Yes but, do we really need CASA.

[LeadSled]

tailwheel,
You may well be right about the council, it's a long time ago. A solicitor mate of mine worked on the case, I must ask him.

I was spending quite a bit of time up there in those days, I remember Stan well.

The "story" of how he even got his hands on a Citation is an interesting speculation in itself, and not entirely unadjacent to the indentity of the group who bought Silver Plains, after a "significant" donation Joe's "Foundation".

Tootle pip!!

[aroa]

Historical note. And etc.

The Mt Emerald Air Disaster on 11. May 1990 ..killed Councilors from the following Tableland Shires: Eacham 2, Atherton 2, Herberton 2.
Coastal shires: Cairns City 2, Douglas 1. Also Catholic nun 1 And the pilot.

CASA was at its usual disgusting best with a comment in the Cairns Post.. if my memory serves me right, wording like so....
" An unnamed CASA spokesperson said ..'we knew he was a cowboy' and etc."

Not enough balls to put a name to the statement..!! (Ops normal) and very hurtful to the bereaved wife. But does CASA give a rats.?
Denigrate the target,its par for the course ( I know)

And that poses the question... If CASA knew that was the case, why didnt they do something about it.?

Has anything changed?? The Wilga crash at Straddie yielded a comment from someone that they had advised CASA that he was " a bit of a cowboy"
What did they do... nothing. (as far as I am aware).

A Cooperative approach to safety will NOT work, if everything you do is criminalised to buggery.
CASA is anally retentive/punitive-reactive.. if there's an accident... someone has to be flogged through the courts and/or punished somehow.
Ask the guys from Whyalla Air. And all the others.

The better path..? I urge everyone to hunt up, read and digest the article in US AOPA
Dec 2002-Jan 2003 by top Aviation lawyer, Kenneth P Quinn " Why Airline crashes arent criminal" ".. the accident itself is its own punishment to the individuals and companies involved"...and etc.

It just shows you the nature of the beast that a bastard bureaucrazy has made for us.

[Sunfish]

From reading AAT rulings, the truth of Leadsleads advice is apparent. Don't ever speak to CASA about anything without a lawyer present. Especially don't ever answer any question they may pose you.

I'm beginning to wonder if CASA is required to read you your rights before engaging in any conversation with you. There is one AAT ruling where a kid with a "chequered" past was denied a medical for alleged substance abuse and the majority of the evidence appears to have come from his own (badly advised) mouth.

Then there is the recently decided case of one Mr. Snook, that I don't have enough information to even comment on, except to say that Aviation maintenance criminality evidence seems to stretch back Thirty plus years with no statute of limitations. Did you know that there is an AD about Lycoming oil consumption? Did you know that unless you faithfully calculate consumption according to Lycomings formula at every maintenance interval and record the findings, you are guilty of a criminal offence?

There appears to be no end to the criminality of pilots and aircraft engineers according to CASA.

My one "conversation" with CASA now takes on a rather sinister interpretation. Did I face a criminal conviction and exclusion from the USA if I did not take their "suggestion" to heart?

...Yet ASICS are issued? I'm perplexed.

[Andy_RR]

Well, if CASA have the threat of criminal proceedings against anyone in the aviation industry, one should treat them like the policemen they appear to be.

NEVER, EVER, EVER make any statement to them, offer any evidence to them or help them in their investigations or prosecution. It will NEVER help you!

(Youtube search "don't talk to the police" if you're in doubt about this bit)

Of course, the question then becomes: if this is the relationship that aviation professionals have with their regulator, what chance have they of being safely and adequately regulated?

[havick]

There was a thread on here last year with a very informative post with regard to your actions should CASA issue you a show cause notice.. It took a while to sift through it all, but in essence what I gleened from it was never say anything, never hand over logbooks etc etc..

Not that I've ever been subject to said proceedings/investigations myself. But the way the industry is heading, it's money well spent to have a legal advice prior to entering any dialogue.

It's a shame that it's come to this.

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

This story has been told before but it seems appropriate to tell it again here.

I have been flying for 37 yrs, in Oz and Godzone, and up until a couple of years ago I had a completely clean slate - OK, apart from that time in 1978 when I forgot to cancel my sarwatch.

