CASA Loses Again

[Walrus 7]

Some of you may have read in the AOPA testimony (http://http://www.aph.gov.au/hansard/senate/commttee/S10926.pdf) (p37)to the Senate Inquiry into CASA that:

This particular operator operates a flying school in Victoria. He sacked his chief flying instructor. Guess where he went? He went and got a job at CASA. Then it became payback time. This particular individual filmed with a video camera at 5 o’clock in the morning, supposedly showing that the aircraft was on a charter flight and had taken off in fog. I have been flying for long enough to know that the pilot is the only one who can determine if you have 1.8 forward visibility through the cockpit to take off. This particular individual filmed him taking off and said it was done in fog conditions.

Senator HEFFERNAN—Anyhow, that is pending.

Mr Rodgers—That is pending, yes.

Well it ain't pending anymore. The courts threw it out, but not before the successful defense cost the school $30K or so.

Walrus

[rotaryman]

CASA = Were Not Happy - Till your Not Happy...

One would expect the Operators lawyers to apply to the courts for an order for costs?

[lordofthewings]

Wouldnt be the first bloke to take a job at CASA and then target his previous employer..And these are the kind of wankers working for casa, what hope anyone got..

[tail wheel]

If the matter has been finalised by the Court and judgment published, it may help the rest of us if you publish a link to the Judgment?

:confused:

[Captain Starlight]

rotaryman

If the matter was heard in the AAT, (Administrative Appeals Tribunal) CASA's preferred playground, no costs are awarded.

If bastardry is afoot, as it used to be before BB's culture change, always seek to be prosecuted
rather than be played with in the AAT and let the costs be awarded appropriately.

[tail wheel]

It would help if we had more details, including which Court jurisdiction? :confused:

[Walrus 7]

Bastardry is definitely afoot, and I suspect there may be a spate of "routine" audits in the future.

I'm not sure where the ruling was made and a troll of the internet hasn't found it. I will keep trying and will post the link if I can find it. My information came from people who assisted with the defence.

Walrus

[Lasiorhinus]

That'd be Veritas Liberabit Vos.
:ok:

[Creampuff]

Court lists are public documents.

Instead of all the usual pointless second-hand commentary, could someone just post the name of the court and the date, and I will post a link to the public list.

[Walrus 7]

Creampuff,

I have been trying to find it. It happened in the Ringwood Magistrates Court on Friday 18 July. I've tried to find any decisions made by this court and haven't been successful. Will keep trying, though. I don't want to publish anything here that is not in the public domain.

Walrus

[PLovett]

A magistrates court is not normally a court of record. That is, there is no published record of its findings. Best chance is a local newspaper carrying a story unless the matter goes on appeal.

[Creampuff]

I've done a search of the Ringwood Magistrate's court list for 18 July 2008 (here:
Search Court Lists (http://svc114.wic016v.server-web.com/cgi-bin/searchlist.pl)) and the result is 'no cases'.

A magistrate's court's decisions might not be published, but the matter on which a decision is made should be listed.

Perhaps the lists are deleted after the day covered by the list.

[Walrus 7]

It's annoying that it's not on line anywhere. I suggest that people watch the Senate Submissions (http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committee/rrat_ctte/casa/submissions/sublist.htm) page carefully if they want more info. I am expecting a supplementary submission to support the original evidence.

Walrus

[gupta]

The court hearing was Monday, 21 July

[Creampuff]

The criminal list for the Ringwood Magistrates' Court for 21 July 2008 is here: Ringwood Magistrates' Court (http://svc114.wic016v.server-web.com/cgi-bin/mc_crim_list.pl?court=017&date=21072008)

Which matter is the matter to which this thread refers?

[tail wheel]

Can we hold off on the theories until Creampuff or Walrus can post the facts, preferably in the form of a judges decision, media summary or similar?

Thanks

Tail Wheel


My sincere apologies Creamie - no offense intended! :}

Just finger trouble! and a failure to re-read my post before hitting the submit button! :{

[Creampuff]

Walrus or Gupta, were either of you there? That is, were you in the court in question, when the matter in question was thrown out? If so, in what court were you located, and on what date were you located there?

Senate Committees sometimes get picky about the accuracy of minor facts like when something happened and where. And often people who don't get the 'when' and 'where' quite right, don't get the 'what' quite right.

[PS: TW, 'Creamcake' sounds slightly unsavoury!]

