Honour amongst thieves.

[Kharon]

CASA-Bennetts-AAT-Fice. (http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/cth/AATA/2012/183.html?stem=0&synonyms=0&query=title%28Civil%20Aviation%20Safety%20Authority%20%29)

 The evidence before me on this stay application comprised a number of documents provided by CASA pursuant to s 37 of the AAT Act as well as an affidavit sworn by Mr Hanley on 7 March 2012. These 37 documents contained a statement provided to CASA by Mr Michael Andrew Hope on 8 December 2011. Mr Hope is the owner of the helicopter which was damaged in the heavy landing incident and he was also the student pilot receiving training from Mr Hanley at the time of the incident.

 Initially, Mr Hope informed CASA investigator, Mr Shaun Bennetts, that following the heavy landing, the helicopter was not taxied back to the hangar. However, some six weeks after the heavy landing incident, Mr Hope changed his evidence stating in his statement to CASA that after Mr Hanley inspected the helicopter following the heavy landing, it was taxied back to the hangar, a short distance of approximately 100-200 m from where the landing occurred. Mr Hope gave no reasons for changing the evidence which he gave to CASA.

 In his affidavit Mr Hanley said that following the heavy landing, he and Mr Hope sat in the helicopter for about 2 minutes and completed the steps necessary to shut down the engine. He said that they got out of the helicopter, walked around it and noticed there was damage to the tail which consisted of a kink to the lower side of the tail boom and damage to the left rear skid anchor point. Mr Hanley said he told Mr Hope that there would not be any more flying on that day. Mr Hanley said Mr Hope became agitated and he told Mr Hope to go home. He said Mr Hope returned to his car, which was parked adjacent to the flying school hangar, and left the airfield. Mr Hanley said he then walked to the hangar and hooked up a quad bike and tow bar which is usually used to move large helicopters into and out of the hangar. Using the quad bike and a set of dual wheels which were affixed to the helicopter, he towed the helicopter back to the hangar.

 It is not clear to me whether there were any other witnesses to this incident. While CASA did not refer to any witnesses who may have observed the incident, in an Investigation Report dated 12 December 2011 the investigator, Mr Bennetts, stated that Mr Hopewas subsequently contacted following industry intelligence being received which indicated that the information Mr Hanley provided to CASA was false. According to Mr Bennetts, the industry intelligence was received on 5 December 2011 and, following the discussion with Mr Hope, he apparently confirmed that the information he previously gave to CASA was false and that the helicopter had in fact been flown after the heavy landing.

 In the course of the stay application hearing, Mr Anthony Carter, a lawyer with the legal branch of CASA, indicated that CASA would provide further information about the industry intelligence said to have been received by Mr Bennetts. Despite the conversation between Mr Hope and Mr Bennetts apparently being the trigger for Mr Hope changing the statement he provided to CASA on 10 November 2011, no reference is made to it in the show cause notice or the notice of cancellation issued by CASA. In fact, the cancellation notice states that Mr Hope approached CASA of his own volition to correct the record concerning the events which occurred following the heavy landing.

Does the proposed punishment fit the 'alleged' crime?.
What does a jury of peers think ?.

[VH-XXX]

In summary:

Aircraft is damaged; assessed by the pilot as no longer suitable for flight.
Aircraft is then flown.
Presumably the pilot or instructor are not LAME's.
Show cause given.

Would you (any pilot) fly an aircraft that was damaged after a hard landing and has visible damage? Probably not, I hope.

Based on the simple facts, the aircraft should not have been flown.

Am I missing something?

It would have been a lot easier to ride the quad bike over and pick up the chopper. I can't help but wonder why the instructor sent the owner home, then moved it of his own accord without the use of the quad bike; probably seemed easier at the time.

[Horatio Leafblower]

Would I fly an aircraft after a heavy landing? No.

Would I taxi an aircraft after a heavy landing? Probably.

I am quite sure that the alleged offence is one of strict lability and so the intent of the alleged offender and the circumstances surrounding the event are outside the scope of the tribunal's contemplation. Pity.

As for sending the student home - I presume that Mr Hope decided to get agro towards his instructor and gave him an earful about who would be paying for the damage, to which the instructor replied "Get f:mad:cked" or similar.

Changing your story means you have lied to the investigator at last once. If the only evidence for the instructors alleged actions is a changed story, with no corroboration, how could it stand up? :confused: How would that be just? :confused:

[No Hoper]

Agree with XXX,
Horatio, it is a light helicopter with a bent tailboom and detached landing gear - would you still hover it?

[VH-XXX]

As for sending the student home

The student is the owner of the helicopter; I can't see that the instructor has the right to send him home.

It's a can of worms for the instructor. Imagine if when he lands back at the hangar, the landing gear collapses and the heli rolls over and is destroyed. No insurance in the world would cover that and I'm tipping his pay packet wouldn't either. If it was the owner that taxiied it, then fair enough (from a moral, not from a legal perspective though).

I say find another instructor. I sure as hell wouldn't want someone taxiing (flying) my aircraft without my approval particularly after a hard landing when a quad bike and trolley was near by.

[Horatio Leafblower]

NH and XXX, you both make fair points.

I am biased, having been burnt by Mr Hope in the past and, personally, having a very low view of him. :*

[rmcdonal]

Was it actually taxied back to the hanger? Seem like that bit is yet to be proven.

[Ejector]

looks like a CASA is on a witch hunt.

[havick]

looks like a CASA is on a witch hunt.

Or just doing their jobs?

Based on the previous posts it sounds like helicopter gets bent, then pilot decides to start it up again and taxi it back to the hangar.. Honestly I can't blame CASA chasing this one with what is really black and white (allegedly).

[Creampuff]

Who makes many of the allegations about regulatory breaches, volunteers lots of information to support allegations of regulatory breaches, and puts lots of pressure on the regulator to take action in response to alleged regulatory breaches?

Mirrors ready.

Mirrors up.

Perhaps that’s why Kharon italicised the phrase ‘industry intelligence’ in the quote in the OP (though I concede it’s often very difficult for me to discern any rhyme or reason to Kharon’s posts.)

[Kharon]

CP - Not my italics - check the link and try to read the text. I simply copied and pasted from the transcript. I offered this AAT hearing with no comment, just a couple of questions. The 'case' is intriguing from many aspects, so.

Lets try again; first RTFT then, lets have a grown up 'jury of peers' discussion.

Unless of course, you decide to be a complete Casasexual (once again) and defend, deny and depend on the slimmest of subtle wording deeply rooted in the current stew of prescriptive, never tested criminal penalty law that CASA prefer to use - out of court.

Administrative power over a pilots livelihood stinks to the high heavens. An administrative ruling and policy must not be allowed to wreck a career.

The crime is not proven - the penalty requested is effectively a 'death sentence' for a working pilot and there must be room at least for reasonable doubt over the probity of the evidence.

Love to hear this in court instead of the AAT. Matter of fact I'd probably insist on it.

[Frank Arouet]

Who makes many of the allegations about regulatory breaches, volunteers lots of information to support allegations of regulatory breaches, and puts lots of pressure on the regulator to take action in response to alleged regulatory breaches?

ME!

Want to discuss it further?