A couple of years ago I flew the Bo on four occassions in the week after a mandatory AD was due on the aeroplane. The AD was for a rudder pedal inspection (crack check) - due every year. I was busy at the time and missed the entry on the MR. As soon as I realised what I had done, I put the aeroplane in for the AD to be done - nothing abnormal found. Private ops, only me on board - and you only use the peddles for TO and landing in the Bo - barely a safety issue.

My fluck-up was picked up by CASA in a random check of MRs. No point in denying it, I had signed the MR on four occassions before the AD was done and signed off.

First I knew that I was in a spot of bother was when I received a letter from CASA alleging multiple breaches of the CAOs, CARs etc and threatening me with up to eight (8) years gaol and $40,000 in fines.

I wrote back to CASA and explained the circumstances of my error. That resulted in a reply from CASA offering to settle the matter if I copped a $500 administrative fine and a bunch of demerit points!

So I rocked up to the local CASA office to pay the fine on the last day of the period for payment. Unfortunately, the office girl was having the morning off and a CASA guy was the only person in the office. He didn't know how to work the EFPOS machine and asked if I could come back that afternoon.

"Nope", says the Dr. "It says here that I can pay at the local CASA office and I am here to pay. You need to either get it done or cancel the fine"!

"You could cut me a bit of slack here", says the CASA guy. "I will cut you the same amount of slack as you cut me", says the Dr.

An hour or so later, after a couple of phone calls to Can'tberra head office, the job is done. CASA guy has to write on my paperwork that the fine is paid and the receipt is posted out latter, cause CASA guy doesn't know how to do that stuff.

So I think that that is the end of it!

WRONG!

Maybe six (6) months later I am refuelling the Bo at Leonora (WA) when my mobile phone rings. Its a guy from the CASA compliance section in Can'tberra. He tells me that I have an outstanding administrative fine that is six (6) months overdue. I reply that I paid the fine on such and such a date and have a receipt at home - a couple of thousand km away.

Read between the lines sunshine - "get stuffed"!

Never heard anymore about it.

I kid you not! I was threatened with a possbile eight (8) years goal and $40k in fines !!!!

This occurred soon after the Lockhart River debarcle! I bet someone wrote a report saying how the Nth Qld cowboy pilots had been sorted out.

What a joke!

Dr

[601]

VH-ANQ Report
http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/.../199003068.pdf

I cannot find any report on the Citation accident at Proserpine back in the 80s.

[SIUYA]

This what you're referring to Havick?

Post #178 at http://www.pprune.org/dg-p-reporting...to-casa-9.html

CASA frequently sends out what are called "Show Cause" letters. These letters invite a certificate holder – an individual or a corporation - to show cause why a license or certificate should not be cancelled under CAR 269.

They usually allege that the certificate holder has broken the law. The material below only applies to Show Cause letters which make that allegation.
A "Show Cause" letter which alleges that you have violated the law is a trap.

A certificate holder who responds to that letter is like a small dog which puts itself at the mercy of a big dog by rolling on its back and offering the big dog its neck.

The small dog hopes that this act of submission will cause the big dog to act in a chivalrous fashion and walk off. For the small dog, that technique usually works.

But if you are up against CASA, your chances are not nearly as good as the small dog's.

If CASA alleges that you have broken the law, that allegation should be dealt with in a Court. Our Court systems have been developed over many centuries to guard us from unfair punishment.

If you engage in the Show Cause process you throw away all those very precious safeguards.

• You throw away the right to require that the case against you be proven beyond a reasonable doubt;
• You throw away the right to know, and challenge, the evidence against you;
• You throw away the right to know the identities of your accusers;
• You throw away the right for you or your lawyer to cross-examine your
• accuser(s) and other witnesses

;
Should CASA ever send me a "Show Cause" notice alleging that I have violated a law I will respond with "I have not been convicted of any of the breaches of the law that you allege. That is the cause I show.". Not one word more.

