PPRuNe Threads and CAIR used as evidence by CASA in suspension decisions
Thread Starter
PPRuNe Threads and CAIR used as evidence by CASA in suspension decisions
See: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/c.../2003/594.html
It will be interesting to see how the final hearing goes.
It will be interesting to see how the final hearing goes.
G’Day Creamie. I see your former colleague is still in there, batting for the home team. 
Fairly substantive evidence I would have thought?
(i) verbal aviation industry rumour;
(ii) Internet aviation bulletin board PPRuNe (professional pilots' rumour network);
(iv) CASA safety reporting hotline complaints from concerned and reputable (anonymous?) aviation industry sources;
(vii) Alert Bulletins from the Australian Transport Safety Bureau's Confidential Aviation Incident Report system ("CAIR"), which appear to be from your (anonymous?) pilots.
I guess the Commissioner is suggesting one can’t be a “little bit pregnant” (or guilty), as the case may be:
“(f) the applicant's private licences have not been cancelled so I infer he is still regarded as a safe pilot; “
As the matter has been referred to future criminal proceedings, the Commissioner’s findings appear appropriate?
“….staying the implementation or operation of the decision under review.”
I concur, it will be very interesting to see how CASA’s decisions holds up in a real Court. And if they don't, one wonders at the potential for civil litigation for recovery of lost earnings etc?
You've been quiet lately? I missed you.....
Fairly substantive evidence I would have thought?
(i) verbal aviation industry rumour;
(ii) Internet aviation bulletin board PPRuNe (professional pilots' rumour network);
(iv) CASA safety reporting hotline complaints from concerned and reputable (anonymous?) aviation industry sources;
(vii) Alert Bulletins from the Australian Transport Safety Bureau's Confidential Aviation Incident Report system ("CAIR"), which appear to be from your (anonymous?) pilots.
I guess the Commissioner is suggesting one can’t be a “little bit pregnant” (or guilty), as the case may be:
“(f) the applicant's private licences have not been cancelled so I infer he is still regarded as a safe pilot; “
As the matter has been referred to future criminal proceedings, the Commissioner’s findings appear appropriate?
“….staying the implementation or operation of the decision under review.”
I concur, it will be very interesting to see how CASA’s decisions holds up in a real Court. And if they don't, one wonders at the potential for civil litigation for recovery of lost earnings etc?
You've been quiet lately? I missed you.....
Last edited by Torres; 2nd Jul 2003 at 11:12.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,082
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It would be interesting to know if the individual in question would have accepted the conditions he imposed on others. If roles were reversed if you like. Perhaps he did.
It is one thing to stick your own neck out, something else to ask someone else to.
Given the plethora of evidence... one wonders what else was going on.
Looks like a lot of the wrong doing could have been avoided by being better organised.
Begs the question - was the CP behind all this? Or was the operator applying pressure on him?
Happens everyday I suppose.
It is one thing to stick your own neck out, something else to ask someone else to.
Given the plethora of evidence... one wonders what else was going on.
Looks like a lot of the wrong doing could have been avoided by being better organised.
Begs the question - was the CP behind all this? Or was the operator applying pressure on him?
Happens everyday I suppose.
Thread Starter
Currawong: On my reading of the Tribunal’s decision (at the link above), Mr Edwards was the Chief Pilot but his approval as Chief Pilot was suspended by CASA. The operator then got approval for another person to be Chief Pilot. CASA later cancelled Mr Edwards’ Commercial and ATPL licences, on the basis of circumstances similar to those that were the basis of the decision to suspend the approval for him to be Chief Pilot. The decisions under review by the Tribunal are just the decisions to cancel the licences.
Everyone note: the tribunal has simply “stayed” CASA’s cancellation decisions – that is, the Tribunal has in effect restored the status quo until the substantive hearing of the merits of those decisions has occurred. For Torres: when I said “it will be interesting to hear how the final hearing goes”, I was referring to the final hearing of the Tribunal.
