View Full Version : RHS and Boyd at it again?

Islander Jock
22nd Jan 2003, 15:57
Just saw the late news where a Victorian pilot is being prosecuted in the Horsham court by CASA for:
a. Flying without a valid medical, and
b. Failing to have maintenance performed on his aircraft.

Dick and Boyd were interviewed on the news appearing to say that the person in question was being dealt with unfairly by orrible, nasty CASA. :D

Fer Fark sake!!!! Are they saying it is ok to fly without a medical and an non airworthy aircraft? I suppose this is what they mean by "Affordable Safety" and "Freedom to fly without unnecessary restrictions"

The person in question said, in a poorly prepared press statement: "I have never endangered my passengers or property" or words to that effect. BWWWAAAHHHH! So exactly why doesn't he have a medical? Did he forget to renew it or was a DAME unable to renew it because of his health?

Just wondering what would be his insurance company's view on the matter in the event of a claim? You don't have to be Einstein to figure that one out :eek:

23rd Jan 2003, 00:33
I think they were going on about the presumption of innocence.

From email loops I am in, it seems that this bloke has been CHARGED with certain offences, but not found guilty or otherwise at this stage.

He is yet to have his day in Court, the episode on Wednesday being adjorned until I believe the 26th February.

Be this as it may, CASA has CANCELLED his licence (I heard, for life), and are following on from their oft touted arrogance in this castle of ineptness by completely negating due process and punishing him in advance.

In this regard, I can only say, if Dick and Boyd bring the matter to the attention of anyone by any method, it can only be of benefit to the aviation community.

The charges could be bulls**t,

I guess I can wait until, or if, he is found guilty before I offer an opinion.

He should be supported on the due process matter in the interim.

:rolleyes: new bugga :rolleyes:

23rd Jan 2003, 11:57
Um, maybe I'm missing something here. CASA is the regulator; it is the policeman of the air. There is no-one else who has that responsibility. Now if they perceive that someone has broken the rules then they have a responsibility to bring the full force of the law (in this case the regulations) to bear. There are some in GA that don't think the rules apply to them.

In the absence of a points system (which I think seems a reasonable way to go), then CASA really has no choice when they find out, or think, that someone has been busting the rules.

If there is a disagreement, then that is what the court is for...not a lot different really from some motor vehicle misdemeanours.
Afterall, if there is an accident and the ATSB highlights shortcomings in CASA's oversight of the pilot or operator, then we hear all the 'tut tuts' from the industry.

And let's not forget the insurance issue. The insurance companies these days will happily not payout if there is a whif of rule breaking.

CASA must apply the rules and apply them fairly, without fear or favour. That can be a thankless job even if done well.
And no, I am not a CASA apologist, but I think that we have to recognise the limitations of the system we all work under.

23rd Jan 2003, 21:39
Policeman of the air yes. But how many police do you know that can throw you in goal for life without finding you guilty of anything. :mad:

What the guy did (or didn't) do is irrelavent, it is natural justice and CASA's self perceived omnipotence that is at issue here.

So good on Dick and Boyd for upping CASA. :)

A personal reflection, I understand the guy was a PVT Pilot, on a PVT Flight with NO passengers. If he was AUF (in an aircraft just a few kg lighter) there would have been no issue re the medical and probably none re the 'stuck undercarriage???' (my understanding only).

So pehaps CASA should stick to regulating to protect the fare paying passenger and leave PVT and AWK to another body.

AOPA perhaps ?? :confused:

Islander Jock
24th Jan 2003, 00:59

Re medicals and ultralights. There is a case currently going through the WA courts where an ultalight pilot had a heart attack shortly after takeoff and died. The resulting crash has left his passenger a virtual cripple. It has subsequently been revealed that the deceased pilot was told by a doctor that due to his ill health he should not even be driving a car. So to say medicals and ultralights are not an issue is an abhorrent disregard of any sense of responsibility. Especially where carting around a passenger, fare paying or not.

If the pilot in the Victorian case was flying an ultralight under AUF regs then fair enough. But the fact of the matter is that he wasn't. He was flying an an aircraft of approx 1179kg MTOW with a substantially poorer engine out glide capability that your Gemini Thruster or the like.

Now to play Geoffery Robinson and a quick game of Hypothetical here:

What would be the opinion of those currently opposed to CASA's stance had they (CASA) known of the medical deficiencies and failed to act and whilst allowing that pilot to continue to fly, he perhaps has a medical seizure in flight and crashes into a crowded school yard?

I'd suggest those same protagonists would be screaming for the blood of the regulator. :rolleyes:

And as for AOPA being the regulator of GA. Well if the info posted on other threads is anything to go on, they seem to be having a nightmare of trying to regulate themselves. The analogy of "letting the fox lose in the hen house" comes to mind

24th Jan 2003, 07:18
IJ, I'm gonna quote you here....... So exactly why doesn't he have a medical? Did he forget to renew it or was a DAME unable to renew it because of his health

Quite possibly, but then again while I am quite aware of your situation on the coast of Oz re: Dame's (one on every corner), spare a thought for those of us who late last year HAD a Av medico in town, but now have a round trip of up to a thousand k'ms to go for a medical, and that doesn't include the eyesight and blood tests.

You'd have thought by now that ASA might have had the nous to either find or appoint someone in what is perhaps one of the largest inland centres in the country.

24th Jan 2003, 08:25
Seems CASA can be blamed for everything, even the lack of DAMEs in an area. I thought they were responsible for approving not sourcing medicos...but I amy be wrong. On the one hand we have the industry (AOPA) saying they can do it all and then on the other we have the industry saying 'CASA should do this'. But in the end, if you don't have a valid medical, you just don't fly...full stop. If the aircraft is not airworthy (administratively or practically)...you just don't fly. It sounds simplistic but the insurance issues, the legal issues and the personal issues when something goes wrong just isn't worth it.

24th Jan 2003, 23:21

CASA is the regulator; it is the policeman of the air

Are you familiar with the concept of the separation of powers?

Islander Jock I remember when that accident happened, if it is the Narrogin one and thought at the time that it may provide some interesting legal issues. Something along the lines of the coroner reccommending that ALL pilots need a valid medical. I have never understood why AUF pilots don't need medicals. The medical is to protect the passengers and those on the ground from DEATH FROM ABOVE. It is a mute point that a pilot could suffer a heart attack the day after their medical.

Blue Hauler
25th Jan 2003, 12:04
Axiom & Ulm

If my memory serves me correctly licences, be they drivers, firearms, liquor or whatever, are issued by the nominated authority on the proviso that the holder meets certain standards of fitness and suitability. If these standards are not met or maintained then the issuing authority has an obligation in public interests to withdraw that privilege.

CAR 269 inter-alia allows CASA to vary, suspend or cancel a licence, certificate or authority if satisfied that the holder;
 has contravened a provision of the act,
 fails to satisfy a prescribed requirement,
 failed his/her duty in safe navigation of aircraft,
 is not a fit or proper person to have the responsibilities etc., of such licence, or
 has contravened a direction or instruction pertaining to safe navigation.

Before taking such action CASA must give notice to the holder and require him/her to show cause why the variation, suspension or cancellation should not take place.

I suggest that if the holder has, say, a medical condition that won’t improve then CASA would be justified in effecting a life suspension regardless of the outcome of any court hearing in relation to other matters. This is supposition on my part because I do not know what the details are relating to the specific incident.

A licence is a privilege, not a right, so what is all the fuss about?

25th Jan 2003, 12:15
The media reported that the guy up in front of the beak at Hamilton had 25 CASA charges to answer for. If that is correct then that's not bad for an amateur private pilot.

CASA are not all fools and its a good bet that they have had their eyes on this clown for some time before obtaining the hard evidence necessary to nail him to the wall. Just a shame they miss all the other GA cowboys out there.

26th Jan 2003, 08:15
I give you a hypothetical:

A Policeman (sorry Woman), stops you for alleged speeding.

You dispute his/her assertions and say, "I'll see you in court".

Fair 'nuff ?

The matter goes to Court and the Defendant is found NOT GUILTY.

The Policeman had powers to stop, arrest if neccesary and provide a Plaint to the Court.

Fair 'nuff ?

The accused goes free, or if the reverse occurs, goes to jail.

Fair 'nuff ?

Another hypothetical.

CASA ramp you and find you in some breach of the act.. They then "CANCELL" you licence even after you have said, "I'll see you in Court".

They then up the "ante" by providing you and your well paid ambulance chaser, with another 23 CRIMINAL charges.

You go to Court and the Court finds that the charges were preposterously inflated and find you guilty of not dotting a sentence on your MR.

Penalty: bugga all !

Blue Hauler, a question, where does it say that a licence is a privelege and not a right ?

Icarus 2001, perhaps some of these people should read the AUSTRALIAN CONSTITUTION especially the following which CASA seem to treat with contempt.

Chapters 1, 11, and 111 of the Constitution confer the legislative, executive and judicial powers on three different bodies which are established by the Constitution- the Parliament(chapter 1), The Commonwealth Executive (chapter 11), and the judiciary (chapter 111).

The legislative power is the power to make laws.

The executive power is the power to administer the laws and carry out the business of Government through such bodies as government departments, statutory authorities and the defence forces.

The judicial power is the power traditionally exercised by the courts such as the conduct of criminal trials and determining disputes in relation to contracts.

There is no strict demarcation between the legislative and executive powers, however by contrast, the separation of he powers between the judicature on the one hand, and the parliament and executive is STRICT.



The principles and proceedures that govern the adjudication of disputes between persons or organisations. Chief among which are that the adjudication should be unbiased and given in good faith and that each party should have equal access to the tribunal and should be aware of arguements and documents adduced by the other.


CASA ARE FOOLS !!!!!!!!!!

If you are a bank runner, I'll give you a point of concern.

Two airsick pax, mid summer, a "dog" of an aircraft, and, some C310 jockey abuses me for not advising him when I had passed his comfort zone so he could climb to a nice cool altitude. "******"

I'm a cowboy apparantly even though I said sorry!


Perhaps this guy forgot ??? Dom't know but a bit harsh accusing him of being a threat to mankind.


Policeman of the air, OK if they are not the rule makers, the administrators, the Judge jury executioner etc etc etc.......