Every month I receive letters from people whose licenses have been cancelled by CASA. The sequence of events is always the same:

• The victim receives a "show cause" letter alleging that he/she has violated a whole lot of Regulations.
• The victim is invited to send a written response and to attend an "informal conference".
• Sometimes the victim attends the "informal conference", sometimes not. If he/she does, he always comes away saying "what a misnomer" after being grilled and tape-recorded.
• The victim then writes a response. In the course of the response he/she usually says things like "it was only a technical breach" or "I did not realise I was not allowed to change the main wheel tyres" or "there was no NEED for a forecast because I was only going 20 miles and I had rung the person at the other end".
• CASA then decides to cancel or suspend the victim's license, or to do nothing. Most often the decision goes against the victim. CASA then sends a letter cancelling or suspending his/her license. This letter points out that the victim has the right of appeal to the AAT.

There is no effective right of appeal if CASA cancels your licence.

The victim then wastes his time and money appealing to the AAT. Appeals to the AAT against license suspensions or cancellations never succeed. They are a pointless routine which occasionally makes a victim feel better, because he has had his day in Court, but that is all.

If you are going to go to Court against CASA in response to a "Show Cause" letter, I recommend that you make that decision at the outset when you still have all our hard-won safeguards on your side. It is silly to throw away all your safeguards and then look to a Tribunal for help. If you are going to fight, fight while you are strong - not after you have thrown away all your weapons.

If you decide to go down the "show cause" route, and CASA cancels your license, don't throw away your money going to the AAT. Just take up another occupation (if you rely on aviation for your living) or another hobby (if you are a private pilot) and get on with your life.

If you are going to fight, consult a lawyer immediately. Remember that you need a CRIMINAL LAWYER - the family solicit or, or the best commercial lawyer from the most expensive firm in the city, is not the right person for this job. Nor is an aviation lawyer. You have been accused of a crime and you need a criminal lawyer. Subject to your lawyer's advice, respond to the "Show Cause" notice by simply saying that you have not been convicted of any of the alleged breaches of the law, and that is the cause you show.

Do not enter into any verbal discussions or attend any meetings no matter how "informal" unless your lawyer advises you to. If your lawyer does advise you to roll over and show your neck, get a second opinion from another lawyer before you do. Once you have received a "show cause" letter from CASA, you are playing for keeps. If you roll over and show your neck, there is better than a 50-50 chance that CASA will cancel or suspend your license.

If CASA still goes ahead and cancels your license, do not appeal to the AAT unless you have huge amounts of spare money, lots of spare time, and nothing else in your life. If your lawyer cannot work out a way to get you into a real Court (such as the Federal Court, under the ADJR Act), don't waste your resources on the AAT. Just accept the fact you have lost your license and get on with your life.

A practical example of how this can go wrong.

As an example, assume that you irritate a CASA officer, who then decides to show you who is boss. He demands that you produce your logbook for inspection, intending to go through it in the hope of finding evidence of breaches.

You refuse to produce your logbook because you fear that it will indeed reveal some inadvertent breaches. CASA then says you have breached CAR 5.56 and cancels your license under CAR 269(1)(a). You have clearly breached CAR 1988 5.56 if you read the words of that regulation alone. But there is a legal principle that a person cannot be compelled to incriminate himself.

Accordingly, if your logbook contains information which may tend to incriminate you, you may not have to produce it in spite of CAR 5.56. If you make that argument in a Court before a judge, CASA will argue against it but you are likely to win. However if you make that argument in a 'Show Cause' procedure, where CASA is both prosecutor and judge, you are certain to lose.

Why CASA sometimes prosecutes and sometimes uses 'show cause'.

It is always open to CASA to initiate a prosecution against a person whom CASA believes has broken the law. If the person is convicted, the Court can then impose an "exclusion period" which has the same effect as cancelling or suspending your license. That is the fair way of doing things. Our forefathers struggled for centuries to gain and retain genuine legal safeguards against heavy-handed treatment by too- powerful bureaucrats. Don't throw those safeguards away by allowing yourself to be tried, convicted, and sentenced by CASA's bureaucrats.

When CASA believes that a person has violated the law, CASA chooses whether to be fair and prosecute the person or be unfair and use the "show cause" procedure. You do not have to be Al Einstein to work out that the cases where the "show cause" procedure is used tend to be those where the evidence is not strong enough to get a conviction, or where a Court is unlikely to impose an "exclusion period" if the person is found guilty. What's more, CASA can do BOTH - cancel your license under the "Show Cause" procedure, and then prosecute you. If you engage in the "Show Cause" procedure, you will inevitably give CASA a whole lot of evidence it did not have beforehand!

