So allowing for qnh and terrain he was about 750' agl ?:}

Up in the air, might want to check what 'strict liability' actually means :rolleyes:

This thread is getting interesting.

Did the QF flight have a permit from CASA? Did it descend below 1,000' agl over a built-up area? If the answers are 'no' and 'yes' respectively, the sky gods have broken the law.

And in a turn, the 'inside wingtip' on an A380 would be significantly lower than the air data altitude sensed.

Might be worth some 'investigative journalism'.

Personally, I don't think the flybys are low enough, what's the point if it's at 1500ft?

casa and strict liability
 

From the Criminal Code:

Division 6—Cases where fault elements are not required

6.1 Strict liability

(1) If a law that creates an offence provides that the offence is an offence of strict liability:

(a) there are no fault elements for any of the physical elements of the offence; and
(b) the defence of mistake of fact under section 9.2 is available.

(2) If a law that creates an offence provides that strict liability applies to a particular physical element of the offence:

(a) there are no fault elements for that physical element; and
(b) the defence of mistake of fact under section 9.2 is available in relation to that physical element.
(3) The existence of strict liability does not make any other defence unavailable.

And Section 9.2 says:

9.2 Mistake of fact (strict liability)

(1) A person is not criminally responsible for an offence that has a physical element for which there is no fault element if:

(a) at or before the time of the conduct constituting the physical element, the person considered whether or not facts existed, and is under a mistaken but reasonable belief about those facts; and

(b) had those facts existed, the conduct would not have constituted an offence.

(2) A person may be regarded as having considered whether or not facts existed if:

(a) he or she had considered, on a previous occasion, whether those facts existed in the circumstances surrounding that occasion; and

(b) he or she honestly and reasonably believed that the circumstances surrounding the present occasion were the same, or substantially the same, as those surrounding the previous occasion.


I think that means you are a "cooked goose"! but smarter people than I may have a view.

UITA, you have done a lot of cut-and-paste, but have not done any statutory interpretation. The clue is in 9.2. If it is reasonable to believe that something is true, and you actually believe it to be true, you have satisfied 9.2. For example, if it is determined that you took off overweight, but the load sheet said you were not, it is reasonable to believe the load sheet, and you believe the load sheet, you will most likely satisfy 9.2.

Strict liability does not mean absolute liability. Here is a good layman's guide What is Strict Liability?

That's nothing!:ooh:
Here in Brisbane there used to be an a couple of those terribly old, awfully noisy, crash-prone F-111's flying right over the city at night!!!
And what's worse every time they did, they were on fire. :eek:
I can't believe the Air Force were allowed to fly them so close to all those people watching the Riverfire, when they caught fire every time. :roll eyes:

http://downunderpoms.com/riverfire-l...osure-f111.jpg

Someone will correct me I'm sure, however I thought ALL CASA "strict liability" offence's are CRIMINAL offence's which only need a delegate or some other bureaucrat to "be satisfied" that an offence had taken place to make it thus. Not anything like the real world definition of a criminal with "intent". Did the pilot fly the aircraft at the stated altitude with intent? Well, it doesn't really matter if the FOI was satisfied does it?

Or does it?

I guess I am in agreement that there appears to be differences in strict liability offence's depending on whose mate did it, or some other **** who doesn't pay baksheesh of any kind did, to be in the club.

Of course I'm wrong!

We don't have regulations in Australia any more, (still working on them 23 years later), but we do have....................................... "EXEMPTIONS".

So it's not really unsafe if you have an EXEMPTION, but it is if you don't.

Stone the bloody crows!

Thanks TH,

From the 2007 flight safety magazine[http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_asset...oct/12-13.pdf], casa goes to lengths to soften the edges of "strict liability".

But is it "Cooked Goose"??

Try to answer the question yourself:

What offence is thought to be perpetrated?
Can the prosecution prove all the necessary elements of the offence?
Is there a defence? (9.2)
What are the burden of proof issues with the above?
What does the case law say?

I can't believe that this thread has descended into this.

The trouble with the internet is that it gives people a voice who have little better to do. Instead of actually having hard evidence of a breach, people launch into accusations and insinuations of (wilful) illegality.

The people running flight departments and getting out there and doing the business are busy doing what they are paid to do and should not have to answer such tripe. :mad:

And no, I don't work for QF.

I thought that's how strict liability worked, the burden of proof is on the accused. Perhaps somebody should put up the evidence that no offence occurred and everybody would go away. That way the media wouldn't involve itself in embellishing events like those of Fred Nurk, (Broadmeadow), who was recently interviewed stating.... I wouldn't want one of those "unsafe" A380's flying so low over my house with bits dropping off, they should all be grounded like they did with Ansett.

Agreed CS.
The original question was a genuine one. My Observation was that the fat bus seemed to stagger all over burbs under a 2000 odd foot cloud base. Many of our neighbors gathered in the street after the third pass and not a single " ooh ahh" was heard. The sentiment was one of concern.
If the intent of the low flying was to attract business then I would offer that it was a total failure; in my little part of town at least.
I love a good flyby like the rest of us, just thought it was inappropriate on several levels coming from QF. One minute Joyce is grounding thousands, next minute he is rubbing our noses in it at Christmas time. Stupid move if you ask me.

Bbbbzzzzzzzzzzbzbzbzbzzzz

I agree CS. The same theme was being expressed in the overweight take off thread. Sometimes a little education can help stop the bush-lawyering, hence my posts.

Cheers

Up-into-the-air, I'm sure you will be very disappointed to know that they DID have approval to conduct the fly past.
Posted on the intranet by the fleet manager: Care to explain your perverse desire to try and pin Qantas with a breach of regs?

If that was the case it was obviously not a very well thought out publicity stunt.

I heard it was a pretty nice flypast from a mate at the MCG,
as for the regs and $hit WTF? yeah an internet tracking website showed it descended a few dozen feet below 1000ft, as if thats the absolute authority, one minute people are bitching about flypasts being too high and the next about being too low. Just get in your Cessna 152's and fly off to the furtherest point possible! (probably East sale!)

If it puts Tendulkar off his game I am all for it.

I agree with CS and the Headmaster - the suggestions in the latter part of this thread are really ridiculous!:bored:

Heaven help us if all you lot can do is whinge about a flypast :ugh::ugh: