CASA Loses Again
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 57
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mr Hat
I'm sure you have the same sort of "credible" details as Walrus 7....and if you don't, you can just make it up anyway....
i'd love to share the details (but i cant) i know of someone that gave CASA yet another bare bottom spanking a little while ago.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Cockatoo Australia
Posts: 234
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm standing by what I have said here. There are two reasons why I don't post the details here.
1. The defendant doesn't want me to, even though he graciously offered to waive that to counter the rubbish Creampuff has been posting (to that man, thanks again).
2. I believe that the matter is now the subject of a CASA internal investigation. In other words, the fat lady has one more song to sing.
I'm a patient bloke ... and no amount of goading will change that.
Walrus
1. The defendant doesn't want me to, even though he graciously offered to waive that to counter the rubbish Creampuff has been posting (to that man, thanks again).
2. I believe that the matter is now the subject of a CASA internal investigation. In other words, the fat lady has one more song to sing.
I'm a patient bloke ... and no amount of goading will change that.
Walrus
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Oz
Age: 77
Posts: 590
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gentlefolks
I do have the details, I will have the court transcripts in my hands next week, and I commend Walrus for his stand.
Clapton, you are remarkably well informed. To further assist your information, here is an interesting statistic about this VCA matter.
Prosecutions for violations of controlled airspace i.e., breaches of CAR 99AA(7) and/or CAR 100(1), (2) and/or (3)) in the years 2005 to 2008 for the full calendar years 2005, 2006 and 2007, and to 30 June 2008.
1 - i.e. ONE.
Estimated VCA during that period - based on CASA data of 2553 actual for 05 & 06 - 4468. Some of which were far more risky, and if you examine the CASA OAR study for Avalon where heavy PTO are at risk, rather than bird life in the Albury airspace where the 1 occurred - you will find at least one aircraft avoidance - but NO prosecutions.
On the maintenance release matter the CASA prosecution may have seemed less perverse had they prosecuted the pilot also - given he caused the damage and was PIC at the time of the damage.
Certainly, as Clapton points out in his defence of the regulator, there was plea bargaining that created the plea of guilty for the three residual charges. Certainly, also, an expert legal opinion noted afterward that "dismissal of a charge found proven (whether after a contest or upon a plea of guilty) is a result not commonly achieved". Perhaps the judge saw something in this prosecution that made his question the odds?
I am researching this for a further investigation; I am a researcher not a lawyer, I don't intend to share the material (sorry XXX) and I don't intend to debate the facts I have provided.
I continue to find Submission 47 an interesting story - perhaps because I realise the 'fiction' may occur in either party, and particularly when I note the parallels to this matter. Just my opinion.
While I continue to work on researching the matter, I am certain a discussion hereon on probability theory will find good reason why CASA proceeded to prosecute this matter.
After all, odds of 1 in 4468 are something we find every day - no?
I do have the details, I will have the court transcripts in my hands next week, and I commend Walrus for his stand.
Clapton, you are remarkably well informed. To further assist your information, here is an interesting statistic about this VCA matter.
Prosecutions for violations of controlled airspace i.e., breaches of CAR 99AA(7) and/or CAR 100(1), (2) and/or (3)) in the years 2005 to 2008 for the full calendar years 2005, 2006 and 2007, and to 30 June 2008.
1 - i.e. ONE.
Estimated VCA during that period - based on CASA data of 2553 actual for 05 & 06 - 4468. Some of which were far more risky, and if you examine the CASA OAR study for Avalon where heavy PTO are at risk, rather than bird life in the Albury airspace where the 1 occurred - you will find at least one aircraft avoidance - but NO prosecutions.
On the maintenance release matter the CASA prosecution may have seemed less perverse had they prosecuted the pilot also - given he caused the damage and was PIC at the time of the damage.
Certainly, as Clapton points out in his defence of the regulator, there was plea bargaining that created the plea of guilty for the three residual charges. Certainly, also, an expert legal opinion noted afterward that "dismissal of a charge found proven (whether after a contest or upon a plea of guilty) is a result not commonly achieved". Perhaps the judge saw something in this prosecution that made his question the odds?
