QF in the OZ paper today
Leaking the report would “void the evidence”? Don’t let CASA (or your neighbour) know what drugs you’re on. This is adminitrative law torture, not a criminal prosecution.
It’s not CASA being “above the law”. It’s scaremongering zealots using the fear of tragedies like Germanwings to justify an individual pilot’s rights to natural justice and fact-based decisions to be overridden by the mere invocation of “safety”.
It’s not CASA being “above the law”. It’s scaremongering zealots using the fear of tragedies like Germanwings to justify an individual pilot’s rights to natural justice and fact-based decisions to be overridden by the mere invocation of “safety”.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: australia
Posts: 179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I know a guy who was grounded for 8 months while he proved his fitness to fly after an ‘Anonymous’ report details supposed statement made around aircraft sabotage. He had no recollection of making any statements to that affect yet CASA wouldn’t tell him the date of the flight or let him read the report as they didn’t want him to know who the anonymous reported was. He is now back flying after a series of psychological assessments deemed him to be ‘normal’......... he still has no idea who made the report or what he supposedly said.
I agree the confidential reporting system stinks but in the end realise what is important: Nate gets his medical back or he ceases to be a pilot whilst defending his rights. The sooner he realises this, the sooner he gets back to flying. The legal road is fraught with danger and the cards are stacked against him.
May his neighbour rot in hell.
Just goes to show the extent to which the system has deteriorated.
Just culture. “Just” culture...
Just culture. “Just” culture...
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,674
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is this really a surprise, when a social media post made about some alleged incident, not reported to authorities at the time, causes a person to lose their income and reputation? In the Orwellian world we now live, where the entitlement to due process has been eroded on the basis of terrorism, where there is no need for investigation or a burden of proof.
Papers please.
Maintaining sanity with this sort of crap is a real mental effort.
Papers please.
Maintaining sanity with this sort of crap is a real mental effort.
As Magnum says, opt out of My Health Record. Here is the link again. https://optout.myhealthrecord.gov.au/
Also, don't forget Loss of License Insurance generally does not pay out on mental health issues.
This poor bastards only hope of a future is a big payout, even if he is given his license back, it will haunt him forever.
Also, don't forget Loss of License Insurance generally does not pay out on mental health issues.
This poor bastards only hope of a future is a big payout, even if he is given his license back, it will haunt him forever.
Folks,
It is not clear to me how this matter started, was it a report via the so-called confidential incident reporting system, or a report direct to CASA.
However, a few words about the confidential reporting system are in order: A number of countries have them, properly used, they serve a useful safety purpose.
BUT -- In the ones that actually work as advertised all reports go to a body unrelated to the local regulatory/enforcement body, such body only receives trend data (not even de-identified incident data) for a particular category of problem.
For example, in the UK, the report goes to an air safety office within the RAF. As I recall, in US, it goes to NASA.
Needless to say, with the gotcha criminal enforcement mentality dominating in Australian aviation regulation, with the idea of any possible air safety benefits having long since been lost, what we have is a "dobber's charter'.
And, as is now well know, ATSB freely shares information (that ICAO says should be confidential) with CASA.
In short, typical of the misdirected shambles that characterises Australian aviation administration, which has done so much to inhibit development in aviation in Australia, not just GA, but all sectors. Pain, anguish and suffering for no air safety benefit.
Tootle pip!!
It is not clear to me how this matter started, was it a report via the so-called confidential incident reporting system, or a report direct to CASA.
However, a few words about the confidential reporting system are in order: A number of countries have them, properly used, they serve a useful safety purpose.
BUT -- In the ones that actually work as advertised all reports go to a body unrelated to the local regulatory/enforcement body, such body only receives trend data (not even de-identified incident data) for a particular category of problem.
For example, in the UK, the report goes to an air safety office within the RAF. As I recall, in US, it goes to NASA.
Needless to say, with the gotcha criminal enforcement mentality dominating in Australian aviation regulation, with the idea of any possible air safety benefits having long since been lost, what we have is a "dobber's charter'.
And, as is now well know, ATSB freely shares information (that ICAO says should be confidential) with CASA.
In short, typical of the misdirected shambles that characterises Australian aviation administration, which has done so much to inhibit development in aviation in Australia, not just GA, but all sectors. Pain, anguish and suffering for no air safety benefit.
Tootle pip!!