[No Hoper]

Intriguing that some can see a blatant disregard of basic airmanship as something to warrant talking bout.
Do agree that your Regs are overtly penalty orientated

[thorn bird]

On the basis of the AAT record, and without corroborating evidence, it would seem its down to one persons word against another, one of whom by changing their story already appears to be be untruthful.
In a "PROPER" court and not CASA's kangaroo variety would this "Evidence" be admissable?
From my sad experience, on multiple occasions, so called "industry informants" turn out to be commercial competitors utilizing CASA's voracious appetite for notches on their guns (think promotion and bonuses ie bounty for scalps) to make mischief, the sad thing is you are guilty until you prove yourself innocent which involves time and money and redirects resources that would be better spent elsewhere in the business, like promoting "SAFETY". There are many rumours of CASA snitches who as protected species can get away with anything, even down to sabotaging competitors aircraft and what do CASA say??...not our problem.

[gobbledock]

I think 'honor amongst thieves' is way too kind and simply reflected Kharon being in a good mood when he posted this thread!
'Honor amongst turds' comes to mind? Or how about 'honor amongst sociopaths'? Or 'honor amongst incompetents'? Or maybe 'honor amongst bonus recipients'?
Damn it, I knew I forgot one - 'honor amongst swine' oink oink where has that trough gone, oink. (Don't worry K, no photos of pigs at the trough with their giant plums exposed, this time) oink.

[Sunfish]

However, some six weeks after the heavy landing incident, Mr Hope changed his evidence stating in his statement to CASA that after Mr Hanley inspected the helicopter following the heavy landing, it was taxied back to the hangar, a short distance of approximately 100-200 m from where the landing occurred. Mr Hope gave no reasons for changing the evidence which he gave to CASA.

In his affidavit Mr Hanley said that following the heavy landing, he and Mr Hope sat in the helicopter for about 2 minutes and completed the steps necessary to shut down the engine. He said that they got out of the helicopter, walked around it and noticed there was damage to the tail which consisted of a kink to the lower side of the tail boom and damage to the left rear skid anchor point. Mr Hanley said he told Mr Hope that there would not be any more flying on that day. Mr Hanley said Mr Hope became agitated and he told Mr Hope to go home. He said Mr Hope returned to his car, which was parked adjacent to the flying school hangar, and left the airfield. Mr Hanley said he then walked to the hangar and hooked up a quad bike and tow bar which is usually used to move large helicopters into and out of the hangar. Using the quad bike and a set of dual wheels which were affixed to the helicopter, he towed the helicopter back to the hangar.

...................

CASA also relied on an incident which took place on 7 March 2004 when Mr Hanley was the pilot in command of a helicopter at Bankstown airport. On that occasion, Mr Hanley was demonstrating low-level manoeuvres when the aircraft struck the ground causing damage to the rotor blades, the skids and the engine sub-frame assembly. Following that ground strike, Mr Hanley hover-taxied the aircraft back to the maintenance facility. CASA did not take action against Mr Hanley following that incident because it said it could not establish that at least some of the damage sustained was damage of which Mr Hanley must have been aware prior to taxing the aircraft back to the hangar. Nevertheless, CASA contended that the incident demonstrated that Mr Hanley had a previous history of operating a helicopter in similar circumstances after the helicopter had sustained damage in an uncontrolled ground contact.




I think we can draw some conclusions from this:

1. A personal camera and data logger are vital tools for professional pilots if any incident allegedly occurs. One never knows when misunderstandings, and resulting allegations will occur - even months after a flight.

2. It is unwise to be a "slow learner". Specifically if Mr. Hanley repeated a behaviour (allegedly taxiing a damaged helicopter) that had previously brought him to the attention of CASA, then he is very foolish indeed.


3. The threshold for what CASA deems to be solid evidence of wrongdoing appears to be rather flexible. "Industry Intelligence?" In Melbourne the source for all sorts of information was "Snowy on the trams" - the tram conductor who obviously had a son - The Townsville refueller.

I think the good AAT commissioner was as perplexed as the rest of us as to why a witness would allegedly change the entire thrust of their evidence, without which no offence could even have been alleged, Six weeks after an event.


....But hey, what would I know?

[No Hoper]

In his affidavit Mr Hanley said that following the heavy landing, he and Mr Hope sat in the helicopter for about 2 minutes and completed the steps necessary to shut down the engine

Would you sit and carry out shutdown after a bounce or quickly shut it off to prevent further damage?

[Kharon]

GD - and simply reflected Kharon being in a good mood when he posted this thread!.
Correct – very sanguine and cheery at the time.
Sunny - I think the good AAT commissioner was as perplexed as the rest of us as to why a witness would allegedly change the entire thrust of their evidence, without which no offence could even have been alleged, Six weeks after an event. That's one of the issues which caught my interest; the contradictions and how would Senior Member Fice sort them out, 'not a job I'd like', thought I. It's a tough call and had me wondering about "how" best to sort the wheat from the chaff. There are several interesting, albeit contradictory 'things' in the transcript which make it worth a coffee.
In a matter like this where CASA want the guys head, can the AAT offer an arm or a leg instead – mayhap suspend him instead of doing the Queen of Hearts thing ??, provided of course, there is a guilty call made.

[VH-XXX]

Would you sit and carry out shutdown after a bounce or quickly shut it off to prevent further damage?

I would be wanting to get out as quickly as possible in case the u/c collapsed and it rolled over with the engine or blades running.

[Aussie Bob]

Would you sit and carry out shutdown after a bounce or quickly shut it off to prevent further damage?

I would be shutting it down as quickly as possible and in my guess, in a helicopter this would take around 2 minutes.

I would be wanting to get out as quickly as possible in case the u/c collapsed and it rolled over with the engine or blades running.

That too, but I think I would be waiting for the blades to stop before stepping out!

Based on the evidence presented in this thread I would suggest that it was an extremely dumb thing to do to taxi this aircraft. I would be extremely pissed if it turned up at my hanger in the hover but then again I haven't seen the damage either.

CASA have a difficult job, not for me, I am not happy playing judge and never will be, but I guess in this industry someone has to.

[blackhand]

in a helicopter this would take around 2 minutes

That is to do complete shut down procedure, quick shutdown is simply turn off the fuel.

[MakeItHappenCaptain]

I think the good AAT commissioner was as perplexed as the rest of us as to why a witness would allegedly change the entire thrust of their evidence, without which no offence could even have been alleged, Six weeks after an event.

Is there a chance it was discovered the original event wasn't insured (eg training not stipulated on the policy)?

Then again, previous evidence would support otherwise...

[Frank Arouet]

I've probably missed something here, but;

1) The owner of the aircraft, (Hope), was the student who was probably flying it at the time? He gave a "statement" to CASA which they relied upon as evidence then subsequently changed that "statement" after prompting by CASA of "industry intelligence"?

2) The PIC was the Instructor, (Hanley), who gave a "sworn affidavit" that was at odds with Hope's amended "statement"?

3) There is only "industry intelligence" to back the "amended statement" of Hope?

4) The "industry intelligence" has not been supported with an identity nor corroborated.

5) It seems to appear that an "amended", "anonomous" "statement to CASA" has some form of superior Court meaning to that of a "sworn affidavit".

6) By my definition there is no evidence to support the notion that the aircraft was hover-taxied however meters and, on the balance of probabilities the quad was the most sensible method of moving the carcass.



May I be so bold as to post an excerpt from Jetblast, http://www.pprune.org/jet-blast/477678-war-australia-any-oz-politics-40.html Where I am an avid reader which reminds people how one can get into trouble with "fiddling" with rules that have served us well for hundreds of years;

"Unfortunately, there is no presumption of innocence for Mr Slipper. My advice, from an experienced industrial lawyer, is that Mr Ashby is accusing Mr Slipper of an 'Adverse Action' under s. 351 of the Fair Work Act 2009, which provides that the onus of proof is on the employer (Slipper) to prove that his action (putting the hard word on Ashby) was not intended to do what the complainant Ashby claims it was intended to do.

