Large scale Multi party action against CASA.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Earth
Age: 74
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't let it happen. The world is going to pot, we got to stand up for what is right.
This malaise is endemic these days through all aspects of society, it's a sickness. Not just in this instance, but through every level of society. The military know this all too well.
God bless and all the best.
This malaise is endemic these days through all aspects of society, it's a sickness. Not just in this instance, but through every level of society. The military know this all too well.
God bless and all the best.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Victoria
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The rise and rise of the regulators
• Robin Speed
• From:The Australian
• January 15, 2010 12:00AM
• 33 comments
IN 2009, more than 50,000 pages of new laws were enacted at the federal, state and territory levels. These were in addition to the 100,000s of pages of existing laws.
The consequences are serious. The first is that Australia will cease to be a world leader in being governed in accordance with the rule of law, and instead become ruled by law (there being a fundamental difference). Secondly, the rule of law will be progressively replaced by the rule of the regulator, the antithesis of the rule of law.
As the number and complexities of laws increase, there is a corresponding decrease in knowing and voluntarily observing the laws by the community. And, as it becomes practically impossible for the community to know, let alone apply the law, ensuring compliance is passed to the persons charged with administering the laws - such as ASIC, ACCC, ATO - the regulators. However, it is not practical for the regulators to enforce the mass of laws against everyone, nor even against one person, all the time. They therefore announce how they will apply the law, impose penalties on those who act otherwise, and reward those who act in accordance with their blessings. A few are prosecuted as a warning to the rest of the community. In this way, the rule of the regulator begins.
The result is a fundamental shift in the relationship between the individual and the law. Increasingly, the relationship is not of the individual knowing and complying with what the law states, but of knowing and complying with what the regulators state the law states, and then knowing the extent to which the regulators will apply the law as stated by them.
For many, the new relationship focuses on not being seen by the regulators; keeping the lowest possible profile on those matters that the regulators prioritise for enforcement. What is of practical importance is the relationship of the individual with the regulators. For in such an environment few have the time, fortitude or money to be visible to the regulators and to apply the law in a way that differs from the one taken by the regulators. This new relationship can also be readily observed by the practical necessity of going cap in hand to the regulators for approval to carry out many transactions. For example, in the last eight years the ATO has issued more than 80,000 private rulings on what it says the law says (these rulings became law to the applicant, regardless of what the High Court might declare the law to mean for the rest of the community). No new law administers itself. More and more people are required to be employed by regulators to enforce an increasing number of laws. This becomes difficult, and the next stage in the shift to regulator rule begins.
One of the first signs of this shift is the conferral on the regulators of more and more powers of search, access to private property, detention, telephone tapping, together with the increase in penalties. This happens not because a material number of Australians have suddenly become terrorists or members of organised crime. Rather, the intimidation of existing powers is believed insufficient to obtain compliance, so greater powers and harsher penalties are deemed necessary. Yet the futility of forcing compliance in this way was seen centuries ago by the penalty of hanging for stealing a loaf of bread. Further, the regulators increasingly find it difficult before an independent court to obtain a conviction. The regulators know that a crime has been committed but are frustrated because they have not the powers to get the evidence or get the court to agree with their view of the law. For those who doubt whether Australia is at this stage, they need look no further than the recent unsuccessful prosecutions by ASIC.
One of the other signs of the rule of the regulator is the attempt to reverse the onus of proof so that the regulators can get convictions to send a clear message to the rest of the community. The Australian courts are a real impediment to regulators in this regard as they insist that no one is presumed to be guilty unless proved so. However, if an Act reverses the onus of proof a court can do nothing. The legislative attempts to reverse the onus of proof come in several forms, often behind a government announcement (regardless of political persuasion) that it is "streamlining" or "codifying" the existing laws. This is often accompanied by government publicity demonising the group to be subject to the new law. It is fundamental to the Australian way of life that everyone, whether an alleged terrorist or member of organised crime group, or an ordinary Australian, is presumed to be innocent until the prosecution proves otherwise. Any attempts to weaken that principle must be strongly and loudly resisted.
Robin Speed is president of the Rule of Law Association of Australia.