They can't be all of these people, it is SIMPLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

and Islander Jock;

You appear to not full understand the Australian Constitution, OR IS IT ME THAT IS IN THE TWILIGHT ZONE ?????????????

:confused: :confused: :confused:

26th Jan 2003, 10:06
Nice post axiom, I'd only hope that it would be so simple in a perfect world. Of course there is always the old goodie "an immediate and ongoing threat to safety", so I guess they can get it both ways.

My previous post obviously didn't state my position clear enough... I do not believe that it is OK to breach the rules (re: lapsed medical), but however the main crux of what I was trying to say was that sometimes you are put in a situation that arises (usually by the sudden and unexpected removal of a service in your area), that you cannot fix within the alloted (by CASA/ASA) timeframe.

I have no direct problem with the regulators of our industry, but they can take some bewildering directions sometimes.... ?

26th Jan 2003, 10:46
Interesting debate.

Okay, if the policeman (woman) finds your licence is invalid (out of date?), you can't drive. You can say you'll see them in court as much as you like, but you aint gonna drive! If your medical is not valid, you cannot exericse the privleges of a pilot's licence. All licences are priviliges...no one has the right to operate most forms of transport in public without a licence of some sort. If a policeman (woman) pulls over a vehicle that is unroadworthy, they can stop you from driving it and you can huff and puff about court as much as you like and you may win...and you may lose. Fact is, the police, in some circumstances, can take you off the road before you've been to court.

The CARS are passed by the politicians, whether you like it or not, CASA does have the power to cancel/suspend licences and the have the responsibility of enforcing the regulations as they stand. They are hammered when they do and they are hammered when they don't.

You can go to court and you can have CASA decisions reversed...like you can go to court and have police decisions reversed?

I believe that aviation should be regulated; I've seen too many untrustworthy, unknowledgeable or just plain dishonest people in GA not to be cynical about some of the people spruking about freedom to fly...we have no more 'right' to fly than people have a 'right' to drive. Everytime an aircraft crashes, we see the media, the families and the public questioning standards in aviation and quite frankly, my view is that standards in GA has dived dramatically over the past 30 years.

I have also seen some really strange actions by CASA that makes me realise it is like any other public service entity..it has internal politics, external politics, and 'personalities' with 'strong opinions' as every pilot in this country seems to have.

The regulations as they stand have to be enforced and CASA has that authority. Are you suggesting that CASA is operating outside its authority?

Blue Hauler
26th Jan 2003, 12:01

… A Policeman (sorry Woman), stops you for alleged speeding….The Policeman had powers to stop, arrest if neccesary and provide a Plaint to the Court….

No powers of arrest under the Traffic Act for speeding, although there are such powers for other offences. The Criminal Code (Queensland at least) provides for powers of arrest for Dangerous Driving the proof of which may consist of a number of offences, including speeding.

Commit enough speeding offences and you will be asked to show cause why your licence should not be suspended or cancelled. Such suspension or cancellation is effected by a police officer, not a court, exercising similar rights as contained under CAR 269.

The lawmakers (Parliament) confer those powers upon the regulators.

… Blue Hauler, a question, where does it say that a licence is a privelege and not a right ?

Section 9 of the Civil Aviation Act confers powers upon CASA to issue licences, certificates etc. Where does it say that a person has a right to hold a licence? It doesn’t. Therefore a licence is a privilege conferred by CASA

As stated in my post above CASA has the power under CAR 269 to vary, suspend or cancel such licence, certificate or authority. Sub-paragraph (3) of that regulation requires “…CASA to give notice in writing to the holder…the facts and circumstances that in the opinion of CASA, warrant consideration being given to …cancellation of the licence, and allow the holder…to show cause, within such time as CASA specifies in that notice…”

CAR 272A states that if “…CASA suspends a licence…its holder is taken not to be the holder of the licence…during the period of the suspension.” The lawmakers have conferred a right upon CASA to withdraw privileges previously granted.

An aggrieved party does have a right of appeal by virtue of Section 31 of the Civil Aviation Act by making “…application to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal for review of a reviewable decision”

My hypothetical: An authority issues a person with a licence to carry a hand gun subject to certain conditions. That person abuses those conditions. Shouldn’t that authority have the power to rescind its original decision based on such evidence it has at its disposal? Would the general public feel safe if the licence was not rescinded? Supposing the condition was a non-reversible mental illness (loss of fitness) could they not cancel the licence for life? In any event the aggrieved person is always at liberty to appeal the decision of the authority through the courts. All sounds constitutional to me!

bush mechanics
26th Jan 2003, 12:05
CASA s problem is that there own people dont even know there legislation.You ring three difrent ofices and you get 6 difrent answers.Had a casa guy up north issue asr on couple of aircraft and one was that the weight limits on placards in the aircraft were in lbs and not KGs,Aircraft was certfied in australia with all weights in LBS,Soo weres the problem?
Any change too get the gastabo mentality out has too be a good one.End of the day they are all public servents.PS anyone tried to get a new aircraft type on there AOCs within 6 months.

Blue Hauler
26th Jan 2003, 12:13

As an addendum to your previous:


Perhaps this guy forgot ??? Dom't know but a bit harsh accusing him of being a threat to mankind…

By law you are not allowed to forget…ignorance is not an acceptable excuse for failing to comply with the law.

Islander Jock
26th Jan 2003, 15:13

I do not for one minute purport to have any in depth knowledge or experience with the Australian Constitution. Probably only on a par with Denis Dinuto in The Castle :D . As to whether or not you are in the "Twilight Zone". That is a question best answered by yourself. :rolleyes:

What I do have though is a fairly good understanding of CARs CAOs and AIP as they apply to me. Should I fail to abide by the provisions of those documents then I expect to be dealt with by the body which issues my licence and associated privileges or as you seem to prefer, authorisations. If I don't like it, then I don't fly but I certainly don't take it upon myself to decide which provisions I will chose to abide by and which I will not.

26th Jan 2003, 23:40
It appears that the original concept of the presumption of innocence until proved guilty has been lost in a maze of red herrings.

Some valid points, some argueable, but most do not address the simple fact that this guy has been punished before he has been found guilty.

He has been punished by the same people who have a vested interest in enforcing the rules they made up, (sure, after industry consultation) !

A lot of postees to this thread would have this bloke hung by now and I simply say it is blo*dy wrong, unconstitutional, un Australian, and epitomises what is wrong with aviation in Australia today.

Because a law is a law, it doesn't go that it is always a good law. My main grievance with CASA is their application of the law.

It has been suggested to me that CASA took 7 months to find him guilty (and before any trial), and I would suggest to you all that this factor removes the "smoking gun" from the equation.

If he was such a menace to society (as in a drunk driver, or a bank robber with an unlicenced pistol), why was he allowed to meander through life as normal, oblivious to his fate.

I hate it when people refer to poor sods like this bloke as "cowboys" and I will defend them against the taxi driver mentality of a lot of our so called professionals who believe that they are the only ones who should be on the road (sky).

On Australia day long weekend, what has happened to the "fair go mate" ideal we once cherished.

I am prepared to debate anyone on anything, but not CAR's when they are used as red herrings in what is a simple case of our rights as Australians.

struth, bugga bugga bugga

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

27th Jan 2003, 01:17

Presumption of innocence? Um, come on, in Australia that concept disappeared years ago with random breath testing (pulling you over for no reason except to test your breath to see if you have been drinking...to see if you havebeen breaking the law) and harassment cases where the names are published in the media well before the trial so any 'presumption' is thrown out the window.

Ax, I don't know this guy, I don't know the case, don't know whether he is guilty and I wasn't even arguing this case. I am debating the general priniciples. Sometimes the machinery of CASA does take an inordinate time but then they would also be accused of shooting from the hip if they acted quicker.

Good law, bad law? I guess that's a matter of opinion and where you stand on issues and there are many examples of that in Australia. The law is enacted by the parliament which is supposed to represent the people and the law is the law until it is changed. We do not have the luxury of choosing which laws we follow and which ones we don't without ramification, thank goodness.

Now, when it comes to aviation, the laws with which we must comply that are intended to put some order in the system and provide protection PRIMARILY to those on the ground and the passenger. CASA is charged with enforcing the laws made by the politicians and so it must. If there is a problem with the way they administer the laws then there are avenues of redress.

Are you really suggesting that if CASA finds someone breaking the law that they have to go to court each time to administer the consequence? I hope not. Now, CASA should act fairly and without malice and I know that individuals within the organisation have not always done that; but that is a management issue within CASA that needs to be addressed. But I also believe that if CASA finds pilots flying with invalid medicals, invalid endorsements, invalid ratings, false entries in log books, fake training, invalid maintenance releases etc, then they should take action. I can see the public demanding action if CASA was not to act.

"The rules they made up"....if you saw the process the regs and legislation undergo getting through parliament, then you would realise there are ample avenues for people to have their 'say'...often that 'say' is not agreed with by others but that is the system we work under and in general it seems to work okay.

Now, how can we make the system better? I don't have a problem with a 'points' type system IF it is concieved and administered without fear or favour; I wouldn't mind seeing an decision review committee consisting of industry/CASA/joe public who could review questioned CASA decisions-a sort of ombudsman...there are ways and means.

But the law we have right now is the law that CASA has to administer...I don't see their current powers contrasting dramatically from the powers the police have at present.

I do believe that we need strong enforcement for the industry's sake.

Sorry, that is just my opinion.

MIss Behaviour
27th Jan 2003, 02:27
Ops Normal

If there is noone who does aviation medicals in The Alice why not ask one of the Darwin medicos if they would consider flying down.

A number of Darwin specialists fly down to do clinics for a day or two every couple of months. Why not ask the local medical centre if this is an option.

If it ain't you could always get a few pilot mates together & pay the Dr's airfare DN/AS/DN $450.00 divided by a few of you is a lot cheaper than airfares ex AS for everybody to fly to the nearest major centre that does them. :p :p

27th Jan 2003, 02:42
Fair 'nuff, I don't believe in the tooth fairy, but do believe that,

The presumption of innocence
Natural justice and
Due process,

Are part of our laws by which we live.

If we work outside these principles, we are working outside the rule of law.