This reversal of the onus of proof is friendly to complainants and unfriendly to employers. It's a controversial provision of the new Fair Work Act.

Guess who drafted the Fair Work Act and insisted on the reversal of the onus of proof?

Julia Gillard. Ha ha.

Here's the provision:

Commonwealth Consolidated Acts

FAIR WORK ACT 2009 - SECT 361

Reason for action to be presumed unless proved otherwise

(1) If:

(a) in an application in relation to a contravention of this Part, it is alleged that a person took, or is taking, action for a particular reason or with a particular intent; and

(b) taking that action for that reason or with that intent would constitute a contravention of this Part;

it is presumed, in proceedings arising from the application, that the action was, or is being, taken for that reason or with that intent, unless the person proves otherwise".

[No Hoper]

This one?
Investigation: AO-2011-141 - Hard landing - Bell Helicopter 206, VH-AYP, Maitland Airport, NSW, 29 October 2011 (http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2011/aair/ao-2011-141.aspx)

[rutan around]

It's very lucky this incident involves flying and CASA Imagine if it involved a motorist and a the police. The motorist receives a letter in the mail along these lines: Dear Sir, We are cancelling your license forever effective immediately . After investigating the minor accident which occurred 6 weeks ago we find the following:
1) You are a serial offender. You were nearly speeding 8 years ago.
2) After 6 weeks and a little chat with us your passenger has changed his original statement and now states you were speeding.
3) A second witness has been found who says you were speeding. We neither confirm nor deny that this witness is your ex wife.
You may sell your car,house and kids so you can fight us in our own kangaroo court where we are judge,jury and executioner or you can just go away and leave us free to chase some other dangerous criminals.
If the above really happened to motorists there would be a huge outcry.Heads would roll.Governments would fall. In CASA world it's ops normal. WHY???????
RA

[T28D]

Because the Office of Legal Counsel has always educated them to believe they are above the law, with a higher cause that entitles them to ignore the rights of citizens and has instilled in all of them a "win at all costs" approach to evidence presentation and gathering.

[gobbledock]

CASA cannot lose, they simply can't, they hold the best hand of cards an overflowing trough can buy!
Their supply of fighting fund money for barristers, lawyers, barristers and more barristers is provided from an endless bottomless pot of taxpayer money. Ace in the hand number one.
Ace in the hand number two is that even if they spend squillions on a case that is pathetically structured or even borderline criminal and it gets thrown out no problems, individuals are covered by government insurance and can't be held accountable or liable! It's perfect!

This industry is littered with decades worth of punters who were innocent but quite simply were never going to be able to slay the dragon. CASA ranks alongside the ATO when it comes to impossible odds at winning.
Rutan around,in a loud voice you cry out Why??? Because they are government. Governments have absolute power, and we know what absolute power does don't we? They make the rules, change the rules, bend them, break them, place/imply/attach/interpret 'intent' to the rule as they see fit. Litanies of built-in escape clauses, get out of jail free cards and 'escape clauses' means it will always be us little bloke wearing the pineapple.
If you work in this industry and have to deal with government organizations such as CASA daily or weekly you are best off ensuring thy each morning you leave for work you leave with a pre-lubricated anus as you never know from one day to the next when they have you in their crosshairs for forgetting to fill in a form with black pen, wearing your pilot uniform untucked and not ironed, forgetting to cross one letter 'T' in your log book 15 years ago or forgetting to place your IATA DG manual back on the middle shelf of the Freight Managers office in the cargo shed..

[No Hoper]

Sounds like you have had a run in with your CAA GObbledock. Is it true that they are cOrrupt in their enforcement?

[rutan around]

No Hoper (Don't know why you chose that tag-it doesn't inspire me to get involved)
CORRUPT? Do yourself a favour and read the Phelan Papers. After even a couple you'll get the drift. For a start try "Dudding the Delegate" and "Birds-What Birds?" These articles are not for skimming. Read them very carefully.When you understand their full implications you'll no longer need to use your current monicker.
Cheers RA

[Kharon]

Defined root problem.
RA - Imagine if it involved a motorist and a the police. The motorist receives a letter in the mail along these lines: Dear Sir, etc.
Defined root cause.
T28 - Because the Office of Legal Counsel has always educated them to believe they are above the law, with a higher cause that entitles them to ignore the rights of citizens and has instilled in all of them a "win at all costs" approach to evidence presentation and gathering.
Defined end result.
GD - This industry is littered with decades worth of punters who were innocent but quite simply were never going to be able to slay the dragon. CASA ranks alongside the ATO when it comes to impossible odds at winning.
Proposed solution.
PM'd by Anon - However one of the basic civil liberties is the presumption of innocence, it is a given everyday of the week....So I think we should create a submission to the Australian Council for Civil Liberties (the big enchilada) citing the occasions (and there are many) where CASA have violated this basic civil liberty in a AAT hearing!.
One of the more interesting, although ignored side bars to this issue is the Safety Case; the mealy mouthed ATSB report begs some interesting questions. It appears there are some lessons to be learnt from this incident which should be amplified, explained and passed along to the industry. The old "Crash Comic" could have done a bang up job on this incident – there are lessons to be learnt. A real investigation would highlight the issues and may have produced a sensible, valuable result.

Does the industry derive a benefit from the experience ?.
Does the money spent on this AAT hearing provide an improved safety outcome?.
Will the planned crucifixion of the CFI improve helicopter training safety?.

Yet again the mantra of 'air safety' covers all public outrage, beggars common sense, decency and allows the 'investigator' yet another whack at the industry. You see M'lud, there are a lot of phsyco hooligans out there, we need to eradicate them. Your job Senior Member is to decide who they are.

[No Hoper]

It appears there are some lessons to be learnt from this incident which should be amplified,

Open the thrOttle fully when recOvering from practice Auto??

Rutan Around, asked ozzie friends about your name, not sure inspires me either. Here we have ROTO Rooter for cleaning sewerage pipes Good articles that you refered to, online search didn't show any action taken agains Aust Authority for corruption. Is your entire government colluding in this corruption?

[rutan around]

No Hoper, Collusion is too strong a word and suggests at least an awareness of the CASA cesspool. Apathetic and hopeless are words that more accurately describe our governments position.Unfortunately that's both major parties.This corruption has been going on ever since the word "safety" was inserted into the aviation authorities name. Whenever they are cornered they bellow "SAFETY" Because no one knows what this enormously broad term means in any given situation so they get away with murder. eg a fictional hearing in our AAT relating to a heavy landing.
Barrister acting for CASA: Mr Hoper you are charged with operating your helicopter in a dangerous manner likely to endanger the general public. When your engine failed you panicked and let your machine fall almost to the ground before you appeared to regain some control albeit to late to avoid impacting the ground.
Barrister for Mr Hoper: Mr Hoper applied SOP's for an engine failure and under the prevailing conditions produced an acceptable outcome.
Civilian Judge; It appear a nonsense to me that you would speed up an already falling machine. Guilty as charged. Hand in your license as you go out the door.
Cheers RA
PS Ask your Ozzie and Yank mates who Burt Rutan is and how he could possibly be involved in my monicker. It's an enjoyable pastime. Nearly as good as the one I suspect your Ozzie mates suggested. Never heard of a ROTO Rooter but I've been told it's a good thing to clean your pipes out now and again.