33 comments on this story
COMMENTS ON THIS STORY
• Paul Phelan of Mount Beauty Posted at 6:16 PM January 16, 2010
Congratulations! Almost every word of Mr Speed's article had relevance to the activities of the legal and compliance/enforcement offices of our aviation regulator. Their success rate in court and in the AAT is deservedly appalling, yet the organisation's track record in shutting down or damaging businesses and destroying the jobs of individuals through "administrative decisions" is awesome. With an aviation industry background and more recently as an aviation writer, I have followed and documented many dozens of such cases, and the most concerning aspect is the ability of wrong-doers at the regulatory body to evade scrutiny and retribution. One reason for this is the legal adventurism that is enabled by an apparently bottomless budget, and another is the lack of external legal oversight. I had literally no idea this malaise was so endemic across so many industries. Is there an acceptable end in sight?
• From:The Australian
• January 15, 2010 12:00AM
• 33 comments
IN 2009, more than 50,000 pages of new laws were enacted at the federal, state and territory levels. These were in addition to the 100,000s of pages of existing laws.
The consequences are serious. The first is that Australia will cease to be a world leader in being governed in accordance with the rule of law, and instead become ruled by law (there being a fundamental difference). Secondly, the rule of law will be progressively replaced by the rule of the regulator, the antithesis of the rule of law.
As the number and complexities of laws increase, there is a corresponding decrease in knowing and voluntarily observing the laws by the community. And, as it becomes practically impossible for the community to know, let alone apply the law, ensuring compliance is passed to the persons charged with administering the laws - such as ASIC, ACCC, ATO - the regulators. However, it is not practical for the regulators to enforce the mass of laws against everyone, nor even against one person, all the time. They therefore announce how they will apply the law, impose penalties on those who act otherwise, and reward those who act in accordance with their blessings. A few are prosecuted as a warning to the rest of the community. In this way, the rule of the regulator begins.
The result is a fundamental shift in the relationship between the individual and the law. Increasingly, the relationship is not of the individual knowing and complying with what the law states, but of knowing and complying with what the regulators state the law states, and then knowing the extent to which the regulators will apply the law as stated by them.
For many, the new relationship focuses on not being seen by the regulators; keeping the lowest possible profile on those matters that the regulators prioritise for enforcement. What is of practical importance is the relationship of the individual with the regulators. For in such an environment few have the time, fortitude or money to be visible to the regulators and to apply the law in a way that differs from the one taken by the regulators. This new relationship can also be readily observed by the practical necessity of going cap in hand to the regulators for approval to carry out many transactions. For example, in the last eight years the ATO has issued more than 80,000 private rulings on what it says the law says (these rulings became law to the applicant, regardless of what the High Court might declare the law to mean for the rest of the community). No new law administers itself. More and more people are required to be employed by regulators to enforce an increasing number of laws. This becomes difficult, and the next stage in the shift to regulator rule begins.
One of the first signs of this shift is the conferral on the regulators of more and more powers of search, access to private property, detention, telephone tapping, together with the increase in penalties. This happens not because a material number of Australians have suddenly become terrorists or members of organised crime. Rather, the intimidation of existing powers is believed insufficient to obtain compliance, so greater powers and harsher penalties are deemed necessary. Yet the futility of forcing compliance in this way was seen centuries ago by the penalty of hanging for stealing a loaf of bread. Further, the regulators increasingly find it difficult before an independent court to obtain a conviction. The regulators know that a crime has been committed but are frustrated because they have not the powers to get the evidence or get the court to agree with their view of the law. For those who doubt whether Australia is at this stage, they need look no further than the recent unsuccessful prosecutions by ASIC.
One of the other signs of the rule of the regulator is the attempt to reverse the onus of proof so that the regulators can get convictions to send a clear message to the rest of the community. The Australian courts are a real impediment to regulators in this regard as they insist that no one is presumed to be guilty unless proved so. However, if an Act reverses the onus of proof a court can do nothing. The legislative attempts to reverse the onus of proof come in several forms, often behind a government announcement (regardless of political persuasion) that it is "streamlining" or "codifying" the existing laws. This is often accompanied by government publicity demonising the group to be subject to the new law. It is fundamental to the Australian way of life that everyone, whether an alleged terrorist or member of organised crime group, or an ordinary Australian, is presumed to be innocent until the prosecution proves otherwise. Any attempts to weaken that principle must be strongly and loudly resisted.