For the record, I originally started this thread under the “Reporting Points” heading. I am surprised that is has been moved here, first because there was no notice in Reporting Points that the thread had been moved, and secondly, because I think the implications of CASA’s decision in this case reach beyond GA.
Think about it: CASA cancelled a CPL and ATPL on grounds that included the content of threads on PPRuNe and CAIR reports. It might be true to say that the practical impact will be greater for GA, but I don’t think it’s true to say that there are no possible implications for the interests of heavy metal drivers.
Everyone note: the tribunal has simply “stayed” CASA’s cancellation decisions – that is, the Tribunal has in effect restored the status quo until the substantive hearing of the merits of those decisions has occurred. For Torres: when I said “it will be interesting to hear how the final hearing goes”, I was referring to the final hearing of the Tribunal.
For the record, I originally started this thread under the “Reporting Points” heading. I am surprised that is has been moved here, first because there was no notice in Reporting Points that the thread had been moved, and secondly, because I think the implications of CASA’s decision in this case reach beyond GA.
Think about it: CASA cancelled a CPL and ATPL on grounds that included the content of threads on PPRuNe and CAIR reports. It might be true to say that the practical impact will be greater for GA, but I don’t think it’s true to say that there are no possible implications for the interests of heavy metal drivers.
Thread Starter
Hudson: the Tribunal's decision means what it says.
BTW Torres: the Tribunal will proceed to a substantive hearing, whether or not prosecutions are contemplated or in progress. Be in no doubt: if the DPP has decided to launch prosecutions, the DPP has decided that they have reasonable prospects of success. That means the DPP has first hand witnesses whose evidence is admissible and of probative value. That's why very few prosecutions for breaches of the aviation law fail.
BTW Torres: the Tribunal will proceed to a substantive hearing, whether or not prosecutions are contemplated or in progress. Be in no doubt: if the DPP has decided to launch prosecutions, the DPP has decided that they have reasonable prospects of success. That means the DPP has first hand witnesses whose evidence is admissible and of probative value. That's why very few prosecutions for breaches of the aviation law fail.
Creamie: Your comments are accepted - I agree. 
It is not for me to comment on whether the gentleman in question is innocent or guilty; I accept the AAT only "stayed" the proceedings until appropriate arbitration occurs; I inferred my opinion that a Court of law (rather than CASA OLC) was the most appropriate place to determine guilt (or otherwise) and suggested the evidence provided by CASA to the AAT lacked some credibility. Surely you must agree, comments in PPRuNe and anonymous reporting can hardly constitute substantive evidence!
“..it will be interesting to hear how the final hearing goes..” I understood exactly what you meant. And I agree it will be interesting to ultimately compare the findings of an appropriate Court of law, vis-a-vis the decision in the AAT to stay the decision, and the original administrative decision by CASA to cancel the licenses.
If CASA got it wrong (or indeed, failed to do their homework), I assume the gentleman will have an appropriate course available for restitution.
And if CASA got it right, a Court of law will ensure justice is not only done, but seen by the wider community to be done, in an open and accountable manner, by a competent, impartial and independent arbiter. As it should be……….
For once I suspect we totally agree.
It is not for me to comment on whether the gentleman in question is innocent or guilty; I accept the AAT only "stayed" the proceedings until appropriate arbitration occurs; I inferred my opinion that a Court of law (rather than CASA OLC) was the most appropriate place to determine guilt (or otherwise) and suggested the evidence provided by CASA to the AAT lacked some credibility. Surely you must agree, comments in PPRuNe and anonymous reporting can hardly constitute substantive evidence!
“..it will be interesting to hear how the final hearing goes..” I understood exactly what you meant. And I agree it will be interesting to ultimately compare the findings of an appropriate Court of law, vis-a-vis the decision in the AAT to stay the decision, and the original administrative decision by CASA to cancel the licenses.
If CASA got it wrong (or indeed, failed to do their homework), I assume the gentleman will have an appropriate course available for restitution.