That sounds better! :} :}

Tail Wheel

[Creampuff]

I've already posted the court list for Ringwood Magistrates' Court for 21 July 2008.

This one smells like an embellished, third-hand account of half a story.

[rotaryman]

Ha Ha Ha Ha :ok:

Here we go!!

[Walrus 7]

It is annoying that I can't find the transcripts; indeed they may not be available to the public as others have mentioned. I know the information is good because I have spoken to the gentleman charged and he indicated he has viewed this thread. As he didn't say to me that anything I had posted was incorrect, I think it was fair of me to presume that my info is on the money.

There was more to the case than just the instance mentioned in the AOPA evidence to the senate inquiry. I don't have the full details of the other sides of it. I only know that all CASA charges were dismissed.

One of the reasons I don't want to start putting details down in that we don't know if the courts had ordered some things stay out of the public domain. I thought it was gutsy of the person who posted a name in here without getting his/her hands on the court decision first.

Walrus

[Creampuff]

You won't find a 'transcript' of a Magistrates' Court hearing anywhere, Walrus7.

Don't you realise how completely nonsensical all this looks?

You say:
- you've spoken to the gentleman charged
- he indicated he has viewed this thread
- he didn't say to you that anything you had posted was incorrect.

But earlier you said the date was the 18th and then Gupta said it was the 21st. Couldn't the gentleman remember on which date CASA was ignominiously defeated?

You also said 'we don't know if the courts had ordered some things stay out of the public domain.' Didn’t the gentleman know whether 'the courts' had issued such an order? After all, surely the gentlemen would have needed to know what the order was, in order to comply with it. And if there was any order of that kind, why have any of the details - dates and outcome - been revealed on pprune?

If I was 'charged by CASA' and the charges were in fact 'thrown out' by the court, I'd be on pprune in a microsecond, publishing the what, where and when in minute detail, and I would be perfectly entitled and free to do that. Courts don't order people not to reveal that charges against them have been dismissed.

This one still smells like an embellished, third-hand account of half a story, and it's getting smellier by the day.

[bluesky300]

Actually, as a (very) experienced aviation lawyer, it sounds to me like a perfectly reasonable account of CASA commencing a prosecution, and the Magistrate finding, for whatever reason, that the charges were not made out and dismissing the prosecution. Creampuff's 'smell' is frankly ridiculous. There are no reported decisions of Magistrate's court proceedings, and transcript can be requested but costs money.

[Creampuff]

If that happened on the 21st in the Ringwood Magistrates' court, why can't we identify which of the matters on the list for that court for that day was the matter the subject of this thread?

Why would there be any impediment to publishing the details?

[Lefthanded_Rock_Thrower]

If I was 'charged by CASA' and the charges were in fact 'thrown out' by the court, I'd be on pprune in a microsecond, publishing the what, where and when in minute detail, and I would be perfectly entitled and free to do that. Courts don't order people not to reveal that charges against them have been dismissed.


Unless of course you were signatory to a deed that stopped you from doing so, is this possible Creampuff ?, often the case if there are damages associated with the event, be it accepting liability or to avert further legal action, I do not know this to be the case, but is plausable.

[Creampuff]

Why would an accused, who has had charges dismissed against them, have to promise to do anything or not to do anything?

[PLovett]

There is another reason everyone is keeping quiet and that is the whole matter may be subject to appeal. People are keeping their heads down and ammunition clean until the appeal period has expired.

[Creampuff]

Why would the prospect of an appeal prevent the publication of the fact - if it is a fact - that on x date, at y court, z charges against person q were dismissed?

It either happened or it didn't, and publishing accurate details of the decision couldn't prejudice an appeal, could it?

[PLovett]

It was just a thought Creamie, just a thought. However, it was always a practice of mine not to speak too loudly after a win until the appeal period had lapsed. Rejoyce quietly was the go.

Incidentally I have no knowledge of this particular case at all. However, the thought struck me that the court list you posted may have only been the Victorian criminal list for that court on that day and not contain any Commonwealth matters.

Similarly, the difference in dates could have been due to a hearing on one date and the magistrates decision being handed down on the other. Due to the financial implications there would be little or no delay in handing down a decision.

[Walrus 7]

Settle down, people!

I said it was on the 18th because I misread an e-mail that used the phrase "last Friday". It was referring to a different conversation that occured before the court case. Sorry about that.

