Launceston prosecution – what has happened?
 

On 10 June 2004 Woomera correctly locked off the thread on discussions in relation to a claimed incident at Launceston on 23 October 2001 where it was alleged that Qantas pilots departed at night with the runway lights off.

However I believe we should look again at this issue. It is over 5 years since the claimed incident and the rumour going around is that a particular pilots’ union spent over $100,000 in defending the pilots, then Qantas took over and has spent many more hundreds of thousands of dollars. This has happened yet it appears that the pilots have not had their day in court

More to the point, why didn’t CASA use the simple administrative fines procedure? I would imagine if the union and Qantas have spent many hundreds of thousands of dollars, CASA has spent more. It could be that over $500,000 has been spent on this particular prosecution without it being resolved.

Surely this is something that should be discussed on PPRuNe. Look at the original thread here, which includes the article by Steve Creedy in The Australian of 8 June 2004.

Surely this is something that should be discussed on PPRuNe.

Why Dick? If it is still subjudice, what possible benefit to the two pilots will be brought by ill-informed speculation on an anonymous aviation forum?

Never thought I would say this but,

"Well said Borg"

The Cutest of Borg, I’m not suggesting any “ill-informed speculation” on what happened, however there has been a delay of over five years on this action. I’m sure you’ve heard of the expression “Justice delayed is justice denied.”

I believe it is a fair thing to discuss on this forum why the delays have been so great and why CASA used the court system rather than the administrative fines.

Personally, I find it impossible to believe that two Qantas 737 pilots would intentionally take off with the runway lights off.

During the trial I sincerely hope that the background to the lights going off during the takeoff roll (if they did) comes floating to the top. If it were not for some individuals pushing "save dollars at every turn" and "affordable safety", and now having people in the industry who only understand economic rationalism and little of commonsense, then we probably wouldn't have the ridiculous situation where an RPT jet crew could be caught by the auto-off function of the PAL because airport operators will not allow airline staff to manually switch the lights on because it wastes power/globes.

While I am not saying categorically that is what happened in this case, this scenario is played out every night around Australia.

While some will immediately jump on CASA for not having rules in place to prevent this sort of thing happening, I counter that the safety of a system relies to a large extent on a commonsense approach by all in it, not a zealous desire by a few for affordable safety putting irresponsible pressure on people to save a buck and on regulators to keep up with people who do try to save a buck.

Capn,

That seems just a little bit weak, don't you think?

Surely you can reactivate the lights before take-off like we do everywhere else?

Australia had the light above the primary windsock flashing as a warning when the lights were about done when I flew there.

Doesn't you still?

Time to do so again methinks.

quite so, when it is not being used mischeivously that is the beauty of the court system. To separate personal beliefs, shibboleths and speculation from the facts. You do not have any more or less publicly available facts than us or any one else, so why dont we just leave it to the lawyers. You know how it works.!;)

No I don't, Chris. Turn the effing things on manually before I get there and turn them off a few minutes after I have taken off. What is the problem with that? This isn't Africa...

Surely the decision to prosecute is made by the DPP, not CASA, who then conduct the case?

"CASA will do all it can to ensure that a person whose licence, certificate or authority is suspended or cancelled has ready access to full external merits review in the AAT. Once before the AAT, CASA will conduct itself as a model litigant." (CASA, in a document entitled: "A new approach to enforcement". March, 1989.)

One would assume a decision to prosecute through the Court system providing a "full external merits review", rather than CASA's abhorrent and unaccountable "administration procedure", gives the accused their day in court and provides fair, just and equitable justice?

Torres, quite so. One would think that the accused’s day in court would provide equitable justice – but why is it taking so damned long? Surely Creampuff or some other person trained in the law must be able to explain to us how it could take five years, and how it could cost hundreds of thousands of dollars?

There must be something going on behind the scenes, and surely that is the type of situation PPRuNe should expose.

No, we don’t want to second guess the court system, but we want to know why such a simple claim made by CASA (i.e. pilots taking off with the lights turned off) cannot be sorted out in court in a reasonable period.

This seems like the David Hicks situation all over again. He has been locked up for five years without even a charge now, and that is what 76% of Australians are concerned about. Most of us have no views on the guilt or innocence of David Hicks - we just think that an ally of ours should be able to sort out the issue within a five year period.

Surely the same must be said for an action taken by CASA against Qantas pilots.

Dick. If it has taken almost nineteen years - so far - at who knows what cost to re-write the CARs, why do you find five years excessive?

I can't answer your question, but I can remind you that in August 1998 you said: "Anyone other than Dick Smith who joins CASA, becomes 'infallible'".

There's still 'infallibles' in CASA who have developed procrastination into an art form - and an income to retirement!

Considering the "vested interests" in the issue you mention, you may well see the matter terminated by a statute of limitations, if such a statute exists. However, it is interesting to speculate that were the same pilots employed by a struggling GA operator, I'm sure the CASA legal heavies would swoop and justice would be swift. A level playing field never did exist.

And whilst I respect but don't necessarily share your affinity for certain US practices in aviation, please don't compare my democratic Australia with the human rights abuses, rule of the gun and fiscal ineptitude of the US Administration. To Australia's shame it has participated in the Coalition of the Willing but dismally failed to demand immediate justice for it's own citizen. I have "no views on the guilt or innocence of David Hicks", however Hicks should be granted his universal right to immediate judgment by his peers, or released.