If working outside of the rule of law is now assumed to be the norm, then this is a part of society that I would prefer not to be part of.

The law may be enacted by Parliament, but the laws are written by CASA for Parliament, for CASA to exercise and prosecute at their whim.

Of note here was an announcement by John Anderson, 18th November 2002, that an air standards advisory body would be set up (I guess 30th June), to complete the reform of the aviation safety regulations.

This is a positive move that may have the corollary to take away from CASA the rulemaking for rubber stamping by the Parliamentarians.

A further announcement was to the effect of a direct judicial involvement in the application and punishment by miscreants of the laws.

I could then live with CASA being the policeman.

I don't know the guy either, I don't want to argue his case and, would rather wait until after the matter goes to court to offer further comment.

I respect your opinion SPLATR, but I 'm sorry, I really am an idealist who doesn't abide with any barstar*isation of our way of life or the rule of law.

What do you think of the 3 tiers idea with CASA in the middle ?

Blue Hauler
27th Jan 2003, 06:23

It has been suggested to me that CASA took 7 months to find him guilty (and before any trial), and I would suggest to you all that this factor removes the "smoking gun" from the equation.

Perhaps the guy didn’t have a medical because he lacked the necessary fitness. CASA probably asked him to show cause why his licence shouldn’t be cancelled and after seven months of procrastination he couldn’t, so they took it off him. They wouldn’t need a trial for that!


Presumption of innocence? Um, come on, in Australia that concept disappeared years ago with random breath testing.

Rest assured that the onus of proof for criminal offences rests with the Crown and the standard required is ‘beyond reasonable doubt’. CASA would have to present their twenty-something charges before a magistrate, or if indictable offences, before a jury on that basis. Any penalty imposed by a court may also include suspension or cancellation of the said licence.

If you drive on a road or fly an aeroplane you have to accept that you and your equipment is open for inspection by the policing authority!

27th Jan 2003, 07:06

Have recieved your PM, and by the sound of what I hear around here, there would be at least two others that I know of that might be in a position to make an arrangement of such a nature!

Stand by, I'm off to the phone! :D

Many Thanks,


27th Jan 2003, 09:37
Blue H:

Beyond a reasonable doubt........Criminal offence.

On the balance of probabilities...Summary offence.

There IS an element in CASA that wants absolute power, unfortunate !

BUT, CASA of late are running scared being the payors of some substantial out of Court thingies !

While ever there is discretionary powers given to CASA (ie. they may get it wrong), they can be sued.

Answer, make everything illegal and with parliamentary assent, take away the discretionary element and guess what ? nobody can sue CASA for doing what is in the reg's.

Back to the Australian Constitution;

Guaranteed free trade between the States.

If these regulations hinder free trade or obstruct free trade becuse of these same reg's that are made by CASA



But getting back to my original objection, if this guy was a one legged pyromaniac with matches having sex with his neighbours dog in the back seat of a PA32 on autopilot without a medical (because he never had one in the first place) or a bloke who forgot to (or his paperwork was late as has happened to me), have a valid medical, WHAT WOULD YOU CHARGE HIM WITH ???

A summary offence or

A criminal offence.

I understand the guy in question has had criminal offences to face and if totalled up could equal 60 + years in jail.

As I said, it is the manner in which CASA dispenses justice that is of concern.

Lets not hang him until he is found guilty please all.. :rolleyes: bugga.

27th Jan 2003, 11:47
Hmmm...I understand where you're coming from Ax...I guess I'm arguing the situation as it is now, maybe not the ideal. There is little rubber stamping of legislation...look at the hold ups on the new legislation for the ATSB. Everyone is having their say, as it should be, so no, I don't think anything is really rubber stamped. I do believe that if good cogent arguments (and I don't include the rubbish certain high-profile pilots sprout forth with) are put up, then I think they have a chance of being championed by one side of politics or the other.

Blue Hauler, agree with much of what you say. My problem I guess with RBT and why I think it has a negative effect on the presumption of innocence is that before RBT, if a police office noted something amiss with your driving, then he had a reason to pull you over. RBT requires no reason..it just plucks people at random. Now, I don't for one minute deny that it, probably more than anything else, has reduced the road toll...I guess it was something we as a society was willing to enact although I still believe it whittled away at our so-called 'rights'. Look at the anti-terror laws that are being enacted...

I'll get off my soapbox now and retire.;)

Blue Hauler
27th Jan 2003, 11:52

Beyond a reasonable doubt........Criminal offence.

On the balance of probabilities...Summary offence.

You are confusing criminal law with civil law.

All Crimes, Misdemeanours and Simple Offences must be proven ‘beyond reasonable doubt’. Onus of proof rests with the crown be it CASA, ATO or the local constabulary.

In civil actions the standard of proof is ‘on the balance of probabilities.’ Onus rests with the defendant.

In perusing the CAA/CARs I don’t see anything different in the legal right of CASA as compared to any other law enforcement agency.

I understand the guy in question has had criminal offences to face and if totalled up could equal 60 + years in jail.

Offences under the regulations don’t attract huge penalties, but if a number of offences are committed that could substantiate ‘recklessness’ then a charge under Section 20A of the Act would no doubt attract a hefty jail term. This is no different to charging a motorist under the Criminal Code for multiple traffic offences, as I alluded to in an earlier post. Alternatively charges could be placed under the Crimes Act. But I don’t know the case in question and have only passing interest in the debate as raised in this thread.


27th Jan 2003, 14:40
Guys, (and ladies), I could be flogged in the stocks for this, but I thought that the real problem with casa enforcement is the right of appeal - take your licence or aoc and you can fight it out in the aat - supposedly months of waiting with no income - no opportunity for interim operations - guilty and penalised without a real right of appeal.
Am I missing something - and is this all about to change?

27th Jan 2003, 21:26

Someone said, was it axiom, that Regualtions are passed by the parliament after industry consultation. Hah :D

A bit like shooting crows, everyone checks there are no Currawongs in there, don't they.

The regulations are coming so fast and so complex these days I challenge even the most wordy of those here to tell me just what Regs are up that affect them. No cheating, stay off the web.

CASA are making JARs (ooops, I mean CASRs ;) ) at an amazing rate. They are big, thick and confusing, once they are big enough, thick enough and confusing enough with the right amount of useless words so they don't look like cut and pasted JARs, off 'for comment' they go. Of course we miss most of them, or the innuendo within.

Then they go before the lower house. Bit like putting the circuit diagram for a RADAR set in front of a lawyer and asking her opinion.

Then they are 'tabled' in the upper house. There they are not read, or even glanced at, unless someone (with clout) in industry gets a Senator or two interested enough (and motivated enough to unstick thier lazy bums from the red leather) to disallow.

Then you gotta get enough Senators to vote it down in the house. Same problem as above.

The system is rorted by CASA who rely on the fact that the Parliamentarians (both houses) just can't be expected to understand the intricate detail of every Reg and industry is just swamped and basically too busy to look at it all.

Democracy, what in interesting concept, I think we should just bomb Iraq, that'll fix everything!!! :)

28th Jan 2003, 03:22
Blue hauler; perhaps I am wrong, but then again..??? can someone clarify this point please ?

I recall in NSW some time ago, The Wran years (NSW State), I think, that they did away with the summary offences act, but I was always of the opinion that my previous was correct and, I guess ignorance is no excuse.

ulm; we don't always see eye to eye, but I think you have valid points all the time and would miss your input if you "bugged out", SO DON'T BUGGA :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: OFF, I SHOULD HAVE SAID ABOUT INDUSTRY CONSULTATION :confused: :confused: :confused:

all the best, ax.

28th Jan 2003, 04:50

Have you checked with the locally based RFDS Medical Officers - in Qld they are all DAMES as well.......simplifies things for the RFDS drivers I suppose :)

Dunno about the main thrust of this thread but - too complex for me, I'll stick to flying aeroplanes and pray I don't stuff up badly enough to draw the flies:cool:

Blue Hauler
28th Jan 2003, 08:36

Just to clarify,

Summary Offences are offences against various Acts and Regulations that may be dealt with by two Justices in Petty Sessions or a Magistrate. In contrast, Indictable Offences are usually remanded to a District or Supreme Court and heard before a jury. In some instances the offender may be able to opt for summary jurisdiction and cop out with a much lesser penalty. Offences against the CARs would be dealt with summarily. Offences against the CAA would be for the ‘high jump’. Mind you indictable offences are still heard before a Magistrate to determine if a case exists. If the Magistrate is so satisfied it is then remanded to the higher court for hearing. That is usually associated with a price rise when the solicitor passes you to a barrister!

Not sure about NSW ‘Summary Offences’ but suspect that may have been the Police Offences Act or something similar. Queensland had the Vagrants, Gaming and Other Offences Acts that contained many simple offences that were dealt with summarily. These included begging alms, soliciting, obscene language and so forth. Many offenders under that act could also be dealt with under other Acts or the Criminal Code. As recent as the 1960’s it was an offence against the Vag. Act to be found at night with face blackened and wearing ‘indian rubber shoes’! Or found in possession of ‘picklock keys’ or ‘silent matches’. The Vag. Act was abolished in Queensland and I guess most other states did the same and replaced by more updated Acts. But summary offences still exist.

Haven't had to work through such law for nearly twenty years but always found it interesting.:eek:

28th Jan 2003, 08:38
And you reckon we've got it bad....from Rotorhub:

TSA: FAA tickets could be pulled at a moment's notice
Source: Defence & Public Service Helicopter
28 January 2003

U.S. aviation personnel holding FAA certificates - pilots, mechanics, dispatchers etc. - are studying a notice of proposed rulemaking that would permit TSA to cancel those certificates at a moment’s notice without prior consultation with the issuing authority.

The proposed policy - included in last Friday’s Federal Register - in effect gives TSA, the new Transportation Security Administration, the right to pre-empt normal FAA certificate action.

Under the changes, TSA would not necessarily be required - under the rubric of national security - to provide a basis for its decision. It merely has to advise FAA which must then issue a notice of certificate action to the affected holder immediately suspending his or her certificate.

It will then be up to the individual to convince TSA that he or she does not constitute a security risk. FAA would have no say in the matter, and TSA would not be required to detail the reasons for its action.