A researcher named James Michael has confirmed that the case did indeed happen at the Ringwood Magistrates Court No.7 on Monday 21 July 2008. He is chasing a copy of the transcript for us. When I have it in my hand, I will see what I can do to make it available to you all.

Creampuff, as far as the gentleman concerned not posting here. Until a couple of days ago he didn't even have a profile. He had to register to view this thread. Internet forums aren't his style. And before you ask, no, I don't know his profile name.

Walrus

[Creampuff]

I didn't say he had to post anything. My point on that issue was, I couldn't see any reason for not posting the details of the decision.

PLovett has provided some helpful (to me) suggestions as to why the parties may want to refrain from saying anything, and why the details may not be available on the court lists.

I look forward to finding out all of the details.

[rotaryman]

And generally i just love hearing / seeing that the Kestapo got their Ass Kicked yet again...what a pisser.. bloody Amateurs...:ugh::D

[Creampuff]

From page 36 at the link in the first post of this thread:CASA seem to spend an inordinate amount of time with their prosecution section. You heard from the previous gentleman, from the airlines, the fare-paying people, that there have not been prosecutions launched against them for many years. But in private enterprise, in private GA, prosecutions are rampant. CASA’s prosecution section is out of control.

[Islander Jock]

They might be about to lose another one. More to follow

[rotaryman]

LOVE IT!!!!!:ok:

[james michael]

Jock

Yes please. Adds to my research. Not to do with something that happened offshore is it?

As an aside, I also found Senate submission 47 an enthralling story.

[Islander Jock]

Nah false alarm. :{

[clapton]

Walrus 7

Well it ain't pending anymore. The courts threw it out,

As Creampuff put it so well:

This one smells like an embellished, third-hand account of half a story

Come on Walrus 7 if you know all the details of this case why not post them.

Perhaps it's because your account is exactly what Creampuff suspected -"an embellished, third-hand account of half a story".

The fact is that the Court did NOT throw it out at all as you allege.

What happened ws that the defendant was charged with 11 offences. Most related to maintenace issues - but also included a VCA and a breach of CAR 301 and a failure to endorese a maintenance release.

Far from the court throwing it out, the defendant pleaded guilty to 3 of the charges - the VCA, the 301 and failure to endorse maintenance release.

As a result of the defendant pleading guilty to 3 of the charges the DPP dropped the other 8 charges - nothing unusual about that - and it is entirely a matter for the DPP.

So the defendant was found guilty of the 3 charges but the court discharged the defendant under section 19B of the Crimes Act (C’lth) without proceeding to conviction upon the defendant entering a good behaviour bond. And the Magistrate made it clear that the offences were NOT trivial and believed that there should be higher penalties for some of the offences.

It seems clear that some of the posters on this thread have little idea of what they are talking about or simply like to distort the truth for their own motives. It’s no wonder they are reluctant to post proper factual information = can’t let the facts get in the way of a good story……….

For those interested, here are the relevant parts of section 19B

19B Discharge of offenders without proceeding to conviction
(1) Where:
(a) a person is charged before a court with a federal offence or federal offences; and
(b) the court is satisfied, in respect of that charge or more than one of those charges, that the charge is proved, but is of the opinion, having regard to:
(i) the character, antecedents, age, health or mental condition of the person;
(ii) the extent (if any) to which the offence is of a trivial nature; or
(iii) the extent (if any) to which the offence was committed under extenuating circumstances;
that it is inexpedient to inflict any punishment, or to inflict any punishment other than a nominal punishment, or that it is expedient to release the offender on probation;
the court may, by order:

(d) discharge the person, without proceeding to conviction in respect of any charge referred to in paragraph (c), upon his or her giving security, with or without sureties, by recognizance or otherwise, to the satisfaction of the court, that he or she will comply with the following conditions:
(i) that he or she will be of good behaviour for such period, not exceeding 3 years, as the court specifies in the order;
(ii) that he or she will make such reparation or restitution, or pay such compensation, in respect of the offence or offences concerned (if any), or pay such costs in respect of his or her prosecution for the offence or offences concerned (if any), as the court specifies in the order (being reparation, restitution, compensation or costs that the court is empowered to require the person to make or pay):
(A) on or before a date specified in the order; or
(B) in the case of reparation or restitution by way of money payment or in the case of the payment of compensation or an amount of costs—by specified instalments as provided in the order; and
(iii) that he or she will, during a period, not exceeding 2 years, that is specified in the order in accordance with subparagraph (i), comply with such other conditions (if any) as the court thinks fit to specify in the order, which conditions may include the condition that the person will, during the period so specified, be subject to the supervision of a probation officer appointed in accordance with the order and obey all reasonable directions of a probation officer so appointed.