Robin Speed is president of the Rule of Law Association of Australia.
33 comments on this story
COMMENTS ON THIS STORY
• Paul Phelan of Mount Beauty Posted at 6:16 PM January 16, 2010
Congratulations! Almost every word of Mr Speed's article had relevance to the activities of the legal and compliance/enforcement offices of our aviation regulator. Their success rate in court and in the AAT is deservedly appalling, yet the organisation's track record in shutting down or damaging businesses and destroying the jobs of individuals through "administrative decisions" is awesome. With an aviation industry background and more recently as an aviation writer, I have followed and documented many dozens of such cases, and the most concerning aspect is the ability of wrong-doers at the regulatory body to evade scrutiny and retribution. One reason for this is the legal adventurism that is enabled by an apparently bottomless budget, and another is the lack of external legal oversight. I had literally no idea this malaise was so endemic across so many industries. Is there an acceptable end in sight?
the simple life....
majorrazor..has obviously led a very simple and sheltered aviation ? life.... and not had the misfortune to be on the receiving end of CASA BS bullies who wish to exercise their penile power muscle and give you a shafting.
I can supply ...if you are interested.. documentary evidence of gross misfeasance by CASA persons who should be in jail... not (non) Aviation House, for spiteful/ wrongful attacks on individuals who have NOT broken any regulation, and the CASA persons themselves were complicite in the criminality !!!
There are MANY victims out there..just because you havent heard of any, doesnt mean its not happening. Think youself bloody lucky it hasnt happened to you...yet. Like down in the woods... you'll be in for a BIG surprise.!
CASA is a dysfunctional train wreck of ratbag regulation and (some) very vindictive employees; truly, pschologically unfit for the job.
They will say and do anything to make a case: for these bastards "truth" and "honesty" aren't in their vocabulary.
I can supply ...if you are interested.. documentary evidence of gross misfeasance by CASA persons who should be in jail... not (non) Aviation House, for spiteful/ wrongful attacks on individuals who have NOT broken any regulation, and the CASA persons themselves were complicite in the criminality !!!
There are MANY victims out there..just because you havent heard of any, doesnt mean its not happening. Think youself bloody lucky it hasnt happened to you...yet. Like down in the woods... you'll be in for a BIG surprise.!
CASA is a dysfunctional train wreck of ratbag regulation and (some) very vindictive employees; truly, pschologically unfit for the job.
They will say and do anything to make a case: for these bastards "truth" and "honesty" aren't in their vocabulary.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They are only slow -
- because, basically, we are a peaceful people. Who needs a fuss half an hour before the BBQ.
Get into lads, may be the only, once ever chance to have your say.
Get into lads, may be the only, once ever chance to have your say.
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Queensland
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Another side to the story
Frank sorry to hear you have had so much trouble with CASA but I feel compelled to share one other side of the story.
By way of background I've been in the Oz GA industry as a commercial pilot since 1979, in numerous roles from instructor to chief pilot. Not as long as yourself but over 30 years none the less. I've established my own charter business operating multiple twins, written a few ops manuals for myself and others etc. I have never worked for the regulator.
CASA and its predecessors like any organisation is not without its faults but... it has been my experience that CASA performs its role reasonably well given the circumstances. I have had a number of FOI’s over the years, interactions with various others and I have at all times found the individuals I have dealt with to be dedicated professionals there to help.
In the 80's when as a young pilot I wanted to establish a charter business, quite a few at my local airport (a secondary control zone) told me I was nuts and that they were all bastards and I'd never get one. Quite disheartened and almost persuaded I was wasting my time I made an appointment and went into Lonsdale St to meet with the Dept Aviation Flying Operations Manager. I had one question... Everyone tells me you guys probably won't give me a charter license and are hard to deal with, am I wasting my time applying and what does one have to do to make do this successfully?
His reply surprised me. He told me coming to see him first was a good start, going on to explain that in his time he couldn't remember anyone doing that up front. He then spent a terrific hour with me. I talked about what I wanted to do and he explaining how to go about it properly and where applicants mostly go wrong. The essence of the conversation was that they found it challenging that so many people simply copy an existing ops manual, see applying for a charter license as a paperwork process, then get up and running and exist in an environment where cutting corners is the norm and safety often compromised. "All" they wanted... were people to be professional and take safety seriously.