Not surprisingly the move has been taken badly by an aviation community already feeling it has become the target for heavy-handed security measures in the wake of 9/11.

Most of the major alphabet soup organisation representing the affected communities are expected to weight in with comments during the 90 day comment period once they have studied the proposal.

28th Jan 2003, 09:24
Gee wizz;

I now know what I think I am doing???/

When I was in the Army, I was a much maligned and misunderstood officer cadet.

When our indiscretions were found out, we were always offered (as was our right), the offer of a Courts Martial or having the matter summarily dealt with.

mostly we were of the opinion that if you wanted to graduate, you took the sumary punishment.

I graduated.

I worked within the system for 15 years.

Now nobody say's Sir to me and I don't expect salutes.

BUT it appears the system that we worked within in the late 60's and 70's is remanifistated in the form of CASA.

I cannot believe that people believe in this convoluted excuse for justice in this day and time.

Thanks for the info Blue H it has really made my day;

God bless all of you ax.....


29th Jan 2003, 02:11
Ax my dear friend.

I shall never 'bugga orf' but nor shall I always agree with you. As was explained to our mutual friend? LedSled just the other day, I suffer from a multiple personality.

In fact some times two personalities can express themselves at the same time, but never more that two (right now anyway) :)

But to justice, summary or otherwise. Has it occured to you why that silly system these days perpetuated at ADFA and Duntroon seems familiar in CASA. Because oh so many of them come from that system (or in a particualr case, the US equivalent).

Now when one of us went to OCS (oops, showing my age now :) ) we spent many a sad month realising that all the nasty stuff thought about officers was actually true!!!

Not to say they are all ******* (I did that :) ) only a mere 99.98%. Trouble is I know the .02% and they don't work in CASA!!!

And those ex-sir CASA wallies still DO expect a salute. :rolleyes:


They turned me into an officer ... I got better! :p

29th Jan 2003, 10:06

Roses are red, violets are blue,

I'm schizophrenic and so am I.

Sorry, couldn't help myself.

Actually I couldn't handle lance corporal's and used to make a habit of making and breaking them until (actually Bombadiers), they used to have press studs on the stripe.

Sergeants were too streety cunning for me and I used to set them up with the boss.

Warrant Officers used to give me the sh*ts and I left them alone.

My men loved me though.


It is my firm belief that all CASA must be Warrant Officers or the RAAF equivalent. (ie elevated to the level of their incompetance, or promoted out of harms way).

Don't know about the Yanks, but the British system had worked for some 300 years hearabouts and thereabouts, and it saddens me to think that this mentality still exists in Civvy life today.

Have I told you about the Cathay Club ??

:( :(

31st Jan 2003, 01:27
No medical...............no fly! Simple rule that applys to each and every one of us WITHOUT EXCEPTION! How absolutely simple could it be.
AOPA running GA....:* yeah right!
A few years back, a chap hired a plane which was 20 hours overdue for a 100 hourly. He had it away for 6 days and never once completed the maintenance release but flew it every day. On the way home, with 4 pax onboard, he had an engine failure and pulled off a forced landing in a paddock. Nobody hurt! CASA prosecuted him for his indiscretions! AOPA published his story and went to bat for him suggesting he should have been applauded for his handling of the emergency instead of being prosecuted - I personally think he should have been locked up and barred from flying for ever-more!
RHS and BOYD running GA........affordable safety......please, not in the same breath!:mad:
Anyone remember the Seaview accident several years back...pilot had no medical....insurance company paid NO-ONE because the flight was deemed to be illegal from the start!:}
The ramifications of some of these actions are far reaching and like it or not, CASA has a role and a job to do. We might not like it but that is the way it is! Simple actually isn't it?:D

31st Jan 2003, 04:56

Nothing to do with CASA is simple, but I take your point.

Regards Seaview, wasn't there a Royal commission into this ?

I didn't hear or see anything about the pilot being without a medical, infirm or unfit.

I do remember quiet a bit of sensationalism about some CASA involvement and possible palm greasing in the engineering side of things.

I believe the Monarch accident was similarly tainted, but didn't hear anything about simplistic outcomes and CASA having a job to do. 10 pax a/c CFIT without an autopilot but 2 pilots?

Problem about talking about simplistic and CASA in the same sentence is that you hit the nail right on the head.

We mostly don't like it and can't do a thing about it !!!

Irrespective of whatever Government we choose, this mob have sealed themselves into a legal bunker that even a change of Gov't cant alter with the best blockbusters that are available.

No medical (because you are not fit, OK, but no medical because some CASA wahhah has held up your paperwork for 3 months when you planned a flight 12 months ago is not OK).

The words "set up" spring to mind.

AOPA running GA, talk to ulm about that.

The story about the bloke with the 20 hour overdue MR, was he told it is OK because of some over run arrangements.

I remember when I was in my early days, hired an aircraft, and was told my fingers would be broken if I made a defect entry on the MR. Flew 200 nm with an open door. Survived.

I have hired aircraft for the day, signed the MR and before leaving, had same taken back to office. flew without one and the aircraft made it somehow. My signature on the paper however.

I have flown my aircraft to a maintenance facility when the MR was 3 days out of date, the aircraft didn't know the difference and I am alive to talk about it.

Locked up and barred for ever more, again whatever happened to the differentiation between a criminal and summary offence.

Affordable safety ?

perhaps calculated risk ??

perhaps risk management ??

perhaps risk minimilisation ??

Whatever, it's got to be better than RISK ELIMINATION which CASA is now in the business of promoting.

It's OK for you blokes with Ops managers, duty time rosters, etc etc and others who do your maintenance and sign your chits. Blokes like me sometimes screw up but we ar NOT a menace to society.

Struth !!

:yuk: :yuk:

31st Jan 2003, 08:33
Oh Axe, I had retired but your last post brought me back.

You choosing which rules to follow and which you decide you won't is the sort of thing that only confirms GA's cr*p reputation in my mind. Insurance companies would love you because it gives them the 'out' they look for.

Look, saying your aircraft didn't fall out of the sky when it didn't have a valid maintenance release is a silly argument. It's like saying, 'my car registration is out of date but I didn't have an accident so it's okay'. The regulations are there as the framework under which we work and they are the law of the land whether you happen to like them or not.

It doesn't matter if CASA takes 3 months to process the paperwork...if one doesn't have a valid whatever, one just does not fly! Take it up with the politicians, the media, I don't care but if one does not have the appropriate certifications and clearances, there is no excuse to fly. Past actions such as yours and others are why CASA has so much power! Think about it! If people played by the rules (and if they didn't like the rules, then they lobbied to have them changed through a credible organisation), then the need for CASA to play policeman lessens.

31st Jan 2003, 10:15
My point was that my misdemenors (which occurred over a 35 year period), although culpable in the legal and insurance world in which we live hardly seem like the sort of offence that should bring the noose into play.

You are right, in every sense of the word, but if you make everything a criminal offence, is the insurance ramifications any less or more than an infringement ?

Again I say, it is CASA's application of the law that is the problem, not the rights or wrongs or grey areas.

Can you honestly say to me that you have not made any legal indiscretions (either on purpose or by mistake), in your career, and, were they of a magnitude that would warrant the heavy handed tactics of CASA. honestly ???

Just to set things straight, I have never been busted by CASA or it's prior's, but have had a very costly and nasty thing happen to me because of their incompetence and whitewashing.

I therefor have a very keen interest in bringing about reform in the aviation industry and intend to continue to agitate for same.

I don't choose which rules to follow, but sometimes you get caught up in a series of events that overtake you (usually by CASA), and you have no control over the outcome.

PPrune allows me let off a bit of steam. I am not beholding to AOPA, Boyd Munroe, Dick Smith or anyone. I am acting alone, but pragmatic enough to adopt any ideology that helps in my quest.

:ok: :ok:

31st Jan 2003, 14:58
But Axe, (now I've had a few wines)...can I say I have not been indiscreet...no. I could never say that :O I guess the point I am trying to make is that there are the legal issues, there are the public expectations and there is this thing called professionalism, And we are probably way off the thread here..but busting the rules won't change things. Arguing their inapropriateness may...but don't forget others may not agree.

My personal and professional dealings with the individuals within CASA has been nothing but amicable except when issues got to Canberra but then, when has Canberra NOT clouded and screwed up an issue?

I still fail to see the shades of grey you see. Either you have a valid medical or you don't. You either have a valid maintenance release or you don't. I don't see the shades of grey there.

Anyhow mate...keep the anger alive and you may achieve change but in my humble opinion, if you want to achieve change then it has to be done through lobbying and well-reseached argument. It can be done.......

31st Jan 2003, 21:26
Totally agree with you.....what grey areas?
Either the MR was valid or not...either the medical was valid or not...where do the grey areas come into the equation. AXIOM; cannot agree with your perception that because you flew the aircraft WITHOUT A VALID MR, and you survived, DOES NOT make it OK by a long shot......I will go as far as saying you were a bloody idiot for doing it; risking the insurance of the owner, a long drawn out legal battle if you injured or killed somebody AND your own licence if you got caught!:mad:
I have a lot of trouble with some of the arguments here; these are not new rules or rules that could be claimed to be 'foreign' to any of us.......they are the simplest yet most flaunted in GA without a doubt!:D
If you don't like the rules, do something about changing them(!) not that you'll get a lot of support 'cause there are quite a few around that think these two rules in particular are pretty much OK.

1st Feb 2003, 00:54
I'll give myself up on Monday.

In my last days of feedom let me tell you what a "grey area" is.

Some examples.

"Flight Safety Australia", the CASA blurb of volume 5 number 4, particularly pages 20 and 21. A quote from the analysis by Steve Bell, a LAME and CASA safety promotions officer.

"the maintenance release is the only tool pilots have at their disposal to determine if an aircraft is airworthy. It is the only safe and difinitive method of communicating the aircraft's state to other pilots, maintenance personnel, the operator and the owner". (I concur).

I now quote from some letters to an owner pilot who having relied upon a MR to attest to the airworthiness of an aircraft in a purchase, went through an extended CASA investigation, a Commonwealth Ombudsman's investigation, a Senate inquiry, 5 years of political lobbying, obstruction by CASA, seizing and loosing of vital evidence by CASA and the loss of many, many thousands of dollars;

Dr Paul Scully-Power:

"I have to say to you, as I think has been made clear before, that CASA does NOT suscribe to the view that a maintenance release is the primary document that provides information to a pilot / purchaser about the airworthiness of an aircraft". (I don't concur).

