WA Air Operator sues CASA and Officials
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I believe The House of McKenzie Crest says;
"Tarus Excreta Conundrum Cerebellum". Is flyingfiend a relative?
So did Brian Walker, Bobby Gibbs, Reg Ansett, Arthur Butler, and...
The Port Moresby Gliding Club;
A group of young enthusiasts
Met at a local pub
To talk about a common love
"The Port Moresby Gliding Club"
Their membership was very low
The running costs were high,
They needed some dramatic act
To catch the public eye.
"I've got a good idea" said one
"Been planning it all day
I'll try it out tomorrow
When coming back from Lae."
The flight to Lae was wonderful
The aircraft right on track,
They had no reason to suspect
The drama coming back.
Their business done - they climbed aboard
One had a bulging bilum
The Captain chuckled to himself,
"The last ten miles will thrill 'em
This trick will have no impact
If I fill her up with fuel
I'll take enough for Top of Climb
And glide in from Mount Yule."
They flew along as smooth as silk
With not a single jolt
But as they got to Galley Reach
Both donks ground to a halt
The Captain said "Thank Christ they've stopped
They make a dreadful din
I'll now complete this exercise
And glide this bastard in."
A glider is a lovely thing
You see them everywhere
Some metal - others wood and glue
But never a KINGAIR
With noses flat against the glass
The victims watched in horror
And none of them had any doubt
They'd all be dead tomorra
He held her on the centre-line
He called the Tower and said
"For Christ's sake make me number one
I'm landing straight ahead"
He put it down right on the "keys"
And made sure he was clear
Then smilingly he turned and said
"I think we need a beer"
"The Aero Club looks very nice
Looks like it's just been painted"
But there was no-one to answer him
The bloody lot had fainted
Wes turned and looked him in the eye
He said "Thank Christ that's ended
It really won't surprise me
If your licence is suspended!"
Those passengers we've got on board
Look like they're in a trance
But now you must excuse me
Cos I think I've **** my pants"
When Joe Wal heard it on the phone
His hands flew to his head
His eyes stood out like organ stops
"F*** me" was all he said
But when he heard the details
Of this history making flight
His eyes lit up with interest
And he thought of it all night.
For Joe had always longed to fly
Although it made him dizzy
But this bloke here could show him how
On days he wasn't busy
So Joe signed up on the spot
They headed for the pub
Now Joe's the latest member
Of the Moresby Gliding Club
Sir Jules picked up his phone and heard
A voice known far and wide,
"This Grumman that arrives next month
- I wonder how they glide"
by Dean Darcey
"Tarus Excreta Conundrum Cerebellum". Is flyingfiend a relative?
have a horrendous history of disregard of rules and regulations
The Port Moresby Gliding Club;
A group of young enthusiasts
Met at a local pub
To talk about a common love
"The Port Moresby Gliding Club"
Their membership was very low
The running costs were high,
They needed some dramatic act
To catch the public eye.
"I've got a good idea" said one
"Been planning it all day
I'll try it out tomorrow
When coming back from Lae."
The flight to Lae was wonderful
The aircraft right on track,
They had no reason to suspect
The drama coming back.
Their business done - they climbed aboard
One had a bulging bilum
The Captain chuckled to himself,
"The last ten miles will thrill 'em
This trick will have no impact
If I fill her up with fuel
I'll take enough for Top of Climb
And glide in from Mount Yule."
They flew along as smooth as silk
With not a single jolt
But as they got to Galley Reach
Both donks ground to a halt
The Captain said "Thank Christ they've stopped
They make a dreadful din
I'll now complete this exercise
And glide this bastard in."
A glider is a lovely thing
You see them everywhere
Some metal - others wood and glue
But never a KINGAIR
With noses flat against the glass
The victims watched in horror
And none of them had any doubt
They'd all be dead tomorra
He held her on the centre-line
He called the Tower and said
"For Christ's sake make me number one
I'm landing straight ahead"
He put it down right on the "keys"
And made sure he was clear
Then smilingly he turned and said
"I think we need a beer"
"The Aero Club looks very nice
Looks like it's just been painted"
But there was no-one to answer him
The bloody lot had fainted
Wes turned and looked him in the eye
He said "Thank Christ that's ended
It really won't surprise me
If your licence is suspended!"
Those passengers we've got on board
Look like they're in a trance
But now you must excuse me
Cos I think I've **** my pants"
When Joe Wal heard it on the phone
His hands flew to his head
His eyes stood out like organ stops
"F*** me" was all he said
But when he heard the details
Of this history making flight
His eyes lit up with interest
And he thought of it all night.
For Joe had always longed to fly
Although it made him dizzy
But this bloke here could show him how
On days he wasn't busy
So Joe signed up on the spot
They headed for the pub
Now Joe's the latest member
Of the Moresby Gliding Club
Sir Jules picked up his phone and heard
A voice known far and wide,
"This Grumman that arrives next month
- I wonder how they glide"
by Dean Darcey
If the shot old memory is not too awry Frank, the 'glider' in question was the government's plane. Incidentally, lumping all those late operators together as disregarders of the law is a trifle sweeping old son.
Regarding those who have posted here their thoughts on Shakespeare's lack of relevance today, maybe a little dose of Rumpole, could , if not restore balance, at least lighten the brief.