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,674
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For example, in the UK, the report goes to an air safety office within the RAF. As I recall, in US, it goes to NASA. Needless to say, with the gotcha criminal enforcement mentality dominating in Australian aviation regulation, with the idea of any possible air safety benefits having long since been lost, what we have is a "dobber's charter'.
And, as is now well know, ATSB freely shares information (that ICAO says should be confidential) with CASA
And, as is now well know, ATSB freely shares information (that ICAO says should be confidential) with CASA
The problem with a myriad of the ICAO annexes is that SARP is a 'recommended practice' and unfortunately some countries depart from the annex recommendation, Australia being one.
In short, typical of the misdirected shambles that characterises Australian aviation administration, which has done so much to inhibit development in aviation in Australia, not just GA, but all sectors. Pain, anguish and suffering for no air safety benefit.
Last edited by Rated De; 21st Aug 2018 at 03:17.
Unless his neighbour is a Psychiatrist who can offer expert testimony how are CASA ever going to win the defamation case? What they should have done was yank his medical then fight it out in the AAT. By going to his employer I would imagine it will be a open and shut defamation case. It's a very risky move by CASA and I can't see why they even needed to go to QF in the first instance
CASA will claim qualified privilege, as will the neighbour (if the neighbour becomes a party).
The disclosure to the employer was justified - so it will be argued - on the grounds of “safety”.
It appears that someone within the employer had this totally crazy idea that before disrupting and potentially f*cking someone’s career and reputation on the basis of a complaint, the complaint should be put to the person. However, the interests of “safety” apparently override all that. It’s better that nine completely fit and proper pilots’ careers are disrupted and potentially f*cked on the basis of complaints the substance of which they are not aware, than one pilot with an undisclosed ingrown toenail is allowed to fly. It’s all about “safety”.
I’d say that it makes me angry and sick, but I guess that would put my medical certificate at risk.
The disclosure to the employer was justified - so it will be argued - on the grounds of “safety”.
It appears that someone within the employer had this totally crazy idea that before disrupting and potentially f*cking someone’s career and reputation on the basis of a complaint, the complaint should be put to the person. However, the interests of “safety” apparently override all that. It’s better that nine completely fit and proper pilots’ careers are disrupted and potentially f*cked on the basis of complaints the substance of which they are not aware, than one pilot with an undisclosed ingrown toenail is allowed to fly. It’s all about “safety”.
I’d say that it makes me angry and sick, but I guess that would put my medical certificate at risk.
The other problem for the neighbour is if it comes out that there is some other underlying issue between them. ie someone built a house and block my view of Sydney Harbour etc etc This will especially become an issue if the neighbour is the only person they can find to testify that they witnessed the alleged behaviour.
So far as I can tell, the neighbour isn’t a party to the proceedings. The allegation of defamation is against CASA, as a consequence of the disclosure, of the complaint, to the pilot’s employer.
All CASA has to do is prove is that its disclosure to the employer is subject to qualified privilege. Unless the pilot can show that CASA knew the complaint was false but nonetheless disclosed it to the employer for malicious purposes, my money is on qualified privilege applying. When in doubt, “safety” must prevail over mere bagatelles like reputation, career and natural justice, don’t you know...
Qualified privilege applies to some disclosures precisely because they may turn out to be untrue and defamatory.
You should google the term “qualified privilege”. The word “qualified” in this context has nothing to do with the qualifications of the person making the defamatory statement. It’s about the restricted circumstances in which the privilege applies.
All CASA has to do is prove is that its disclosure to the employer is subject to qualified privilege. Unless the pilot can show that CASA knew the complaint was false but nonetheless disclosed it to the employer for malicious purposes, my money is on qualified privilege applying. When in doubt, “safety” must prevail over mere bagatelles like reputation, career and natural justice, don’t you know...
Qualified privilege applies to some disclosures precisely because they may turn out to be untrue and defamatory.
You should google the term “qualified privilege”. The word “qualified” in this context has nothing to do with the qualifications of the person making the defamatory statement. It’s about the restricted circumstances in which the privilege applies.
Folks,
A while ago now, but in one case, of which I am aware, the first time the victim knew he had a problem, was a few hours before a trip report time, he rang in to confirm availability. The roster clerk's reply: "Didn't you know you have been displaced, your medical has been suspended". So began an almost career terminating episode.
Such are the ways of the real world of CASA, and it isn't all that uncommon.
