CASA Chess Game
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: on the edge
Posts: 823
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The suspension of Kununurra-based air operator and maintenance organisation Alligator Airways is continuing.
The Civil Aviation Safety Authority suspended Alligator Airways’ air operator’s certificate and certificate of approval on 3 May 2012 because the company's conduct of operational and maintenance-related activities was seen to pose a serious and imminent risk to air safety.
On 18 May 2012, the Federal Court granted CASA’s application for an order to prohibit Alligator Airways from operating until 4 June 2012.
This prohibition order allowed CASA to finalise its investigations into a range of safety issues, including two recent serious incidents involving aircraft operated by Alligator Airways.
Under the Civil Aviation Act, once investigations are completed, CASA has up to an additional five working days from 5 June 2012 to issue a show case notice if CASA believes there would still be a serious and imminent risk to air safety if Alligator Airways was to resume operations.
If CASA does issue a show case notice the suspension will continue while the matters raised in that notice are addressed and a final decision made whether to vary, suspend or cancel the certificates. This could take up to 33 days.
Alligator Airways would remain grounded during this period of time.
The Civil Aviation Safety Authority suspended Alligator Airways’ air operator’s certificate and certificate of approval on 3 May 2012 because the company's conduct of operational and maintenance-related activities was seen to pose a serious and imminent risk to air safety.
On 18 May 2012, the Federal Court granted CASA’s application for an order to prohibit Alligator Airways from operating until 4 June 2012.
This prohibition order allowed CASA to finalise its investigations into a range of safety issues, including two recent serious incidents involving aircraft operated by Alligator Airways.
Under the Civil Aviation Act, once investigations are completed, CASA has up to an additional five working days from 5 June 2012 to issue a show case notice if CASA believes there would still be a serious and imminent risk to air safety if Alligator Airways was to resume operations.
If CASA does issue a show case notice the suspension will continue while the matters raised in that notice are addressed and a final decision made whether to vary, suspend or cancel the certificates. This could take up to 33 days.
Alligator Airways would remain grounded during this period of time.
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Australia
Age: 53
Posts: 547
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
5pm fax
As previously stated the legal fax machine springs to life at 5pm on a Friday afternoon. Given recipients little time to act and all weekend to stress.
Whether flying fiend is the faxer is another question.
Whether flying fiend is the faxer is another question.
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Alabama, then Wyoming, then Idaho and now staying with Kharon on Styx houseboat
Age: 61
Posts: 1,437
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nuptys
Biscuit, Flyingfiend prefers to hide behind so-called anonymity. His type like to hide behind the scenes, bit like lobbing rocks from the bushes onto cars driving by, rather than come out into the open. And the reason you cop the letter at 1655 Friday arvo is because you now have 2 less days to work on a recovery strategy. The Flyingfiends load the bullets, operational management fire the gun.
Perhaps 1655 on a Friday afternoon is therefor a good time to tip some sh#t on them, smack bang on the weekend? Nothing like the Ministers office phoning all weekend with 'please explains'! Then again, maybe some pruners already do this??
Perhaps 1655 on a Friday afternoon is therefor a good time to tip some sh#t on them, smack bang on the weekend? Nothing like the Ministers office phoning all weekend with 'please explains'! Then again, maybe some pruners already do this??
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Has anyone else seen a document relating statistics I guess CASA would not like published?
Then again given the CEO's ego maybe they would.
I have no idea if its factual but the document lists a string of economic statistics achieved by CASA since the Skull took over.
For example:
The number of aviation businesses shut down, both by administrive action
and because they just gave up.
The costs to industry of CASA enforcement actions.
Something like 8000 people thrown out of work by CASA enforcement actions.
The declining number of licenced pilots in Australia.
The declining number of licenced maintenance organisations.
If this stuff is accurate is GA inOZ heading the same way as the UK and Europe, regulated out of existence?
Then again given the CEO's ego maybe they would.
I have no idea if its factual but the document lists a string of economic statistics achieved by CASA since the Skull took over.
For example:
The number of aviation businesses shut down, both by administrive action
and because they just gave up.
The costs to industry of CASA enforcement actions.
Something like 8000 people thrown out of work by CASA enforcement actions.