IF EVER YOU GET A "SHOW CAUSE" LETTER, RECOGNISE THAT YOU ARE PLAYING FOR KEEPS! DON'T DO OR SAY ANYTHING UNTIL YOU HAVE WORKED OUT YOUR WHOLE PLAN.

KEEP THIS DOCUMENT IN A SAFE PLACE, eg. INSIDE YOUR AIRCRAFT FLIGHT MANUAL

[Kharon]

All good in theory.

Boyd Monro's potted theory is absolutely spot on, provided you have very deep pockets and, are not depending on your job to pay the mortgage. The cost of defending a show cause is truly staggering. One case running at the moment is costing the defendant in excess of AUD $20, 000 per day. For the average Joe, this is serious money.

Fair enough, there needs to be as system for trapping the 'baddies'. Grossly unfair use, even abuse of the show cause system is a radical part of the systemic problems.

Take a simple case, such as 'Young Charlie' has cooked the flight and duty times to 'help' his boss out. The mermaids turn up, do an audit and shock horror, they unearth the crime of the century. No one denies Charlie is a very bad boy. The real safety issues here are obvious, Charlie needs a swift boot in the arse, but what about the real culprit.

A reasonable mermaid would look at the entire picture, is this a regular event or a one off ?. If it's a one off, and there is no real reason to suspect regular, chronic rule busting, perhaps a fine and a period of monitoring to make sure that the 'gentle warning' was headed. So, RCA, administrative fine, good ear bashing,. Job done. If it's a chronic normalized deficiency, sure, throw the book at them, no excuses.

It's when a simple (or complex) issue arises and the mermaids go off half cocked that the multiple alleged breaches (facts they like to call them) end up with the dreaded Show Cause. Think about it, you now need to justify, they don't need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt.

It ain't the system that too badly flawed, it's just that 'they' know, on balance that even the $1500 to lodge a case at the AAT plus the thousands it will cost to defend against a litigator that is anything but model (ignore moral) will beat you. Common sense and natural justice need to applied. Not rough justice and the devil take the last bloke standing.

[601]

The mermaids turn up, do an audit and shock horror, they unearth the crime of the century

Especially when two FOIs argue over 0.1hr difference in times entered by the PIC and Co-pilot. Ping one or both or do nothing.

[tail wheel]

Should CASA ever send me a "Show Cause" notice alleging that I have violated a law I will respond with "I have not been convicted of any of the breaches of the law that you allege. That is the cause I show.". Not one word more.

Fine - in theory! Impractical in practice.

Mostly CASA suspend a license or AOC then send a Show Cause seeking reasons why the license or AOC should not be cancelled.

The "miscreant" has no option but to respond.

[Worrals in the wilds]

I'm beginning to wonder if CASA is required to read you your rights before engaging in any conversation with you.

Sunfish raises a really interesting point.
‘Rights’ in Australia are more strictly speaking privileges (we have no bill of rights) and are provided by the federal Crimes Act 1914 s23F – W. These sections provide for the ‘reading of rights’ everyone is familiar with on the TV (or if you are unfortunate enough ) in person.

Crimes Act 1914

Act No. 12 of 1914 as amended
Division 3—Obligations of investigating officials
Note: These obligations apply in relation to protected suspects as well as to people under
arrest.
23F Cautioning persons who are under arrest or protected suspects
(1) Subject to subsection (3), if a person is under arrest or a protected
suspect, an investigating official must, before starting to question
the person, caution the person that he or she does not have to say or
do anything, but that anything the person does say or do may be
used in evidence.
(2) The investigating official must inform the person of the caution in
accordance with subsection (1), but need only do so in writing if
that is the most appropriate means of informing the person.
(3) Subsections (1) and (2) do not apply so far as another law of the
Commonwealth requires the person to answer questions put by, or
do things required by, the investigating official.

I don’t see anything in the Civil Aviation Act about CASA requiring persons to answer questions, so I don’t see that subsection 3 applies. Apologies if it does and I’d appreciate the reference.

