WA Air Operator sues CASA and Officials
Clinton and all,
Firstly, my apologies for calling Clark Butson Craig, a digital disfunction, must have been the hour of the day, or any other convenient excuse.
Clinton, as to your, in my opinion, selective quotes from Seaview etc., in my view, that by no means gives the full flavor of the evidence presented at the inquiries, or the overall tone of a complete report.
Even in interpreting the words of a report, I would suggest that that you need to be multilingual, including fluent written and spoken bureaucratese --- or be an aficionado of "Yes! Minister".
Clinton, I guess you and I will never ever agree on the most basic point, why we have safety regulations in the first place, let alone agree that CASA is extraordinarily uneven in its interpretation of, and enforcement of a body of law that has been, and continues to be, criticized by a broad cross section of the involved community, including competent aviation legal circles, from solicitors to eminent counsel, and most levels of the judiciary --- as I am sure you are well aware.
One thing I will never agree with, is the view, put quite forcibly by a former head of Office of Legal Counsel at CASA, well known to you: "Aviation law is for lawyers and judges, for the safe conviction of pilots and engineers".
When one considers the aviation safety outcomes in US, compared with Australia, that alone should tell us something about which approach to achieving the best results works, and which has been, to say the very least, somewhat less successful at bringing down accident rates.
Frankly, I don't think you have a clue about what goes on in far too many CASA audits, and the way so much "so called" enforcement ( or selective non-enforcement) activity is conducted.
What may wind up in the courts or at the AAT ( the latter a very imperfect place to do business) is a small part of the story of a thoroughly demoralized GA sector of Australian aviation.
Very few operators or individuals can even afford the cost of pursuing what rights and remedies may be open to them.
Sadly, if you cannot afford the price of justice, you do not get justice, and as you and I know, justice and the law are not quite the same thing.
Tootle pip!!
Firstly, my apologies for calling Clark Butson Craig, a digital disfunction, must have been the hour of the day, or any other convenient excuse.
Clinton, as to your, in my opinion, selective quotes from Seaview etc., in my view, that by no means gives the full flavor of the evidence presented at the inquiries, or the overall tone of a complete report.
Even in interpreting the words of a report, I would suggest that that you need to be multilingual, including fluent written and spoken bureaucratese --- or be an aficionado of "Yes! Minister".
Clinton, I guess you and I will never ever agree on the most basic point, why we have safety regulations in the first place, let alone agree that CASA is extraordinarily uneven in its interpretation of, and enforcement of a body of law that has been, and continues to be, criticized by a broad cross section of the involved community, including competent aviation legal circles, from solicitors to eminent counsel, and most levels of the judiciary --- as I am sure you are well aware.
One thing I will never agree with, is the view, put quite forcibly by a former head of Office of Legal Counsel at CASA, well known to you: "Aviation law is for lawyers and judges, for the safe conviction of pilots and engineers".
When one considers the aviation safety outcomes in US, compared with Australia, that alone should tell us something about which approach to achieving the best results works, and which has been, to say the very least, somewhat less successful at bringing down accident rates.
Frankly, I don't think you have a clue about what goes on in far too many CASA audits, and the way so much "so called" enforcement ( or selective non-enforcement) activity is conducted.
What may wind up in the courts or at the AAT ( the latter a very imperfect place to do business) is a small part of the story of a thoroughly demoralized GA sector of Australian aviation.
Very few operators or individuals can even afford the cost of pursuing what rights and remedies may be open to them.
Sadly, if you cannot afford the price of justice, you do not get justice, and as you and I know, justice and the law are not quite the same thing.
Tootle pip!!
Last edited by LeadSled; 28th Sep 2011 at 06:37.
As to the question as to why Australia has the regulations it has, you’d have to argue with the people who make important decisions about aviation safety regulation, rather than CASA, about that.
Last edited by YPJT; 28th Sep 2011 at 11:08. Reason: spelling
Are you suggesting that the current state of the current regulations is as a consequence of successive governments being unable to see through smoke and mirrors?
"You may well think that - I couldn't possibly comment" - Francis Urquhart
House of Cards, Michael Dobbs 1989
But Clinton, Bill Pike & others have the truth of it - there aren't enough votes in it for a pollie to risk taking "courageous" action, so CASA by default has the ability to make unilateral decisions in regard to aviation regulations, unhampered by electorate political considerations or informed dissent.
Clinton: in the light of all that has been said on this post, can you tell me:
Is there anyone at all in CASA who can look me in the eye and state that their time in CASA has done anything good for general aviation in this country?
Is the anyone who has activly tried to expand the industry? Anyone who has tried to increase the number of operators or the number of GA aeroplanes in Australia?