The declining number of licenced pilots in Australia.
The declining number of licenced maintenance organisations.
If this stuff is accurate is GA inOZ heading the same way as the UK and Europe, regulated out of existence?
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Alabama, then Wyoming, then Idaho and now staying with Kharon on Styx houseboat
Age: 61
Posts: 1,437
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
More deck chair shuffling at Malfunction Junction!
Another one bites the dust! This time the CASA Brisbane HF Manager has decided to walk the plank. From what I hear there are not too many tears being shed.
Yet once again another implementation 'specilaist' walks the green mile. Can't Capt Terry, Capt Skull and the other bald headed parasites get anything under control? Maybe time to appoint Flyingfiend to take on a higher role where he can take charge of all this bollocks?
Yet once again another implementation 'specilaist' walks the green mile. Can't Capt Terry, Capt Skull and the other bald headed parasites get anything under control? Maybe time to appoint Flyingfiend to take on a higher role where he can take charge of all this bollocks?
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bad GD.
As previously explained FF cannot come out to play – not in uniform, school day and all that.
The 'clever lads', those with options and no lobotomy can actually find the EXIT sign and catch a bus (Unassisted). Tough to keep the little burgers in the pen once they see the great big world away from the 'Tower of Power'. etc.
You can guess the rest. Anyway - it's my shout.
The 'clever lads', those with options and no lobotomy can actually find the EXIT sign and catch a bus (Unassisted). Tough to keep the little burgers in the pen once they see the great big world away from the 'Tower of Power'. etc.
You can guess the rest. Anyway - it's my shout.
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Alabama, then Wyoming, then Idaho and now staying with Kharon on Styx houseboat
Age: 61
Posts: 1,437
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jingle all the way
Good point Sarcs,
Ok then,
This is a nice chair up for offer in the Chess Game. Throw your hat in the ring boys, its worth around 200k per year, comes with no accountability, plenty of international sojourns to nice places around the globe and a superb superannuation entitlement!
Interview process will be a real hoot, plenty of grilling by one of the bald faceless men!
I doubt if applications will be accepted from Gobbledock, Kharon, Sarcs and Up-Into-The-Air, thorn bird, Frank, biscuit etc..
And for some Friday fun, some past and present members of the 'A-Team'!
(Photos of faceless men not included).
Jingles some would say that they're already merged...by the way top post on Chess game thread, pity it was pulled. May I suggest you post again just without the names!
Ok then,
The Chief Commissioner's last job was at COMCARE dealing with OH&S insurance. If there was a coffee spill or back strain on the flight deck he may have some input. Let's hope that whats we're waiting for!
This is a nice chair up for offer in the Chess Game. Throw your hat in the ring boys, its worth around 200k per year, comes with no accountability, plenty of international sojourns to nice places around the globe and a superb superannuation entitlement!
Interview process will be a real hoot, plenty of grilling by one of the bald faceless men!
Manager Safety Education
Classification Senior Manager Band D
Division Safety Education & Promotion
Branch Safety Education
Location Brisbane
Position No 1749
Job description and selection criteria
Salary Attractive remuneration package
Contact Gerard Campbell
Duration Permanent
Closing Date 20 July 2012
How to apply: Please provide a current CV and a response to the Selection Criteria to recruitment by the closing date. In the subject line of your email, please quote the position number, job title and your name.
Classification Senior Manager Band D
Division Safety Education & Promotion
Branch Safety Education
Location Brisbane
Position No 1749
Job description and selection criteria
Salary Attractive remuneration package
Contact Gerard Campbell
Duration Permanent
Closing Date 20 July 2012
How to apply: Please provide a current CV and a response to the Selection Criteria to recruitment by the closing date. In the subject line of your email, please quote the position number, job title and your name.
And for some Friday fun, some past and present members of the 'A-Team'!
(Photos of faceless men not included).
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Australia
Age: 53
Posts: 547
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I doubt if applications will be accepted from Gobbledock, Kharon, Sarcs and Up-Into-The-Air, thorn bird, Frank, biscuit etc..
head size
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Oz
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At the time of the photo he was Group General Manager Airworthiness section, shortly after he became Executive Manager, Safety Education and Promotion. Not sure these days. Ex Virgin senior engineer. Nice bloke I recall.