[Fantome]

"Is your entire government colluding in this corruption? "

Corruption? In Australia? Has Iraq an insufficiency of oil? Is Dolly Parton a catholic?

Does our inveterate poster of profundities, persifilage and perversities, Kharon,

have a detestation of Islamic phrases?

p.s. 'no hoper' - just a little off key, cock.

try a real populist tag - AL K HEEDER OR B LADEN (as in 'sire, I am weary and burdensomely laden') A 'Rutan' reference is OK.... he is an exemplar and an idol of the accolytes of aerodynamic and manufacturing brilliance, though he could never have designed a plane quite as gorgeous as the Fairey Fantome.

Pay no heed to that man's , that poster's (poetaster?) protestations.
"A joke's a joke. A smoke's a smoke. A root's a root. . . . . but to talk about it's effing ridiculous ." (In the original . . . "a poke's a poke." . . . not wishing to labour THE POINT).

p.p.s. anyone have any recent scuttle on how the good J Quadrio's getting on?

[Frank Arouet]

Sounds like you have had a run in with your CAA GObbledock.

Possibly by ignorance, or error of keyboard, this statement say's it all for me and henceforth I will only refer to "THEM" as The CAA. I encourgae others to take this bold stand. I'll also contemplate sending a complaint to the ACCC regarding false and misleading advertising by "THEM".

Safety! Bah!:hmm:

I think Mrs Q has had enough.

PS Are The Kennedy's gun shy?

[Kharon]

Fantome - poster of profundities, persiflage
Persiflage, only just a bit of it (as and when etc.). But I confess, it's the Persian language I love best after my native tongue. Now those boys are good at it; nothing like my clumsy attempts. Back to the cows Minnie, the whiskered one, with ice cold hands awaits.:D

[Frank Arouet]

I wouldn't expect anything from Mr Hoper until Tuesday, assuming an RDO on Monday.

YOUR HARD EARNED TAXPAYER DOLLAR AT WORK!

[gobbledock]

Frank, you could have at least added a picture of a pig at a trough.

No Hoper, I look forward to reading more commentary about our malfeasant CAA.

[Stasi Hunter]

[QUOTE][In a matter like this where CASA want the guys head, can the AAT offer an arm or a leg instead – mayhap suspend him instead of doing the Queen of Hearts thing ??, provided of course, there is a guilty call made./QUOTE]

When CASA set their mind to it no AAT or Court will dissuade them from their SAFETY task. These measures are just formalities to make SM Fice and his colleagues look good. The six weeks were probably necessary to convince Mr Hope that it would be in his best interest!!! To refresh his memory of events.

The CASA will have had advice from the DPP that there is no case to answer, but then what do they know about SAFETY?

SH

[desmotronic]

instructor prangs student/owners chopper? .. i'd be livid.

[Sarcs]

Stasi Hunter good first post!:ok: Need to get with the program though and drop the sssss.......I think most posters here agree that the regulator has only gone further backwards since adopting the "S":ugh:

SH hope you live up to your name....stasi now where I've heard that before??:(.........ohh I remember he's the bloke that processes your FOI requests at Fort Fumble!:E

[Kharon]

Multiple Miggs – a creepy character in "The Silence of the Lambs". A sad case of multiple personalities who, ended up swallowing his own tongue. Largely ignored by the critics.

However, the good doctor had some wise words:-

Lecter : First principles, Clarice. Simplicity. Read Marcus Aurelius. Of each particular thing ask: what is it in itself ?. etc.

Does FOI stand for Flick off Idiot ?? - help me here.

[Kharon]

ATSB/ AO-2011-141. The ATSB has been advised by the flying training organisation of the following proactive safety action in response to this occurrence; A briefing is to be conducted before any emergency training is performed.
Oh goody – well done. How about a cross for those who issued the approval for the mess which omitted this as a documented, matter of course briefing in the first place?.

ATSB/ AO-2011-141. ATSB - Implementation of the, IMSAFE personal checklist for both instructor and student, to assess their fitness to fly prior to every lesson.

This weasel worded, probably dictated pile of pony – pooh may fool mug punters (read half the Senate), the AAT, a Coroner or two, even some of the 'experts' posting here. But as far as providing a satisfactory safety based outcome, generated by a proper investigation of the radical causes, it leaves much to be desired.

It does manage to imply, whilst repeating the dictated script that the CASA is busy pissing around with 'prosecutions', but not actively assessing, processing and implementing the management of internal safety systems, again.

More ticks - glad it's not my dog.

Desmo - instructor prangs student/owners chopper? .. i'd be livid. Sunny's mate, 'Snowy' reckons, with just cause.
"There are wheels within wheels here" he says; then adds "which, having been suitably greased worked just fine until one fell off". He reckons "if SM Fice ever gets to the bottom of this can of worms I'd take my hat off to him". "What a mess; he'll need an independent authority to have a look under the skirts, a size 10 broom to shift the layers of muck and a strong stomach to deal with what's there". Ah yes - Industry intelligence is a fine source, not that anyone should believe a word heard from refullers. parrots, blokes in the pub, qualified flight instructors or even St Casa. They're all at it, gilding the Lilly, swinging a line; there's not a lot of that happening here though.

Fact :- CASA would not go to any length to cover up the facts. or other pivotal information related to this matter.
Fact : There is no systemic corruption visible in this case.
Fact : Even if the good Senior Member gets this one wrong, there will be no serious repercussions, at all; ever.

Yes Minister.

[Sarcs]

However one of the basic civil liberties is the presumption of innocence, it is a given everyday of the week..:D

The civil liberties issue is a good one in relation to the regulator's use of the AAT to prosecute their prejudices. It would be worth reviewing AAT hearings that feature Fort Fumble in one corner and poor sacrificial pilot or operator in the other, then note the number of times basic civil liberties are breached...bet its a few!:ok:


Civil liberties definition: Fundamental individual rights, such as freedom of speech and religion, protected by law against unwarranted governmental or other interference.

[Frank Arouet]

The introduction of strict liability removed that presumption and shifted the burden of proof to the accused. It also, strangely, made minor misdemenors criminal offences which normally had the burden of proof placed on the accuser.

Further, "beyond any reasonable doubt" overtook "on the balance of probabilities" as the test for such criminal offences.

Strange world we have let develop around us, eh?:rolleyes:

[blackhand]

This is the reference of Strict Liability from CASA site.
CRIMINAL CODE ACT 1995 - SCHEDULE The Criminal Code (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/cca1995115/sch1.html)
Not easily interpreted.

[Checkboard]

The introduction of strict liability removed that presumption and shifted the burden of proof to the accused.
Not true at all. The burden of proof is still on the regulator in order to obtain a conviction - they must still prove that the act took place, and that the accused performed that act. Strict Liability means they no longer have to prove that the accused intended to commit the act.

Example: Say a shop keeper sells cigarettes. Selling cigarettes to minors is against the law. The shop keeper employs a worker, and before allowing that worker to operate the till, provides training including strict instructions to check ID for anyone buying cigarettes who appears, say, less than 21.

A 15 year old goes into the store and buys cigarettes, the police find out and charge the shopkeeper. CCTV clearly shows the under age person being sold the cigarettes by the shop worker.

If the offence is given as strict liability, then the shop keeper has no defence (assuming the above is proven) - the act is illegal, and it took place. End of. The fact that the shopkeeper made every effort to prevent the act (thus had no Mens Rea (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea)) is not a defence in a strict liability case.