Horace Rumpole: [startled at seeing an empty breakfast table] There are no bacon and eggs, Hilda!
Hilda Rumpole: Claude doesn't like a cooked breakfast, Rumpole, but there's plenty of muesli. I got it for him specially.
Horace Rumpole: [looking in horror at the jar of muesli] What's that? Sawdust and bird droppings?"
Samuel 'Soapy Sam' Ballard Q.C.: I believe it is the first time in our long history, Rumpole, that these chambers have contained... a chancellor!
Samuel 'Soapy Sam' Ballard Q.C.: [Rumpole is so shocked, he sits down] Yes, Rumpole, unworthy as I am.
Horace Rumpole: [regaining his composure] Well, that's the understatement of the year!"
"Mr. Glassworth: [referring to life in prison] Do they still have slopping out?
Horace Rumpole: Yes, I'm afraid they do.
Mr. Glassworth: I spent my life in the acquisition of beautiful objects.
Horace Rumpole: [sarcastically to his instructing solicitor] I suppose that's what the three years were for!
Mr. Glassworth: Slopping out! How could I live through it? And the sickening sexual advances of beefy warders.
Horace Rumpole: [muttering] Oh, I wouldn't count on that, old darling.
Mr. Glassworth: What did you say?
Horace Rumpole: Oh, nothing."
Jean Pierre O'Higgins: What do you say then, Mr. Horace Rumpole? Will you take me on?
Horace Rumpole: Well, I'll have to think about that.
Jean Pierre O'Higgins: Be honest. Is it my personality that makes you hesitate? Do you find me objectionable, Mr. Rumpole?
Horace Rumpole: Mr. O'Higgins, I find your restaurant pretentious and your portions skimpy. Your customers regale themselves in a dim religious atmosphere more fitting to evensong than a good night out. I find you an opinionated and self-satisfied bully. However, unlike you, I am on hire to even the most unattractive customer."
Hilda Rumpole: So, you think that men and women are entirely equal?
Horace Rumpole: Everyone is equal in the dock, Hilda.
Hilda Rumpole: And in the home?
Horace Rumpole: Oh, well, naturally, yes, of course, yes, naturally, although, I suppose, some are born to command.
Horace Rumpole: [to himself, whispering] She who must be...
Hilda Rumpole: What?
Horace Rumpole: I said trust me, Hilda. I shall always be a staunch supporter of women's rights."
"Horace Rumpole: [musing to himself] Ah, the Timsons, en famille, in all their glory. It's like an old school reunion. I've never seen so many ex-clients at one go.
[out loud]
Horace Rumpole: Ah, Mr. Bernard. You're instructing me?
Mr. Bernard: Always, in a Timson case, Mr. Rumpole.
Fred Timson: Nothing but the best for the Timsons. Best solicitor, best barrister going. Shall I do the honours? Vi, my wife.
Horace Rumpole: [to himself] I got Vi off on a handling charge, after the Croydon bank raid. Well, there was really no evidence.
Fred Timson: ...Uncle Cyril...
Horace Rumpole: [to himself] What was his last outing, exactly? Carrying housebreaking instruments by night.
Fred Timson: ...Uncle Dennis. Oh, you remember Den, surely ?
Horace Rumpole: [to himself] Oh yes. Conspiracy to forge log books.
Fred Timson: ...and Den's Doris...
Horace Rumpole: [to himself] A bit of receiving a vast quantity of stolen scampi. Yes, acquitted by a majority.
Fred Timson: ...and yours truly, Frederick Timson, the boy's father.
Horace Rumpole: [to himself] Ah, we had a slip-up with Fred's last spot of bother. I was away, with flu. George Frobisher took it over. He got three years. He must only just have got out.
Fred Timson: Well, now you know the whole family, Mr. Rumpole.
Horace Rumpole: [to himself] A family to breed from, the Timsons! Without them, the Old Bailey would go out of business."
Horace Rumpole: You know, it's a most extraordinary thing, my Learned Friend. We go through all the mumbo-jumbo, we put on the wig, and the gown, we mutter the ritual prayers, "If your Lordship pleases", "Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury", abracadabra, fee fie foe bloody fum. And just when everybody thinks you're going to produce the most ludicrously fake piece of cheesecloth evidence, there it is, clear as a bell! The truth! Don't you find it? You know, it's bloody scary sometimes, ha ha, but there it is, the truth. Naked and embarrassing!"
Horace Rumpole: All we have is a large soak patch in the crook of the left arm.
Mr. Thistleton: Yes.
Horace Rumpole: Totally consistent with my client having supported the deceased's head as he lay bleeding in his arms.
Mr. Thistleton: [after pausing, hesitantly] Not inconsistent.
Horace Rumpole: [exasperated] Not inconsistent! Mr. Thistleton, doesn't "not inconsistent" when translated into plain English mean "consistent?"
Mr. Thistleton: Yes, it does."
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Over the Rainbow
Posts: 148
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well said Clinton and Flyingfiend, it has been painful reading the rants, raves and in most cases self serving diatribes from some members.
It seems some people love to quote regulation, but hate to follow it. When caught out they spin the fact that they have gone to the AAC ( and lost) into a defence. Unfortunately for them, complaining does not make it legal.