[VH-MLE]

Dictionary defintion of "story" = "a piece of fiction". There you go.

[clapton]

VH MLE

"As an aside, I also found Senate submission 47 an enthralling story

Dictionary defintion of "story" = "a piece of fiction". There you go.

Well said......

[Mr. Hat]

i'd love to share the details (but i cant) i know of someone that gave CASA yet another bare bottom spanking a little while ago.

just goes to show what goes around comes around boys. worst thing is you never know when you might run into bloggs again. oops:ok:

[clapton]

Mr Hat

i'd love to share the details (but i cant) i know of someone that gave CASA yet another bare bottom spanking a little while ago.

I'm sure you have the same sort of "credible" details as Walrus 7....and if you don't, you can just make it up anyway....

[Walrus 7]

I'm standing by what I have said here. There are two reasons why I don't post the details here.

1. The defendant doesn't want me to, even though he graciously offered to waive that to counter the rubbish Creampuff has been posting (to that man, thanks again).

2. I believe that the matter is now the subject of a CASA internal investigation. In other words, the fat lady has one more song to sing.

I'm a patient bloke ... and no amount of goading will change that.

Walrus

[VH-XXX]

Perhaps if Mr Walrus just PM's me with all the details, I'll de-identify and post here, then everyone is happy!

[james michael]

Gentlefolks

I do have the details, I will have the court transcripts in my hands next week, and I commend Walrus for his stand.

Clapton, you are remarkably well informed. To further assist your information, here is an interesting statistic about this VCA matter.

Prosecutions for violations of controlled airspace i.e., breaches of CAR 99AA(7) and/or CAR 100(1), (2) and/or (3)) in the years 2005 to 2008 for the full calendar years 2005, 2006 and 2007, and to 30 June 2008.

1 - i.e. ONE.

Estimated VCA during that period - based on CASA data of 2553 actual for 05 & 06 - 4468. Some of which were far more risky, and if you examine the CASA OAR study for Avalon where heavy PTO are at risk, rather than bird life in the Albury airspace where the 1 occurred - you will find at least one aircraft avoidance - but NO prosecutions.

On the maintenance release matter the CASA prosecution may have seemed less perverse had they prosecuted the pilot also - given he caused the damage and was PIC at the time of the damage.

Certainly, as Clapton points out in his defence of the regulator, there was plea bargaining that created the plea of guilty for the three residual charges. Certainly, also, an expert legal opinion noted afterward that "dismissal of a charge found proven (whether after a contest or upon a plea of guilty) is a result not commonly achieved". Perhaps the judge saw something in this prosecution that made his question the odds?

I am researching this for a further investigation; I am a researcher not a lawyer, I don't intend to share the material (sorry XXX) and I don't intend to debate the facts I have provided.

I continue to find Submission 47 an interesting story - perhaps because I realise the 'fiction' may occur in either party, and particularly when I note the parallels to this matter. Just my opinion.

While I continue to work on researching the matter, I am certain a discussion hereon on probability theory will find good reason why CASA proceeded to prosecute this matter.

After all, odds of 1 in 4468 are something we find every day - no?

[Mr. Hat]

clappedton

and if you don't, you can just make it up

nah i leave sort of thing to people at CASA

[clapton]

JM

Clapton, you are remarkably well informed. To further assist your information, here is an interesting statistic about this VCA matter.


Funny how all the other well informed individuals seemed incapable of posting the real facts about the case. However, you seem to miss the point of my posts.

No one was arguing about how many times VCAs etc have been prosecuted. That is a totally different issue - and I don't necessarily disagree with you on that point.

I was responding to Walrus 7 and his completely false statements that the "court threw out" all the charges. That is demonstrably wrong and it is a pity that such rubbish is posted on PPRUNE masquerading as fact. If you want to post material then it should at least be accurate and factual not a rant by someone who knows nothing about the real details or who deliberately posts misleading information as part of some ideological vendetta against CASA.

Further, your comment:

Certainly, also, an expert legal opinion noted afterward that "dismissal of a charge found proven (whether after a contest or upon a plea of guilty) is a result not commonly achieved"

Not sure what expertise this expert has if he thinks that section 19B orders are "not commonly achieved". Must be practising law on a different planet if that is his "expert legal opinion".