And if CASA got it right, a Court of law will ensure justice is not only done, but seen by the wider community to be done, in an open and accountable manner, by a competent, impartial and independent arbiter. As it should be……….
For once I suspect we totally agree.
Last edited by Torres; 3rd Jul 2003 at 08:27.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Darwin
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Had a yarn to a mate who seems to know the drum. The DPP are only runing 1 case out of all the s...t that was in the case. That's a bit strang if CASA is so good at getting the info.
Wonder how they are going to get up if they don't have the guys at the case?
My reading of the case is that the judge said HE had been done for all this stuff and lost his CP and now CASA were having another go. Shouldn't lose his job unless it was all proved.
I dunno but maybe the most important thing out of all this is that if you put CAIRs and make complaints you can expect that if they are not right you could be in the gun. A Heavy man in WA did the right t hing over a small check thatwas misse and he's in the gun.
Guess if you don't tell the porky pies you should be right.
Keep an eye out for the next case mate. Keep us in touch
creampuff.
Wonder how they are going to get up if they don't have the guys at the case?
My reading of the case is that the judge said HE had been done for all this stuff and lost his CP and now CASA were having another go. Shouldn't lose his job unless it was all proved.
I dunno but maybe the most important thing out of all this is that if you put CAIRs and make complaints you can expect that if they are not right you could be in the gun. A Heavy man in WA did the right t hing over a small check thatwas misse and he's in the gun.
Guess if you don't tell the porky pies you should be right.
Keep an eye out for the next case mate. Keep us in touch
creampuff.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: YSBK
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
www.agacf.org & www.aopa.com.au
Thread Starter
Hiball – if your “mate” knows anything about the details of any prosecutions arising out of these circumstances, then s/he knows a lot more about them than I do. Perhaps the DPP is prosecuting Mr Edwards for only 1 breach of only 1 rule – but that’s all it takes.
Torres – I think we’re in agreement to some extent. I’ll sing nude in the Tabernacle the day we “totally” agree on anything! You ask rhetorically:
Your word “hardly” is a telling one: even you’re not sure.
The rules of evidence in administrative proceedings are different from those in criminal prosecutions. The matters an administrative decision-maker may reasonably take into consideration in making an administrative decision extend well beyond those which would be admissible evidence in a criminal prosecution. Nonetheless, it would be surprising if the Tribunal ultimately restored the cancellations on the basis of second hand, untested, hearsay alone.
My main concern is that anyone can say anything they like in a CAIR, and just about anyone can say just about anything they like on PPRuNe. While CASA and ATSB are well aware of the risk of vindictive and mischievous reports and rumours, the more problematic circumstances arise where the reporter – a “concerned and reputable aviation industry source” - is prepared to ‘swear on a stack of bibles’ that their report is true. Upon further investigation it turns out that the reporter’s earnest and honest belief is entirely mistaken.
You’re the perfect example – you’ve occasionally made posts on PPRuNe containing allegations which you earnestly and honestly believe to be gospel truth, but that I know to be dead wrong. It’s not really a problem, unless someone acts on the allegation before finding out if it’s correct. That’s what worries me about the Edwards decision – it appears PPRuNe threads and similar hearsay formed the very basis of the decision, rather than the trigger for investigating whether the hearsay was correct and then making the decision on the basis of what was discovered.
But we can’t be getting the whole story – I say again, if the DPP is prosecuting then the DPP must have at least one first hand witness who’s going to give evidence admissible in a criminal prosecution, which evidence the DPP believes will withstand cross-examination.
There’s always a lot of chest beating about civil litigation against CASA for ‘loss of earnings’ etc in the rare cases that the Tribunal sets CASA’s decision aside, but I’m not aware of anyone having gone beyond chest beating by actually filing a claim. Making a decision that is set aside by the Tribunal is not tantamount to making a decision negligently. (And can someone tell that fool T what a “stay” decision is) Let’s wait and see what the Tribunal decides first, as the question may become academic.