I would also point out that accusing people of being corrupt can be challenged in court at considerable expence to the accuser if no evidence is forthcoming.
The fact CASA hasnt done so yet is in my humble opinion an example of extreme forebearance on their part. I would have your house.
Lets remember, everyone has to work under the same regulations. Why is it that these very few members have the right (in their eyes) to do something in a manner that no other person is permitted to do, or has done.
They would have us all believe that their transgresions of the regulations are a common occurence and they have been singled out for reasons undisclosed. I believe otherwise. I believe most follow the regulations in the best interest of all, which is after all why they are there. It follows that those that transgress are doing so for their own personal or commercial reasons.
It seems some people love to quote regulation, but hate to follow it. When caught out they spin the fact that they have gone to the AAC ( and lost) into a defence. Unfortunately for them, complaining does not make it legal.
I would also point out that accusing people of being corrupt can be challenged in court at considerable expence to the accuser if no evidence is forthcoming.
The fact CASA hasnt done so yet is in my humble opinion an example of extreme forebearance on their part. I would have your house.
Lets remember, everyone has to work under the same regulations. Why is it that these very few members have the right (in their eyes) to do something in a manner that no other person is permitted to do, or has done.
They would have us all believe that their transgresions of the regulations are a common occurence and they have been singled out for reasons undisclosed. I believe otherwise. I believe most follow the regulations in the best interest of all, which is after all why they are there. It follows that those that transgress are doing so for their own personal or commercial reasons.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WHAT?
My trangressions?
You are, in my opinion an ignorant pompous pious PRAT! Someone who has lost nothing, probably, as a result of lies and self serving bureaucratic bile and your post is offensive.
But lets not get away from ourselves here, CASA are never wrong, never anything but the model litagent, never anything but honest and hardly ever persue private vendettas.
Proves what? My past is an open book if they want to revist it.
I've nothing left to loose you clown.
My trangressions?
You are, in my opinion an ignorant pompous pious PRAT! Someone who has lost nothing, probably, as a result of lies and self serving bureaucratic bile and your post is offensive.
But lets not get away from ourselves here, CASA are never wrong, never anything but the model litagent, never anything but honest and hardly ever persue private vendettas.
The fact CASA hasnt done so yet is in my humble opinion an example of extreme forebearance on their part
I've nothing left to loose you clown.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whoa - Jokes and poets aside.
It's a credibility and respect thing, really.
I, for one would love to think that had CASA, as a model litigant, taken 'Bodgit and Leggit Airways' to task, in court there was a bloody good reason for it. Bravo and well done. If the law, (as writ), operational sense and mutual respect failed, then fine, prosecute the buggers. Vigorously.
The 'learned counsel' earn their keep, doing what they do. 'They' are not the problem, it's their duty to act on behalf of whichever side of the court they sit on. So far, all good, in theory.
The industry is not always a model citizen, there have been some very shaky operations, all good at the approval stage, but operational and commercial expediency creep into the mix, Chief pilots get 'seduced' by the dark side and generally a firm hand is needed to oversee operations and where required, a judicially applied 'thick ear' is warranted. No argument from me.
But sadly, there are too many documented instances of this not being the case.
I am not anti an honest, competent 'Authority', not at all, but I cannot abide liars and bullies, at any cost, especially when this is repeatedly proven, beyond reasonable doubt, several times a year.
The WA cases will run their course, CASA may win, they may loose. Who cares?.
The fact is even if the operator was dead bang to rights out of order, the industry will sneer (behind their collective hands) shrug and say 'CASA what do you expect'. This is a shame, embarrassing, totally counter productive and drives open discussion underground.
Total lack of credibility leading to an absolute lack of respect?; yes I believe so. Time for a change - from all concerned.
Selah.
I, for one would love to think that had CASA, as a model litigant, taken 'Bodgit and Leggit Airways' to task, in court there was a bloody good reason for it. Bravo and well done. If the law, (as writ), operational sense and mutual respect failed, then fine, prosecute the buggers. Vigorously.
The 'learned counsel' earn their keep, doing what they do. 'They' are not the problem, it's their duty to act on behalf of whichever side of the court they sit on. So far, all good, in theory.
The industry is not always a model citizen, there have been some very shaky operations, all good at the approval stage, but operational and commercial expediency creep into the mix, Chief pilots get 'seduced' by the dark side and generally a firm hand is needed to oversee operations and where required, a judicially applied 'thick ear' is warranted. No argument from me.
But sadly, there are too many documented instances of this not being the case.
I am not anti an honest, competent 'Authority', not at all, but I cannot abide liars and bullies, at any cost, especially when this is repeatedly proven, beyond reasonable doubt, several times a year.
The WA cases will run their course, CASA may win, they may loose. Who cares?.
The fact is even if the operator was dead bang to rights out of order, the industry will sneer (behind their collective hands) shrug and say 'CASA what do you expect'. This is a shame, embarrassing, totally counter productive and drives open discussion underground.
Total lack of credibility leading to an absolute lack of respect?; yes I believe so. Time for a change - from all concerned.
Selah.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: More than 300km from SY, Australia
Posts: 817
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CASA, Malfeasance and the Blame Game
Well a check on the Dr Gupta and the quotee by Clinton McKenzie:
"Author is Dr M C Gupta — a doctor turned lawyer. He has earned a MBBS and an MD in Medicine from the All India Institute of Medical Sciences."