I am researching this for a further investigation; I am a researcher not a lawyer, I don't intend to share the material (sorry XXX) and I don't intend to debate the facts I have provided.
I continue to find Submission 47 an interesting story - perhaps because I realise the 'fiction' may occur in either party, and particularly when I note the parallels to this matter. Just my opinion.
While I continue to work on researching the matter, I am certain a discussion hereon on probability theory will find good reason why CASA proceeded to prosecute this matter.
After all, odds of 1 in 4468 are something we find every day - no?
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 57
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JM
Funny how all the other well informed individuals seemed incapable of posting the real facts about the case. However, you seem to miss the point of my posts.
No one was arguing about how many times VCAs etc have been prosecuted. That is a totally different issue - and I don't necessarily disagree with you on that point.
I was responding to Walrus 7 and his completely false statements that the "court threw out" all the charges. That is demonstrably wrong and it is a pity that such rubbish is posted on PPRUNE masquerading as fact. If you want to post material then it should at least be accurate and factual not a rant by someone who knows nothing about the real details or who deliberately posts misleading information as part of some ideological vendetta against CASA.
Further, your comment:
Not sure what expertise this expert has if he thinks that section 19B orders are "not commonly achieved". Must be practising law on a different planet if that is his "expert legal opinion".
As for Mr Hat, if you had the detail then you would post it. Problem is that obviously doesn't and are happy to throw mud without any evidence.
As for Walrus 7's last comment:
It would be interesting to see what the internal investigation comes up with - as far as I was aware the Complaints Commissioner has no jurisdiction or ability to investigate the DPP - and it is the DPP who run prosecutions and decide which charges to proceed with, how to run the case, whether or not to drop charges (have a read of the Director of Prosecutions Act). So what will he be investigating? But no doubt W7 you will post all the factual details of the investigation - won't you - however, just stick to facts not some embellished story that you make up.
Clapton, you are remarkably well informed. To further assist your information, here is an interesting statistic about this VCA matter.
No one was arguing about how many times VCAs etc have been prosecuted. That is a totally different issue - and I don't necessarily disagree with you on that point.
I was responding to Walrus 7 and his completely false statements that the "court threw out" all the charges. That is demonstrably wrong and it is a pity that such rubbish is posted on PPRUNE masquerading as fact. If you want to post material then it should at least be accurate and factual not a rant by someone who knows nothing about the real details or who deliberately posts misleading information as part of some ideological vendetta against CASA.
Further, your comment:
Certainly, also, an expert legal opinion noted afterward that "dismissal of a charge found proven (whether after a contest or upon a plea of guilty) is a result not commonly achieved"
As for Mr Hat, if you had the detail then you would post it. Problem is that obviously doesn't and are happy to throw mud without any evidence.
As for Walrus 7's last comment:
2. I believe that the matter is now the subject of a CASA internal investigation. In other words, the fat lady has one more song to sing.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Oz
Age: 77
Posts: 590
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Clapton
He is practising law on this planet, and very well I add.
I believe the Walrus statement would be based on that very point - that the beak did not proceed to penalty.
The ICC certainly cannot investigate the DPP and the point of any investigation will be to determine why this one VCA was put forward via the CASA PLO area to reach the DPP in the first place. You will note I have not once mentioned 'payback'.
The ICC will, by arrangement, receive a copy of my research at end August. I am also waiting on the CASA PLO for some promised information.
He is practising law on this planet, and very well I add.
I believe the Walrus statement would be based on that very point - that the beak did not proceed to penalty.
The ICC certainly cannot investigate the DPP and the point of any investigation will be to determine why this one VCA was put forward via the CASA PLO area to reach the DPP in the first place. You will note I have not once mentioned 'payback'.
The ICC will, by arrangement, receive a copy of my research at end August. I am also waiting on the CASA PLO for some promised information.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Cockatoo Australia
Posts: 234
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Clapton,
No, I don't think I will post the details, simply because you want me to if nothing else. I'm not very good and being told what I have to do and get very obstinate. So, others are privvy to this information, and they can post it if they want. I had further discussions on the matter with the defendant on the weekend, who was concerned at the barbs I was getting in this thread, but I told him that I don't remember any law that says I have to post just because other posters tell me I must.