Perhaps you should ask your original question of the recently departed CASA Legal Counsel? One assumes he would be a greater authority on CASA's concept of justice, than those who post in PPRuNe?

.. why the interest? :suspect: … errrrm . why must there be something going on behind the scenes?
.
…. Process, silks and the legal system complexities (availability of functionaries blah blah etc) might be necessarily lengthy? ….I dunno, do you?
.
.. have you asked the parties and/or the court system where the process is up to? … surely you must have enquired and received an unsatisfactory response or have other information that would lead you to an unsavoury conclusion to need to ‘come on here’ and suggest ‘something is going on!? … so lets have it then! …. Oh … I do hope not! :ugh: …..who is we .. anyhow, righto, explain why you think the time frame is unreasonable …. There were lots of media reports previously … have you looked to get an understanding of the proceedings (and presumably time frames) of the hearings … ? …. What the???
.
… an aviation dispute issue is progressing in the Australian courts, yet it seems like the David Hicks situation all over again …. can't quite see it myself? :rolleyes: ... ermm, whose locked up without charge in the aviation case? … Glad you are one of the 76% of us! … your public profile and lobbying ability .. should have him back in Oz for trial by Christmas!!
.
Re Hicks
.
.. I agree wholeheartedly with Torres … to me it is an international disgrace … has been all along …. There is no excuse for denying a citizen real justice! …. Sort out the issue? …. meaning giving him access to the Australian justice system!? … or are you suggesting something else ….perhaps more politically expedient? ….. nnup .. sorry, you have lost me there?? :hmm:
.
.. and no, I am not making any comment on the aviation issue directly as that would be clearly inappropriate! ;) ... nice cast though :E
.
Good day!

Dick,

We have 2 systems in Oz for activating these lights.
One requires longers tx times than the other. How do you know if the equipment responded to your transmissions. I've personally had to try 3 times to get a response.

The ones reqiring the short burst on CTAF comm frequencies at least answer you so you have some idea of its response.

Why not have ALL pal lighting on the same system? Beats me. Sounds like it was invented by a committee.

Dick Just re-read your first paragraph:
Am I to assume from your statement that the pilots were charged with an offense (by Summons?) but between the Union and Qantas, the matter has been kept out of Court for some period of time up to five years?

What has the "$100,000" and "many more hundreds of thousands of dollars" been spent on if the matter has not gone before the Court?

Surely the matter would have come up for mention? Do you have a Court reference? Or has charges not been made and with the passage of time, may never been made?

All hypothetical of course, because nobody knows the facts.......but -

What I think should be known, is who were the down to earth good blokes who dobbed them in, rather than re-activating the lights for them.

If the blokes missed it on take-off, for whatever reason, surely some common sense and airmanship would dictate those in another aircraft, nearby and could see the events unfolding, would assist by putting the lights on ?


Surely we havent all dropped down to the gutter?

blueloo Well, no. If a Summons has been served, the Summons and alleged facts must be a matter of public record. If that Summons was issued some years ago and the matter has not been settled by the Court, it should be a public concern.

If no Summons has been issued, the matter may have been handled internally to ATSB and CASA's satisfaction.

It is not a matter of "who dobbed them in". I'm sure the incident would be a reportable incident under the Transport Safety Investigation Act 2003 (TSI Act)?

What's the big deal?

With all those big lights on a jet, I assume that they could see where they were going!

If they needed to return to the runway - they probably would have turned the lights back on.

Did they crash?

Did the cockpit voice recorder reveal a conversation along the lines of "What do you think George, will we try this one with the runway lights off".

If not then I suspect no real harm was done.

Will they do it again - probably not.

I am not suggesting that taking off without the runway lights should become SOP, but why do we always want to throw the book at someone who flucks up?

Review how the incident came about and look at how we can minimise the chance of it happening again.

If they had been flying a lighty they probably would have been hailed (at least in the press) as heros for using their great skill to save the day.

R:cool:

What did happen?
 

Is there an ATSB report on this incident? If not why not? Is this supressed because of the "hundreds of thousands of dollars" that has been spent.
Is this something like the payments made by airservices to people in the Solomon islands, or the payments made by AWB?

This should be settled if we are to have any trust in our authorities.

What would there be to report Bushy?

"737 takes off safely, some controversy over whether runway lights remained on for all of take-off roll. End of report"
....and no, none of the 100's of 1000's have been used to repress anything.

P.S. Dick, your tone regarding a particular pilots’ union spent over $100,000 in defending the pilots is somewhat strange.... isn't this what you expect from a union when you pay your dues?

I understand that the allegations that were levelled against the crew as a result of a CAIR report (ATM machine I know!). If this is correct then it is very difficult for the 'witness' to be cross examined in court as to what they observed- unless they have subsequently come forward.

I understand why there is a CAIR system but to use it for something like this shows a fundamental lack of understanding as to what the system is supposed to be able to do.

PS: If I have it correct and it was a CAIR report then a fine or other arbitrary penalty would be massive denial of natural justice. I'd fight it hammer and tong and expect my union to spend whatever it took to clear my name.