The protected suspect from (1) is defined in the Act as:
(2) A person is a protected suspect if:
(a) the person is in the company of an investigating official for the purpose of being questioned about a Commonwealth offence; and
(b) the person has not been arrested for the offence; and
(c) one or more of the following applies in relation to the person:
(i) the official believes that there is sufficient evidence to establish that the person has committed the offence;
(ii) the official would not allow the person to leave if the person wished to do so;
(iii) the official has given the person reasonable grounds for believing that the person would not be allowed to leave if he or she wished to do so; and...

This would seem to apply in the case of a CASA official asking questions about any offence that they reasonably believe has been committed.

The list of rights continues...

23G Right to communicate with friend, relative and legal
practitioner
(1) Subject to section 23L, if a person is under arrest or a protected
suspect, an investigating official must, before starting to question
the person, inform the person that he or she may:
(a) communicate, or attempt to communicate, with a friend or
relative to inform that person of his or her whereabouts; and
(b) communicate, or attempt to communicate, with a legal
practitioner of the person’s choice and arrange, or attempt to
arrange, for a legal practitioner of the person’s choice to be
present during the questioning;
and the investigating official must defer the questioning for a
reasonable time to allow the person to make, or attempt to make,
the communication and, if the person has arranged for a legal
practitioner to be present, to allow the legal practitioner to attend
the questioning.

Sections 23H-K, N and P cover the other various rights such as interpreters, interview friends etc. Section 23 L lists the exceptions to this Act (i.e. when these rights need not be given). There are very few and they only really apply where there is a risk that evidence may be fabricated or destroyed or there is a risk to public safety.

S23S asserts that only another Act can force a person to answer questions. As I said, I can’t find anything in the Civil Aviation Act that covers this. In any case, such exclusions are not supposed to usurp the person’s right not to incriminate themselves but more to provide information, e.g. the Customs Act has a couple of these exclusions that relate to identifying imported cargo, where you are obliged to tell them which goods are from overseas.


23S Right to remain silent etc. not affected
Nothing in this Part affects:
(a) the right of a person to refuse to answer questions or to
participate in an investigation except where required to do so
by or under an Act; or
(b) any burden on the prosecution to prove the voluntariness of
an admission or confession made by a person; or
(ba) any burden on the prosecution to prove that an admission or
confession was made in such circumstances as to make it
unlikely that the truth of the admission or confession was
adversely affected; or
(c) the discretion of a court to exclude unfairly obtained
evidence; or
(d) the discretion of a court to exclude illegally or improperly
obtained evidence.

Illegally or improperly obtained evidence generally includes evidence collected by interview without these rights being read.

S23 U/V are interesting, because it doesn’t sound like CASA are following them.

23V Tape recording of confessions and admissions
(1) If a person who is being questioned as a suspect (whether under
arrest or not) makes a confession or admission to an investigating
official, the confession or admission is inadmissible as evidence
against the person in proceedings for any Commonwealth offence
unless:
(a) if the confession or admission was made in circumstances
where it was reasonably practicable to tape record the
confession or admission—the questioning of the person and
anything said by the person during that questioning was tape
recorded; or...

Given the advent of personal recording devices I can’t see any situation where a confession couldn’t be recorded. Every proper LEA in the country has been doing this for some years, and I know of at least one case lost by the Qld Police because they did not record a confession made in a car. There are several exceptions, but all are fairly special-case, like the only recorder breaking down in the middle of the desert or similar.

Are CASA recording investigations at the moment? A copy also has to be provided to the interviewee.

These are the rights provided by the government to all Australians that are routinely read and accorded to every suspect by every law enforcement organization in the country.

I’m far from a lawyer and I’m not overly familiar with the Civil Aviation Act, but these rights generally apply to any person being interviewed by an investigating officer, once that officer has reasonable grounds to suspect that an offence has been committed. They are par for course in all police investigations and with the border agencies (AQIS, Customs and DIMIA) the minute the officer believes that something potentially prosecutable has come up.

It would be interesting to hear a proper legal opinion on the subject.
If CASA wants to be a big tough law enforcer, they should follow the practices and constraints that come with that responsibility and not railroad people into believing they have to talk to the government. If the AFP aren't allowed to do that, why should CASA?