You picked up another very important issue that I hadn’t: the Tribunal’s “half pregnant” reasoning. Bad news for any commercial pilot if the Tribunal sticks with it. The implications are that if CASA believes a pilot is unsafe at all, CASA will have to suspend or cancel every licence she holds or risk the Tribunal deciding that CASA doesn’t really mean it.
One hopes the Tribunal figures out that there may be reasonable grounds for saying that someone doesn’t (for example) meet the standards of an ATPL but continues to meet the standards of a CPL, and therefore that the former might reasonably be suspended or canceled but not the latter. If there are no safety implications arising from the distinction drawn in the rules between PPL, CPL and ATPL, the distinction would be constitutionally invalid – there would be no safety nexus. I think the Tribunal will, upon further reflection, comprehend the issue.
Torres – I think we’re in agreement to some extent. I’ll sing nude in the Tabernacle the day we “totally” agree on anything! You ask rhetorically:
Surely you must agree, comments in PPRuNe and anonymous reporting can hardly constitute substantive evidence!
The rules of evidence in administrative proceedings are different from those in criminal prosecutions. The matters an administrative decision-maker may reasonably take into consideration in making an administrative decision extend well beyond those which would be admissible evidence in a criminal prosecution. Nonetheless, it would be surprising if the Tribunal ultimately restored the cancellations on the basis of second hand, untested, hearsay alone.
My main concern is that anyone can say anything they like in a CAIR, and just about anyone can say just about anything they like on PPRuNe. While CASA and ATSB are well aware of the risk of vindictive and mischievous reports and rumours, the more problematic circumstances arise where the reporter – a “concerned and reputable aviation industry source” - is prepared to ‘swear on a stack of bibles’ that their report is true. Upon further investigation it turns out that the reporter’s earnest and honest belief is entirely mistaken.
You’re the perfect example – you’ve occasionally made posts on PPRuNe containing allegations which you earnestly and honestly believe to be gospel truth, but that I know to be dead wrong. It’s not really a problem, unless someone acts on the allegation before finding out if it’s correct. That’s what worries me about the Edwards decision – it appears PPRuNe threads and similar hearsay formed the very basis of the decision, rather than the trigger for investigating whether the hearsay was correct and then making the decision on the basis of what was discovered.
But we can’t be getting the whole story – I say again, if the DPP is prosecuting then the DPP must have at least one first hand witness who’s going to give evidence admissible in a criminal prosecution, which evidence the DPP believes will withstand cross-examination.
There’s always a lot of chest beating about civil litigation against CASA for ‘loss of earnings’ etc in the rare cases that the Tribunal sets CASA’s decision aside, but I’m not aware of anyone having gone beyond chest beating by actually filing a claim. Making a decision that is set aside by the Tribunal is not tantamount to making a decision negligently. (And can someone tell that fool T what a “stay” decision is) Let’s wait and see what the Tribunal decides first, as the question may become academic.
You picked up another very important issue that I hadn’t: the Tribunal’s “half pregnant” reasoning. Bad news for any commercial pilot if the Tribunal sticks with it. The implications are that if CASA believes a pilot is unsafe at all, CASA will have to suspend or cancel every licence she holds or risk the Tribunal deciding that CASA doesn’t really mean it.
One hopes the Tribunal figures out that there may be reasonable grounds for saying that someone doesn’t (for example) meet the standards of an ATPL but continues to meet the standards of a CPL, and therefore that the former might reasonably be suspended or canceled but not the latter. If there are no safety implications arising from the distinction drawn in the rules between PPL, CPL and ATPL, the distinction would be constitutionally invalid – there would be no safety nexus. I think the Tribunal will, upon further reflection, comprehend the issue.
Creamie. I think we are getting closer to your nekid solo in the Tabernacle!