That, and information has reached me that contacts within CASA are watching this post very carefully. And to them I give nothing, because I don't trust them not to abuse their power (sorry boys, but you've created this mistrust).
Walrus
No, I don't think I will post the details, simply because you want me to if nothing else. I'm not very good and being told what I have to do and get very obstinate. So, others are privvy to this information, and they can post it if they want. I had further discussions on the matter with the defendant on the weekend, who was concerned at the barbs I was getting in this thread, but I told him that I don't remember any law that says I have to post just because other posters tell me I must.
That, and information has reached me that contacts within CASA are watching this post very carefully. And to them I give nothing, because I don't trust them not to abuse their power (sorry boys, but you've created this mistrust).
Walrus
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,382
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No just don't have the parties permission and i'm not going to ask for it either. It's just a post, just a forum. It seems to bother you to hear that casa might have lost or heavens forbid be in the wrong.
So here it is. CASA are always right and the paying public shall be forever in debt to them.
Who cares i'll delete all the posts if you wont i don't mind at all.
So here it is. CASA are always right and the paying public shall be forever in debt to them.
Who cares i'll delete all the posts if you wont i don't mind at all.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Mel-burn
Posts: 4,875
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm getting frustrated reading this thread. Can someone just post whatever happened? I saw a post elsewhere naming names, so there's no secrets as far as who, just what!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Cockatoo Australia
Posts: 234
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
VH-XXX,
Basically CASA bought 11 charges against an operator. Eight of those didn't get to court. The ones that did were dismissed by the magistrate even though the defendant pleaded guilty. This is rare, a mate who is a senior DPP solicitor (too senior to deal with magistrates courts) indicated so, even though it is allowed for under Vic law.
To sum up: CASA charged the operator with a VCA even though the operator had self-reported the incident to the ATSB, which is supposed to give you immunity from CASA prosecution. There are some exceptions to this immunity, such as if the VCA was intentional. I really don't know if this is why CASA bought the charge. What was alarming is that it was the only action taken against a VCA even thought there was over 4000 VCAs over a two-year period. The VCA concerned happened in 2005.
The defendant had to pay out $30K in legal fees and now the ICC is having a look at why those charges were bought in the first place.
There were some other charges involved in the incident, including something about a maintenance release not being signed, or not signed correctly. I was told but really don't remember the details right now. As I have said on two occasions before, the defendant has asked that intimate details not be made public on PPRuNe. Certainly that is a good idea. We need to let the CASA ICC investigation runs its course.
Apparently a de-identified story is going to appear in the next issue of the AOPA members magazine (it says so in the current issue). Once that is out, I suppose we can all go to town on this subject.
XXX, if you really want to know more, ring the person that you thought I was.
Walrus
Basically CASA bought 11 charges against an operator. Eight of those didn't get to court. The ones that did were dismissed by the magistrate even though the defendant pleaded guilty. This is rare, a mate who is a senior DPP solicitor (too senior to deal with magistrates courts) indicated so, even though it is allowed for under Vic law.
To sum up: CASA charged the operator with a VCA even though the operator had self-reported the incident to the ATSB, which is supposed to give you immunity from CASA prosecution. There are some exceptions to this immunity, such as if the VCA was intentional. I really don't know if this is why CASA bought the charge. What was alarming is that it was the only action taken against a VCA even thought there was over 4000 VCAs over a two-year period. The VCA concerned happened in 2005.
The defendant had to pay out $30K in legal fees and now the ICC is having a look at why those charges were bought in the first place.
There were some other charges involved in the incident, including something about a maintenance release not being signed, or not signed correctly. I was told but really don't remember the details right now. As I have said on two occasions before, the defendant has asked that intimate details not be made public on PPRuNe. Certainly that is a good idea. We need to let the CASA ICC investigation runs its course.
Apparently a de-identified story is going to appear in the next issue of the AOPA members magazine (it says so in the current issue). Once that is out, I suppose we can all go to town on this subject.
XXX, if you really want to know more, ring the person that you thought I was.