Well, maybe a pal for the Dr. Aleck??
"Author is Dr M C Gupta — a doctor turned lawyer. He has earned a MBBS and an MD in Medicine from the All India Institute of Medical Sciences."
Well, maybe a pal for the Dr. Aleck??
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Clinton;
Funny you should mention William Creek.
I have another project that involves a channel from Port Augusta to flood Lake Eyre, which is below sea level of course, (and with the indiginees permission pending), and then let Coriolis force and convection, drought proof the Eastern States and save my water entitlments for irrigation purposes as I legally purchased them for with my now rooted and useless farm.
Hopefully the torrential water let forth will drown the bloody blue toed wombat and all the Greens and their followers. And an inland sea will have Islands that can be used for offshore processing of wogs.
Perhaps Mr Wright should move his operation to higher ground, (on shore), and we can meet somewhere else for drinkies.
BTW, Are you banned from The Wig and Pen?
More chance of getting me pissed there and I should have backup pending his soberiety.
Funny you should mention William Creek.
I have another project that involves a channel from Port Augusta to flood Lake Eyre, which is below sea level of course, (and with the indiginees permission pending), and then let Coriolis force and convection, drought proof the Eastern States and save my water entitlments for irrigation purposes as I legally purchased them for with my now rooted and useless farm.
Hopefully the torrential water let forth will drown the bloody blue toed wombat and all the Greens and their followers. And an inland sea will have Islands that can be used for offshore processing of wogs.
Perhaps Mr Wright should move his operation to higher ground, (on shore), and we can meet somewhere else for drinkies.
BTW, Are you banned from The Wig and Pen?
More chance of getting me pissed there and I should have backup pending his soberiety.
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Alabama, then Wyoming, then Idaho and now staying with Kharon on Styx houseboat
Age: 61
Posts: 1,437
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Up-into-the-air, way too much talk about all these 'voodoo witch doctors'. Perhaps Clinton and Flyingfiend are also members of the aviation industry voodoo witchdoctor fraternity? Spending their time poking pins into dolls and drinking goat blood while reciting well memorized regulations while eagerly using intellectual dialect and a plethora of bureaucratic wank words?
Hell, they probably all sit around in a group circle (nude of course) and tug themselves senseless over words like diatribes, malfeasance and overarching?
Hell, they probably all sit around in a group circle (nude of course) and tug themselves senseless over words like diatribes, malfeasance and overarching?
ff
Not very much, by the sound of it.
As to Polar Air, I did not suggest I would lay out the history, only that I awaited the results of the current application by the Commonwealth.
However, a search of articles by Paul Phelan should turn up an exhaustive chronology to just short of the present state of play. Paul's story on the subject has had a legal ruler run over it for accuracy ( and not just for defo.), in my opinion you can rely on its accuracy.
As a matter of interest, do you even know of the events that precipitated the whole Polar Air matter??? Maybe you should find out.
Socket,
What planet do you live on, certainly not planet earth, postcode AU.
Perhaps you would like to explain to us all why there have been so many Parliamentary inquiries into CASA and its predecessors, including "Morris", which was the longest running inquiry since Federation.
Try the Parliamentary library, they can probably tell you, but inquiries, major and minor, involving either or both the Reps and the Senate, but the answer will be over 20 since mid 1980s.
I can only remember one that was not precipitated by concerns at the adverse behavior of CASA or its predecessors, and that was the HORSCOTS inquiry into Sports Aviation, that gave rise to the AUF, now Recreational Aviation Australia.
But I guess this is not part of the syllabus for induction training for CASA staff.
Tootle pip!!
After all, what would I would know?
As to Polar Air, I did not suggest I would lay out the history, only that I awaited the results of the current application by the Commonwealth.
However, a search of articles by Paul Phelan should turn up an exhaustive chronology to just short of the present state of play. Paul's story on the subject has had a legal ruler run over it for accuracy ( and not just for defo.), in my opinion you can rely on its accuracy.
As a matter of interest, do you even know of the events that precipitated the whole Polar Air matter??? Maybe you should find out.
Socket,
Why is it that these very few members have the right (in their eyes) to do something in a manner that no other person is permitted to do, or has done.
Perhaps you would like to explain to us all why there have been so many Parliamentary inquiries into CASA and its predecessors, including "Morris", which was the longest running inquiry since Federation.
Try the Parliamentary library, they can probably tell you, but inquiries, major and minor, involving either or both the Reps and the Senate, but the answer will be over 20 since mid 1980s.
I can only remember one that was not precipitated by concerns at the adverse behavior of CASA or its predecessors, and that was the HORSCOTS inquiry into Sports Aviation, that gave rise to the AUF, now Recreational Aviation Australia.
But I guess this is not part of the syllabus for induction training for CASA staff.
Tootle pip!!
Last edited by LeadSled; 23rd Sep 2011 at 07:17.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Leadsled says: “As a matter of interest, do you even know of the events that precipitated the whole Polar Air matter??? Maybe you should find out”.
You never cease to amaze me with your ignorance - especially coming from someone who pontificates about just about eveything aviation related. If anyone should try and establish the real events that "precipitated this matter" it is YOU, rather than the one sided and uninformed position you continually take....