As for Mr Hat, if you had the detail then you would post it. Problem is that obviously doesn't and are happy to throw mud without any evidence.

As for Walrus 7's last comment:

2. I believe that the matter is now the subject of a CASA internal investigation. In other words, the fat lady has one more song to sing.

It would be interesting to see what the internal investigation comes up with - as far as I was aware the Complaints Commissioner has no jurisdiction or ability to investigate the DPP - and it is the DPP who run prosecutions and decide which charges to proceed with, how to run the case, whether or not to drop charges (have a read of the Director of Prosecutions Act). So what will he be investigating? But no doubt W7 you will post all the factual details of the investigation - won't you - however, just stick to facts not some embellished story that you make up.

[james michael]

Clapton

He is practising law on this planet, and very well I add.

I believe the Walrus statement would be based on that very point - that the beak did not proceed to penalty.

The ICC certainly cannot investigate the DPP and the point of any investigation will be to determine why this one VCA was put forward via the CASA PLO area to reach the DPP in the first place. You will note I have not once mentioned 'payback'.

The ICC will, by arrangement, receive a copy of my research at end August. I am also waiting on the CASA PLO for some promised information.

[Walrus 7]

Clapton,

No, I don't think I will post the details, simply because you want me to if nothing else. I'm not very good and being told what I have to do and get very obstinate. So, others are privvy to this information, and they can post it if they want. I had further discussions on the matter with the defendant on the weekend, who was concerned at the barbs I was getting in this thread, but I told him that I don't remember any law that says I have to post just because other posters tell me I must.

That, and information has reached me that contacts within CASA are watching this post very carefully. And to them I give nothing, because I don't trust them not to abuse their power (sorry boys, but you've created this mistrust).

Walrus

[Mr. Hat]

No just don't have the parties permission and i'm not going to ask for it either. It's just a post, just a forum. It seems to bother you to hear that casa might have lost or heavens forbid be in the wrong.

So here it is. CASA are always right and the paying public shall be forever in debt to them.

Who cares i'll delete all the posts if you wont i don't mind at all.

[rotaryman]

CASA = We Are Not Happy Until Your Not Happy...

Pack of Incompetent bureaucrats the lot of them!!:ok:

[VH-XXX]

I'm getting frustrated reading this thread. Can someone just post whatever happened? I saw a post elsewhere naming names, so there's no secrets as far as who, just what!

[Walrus 7]

VH-XXX,

Basically CASA bought 11 charges against an operator. Eight of those didn't get to court. The ones that did were dismissed by the magistrate even though the defendant pleaded guilty. This is rare, a mate who is a senior DPP solicitor (too senior to deal with magistrates courts) indicated so, even though it is allowed for under Vic law.

To sum up: CASA charged the operator with a VCA even though the operator had self-reported the incident to the ATSB, which is supposed to give you immunity from CASA prosecution. There are some exceptions to this immunity, such as if the VCA was intentional. I really don't know if this is why CASA bought the charge. What was alarming is that it was the only action taken against a VCA even thought there was over 4000 VCAs over a two-year period. The VCA concerned happened in 2005.

The defendant had to pay out $30K in legal fees and now the ICC is having a look at why those charges were bought in the first place.

There were some other charges involved in the incident, including something about a maintenance release not being signed, or not signed correctly. I was told but really don't remember the details right now. As I have said on two occasions before, the defendant has asked that intimate details not be made public on PPRuNe. Certainly that is a good idea. We need to let the CASA ICC investigation runs its course.

Apparently a de-identified story is going to appear in the next issue of the AOPA members magazine (it says so in the current issue). Once that is out, I suppose we can all go to town on this subject.

XXX, if you really want to know more, ring the person that you thought I was.

Walrus

[clapton]

Walrus 7

It's clear that you really don't know what you are talking about.

Please read my earlier post on 14 August about the real details.

The Magistrate did not dismiss the 3 charges as you persistently claim.

The defendant pleaded guilty to the 3 charges ie he admitted that he committed the offences. That is black and white. The charges were therfore proven.

What the Magistrate did was then not proceed to convict the person under section 19B of the Crimes Act upon the defendant entering a good behaviour bond. Courts don't impose good behaviour bonds on innocent people!

Funny that if you know so much you don't even know what the other charges were:

There were some other charges involved in the incident, including something about a maintenance release not being signed, or not signed correctly. I was told but really don't remember the details right now.

