CASA Loses Again
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Cockatoo Australia
Posts: 234
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CASA Loses Again
Some of you may have read in the AOPA testimony (p37)to the Senate Inquiry into CASA that:
This particular operator operates a flying school in Victoria. He sacked his chief flying instructor. Guess where he went? He went and got a job at CASA. Then it became payback time. This particular individual filmed with a video camera at 5 o’clock in the morning, supposedly showing that the aircraft was on a charter flight and had taken off in fog. I have been flying for long enough to know that the pilot is the only one who can determine if you have 1.8 forward visibility through the cockpit to take off. This particular individual filmed him taking off and said it was done in fog conditions.
Senator HEFFERNAN—Anyhow, that is pending.
Mr Rodgers—That is pending, yes.
Well it ain't pending anymore. The courts threw it out, but not before the successful defense cost the school $30K or so.
Walrus
This particular operator operates a flying school in Victoria. He sacked his chief flying instructor. Guess where he went? He went and got a job at CASA. Then it became payback time. This particular individual filmed with a video camera at 5 o’clock in the morning, supposedly showing that the aircraft was on a charter flight and had taken off in fog. I have been flying for long enough to know that the pilot is the only one who can determine if you have 1.8 forward visibility through the cockpit to take off. This particular individual filmed him taking off and said it was done in fog conditions.
Senator HEFFERNAN—Anyhow, that is pending.
Mr Rodgers—That is pending, yes.
Well it ain't pending anymore. The courts threw it out, but not before the successful defense cost the school $30K or so.
Walrus
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 290
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CASA = Were Not Happy - Till your Not Happy...
One would expect the Operators lawyers to apply to the courts for an order for costs?
One would expect the Operators lawyers to apply to the courts for an order for costs?
Last edited by rotaryman; 22nd Jul 2008 at 04:20. Reason: Typo
Moderator
If the matter has been finalised by the Court and judgment published, it may help the rest of us if you publish a link to the Judgment?
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 153
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
rotaryman
If the matter was heard in the AAT, (Administrative Appeals Tribunal) CASA's preferred playground, no costs are awarded.
If bastardry is afoot, as it used to be before BB's culture change, always seek to be prosecuted
rather than be played with in the AAT and let the costs be awarded appropriately.
If the matter was heard in the AAT, (Administrative Appeals Tribunal) CASA's preferred playground, no costs are awarded.
If bastardry is afoot, as it used to be before BB's culture change, always seek to be prosecuted
rather than be played with in the AAT and let the costs be awarded appropriately.
Moderator
It would help if we had more details, including which Court jurisdiction?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Cockatoo Australia
Posts: 234
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bastardry is definitely afoot, and I suspect there may be a spate of "routine" audits in the future.
I'm not sure where the ruling was made and a troll of the internet hasn't found it. I will keep trying and will post the link if I can find it. My information came from people who assisted with the defence.
Walrus
I'm not sure where the ruling was made and a troll of the internet hasn't found it. I will keep trying and will post the link if I can find it. My information came from people who assisted with the defence.
Walrus
Court lists are public documents.
Instead of all the usual pointless second-hand commentary, could someone just post the name of the court and the date, and I will post a link to the public list.
Instead of all the usual pointless second-hand commentary, could someone just post the name of the court and the date, and I will post a link to the public list.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Cockatoo Australia
Posts: 234
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Creampuff,
I have been trying to find it. It happened in the Ringwood Magistrates Court on Friday 18 July. I've tried to find any decisions made by this court and haven't been successful. Will keep trying, though. I don't want to publish anything here that is not in the public domain.
Walrus
I have been trying to find it. It happened in the Ringwood Magistrates Court on Friday 18 July. I've tried to find any decisions made by this court and haven't been successful. Will keep trying, though. I don't want to publish anything here that is not in the public domain.
Walrus
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Permanently lost
Posts: 1,785
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A magistrates court is not normally a court of record. That is, there is no published record of its findings. Best chance is a local newspaper carrying a story unless the matter goes on appeal.
I've done a search of the Ringwood Magistrate's court list for 18 July 2008 (here:
Search Court Lists) and the result is 'no cases'.
A magistrate's court's decisions might not be published, but the matter on which a decision is made should be listed.
Perhaps the lists are deleted after the day covered by the list.
Search Court Lists) and the result is 'no cases'.
A magistrate's court's decisions might not be published, but the matter on which a decision is made should be listed.
Perhaps the lists are deleted after the day covered by the list.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Cockatoo Australia
Posts: 234
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's annoying that it's not on line anywhere. I suggest that people watch the Senate Submissions page carefully if they want more info. I am expecting a supplementary submission to support the original evidence.
Walrus
Walrus
The criminal list for the Ringwood Magistrates' Court for 21 July 2008 is here: Ringwood Magistrates' Court
Which matter is the matter to which this thread refers?
Which matter is the matter to which this thread refers?
Moderator
Can we hold off on the theories until Creampuff or Walrus can post the facts, preferably in the form of a judges decision, media summary or similar?
Thanks
Tail Wheel
My sincere apologies Creamie - no offense intended!
Just finger trouble! and a failure to re-read my post before hitting the submit button!
Thanks
Tail Wheel
My sincere apologies Creamie - no offense intended!
Just finger trouble! and a failure to re-read my post before hitting the submit button!
Walrus or Gupta, were either of you there? That is, were you in the court in question, when the matter in question was thrown out? If so, in what court were you located, and on what date were you located there?
Senate Committees sometimes get picky about the accuracy of minor facts like when something happened and where. And often people who don't get the 'when' and 'where' quite right, don't get the 'what' quite right.
[PS: TW, 'Creamcake' sounds slightly unsavoury!]
That sounds better!
Tail Wheel
Senate Committees sometimes get picky about the accuracy of minor facts like when something happened and where. And often people who don't get the 'when' and 'where' quite right, don't get the 'what' quite right.
[PS: TW, 'Creamcake' sounds slightly unsavoury!]
That sounds better!
Tail Wheel
I've already posted the court list for Ringwood Magistrates' Court for 21 July 2008.
This one smells like an embellished, third-hand account of half a story.
This one smells like an embellished, third-hand account of half a story.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Cockatoo Australia
Posts: 234
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is annoying that I can't find the transcripts; indeed they may not be available to the public as others have mentioned. I know the information is good because I have spoken to the gentleman charged and he indicated he has viewed this thread. As he didn't say to me that anything I had posted was incorrect, I think it was fair of me to presume that my info is on the money.
There was more to the case than just the instance mentioned in the AOPA evidence to the senate inquiry. I don't have the full details of the other sides of it. I only know that all CASA charges were dismissed.
One of the reasons I don't want to start putting details down in that we don't know if the courts had ordered some things stay out of the public domain. I thought it was gutsy of the person who posted a name in here without getting his/her hands on the court decision first.
Walrus
There was more to the case than just the instance mentioned in the AOPA evidence to the senate inquiry. I don't have the full details of the other sides of it. I only know that all CASA charges were dismissed.
One of the reasons I don't want to start putting details down in that we don't know if the courts had ordered some things stay out of the public domain. I thought it was gutsy of the person who posted a name in here without getting his/her hands on the court decision first.
Walrus