If the offence is NOT a strict liability offence, then the CPS would also have to prove that the shopkeeper intended to sell cigarettes to under age people - i.e. that he knew, or should have reasonably known, that the buyer was under age.

[thorn bird]

Kharon,
starting to smell a rat here.
This Hanley guy, an alleged instructor has, two training related
accidents. Who was doing the flying at the time? him or the student?
If it was him I would imagine someone should have had a look at his flying standard's, if it was the students then I imagine someone should have had a look at his instructional standards and if deficient, go after whoever gave him his instructors rating.
I can see no mention this occured, CASA went straight to the not a fit and proper or whatever dodgy reason they were using on that day and went straight for the licence based on outward appearance, dodgy evidence, why??
"Industry Intelligence"??...CASA considers itself part of the industry, which part is anyones guess, now they are morphing into a CIA clone??, this new training centre in Brissy to show off to the FAA in reality is it a "Spook School"? did the "Industry Intelligence" come from within CASA itself??
I dunno, but something about this affair just dont smell right, and it aint just did he or didnt he air taxi a damaged chopper.

[Kharon]

CB - Not true at all. The burden of proof is still on the regulator in order to obtain a conviction" etc. The words proof and conviction feature all the way through a good example of what is not happening in this case. I just wonder why they bother with the 'criminal' stuff, they hardly ever use it. They never need go to that amount of trouble. The guys involved could be Jekyll and Hide or the 'Bobbsy Twins', it shouldn't matter.

The CASA are setting up to remove a mans livelihood, that is a big, big punishment, seems to me that before they do this there can be no doubt. As RUTAN said, if it was a muggle driving license pulled like this – there'd be a 'bloody' riot. Even then, the punishment should fit the crime and time off for good behaviour.

Evil thought for the day - what about supplying incontravertible industry evidence after the event, now that would be fun to watch. Dreaming of course.

Supportable - "Bloggs – I sentence you to 6 months suspension for being proven to be as dumb as a hammer".

Insupportable - "Bloggs we will not give you a fair trial, you are sentenced to the wilderness because we are too far above the law to prosecute; oh, and by the way there is no appeal process, no rehabilitation, no soft toilet paper and definitely no time off for good behaviour".

Imagine the fun real criminal lawyers would have that.
No, it's wrong; I'm getting tired of saying it but if the guy has been proven to have 'done' wrong, fair enough I'd support the action. But unless it's a 'clean kill' with proof positive supplied, it's just another CASA administrative fairy story without a happily ever after.

[blackhand]

Does the proposed punishment fit the 'alleged' crime?.
What does a jury of peers think ?. You have no interest in what fellow pilots and engineers think about this incident.
Mutiple posts full of specious argument about how you want the regulations to work.
A pretence that you understand strict liability offences.
Mr Hanley stuffed doing a power recovery from autorotation by not opening the throttle to WOT, and then allegedly lied to the regulator.
If you haven't worked it out , Mr Hope allegedly changed his evidence when he realised the alleged lie couldn't be sustained in a court.
You and your dopple gangers have turned this forum into a kindergarten club.
There have been some real stuff ups by CASA that are worthy of analysis, for example trying to prevent the owner of an organisation from being the Manager - thrown out of court of course.
regulator's use of the AAT to prosecute their prejudices.Application to the AAT isn't from CASA, CASA is taken to the AAT and then has to justify it's actions.
The Dog Pooh on this thread balances the Pony Pooh at the regulator

[thorn bird]

So blacky,
by your argument if some OH&S official receives a piece of "Industrial Intelligence" from a union official about not correct labels on the power points at BHP head quarters that official should have the power to shut down BHP, wipe out share holders funds and throw its work force on the dole, because in his "opinion" BHP has been a naughty boy!! same result, same flawed logic just different scale.
The AAT is not a court, its a tribunal nothing needs to be proven beyond reasonable doubt, there is no penaty for lying, nor are costs awarded.
Yes CASA is taken to the AAT for the very reason that the average person simply does not have the funds to finance a legal team to match CASA, who have the tax payers wallets to feed their bottom feeders with.

[Frank Arouet]

Strict Liability means they no longer have to prove that the accused intended to commit the act

If there was no intent to commit the action, it suggests it could have been an accident? So this alone prevents the defence attempting to ameliorate the charge to reflect a fair punishment fitting the circumstances of the alleged act.

In criminal law the standard of proof is that guilt must be shown beyond all reasonable doubt. While in civil law the burden of proof is that liability must be shown on the balance of probabilities. The burden of proof (the side which must prove their case) lies with whichever party is bringing the case.

Who is carrying this case?

[Sunfish]

Blackhand:

Mr Hanley stuffed doing a power recovery from autorotation by not opening the throttle to WOT, and then allegedly lied to the regulator.
If you haven't worked it out , Mr Hope allegedly changed his evidence when he realised the alleged lie couldn't be sustained in a court.

But of course this hasn't been proved in court has it Blackhand? With respect,your interpretation of events is no more valid than anyone elses.

..And that is the trouble. isn't it Blackie? CASA operates a "show cause" system where the "evidence" of misdeeds is never going to be tested to the standard a real court demands. There is no evidence whatsoever that CASA has ever intended to put this matter before a court is there?

Futhermore Blackie, given the arguments used by CASA in another case when defending its own officers, it would appear that lieing to CASA is not perjury or even an offence, simply on the grounds of equity. CASA officers have been caught lieing at least once.

Here is my fanciful interpretation - which is pure fiction.

1. Somebody in CASA doesn't like Mr. Handley.

2. Mr. Hope doesn't like Mr. Handley after he was involved with him in a training accident.

3. A perusal of Mr. Handleys file by CASA reveals an attempted prosecution of Handley that failed. CASA has a long memory.

4. Mr. Hope is "prevailed upon" by CASA to accuse Handley of the behaviour alleged in (3).

5. When Mr. Handley arcs up and goes to the AAT, CASA invokes a Deus Ex Machina after Tice queries Hopes evidence - to wit: "Industry Intelligence" aka "The Townsville refueller" of "Snowy on the trams".

Of course this is just fiction on my part, for all I know, Mr. Hope is pure as the driven snow and Mr. Handley has bent more helicopters than I've had hot dinners. However this cannot be safely determined unless evidence is tested in a real courtt of law.

[blackhand]

However this cannot be safely determined unless evidence is tested in a real court of law. That is a fair call Sunfish.
I know Mr Hanley, and would put my ass in a machine with him anytime.
To recover as he did with only minor damage to the 206 is a testament to his skill.

I also can theorise:
When he got out of the helo, from the LH side, none of the damage would have been evident to him - a quick taxi over to the hangar and then the shock of seeing the damage after shut down.
Some *anker with nothing better to do dobs him in.
Hopefully said *anker will not be "brave" enough to tender evidence.
Yes CASA is taken to the AAT for the very reason that the average person simply does not have the funds to finance a legal team
This is raison d'etre for the AAT.

[thorn bird]

"This is raison d'etre for the AAT."

Yup,
BUT..ever seen the cast of bottom feeders that turn up for CASA at an AAT hearing???....enough to make sure a multi billionaire gets swamped, let alone a simple punter. Suddenly the whole purpose of the AAT gets corrupted by the "model Litigant"...as has been said by a lot here, prosecution and penalty by decree aint justice and the scumbags know it.