Walrus
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 57
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Walrus 7
It's clear that you really don't know what you are talking about.
Please read my earlier post on 14 August about the real details.
The Magistrate did not dismiss the 3 charges as you persistently claim.
The defendant pleaded guilty to the 3 charges ie he admitted that he committed the offences. That is black and white. The charges were therfore proven.
What the Magistrate did was then not proceed to convict the person under section 19B of the Crimes Act upon the defendant entering a good behaviour bond. Courts don't impose good behaviour bonds on innocent people!
Funny that if you know so much you don't even know what the other charges were:
I don't think you know very much about the matter at all - just like to throw mud.
As for a de-identified story appearing in the AOPA magazine - whoopee - we know how very objective AOPA is in reporting facts. Remember the world was going to come to an end with strict liability according to AOPA. They also don't know what they don't know...it's a pity poor souls like you actually take notice of what they say. I have yet to see a factual story about CASA in the AOPA magazine.
Just for your edification, here is section 19B of the Crimes Act Act again - perhaps you can show me where it empowers a Magistrate to 'dismiss" the charges (as you allege) in the circumstances set out in that section and which applied in this case.
As for your senior DPP solicitor - he must be living on a different planet if he doesn't know that there is nothing unusual about section 19B Orders - and they have nothing to do with Victorian law by the way - this is a Commonwealth law that we are dealing with.
Just stick to facts rather that misrepresenting the truth:
19B Discharge of offenders without proceeding to conviction
(1) Where:
(a) a person is charged before a court with a federal offence or federal offences; and
(b) the court is satisfied, in respect of that charge or more than one of those charges, that the charge is proved, but is of the opinion, having regard to:
(i) the character, antecedents, age, health or mental condition of the person;
(ii) the extent (if any) to which the offence is of a trivial nature; or
(iii) the extent (if any) to which the offence was committed under extenuating circumstances;
that it is inexpedient to inflict any punishment, or to inflict any punishment other than a nominal punishment, or that it is expedient to release the offender on probation;
the court may, by order:
(d) discharge the person, without proceeding to conviction in respect of any charge referred to in paragraph (c), upon his or her giving security, with or without sureties, by recognizance or otherwise, to the satisfaction of the court, that he or she will comply with the following conditions:
(i) that he or she will be of good behaviour for such period, not exceeding 3 years, as the court specifies in the order;
(ii) that he or she will make such reparation or restitution, or pay such compensation, in respect of the offence or offences concerned (if any), or pay such costs in respect of his or her prosecution for the offence or offences concerned (if any), as the court specifies in the order (being reparation, restitution, compensation or costs that the court is empowered to require the person to make or pay):
(A) on or before a date specified in the order; or
(B) in the case of reparation or restitution by way of money payment or in the case of the payment of compensation or an amount of costs—by specified instalments as provided in the order; and
(iii) that he or she will, during a period, not exceeding 2 years, that is specified in the order in accordance with subparagraph (i), comply with such other conditions (if any) as the court thinks fit to specify in the order, which conditions may include the condition that the person will, during the period so specified, be subject to the supervision of a probation officer appointed in accordance with the order and obey all reasonable directions of a probation officer so appointed.
.
It's clear that you really don't know what you are talking about.
Please read my earlier post on 14 August about the real details.
The Magistrate did not dismiss the 3 charges as you persistently claim.
The defendant pleaded guilty to the 3 charges ie he admitted that he committed the offences. That is black and white. The charges were therfore proven.
What the Magistrate did was then not proceed to convict the person under section 19B of the Crimes Act upon the defendant entering a good behaviour bond. Courts don't impose good behaviour bonds on innocent people!
Funny that if you know so much you don't even know what the other charges were:
There were some other charges involved in the incident, including something about a maintenance release not being signed, or not signed correctly. I was told but really don't remember the details right now.
As for a de-identified story appearing in the AOPA magazine - whoopee - we know how very objective AOPA is in reporting facts. Remember the world was going to come to an end with strict liability according to AOPA. They also don't know what they don't know...it's a pity poor souls like you actually take notice of what they say. I have yet to see a factual story about CASA in the AOPA magazine.