With that I wrote my own ops manual tailored to "my" operation, wrote my first business plan ever, taught myself how to identify up front areas where safety could easily be compromised and wrote a handful of procedures that would prevent that up front.
The department gave me my charter license with strong support. My Chief Pilot interview was great - being young I was far from perfect but the interviewer could not have been more pleasant and helpful. Every annual inspection was a good experience. I use to look forward to meeting with my various FOI's. Like all of us I had non-conformances and things they wanted fixed but that's "not" a bag thing, it's the purpose of the inspection. I viewed NC's as a good thing and would eagerly action them as part of a continuous improvement process (not that I knew that was the name of what we were doing at the time). I use to look forward to an hour or so with my FOI after the inspection shooting the breeze and dumping a pile of questions I'd accumulate between inspections.
We operated for several years without incident and during that time I was amazed that most other operators would dread their inspections.
The point I'm trying to make is that over the years I've heard many people criticise CASA, The DOA, CAA or whoever it was at the time, complaining about this or that, bagging individuals, always up for a fight etc. At the same time I have seen many GA business operate with no business plan, their arse hanging out of their pants, operating less than adequately maintained aircraft, with little regard for the pilots they employed. I suspect that the confrontational tone some have with CASA may be part of their problem.
All I did was (inadvertently) take the approach of "What can I do to help them help me" In the end I had to do very little, but "they" did a lot. I learnt much and had some great mentors who made themselves available to me over the years.
Now as I said I'm not saying CASA or all its people are perfect. Perhaps because like us they are not perfect they sometimes respond to how they are treated and react accordingly. Your claim of large numbers of "PM's" surprises me.
Litigation is complex, expensive, and fraught with challenges and there is only ever one winner and that's the lawyers. I don’t know the facts of your case but if it were me, I'd put my guns back in there holsters, carefully think what exactly it is you want from CASA, then go and sit down with the guys and mediate. You may get a far better, less stressful and certainly less costly outcome. This industry is tough enough as it is, we need to work together.
I sincerely hope somehow you can find a path forward that leads to a satisfactory result for you.
For any young new entrants to the industry my message is there is a "whole" other side to this story.
By way of background I've been in the Oz GA industry as a commercial pilot since 1979, in numerous roles from instructor to chief pilot. Not as long as yourself but over 30 years none the less. I've established my own charter business operating multiple twins, written a few ops manuals for myself and others etc. I have never worked for the regulator.
CASA and its predecessors like any organisation is not without its faults but... it has been my experience that CASA performs its role reasonably well given the circumstances. I have had a number of FOI’s over the years, interactions with various others and I have at all times found the individuals I have dealt with to be dedicated professionals there to help.
In the 80's when as a young pilot I wanted to establish a charter business, quite a few at my local airport (a secondary control zone) told me I was nuts and that they were all bastards and I'd never get one. Quite disheartened and almost persuaded I was wasting my time I made an appointment and went into Lonsdale St to meet with the Dept Aviation Flying Operations Manager. I had one question... Everyone tells me you guys probably won't give me a charter license and are hard to deal with, am I wasting my time applying and what does one have to do to make do this successfully?
His reply surprised me. He told me coming to see him first was a good start, going on to explain that in his time he couldn't remember anyone doing that up front. He then spent a terrific hour with me. I talked about what I wanted to do and he explaining how to go about it properly and where applicants mostly go wrong. The essence of the conversation was that they found it challenging that so many people simply copy an existing ops manual, see applying for a charter license as a paperwork process, then get up and running and exist in an environment where cutting corners is the norm and safety often compromised. "All" they wanted... were people to be professional and take safety seriously.
With that I wrote my own ops manual tailored to "my" operation, wrote my first business plan ever, taught myself how to identify up front areas where safety could easily be compromised and wrote a handful of procedures that would prevent that up front.