This photo's a bit old though. Quite of number of these folk have moved on a number of years ago.
This photo's a bit old though. Quite of number of these folk have moved on a number of years ago.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I doubt if applications will be accepted from Gobbledock, Kharon, Sarcs and Up-Into-The-Air, thorn bird, Frank, biscuit etc..
I'm starting to think they are taking the piss. How long should one wait for a reply?
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just reminded by a Moderator post today on the GA forum on the status of The Regulatory Review Process;
Two months short of 23 years and they admit to burning over $200 million on the exercise.
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Australia
Age: 53
Posts: 547
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Any news
All very quiet. No new transformational change program announced in the last month or so, nobody has walked out. It's a bit like waiting for your favourite TV program to return. Have they all been prescribed chill pills or put bromide in the water?
Any shortlist for the Manager of Safety Education?
Any shortlist for the Manager of Safety Education?
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Lisbon
Posts: 995
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Any shortlist for the Manager of Safety Education?
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Alabama, then Wyoming, then Idaho and now staying with Kharon on Styx houseboat
Age: 61
Posts: 1,437
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Any shortlist for the Manager of Safety Education?
Maybe it will take 23 years to fill the position? In the meantime pack yer bags boys we are off to ICAO for some folly and then we shall all gather round and recite articles from books about PNG Voodoo and other pony pooh reading material.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This thread locked on the other D&G should be posted here perhaps?
CASA and the model litigant obligation
Hi All
I thought this decision was of particular interest and perhaps explains why CASA is using admininstrative action to deal with "miscreants" rather than prosecution... kaz
Australia: 'Moral Exemplars': The model litigant's duty to tell the full story
21 July 2012
Article by Ben Allen and Hamish McNair
Introduction
On 22 June 2012, the Full Federal Court handed down its decision in LVR (WA) Pty Ltd v Administrative Appeals Tribunal which reinforces the overarching obligation of Australian Government Agencies and their legal representatives to act as model litigants in accordance with the Legal Services Directions 2005. This decision illustrates the supremacy of the model litigant obligation which may, in certain circumstances, extend further than merely acting honestly, ethically, legally and in accordance with court rules.
Background
On 30 July 2010, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the Tribunal) dismissed an application for merits review made by LVR (WA) Pty Ltd (the Applicant) in relation to a decision of the Commissioner of Taxation (the Commissioner). In unique circumstances, the Tribunal dismissed the application without conducting a review of the decision on the basis that the Applicant had failed to comply with a procedural direction made by the Tribunal relating to the filing and serving of evidence.
The Tribunal's decision to dismiss the application for review was the subject of a separate dismissal hearing (the Dismissal Hearing), in anticipation of which the Tribunal had made directions for further evidence to be filed in relation to the non-compliance with its earlier directions in the main proceedings. The Applicant filed and served the affidavit of Mr Schokker (the Schokker Affidavit) only three days before the Dismissal Hearing and some seven weeks after it was directed to do so. The Schokker Affidavit responded to the evidence filed by the Commissioner and addressed the applicant's non-compliance with the directions made by the Tribunal in the main proceedings.
Save for a small number of paragraphs, the published reasons of the Tribunal relating to its decision to dismiss the Applicant's application were copied verbatim from the Commissioner's written submissions (the Submissions) without attribution. Because of the Applicant's late service of the Schokker Affidavit, only two paragraphs of the Submissions referred to the Schokker Affidavit and those paragraphs were not reproduced in the Tribunal's reasons.
<BIG snip>
Model Litigant Obligations
The Full Court stated that "being a model litigant requires the Commonwealth and its agencies, as parties to litigation, to act with complete proprietary, fairly and in accordance with the highest professional standards" [at 42]. The Court further indicated that the content of this obligation may surpass other professional obligations to act honestly, ethically and in accordance with the law and court rules.
The Court also traced the model litigant obligation back to the traditional relationship between the Crown and its subjects and noted that the Commonwealth and its agencies have no legitimate private interest in the performance of their functions and frequently also have greater access to resources than private litigants. For these reasons, the Court held that Australian Government Agencies and their legal representatives should act as moral exemplars when engaging with private litigants.
