified routes;

Considering your statement above, could you tell me the difference between the two scenarios you mention - or perhaps advance a theory as to the meaning of "fixed terminals" and "specific routes"?

"...that will let people die before we act"

Now, the inference one draws from that statement is a real worry!!!

compressor stall

2nd Jul 2008, 09:43

The travelling public expect a higher level of service, safety and reliability on an RPT service.

Do the travelling public really know the difference - or care?

It is outside the scope of this thread, but IMHO there should be no difference between Charter and RPT.

Why should it require a higher level of maintenance, regulation or pilot training to fly from A to B at 0900 daily than to fly to F when somebody walks in the door?

Pluto's gone

2nd Jul 2008, 09:57

"Federal Court of Australia has overturned CASA's case against Lip Air Pty Ltd this afternoon."

So where does this fit into the CASA victory or defeat.......

What CASA didn't have enough evidence to convince the Federal Court that they had a case?:confused: Unbelieveable... Casa are always so precise, so justified, so thorough, leave no corner un turned, how could they not have enough evidence???:D

How much has this little excursion cost AT? Reimbursements for lost business, yadda yadda yadda?:ok:

higherplane

2nd Jul 2008, 10:16

Airline profited from trainee pilots, Lockhart inquiry hears - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) (http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/07/02/2292635.htm)

Lefthanded_Rock_Thrower

2nd Jul 2008, 10:44

Tailwheel,

What do you know about, what was the term again,,,"Interposed Travel?", the use of a travel agent as the organisation booking a charter to which they sold seats to the general public has previously been accepted by CASA, where's Creampuff when you need him ( some would suggest its a short cut around the RPT requirements, although i believe there was some guidance from OLC on the criteria, had to be a registered Agent.... ).

So what is shady about the Travel Agent bit i'm not quite sure ?.

Sober up did we Mr I ?.

Justin Grogan

2nd Jul 2008, 10:49

Just the messenger, Pluto.....

Where it 'fits' is your voyage of discovery:rolleyes:

tail wheel

2nd Jul 2008, 11:36

I think the term you are referring to is "interposed entity"?

I suspect that term refers the Child Support Agency when it comes between a miscreant father's employer and his bank account? :} :}

Torres

2nd Jul 2008, 13:32

LRT

An “interposed travel agency” is a Furphy (http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1835778) thrown in by CASA when they’ve hit rock bottom of the bull sh!t barrel and are determined to keep digging.

Travel agencies have been around for 100 years. They sell tickets on an agency basis, on behalf of airlines, train and bus services, tourist attractions, motels, hotels and resorts, fishing trips, parachute operations and even circuses.

Travel agencies neither hold an AOC, nor are they regulated in CASA legislation. They have no place, in any way, in differentiating between RPT and air charter.

If by reference to the pre 1988 ANRs, one assumes:

“specified routes” were dedicated, licensed airline routes, defined on Air Navigation Charts, over which an air charter operator could not operate more than once in 28 days; and
“fixed terminals” were Commonwealth owned airport terminals on Commonwealth owned airports, specified in legislation at that time;

then the legitimacy of definition of Qantas and Virgin air services, as “RPT/scheduled airline services” vis-à-vis CAR206 1 (c) are also in doubt, as airlines no longer operate “specified routes” defined on Air Navigation Charts and the Commonwealth no longer operates “fixed terminals”.

Are Qantas and Virgin scheduled air services therefore, air charter services???

Twenty years of regulatory reform and CASA can’t still even rectify that simple legislative error!!!

nungry

2nd Jul 2008, 14:00

I'm not saying that CASA's got any credibility, but if they had an ounce of it anyway, surely they just lost some more. I'm sitting here shaking my head profusely if you hadn't noticed.
If I call you a spade, I'm going to be bloody well sure I can back that accusation up!!!! Does anyone else get my drift here??!!??
Defamation, for what it's worth, is definately worth it here. What a joke. :ugh::ugh:

Lefthanded_Rock_Thrower

2nd Jul 2008, 14:09

Justice seeker,

Denied evidence presented, was aggressive and rude and mislead CASA Is that a fact ?.

Trying to point the bone over YLHR IMHO is laughable, A/T did not own the Aircraft or have M23 on their AOC or own the crew.

Everyone in Cairns knew of the relationship, even CASA,,,,,,,,,,,, from memory it was also stated in an ad i saw in the Cairns Post, you know, that it was operated by Transair, no way anyone, especially CASA could deny knowledge of the working relationship.