Anyone who has tried to expand employment opportunities?
Anyone who has suggested that we need more Australian students and more flying schools?
Or is leglislation, policing and the ever increasing rule book all you folk aspire to in your careers? Do you care that it now takes up to 2 years to get an AOC? That casual employment is all but a thing of the past? That the number of small flying schools has decreased markedly in the last decade?
How good could general aviation be if CASA activly tried to expand the industry?
Is there anyone at all in CASA who can look me in the eye and state that their time in CASA has done anything good for general aviation in this country?
Is the anyone who has activly tried to expand the industry? Anyone who has tried to increase the number of operators or the number of GA aeroplanes in Australia?
Anyone who has tried to expand employment opportunities?
Anyone who has suggested that we need more Australian students and more flying schools?
Or is leglislation, policing and the ever increasing rule book all you folk aspire to in your careers? Do you care that it now takes up to 2 years to get an AOC? That casual employment is all but a thing of the past? That the number of small flying schools has decreased markedly in the last decade?
How good could general aviation be if CASA activly tried to expand the industry?
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Sydney Harbour
Posts: 320
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is there anyone at all in CASA who can look me in the eye and state that their time in CASA has done anything good for general aviation in this country?
VFG
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 Clinton, you are certainly a piece of work. You just astound me in what you say.
I have worked for a body [25 years], similar to CASA, charged with looking after and promoting an industry as well as performing a regulatory function. It is difficult to be able to do both functions, but possible to achieve, if there is a will to do so.
I think that is the issue - fee-for-service which has an entirely different focus to that of "regulator".
The seperation of functions certainly makes the process easier and fairer.
However, across the little [duuch] and big pond, both NZ and FAA seem to do the dual function better.
While we are looking at making reviews of decisions and examples of where the regulator "got it wrong" - take a re-visit of the Whyalla incident and the independent US Supreme Court findings.
It makes a very interesting read and the "take home" message certainly supports the assertions of many posts that CASA is not doing it's job very well at all
The 22 year review and the independent ICAO [poor card] certainly supports that view as well..
I read on with bated breath, if Clinton you would like to give us all your view of Whyalla and the ICAO report.
I have worked for a body [25 years], similar to CASA, charged with looking after and promoting an industry as well as performing a regulatory function. It is difficult to be able to do both functions, but possible to achieve, if there is a will to do so.
I think that is the issue - fee-for-service which has an entirely different focus to that of "regulator".
The seperation of functions certainly makes the process easier and fairer.
However, across the little [duuch] and big pond, both NZ and FAA seem to do the dual function better.
While we are looking at making reviews of decisions and examples of where the regulator "got it wrong" - take a re-visit of the Whyalla incident and the independent US Supreme Court findings.
It makes a very interesting read and the "take home" message certainly supports the assertions of many posts that CASA is not doing it's job very well at all
The 22 year review and the independent ICAO [poor card] certainly supports that view as well..
I read on with bated breath, if Clinton you would like to give us all your view of Whyalla and the ICAO report.
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: everwhere
Age: 69
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Polar Aviation Pty Ltd v Civil Aviation Safety Authority (no 4) [2011] FCA 1126
Judgement handed down today.
It should be on Austli tomorrow or soon thereafter.
For those who cannot wait:
'...consideration of elements of tort of unlawful interference with trade or business interests - elements not present in pleading - failure to adequately to particularise tort of misfeasance in public office - pleading embarrassing - pleading struck out - no leave to re-plead'
'...summary dismissal application pursuant to... applicable tests-where entirety of pleadings struck out - where ample opportunity to plead a reasonable cause of action - whether proceeding has no reasonable prospect of success - application dismissed'
I have merely supplied the catchwords to give you a flavour of the judgement which runs to 44 pages.
Butson is not permitted to bring a pleading (amended statement of claim) again. Cost awarded to CASA but in an amount yet to be determined (separate submissions).
And for those who 'wonder'; 'embarrassing' may very well apply to this ridiculous saga and the actions of Polar Aviation; however, the term has a specific meaning in the 'Federal Court Rules 1879' Cth.
Now I await all those who say that once again justice should not be searching for Proof when the allegations before it should be just taken on face value.
Or, conversely, this decision may very well be a continuation of the 'conspiracy' that dismissed Repacholi's action.
FF
In a nutshell, the court found that Mr Butson had produced no evidence in his (numerous) attempts to support an action of 'misfeasance in public office'. His pleading (the information he must lodge with the court and the defence such that the defence know exactly what they are accused of) was deficient. Most probably always was and remains so.
It should be on Austli tomorrow or soon thereafter.