I don't think you know very much about the matter at all - just like to throw mud.

As for a de-identified story appearing in the AOPA magazine - whoopee - we know how very objective AOPA is in reporting facts. Remember the world was going to come to an end with strict liability according to AOPA. They also don't know what they don't know...it's a pity poor souls like you actually take notice of what they say. I have yet to see a factual story about CASA in the AOPA magazine.

Just for your edification, here is section 19B of the Crimes Act Act again - perhaps you can show me where it empowers a Magistrate to 'dismiss" the charges (as you allege) in the circumstances set out in that section and which applied in this case.

As for your senior DPP solicitor - he must be living on a different planet if he doesn't know that there is nothing unusual about section 19B Orders - and they have nothing to do with Victorian law by the way - this is a Commonwealth law that we are dealing with.

Just stick to facts rather that misrepresenting the truth:

19B Discharge of offenders without proceeding to conviction
(1) Where:
(a) a person is charged before a court with a federal offence or federal offences; and
(b) the court is satisfied, in respect of that charge or more than one of those charges, that the charge is proved, but is of the opinion, having regard to:
(i) the character, antecedents, age, health or mental condition of the person;
(ii) the extent (if any) to which the offence is of a trivial nature; or
(iii) the extent (if any) to which the offence was committed under extenuating circumstances;
that it is inexpedient to inflict any punishment, or to inflict any punishment other than a nominal punishment, or that it is expedient to release the offender on probation;
the court may, by order:

(d) discharge the person, without proceeding to conviction in respect of any charge referred to in paragraph (c), upon his or her giving security, with or without sureties, by recognizance or otherwise, to the satisfaction of the court, that he or she will comply with the following conditions:
(i) that he or she will be of good behaviour for such period, not exceeding 3 years, as the court specifies in the order;
(ii) that he or she will make such reparation or restitution, or pay such compensation, in respect of the offence or offences concerned (if any), or pay such costs in respect of his or her prosecution for the offence or offences concerned (if any), as the court specifies in the order (being reparation, restitution, compensation or costs that the court is empowered to require the person to make or pay):
(A) on or before a date specified in the order; or
(B) in the case of reparation or restitution by way of money payment or in the case of the payment of compensation or an amount of costs—by specified instalments as provided in the order; and
(iii) that he or she will, during a period, not exceeding 2 years, that is specified in the order in accordance with subparagraph (i), comply with such other conditions (if any) as the court thinks fit to specify in the order, which conditions may include the condition that the person will, during the period so specified, be subject to the supervision of a probation officer appointed in accordance with the order and obey all reasonable directions of a probation officer so appointed.

.

[james michael]

Clapton

Why not take your CASA wig orf and examine this objectively.

Remember the world was going to come to an end with strict liability according to AOPA.This was an offence of strict liability - therefore one asks why around four and a half thousand other criminals have been allowed to commit VCA without punitive action if the offence justifies the SL categorisation?

I have yet to see a factual story about CASA in the AOPA magazine.Oh dear, that ruins my reading. I have their current mag in front of me and it says good things about CASA in several cases. Oh well, I guess if it's not factual I'll just have to believe your impression of the CASA 'Judge Roy Bean' instead ;)

Your bias is showing, Clappers. Bit like the bias of one of the involved parties in the CASA investigation of this matter - if we moved to the real world of business and company law we might call it conflict of interest perhaps.

If this had been Mr Plod waiting for one motorist out of 4500 driving past it would be getting a media pasting.

I'm still researching and my hope of visiting the location to examine their doco might slip to next week due to needing to sort out some research into a dodgy shire matter, so I'll leave it at that for now.

Sorry about the delay but if it takes CASA over 3 years to prosecute a 'danger to aviation' I think my delay is acceptable.

Perhaps readers can give some thought to my earlier comment re statistical probability and when a matter becomes NOT the due process of law as you suggest with your Crimes Act etc quotes - but the use of the CASA process for selective attack on someone who was a thorn in the side for pointing out publicly a number of apparent CASA failures to pursue serious safety matters.

Hint - you don't just need to owe money to payback :hmm:

[clapton]

JM

Unfortunmately you don't know what you are talking about - and like AOPA you don't present the whole truth - just selective bits that suit your story.

And oh my gosh - if you are doing "research" on this issue when you don't seem to understand anything about the legal process or the law then heaven help us all. But then again that never stopped the the "experts" in AOPA trotting out rubbish either.