There are many many working relationships of a similar ( Alliance / Qantas, NJS / Qantas for eg ), operating flights for other companies etc etc, who's been doing the mail runs this week ?.

In A/T's case I believe they were trying to build a route they could put their very own B1900D on.

Torres, ageed, it would be nice if this and other "issues" with the base legislation was fixed, life would be much simpler.

werbil

2nd Jul 2008, 14:58

Has anyone got a copy of the pre 1988 ANR's that they could scan the "charter"/RPT", "specified routes", "fixed terminals" sections?

desmotronic

2nd Jul 2008, 15:44

In administrative law, an act may be judicially reviewable ultra vires in a narrow or broad sense. Narrow ultra vires applies if an administrator did not have the substantive power to make a decision or it was wrought with procedural defects. Broad ultra vires applies if there is an abuse of power (e.g., Wednesbury unreasonableness or bad faith) or a failure to exercise an administrative discretion (e.g., acting at the behest of another or unlawfully applying a government policy). Either doctrine may entitle a claimant to various prerogative writs, equitable remedies or statutory orders if they are satisfied.

so does casa get sued now?

crashdummy

2nd Jul 2008, 22:53

Let me get this right...CASA get bagged for never acting and when they do some judge who does not know the pointy end from the blunt end over rules the decision!
CASA need power or they should join the ACCC.

desmotronic

2nd Jul 2008, 23:00

Yeah right, who do those federal court judges think they are... :hmm:

PLovett

2nd Jul 2008, 23:19

crashdummy

Let me get this right...CASA get bagged for never acting and when they do some judge who does not know the pointy end from the blunt end over rules the decision!
CASA need power or they should join the ACCC.

The "some judge" in this matter obviously thought CASA didn't know the legal standard to be applied. He/she doesn't need to "know the pointy end from the blunt end", only the way in which law should be applied to fact, something the majority of posters on this thread have complained that CASA does not know how to do.

It used to be the case that CASA were able to take legal action through the AAT which is akin to shooting fish in a barrel. No rules of evidence or procedure, hearsay allowed, it was a plaintiffs version of parliamentary "coward's castle". Not sure whether they can still use the AAT but it appears that a defendant has to use the Federal Court where the rules of evidence and procedure are far more restrictive.

cans

2nd Jul 2008, 23:30

a couple of their frames were out and about yesterday...

crashdummy

2nd Jul 2008, 23:40

PLovett

People who have no understanding of aviation and charge 10G an hour should not be involved in any decissions relating to flying.
Perhaps CASA & the ACCC should merge?

Bendo

2nd Jul 2008, 23:50

Crash Dummy

What does the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission have to do with this?

Are there allegations of price fixing, collusion, or predatory pricing? :ugh:

No? Perhaps, Dummy, you are thinking of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal? :hmm:

crashdummy

3rd Jul 2008, 00:00

Bendo,

The ACCC are the body that keeps an eye on things such as fuel prices and achieves absolutley nothing.
Get my point.:E

Bendo

3rd Jul 2008, 02:49

Ah I see.

With you now. :}

PLovett

3rd Jul 2008, 04:52

Crashdummy, I may be missing something in your posts but if you are suggesting that there should be no recourse to the courts by way of an appeal against a CASA decision then you seriously need to consider what you are saying. In effect, CASA would be unrestrained.:mad:

I again make the point that by the time any aviation matter, such as an appeal against the cancellation of an AOC, gets to court it does not require special aviation knowledge. What is being decided is whether the decision is right in law, not whether it is right in fact. They are entirely different things.:=

crashdummy

3rd Jul 2008, 05:22

PLovett,

My point is that if you throw enough money at any court case aviation or not you will win regardless of it being right or wrong.

Let aviators judge aviators:ok:

Alice Kiwican

3rd Jul 2008, 05:35

It seems Ric will be on the news saying the shut down has cost about $1million.I wonder if there will be an attempt to recoup some of these losses.
Maybe more interesting times ahead for everyone involved

PLovett

3rd Jul 2008, 05:48

crashdummy, I cannot disagree with you more strongly and no, I am not trying to drum up business for my former profession.

This is the link to the actual hearing:

http://www.austlii.edu.au//au/cases/cth/federal_ct/2008/866.html

Please note that it was an interlocutory application only and it was purely about interpretation of the law or more accurately, what law should apply.