In the present case, the Full Court found that the Commissioner had an obligation, as a model litigant, to ensure that the Court was fully aware of the relevant circumstances concerning the source of the Tribunal's reasons. The Court stated that "if the appellants failed to fully explain the position to the primary judge then the Commissioner should have done so" [at 40] and indicated that it was inadequate of the Commissioner to only respond to the submissions made by the Applicant.
Consequences
This decision of the Full Federal Court highlights the critical importance of Australian Government Agencies to act as model litigants to ensure that its interactions with private litigants are fair and transparent. This decision further serves as a reminder that Australian Government Agencies and their internal and external legal representatives must act as model litigants at all times, including where it is not necessarily in the strategic interests of the Agency to do so.
Hi All
I thought this decision was of particular interest and perhaps explains why CASA is using admininstrative action to deal with "miscreants" rather than prosecution... kaz
Australia: 'Moral Exemplars': The model litigant's duty to tell the full story
21 July 2012
Article by Ben Allen and Hamish McNair
Introduction
On 22 June 2012, the Full Federal Court handed down its decision in LVR (WA) Pty Ltd v Administrative Appeals Tribunal which reinforces the overarching obligation of Australian Government Agencies and their legal representatives to act as model litigants in accordance with the Legal Services Directions 2005. This decision illustrates the supremacy of the model litigant obligation which may, in certain circumstances, extend further than merely acting honestly, ethically, legally and in accordance with court rules.
Background
On 30 July 2010, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the Tribunal) dismissed an application for merits review made by LVR (WA) Pty Ltd (the Applicant) in relation to a decision of the Commissioner of Taxation (the Commissioner). In unique circumstances, the Tribunal dismissed the application without conducting a review of the decision on the basis that the Applicant had failed to comply with a procedural direction made by the Tribunal relating to the filing and serving of evidence.
The Tribunal's decision to dismiss the application for review was the subject of a separate dismissal hearing (the Dismissal Hearing), in anticipation of which the Tribunal had made directions for further evidence to be filed in relation to the non-compliance with its earlier directions in the main proceedings. The Applicant filed and served the affidavit of Mr Schokker (the Schokker Affidavit) only three days before the Dismissal Hearing and some seven weeks after it was directed to do so. The Schokker Affidavit responded to the evidence filed by the Commissioner and addressed the applicant's non-compliance with the directions made by the Tribunal in the main proceedings.
Save for a small number of paragraphs, the published reasons of the Tribunal relating to its decision to dismiss the Applicant's application were copied verbatim from the Commissioner's written submissions (the Submissions) without attribution. Because of the Applicant's late service of the Schokker Affidavit, only two paragraphs of the Submissions referred to the Schokker Affidavit and those paragraphs were not reproduced in the Tribunal's reasons.
<BIG snip>
Model Litigant Obligations
The Full Court stated that "being a model litigant requires the Commonwealth and its agencies, as parties to litigation, to act with complete proprietary, fairly and in accordance with the highest professional standards" [at 42]. The Court further indicated that the content of this obligation may surpass other professional obligations to act honestly, ethically and in accordance with the law and court rules.
The Court also traced the model litigant obligation back to the traditional relationship between the Crown and its subjects and noted that the Commonwealth and its agencies have no legitimate private interest in the performance of their functions and frequently also have greater access to resources than private litigants. For these reasons, the Court held that Australian Government Agencies and their legal representatives should act as moral exemplars when engaging with private litigants.
In the present case, the Full Court found that the Commissioner had an obligation, as a model litigant, to ensure that the Court was fully aware of the relevant circumstances concerning the source of the Tribunal's reasons. The Court stated that "if the appellants failed to fully explain the position to the primary judge then the Commissioner should have done so" [at 40] and indicated that it was inadequate of the Commissioner to only respond to the submissions made by the Applicant.
Consequences
This decision of the Full Federal Court highlights the critical importance of Australian Government Agencies to act as model litigants to ensure that its interactions with private litigants are fair and transparent. This decision further serves as a reminder that Australian Government Agencies and their internal and external legal representatives must act as model litigants at all times, including where it is not necessarily in the strategic interests of the Agency to do so.