Peter Langhorne, Chief of Staff to Hon John Anderson:

"a maintenance release is a record of required maintenance. It was never intended to be a document that on it's own should be relied to purchase an aircraft. Although it plays an important role, it CANNOT be a guarantee of an airworthy aircraft". (I don't concur).

Honourable John Anderson, Deputy Prime minister and minister for things that fly:

"I am advised that while a maintenance release plays an important role in recording the maintenance of an aircraft it cannot be a guarantee of an irrworthy aircraft". (I don't concur).

This is but one of many examples of "grey areas" and are documented in Paul Phelan's "phelan Papers".

If you feel this information to be less than the truth, ask him for specific examples and get him to give you their contact details.

I'll say again my theory on CASA's problems:

They are "sh*t scared" of being sued and are rewriting the regulations so that everything is "illegal", thus allowing no discretionary movements by their field staff.

I must say, that my dealings with the lower eschelon of CASA have been cordial, however I do remember blokes like "Colonel Klink" (not his real name), who were real bast*rds.

Ask Arthur Pape for some examples of "grey areas" in medicine.

I'll be off to pack my toothbrush now folks, see you in about five years. I'll bet everything is in black and white in my case ???


1st Feb 2003, 01:30
On a serious level.......what you quote above is probably correct BUT, what would the state of the nation be if there was NO maintenance releases???? We, as pilots, have nothing more to go on as to the 'perceived serviceability' of any particular aircraft and therefore rely very heavily indeed on that document. I think we all know there are limits on the ability of the document to ABSOLUTELY GUARANTEE the serviceability of the aircraft, but as I said before, that is all we have available to us.

On a not so serious note; do you realise that during your 5 year stint at Her Majesty's Pleasure, if you get a job in either the leather goods workshop or pressing number plates, you will probably earn more than the average GA pilot headdown and arseup out here?!!!!!:mad:

Blue Hauler
1st Feb 2003, 02:17

Mate, you really don’t want to go live ‘inside’. In the main, they are indeed a different class of humanity with considerably lower goals and ethics than any CASA representative could ever stoop to. And that’s just the warders. The inmates are worse!

The MR was never the final document to indicate the state of an aircraft as far as a buyer is concerned. I have been responsible for the purchase of a few used aircraft, some worth many millions. It requires an expert to delve through the aircraft logbooks and the various Service Bulletins, Airworthiness Directives and manufacturers maintenance schedule. Invariably such an audit finds items that have ‘slipped through the cracks’, some compulsory and others advisory.

The MR is issued simply to advise that on the date of issue the aircraft was airworthy and all required maintenance completed to date (and unfortunately E&OE). Additional checks prior to expiry date/TIS are enumerated thereon. If pilots, operators and C or R holders are honest then any further defects will be recorded on the MR. The C or R holder will receive AD’s and SB’s from time to time and will return the aircraft to have such issues rectified. That is the system.

In issuing the MR the authority will not include items for call-up during the next maintenance cycle. Such items may include prop overhaul, engine overhaul, undercarriage inspection, wing bolts inspection, re-weigh, new AD’s and SB’s etc. Therefore if you exceed the specified TIS you risk the possibility of overrunning other mandatory checks scheduled in the next cycle.

Our responsibility is to operate within the system. Grey areas may provide mitigating circumstances that reduce the penalty but are not authorised, justified or excused by law!

Paul Phelan
1st Feb 2003, 02:24
Anyone is welcome to a copy of the document Axiom refrred to, simply by e-mailing me: [email protected]<hidden>. It's in .PDF format but don't print it out unless you own a paper mill. Volume ii is being prepared, but the problem is that clique of malevolent individuals which is running its own agenda within CASA, is conducting so many random purges it's hard to keep up with the documentation. Its management is either unaware or encouraging them. If the management is unaware, it is incompetent. If the management is aware but doesn't understand, it is incompetent. If the management is aware and approves of some of the activities, as many now believe, it is worse than incompetent.

1st Feb 2003, 03:26
ANY system works well and most would agree that if we all worked within the system, the if nothing else, we would have conformity.

Trouble is, CASA USE the system, convolute the system, ABUSE the system, alter the system, ammend the system, redefine the system, misinterpret the system, misuse the system and impinge on my freedoms and rights while some (who have never eered in their life), believe that the privelege of working within the system as it stands confers some biblical responsibility on my part to know all the ins and outs.

If a MR is not THE document that tells a pilot that the a/c is airworthy, then what is??

How many pilots out there have been taught how to read and interpret an aircraft or propeller logbook. It was certainly not in my PPL curriculum. I think you would find that most engineers would prefer a pilot to keep his hands off them.

If nothing is transcribed from the MR (ie defects), to the logbooks, then this obviously is not "the document" either.

Are manufacturers bulletins and recommendations incorporated as AD's or is this at the owners whim??

As far as I am concerned, if an enginer signs out an aircraft, then on that day and time the a/c is airworthy. Any subsequent damage should be recorded in the MR and either signed off or a date for rectification annotated.

An estimate for wear and tear should be proportional to the time in service since the MR issue and the aircraft sans cosmetics IS airworthy.


IT IS CASA SAYING IT IS GREY !!! and now threegreens is moderating the tempo by saying the system is not infallable.

The system is FLAWED if CASA are allowed to work the system to their advantage.

Thanks for the info blueH, reminds me of that old story;

Freight run, middle of the night, middle of nowhere.

Pilot.. I'm fuc*ing bored !

ATC... unidentified a/c, say your callsign.

Pilot.. I said I'm fuc*ing bored, not fuc*ing stupid !

Read Paul's paper people. sorry for the alliteration. :p

1st Feb 2003, 04:09
And what, Axiom, would you have had CASA do to the person who issued the MR to which you referred? There was no personal or property damage when the aircraft flew on the authority of that MR – must be OK merely to smack him on wrist. You wouldn’t be so hypocritical as to say that he should be prosecuted and his licence taken away, would you?

Ignorance is an exquisite flower, and one not lightly to be bruised with facts. It’s especially exquisite and lush in Australian aviation. I’ll try to prune, not bruise.

CASA does not prosecute anyone. The DPP prosecutes. CASA makes its decision as to whether to send a brief to the DPP, and the DPP makes a decision whether to launch the prosecution, on the basis of the Commonwealth’s prosecution policy.

The people who subscribe to the ‘smoking hole’ enforcement policy – that is, you don’t prosecute someone or take their licence away until after they’ve caused a smoking hole with an aircraft at the bottom of it – might ask why should CASA refer anything other than a smoking hole to the DPP.

Australia has ratified the Chicago Convention. Article 12 of that Convention says: Article 12.

Rules of the air.

Each contracting State undertakes to adopt measures to insure that every aircraft flying over or manoeuvring within its territory and that every aircraft carrying its nationality mark, wherever such aircraft may be, shall comply with the rules and regulations relating to the flight and manoeuvre of aircraft there in force. Each contracting State undertakes to keep its own regulations in these respects uniform, to the greatest possible extent, with those established from time to time under this Convention. Over the high seas, the rules in force shall be those established under this Convention. Each contracting State undertakes to insure the PROSECUTION of all persons violating the regulations applicable.[emphasis added.]

The words ‘insure’, ‘prosecution’, ‘violating’ and ‘regulations’ have meanings in the Convention that are not too far removed from what you might understand them to mean.

Australia – note, not CASA – has signed up to a Treaty that obliges it to prosecute all persons who violate the applicable rules and regulations relating to the flight and manoeuvre of aircraft within its territory or with VH on the tail, or to notify ICAO of a difference. Australia has not notified ICAO of any difference from at least the quoted part of Article 12.

CASA’s – yes CASA’s - obligations include the obligation that:CASA shall perform its functions in a manner consistent with the obligations of Australia under the Chicago Convention and any other agreement between Australia and any other country or countries relating to the safety of air navigation.

That was the legislature’s idea. It’s the law.

Hands up those who think CASA should ignore the law.

Some politicians, and indeed some industry demagogues, take advantage of the ignorant by suggesting or failing to refute the suggestion that CASA is autonomous and can effectively do what it likes, however it likes.

Don’t be sucked in.

There is a suggestion in this thread that CASA’s administrative powers are somehow unique and unconstitutional. Bollocks. The last fool lawyer who argued that in the Federal Court had costs awarded against him personally. See: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/federal_ct/2002/1532.html

1st Feb 2003, 05:48
Dear creampuff, nice to see you come out again.

I'll need time to digest your last. I know where you are coming from, but have a gut feeling of the black and white thing / for me against me syndrome.

As Johannes B once said, you can't have one leg either side of the barbed wire fence.

I am on tippy toes right now, so bear with axiom while he digests all this.

By the way, where are these "industry demagogues" when I need them ? :confused:

Walking Eagle
1st Feb 2003, 05:58
A few observations on previous posts:


The hypothesis of aeroplanes crashing into a crowded school yard is a popular one with one of the Tribal Elders at Northbourne Avenue, even when he’s discussing aerial photography over the West Australian deserts. However, given the surface area of the planet, the number of crowded school yards thereon and the number of aeroplanes that are crash every year by pilots whose medical certificates have lapsed, is not the crowded school yard a bit unnecessarily emotive?

Likewise, would those same protagonists would be screaming for the blood of the Department of Motor Transport (the regulator) if a loaded semitrailer crashed into a crowded ice cream parlour? I’d have thought they’d be too busy lynching the driver!


“Before taking such action CASA must give notice to the holder and require him/her to show cause why the variation, suspension or cancellation should not take place.”

Do we know whether that happened?


“25 CASA charges to answer for.”

Was that 25 flights without a current certificate? Or what? A Queensland operator recently copped a show cause listing 62 items, and it was apparently leaked to a government agency which was one of his customers. At the subsequent show cause almost all the matters were (quite rightly) set aside – mostly because they were CASA errors - and the company was told the recommendation would be that it should be given nine months to address the remainder – which were administrative issues. Of course, there’s no assurance that CASA will follow the recommendations.