By the way, how is "Craig" these days?
Clinton, you're on the money once again....
You never cease to amaze me with your ignorance - especially coming from someone who pontificates about just about eveything aviation related. If anyone should try and establish the real events that "precipitated this matter" it is YOU, rather than the one sided and uninformed position you continually take....
By the way, how is "Craig" these days?
Clinton, you're on the money once again....
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Over the Rainbow
Posts: 148
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perhaps you would like to explain to us all why there have been so many Parliamentary inquiries into CASA and its predecessors, including "Morris", which was the longest running inquiry since Federation.
Try the Parliamentary library, they can probably tell you, but inquiries, major and minor, involving either or both the Reps and the Senate, but the answer will be over 20 since mid 1980s.
I can only remember one that was not precipitated by concerns at the adverse behavior of CASA or its predecessors, and that was the HORSCOTS inquiry into Sports Aviation, that gave rise to the AUF, now Recreational Aviation Australia.
Try the Parliamentary library, they can probably tell you, but inquiries, major and minor, involving either or both the Reps and the Senate, but the answer will be over 20 since mid 1980s.
I can only remember one that was not precipitated by concerns at the adverse behavior of CASA or its predecessors, and that was the HORSCOTS inquiry into Sports Aviation, that gave rise to the AUF, now Recreational Aviation Australia.
I am a little confused at why you continue to link CASA today with its predecessors the CAA and DOT, they are all quite different bodies.
I am sure you will be willing to educate everyone and provide this list of over 20 parliamentary inquiries precipitated by concerns at the adverse behavior of CASA and its predecessors, and I am confident they will all support your inference that CASA and its predecessors are and were infested with corrupt and out of control bureaucratic Nazis. Time for you to put up or shut up.
Well the Cohorts from CASA legal are probably high fiving each other now..
Another "little" person crushed by the might of unlimited, unaccountable, public funds, and malignant intent.. "Model Litigants?"..Yeah right!!
So the bottom feeders can grovel about in the muck fighting over the spoils..
Who wins the bonus out of this one??
Another "little" person crushed by the might of unlimited, unaccountable, public funds, and malignant intent.. "Model Litigants?"..Yeah right!!
So the bottom feeders can grovel about in the muck fighting over the spoils..
Who wins the bonus out of this one??
So if someone breaks the law, gets caught, loses the case and then keeps appealing (in spite of the fact that they have no cause for appeal), loses loads of money while they are at it and forces the regulator to continually spend taxpayers money to ensure the law is upheld, its all the fault of those "bottom feeders". That would certainly make them a "little" person in my eyes.
And where did you get the stupid idea that CASA pays its staff bonuses?
"Unaccountable" - You need to go see Lead sled, apparently there have been over 20 parliamentary inquiries all about keeping the CASA Nazis accountable.
If someone has a real case, and Polar Aviation may be one, more power to them and go for it. That hardly indicates a corrupt organisation.
Socket, you obviously don't understand the issues.
1. The laws and regulations under which CASA operates are demonstrably bad law and regulation.
(a) They are badly written.
(b) Ambiguous.
(c) Convoluted.
(d) Imprecise.
(e) Subject to interpretation because of (a) through (d). That of course begs the question of whether the actual content of the regulations is even appropriate.
These are not mere assertions, they are fact as demonstrated by a Twenty plus so called period of reform that has not produced a comprehensive single set of regulations. By way of example, FAA part 91 is apparently contained in Fifty pages. The Australian equivalent draft is Two hundred and Fifty pages.
What makes it even worse is that all these stipulations are backed up by criminal sanctions - most of them automatic. Carl Williams and Ned Kelly had more chance!
2. CASA has discretion over the matter of Safety. This allows CASA to make use of NEGATIVE evidence. To put that another way. No actual unsafe behaviour has to occur for CASA to act. Merely the apprehension of unsafe behaviour is enough.
When taken into account with CASA's bottomless legal resources and the commercial characteristics of aviation businesses (no flight = no money = no ability to fight CASA in Court) this produces a horrid state of affairs where there is virtually no appeal to even the most egregious charges.
The best example of that was a Northern Territory operator who had a "Milk run" to variatious stations. CASA alleged it was "regular public transport". She lost her business some years ago and another operator has only just succeeded in winning an AAT appeal against this stupid ruling.
3. Human nature. When we take into account (1) - rubbery law and regulation. and (2) Unfettered discretion in the application of (1) all it needs is the addition of a tiny bit of human nature - our failing and the opportunities for and anticipation of official corruption, and demonstration of all the other human vices.
For example, we have the case of Three CASA who were caught lying themselves blind when they alleged that a pilot was doing prohibited maintenance on an aircraft.
To put it simply mate, there have been big greasy gobs of black smoke coming out of CASA for a very long time, and to suggest that this is not the result of a fire is stretching it a bit thin.
P.S. I wish CASA well. They have always been nice to me. Nothing in this post is to be construed as suggesting that there are not shonky operators in Australian Aviation, however I would suggest that CASA is less likely to be able to effectively police them then an organisation with clear and simple rules, enlightened management and an auditing and quality control system to monitor its own decisions.
P.P.S. If what Butson alleges is true - that he was subject to administrative harassment, then I don't give a ***** if it was legal.