For those who cannot wait:
'...consideration of elements of tort of unlawful interference with trade or business interests - elements not present in pleading - failure to adequately to particularise tort of misfeasance in public office - pleading embarrassing - pleading struck out - no leave to re-plead'
'...summary dismissal application pursuant to... applicable tests-where entirety of pleadings struck out - where ample opportunity to plead a reasonable cause of action - whether proceeding has no reasonable prospect of success - application dismissed'
I have merely supplied the catchwords to give you a flavour of the judgement which runs to 44 pages.
Butson is not permitted to bring a pleading (amended statement of claim) again. Cost awarded to CASA but in an amount yet to be determined (separate submissions).
And for those who 'wonder'; 'embarrassing' may very well apply to this ridiculous saga and the actions of Polar Aviation; however, the term has a specific meaning in the 'Federal Court Rules 1879' Cth.
Now I await all those who say that once again justice should not be searching for Proof when the allegations before it should be just taken on face value.
Or, conversely, this decision may very well be a continuation of the 'conspiracy' that dismissed Repacholi's action.
FF
In a nutshell, the court found that Mr Butson had produced no evidence in his (numerous) attempts to support an action of 'misfeasance in public office'. His pleading (the information he must lodge with the court and the defence such that the defence know exactly what they are accused of) was deficient. Most probably always was and remains so.
Errrrm, all I did was state a fact about what its powers and functions are and why the parliament (not me) made that decision. Executing the messenger won’t change anything, but if it makes you feel better ….
CASA could in fact reform the Australian aviation industry for the better without compromising their position as regulator or having a dual mandate.
I won't hold my breath waiting.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Remove philosophical thumb from fundamental operational orifice.
IT IS NOT the Reg's that create the problem, antiquated and contradictory though they be.
The problem; free ranging interpretation by 'bar room barristers' applied, as and when required to operational matters, very definitely is.
No one (very few) set out to be deliberately 'in breach'.
Conflict arises when; just for example: A Manufacturer flight manual states “this” (whatever it be) is not a recommended procedure, and a better result can be achieved – by the following AFM procedure (etc.). So far so good.
Say, the Company Operations Manual reflects this. Still all good,
Then; some half-wit decides that despite an AFM prohibition, manufacturer stated (written), best advice and recommended procedure “this” has to be done to comply with the letter of the law. One man's opinion against the spirit and intent of the 'Order', the manufacturer manual and experienced crew good sense.
We all know it's daft to do it, but now we are obliged to “comply” with a Worthless judgement, based against an agenda, not a rule.
The rules are old and based against 'the way it was' 30 years ago, not as the 'experts' now see them. (Back then DCA/ CAA had experts).
When this is then 'transmogrified' to policy, driven by bull**** through a Tribunal it becomes anarchy. Created by a half-wit, supported by an idiot and backed up by the full weight of the Commonwealth coffers, all in the disguise of air safety.
The lunatics are indeed running the asylum.
PLEASE. Give us set of rules which can be translated (by a Chief Pilot) into operational compliance and become a legend, instead of the hack lawyer hired to sink the concept of regulatory reform in it's infancy.
Well the body count will continue to rise, ask the Braz crew, sorry they have departed the fix.
Selah.
The problem; free ranging interpretation by 'bar room barristers' applied, as and when required to operational matters, very definitely is.
No one (very few) set out to be deliberately 'in breach'.
Conflict arises when; just for example: A Manufacturer flight manual states “this” (whatever it be) is not a recommended procedure, and a better result can be achieved – by the following AFM procedure (etc.). So far so good.
Say, the Company Operations Manual reflects this. Still all good,
Then; some half-wit decides that despite an AFM prohibition, manufacturer stated (written), best advice and recommended procedure “this” has to be done to comply with the letter of the law. One man's opinion against the spirit and intent of the 'Order', the manufacturer manual and experienced crew good sense.
We all know it's daft to do it, but now we are obliged to “comply” with a Worthless judgement, based against an agenda, not a rule.
The rules are old and based against 'the way it was' 30 years ago, not as the 'experts' now see them. (Back then DCA/ CAA had experts).
When this is then 'transmogrified' to policy, driven by bull**** through a Tribunal it becomes anarchy. Created by a half-wit, supported by an idiot and backed up by the full weight of the Commonwealth coffers, all in the disguise of air safety.
The lunatics are indeed running the asylum.
PLEASE. Give us set of rules which can be translated (by a Chief Pilot) into operational compliance and become a legend, instead of the hack lawyer hired to sink the concept of regulatory reform in it's infancy.
Well the body count will continue to rise, ask the Braz crew, sorry they have departed the fix.