[Creampuff]

Don’t you see, Blackhand? If you have the temerity to have a different point of view than some others, you’re on suspicion of being a ‘scumbag’. [Too slow there, thorn bird.]

Some of these people take the same attitude to the AAT. They assume that the AAT is a kangaroo court run by people who have no clue about aviation. They fail to realise that some AAT members were veteran aviators before the applicant was out of nappies, and can smell aeronautically-fertilised bullsh*t a mile off.

The GA ‘industry’ in Australia is its own worst enemy because, frankly, it’s culturally retarded. It’s ‘genes’ render it incapable of deciding upon then communicating a mature, united, coherent and compelling argument about any issue – I say again: any issue – relevant to GA.

This handicap is exacerbated by successive governments which don’t care about GA, because the health or death of GA is perceived to be irrelevant to the electoral prospects of governments. That happens because the retarded GA constituency will almost invariably choose one party or the other: “Me love Labor; hate Coalition”. “Me hate Coalition; love Labor”. Four legs good; two legs bad. Or was that vice versa?

It makes no difference. They’re all destroying GA slowly, by neglect, because the slow deterioration of GA makes no difference – zero difference – to either side’s electoral prospects.

It’s like watching an experiment in a zoo.

[Checkboard]

If there was no intent to commit the action, it suggests it could have been an accident?

Accident, according to the regs? If, by "accident" you mean "it's just a boo-boo, and no one is to blame" - then of course not. You may operate a car (for instance) recklessly (say, at high speed on a wet road) and crash it. You never meant to crash it (no one ever does) - but it doesn't mean that it's "just" an accident!

If, however, you are driving with due care and attention, but an outside factor puts control of the car beyond reasonable human control (diesel spill on the road maybe, or unexpected strong wind gust) then that is a different thing. Yes- that's what courts are for. Yes - I think the "show cause" rule should be removed. Write to your local politician about it.

[Frank Arouet]

The GA ‘industry’ in Australia is its own worst enemy because, frankly, it’s culturally retarded. It’s ‘genes’ render it incapable of deciding upon then communicating a mature, united, coherent and compelling argument about any issue – I say again: any issue – relevant to GA.

One can only agree unfortunately. If I were to ask 1000 pilots locked in a room for a consensus on any issue they would all starve to death before that happened. You see they are all autocrats. (no room for democracy on the flight deck).

As for CAA, Basic military tactic and strategy. Divide and conquer.

Checkerboard: I'm talking about mens rea in the criminal sense. Landing with a defect can't possibly be a criminal matter unless the pilot took off knowing the defect existed. A magneto for example.

And why do people keep calling me Frankly?

[Kharon]

CP – "Some of these people take the same attitude to the AAT. They assume that the AAT is a kangaroo court run by people who have no clue about aviation". etc. Now you know that broad sweeping statement is a bit naughty; some AAT decisions have been brilliant and some of the findings pure gold, for instance SM. Fice and Reg. 206. Within its limits, constraints and powers the AAT theoretically should be able to resolve 'administrative' disputes. I think you'll find that the majority of "GA" have little or no problem with the concept of the AAT system.

My only 'beef' is, after reading many, many transcripts, is the manner in which the CASA continuosly exploit the AAT system, ruthlessly, cynically and achieve little or no return value to the industry.
CP – "The GA ‘industry’ in Australia is its own worst enemy". etc. I do agree with the rest of your sentiments, never were truer words writ; what's the old saying about the road to Hell being paved with good intentions. But I digress.

Honest questions – there are seemingly conflicting 'statements' given, can the AAT safely rely solely on the veracity of a radically changed statement as it stands; or does it become a Police matter to sort out?.

Can the AAT request or require an independent investigation of the 'facts' by a disinterested third party?.

Does the AAT have the power to prevent what is effectively a life sentence being requested ?.

This is not a punitive sentence, suspension, fine or wrist slapping exercise, this is the full weight of the system demanding the administrative right to effectively prevent a man from working for the rest of his life. Now that, IMO is not an administrative matter.

[blackhand]

The Show Cause can work well. Having replied to a few with satisfactory outcome for my clients.
More serious ones that have ended up at AAT have variable outcomes.
Some GA operators interpret a reg to their own advantage and then find a Solicitor that agrees with them. Well for a substantial fee anyway.
GA should form an organisation similar to AMROBA which has had influence on the regs and enforcement for maintenance orgs.

[thorn bird]

creamie,
I was referring to lawyers old mate.
If you happen to be one I apologise in advance
if you happen to one of the few who aint

[thorn bird]

"GA should form an organisation similar to AMROBA which has had influence on the regs and enforcement for maintenance orgs."

Blacky I wholeheartedly agree with you. Until the industry as a whole faces down CASA they will continue to regulate the industry out of existence until Australia becomes a GA desert,like the UK, I know it's not personal, its just what bureacrats do, and will continue to do until "Foster and Promote" gets firmly inserted into their brief by the Pollies.

[Creampuff]

Kharon: Now you know that broad sweeping statement is a bit naughty; some AAT decisions have been brilliant and some of the findings pure gold, for instance SM. Fice and Reg. 206.So are you saying that the AAT decisions with which you happen to personally agree are ‘brilliant’ and ‘pure gold’, whereas the AAT decisions with which you happen not to personally agree, aren’t? If so, that’s called ‘hypocrisy’.

Most of SM Fice’s decisions have upheld the CASA decision under review, although I do note one matter in which he set aside CASA’s decision to suspend a pilot’s licence, and substituted a decision to cancel the licence. In effect, he considered CASA’s decision to have been too soft. Are SM Fice’s decisions correct when you agree with the decision, and incorrect when you don’t?Kharon: My only 'beef' is, after reading many, many transcripts, is the manner in which the CASA continuosly exploit the AAT system, ruthlessly, cynically and achieve little or no return value to the industry.So you think the Tribunal members are oblivious to, or a prepared to acquiesce in, the ruthless, cynical exploitation of the AAT system by government agencies? There must be parallel universes, one containing the AAT of which I’m aware, and the other containing the anti-AAT that allows itself to be exploited by government agencies.Honest questions – there are seemingly conflicting 'statements' given, can the AAT safely rely solely on the veracity of a radically changed statement as it stands; or does it become a Police matter to sort out?. The AAT decides what the facts are for the purposes of its review, based what’s put in front of it and the AAT’s assessment of, among other things, the credibility and reliability of witnesses and material submitted.

Facts are often relevant to administrative decisions and criminal proceedings. For example, a doctor who’s been found by Medicare Australia to have been submitting lots of incorrect medicare refund claims can have their participation in Medicare revoked as an administrative action, the decision to revoke can be reviewed by the AAT, during all of which a brief to the DPP may be prepared and a prosecution for fraud launched.

Administrative decisions are often aimed at different policy outcomes than criminal proceedings.Can the AAT request or require an independent investigation of the 'facts' by a disinterested third party?.The AAT is a disinterested third party, and it spends a lot time sorting what the ‘facts’ are. Does the AAT have the power to prevent what is effectively a life sentence being requested ?.Of course it does. It has the power to set aside the decision under review and to make its own decision. That’s why people go there. The profound financial and other consequences of administrative decisions are frequently matters considered in the course of review of the decisions – especially applications for a stay of decisions, pending a full review. This issue would have featured in many of the many, many transcripts you’ve read.

[Frank Arouet]

I think what he's trying to say is why need it get that far in the first place.