It is a standard CASA tactic to itemise a huge number of “facts and circumstances.” This itemisation should in fact have three categories: “facts, circumstances, and uninvestigated allegations made by competitors, untrained and unqualified observers, and former employees.”

“CASA are not all fools and its a good bet that they have had their eyes on this clown for some time before obtaining the hard evidence necessary to nail him to the wall.”

Unfortunately the ones who are not fools keep their heads down and therefore don’t get much done. And do we know enough about the case to denounce him as a clown?


“my view is that standards in GA has dived dramatically over the past 30 years”

Having viewed aviation from above for over 40 years, I don’t think you’ll find any statistical support for that statement.

A number of contributors are overlooking the fact that police don’t make traffic laws, they just enforce them. CASA does the lot. It does in effect make the rules, (even though the regulations have to be passed by the Parliament), but it also makes what it describes as rules by endlessly rewriting CAOs (and slipping in little bits that nobody notices), forcing people to write nonsensical prescriptions in their operations manuals under pain of not having their AOC renewals recommended and then accusing the operator or pilot of breaching CAR 215 (9) by not doing what the ops manual says, and also by writing things into the AIP. There are other examples but I don’t want you dozing off over your keyboards.

“If there is a problem with the way they administer the laws then there are avenues of redress.”

Now we’re getting somewhere. Among the avenues of redress all too often overlooked are action against the individual CASA decision maker (whom, we’re told, didn’t even turn up at the court in Horsham.) The following is an extract from a legal opinion obtained by CASA in a not unrelated matter:

“CASA would be covered by the Indemnity in relation to defamation actions as with various other actions which may be brought (eg negligence, including negligent misstatement, breach of confidence, injurious falsehood, misfeasance in public office etc). However, the Indemnity will not apply in favour of a CASA officer, where the officer is guilty of serious or wilful misconduct. The likelihood that such actions would be brought, not only on the grounds of defamation, appears very high. The Commonwealth's exposure to damages in relation to CASA’s liability for defamation or other tortious liability under the Indemnity and to costs for such proceedings, is considerable.”

You ask:

“Are you really suggesting that if CASA finds someone breaking the law that they have to go to court each time to administer the consequence?”

Absolutely! For one thing, if they had to produce evidence and be cross-examined, they wouldn’t be able to take all these unilateral shortcuts. If I’m caught speeding or drink driving I have a choice – on the spot fines, or go to court. Was the gentleman in Horsham offered the choice?

“CASA should act fairly and without malice and I know that individuals within the organisation have not always done that; but that is a management issue within CASA that needs to be addressed”

Could we put a deadline on that, while there are still some aviation businesses operating?

A now-famous saying by a well-known administrator: “But Minister, if I had to have proof, I’d need another hundred inspectors!”


It wasn’t a PA32, it was a PA23, and the autopilot wasn’t working. Nice dog though.


Having worked through the whole thread, I can’t find anything that says what happened in court, although I’ve been told the magistrate put a flea in CASA’s ear over something they hadn’t done – possibly sent along the decision maker. I think it was adjourned to a later date. If anyone is aware of the proceedings, why not share the info?

1st Feb 2003, 06:28
walking eagle; I hope you are a friendly demagogue, how come I didn't get a mention?

I have been researching and "brain fadeing" on creampuff's post and think I need counselling. I am still at it though.

If you and I are searching for inner peace, we won't find it here, I'm afraid, but someone must rattle the can now and then.

The drought has just about beaten me, but my wife is beginning to understand me. When I sell the farm, I may take up pprune full time. The pay can't be any worse. :rolleyes:

Blue Hauler
1st Feb 2003, 10:00
Walking Eagle

…A number of contributors are overlooking the fact that police don’t make traffic laws, they just enforce them….

You don’t for one minute suspect that a politician would have the necessary nous to write and modify traffic laws? Police departments have legal sections staffed by experienced police officers with prosecutor skills and/or legal qualifications that do the leg work and forward it up to the Minister. Since most politicians are former farmers, union shop stewards or article clerks they put the law up for parliament as is. If it wasn’t for concerned citizens such as Axiom many of these bills would be passed. Those concerned citizens who lobby their local member for change and the police officers are the real writers of the Traffic Act (and other Acts and Regulations)

CASA would be no different.

… “Before taking such action CASA must give notice…to show cause why the variation, suspension or cancellation should not take place.”
Do we know whether that happened?

Buggar'd if I know – the case hasn’t made the new papers in my neck of the woods.

1st Feb 2003, 23:30
Walking Phelan…..I mean Paul Eagle….. I mean Walking Eagle

Which Civil Aviation Orders aren’t disallowable instruments and therefore subject to the same parliamentary scrutiny process as regulations? Which bits of AIP don’t reflect disallowable instruments?

And don’t go all journalist on me: specify the paragraphs of the CAO or the AIP to which you are referring. Which of them has the "little bits that nobody notices"?

But in any case, you won’t have to worry for much longer, at least in so far as the CAOs are concerned: apparently there won’t be any under the ‘new rules’. Just a few more decades of consultation and drafting, and the tunnel at the end of the light will be upon us.

On the compliance and enforcement policy front, I’m pleased to note that CASA (through a headhunter) yesterday advertised two new positions in the Office of Legal Counsel, one of whom will be Deputy General Counsel and whose job description includes formulating CASA’s compliance policy and processes. I suppose they’ve figured out that you can put a thousand pilots - or even aviation journalists - in front of a thousand typewriters for a thousand years, and they won’t produce a coherent regulatory compliance policy and procedures.

2nd Feb 2003, 02:10
Walking eagle


“my view is that standards in GA has dived dramatically over the past 30 years”

Having viewed aviation from above for over 40 years, I don’t think you’ll find any statistical support for that statement.

I have to very strongly agree with SPLATR on this one. The average product out of the training sausage machine these days is the worse it has been for 40 years. There are very few exceptions. There is more emphasis on cost control than on flying standards and knowledge. Get them out the door at a price, blow the standard. And with an in-house ATO you can set the standard where you like! Bring back external/independent testing I say!

Airmanship was the first thing to fall of the truck some 10+ years ago. Now stick and rudder skills are making way for systems management and GPS and the like. Just sit on the fence one day and watch the average x/w landings from 150's to Jets. It is really obvious. And many pilots when you ask were not trained in x/w because the instructor thought it was too windy that day!!!! Many think the peddles on the floor are for taxi and brakes! One new CPL recently was observed to place his feet on the floor just after takeoff in a twin – when queried he said they are not needed in flight…!!!

I could go on.

This is very clearly a CASA problem but their own FOIs are victims of the same system and many don't know any better themselves. CASA wont let them fly or do tests so they continue to live in wonderland. I guess they won't see it as a problem until there is a 'smoking hole'.

CASA are NOT a safety based organisation, but a regulatory and compliance body that seems to believe that if you comply you will be safe. And we are the victims of this mismanagement!!

2nd Feb 2003, 04:38
Creampuff, I cannot let your last post go unanswered regarding what I would have CASA do to the engineer in question and that particular MR.

This bloke did call for the blood of the engineer and, you guessed it, he (the engineer), was SUMMARILY slapped on the wrist. Other similar situations have had the full wrath of CASA descend upon engineers (see again the Phelan papers), and they are out of business.


If the system is so black and white, WHY ?

THEN a company search discovers a direct link between the engineering company and the top end of the CASA food chain.


This is not ignorance on the part of the person in question, and it has the hallmarks of a CASA set up. It is a lack of probity and integrity that borders on the corrupt.

Given this, now NO I would not call for a suspension or licence removal, waste of time actually.

There are a lot of other people who don't support the system, like me, but try our best to work within it. When something like this happens it only reinforces our already jaundiced opinion of things. Chigago Convention or not.

I wish we could all depend on it for support, not prosecution of varying degrees and I guess until it happens, people like you and I will be at odds with each other.

Things have change since the old DCA days, I think for the worse.

It is the Office of legal Counsel and their "ILK" that are the problem, not the solution as you seem to imply.

I appreciate your reply however and I did read it vigourously.


3rd Feb 2003, 01:02
It's Airservices, not CASA, that's advertised for those lawyers.

Apologies :O

Perhaps the metaphor's a thousand controllers tapping on a thousand typewriters....:D

More to follow, Ax.

3rd Feb 2003, 03:53
Couple of points.

1. Seaview. Paul did in fact have a valid medical. He also had an infection, so the question was, was he fit to fly, not was his medical legally valid, fit to fly is essentially at the pilots discretion!!! (thus opening up a whole new grey area for axiom to contemplate).

So how about we get our facts straight before we disturb any more ghosts!!! :(

2. Creampuff. Nice try at outing, you ain't so secure yourself are you :)

Gonna go for one of those AsA jobs mate???? :}


3rd Feb 2003, 21:16
Ulm: everyone knows who I are. I’ve admitted to our identities on numerous occasions.

Of course we will be applying for those jobs.

And BTW: Fit to fly is not at the pilot’s discretion. I suggest you read CAR 6.16A(1), twice: The holder of a medical certificate must not do an act authorised by the flight crew licence … while his or her ability to do the act efficiently is, or is likely to be, impaired to any extent by an illness or injury, no matter how minor.

3rd Feb 2003, 23:27
Greyer and greyer.

So, I scratched my knee on my boat yesterday. Does that impair me???

How do I know??? Go to a doctor every time I get a zit, or a scratch, or a headache??? (yeah, some are stupid, but where do you draw the line, axiom oh guru of grey, can you shed some light).

I know, why not have a medical before each flight, that would be safe now, wouldn't it!!! :} (but not affordable :) )

Perhaps, as some in CASA have suggested, I should write on my MR every time I have a bugsmash on my windscreen and then fill the MR up explaining how I rectified it and in accordance with what stupid CAR.

May the Gods save us from rampant lawyers and their idiot regulations!!! :yuk:

4th Feb 2003, 06:08
The original focus of this thread has been lost to series of sometimes convoluted and sometimes emotional and sometimes sensible red herrings.

Nobody has yet answered the simple question,


Some see his hung already, some are awaiting an answer from the system.

To make things easier for those who want to debate the merit of the rules, I have started a new thread with a poem rewritten from an old DCA "crash comic" circa seventies.