If Mr. Whitehall's lawyers are looking for witnesses as to CASA modus operandi in similar cases, just advertise on pprune, I will bet there will be no shortage of (now retired) potential witnesses.
Tootle pip!!
A while ago now, but in one case, of which I am aware, the first time the victim knew he had a problem, was a few hours before a trip report time, he rang in to confirm availability. The roster clerk's reply: "Didn't you know you have been displaced, your medical has been suspended". So began an almost career terminating episode.
Such are the ways of the real world of CASA, and it isn't all that uncommon.
If Mr. Whitehall's lawyers are looking for witnesses as to CASA modus operandi in similar cases, just advertise on pprune, I will bet there will be no shortage of (now retired) potential witnesses.
Tootle pip!!
All CASA has to do is prove is that its disclosure to the employer is subject to qualified privilege. Unless the pilot can show that CASA knew the complaint was false but nonetheless disclosed it to the employer for malicious purposes, my money is on qualified privilege applying. When in doubt, “safety” must prevail over mere bagatelles like reputation, career and natural justice, don’t you know...
Qualified privilege applies to some disclosures precisely because they may turn out to be untrue and defamatory.
Qualified privilege applies to some disclosures precisely because they may turn out to be untrue and defamatory.
Or put it another way what is stopping someone making up a story about a pilot and going to CASA with it? CASA can investigate but beyond that it's just a case of one persons word against another. Also certain behaviour doesn't necessarily mean you have X condition anyhow.
Will be an interesting court case
I’ll try another way.
Your neighbour goes to the police and states that Neville Nobody is a child molester. Your neighbour does so on the basis of statements made to her by her children, believing them to be true. But it turns out the children made it up, and the statement is in fact untrue.
I’d suggest the statements made by your neighbour to the police are highly defamatory of you, but are protected by qualified privilege.
Your neighbour instead goes to the corner of your street with a megaphone and announces to everyone and anyone in hearing range: “Neville Nobody is a child molester”.
I’d suggest that the statements made by your neighbour to the public generally are highly defamatory of you and not protected by qualified privilege.
Note that the basis, substance and untruth of the statements is the same in both scenarios.
I’m guessing that in the pilot’s case CASA is going to have to explain why it formed the view that the neighbour’s allegations were not merely malicious as a consequence of a domestic dispute. That said, I’m also guessing that the ‘when in doubt the interests of aviation ‘safety’ must prevail over trivia like natural justice, reputation and career’ will be the primary argument. Once Germanwings is invoked, you can safely assume that the probabilities of recurrence will be grossly exaggerated in ordinary minds, thus justifying - nay, resulting in the clamouring for - the sacrifice of just about any individual rights in the name of claimed mitigation. Avmed is parasitic on this stuff. (Witness the departing PMO’s scaremongering swan song missive.)
The awful irony has been alluded to earlier in this thread and in CASA’s discussion paper that led to the much-lauded but in-substance-minor medical certification ‘reform’. Who’d make the mistake of discussing a potential mental health problem with anyone, when even the ‘healthy’ can be unilaterally grounded on the basis of a mere doubt raised by untested information?
What a fantastic outcome for mental health and aviation safety.
Your neighbour goes to the police and states that Neville Nobody is a child molester. Your neighbour does so on the basis of statements made to her by her children, believing them to be true. But it turns out the children made it up, and the statement is in fact untrue.
I’d suggest the statements made by your neighbour to the police are highly defamatory of you, but are protected by qualified privilege.
Your neighbour instead goes to the corner of your street with a megaphone and announces to everyone and anyone in hearing range: “Neville Nobody is a child molester”.
I’d suggest that the statements made by your neighbour to the public generally are highly defamatory of you and not protected by qualified privilege.
Note that the basis, substance and untruth of the statements is the same in both scenarios.
I’m guessing that in the pilot’s case CASA is going to have to explain why it formed the view that the neighbour’s allegations were not merely malicious as a consequence of a domestic dispute. That said, I’m also guessing that the ‘when in doubt the interests of aviation ‘safety’ must prevail over trivia like natural justice, reputation and career’ will be the primary argument. Once Germanwings is invoked, you can safely assume that the probabilities of recurrence will be grossly exaggerated in ordinary minds, thus justifying - nay, resulting in the clamouring for - the sacrifice of just about any individual rights in the name of claimed mitigation. Avmed is parasitic on this stuff. (Witness the departing PMO’s scaremongering swan song missive.)