The department gave me my charter license with strong support. My Chief Pilot interview was great - being young I was far from perfect but the interviewer could not have been more pleasant and helpful. Every annual inspection was a good experience. I use to look forward to meeting with my various FOI's. Like all of us I had non-conformances and things they wanted fixed but that's "not" a bag thing, it's the purpose of the inspection. I viewed NC's as a good thing and would eagerly action them as part of a continuous improvement process (not that I knew that was the name of what we were doing at the time). I use to look forward to an hour or so with my FOI after the inspection shooting the breeze and dumping a pile of questions I'd accumulate between inspections.
We operated for several years without incident and during that time I was amazed that most other operators would dread their inspections.
The point I'm trying to make is that over the years I've heard many people criticise CASA, The DOA, CAA or whoever it was at the time, complaining about this or that, bagging individuals, always up for a fight etc. At the same time I have seen many GA business operate with no business plan, their arse hanging out of their pants, operating less than adequately maintained aircraft, with little regard for the pilots they employed. I suspect that the confrontational tone some have with CASA may be part of their problem.
All I did was (inadvertently) take the approach of "What can I do to help them help me" In the end I had to do very little, but "they" did a lot. I learnt much and had some great mentors who made themselves available to me over the years.
Now as I said I'm not saying CASA or all its people are perfect. Perhaps because like us they are not perfect they sometimes respond to how they are treated and react accordingly. Your claim of large numbers of "PM's" surprises me.
Litigation is complex, expensive, and fraught with challenges and there is only ever one winner and that's the lawyers. I don’t know the facts of your case but if it were me, I'd put my guns back in there holsters, carefully think what exactly it is you want from CASA, then go and sit down with the guys and mediate. You may get a far better, less stressful and certainly less costly outcome. This industry is tough enough as it is, we need to work together.
I sincerely hope somehow you can find a path forward that leads to a satisfactory result for you.
For any young new entrants to the industry my message is there is a "whole" other side to this story.
Thread Starter
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
Kowolski;
I don't have any current trouble with CASA. My matter is closed with a TKO by myself having won $30K and only lost $100K.
I have no desire to reopen any old matters and act simply out of a frustration of listening to people whinge about CASA but do noting about it. My challenge was to those, to put together their respective cases and I would see things through until something had legs of it's own. There is now a groundswell of support that I may soon stand down. You certainly have been living a sheltered life if you find it hard to believe the amount of response to this thread.
I personally know many dedicated people, some very high within CASA, and I have seen some very good people go by the wayside. (Some I may add that were involved in my particular matter). These blokes were "sacrificed" for the common "good".
Be this as it may, there is a plethora of remnant vegetation that obey no known rules of law or common decency. They are thugs, stand-over men and gangsters. One very senior was recently and accurately called a "corporate psychopath"
The word "cronyism" comes to mind so often that it appears endemic to that particular organization. I hope you have prospered out of your own abilities and not done so as a result of being what's called "compliant" or having known someone.
CASA have a system of "mentor-ism" which guarantees all the bad influences are handed down from generation to generation and the incumbents appear unaware of the fact that some problem must exist if so many people hate them.
As for sitting down and "mediating" with CASA, I would strongly advise anyone "NOT" to take this course of action. Do so at your peril.
I must say I am struggling with your bona fides and suspect the worst. But you have the benefit of the doubt for the time being.
I don't have any current trouble with CASA. My matter is closed with a TKO by myself having won $30K and only lost $100K.
I have no desire to reopen any old matters and act simply out of a frustration of listening to people whinge about CASA but do noting about it. My challenge was to those, to put together their respective cases and I would see things through until something had legs of it's own. There is now a groundswell of support that I may soon stand down. You certainly have been living a sheltered life if you find it hard to believe the amount of response to this thread.
I personally know many dedicated people, some very high within CASA, and I have seen some very good people go by the wayside. (Some I may add that were involved in my particular matter). These blokes were "sacrificed" for the common "good".
Be this as it may, there is a plethora of remnant vegetation that obey no known rules of law or common decency. They are thugs, stand-over men and gangsters. One very senior was recently and accurately called a "corporate psychopath"
The word "cronyism" comes to mind so often that it appears endemic to that particular organization. I hope you have prospered out of your own abilities and not done so as a result of being what's called "compliant" or having known someone.
CASA have a system of "mentor-ism" which guarantees all the bad influences are handed down from generation to generation and the incumbents appear unaware of the fact that some problem must exist if so many people hate them.
