WA Air Operator sues CASA and Officials

[gobbledock]

Unlike many of the posters in this thread, government authorities usually have a basic understanding of the law.

Might be something to do with the fact that the government takes and spends the taxpayers money (endless bucket of incoming cash flow) on some of the most brilliant, shrewd and educated legal entities out there, so of course they have a highly trained legal advisory service(s). That is the first reason, the second reason is that they need all that well educated firepower to thoroughly crush the little man into oblivion. David vs Goliath is not just a fairytale, it is the modern day ethos of a so-called democratic society.

[Jabawocky]

Clinton,

Toss a coin.

I have seen, as I am sure we all have, some of the most disturbing and bizzare results come from the courts at all levels.

In some cases the folk presiding are clearly incompetent, and often not well enough equipped to see through all the various variety of bovine excrement on offer.

Its not unlike asking your LAME to perform heart surgery. Sure he has a workshop full of tools, and its beautifully clean, and he knows heart surgery involves chopping your chest open, but thats where the experience and competency ends.

Toss a coin.

[Frank Arouet]

People;

This gets down to basic honesty not "the law" as it is writ.

Picture this in the context of the Reno Galloping Ghost. Seems fairly indicitave of elevator trim flutter, pictures show it broken and then missing. At nearly 500kts after instinct pull up to get out of the way, tailwheel deploys, pilot disappears possibly after a massive "G" force and the matter is out of his hands.

Another one. Bloke buys a Maule in which the previous owner has cut the rudder/ aileron connect cables and in the event, cuts the elevator trim cables half way through. (among other things).

Some mob with a documented association with The Director of Aviation Safety sign same Maule out with a fresh MR prior to the bloke taking delivery.

On inspection by new owner's LAME CASA become involved and sieze all evidence and log books.

CASA engineering are seen and recorded as taking bets on how far the new owner would get before he crashed.

All the evidence then mysteriously vanish including the offending trim cables.

CASA spend 8 years defending their stance until a Commonwealth Ombudsman finds them at serious fault.

The Director offers a "lame duck" apology.

The owner is seriously out of pocket despite an Act of Grace payment from The Department of Finance.

CASA never admitted any liability.

Please tell me, why some people who post here defend the indefensible based, I assume, on the fact they got away with it.

Well people, and especially those posting here who, in my opinion, are as culpable as any recorded Despot in history, continue to openly live their lives as if that owners life had no significance.

Those creeps who see that owner as somehow inferior to their own elevated yet mid "turd" status in the big sewer of life.

People like you are beyond comprehension and form the base of human life form as we know it. Horrid Horrid individuals.

Further words fail me.

[onetrack]

To those who would comment on the saga of Repacholi VS CASA, perhaps it would be better if you studied the relevant cases involving Mr Repacholi and CASA, before forming opinions and making statements... because virtually all these case are laid out, on-line, for the public to see.

The evidence tendered, the statements of both plaintiff and defendant, the presiding judges summary (many of which are very revealing, as judges are largely very astute when it comes to summing up individual peoples personalities, and the persons value, as to reliability of evidence given)... and dozens of other highly relevant facts pertaining to cases, are presented in the precise form and manner that they were presented to the Court.

Notwithstanding that there are judges who have erred, and judges whose interpretations have been reversed in later appeals... the facts, summaries and judgements, as presented in these cases, are laid out for all to peruse and gain their own insight... and perhaps correct the views they might have previously held, that were gained by obtaining information that was far less reliable, than that presented to the Court, under our standard laws of admission of evidence.

AustLII Results - Gerald Repacholi

[gobbledock]

So how do you explain the recent High Court decision about the 'Malaysian Solution'? On my reading, the court decided that the government (and. by implication, all of the advice of its highly paid lawyers) was wrong.

Clinton, so how is it that one week a paedophile who commits over 100 offences doesn't get to serve time behind bars, however the next week a ped who is charged with 3 lesser offences (which still does not make his acts acceptable or any less relevant) gets 14 months in the big house. Then in the same week a nupty high on Ice robs a servo (and no, it is not an acceptable or tolerated crime but it is far different from interfering with toddlers) and gets 3 years ?
I rest my case. The law in general is an ass, and so are those upholding it or metering it out. Knowledge is power and power corrupts.

