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.

Dick. I searched the ATSB Occurrence File around 23 October 2001; there is no record of an incident at Launceston.

Perhaps the matter has already been resolved to the satisfaction of CASA, ATSB and the airline concerned and there is no current prosecution in process?

Torres, even if the matter has been resolved to the satisfaction of CASA and ATSB, why would the information be deleted from the ATSB occurrence file? That doesn’t normally happen.

Also, after the article by Steve Creedy, why wouldn’t the public and interested parties be informed of what happened to the action? By the sound of it, if it has been resolved CASA must have withdrawn the action as I certainly haven’t heard of any successful prosecution, and I can’t see how that could be kept secret.

I believe this is a very serious issue and should not be covered up.

Has it been? Do you know for a fact that it has? That's a pretty serious allegation to be making Dick.

That doesn’t normally happen.
Maybe because the media decided that there was no 'news' in it.

Alleging a cover up is a pretty serious issue Dick. It appears to be a great attempt at dissembling the situation. There is no evidence to suggest that the issue has been covered up yet your final comment suggests that as fact.

Very disappointed. :=

PS: My sincere thanks to a colleague for giving me the word dissembling....it's my new favourite word and has SO many applications in this day and age whether talking about QF or Dick. :cool:

Dick, I personally think we should be examining why aviation in Australia has come down to dob in a fellow aviator, instead of trying to assist others in preventing things going pear shaped.

Why didn't the onlookers attempt to re-activate the pal, if they saw it flashing?

Airmanship & Professionalism - its a wonderful thing isnt it!

My opinion Dick, is that it wasn't a "very serious issue".

I used to take off with no lights frequently, even landing lights, with PAX from commercial fields. It's really no big deal so I wouldn't be surprised if no further action came from it.

Why do you think it's such an issue? What danger do you think existed?

I’d seriously like to know.

Cheers

Wombat

I have received a number of extraordinary private emails in relation to this Launceston issue. There are claims that I shouldn’t mention this at all as it is completely a non-issue and the DPP may decide to drop the action.

I don’t agree at all. I understand that many hundreds of thousands of dollars have been spent on this court action, and if the DPP drop the action now because they believe they do not have a case, this is extraordinary. Is that the normal practice from the DPP? If so, why isn’t it exposed?

Is the DPP operating on false information? If that is so, that should be exposed as it has cost a small fortune and no doubt caused the Qantas pilots an incredible amount of anguish.

I have also been told that at the present time there is “no litigation.” Surely that is impossible. The Creedy article mentions that action was taken. How can the action stop without the DPP giving a major reason for their back down?

I believe it is important for all of us to find out what has happened. Was it a completely trumped up claim in the first place – without any basis or foundation? If this is so, the situation should be exposed.

No doubt we will await further information.

Blueloo, you state:

I tend to agree with you, however we don’t even know if the pilots actually did what it was claimed that they did. I find it difficult to believe that the DPP would allow hundreds of thousands of dollars to be spent by the union, Qantas, and (I understand) CASA, when nothing has been finalised in five years.

Could it be that the whole claim was a fabrication to damage someone? I’ve heard rumours that this is so. Because of this, it is important that the true situation be exposed. I can assure you that I believe the pilots are innocent until proven guilty.

Dick,

I see that you probably not that worried about the safety aspect, (My opinion was that it was not dangerous at all.) rather the DPP stuff, well fair enough, however some thought.

Far be it for me to mention the effort that you must have gone through to research all of this, but why is it your area of concern? Are you looking out for the professional pilots? If so, what about the appalling conditions that some work in and the pittance that instructors get paid? Is that not of more concern to you?

That's something that you COULD do something about, something positive that might help our industry, rather than all this other stuff, that looks like it's going to send you to an early grave.

Why not use you time to inspire? You have such potential, why not go out to somewhere like Camden and see some of the younger members of our industry and really try to help them..

Just a thought, myself, I'm gunna head out to the field and take a young guy/girl up for a free ride and some aeros. :ok:

Cheers

Wombat

What about an annual Dick Smith scholarship to help someone that is less fortunate who would like to persue a career in aviation who otherwise would not be able to afford to do so? And that could include secondary schooling as well as a contirbution to flying lessons. :)

Dick,
The DPP often drops cases that are too weak to stand up in court. Saves everyone money and egg on the face.