As mfor the CASA Industry Complaints Commissioner , he's just a Byron sop to placate the small vocal minority of industry whingers like AOPA.

[rotaryman]

clapton:

You must have 2 dicks, you really couldn't be that stupid playing with 1 :mad: Quite obviously your a CASA tugger!!

[james michael]

Rotaryman :ok::ok:

Clapton

I love your glasses - photochromatic and able to go rose coloured when looking at CASA but immediately darken when looking at the real world. Fortunately, with the staff turnover in CASA now about 50% since the Byron change process commenced, those glasses are now far less found.

The ICC you denigrate has made substantial and valuable change that impacts on genuine aviation safety and CASA safety results - I guess that's why you dislike him? :=

Trotting out rubbish? Seems there's a lot of organisations and people fitting your criteria - just look at the Senate Enq submissions and look at the way the organisations are all collaborating more closely these days - the old CASA 'divide and conquer' tactic is being overtaken by a mature responsible industry taking more control of its own destiny. When I note you criticising and bagging organisations like AOPA - I know they must be having some effect :ok:

just selective bits that suit your story Too funny - now I know I hit a nerve with the 1 in 4500 when all you come back with is rhetoric and nastiness. But, one must concur - 1 in 4500 was certainly a 'selective bit to suit a CASA story' :D

The days of Roy Bean and his 'Ilk' are being overtaken by the new CASA regime and I am certain my research will assist that new regime to keep moving the culture so that the AVERAGE pilot, aircraft owner, AOC holder will get coaching and support, not Gestapo treatment.

Then CASA can concentrate on the Pareto imperatives - the airlines and fare paying pax, and the small minority of recalcitrants and repeat offenders.

My research has confirmed several things already (although since the information is from the defence legal person you previously criticised I guess that means you can discount it).
1. No prior convictions.
2. There was evidence in writing that a CASA FOI had made a conscious decision that no further action would be taken in relation to the VCA.

Stranger and stranger Clapton. You may wish to reconsider my earlier hint ;)

[bushy]

Maybe CASA people should look at the case of Pan? pharmacueticals, where they sued the govt for squillions and got an " out of court settlement". Obviously things had not been right and a govt department did not want this to escalate further.

This is not directly aviation related but is an example of what can happen when companies are unhappy with the regulator of their industry.

There are some very good people in CASA. But there are rigid, militaristic SOP's, and it appears there are people who are using the rules to commercially regulate the industry.

Thank god for AOPA. It is an organisation that is able to challenge what they consider is unfair.

Thank god for the efforts of Boyd Munro and Dick Smith, experienced aviators who are also able and willing to challenge what they consider is incorrect. It is interesting to note that both of these gentlemen are not dependent on aviation for their livelyhood. Those who rely on aviation for their income are less likely to seak out. I wonder why.

Clapton
I will not say you are a fool or arrogant or anything like that. I leave that sort of behaviour to others.
But I would suggest that next time you post, you should delete the first sentence before you submit your reply.

[Jabawocky]

Bushy
:D :ok:

Well said.

[Section28- BE]

bushy

Well said- Pan from memory was $50 million plus another $5 million in costs.

In my humble opinion- this Senate enquiry should really go back and encompass the events and action/s of 2000 and 2001- there are some very similar tones in my view.

Not that I'm a huge fan or believer that this full frontal assault of bulk enquiries on every aspect of Government policy will actually deliver productive reform to any area, it's Government abrogating it's responsibility to govern - didn't they have all the answers on 24 Nov 07????. And yes for balance before someone jumps down my throat- the other mob did bugger all on this particular front.

We have seen this Governing by Enquiry and Action Plan etc etc ad nauseam from the State Gvt's it delivers nothing but career progression/sustenance for hacks and hangers on.

Aviation by it's nature never seems to transmit well whether it be via media or Government engagement.

[sprocket check]

For those that are interested in making CASA answer for their wrongdoings, here is some interesting reading - the senate estimates committee hearings:

ParlInfo Web - View Document (http://parlinfoweb.aph.gov.au/piweb/view_document.aspx?id=104770&table=ESTIMATE)

This is why, if you want something to change, you need to write to your senate representative. They love making public servants do what they are supposed-serve the public.

The thing is, if CASA was helpful, efficient and progressive and not a schoolyard bully, there would be no problem, would there?

sc