Clinton, Flyingfiend et al don't waste your time posting about Malaysian fukcing solutions or Repacholi as being the prime examples of correct and perfect case studies in justice.
We we are talking here about decades of aviation regulatory shennanigans by people permitted to operate as 'untouchables and unaccountables'. It's got to change.

[Frank Arouet]

With due respect for all involved, I believe, (in fact know), that Clinton has been agitating for a completion of The Regulatory Review process for years.

This doesn't alter the fact that I believe his legal arguments don't always support common sense.

[LeadSled]

Clinton,
I am well aware of the current state of the proceedings in the Polar Air matter, we await the latest decision on the Commonwealth application with great interest.

In my opinion, as a layman, there is a far more solid case for Polar Air, the "possible" reasons why this case has been so strung out are worth a study in themselves.

Tootle pip!!

[flyingfiend]

the law

Gobbledock,

Everyone is entitled to their opinion and your view of the law is an old one.

However, you do realise that the freedom to make such criticism of the legal system is protected by the very same legal system?

Or, do you diasagree with all legal process including those actions which result in judgements being handed down with which you agree?

I thought not...

[LeadSled]

After all, you did say, in this very thread, that there is only one side to the Polar Air story.

Clinton,
You can do better than that, the only opinion I expressed was that the Polar Air case was more important to the industry.
However, as you have brought the matter up, my personal opinion is that the Polar Air case has a better foundation for the current action than our old mate Gerald.
Whether the courts see it that way is another matter altogether.
Will we see a trial of the substantive matter? Won't that rather depend on the outcome of the present application, and an appeal, if any, if the outcome is against Polar Air.
I await the decision on the present application with great interest.
Tootle pip!!

[gobbledock]

Aagh flyingfiend, so you wish to put me on trial I see? Some nice wankery, spin, deflection and directional change thrown into the discussion. Do I need to point out that this is a rumour network discussion point and I not need to lower myself into a pi#sing contest with you.
My comment stands in place, CASA on occasion has abused it's moral, ethical and some would say legal obligations and done so due to the structure of government and it's legal might. To put things another way most people on this thread who have a gripe with the regulator do so due to mistreatment in ways that you could obviously never fathom. The same people simply seek a fair and level playing field which I agree is more fantasy than reality.

All arguments aside as to who does and who doesn't like the Regulator it is plainly obvious that at a minimum a review o CASA's structure, accountability framework, ethics, systems, direction and past and previous activities is warranted, in the least to ensure that Australia does have the beat safety system and governance in place.

[flyingfiend]

strange reasoning

Gobbledock,

I assume you have read what I posted.

YOU were expressing your opinion of the legal system. I said nothing about CASA, any other entity or person.

It is not surprising that you have gone off in another direction.

Answer the question: Do you accept legal determinations with which you agree or not?

Stay focussed.

And I won't lower myself to personal abuse or 'crapping' on people (this is terminology that you understand judging by your previous postings); I prefer to rely on evidence.

So, answere the question: Do you reject ALL legal decisions even those with which you agree?

Put up or shut up.

[gobbledock]

flyingfiend, I should warn you, I love to play.
So, just for you -

I assume you have read what I posted.

I confess, I did skip through it a little bit. I think your postings are 'crappy' (to quote my own terminology) and not worth analysing in great detail. Also you seem to contradict your own method of reasoning, you expect cut and dry answers yet you yourself say 'I assume'. Are not assumptions something that are themselves considered risky in their context?

So, answere the question: Do you reject ALL legal decisions even those with which you agree?

I won't answer that question solely based on the fact that you are seeking an answer so as to self assure an already preconceived dermination in your mind. You won't get that satisfaction out of me by legal hound.
Any my my, very forceful and demanding in your line of questioning your honor!

I prefer to rely on evidence.

Better tell that one to those who are occasionally convicted and imprisoned even though a lack of evidence existed.