Common sense has long been proven to no longer exist when there is no discretion available under strict liability and the first avenue of exploration of an action is by-passed and given straight to CAA for determination.

As for representative body's, they come and go dependant upon the foibles of the agenda driven. Few are vested with altruism and even the best of leaders are only as good as their followers. Most are at best "an arm of the regulator" having sold their soul to the Devil.

Reminds me of one bloke who called me a coward knowing I was fairly proud of my military service. "His men", (I think he was a retired recruit), no doubt followed him everywhere. (simply out of curiosity).

[blackhand]

Frank, the other option is not to have an AAT.
Seen this in operation in other countries.
One has to go straight to court, with the encumbent costs.(SHudders with memory of the process). A simple injuction to have a stay of the Regulator's ruling is very costly.

Your understanding of the concept of Strict Liability may not be correct.
As explained to me by a solicitor, it means that ignorance of the law is not an excuse.
All other rights stand.

Reminds me also of the bloke that called me a coward, but then again I was hiding behind the handmaiden at the time.

[Frank Arouet]

your ignorance

Since when was my ignorance a criminal offence?

That would be noice if you could explain.

Moi Oi also ask youse if you were not aware of the possibilities of someone like me of non Torres Strait and Islander heritage being aware of my real chronological age in determining my cognative insight and judgement in relation to the possibility of a relapse to cigarette smoking which I haves not done since since 10SEP1983, but notwithstanding all that, how that would play out in a SB5 Abbreviated IQ (ABIQ), test battery administered assessment of intelligence and cognative abilities for ages 2 through to 85+ years of age, and further, how it relates to a Nonverbal IQ scale and a verbal IQ test. Also how this compares with a WRAT4 comprehension subtest of math academic skills and word reading, sentence comprehension subtest, spelling and math comprehension.

Also, while I'm at it, the ABASII adult form should provide a comprehensive, non referenced assessment of adaptive skills for individuals aged birth to 89 years,which probably focuses on evaluating an individuals display of various functional skills necessary for daily living and without assistance like a co-pilot. There are also things like adaptive domains and the global adaptive composite of which the self support norms are a factor to be considered.

Now the PAI is a different bit of bull****e which provides a number of validity indices that are designated to provide an assessment of factors that could distort the results.

I'm glad my PAI was negative, or was that positive, and I am either/or careless, have reading difficulties, am confused, exaggerate, malinger, and (I don't give a rat's what youse think), defensive.

Now the DRG scale has me stumped, in that I may be particularly exhibit certain areas of difficulty, probably inherited via my GG Grandfathers preponderence to Eucalypt oil. (Uncle Stan we called him).

However I completed the CAPI test OK which re asserted my belief that I had not been touched up by Uncle Stan. (he had a black pushbike).

And all this because someone asked me "was I not aware of the possibility that I may run over a Koala bear, and should I not have taken steps to circumvent such an occurrence in case it happened".

My answer was, "and when did you stop beating your wife"?

And thats when my troubles started.

[thorn bird]

Frank....what can I say....pure gold:D:D:D:D

[T28D]

Frank, If it was Red it was bloody good red, truly inspired, and just neuters the academically qualified Know it all.

I am truly humbled.

[Kharon]

Oh BRAVO !! Voltaire, Bravo; :D :D :D :D

Yes, yes CP, lets agree to disagree, and waive aside the semantics and rhetoric :-
Wikipedia. Semantics. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantics)
Semantics contrasts with syntax, the study of the combinatorics of units of a language (without reference to their meaning), and pragmatics, the study of the relationships between the symbols of a language, their meaning, and the users of the language.
"Let us be cautious in making assertions and critical in examining them, but tolerant in permitting linguistic forms". Rudolph Carnap.
Wikipedia. Rhetoric. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhetoric)
Rhetoric is the art of discourse, an art that aims to improve the facility of speakers or writers who attempt to inform, persuade, or motivate particular audiences in specific situations.
"Art has always been this – pure interrogation, rhetorical questions less the rhetoric – whatever else may have been obliged by social reality to appear". Samuel Beckett.
What I asked was Can?, i.e. will the SM; not Can? as "in is he allowed to". Semantics, get it?.

Now, where was I -
The Senior Member - AATA 183 – parts 25 through to 39 seems to disagree with the CASA standard spiel, which is all to the good. Perhaps SM Fice, brought up though a much more genteel, honourable, rose coloured era in aviation, is finally caching up with the modern CASA ethos.

Perhaps, had Quadrio, Davies and half a dozen others like them had this latitude and forbearance, their lives may have been different and CASA would know that they are not above the law and that arbitrary execution by administrators denies civil liberties, makes a mockery of their remit and is embarrassing to industry.

Perhaps I should rename this thread – His Honour amongst thieves. But Frankly - I can't do anymore for laughing.

[Fantome]

Rutan Around, ask ozzie friends about your name, not sure it inspires me either. Here we have ROTO Rooter for cleaning sewerage pipes. Good articles that you referred to. Online search didn't show any action taken against Aust Authority for corruption. Is your entire government colluding in this corruption?

This from NO HOPER who was queried early on here about his strange choice of pseudonym.

As I have no immediate input, commentary or informed views to air on the excellent run of contributions to the important debate exercising minds on this thread, forgive me if I go into trivia mode again with this piece that relates to the choice of inane names for a person, a child, even a prooner , for if you missed this one at the time it will surely raise a grim smile or two.

FAMILY'S WINNER BECOMES A LOSER AND LOSER A WINNER

August 1 2002

The name of the game is not always what it seems to be, Sean Gardiner writes from New York.

One son was named Loser, the other Winner.

One became a policeman and was eventually promoted to detective.

The other fell into the life of a small-time crook, racking up at least 31 arrests before being jailed for two years.

But for the brothers Lane it was not a case of their unique names sealing their fates. "I went a totally separate route right from the start," said Loser Lane, 41, a detective in the South Bronx.

Loser, a star student and athlete, went on scholarship to an elite prep school, on to Lafayette College in Pennsylvania, and then joined the force.

Winner's life has gone the other way. Now 44, Winner last month completed a two-year jail sentence for breaking into a car. He is living in a homeless shelter in upstate New York, shuttling back and forth between it and the city trying to get his life on track.

Why did he commit so many crimes? "It's just some situations I got in," Winner said.

Loser said of his brother: "Most of the crimes are minor crimes. He's just kooky, not a heavy drinker, some domestic violence problems, but was never a heavy drinker, never into drugs ... He's just not all there, I think."

The brothers rarely see each other, though Winner will phone Loser when he is short of money, but they are no longer close. "I'm a cop," said Loser, who is known as Lou on the job. "And I have a way with me, I don't tolerate a lot."

The Lane boys ran in the same circles while growing up in public housing in Harlem, where their names never seemed to arouse curiosity or ridicule from the neighbourhood kids.

"When you're young you don't know that it's a bad name, and by the time you hit grade school, everybody knows you. It was a regular thing," Loser Lane said.

It helped that Loser was the youngest of eight brothers and sisters and that he was a natural athlete, admired by the other kids for his on-field achievements.

The story of how Loser got his name is simple. The day he was born, their late father, Robert, asked his daughter what to name the baby. "My dad comes home and asks my oldest sister what to name me and she said, 'Well, we've got a Winner, why don't we have a Loser?' And there you go."

While Loser's friends had no problem calling him by his name, his teachers and other adults "couldn't bring themselves to call me Loser", so he became Lou.