One of the principles of Bureaucracy is that all customers receive exactly the same treatment regardless of who, where or what they are.
To apply that to one aspect of Butsons case, if an FOI allegedly determined that passengers were to be required to wear life jackets for the approach to a particular runway that was over water for a few minutes, then that interpretation of the rules must immediately be applied to EVERY OPERATOR IN AUSTRALIA ALL THE TIME BY EVERY CASA FOI IN EXACTLY THE SAME MANNER.
1. The laws and regulations under which CASA operates are demonstrably bad law and regulation.
(a) They are badly written.
(b) Ambiguous.
(c) Convoluted.
(d) Imprecise.
(e) Subject to interpretation because of (a) through (d). That of course begs the question of whether the actual content of the regulations is even appropriate.
These are not mere assertions, they are fact as demonstrated by a Twenty plus so called period of reform that has not produced a comprehensive single set of regulations. By way of example, FAA part 91 is apparently contained in Fifty pages. The Australian equivalent draft is Two hundred and Fifty pages.
What makes it even worse is that all these stipulations are backed up by criminal sanctions - most of them automatic. Carl Williams and Ned Kelly had more chance!
2. CASA has discretion over the matter of Safety. This allows CASA to make use of NEGATIVE evidence. To put that another way. No actual unsafe behaviour has to occur for CASA to act. Merely the apprehension of unsafe behaviour is enough.
When taken into account with CASA's bottomless legal resources and the commercial characteristics of aviation businesses (no flight = no money = no ability to fight CASA in Court) this produces a horrid state of affairs where there is virtually no appeal to even the most egregious charges.
The best example of that was a Northern Territory operator who had a "Milk run" to variatious stations. CASA alleged it was "regular public transport". She lost her business some years ago and another operator has only just succeeded in winning an AAT appeal against this stupid ruling.
3. Human nature. When we take into account (1) - rubbery law and regulation. and (2) Unfettered discretion in the application of (1) all it needs is the addition of a tiny bit of human nature - our failing and the opportunities for and anticipation of official corruption, and demonstration of all the other human vices.
For example, we have the case of Three CASA who were caught lying themselves blind when they alleged that a pilot was doing prohibited maintenance on an aircraft.
To put it simply mate, there have been big greasy gobs of black smoke coming out of CASA for a very long time, and to suggest that this is not the result of a fire is stretching it a bit thin.
P.S. I wish CASA well. They have always been nice to me. Nothing in this post is to be construed as suggesting that there are not shonky operators in Australian Aviation, however I would suggest that CASA is less likely to be able to effectively police them then an organisation with clear and simple rules, enlightened management and an auditing and quality control system to monitor its own decisions.
P.P.S. If what Butson alleges is true - that he was subject to administrative harassment, then I don't give a ***** if it was legal.
One of the principles of Bureaucracy is that all customers receive exactly the same treatment regardless of who, where or what they are.
To apply that to one aspect of Butsons case, if an FOI allegedly determined that passengers were to be required to wear life jackets for the approach to a particular runway that was over water for a few minutes, then that interpretation of the rules must immediately be applied to EVERY OPERATOR IN AUSTRALIA ALL THE TIME BY EVERY CASA FOI IN EXACTLY THE SAME MANNER.
Last edited by Sunfish; 23rd Sep 2011 at 22:05.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Over the Rainbow
Posts: 148
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sunfish,
I understand the issues all to well. I don't ( and I don't think anyone would) dispute your points a through e. However the current regulations are the ones we all have to deal with. If it takes a trip to the AAT to get a ruling on the application of those regulations then unfortunately that's what will have to happen until our legislators come up with a better way of resolving those issues. If all legislation was concise and clear cut there would be no need for all our levels of courts and all those lawyers. Hysterical and offensive outbursts from some and the exaggeration of statistically isolated incidents just isn't going to change that.
On to some of your other points.
Are you suggesting that CASA has to wait for a smoking hole in the ground before acting. That if CASA suspects that could be an outcome it should sit on its hands and wait?
It costs you nothing to go to the AAT. If you have a solid case, the member sitting is not an idiot and will find in your favor as has occurred. No amount of lawyering up by CASA will change that fact. What is a fact is that more and more the AAT is used as a time wasting exercise by people who know they have no case.
You have quoted one case of dishonesty and built it into a fire, isn't that stretching it a bit thin, mate. I would guess that with human nature being what it is, most organisations and a fair few family's have a tiny minority of members who are dishonest, I guess by your standards there are great big greasy gobs of black smoke all over the country. Try to keep things in perspective. Mate.
I would suggest you don't understand the issue. Do some homework on how legislation is drafted and by whom, how it is approved and why our form of legislation doesn't follow the sparse style of US law. Ask around about why the previous version of the Regs based on the FAR's was recalled on its way to Parliament house (they were done years ago) and CASA had to start all over again.
Also, are you sure you want our regs to move away from the current "criminal" style, the other option is harder to defend against, the burden on CASA to prove its case would be significantly lowered and CASA wouldn't have to refer every enforcement action to the DPP for prosecution to fine offenders, it would be a simple matter of writing a ticket and see you in court if you don't pay the fine. How many tickets written by police, fisheries inspectors, etc are successfully defended in court? Fairly low percentage I would suggest. Put plainly, under the current system it's just too much trouble for CASA to pursue fines and other sanctions so most cases are dealt with administratively through counseling and education. Are you sure you want to change that?