Just for your edification, here is section 19B of the Crimes Act Act again - perhaps you can show me where it empowers a Magistrate to 'dismiss" the charges (as you allege) in the circumstances set out in that section and which applied in this case.
As for your senior DPP solicitor - he must be living on a different planet if he doesn't know that there is nothing unusual about section 19B Orders - and they have nothing to do with Victorian law by the way - this is a Commonwealth law that we are dealing with.
Just stick to facts rather that misrepresenting the truth:
19B Discharge of offenders without proceeding to conviction
(1) Where:
(a) a person is charged before a court with a federal offence or federal offences; and
(b) the court is satisfied, in respect of that charge or more than one of those charges, that the charge is proved, but is of the opinion, having regard to:
(i) the character, antecedents, age, health or mental condition of the person;
(ii) the extent (if any) to which the offence is of a trivial nature; or
(iii) the extent (if any) to which the offence was committed under extenuating circumstances;
that it is inexpedient to inflict any punishment, or to inflict any punishment other than a nominal punishment, or that it is expedient to release the offender on probation;
the court may, by order:
(d) discharge the person, without proceeding to conviction in respect of any charge referred to in paragraph (c), upon his or her giving security, with or without sureties, by recognizance or otherwise, to the satisfaction of the court, that he or she will comply with the following conditions:
(i) that he or she will be of good behaviour for such period, not exceeding 3 years, as the court specifies in the order;
(ii) that he or she will make such reparation or restitution, or pay such compensation, in respect of the offence or offences concerned (if any), or pay such costs in respect of his or her prosecution for the offence or offences concerned (if any), as the court specifies in the order (being reparation, restitution, compensation or costs that the court is empowered to require the person to make or pay):
(A) on or before a date specified in the order; or
(B) in the case of reparation or restitution by way of money payment or in the case of the payment of compensation or an amount of costs—by specified instalments as provided in the order; and
(iii) that he or she will, during a period, not exceeding 2 years, that is specified in the order in accordance with subparagraph (i), comply with such other conditions (if any) as the court thinks fit to specify in the order, which conditions may include the condition that the person will, during the period so specified, be subject to the supervision of a probation officer appointed in accordance with the order and obey all reasonable directions of a probation officer so appointed.
.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Oz
Age: 77
Posts: 590
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Clapton
Why not take your CASA wig orf and examine this objectively.
This was an offence of strict liability - therefore one asks why around four and a half thousand other criminals have been allowed to commit VCA without punitive action if the offence justifies the SL categorisation?
Oh dear, that ruins my reading. I have their current mag in front of me and it says good things about CASA in several cases. Oh well, I guess if it's not factual I'll just have to believe your impression of the CASA 'Judge Roy Bean' instead 
Your bias is showing, Clappers. Bit like the bias of one of the involved parties in the CASA investigation of this matter - if we moved to the real world of business and company law we might call it conflict of interest perhaps.
If this had been Mr Plod waiting for one motorist out of 4500 driving past it would be getting a media pasting.
I'm still researching and my hope of visiting the location to examine their doco might slip to next week due to needing to sort out some research into a dodgy shire matter, so I'll leave it at that for now.
Sorry about the delay but if it takes CASA over 3 years to prosecute a 'danger to aviation' I think my delay is acceptable.
Perhaps readers can give some thought to my earlier comment re statistical probability and when a matter becomes NOT the due process of law as you suggest with your Crimes Act etc quotes - but the use of the CASA process for selective attack on someone who was a thorn in the side for pointing out publicly a number of apparent CASA failures to pursue serious safety matters.
Hint - you don't just need to owe money to payback
Why not take your CASA wig orf and examine this objectively.
Remember the world was going to come to an end with strict liability according to AOPA.
I have yet to see a factual story about CASA in the AOPA magazine.
Your bias is showing, Clappers. Bit like the bias of one of the involved parties in the CASA investigation of this matter - if we moved to the real world of business and company law we might call it conflict of interest perhaps.
If this had been Mr Plod waiting for one motorist out of 4500 driving past it would be getting a media pasting.