[Frank Arouet]

Nevertheless, CASA contended that the incident demonstrated that Mr Hanley had a previous history of operating a helicopter in similar circumstances after the helicopter had sustained damage in an uncontrolled ground contact.

How does one incident demonstrate to CAA a prior history of flying with a bent tailboom? Also an "uncontrolled ground contact"?

Is this the reverse of a CFIT?

[blackhand]

Court ruling here, may answer some of yous questions
Hanley and Civil Aviation Safety Authority [2012] AATA 820 (21 November 2012) (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/aat/2012/820.html)

[Stan van de Wiel]

Referring mainly to CP #62

Most of SM Fice’s decisions have upheld the CASA decision under review, although I do note one matter in which he set aside CASA’s decision to suspend a pilot’s licence, and substituted a decision to cancel the licence. In effect, he considered CASA’s decision to have been too soft.

SM Fice and all the other members can only act on the information available this is where the problems exist. CASA like all Government instrumentalities are required to follow the AAT Act - Obligation to assist. If the victim is not aware of material used by CASA, WITHHELD by CASA !! He/she can hardly request it. Was D. James aware of the 50/50 opinions held by CASA re Diversions? I bet the AAT weren't, just a slight oversight. No wonder the majority of decisions favor CASA as to the pilot loosing his license! CASA nearly always challenge AAT decisions on the basis that the AAT cannot impose such measures - possibly only applies one way? Maybe the pilot should have lost license, what information did SM Fice have to act on?


So you think the Tribunal members are oblivious to, or a prepared to acquiesce in, the ruthless, cynical exploitation of the AAT system by government agencies? There must be parallel universes, one containing the AAT of which I’m aware, and the other containing the anti-AAT that allows itself to be exploited by government agencies.

Prepared to acquiesce is more likely. Forget about the Members obligation to assist the unrepresented Victim, but that's another story.

The AAT decides what the facts are for the purposes of its review, based what’s put in front of it and the AAT’s assessment of, among other things, the credibility and reliability of witnesses and material submitted.

If only it had all the facts. Look at the earlier decisions based on R206. The SM Fice decision in Caper vs CASA was overturned in November based on what was implied by the Act. No mention of John Anderson's second reading of the Bill re the use of Commercial ( based on the Acts Interpretations Act 1901 this is LAW) considering that lawyers are obliged to even point out legislation which is advantageous to the the other side why does CASA continuously overlook such aspects. R206 has its origins in the two airline policy it no longer has a head of power. If "lawyers" had the same license restrictions as Pilots most wouldn't be practicing.

[Creampuff]

SM Fice and all the other members can only act on the information available this is where the problems exist.That ‘problem’ doesn’t exist when the question is about the proper interpretation of legislation. Everyone, including the AAT, knows what the law says. It’s not about ‘information’.

In the decision at the link in Blackhand’s post at #71, the Federal Court decided that the AAT had interpreted the law incorrectly. That’s a ‘real’ court deciding that the AAT’s interpretation was wrong and that CASA’s interpretation was correct. (There was a time at which some ppruners were howling for review of CASA's decisions to be taken out of the hands of the AAT and put in the hands of ‘real’ courts. Well, that’s happened in the Repacholi, Polar Air and Hanley matters, and CASA’s decisions have ultimately been supported.)

My personal view is that the Federal Court’s reasoning in the Hanley matter is patently wrong, and SM Fice got it less wrong. But my personal view is completely irrelevant to the proper interpretation of the law once the Federal Court has made its judgment.

What we can all agree, and what we are all entitled and justified to agree, is that CASA’s failure to push through any meaningful change to CAR 206 is a scandal.

[Sunfish]

All aviation is illegal in Australia.

[Stan van de Wiel]

That ‘problem’ doesn’t exist when the question is about the proper interpretation of legislation. Everyone, including the AAT, knows what the law says. It’s not about ‘information’.

It's all about INFORMATION !!!

A CASA action starts of with Information, whether alleged, fabricated or genuine and then proceeds in genuine cases to a collection and analysis before applying it to the legislation allegedly breached. By the time it gets to the AAT or court there should be sufficient "information" ( frequently searched for well after the event) to make the charges stick.

Many charges are based on not conforming to "policy" and many a time the AAT have been convinced that this is a breach? In the case of the AAT, the tribunal is now the decision maker? But with less information than the CASA decision maker Had, how can in such cases a proper decision be made?

The AAT may know what the law says, but to apply the correct laws (subject to interpretation) even CASA operatives have differing opinions ( to divert or not to divert remains the question) not to start on the unlawfulness of Aviation laws.

When the same rules of (airmanship) were to be applied to the law in this country (read morals, ethics, transparency and accountability) we wouldn't need the current parliamentary "debate" re Certain lawyer's behaviour, Would we?

[Kharon]

Oh everyone; you, me and the hanger cat knows exactly how the system is worked: especially when the CASA version of "facts and circumstances" are heavily relied on by a court or tribunal. IF ever it could be proven that one, just one of the 'official' CASA versions is "flawed" and added to the Senate knowledge pile; then every judgement or ruling handed down under the present "regime" would become legally unsafe. We must robustly pray this never happens, but it might. Lord, the court costs alone; not to mention "ex gratia" will keep the dear old treasurer awake at night, that's real money on the line.

I wonder if "team" ATSB/CASA boys, boyettes and even the lasses getting nervous? seems they need to be, the way the Senate enquiry is rolling out. However, the truth will out and time will tell the tale.

Seems to me is there are only two choices, no options for the "team" - be part of the going to goal crew; or, get wise, confess now and hope for some form of indemnity by turning "King's evidence"; (for want of a better phrase). Tick Tock - indeed.

[Stan van de Wiel]

CP #73

That ‘problem’ doesn’t exist when the question is about the proper interpretation of legislation. Everyone, including the AAT, knows what the law says. It’s not about ‘information’.

Interesting that it took SM Fice several pages to expand on the "grammatical" proper interpretation of R206 - something he and others at AAT had previously never attempted - they used the interpretation best suited to the protagonist - its referred to as impartiality (?) at a plebeian level.

VID 289 of 2011- BETWEEN:
CIVIL AVIATION SAFETY AUTHORITY
Applicant
AND:
CAPER PTY LTD
Respondent
JUDGE:MURPHY J
DATE:
21 NOVEMBER 2012
PLACE:
MELBOURNE

The central issue for determination by the Court was the correct construction of the relevant provisions of the Civil Aviation Regulations 1988 ("the Regulations") as applied to the facts found by the Tribunal. I held that the Tribunal wrongly construed the Regulations

Everyone, including the AAT, knows what the law says

Now who is confused?

[Creampuff]

You, Stan. You continue to be confused.

When the issue is the correct interpretation of the law, it doesn’t matter what ‘information’ anyone provides (or those evil conspirators in CASA withhold) from anyone.

CAR 206 is a law that says what it says. Egon Fice interpreted it one way. It went to the Federal Court and the Federal Court interpreted it another way.

Unless someone successfully appeals the Federal Court’s decision, the Federal Court’s interpretation is the authoritative one that takes precedence.
[I]t took SM Fice several pages to expand on the "grammatical" proper interpretation of R206 - ….… and the Federal Court said SM Fice got it wrong … … something he and others at AAT had previously never attempted - they used the interpretation best suited to the protagonist.I think the legal term for that assertion is: “Complete bollocks”. :ok:

[blackhand]

I think the legal term for that assertion is: “Complete bollocks”. http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/thumbs.gif Succint as always, Mr Creampuff