I understand the issues all to well. I don't ( and I don't think anyone would) dispute your points a through e. However the current regulations are the ones we all have to deal with. If it takes a trip to the AAT to get a ruling on the application of those regulations then unfortunately that's what will have to happen until our legislators come up with a better way of resolving those issues. If all legislation was concise and clear cut there would be no need for all our levels of courts and all those lawyers. Hysterical and offensive outbursts from some and the exaggeration of statistically isolated incidents just isn't going to change that.
On to some of your other points.
No actual unsafe behaviour has to occur for CASA to act. Merely the apprehension of unsafe behaviour is enough.
When taken into account with CASA's bottomless legal resources and the commercial characteristics of aviation businesses (no flight = no money = no ability to fight CASA in Court) this produces a horrid state of affairs where there is virtually no appeal to even the most egregious charges.
For example, we have the case of Three CASA who were caught lying themselves blind when they alleged that a pilot was doing prohibited maintenance on an aircraft.
To put it simply mate, there have been big greasy gobs of black smoke coming out of CASA for a very long time, and to suggest that this is not the result of a fire is stretching it a bit thin.
To put it simply mate, there have been big greasy gobs of black smoke coming out of CASA for a very long time, and to suggest that this is not the result of a fire is stretching it a bit thin.
These are not mere assertions, they are fact as demonstrated by a Twenty plus so called period of reform that has not produced a comprehensive single set of regulations. By way of example, FAA part 91 is apparently contained in Fifty pages. The Australian equivalent draft is Two hundred and Fifty pages.
Also, are you sure you want our regs to move away from the current "criminal" style, the other option is harder to defend against, the burden on CASA to prove its case would be significantly lowered and CASA wouldn't have to refer every enforcement action to the DPP for prosecution to fine offenders, it would be a simple matter of writing a ticket and see you in court if you don't pay the fine. How many tickets written by police, fisheries inspectors, etc are successfully defended in court? Fairly low percentage I would suggest. Put plainly, under the current system it's just too much trouble for CASA to pursue fines and other sanctions so most cases are dealt with administratively through counseling and education. Are you sure you want to change that?
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Perth - Western Australia
Age: 75
Posts: 1,805
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Blackhand, I believe your judgement of Gerald is pretty accurate. I personally believe that Gerald and other mavericks of his ilk are their own worst enemies.
To carry out an ambitious, locally-disallowed, seaplane launching exercise from a towed trailer, in a highly-regulated industry, without inviting regulatory inspection and approval of the method, prior to carrying out that exercise, seems to me to be classic maverick and ill-disciplined behaviour.
Given that being an operative in aviation requires total discipline and strict attention to regulatory requirements, actions such as Geralds original infringement action, indicate that he was prepared to work outside regulations, and outside any regulatory scrutiny.
Such actions are the equivalent of confronting a cop who has just pulled you up in your car for a trivial offence, and then jumping out and lambasting the cop for having the temerity to do so.
There are many people in this world who have power to create grief for us, and to inflame them with actions and words seen as outside "the regulations" to them, only inflames an already volatile situation created by our own actions.
In these cases, the submissive, "Yes, Sir"... "No Sir"... "Three Bags Full, Sir"... works just fine to deflect these regulatory peoples aims to less costly levels.
However, there are many people who see regulatory constraint as a severe impediment to their own independent aims... and Gerald would almost certainly rate as being in that group.
As a matter of interest, I do know Gerald personally, and have had business interaction with him many years ago, in the farming environment (in which he was raised)... and I believe that many people of rural background are excessively independent, and chafe at the restrictiveness of regulation and external discipline.
To carry out an ambitious, locally-disallowed, seaplane launching exercise from a towed trailer, in a highly-regulated industry, without inviting regulatory inspection and approval of the method, prior to carrying out that exercise, seems to me to be classic maverick and ill-disciplined behaviour.
Given that being an operative in aviation requires total discipline and strict attention to regulatory requirements, actions such as Geralds original infringement action, indicate that he was prepared to work outside regulations, and outside any regulatory scrutiny.
Such actions are the equivalent of confronting a cop who has just pulled you up in your car for a trivial offence, and then jumping out and lambasting the cop for having the temerity to do so.
There are many people in this world who have power to create grief for us, and to inflame them with actions and words seen as outside "the regulations" to them, only inflames an already volatile situation created by our own actions.
In these cases, the submissive, "Yes, Sir"... "No Sir"... "Three Bags Full, Sir"... works just fine to deflect these regulatory peoples aims to less costly levels.
However, there are many people who see regulatory constraint as a severe impediment to their own independent aims... and Gerald would almost certainly rate as being in that group.
As a matter of interest, I do know Gerald personally, and have had business interaction with him many years ago, in the farming environment (in which he was raised)... and I believe that many people of rural background are excessively independent, and chafe at the restrictiveness of regulation and external discipline.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: on the edge
Posts: 823
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
and I believe that many people of rural background are excessively independent, and chafe at the restrictiveness of regulation and external discipline.
---- about why the previous version of the Regs based on the FAR's was recalled on its way to Parliament house
Who told you this fairy story ---- no such event has occurred in my lifetime, and I have been around for quite a while.