As for sitting down and "mediating" with CASA, I would strongly advise anyone "NOT" to take this course of action. Do so at your peril.
I must say I am struggling with your bona fides and suspect the worst. But you have the benefit of the doubt for the time being.
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Queensland
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Appreciate your point of view Frank. Your experience is unfortunate.
After 30 plus years in the GA industry at the driving end I smile at someone uncertain as to my bona fides.
After 30 plus years in the GA industry at the driving end I smile at someone uncertain as to my bona fides.
Thread Starter
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'm into my 46th year and I see nothing to smile about. Sorry mate, just call me cynical.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Its interesting Frank, that regardless, when a complaint is made, these people suddenly appear out of the wood work, almost on Cue, telling us what a "wonderful" organisation and job CASA is doing.
Yet a troll around various websites turns up continuous criticism and angst from within the Industry. These people label us all as "Cowboys", and with the added input of CASA's spin doctors the general perception
is thats exactly what we are in the public's mind.
Can anyone ever remember when CASA had "ANYTHING" positive to say about GA. We are a bunch of homicidal maniacs hell bent on wiping out the entire population of Australia, and the only thing standing between them and "US" is Ta Da...CASA..I'm surprised the spin doctors dont have the "SKULL" mounted on a white charger dressed in armour holding aloft escalibur!! Look great in their self promotional press releases!!
To those CASA apologists who say abide by the rules and you are safe, I say, get off your collective asses and give us a set of rules thet we can understand,are not open to a wide variety of interpretation,dependant on the FOI of the day, that meet world best practice, are ICAO compliant and conform to the directions YOU were given by the government of the day. You've blown 300 million of the taxpayers money pissing about with no result, that in itself is IMHO corruption on a grand scale.
Meanwhile across the Tasman the GA industry continues to grow and prosper, with a safety record which makes ours look like a joke, much the same as the USA's does, something you will never admit to a gullible public.
Frank, its easy to critisize, but its meaninless unless an alternative is offered, thats why I am impressed by the AMROBA website, they dont just critisize they offer alternatives, and a call to everyone in this industry we have spent our lives in, and love, to unite and face down these incompetents destroying our industry.
There has just been a judgement handed down from the AAT which many have commented on, a business shutdown and many thrown out of work.
Given the "horrendous" crimes allegely committed, when will the perpetrators be bought to "Justice"???.....Bit of a problem though, they would have to be bought before a "Proper" court, in front of a "Proper unbiased Judge" who perhaps would take a dim view of manufactured "evidence" and perjury. If these people are not charged then its a fair indication of the "Crock of S...t" the AAT is, and how it is used and manipulated by the regulators to avoid the rule of law.
Yet a troll around various websites turns up continuous criticism and angst from within the Industry. These people label us all as "Cowboys", and with the added input of CASA's spin doctors the general perception
is thats exactly what we are in the public's mind.
Can anyone ever remember when CASA had "ANYTHING" positive to say about GA. We are a bunch of homicidal maniacs hell bent on wiping out the entire population of Australia, and the only thing standing between them and "US" is Ta Da...CASA..I'm surprised the spin doctors dont have the "SKULL" mounted on a white charger dressed in armour holding aloft escalibur!! Look great in their self promotional press releases!!
To those CASA apologists who say abide by the rules and you are safe, I say, get off your collective asses and give us a set of rules thet we can understand,are not open to a wide variety of interpretation,dependant on the FOI of the day, that meet world best practice, are ICAO compliant and conform to the directions YOU were given by the government of the day. You've blown 300 million of the taxpayers money pissing about with no result, that in itself is IMHO corruption on a grand scale.
Meanwhile across the Tasman the GA industry continues to grow and prosper, with a safety record which makes ours look like a joke, much the same as the USA's does, something you will never admit to a gullible public.
Frank, its easy to critisize, but its meaninless unless an alternative is offered, thats why I am impressed by the AMROBA website, they dont just critisize they offer alternatives, and a call to everyone in this industry we have spent our lives in, and love, to unite and face down these incompetents destroying our industry.
There has just been a judgement handed down from the AAT which many have commented on, a business shutdown and many thrown out of work.