The matter is far from resolved but essentially it was an argument that CASA was attempting to put the company out of business by removing the Chief Pilot and Check Pilot. It was argued that if CASA had removed the company's AOC then under changes made in 2003 there would have been an automatic suspension of the decision pending any appeal whereas that did not apply by removing the personnel.

Now, the judge concerned did not necessarily agree with that but felt that there was sufficient arguable evidence to permit the application. The matter is now off to the AAT where all manner of slings and arrows can be set off without any responsibility. Unfortunately, those proceedings are not published. Paragraph 12 is the guts of the decision.

Justin Grogan

3rd Jul 2008, 06:23

It seems Ric will be on the news saying the shut down has cost about $1million.I wonder if there will be an attempt to recoup some of these losses.

Only $300,000 for this round. :ok:

Qantas pilots slam air safety regulator | The Australian (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23960585-23349,00.html)

Two_dogs

3rd Jul 2008, 06:36

The previous link is to a hearing held on 5th June 2008?

Did they not go to court on Monday 30th June or Tuesday 1st July?

PLovett

3rd Jul 2008, 09:56

Two dogs, you may be right as I got the link from thread about the Senate hearings and I didn't check the date. The hearing on 1 July may well have been the AAT hearing and unfortunately, as I said, their proceedings are not published. Pity, as the guts of the CASA argument would have been set out there.

virgindriver

4th Jul 2008, 08:05

Get your facts straight never heard of "Micheal Keating" it does your creadibility no good

I haven't heard of him either but I do know Martin? I have worked with him and wouldn't say anything other than he is ok.

Alice Kiwican

12th Jul 2008, 01:50

I see in the local Weipa paper (quality journalism) that CASA and Troppo's are in court this coming Friday 18th. Anyone want to take bets on the outcome this time around? Good luck to the guys and girls hope it all goes well and there is not too much of this :ugh: going on!

bushy

12th Jul 2008, 04:29

If you read Bill Hamilton's sbmission to the senate inquiry into casa you will see why these things are allowed to happen, and the structural problem which exists, and allows casa to do virtually anything they like. If left unchecked we could see an "authority" that is not answerable to the parliament or the courts, or anyone else.
Read ALL of it, and think about it. Bill is a retired Qantas 747 captain who has about 50 years experience in aviation.

RUMBEAR

22nd Jul 2008, 02:25

Any more news as too whats happening in the battle between CASA and ATAS???

witwiw

22nd Jul 2008, 07:59

From your experience do you think the pilots should remain with Troppo's or should they start looking for a new job?

Looks like the exodus has begun from the stories I've heard. Any substance to that?

bilbert

23rd Jul 2008, 04:09

AT is advertising for new pilots. CASA attempt to shutdown AT by pulling the CP appr. is before the AAT and has a stay on it. New CP in the pipeline. Expect business as usual unless CASA goes PR political again.

Unusual-Attitude

4th Oct 2008, 01:04

In the sh*t again it seems. :sad:

av8trflying

4th Oct 2008, 01:17

Any more info than that

Unusual-Attitude

4th Oct 2008, 02:11

Just heard they'd been grounded again. I feel for the poor new chief pilot.

Bob Murphie

4th Oct 2008, 03:53

CASA media release - Saturday 4 October 2008
CASA suspends Far North Queensland airline
The Civil Aviation Safety Authority suspended the operations of Cairns-based airline Lip Air Pty Ltd on Friday 3 October 2008.

Lip Air – which trades as Aero Tropics – was suspended because CASA believes there were, and are, serious and imminent risks to the safety of passengers travelling on the airline.

The safety of passengers is CASA's number one priority.

The airline has been grounded immediately. CASA will now make an application to the Federal Court to maintain the suspension for a period sufficient to allow CASA to complete its investigations, up to a maximum of 40 days.

At the completion of its investigations into safety deficiencies at Lip Air, CASA may seek to cancel the airline's air operator's certificate.

CASA has been looking closely into safety problems at Lip Air since September 2007. The airline and key personnel have been subject to a number of actions by CASA, taken to achieve improvements in safety performance.

On 27 June 2008, CASA suspended Lip Air's air operator's certificate. The Federal Court lifted that suspension on 2 July 2008 after imposing conditions on Lip Air's operations.

CASA has since imposed a number of strict new conditions on the airline, and has been closely monitoring Lip Air's adherence to these conditions to ensure critical operational safety outcomes are achieved.