Go for it people, in the interim, lets see where the original focus of this thread leads.

26th February wasn't it ?

Mr or Mrs or Ms ulm, I think we have some common ground here.

BTW "Authority has every reason to fear the skeptic, for authority can rarely survive in the face of doubt.

Robert Lindner.

Lead Balloon
4th Feb 2003, 23:28
Sounds like a fun job to apply for...

Job Description:

Lawyer required for regulator


How would you like to interpret and draft legislation for what is the flying equivalent of the Building Industry.


All the public think that train drivers run the rail system - so you must be an aviator.

Gotta be a bloke

Can do that law stuff


1. Public Service Pay - woo hoo

2. No Recognition of a Job Well Done - Because the constituents you are protecting don't understand the issues at hand

3. If you don't read the fickle and ever changing political environment well enough you could become an intellectually challenged yet politically savvy person's fall guy

4. You'll have to move from Utah or wherever you reside to Canberra

Man, sign me up!

5th Feb 2003, 12:56
Now Cream, I cannot believe that even you would take on a job with AsA legal (loosely termed) counsel.:)

An eminent lawyer such as yourself could surely see you would have no chance of defending the indefensible!!! (assuming you have no idea what will be dumped on your desk day 1, OR DO YOU?!?!?):*

One would have to be a legal trained octopus to fill the job and only then if equipped with a fire extinguisher on each tentacle, able to leap tall sh_t piles with a single bound and be sh_t cunning as Chris Murphy.
I would suggest anyone with half a lawyer’s brain would not touch them with a barge pole!!!

Believe me, CB they know they are in deep sh_t!!!!!


As usual, spot on. Good to see you still kicking!!!;)

6th Feb 2003, 15:20
This thread has gone on a bit and off thread a lot.

Fol de rol and a hey nonny no.

Blue Eagle got it right the first time;
If my memory serves me correctly licences, be they drivers, firearms, liquor or whatever, are issued by the nominated authority on the proviso that the holder meets certain standards of fitness and suitability. If these standards are not met or maintained then the issuing authority has an obligation in public interests to withdraw that privilege.

CAR 269 inter-alia allows CASA to vary, suspend or cancel a licence, certificate or authority if satisfied that the holder;
„h has contravened a provision of the act,
„h fails to satisfy a prescribed requirement,
„h failed his/her duty in safe navigation of aircraft,
„h is not a fit or proper person to have the responsibilities etc., of such licence, or
„h has contravened a direction or instruction pertaining to safe navigation.

Before taking such action CASA must give notice to the holder and require him/her to show cause why the variation, suspension or cancellation should not take place.

I suggest that if the holder has, say, a medical condition that won¡¦t improve then CASA would be justified in effecting a life suspension regardless of the outcome of any court hearing in relation to other matters. This is supposition on my part because I do not know what the details are relating to the specific incident.

A licence is a privilege, not a right, so what is all the fuss about?

All the rest is just interesting.

Robin Hood may well have been a romantic notion emulated by the "experimental" (AUF) brigade but don't expect me to step up for a ride in your fantasy.
Risk your self by all means, but not the gormless and unsuspecting.:}

6th Feb 2003, 22:05

Risk your self by all means, but not the gormless and unsuspecting.

It is my understanding that this is what happened, ie NO Passengers.

Now I know you are not a fan of AUF (exp or whatever), BUT, where is the difference between flying a private aircraft and operating a car.

Take it a step further, AUF require a current drivers licence. To drive a 50 tonne truck through inner Sydney requires the same.

Engine (wing, pilot, whatever) fails on an AUF, time to manouvre (in the case of the engine), not one yet has hit a house and killed someone.

Brakes (steering, driver, whatever) fail on a truck/bus. Western NSW 8 years ago, 12 killed 30 odd injured. Newell Hwy, (regularly) but recently, truck clips back of caravn, car crashes, kills two. And so on and so on.

So why is private aviation so over-regulated???

But back to the thread. If we TRUSTED CASA, then it would probably all be OK. but very few do. Why, they are simply corrupting the process - shunting regs through giving them more power. Making regs over prescriptive and stupid, acting with undue haste and no forethought and generally being an uncoordinated flock of self serving egos.

Added to that, the regs are a shambles. No one knows if they have contravened them and few care. It has gone from proactive regulation of a vibrant industry to a random game of russian roulette where only CASA knows where the bullet is!!!

That is why a different form of justice is needed, that is why this guy (and more like him) needs his day in court.

7th Feb 2003, 03:16

May I turn your question
So why is private aviation so over-regulated???
around and ask why is motor vehicle operation so under-regulated.

Should not the privilege of a motor drivers license be conditional on a minimum standard of health.

I see very few truckies at my local truck stop who are NOT dead :p set candidates for a massive cardiac infarct or stroke as they climb back into their rigs after the regulation "truckies special" with a bag packed with "comfort food" for the odd snack en-route.

They crank up their 40 plus tonne "B" doubles, for which BTW I also hold a licence, and head off on what we loosely call the "highways" of this nation with oncoming traffic closing speeds of over 200kmh with a lateral displacement of a few metres.:eek:

What chance you and your children should their ateries decide to slam shut just as they approach you in your 1.5 tonne sedan.:(

But back to the thread. If we TRUSTED CASA, then it would probably all be OK. but very few do. Why, they are simply corrupting the process - shunting regs through giving them more power. Making regs over prescriptive and stupid, acting with undue haste and no forethought and generally being an uncoordinated flock of self serving egos.

May I suggest that your local State Dept of Transport would elicit the same response should they decide that they have a duty of care responsibility to apply a minimum level of safety to the roads by insisting on the aforementioned "truckies" holding a valid "medical".

May I also suggest that the "dialogue" necessary between the Regulator and whoever, does not go forward in any useful way whilst that is held and communicated as a personal view.

My mother in law may well be ugly, bossy and interfering (she is not and a beautiful person, but just for the example ;) ) but she is not going to go away, so we must work out a means of communication that serves us both and keeps the peace.:uhoh:

Calling her ugly, bossy and interfering just isn't going to get her attention and in a mood to transact a workable truce.:=

10th Feb 2003, 02:48
I have to concur with the views of BLUE-HAULER. AXIOM friend you need to take a broader view, you might find CASA are not as bad as you think.

Two issues here Mr AXIOM, CASA's exercise of it's formal powers and the views of Mr Dick and Mr Boyd on CASA's excercise of it's formal powers.

For others of similar views you do not appear to understand the law.

Parliament, the peoples representatives, determined that people who wished to own, operate and or fly aircraft should be subject to legal and regulatory oversight, it is after all a major economic transport system. So the powers of oversight are exercised by several bodies.

One, Parliament, considers all matters excepting those in the province of the Courts. Parliament drafts and passes the laws and by Government decisions sets policy guidelines for portfolio administration. Parliament decided eighty years ago that a person to exercise the privileges of flying an aircraft has to have a license, has to comply with the Rules of the Air, and respective legislated requirements for the operation and maintenance of aircraft. That is a community accepted and sound proposition. That the State via CASA requires you to be licensed means that the authority for you to fly is regulated by the State, therefore it is a privilege, not a right. Your continuation of the exercise of that privilege is conditional upon your compliance with all relevant laws of the land.

The other major form of oversight, the Courts, exercise oversight by adjudicating on matters brought before them. The broader Common Law has over time determined that you exercise the privileges of your license with a duty of care and with the actions of a reasonable man or woman.

The ATSB/BASI have the powers of oversight and report with respect to aircraft accidents and incidents. They exercise an oversight of aeronautical safety on behalf of the Australian public.

Your insurers also require that you comply with the law of the land and exercise your duty of care responsibly. That is the condition upon which insurance risk is covered.

The State (i.e. CASA) can bring an action or a person (business or individual) can bring an action before the Courts. CASA has no discretionary power accepting in those matters where alternative remedies are allowed for in the Act and Regulations. So a CASA officer as an officer of the law cannot ignore a breach of the law, its called perverting the cause of justice if you do.

Judicial power means the power to decide whether or not the claims of one party are true beyond a reasonable doubt (criminal matters) or true on the balance of probabilities (civil matters). They are also able to rule if the exercise of power is excessive, that is 'ultra-vires'.

The fact that the hypothetical bankrunner is being visited regularly by CASA and the said employee is being summonsed as a result is proper exercise of authority. How would your employers company stack up against say any of the majors or regionals ?

The Courts not finding for CASA but for you, shows the proper exercise of their authority. The State makes the allegation, you defend, the Courts makes a finding. That is the way the system works.

If you worked for a proper company you would soon realise that regulatory compliance is a big deal, you spend the time to do it legally, it costs, but thats the way to do it. CASA's happy, the Insurers are happy and the Board is happy. The travelling public is happy and so the Politicians are happy. See the picture ?

If you choose to fly, without a valid medical then you are choosing to fly without a valid license, simple. You do so in the full knowledge that it is summonsable offence, that is you can be made to answer for your actions in a criminal court. Your also choosing to fly knowing you will now be uninsured and liable for any torts that may result from a accident or other injury claim - brave pilot thats all I'll say.

There is no point in griping about it or being too busy with everything else. It's simply a matter of personal organisation. So why attack CASA for simply doing there job.

Now such a person whose license was out of medical currency could have also rung CASA and sought an extension on the medical, that may have been possible too. There's a thought!

Finally, there are a lot of rich and noisy galahs who think they are eagles.

:p :p :ok:

10th Feb 2003, 04:50

I believe you haven't learn't a thing on this post, I AM a victim of CASA's incompetence and corruption of the very things you hold so dearly to your simplistic (or, as I read it, that of a knowledgeable view) of the separation of the powers.

When you can give me a positive (not what's written in the Reg's), version of the state of affairs in GA in Australia today, I'll throw the towel in.

You mentioned "the State, (ie CASA)".

Maaaate ! CASA are not "The State", they are a mob of functionaries of "The State". Nothing else and believe it or not,
CASA used to have discretionary power, and as they should, (as DOCS, when it comes to childrens welfare), but both of these entitities had legislation put to Government and passed (and, are still doing so), to remove any such power, simply so they can't be sued for doing what is in the Reg's.