Given the "horrendous" crimes allegely committed, when will the perpetrators be bought to "Justice"???.....Bit of a problem though, they would have to be bought before a "Proper" court, in front of a "Proper unbiased Judge" who perhaps would take a dim view of manufactured "evidence" and perjury. If these people are not charged then its a fair indication of the "Crock of S...t" the AAT is, and how it is used and manipulated by the regulators to avoid the rule of law.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Sydney
Age: 43
Posts: 263
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thornbird - a thorough reading of the AAT decision shows a number of things. In the first instance, I saw a number of points where the decision was against CASA, either because their evidence could not be corroborated or the line of attack they took was not able to be backed up. To my reading it was a considered and balanced decision reached.
I would think if CASA could find criminal charges, I am sure they would persue them, if nothing else to wave around headlines. Standard practice for a government regulator. But the AOC suspension is not about a raft of convictions - its about the confidence CASA has that the operator was safe.
There is plenty in the AAT decision that shows this operator was an accident waiting to happen. The pressures to do jobs fatigued, the "go up and see what its like" attitude to icing and poor weather, the implied resistance to adding MR entries. You might argue these are subjective, but there were enough pilots and witnesses for the AAT to find these conditions existed. But then on top of this the history of the operator shows even when given time and opportunity to fix issues raised in audits they did not. The way they dodged and tried to shift issues between their two AOCs shows they were not interested in fixing them, they were more interested in dodging blame. To my mind, CASA actually took too long to bring this to a conclusion and it cost three people their lives.
I am not saying there is not a case for review of the way CASA operates. There seems to be plenty of examples raised on this forum alone where power is unchecked and the right of reply is limited, as well as examples of vendettas and personal issues escalating to administrative action. But if you are going to argue that, don't use the recent AAT decision - there was more than enough in that to show CASA took the correct action.
I would think if CASA could find criminal charges, I am sure they would persue them, if nothing else to wave around headlines. Standard practice for a government regulator. But the AOC suspension is not about a raft of convictions - its about the confidence CASA has that the operator was safe.
There is plenty in the AAT decision that shows this operator was an accident waiting to happen. The pressures to do jobs fatigued, the "go up and see what its like" attitude to icing and poor weather, the implied resistance to adding MR entries. You might argue these are subjective, but there were enough pilots and witnesses for the AAT to find these conditions existed. But then on top of this the history of the operator shows even when given time and opportunity to fix issues raised in audits they did not. The way they dodged and tried to shift issues between their two AOCs shows they were not interested in fixing them, they were more interested in dodging blame. To my mind, CASA actually took too long to bring this to a conclusion and it cost three people their lives.
I am not saying there is not a case for review of the way CASA operates. There seems to be plenty of examples raised on this forum alone where power is unchecked and the right of reply is limited, as well as examples of vendettas and personal issues escalating to administrative action. But if you are going to argue that, don't use the recent AAT decision - there was more than enough in that to show CASA took the correct action.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: More than 300km from SY, Australia
Posts: 817
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CASA problems
CASA problems
The need for a regulator to regulate is important in this argument. However, every time there is a rule, there are potentially more errors introduced into the argument.
We need to look at the regulator carefully and see if the regulator is regulating to improve or just paper up the lower part of their body.
There are many cases where "the rules" just make the decision making of the pilot more difficult. The Whyalla incident, where CASA acted quickly is one - acted against the operator, but the problem eventually was an endemic issue with the TIO-540 crankshafts.
Where is the operator now??
Where are the jobs??
Did the operator get an apology???
I attach the ATSB report to refresh our memories:
Release of the Whyalla Airlines Piper Chieftain, VH-MZK report
Date: 19 December 2001
The final report on the Whyalla Airlines Piper Chieftain VH-MZK accident on 31 May 2000, in which all eight occupants died, was released today by the Australian Transport Safety Bureau.
ATSB Executive Director, Kym Bills, made the following statement: "The VH-MZK accident occurred after mechanical failures involving both engines forced the pilot to ditch the aircraft in Spencer Gulf, about 26km from Whyalla, on a dark, cloudy and moonless night.
Based on careful analysis of the engine failures and recorded radar and audio data, it is likely that the left engine failed first as a result of a fatigue crack in the crankshaft. This was initiated about 50 flights before the accident flight due to the breakdown of a connecting rod bearing insert. The combined effects of high combustion gas pressures developed as a result of deposit-induced pre-ignition, and lowered bearing insert retention forces due to an 'anti-galling' lubricating compound used during engine assembly by the manufacturer, led to this breakdown.