The word "hardly" was a term of phrase only. Posts on PPRuNe or anonymous CAIR reports can not be tested by cross examination in the manner required, for example, in criminal proceedings. As you correctly indicate, both mediums can - and do - get used by unscrupulous and unethical people like me, for vindictive, misleading and mischievous purposes.
I am very aware - from personal experience, you will recall - that the AAT takes into account a wide range of allegations and unsubstantiated, untested and missleading "evidence" which would be inadmissible in a court of law. I have no misunderstanding of the meaning and intent of the term "stayed".
I have a problem with the "little bit pregnant" aspect in that the AAT (and CASA) accepts the person is a safe competent pilot for private operations but supports they are unsafe and incompetent for commercial operations. To demonstrate the absurdity, the pilot can not take a few pictures from a Cessna 150 which he intends to sell, but can take 6 or 8 of his mates away for the weekend in a Cessna 402!
To my way of thinking, the process occurring in this case is appropriate and will give the person concerned his "day in court" and require CASA/DPP to prove it's case beyond all reasonable doubt. And isn't that what Australian justice should all be about?
I'm looking forward to your nekid solo. Should be able to make a healthy profit on ticket sales.
The word "hardly" was a term of phrase only. Posts on PPRuNe or anonymous CAIR reports can not be tested by cross examination in the manner required, for example, in criminal proceedings. As you correctly indicate, both mediums can - and do - get used by unscrupulous and unethical people like me, for vindictive, misleading and mischievous purposes.
I am very aware - from personal experience, you will recall - that the AAT takes into account a wide range of allegations and unsubstantiated, untested and missleading "evidence" which would be inadmissible in a court of law. I have no misunderstanding of the meaning and intent of the term "stayed".
I have a problem with the "little bit pregnant" aspect in that the AAT (and CASA) accepts the person is a safe competent pilot for private operations but supports they are unsafe and incompetent for commercial operations. To demonstrate the absurdity, the pilot can not take a few pictures from a Cessna 150 which he intends to sell, but can take 6 or 8 of his mates away for the weekend in a Cessna 402!
To my way of thinking, the process occurring in this case is appropriate and will give the person concerned his "day in court" and require CASA/DPP to prove it's case beyond all reasonable doubt. And isn't that what Australian justice should all be about?
I'm looking forward to your nekid solo. Should be able to make a healthy profit on ticket sales.
Thread Starter
Torres - I'm not warming up the vocal chords just yet.
BTW: my reference to "that fool T" was not to you, and I apologise if you or others got that impression. It was a reference to that well known fool who used to use the psuedonym "T", among others, on PPRuNe, and who's labouring under the misconception that the Tribunal's decision at the link above was to the effect that CASA "got it wrong".
BTW: my reference to "that fool T" was not to you, and I apologise if you or others got that impression. It was a reference to that well known fool who used to use the psuedonym "T", among others, on PPRuNe, and who's labouring under the misconception that the Tribunal's decision at the link above was to the effect that CASA "got it wrong".
Goodness me Creamie, we've traded insults for so long that another would not even be noticed.
Indeed, I didn't even notice your reference to "that fool T" and now you have drawn my attention to it, it's obvious it doesn't apply to moi!
Yes, he's a fool if he thinks at this stage CASA "got it wrong". That will only be determined in the future, in an appropriate court of law. As it should be.
Re reading this thread: "BTW Torres: the Tribunal will proceed to a substantive hearing,...". Yes, but it would appear the Tribunal intends to consider the findings of any criminal proceedings, in it's decision at the final, substantive hearing. However, the Tribunal is independent of any criminal findings and may make the decion to uphold CASA's decision, even if the criminal proceedings fail. Am I correct in that assumption?
You have a great weekend!
Indeed, I didn't even notice your reference to "that fool T" and now you have drawn my attention to it, it's obvious it doesn't apply to moi!
Yes, he's a fool if he thinks at this stage CASA "got it wrong". That will only be determined in the future, in an appropriate court of law. As it should be.