Selah.
Last edited by Kharon; 30th Sep 2011 at 11:42. Reason: The usual
Clinton, I had more respect for you:
You know perfectly well that Ministers do nothing without ADVICE they will do absolutely nothing at all.
CASA or its predecessors must have advised the Minister to make the rules and regulations in exactly the form that they are, otherwise they would not have been made. There is no one else who could have or would have advised the Minister without first seeking CASA's advice on whether it believed they were to CASAs liking. I write this as someone who did a little work in the public service and I know what I am talking about.
Regarding my post regarding the helicopter incident, I stand by my unimpeachable source and what they said. You will have to take my word for it.
Are you suggesting that any Civil Aviation Regulations, Civil Aviation Safety Regulations, or amendments to either of them, are not endorsed by the Minister or, by implication, by the parliament through a decision not to disallow them?
Are you suggesting that the current state of the current regulations is as a consequence of successive governments being unable to see through smoke and mirrors?
Are you suggesting that the current state of the current regulations is as a consequence of successive governments being unable to see through smoke and mirrors?
CASA or its predecessors must have advised the Minister to make the rules and regulations in exactly the form that they are, otherwise they would not have been made. There is no one else who could have or would have advised the Minister without first seeking CASA's advice on whether it believed they were to CASAs liking. I write this as someone who did a little work in the public service and I know what I am talking about.
Regarding my post regarding the helicopter incident, I stand by my unimpeachable source and what they said. You will have to take my word for it.
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
You know perfectly well that Ministers do nothing without ADVICE
And of course all parliamentarians are gullible and stupid
Well the following from The Ministers speech 20SEP at The Aviation Forum Parliament House appears contradictory to what is law regarding non-commercial aviation.
"I know that a number of you here today represent the non-commercial general aviation sector. You have a rich history in this country and you perform an essential role providing services such as charter flights, search and rescue, surveying and aerial photography, aeromedical services and pilot training".
"I know that a number of you here today represent the non-commercial general aviation sector. You have a rich history in this country and you perform an essential role providing services such as charter flights, search and rescue, surveying and aerial photography, aeromedical services and pilot training".
Worth reading the Minister's whole speech, which can be politically summarized as: "Aren't you lucky to have me as a Minister".
I have also had the scary thought, maybe Albo is right. Maybe the words in the speech were not just a matter of Ministerial/Adviser ignorance.
Thanks to various Government imposts, sins of omission and commission, of which over-regulation is only one, the result is that charter, SAR, firefighting, aeromedical , pilot training etc. have been rendered non-commercial.
Tootle pip!!
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Yep. You got it!
Scary thought = Reality Nightmare
Sad but true.
the result is that charter, SAR, firefighting, aeromedical , pilot training etc. have been rendered non-commercial.
Sad but true.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sale, Australia
Age: 80
Posts: 3,832
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jaba,
Well, it would put to bed the discussion as to who is permitted to take a photograph.
Old thread http://www.pprune.org/dg-p-general-a...ecision-3.html
Well, it would put to bed the discussion as to who is permitted to take a photograph.
Old thread http://www.pprune.org/dg-p-general-a...ecision-3.html
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
T28D – what is a “real” judge?? I haven’t seen the Polar decision as yet - it would seem that some have as it has been implied that the judgement went against Polar. Where or why were the judge(s) in error?
LeadSled – Clinton kindly “enlightened” you on my behalf regarding the “Craig” Butson comment. I think Clinton’s comment “The main reason you and (others) get nowhere,…… is that all it takes is a slight scratch of the surface to demonstrate fundamental errors or omissions of fact in the horror stories you tell.” is particularly apt – both in this case and others.
Cheers.
Henry
LeadSled – Clinton kindly “enlightened” you on my behalf regarding the “Craig” Butson comment. I think Clinton’s comment “The main reason you and (others) get nowhere,…… is that all it takes is a slight scratch of the surface to demonstrate fundamental errors or omissions of fact in the horror stories you tell.” is particularly apt – both in this case and others.
Cheers.
Henry
Unfortunately, the only winners in this case would appear to be the lawyers representing Polar Aviation and CASA – I do hope Polar Aviations’ lawyers are doing the right thing by their client and not just endeavouring to make a quick buck (read fortune) given the apparent lack of evidence in this case.
I look forward to reading an article along the lines of "CASA staff vindicated!!" from Paul Phelan in due course.
Ciao for now.
VH-MLE
I look forward to reading an article along the lines of "CASA staff vindicated!!" from Paul Phelan in due course.
Ciao for now.
VH-MLE
Last edited by VH-MLE; 9th Oct 2011 at 11:34.