[blackhand]

There seems to be a lack of intellectual rigour here.
Reading through the thread I see CASA being responsible for:
Boeing 747 overshooting a runway in SE Asia
WestWind running out of fuel and options in the south Pacific.
Metro hitting a hill below LSALT in North Queensland.
Citation jet hitting the ground when reported 6000 ft at Mareeba.
Chieftan double engine failure in South Australia

Criticism of CASA not enforcing - i.e. Cowboy Operators.
Criticism of CASA enforcing too much - poor hard done by Operators and Pilots.

Maybe you should try running a 145 or 135 Org in PNG, to see what Micro management by the Regulator is.

Cheers
BH

[Andy_RR]

Originally Posted by blackhand

There seems to be a lack of intellectual rigour here.
Reading through the thread I see CASA being responsible for:
Boeing 747 overshooting a runway in SE Asia
WestWind running out of fuel and options in the south Pacific.
Metro hitting a hill below LSALT in North Queensland.
Citation jet hitting the ground when reported 6000 ft at Mareeba.
Chieftan double engine failure in South Australia

Criticism of CASA not enforcing - i.e. Cowboy Operators.
Criticism of CASA enforcing too much - poor hard done by Operators and Pilots.

Maybe you should try running a 145 or 135 Org in PNG, to see what Micro management by the Regulator is.

Cheers
BH

So, we have to travel to PNG to get world's best practice? Great stuff!

And if CASA isn't responsible for all of the above, what is it responsible for?

[blackhand]

Andy RR

And if CASA isn't responsible for all of the above, what is it responsible for?

I rest my case about lack of intellectual rigour, in fact I would say that you sir are an intellectual dwarf.

Which reminds me, in a recent survey it was found that 6 out of 7 dwarfs are not happy.

So, we have to travel to PNG to get world's best practice? Great stuff!

The PNG CASA Rules are a copy of NZ CAA Rules, so yes you should come and have a look.

Cheers
BH

[blackhand]

Jim Irwin
Far too long friend.

Cheers
BH

[davidgrant]

Hey black adder...err sorry blackhand..." U savi Long Pidgin??"

[megle2]

and the seventh dwarf is named casa
He's not happy unless everyone else is unhappy!

[Rose_Thorns]

Just that

For some strange reason,

'People paid the Black Hand extortionists with the knowledge that American law had no understanding or power to help them, and that the threats carried in Black Hand letters were likely to be carried out if payment was not made'.

It just sounded so familiar.

Courtesy Gang Rule. Com

.

[IMG]file:///tmp/moz-screenshot.png[/IMG]

[Sunfish]

With the greatest of respect Blackhand, don't we need to get back to first principles?

The suggestion is that CASA is taking an approach to its duties that is at variance with worlds best practice.

It is an approach that does not appear to encourage industry participants to engage with CASA at all, on the basis, suggested in Pprune, that any engagement with CASA is likely (according to Pprune), to be deleterious to operators and pilots. This ultimately has to have a negative effect on safety.

We need a regulator. There are cowboys. No one is disputing that. What is being disputed is the question of fairness and natural justice in CASAs activities.

I am already aware that I have (unwittingly) committed criminal offences under a strict interpretation of the Civil Aviation Act through no fault other than being trained as a pilot. No Aviation textbook or instructor ever made me aware of certain legal procedural requirements associated with flying an aircraft and there you have it.

I have since consulted more than one aviation authority regarding my innocent (and totally immaterial) transgressions, and the advice I received was to forget about it since nothing can be done. Should I incur the wrath of CASA I will experience an investigation that ignores the concept of a statute of limitations or the concept of a guilty mind (Mens rea).

I challenge each and every pilot, commercial and private, to declare that they are procedurally and legally (in the opinion of the CASA office of legal counsel) as pure as the driven snow.

Getting back to first principles, such a relationship between regulated and regulators, assuming it is not a fiction dreamed up on Pprune, is not in the public interest.

Paul Phelans article, if true, regarding CASR 91 - 35 FAA pages vs. CASA's 250+ pages, suggests that this is one part of Australian Government that is both expensive and dysfunctional .