I'm still researching and my hope of visiting the location to examine their doco might slip to next week due to needing to sort out some research into a dodgy shire matter, so I'll leave it at that for now.
Sorry about the delay but if it takes CASA over 3 years to prosecute a 'danger to aviation' I think my delay is acceptable.
Perhaps readers can give some thought to my earlier comment re statistical probability and when a matter becomes NOT the due process of law as you suggest with your Crimes Act etc quotes - but the use of the CASA process for selective attack on someone who was a thorn in the side for pointing out publicly a number of apparent CASA failures to pursue serious safety matters.
Hint - you don't just need to owe money to payback
Last edited by james michael; 20th Aug 2008 at 22:20. Reason: Fix spelling of a word now glasses put on
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 57
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JM
Unfortunmately you don't know what you are talking about - and like AOPA you don't present the whole truth - just selective bits that suit your story.
And oh my gosh - if you are doing "research" on this issue when you don't seem to understand anything about the legal process or the law then heaven help us all. But then again that never stopped the the "experts" in AOPA trotting out rubbish either.
As mfor the CASA Industry Complaints Commissioner , he's just a Byron sop to placate the small vocal minority of industry whingers like AOPA.
Unfortunmately you don't know what you are talking about - and like AOPA you don't present the whole truth - just selective bits that suit your story.
And oh my gosh - if you are doing "research" on this issue when you don't seem to understand anything about the legal process or the law then heaven help us all. But then again that never stopped the the "experts" in AOPA trotting out rubbish either.
As mfor the CASA Industry Complaints Commissioner , he's just a Byron sop to placate the small vocal minority of industry whingers like AOPA.
Quite obviously your a CASA tugger!!
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Oz
Age: 77
Posts: 590
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rotaryman 
Clapton
I love your glasses - photochromatic and able to go rose coloured when looking at CASA but immediately darken when looking at the real world. Fortunately, with the staff turnover in CASA now about 50% since the Byron change process commenced, those glasses are now far less found.
The ICC you denigrate has made substantial and valuable change that impacts on genuine aviation safety and CASA safety results - I guess that's why you dislike him?
Trotting out rubbish? Seems there's a lot of organisations and people fitting your criteria - just look at the Senate Enq submissions and look at the way the organisations are all collaborating more closely these days - the old CASA 'divide and conquer' tactic is being overtaken by a mature responsible industry taking more control of its own destiny. When I note you criticising and bagging organisations like AOPA - I know they must be having some effect
Too funny - now I know I hit a nerve with the 1 in 4500 when all you come back with is rhetoric and nastiness. But, one must concur - 1 in 4500 was certainly a 'selective bit to suit a CASA story' 
The days of Roy Bean and his 'Ilk' are being overtaken by the new CASA regime and I am certain my research will assist that new regime to keep moving the culture so that the AVERAGE pilot, aircraft owner, AOC holder will get coaching and support, not Gestapo treatment.
Then CASA can concentrate on the Pareto imperatives - the airlines and fare paying pax, and the small minority of recalcitrants and repeat offenders.
My research has confirmed several things already (although since the information is from the defence legal person you previously criticised I guess that means you can discount it).
1. No prior convictions.
2. There was evidence in writing that a CASA FOI had made a conscious decision that no further action would be taken in relation to the VCA.
Stranger and stranger Clapton. You may wish to reconsider my earlier hint
Clapton
I love your glasses - photochromatic and able to go rose coloured when looking at CASA but immediately darken when looking at the real world. Fortunately, with the staff turnover in CASA now about 50% since the Byron change process commenced, those glasses are now far less found.
The ICC you denigrate has made substantial and valuable change that impacts on genuine aviation safety and CASA safety results - I guess that's why you dislike him?
Trotting out rubbish? Seems there's a lot of organisations and people fitting your criteria - just look at the Senate Enq submissions and look at the way the organisations are all collaborating more closely these days - the old CASA 'divide and conquer' tactic is being overtaken by a mature responsible industry taking more control of its own destiny. When I note you criticising and bagging organisations like AOPA - I know they must be having some effect
just selective bits that suit your story
The days of Roy Bean and his 'Ilk' are being overtaken by the new CASA regime and I am certain my research will assist that new regime to keep moving the culture so that the AVERAGE pilot, aircraft owner, AOC holder will get coaching and support, not Gestapo treatment.