Why were charges laid in the first place? Did someone not understand the full story?

These are questions you need to ask. Maybe the DPP could answer them. But I don't think the answer lies here on this forum.

And that, my friends, about sums it up.

:ok:

Cheers,

NFR.

And its the same reason the Governments Dorothy Dixers get handed around to the backbencher MPs that would otherwise not ever be heard, then they can tell their constituents they are a power in the land. :\ It's an attention getting device that enables the party to bang their drum on a particular issue.

I think I can see where Dick is coming from:

Why five years and why the excessive expenditure of public funds to get the matter to Court where, even if the prosecution is successful, the likely outcome would be a relatively minor punishment or penalty?

Those of us that get about will be aware that this alleged event is perhaps not all that uncommon. I know of at least two other cases around the same time where RPT departed with no runway lights (the a/c lights are pretty good) and in one case the crew did not know, but self reported anyway. There was no action or comment. In the other case there were 300+ witnesses (and nothing followed). What ever the circumstances, I don't believe it to be a big deal and certainly not worthy of the regulator doing anything but perhaps writing a letter to the operator.

Like some 3rd world countries that try and prosecute someone/anyone after an accident, we learn nothing from that event because all lips shut tight. It would be far better to acknowledge that it is possible for pilots to depart without runway lights due to many factors and to work on a solution that would minimize such occurrences.

The person/s responsible for sending this to court deserve to be :mad: :mad:

The australian judicial system could not cope with the amount of actions that could be pursued. The prosecutors regardless of whether they are DPP employed or not, must assess the evidence, and if there is a reasonable chance of a successful prosecution they will proceed to a court hearing.

It is an expensive business litigation - at some point the decision to not continue and save the $ involved in a costs claim against them for an unsuccessful prosecution will over-ride the risk factor in maybe jagging a conviction on weak/tenuous evidence.

I'd have thought if this issue was of real concern this would have finished a long time ago.

Wombat35 and Enema Bandit’s Dad, I agree wholeheartedly with your comments. My main interest is to get more pilots in jobs and more pilots flying. That is why I concentrate so much on necessary reform and having a viable aviation industry.

I have helped people with money to gain their pilot’s licence, but that is for others to comment on. Donating money to something like this is easy. Working many hours to try to achieve reform is a lot harder. My satisfaction will come when we have a booming general aviation industry – including flying training and recreational aviation – and the industry is as successful as the three businesses I have been involved in.

I fly regularly in the USA and I can see from that how fantastic our own aviation industry could be – as long as we can remove all unnecessary costs and regulations. That is what I am aiming for, and that is what I consistently work for.

See what is interesting Dick is that for some of us it is very different to reconcile what you think you are doing and what your posts indicate that you're doing.

Initially I believed that you were alleging a cover up between CASA and QF and that both parties had made the issue 'go away'. Your posts weren't very clear that it you were actually trying to track down whether or not CASA had been fiddling around onthis one.

If the post put forward by Air Ace is closer to the mark then you have my full support. I always felt the initial charges (which from my understanding were on the basis of a CAIR report) were entirely un-prosecutable- hard to have natural justice when you can't cross examine your accuser in court.

To follow on from that point I believe you when you say that you want to encourage more people into aviation and for it to be more affordable. The issue that many of us would have with your contributions on both PPRUNE and the wider media is that what you state you wish to happen actually looks to make the wider aviation environment less safe and more regulated and more costly.

I too would like to see an aviation environment in Australia that is philosophically aligned with the US- cheaper flying, greater encouragement of GA rather than seeing it as a 'user pays' cash cow, etc. I don't want to see lower standards of services to achieve that.

So if you're on the hunt for CASA to be up front as to the charges against the crew and why it hasn't been sorted yet then have at it. If you're alleging a cover up by QF or trying to hang the pilots then I reckon you're barking up the wrong tree.

Regards,

Cockpit voice recorders are not allowed to be used in any case where there is at least one surviving crew member.
Have to admit with 2 types of PAL to play with and there not always being an AFRU installed it can be very easy to not switch them on and think you have.

"Cockpit voice recorders are not allowed to be used in any case where there is at least one surviving crew member."
Under the TSI Act, CVR's are routinely accessed and listened to during investigations. Not sure where the one surviving crew member bit come into it.

The one surviving member, is the bloke who presses the erase button :}