CASA are worse than I think and it is only by objecting to their out of control antics through forums such as pprune, local State and Federal Government Ministers and their elected representatives that things change.

Appeasement doesn't work, I know, because I am a poor sparrow, thanks to CASA.

STRUTH !! :rolleyes:

16th Feb 2003, 00:12

I have no qualms with making truckies get medicals, for there lies the heart of the problem (no pun intended :) ), they can, and regularly do, kill other people.

When I used to drive boats for a living I had to have a valid licence and medical. Fiarynuff too.

But now, if I feel so inclined, I can take my little boat out into the remnants of a cyclone, ignore the wall of black rain coming at me and get my main sail torn to shreds. I don't need a licence, I don't need a medical, but I don't risk anyone else.

Now I aint suggesting aviation is like boating. You need to be taught to fly for your own safety and that of the people on the ground. But in the sailing world we get given a little book that tells us what we should do to stay alive. If we ignore it, then so be it!!! Occasionally we get some light touch regulation (lifejacket inspections etc), but that is done in such a way as to be mostly welcomed.

So, why not give the PVT and AWK people the little book, after all, it is in their own heads. Then CASA can go regulate areas where other lives at at stake.

And, to the Sir Humpry gobbeldygook above. Bah!!!! Any 'agency' that cannot use discretionary powers properly is of no futher use to 'the state' and should be shut down. CASA does have those powers and uses them regularly (and usually improperly, ATOs, seatbelt labels, away maintenance approvals etc etc). Now there are some great people beavering away in CASA, I deal with them daily. But it is so hard for them to get things done properly while they are dodging sh!t from soaring turkeys dressed up as eagles.


Blue Hauler
16th Feb 2003, 01:21

I can take my little boat out into the remnants of a cyclone…I don't need a licence, I don't need a medical, but I don't risk anyone else

Full medical and psychiatric examination of all boaties should be compulsory. I don’t know how many searches I have participated in during the past thirty-odd years looking for thoughtless boaties. In some instances, the risk factor to ourselves was increased due to the distance off shore of the search area or the prevailing weather conditions. One occasion I recall departing Cairns just before cyclone Justin struck, to search 400 miles south of Honiara!

Boats have been around longer than medicals and in particular psychiatrists and bringing such legislation in retrospectively for private boating would raise hell.

As far as private operations are concerned – don’t forget that some private operators are flying turbine aircraft and transporting their employees about. Wonder how they would feel if they felt their front end operators didn’t have to undertake medical examinations?

17th Feb 2003, 00:18

Don't really want to go there, smacks of Private Aerial Work to me and CASA are just waiting to pounce!!!

And I don't think we should dump medicals, just make them easier to get (not by dropping standards, but by allowing more GPs to do provate medicals).

But medicals was not the gist of my point, regulation was. Why not make a rule book and just give it out. The AYF do, all diving organisations do, the GFA do, and that all works really well.

17th Feb 2003, 10:01

In what capacity do you daily deal with these CASA "Beavers"? and since when are they the "goodies"?

Who are these soaring "turkeys" dropping daily sh!t on these industrious rodents, and when did you become a truck expert?

Where do I buy this little Red book that is going to do away with all the beaver's hard work?

It's not a good idea to go diving and flying thereafter, gives you embolism of the brain, and I'd give boats away altogether, too expensive when you're an aircraft owner, (sorry eagle).

An old Hindu proverb said, "a man without a stick will be bitten even by a sheep",

Are you still yeilding the AOPA stick or gone Canberra happy?

Baaaaaaaad luck if you get bitten.


17th Feb 2003, 14:40

OK so you wont mind if I remove, by legislation, the burden of the cost of search, rescue and medical care for those who either don't read your "little red book" and can be shown to have not done so, or have taken the advice therein, but have chosen to depart with a known and precarious medical condition into the teeth of said 'remnants of cyclone'.

I will however leave in the legislation the opportunity for those who wish, to submit themselves to an examination of said “little red book” and a medical and if found reasonably fit, “license” them to go do their thing, in the knowledge that if they do it by the rules and then come unstuck, because sh!t does happen, we will move heaven and earth and the public purse to look after them.

Fair trade I think! Sound familiar too eh!.

Part of the social contract that we have with each other and that we support with our taxes is that we behave responsibly, for own own safety and others benefit.

Since that is a principal not widely understood by a good number of our fellow citizens, a demonstration of which one can see daily on the roads for example, we have found it necessary to do a spot of policing. Not that they always set all that good an example of smarts either, but it's the best we've got.

In any event until that unlikely day comes, we have to protect ourselves and themselves from themselves.:}

I love axioms which is very apt.

An old Hindu proverb said, "a man without a stick will be bitten even by a sheep",

17th Feb 2003, 21:37

By your post I figure you think every CASA officer is a bad apple. Far and away not true.

Without going into names, I had to do flight manuals for 2 of my own aircraft and assist with a lot more. One particular guy in CASA went absolutely out of his way to make it easy.

We had an aircraft doing 5 AM NDB approaches on a Sunday near where I live. Not illegal, just plain stupid. Got all the retired judges, pollies, Major Generals etc all up in arms about the airport.

But the aircraft was 'under receivership', so who was flying it. A really nice lady from CASA found out for me so I could give them a friendly phone call. (No, that wasn't illegal, it was a cure for an anomoly in a publicly available register).

A friend had an altercation with Cairns ATC about trans oceanic flights in single engine aircraft. They reported it, the FOI dealt with it in such a matter both sides actually learned from it with no hard feelings either way.

Yes, there are @<hidden>@<hidden>, but don't blame them all.

Woomera. The little red book is hardly similar to what we have now, just more user interactive. You are beginning to sound like a wanna be regulator mate :)

17th Feb 2003, 23:55

I have a few good blokes within CASA who keep me up to date on a lot of issues and there ARE good people there.

Trouble is, it isn't the apples in the barrel, as you suggest, it's the barrel that's rotten, and it needs replacing ! It's beyond repair!

I am a bit perplexed about what is stupid about doing 5am NDB approaches and why you would want to ring CASA up about it ?

Sounds more like fraternization than curing an anomoly.


18th Feb 2003, 01:01
Heh heh.

Nice try, but I will leave that lure for Open Mike :}

When you are talking small country airports, that are a burden for the council, and when you are talking Bkt based aircraft, then there is a problem.

It caused a big outcry from the people under the flightpath and caused problems. But i whinged about it once before, so I will leave it be. Suffice to say, there are rights and responsibilities and that was just plain irresponsible.

As for CASA, the rot in the barrell started with some of the apples at the top.

18th Feb 2003, 04:09
What is wrong about 5am on a Sunday NDB's?
Surely, you've got to be joking or are you one of the mindless few who always seem to 'stuff it up' for the majority!
We have a right to use the airspace for sure, but we also have a responsibility to ensure that our activities DO NOT unnecessarily encroach on others. Surely, there is nothing to be achieved doing NDB training at 5am on a Sunday that couldn't be done at 10am when the activities will not impact on others?
That type of attitude and behaviour only serves to p*ss people off and all too often, it is avoidable.:} Bit like some of the 'dirt-dart' operators who persist in climbing to height over the same bit of realestate day in and day out in noisy aircraft AND THEN WHINGE when JQ Public gets a group together to shut them down.:mad: If they only took the time out to modify there operation to minimise the impact, then they might not always be in conflict with the general masses!
With that attitude, is there any wonder you have an ongoing love-hate relationship with the regulator?

18th Feb 2003, 04:27

I still don't get the NDB bit and what you are on about, and nor do I get the thing about open mike!

Is this another thing like the airport being there before the houses and then complain about the noise ?

Why would airports be a burden to local Government if they were given money to take them over and then free reign to charge the users.

Most of these airports were built with TAXPAYERS money, given to local RATEPAYERS and then fees levied upon TAXPAYERS to use them.

I was of the belief that rate paying locals were given concessions.


God couldn't be everywhere, so he made CASA. If we agree about the barrel, where do we go to from here ? and how do we get God to fix the barrel ?

And what has this got to do with a bloke in Horsham going to court ?

:confused: :confused: :confused:


I still don't get what is wrong with doing 5am NDB work at say Quirindi, or do you have first hand knowledge of the curfew at ulm's airport that he omitted to tell us ?

I have a twin turboprop come over my place every morning before first light and I don't go ringing CASA about it.

I take objection to being linked with the mindless few and perhaps it is your bloody minded attitude that piss*s pilots past persuasive passiveness.

I bet you are the dog owner who lets his mastiff sh!t over my lawn.

Again I ask, what has this inane courtesy thing got to do with a Horsham court case ?

Start a new topic if you want a winge. :yuk:

I just thought about something;

Is this the threegreens and the democrats swapping preferences already ? mmmmmmmm:(

18th Feb 2003, 05:24

I think he was laying a bait for me. He aint that bad :)

Lead Balloon
18th Feb 2003, 23:01
Mate... why are you such a bitter and twisted old git.

There never seems to be an ounce of humour or humility in your posts.

Let me guess JustApplHere.

You are probably a woollen vest wearing career public servant who has spent a lifetime as a behind the back critic - and after 30 years have risen to the dizzy heights of a SOGB.

I think its probably the old-gaurd of CASA like yourself that make it such a disfunctional organisation, unwillingly to hear reasoned argument from anyone that doesn't fit your idea of an administrator.

The sooner CASA is run like a real administration instead of an old-boys network the better for everyone.

18th Feb 2003, 23:45
Woohoo Lead Balloon. I think you got it in one.

19th Feb 2003, 04:06
Sorry threegrees,

It may be that it is someone else's dog who is sh!tting on my front lawn.

Leadbaloon, whatever you do don't ask me about the "Cathay Club".

What's a SOGB ?


Blue Hauler
20th Feb 2003, 09:48

SOGB? About $80K per annum plus generous superannuation! Some sort of public service fat-cat I believe.:eek:

Lead Balloon
23rd Feb 2003, 07:14
Good 'ol Justapplhere

Where'd your post go buddy?

I'll take that as a direct score for the old Lead Balloon.

Blue Hauler - If you think SOGB counts as a fat cat in Canberra, you are waaayyyy out of step.

Most people wouldn't get out of bed for that money.

SEO by vBSEO 3.6.1