Or perhaps you would like to give us chapter and verse, because I have no idea what you are talking about. Sounds to me like more internal propaganda --- CASA is always right, industry is always wrong.
As a matter of fact, the first time I came across a recommendation that the FARs were the way to go, was in a Ministerial report to Parliament in1966, consequent on a DCA study tour of the US.
The very great bulk of the industry has supported this position, ever since. At the commencement of the CASA Review in 1996, it was the unanimous position of all industry representative bodies, and the individual corporate positions of QF and AN.
The one set or regs. that were withdrawn at the last minute, because of united industry opposition, from QF down, and believe me, they were an amazing CASA concoction that was about as FAR from the FARs as it would be possible to get, indeed they were FARout.
The Minister of the day, John Anderson, thought, probably correctly, that there were the numbers in the Senate for a motion to disallow to get up ---- given the united industry opposition.
I refer to a set of regs. for continuing airworthiness, about 2003 or thereabouts. They were so FARout, that it even attracted the interest of FAA, have a look at the results of the FAA and ICAO audits for another take on CASA.
CASRs 21-35 are largely based on the FARs --- they work well, except in the opinion of the usual diehards and recalcitrants.
By the way, how is "Craig" these days?
I have no idea who you are referring to, please enlighten us.
I am a little confused at why you continue to link CASA today with its predecessors the CAA and DOT, they are all quite different bodies.
Grow up, get unconfused, there is a direct lineal history through all the iterations of the "Department of Changing Names", and a continuity of employees.
Indeed, fiddling with the enabling legislation, many times over the years, had done nothing do curb a culture that does nothing to achieve the best air safety outcomes, and does much to inhibit the Australian aviation sector.
That the "commercial" parts of the the old DCA have been split off into various quangos over the years is irrelevant to the continuing and enduring culture of the "bit" that is the air safety regulator.
It costs you nothing to go to the AAT.
Sunfish,
On the mark, as usual.
Tootle pip!!
Last edited by LeadSled; 24th Sep 2011 at 12:16.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Silence was the stern reply.
Thank you Clinton for a first class demonstration of CASA tactics in action, now all the noisy rabble have been silenced. Well drilled under a culture of fear to keep their collective heads down when 'Daddy' is angry. E' Brava that man, Brava.
What a smug, self satisfied little rant that last was; a typical court strategy to bamboozle the unwashed, un shriven who genuflect at the great altar of needing to earn a living. Shut up or we'll do you.
I note you only use the parts that suit you, use esoteric threats on people who cannot defend themselves and take great delight in making challenges you know cannot be met in this forum.
Your a bit of fraud Clinton old mate, probably a bully , and perhaps just a bit light on your feet.
There was a little more (just a bit) in Staunton than you use and a hell of lot more in Lockhart River' than you'll admit to.
There is a deeply entrenched moral and operational corruption within the CASA as it operates today.
He who laughs last laughs longest, they say.
Selah
What a smug, self satisfied little rant that last was; a typical court strategy to bamboozle the unwashed, un shriven who genuflect at the great altar of needing to earn a living. Shut up or we'll do you.
I note you only use the parts that suit you, use esoteric threats on people who cannot defend themselves and take great delight in making challenges you know cannot be met in this forum.
Your a bit of fraud Clinton old mate, probably a bully , and perhaps just a bit light on your feet.
There was a little more (just a bit) in Staunton than you use and a hell of lot more in Lockhart River' than you'll admit to.
There is a deeply entrenched moral and operational corruption within the CASA as it operates today.
He who laughs last laughs longest, they say.
Selah
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Alabama, then Wyoming, then Idaho and now staying with Kharon on Styx houseboat
Age: 61
Posts: 1,437
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank you Clinton for a first class demonstration of CASA tactics in action, now all the noisy rabble have been silenced. Well drilled under a culture of fear to keep their collective heads down when 'Daddy' is angry. E' Brava that man, Brava.
Flyingfiend has been rather quiet of late, perhaps busy condcuting an audit, or maybe he is on an ICAO junket, or then again maybe he is bogged down writing RCA's for 'operators failing to place a capital at the beginning of a sentence' or some other similar high level atrocity?
Maybe the upper echelon have issued an edict that he no longer post on pprune, perhaps as he says 'the feds are investigating'?
Clinton/Flyingfiend, you two nupties should really get back to your 'core work' and contribute something to the regulatory reform program, after all, you work for such a competent and robust organisation that it has only taken 22 years thus far! Yes indeed folks, world's best practise alright, 22 years and counting, Nimrods.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Clinton Mackenzie,
I ,for one, am a person Sunfish could contact to have their "CASA File" opened for the public. Indeed CASA have already been found to have breached my privacy in a preliminary report by the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner. I do not expect that report to change.
In your post you accuse people complaining of being a rabble. You state that you and CASA ignore them. That is the problem!
As Kelpie says "more to follow". I mean that.
Greedy
I ,for one, am a person Sunfish could contact to have their "CASA File" opened for the public. Indeed CASA have already been found to have breached my privacy in a preliminary report by the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner. I do not expect that report to change.
In your post you accuse people complaining of being a rabble. You state that you and CASA ignore them. That is the problem!
As Kelpie says "more to follow". I mean that.
Greedy