The awful irony has been alluded to earlier in this thread and in CASA’s discussion paper that led to the much-lauded but in-substance-minor medical certification ‘reform’. Who’d make the mistake of discussing a potential mental health problem with anyone, when even the ‘healthy’ can be unilaterally grounded on the basis of a mere doubt raised by untested information?
What a fantastic outcome for mental health and aviation safety.
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,674
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What a fantastic outcome for mental health and aviation safety
Any due process, sees a defence allowed discovery, CASA will protect the bureaucracy.
The problem is that CASA writes the regulations, interprets them, prosecutes "offenders", then is jury and judge, and sets penalties for those it finds guilty. As others have pointed out the normal legal process is totally subverted into a star chamber by CASA.
A useful first step would be to introduce an ombudsman. A better step would be to separate functions and put compliance under the federal police.
SEABREEZE
A useful first step would be to introduce an ombudsman. A better step would be to separate functions and put compliance under the federal police.
SEABREEZE
Ahhhh Lead Balloon. Your words are old, but that does not detract from their genius:
Lead Balloon 2018:
Joseph Heller 1970:
I hope the similarities aren’t obvious to just me (waste of a good joke
) and probably even more depressing to realise how much money Mr Heller made out of same, but, Mr Balloon, you were onto something!
Lead Balloon 2018:
Who’d make the mistake of discussing a potential mental health problem with anyone, when even the ‘healthy’ can be unilaterally grounded on the basis of a mere doubt raised by untested information?
There was only one catch and that was Catch-22, which specified that a concern for one's safety in the face of dangers that were real and immediate was the process of a rational mind. Orr was crazy and could be grounded. All he had to do was ask; and as soon as he did, he would no longer be crazy and would have to fly more missions. Orr would be crazy to fly more missions and sane if he didn't, but if he was sane he had to fly them. If he flew them he was crazy and didn't have to; but if he didn't want to he was sane and had to. Yossarian was moved very deeply by the absolute simplicity of this clause of Catch-22 and let out a respectful whistle.
"That's some catch, that Catch-22," he observed.
"It's the best there is," Doc Daneeka agreed.
"That's some catch, that Catch-22," he observed.
"It's the best there is," Doc Daneeka agreed.
) and probably even more depressing to realise how much money Mr Heller made out of same, but, Mr Balloon, you were onto something!Last edited by V-Jet; 21st Aug 2018 at 09:37.
But as I keep saying: It appears the neighbour is not a party to the litigation. Unless the neighbour is a party, the question whether the neighbour’s disclosure to CASA is protected by qualified privilege is academic.
As to the disclosure by CASA to the employer? You may be right.
But we can all confidently bet leftie that CASA will invoke Germanwings and ‘safety’ as the justification - indeed, CASA already has. And we can all confidently bet leftie that CASA knows that rationality goes out the window, closely followed by concerns about trivia like natural justice and an individual’s career and reputation, when punters contemplate Germanwings. There can no price on aviation ‘safety’....
I anticipate CASA will use some exquisite sophistry to draw a causal link between ‘safety’ and the disclosure to the employer. All CASA needs to do is create enough fear of another Germanwings and they’d get away with putting up posters in airports with your picture and a sign saying “Warning: This pilot might be suicidal”.
Don’t get me wrong: If I were a religious person, I’d be praying to every deity for a win for the pilot. But, like religion, aviation safety regulation in Australia is about fear and intuition and magic, not objective risks and causally beneficial mitigations of those risks.
As to the disclosure by CASA to the employer? You may be right.
But we can all confidently bet leftie that CASA will invoke Germanwings and ‘safety’ as the justification - indeed, CASA already has. And we can all confidently bet leftie that CASA knows that rationality goes out the window, closely followed by concerns about trivia like natural justice and an individual’s career and reputation, when punters contemplate Germanwings. There can no price on aviation ‘safety’....
I anticipate CASA will use some exquisite sophistry to draw a causal link between ‘safety’ and the disclosure to the employer. All CASA needs to do is create enough fear of another Germanwings and they’d get away with putting up posters in airports with your picture and a sign saying “Warning: This pilot might be suicidal”.
Don’t get me wrong: If I were a religious person, I’d be praying to every deity for a win for the pilot. But, like religion, aviation safety regulation in Australia is about fear and intuition and magic, not objective risks and causally beneficial mitigations of those risks.