Then CASA can concentrate on the Pareto imperatives - the airlines and fare paying pax, and the small minority of recalcitrants and repeat offenders.
My research has confirmed several things already (although since the information is from the defence legal person you previously criticised I guess that means you can discount it).
1. No prior convictions.
2. There was evidence in writing that a CASA FOI had made a conscious decision that no further action would be taken in relation to the VCA.
Stranger and stranger Clapton. You may wish to reconsider my earlier hint
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Alice Springs
Posts: 1,744
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pan pharmacueticals
Maybe CASA people should look at the case of Pan? pharmacueticals, where they sued the govt for squillions and got an " out of court settlement". Obviously things had not been right and a govt department did not want this to escalate further.
This is not directly aviation related but is an example of what can happen when companies are unhappy with the regulator of their industry.
There are some very good people in CASA. But there are rigid, militaristic SOP's, and it appears there are people who are using the rules to commercially regulate the industry.
Thank god for AOPA. It is an organisation that is able to challenge what they consider is unfair.
Thank god for the efforts of Boyd Munro and Dick Smith, experienced aviators who are also able and willing to challenge what they consider is incorrect. It is interesting to note that both of these gentlemen are not dependent on aviation for their livelyhood. Those who rely on aviation for their income are less likely to seak out. I wonder why.
Clapton
I will not say you are a fool or arrogant or anything like that. I leave that sort of behaviour to others.
But I would suggest that next time you post, you should delete the first sentence before you submit your reply.
This is not directly aviation related but is an example of what can happen when companies are unhappy with the regulator of their industry.
There are some very good people in CASA. But there are rigid, militaristic SOP's, and it appears there are people who are using the rules to commercially regulate the industry.
Thank god for AOPA. It is an organisation that is able to challenge what they consider is unfair.
Thank god for the efforts of Boyd Munro and Dick Smith, experienced aviators who are also able and willing to challenge what they consider is incorrect. It is interesting to note that both of these gentlemen are not dependent on aviation for their livelyhood. Those who rely on aviation for their income are less likely to seak out. I wonder why.
Clapton
I will not say you are a fool or arrogant or anything like that. I leave that sort of behaviour to others.
But I would suggest that next time you post, you should delete the first sentence before you submit your reply.
Last edited by bushy; 21st Aug 2008 at 04:22.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: BAO
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pan- similarities with Aviation
bushy
Well said- Pan from memory was $50 million plus another $5 million in costs.
In my humble opinion- this Senate enquiry should really go back and encompass the events and action/s of 2000 and 2001- there are some very similar tones in my view.
Not that I'm a huge fan or believer that this full frontal assault of bulk enquiries on every aspect of Government policy will actually deliver productive reform to any area, it's Government abrogating it's responsibility to govern - didn't they have all the answers on 24 Nov 07????. And yes for balance before someone jumps down my throat- the other mob did bugger all on this particular front.
We have seen this Governing by Enquiry and Action Plan etc etc ad nauseam from the State Gvt's it delivers nothing but career progression/sustenance for hacks and hangers on.
Aviation by it's nature never seems to transmit well whether it be via media or Government engagement.
Well said- Pan from memory was $50 million plus another $5 million in costs.
In my humble opinion- this Senate enquiry should really go back and encompass the events and action/s of 2000 and 2001- there are some very similar tones in my view.
Not that I'm a huge fan or believer that this full frontal assault of bulk enquiries on every aspect of Government policy will actually deliver productive reform to any area, it's Government abrogating it's responsibility to govern - didn't they have all the answers on 24 Nov 07????. And yes for balance before someone jumps down my throat- the other mob did bugger all on this particular front.
We have seen this Governing by Enquiry and Action Plan etc etc ad nauseam from the State Gvt's it delivers nothing but career progression/sustenance for hacks and hangers on.
Aviation by it's nature never seems to transmit well whether it be via media or Government engagement.