In recent days CASA has discovered further evidence that safety standards within Lip Air have deteriorated, posing an unacceptable risk to aviation safety.

CASA's safety concerns with Lip Air centre on the systems relating to training, checking and supervision of the company's pilots.

Media contact:
Michelle Harris
mobile 0419 296 446
Ref: MR12608

bilbert

4th Oct 2008, 04:16

New CP only started 1 Sept. He spent the last 4 weeks running around, jumping through CASA hoops to get approvals before the only either C&T pilot's approval was pulled 30 Sep.

Do not, I repeat NOT, ever give any information to a CASA FOI you don't have to. They are not there to help and they exploit the fact that some seem to believe they may be sympathetic if you tell them your problems and what you're doing about them. They aren't. None of them.

sms777

4th Oct 2008, 05:14

Casa suspended operations of the Cairns based airline on 3. 10. 2008. It is believed there were, and are, serious and imminent risks to the safety of passengers travelling on the airline.
Details available on CASA's website.

zac21

4th Oct 2008, 05:44

Again ? :mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:

equal

4th Oct 2008, 06:49

casa have to be really careful here, if this gets thrown out at the courts again this will look really bad on their behalf.

Unusual-Attitude

4th Oct 2008, 07:16

Which brings the number of fixed wing operators on HID to two, Barrier and Cape Air, (if you take into account Regional are wrapping up on the tenth of this month). And who knows what is on the cards for CAT with Scotty 'incommunicado'....busy time ahead for BAS. Bad time for Tropo's crew again. :ooh:

Mr_Pilot

4th Oct 2008, 08:19

The Civil Aviation Safety Authority suspended the operations of Cairns-based airline Lip Air Pty Ltd on Friday 3 October 2008.

More information is available on the CASA website: Media release - CASA suspends Far North Queensland airline (http://www.casa.gov.au/media/2008/08-10-04.htm)

Anyone with a little more specific info than the indepth analysis provided by the media department of CASA??? How serious, and how likely are they to get it re issued... on going or otherwise?

A37575

4th Oct 2008, 14:52

Heard North Queensland industry rumour that an Islander ran out of fuel at start of take off run. Both engines failed. Fuel then had to be flown in and aircraft topped up. Passengers jacked up and CASA contacted. If true no wonder CASA moved fast. May have been another operator but certainly a coincidence,.

Hasselhof

4th Oct 2008, 23:30

From the ABC (http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/10/05/2382281.htm)

Airline put lives at risk, says CASA

The Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) has warned it may cancel the Cairns-based airline Aero-Tropics' operating certificate to prevent the company flying again.

Yesterday Lip-Air, which trades as Aero-Tropics, was suspended from flying due to two serious safety breaches on one flight last week.

CASA spokeswoman Michelle Harris says she cannot reveal what happened as the matter is under investigation, but passengers' lives were put in danger.

"One incident occurred on take-off and one occurred in flight," she said.

She says CASA grounded the airline in June because of safety concerns but it appealed against the decision to the Federal Court.

"Aero-Tropics were allowed to continue operating under strict conditions imposed by both the Federal Court and CASA," she said.

"Obviously we've been monitoring Aero-Tropics' adherence to those conditions, however the recent incidents give us some concern that standards aren't improving and are in fact deteriorating."

In a recorded message, Aero-Tropics has notified its customers of the grounding.

"CASA has again suspended all Aero-Tropics air services and flights effective immediately," it said.

"The company is currently considering all its options regarding the suspension and we should be in a position to know more on Monday October 6. We really sincerely apologise for any inconvenience caused by this suspension, thankyou."

Unusual-Attitude

5th Oct 2008, 02:38

A37575, thats pretty much it in a nut shell from what i hear, at YWBS. Kinda lucky in one respect, just a few more litres and they'd have all been swimming.

Same aircraft had a problem either later that day or the next in the air, possibly an engine problem/failure?

betaman

5th Oct 2008, 04:01

:eek:Heard North Queensland industry rumour that an Islander ran out of fuel at start of take off run. Both engines failed. Fuel then had to be flown in and aircraft topped up. Passengers jacked up and CASA contacted. If true no wonder CASA moved fast. May have been another operator but certainly a coincidence,.

If this is true then the company in question deserves the grief they are getting from CASA:mad:

I just find it hard to believe that a commercial operation in this day & age doesn't have the necessary SOP's in place to prevent this from happening:mad:

Are you sure that there was no extenuating circumstances like a fuel leak etc?