Re reading this thread: "BTW Torres: the Tribunal will proceed to a substantive hearing,...". Yes, but it would appear the Tribunal intends to consider the findings of any criminal proceedings, in it's decision at the final, substantive hearing. However, the Tribunal is independent of any criminal findings and may make the decion to uphold CASA's decision, even if the criminal proceedings fail. Am I correct in that assumption?
You have a great weekend!
Thread Starter
Torres: you are correct in your assumption. The Tribunal is free to decide that a licence holder has breached a rule, whether or not she is going to be or has been prosecuted for that breach. Indeed, the Tribunal is free to decide that a licence holder has breached a rule, even if she has been prosecuted for that breach and found not guilty. (Remember OJ Simpson?)
I doubt the Tribunal will wait for the prosecution to be completed in Mr Edwards’ case, but it will depend on how hard CASA wants to push. Now that the stay has been granted, Mr Edwards is in no rush to get to a final hearing, and given that his licences are now perpetual there’s no pending expiry date that can be used as leverage.
Should be an interesting chess game. Langmead’s clever, and Wollerman’s OK when he concentrates on the law rather than his snarling Rottweiller impression.
Have a nice financial year.
I doubt the Tribunal will wait for the prosecution to be completed in Mr Edwards’ case, but it will depend on how hard CASA wants to push. Now that the stay has been granted, Mr Edwards is in no rush to get to a final hearing, and given that his licences are now perpetual there’s no pending expiry date that can be used as leverage.
Should be an interesting chess game. Langmead’s clever, and Wollerman’s OK when he concentrates on the law rather than his snarling Rottweiller impression.
Have a nice financial year.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Dont know I'm lost
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If the so called person on this topic wants to sue his ex pilots, then let him go ahead and try.
First off he will not be able to get any money from us because we dont have any money in the first place, if he cant remember we are GA pilots ( we worked for him so he has an insight into how much we have.)not airline pilots.
Second point is we all reside overseas now and if he wants to come and get us, he can email me and I'll pick him up at the airport.
If he is looking to put blame on somebody then maybe he should look at himself. He is the sole reason for his demise.
I do not regret talking to CASA because I believe that in doing so may have saved a young pilots life in the future. If that's worth being threatened over then so be it.
First off he will not be able to get any money from us because we dont have any money in the first place, if he cant remember we are GA pilots ( we worked for him so he has an insight into how much we have.)not airline pilots.
Second point is we all reside overseas now and if he wants to come and get us, he can email me and I'll pick him up at the airport.
If he is looking to put blame on somebody then maybe he should look at himself. He is the sole reason for his demise.
I do not regret talking to CASA because I believe that in doing so may have saved a young pilots life in the future. If that's worth being threatened over then so be it.
Ah, perhaps some substantive evidence at last?
Let’s not dwell on the evidence – indeed, it would not be appropriate to even hint at what that may be on this forum – but I’m intrigued at your suggestion of being sued. How can you be sued if the evidence you give is “the whole truth and nothing but the truth”?
Indeed, has the suggestion even been made that you would be sued?
Let’s not dwell on the evidence – indeed, it would not be appropriate to even hint at what that may be on this forum – but I’m intrigued at your suggestion of being sued. How can you be sued if the evidence you give is “the whole truth and nothing but the truth”?
Indeed, has the suggestion even been made that you would be sued?
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Dont know I'm lost
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To answer your question Torres, yes.
Pilots have been sent letters from the company lawyers stating that they could be held liable for defamation.
But that was last year, havent heard of any since then. and no action has been formaly taken.
Pilots have been sent letters from the company lawyers stating that they could be held liable for defamation.
But that was last year, havent heard of any since then. and no action has been formaly taken.
Then Troopy, I would suggest you have a "duty of care" obligation under the Civil Aviation Act to tell "the whole truth and nothing but the truth."
I'm sure Creampuff can give you the reference from the Act.
But this forum is no place to air your views on a pending legal matter - unless you want to give Woomera apoplexy!
I'm sure Creampuff can give you the reference from the Act.