[Frank Arouet]

Flyingfiend, (here to help you), you wrote;

Do you reject ALL legal decisions

May I be so bold as to reply, that is the reason we have Appeals Courts.

It may be of interest for someone to look up the success/ failure rate of CASA prosecutions overturned in The AAT. I believe, but cant be bothered checking the figures, that CASA have about a 75% failure rate.

But don't let figures like that alarm anyone at CASA or The Incumbants in Government, it's all paid eventually by the Taxpayer. After all, it's not their own money they are playing with, and they can always get more in the next budget.

May I also add, the reason I believe the Regulatory Review Process will take forever, is that they haven't finished rewriting the amendments to existing rules that contradict what they want to rule, and until that is done, The Regulatory Review process, or the amendments should be abandoned.

Regulations that serve only to confuse the target of whatever violation and the Courts are bad regulations.

[Frank Arouet]

Thank you Clinton.

The answer I was hoping someone like you would come up with.

So where do those who don't agree with the Court decisions go?

High Court doesn't wash mate. I'm white, christian, hetrosexual, right handed impecunious Australian male who doesn't give a rat's about China polluting my atmosphere because there's nothing I can do about it.

Oh, and I'm a pilot for what that's worth.

Can someone post a large target under this post.

[Kharon]

Lads, leave the brute (s) alone.

Marcellus:

Something is rotten in the state of Denmark.` ` (Hamlet).

"There's a reason he says "state of Denmark" rather than just Denmark: the fish is rotting from the head down— all is not well at the top of the political hierarchy".

ICAO know it, FAA know it, the Pollies know it and the poor bloody industry knows it.

Don't waste wind, water or ammunition here. To put up, get 's you done, to shut up allows the win.

There is a system, we just need equal rights. Unlimited access to funds, legal opinion, the ear of the Minister and a large brass pair of wings, (which qualify us as 'expert in aviation); what would we know.

Selah.

[Frank Arouet]

Of lawyers;

Let me tell you, Cassius, you yourself
Are much condemn'd to have an itching palm,
To sell and mart your offices for gold
To undeservers.

(Julius Ceasar. Act 4 Sc3, 7-12).

[Brian Abraham]

“The lawyer's truth is not Truth, but consistency or a consistent expediency.”

Henry David Thoreau, American Essayist, Poet and Philosopher, 1817-1862

[flyingfiend]

What rubbish

Frank, Kharon et al;
So, you think that Shakespeare or others are the fathers of all that is right and morally correct.

That is the refuge of those who are devoid of logical argument or evidence. I am not talking about allegory; I am talking about reliance on a 'play' to tell us the nature of the world!!

The only difficulty that I have with your postings on PPrune is not related as to whether the thread is about CASA or someone else, it is about the probity of what you do and say.

You may say, 'Or it is a rumour network and what I post are rumours' and in that you may be correct.

The problem arises when you post some completely incorrect 'fact', albeit with some sort of motherhood statement, and then in many, many more postings, you quote your posting as the demonstration of fact! You make your 'rumours' FACT by the action of time.

And that sort of rationality my friends, is totally without merit.

Fools; seen for what you are.

Leadslead,
BTW, I also am looking forward to your summary of the Commonwealth position re POLAR Air.

If you wish to wait until the whole thing is over, I completely understand; no-one said you were a Barrister or a Solicitor.

However, an easier task than the one you have been set by someone else here, would be for you just to give me the ratio in any of the decisions so far in this saga.

After all, what would I would know?

[Frank Arouet]

The only thing more sickening than an ALP apologist is a CASA apologist.

Try this one, you "morally correct" thespian;

"The past lies like a nightmare upon the present".

Karl Marx. (AKA another Red Prawn).

[blackhand]

Having read through this thread and also the court ruling linked previously it appears to me that Gerard is a most lovable rascal.
But he appears to have a horrendous history of disregard of rules and regulations, not just CASA regs.
It would seem that he his not a fit and proper person to hold an aviation document for commercial operations.
But I reckon he would be a great bloke if you were in strife and needed a hand.

Cheers
BH