But this forum is no place to air your views on a pending legal matter - unless you want to give Woomera apoplexy!
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Darwin
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ah thats better, nice refreshing beach to lay upon does wonders for the health. That's more than can be said for those that don't subscibe to the "duty of care"
Have had a good read of this decision. You are right Cream Puff all they have done is stayed the cancellation of HE's ATPL and Commercial licence. By leaving the PPL the Tribunal has said that indictes he must be a safe flyer. Then there is the reference to having the CP approval suspended and the reasons for that being mostly repeated as the reason for the cancellation. So there's the view that he has been penalised twice for the same things.
The problem will be that the reason for the cancellation will now have to be justified by CASA providing evidence and having their witnesses cross examined.
If Langmead is to be the man with Wollerman providing the ammunition it will really be quite an interesting case. If HE suceeds then he will keep his ATPL etc. When you consider the article in the last Australian Flying mag is really is a worry for all in the industry.
That article by Phelan referred to Wollerman and also the statement that CASA had relied on " rumours, CAIR reports. ATSB incidents and industry reports etc " in suspending a CP approval. I do not think you need to be a rocket scientist to figure that it was the legendary HE that was the subject of t hat article. If what Phelan said was right then the "safety " of our skies is in real trouble.
CASA is about to change the Rules again They claim the DPP reckons the CAR's need to be strict liabilty written. Then it will be easier to get a conviction. So when the decent pilot logs a CAIR and thereby implicates himself in an incident it is going to be likely that CASA will be able to use that report as the basis for a prosecution. How I ask is that going to make anything safer?
I have spoken to several CPL's and they are all saying - " I am not going to say anything now - just want to fly" - Is that good for the Industry? Particularly up here? I think not. There is a whole lot more to this HE thing than meets the eye. I sure as one thing would sooner have Langmead and Wollerman in my corner than in the other against me.
To those blokes and girls in Africa - I reckon you are better out of it. The trouble is your talking to CASA has got aound and everyone knows. So - no jobs in OZ. Not in GA anyway. You will be right in the future tho. Keep smiling it will all come out in the wash.
Have had a good read of this decision. You are right Cream Puff all they have done is stayed the cancellation of HE's ATPL and Commercial licence. By leaving the PPL the Tribunal has said that indictes he must be a safe flyer. Then there is the reference to having the CP approval suspended and the reasons for that being mostly repeated as the reason for the cancellation. So there's the view that he has been penalised twice for the same things.
The problem will be that the reason for the cancellation will now have to be justified by CASA providing evidence and having their witnesses cross examined.
If Langmead is to be the man with Wollerman providing the ammunition it will really be quite an interesting case. If HE suceeds then he will keep his ATPL etc. When you consider the article in the last Australian Flying mag is really is a worry for all in the industry.
That article by Phelan referred to Wollerman and also the statement that CASA had relied on " rumours, CAIR reports. ATSB incidents and industry reports etc " in suspending a CP approval. I do not think you need to be a rocket scientist to figure that it was the legendary HE that was the subject of t hat article. If what Phelan said was right then the "safety " of our skies is in real trouble.
CASA is about to change the Rules again They claim the DPP reckons the CAR's need to be strict liabilty written. Then it will be easier to get a conviction. So when the decent pilot logs a CAIR and thereby implicates himself in an incident it is going to be likely that CASA will be able to use that report as the basis for a prosecution. How I ask is that going to make anything safer?
I have spoken to several CPL's and they are all saying - " I am not going to say anything now - just want to fly" - Is that good for the Industry? Particularly up here? I think not. There is a whole lot more to this HE thing than meets the eye. I sure as one thing would sooner have Langmead and Wollerman in my corner than in the other against me.
To those blokes and girls in Africa - I reckon you are better out of it. The trouble is your talking to CASA has got aound and everyone knows. So - no jobs in OZ. Not in GA anyway. You will be right in the future tho. Keep smiling it will all come out in the wash.