Lean fuel practices used by the operator increased the likelihood of lead oxybromide deposit-induced pre-ignition but were within the engine operating limits set by the aircraft manufacturer.
It is likely that because of the increased power demanded of the right engine after the left engine failed, abnormal combustion (detonation) occurred and rapidly raised the temperature of the pistons and cylinder heads. As a result, a hole melted in the number 6 piston causing loss of engine power and erratic engine operation. The subsequent ditching involved great pilot skill.
The ATSB examined components from a further ten similar engines that have failed since January 2000 (including two engines from another manufacturer) in order to better understand the failure mechanisms. Combustion chamber deposits that may create lead oxybromide deposit-induced pre-ignition were found in these engines. The Bureau concluded that engines that were operated at lean fuel-air mixtures during climb, and towards best economy mixtures during cruise flight, were more likely to show signs of such deposit-induced pre-ignition than those engines operated at full rich mixture during climb and at best power mixture during cruise.
On 30 October 2000 ATSB released recommendations about the risks of detonation and lean running and in relation to the desirability of life jackets and other life-saving equipment on smaller passenger aircraft flying over water. Today, we release further recommendations to:
No-one should be blamed for this accident, but if the lessons from it are learned, both in Australia and internationally, some good will have come from the tragic deaths of eight people."
Media Contact: 1800 020 616 Last update 04 February 2011
The need for a regulator to regulate is important in this argument. However, every time there is a rule, there are potentially more errors introduced into the argument.
We need to look at the regulator carefully and see if the regulator is regulating to improve or just paper up the lower part of their body.
There are many cases where "the rules" just make the decision making of the pilot more difficult. The Whyalla incident, where CASA acted quickly is one - acted against the operator, but the problem eventually was an endemic issue with the TIO-540 crankshafts.
Where is the operator now??
Where are the jobs??
Did the operator get an apology???
I attach the ATSB report to refresh our memories:
Release of the Whyalla Airlines Piper Chieftain, VH-MZK report
Date: 19 December 2001
The final report on the Whyalla Airlines Piper Chieftain VH-MZK accident on 31 May 2000, in which all eight occupants died, was released today by the Australian Transport Safety Bureau.
ATSB Executive Director, Kym Bills, made the following statement: "The VH-MZK accident occurred after mechanical failures involving both engines forced the pilot to ditch the aircraft in Spencer Gulf, about 26km from Whyalla, on a dark, cloudy and moonless night.
Based on careful analysis of the engine failures and recorded radar and audio data, it is likely that the left engine failed first as a result of a fatigue crack in the crankshaft. This was initiated about 50 flights before the accident flight due to the breakdown of a connecting rod bearing insert. The combined effects of high combustion gas pressures developed as a result of deposit-induced pre-ignition, and lowered bearing insert retention forces due to an 'anti-galling' lubricating compound used during engine assembly by the manufacturer, led to this breakdown.
Lean fuel practices used by the operator increased the likelihood of lead oxybromide deposit-induced pre-ignition but were within the engine operating limits set by the aircraft manufacturer.
It is likely that because of the increased power demanded of the right engine after the left engine failed, abnormal combustion (detonation) occurred and rapidly raised the temperature of the pistons and cylinder heads. As a result, a hole melted in the number 6 piston causing loss of engine power and erratic engine operation. The subsequent ditching involved great pilot skill.
The ATSB examined components from a further ten similar engines that have failed since January 2000 (including two engines from another manufacturer) in order to better understand the failure mechanisms. Combustion chamber deposits that may create lead oxybromide deposit-induced pre-ignition were found in these engines. The Bureau concluded that engines that were operated at lean fuel-air mixtures during climb, and towards best economy mixtures during cruise flight, were more likely to show signs of such deposit-induced pre-ignition than those engines operated at full rich mixture during climb and at best power mixture during cruise.
On 30 October 2000 ATSB released recommendations about the risks of detonation and lean running and in relation to the desirability of life jackets and other life-saving equipment on smaller passenger aircraft flying over water. Today, we release further recommendations to:
- the US FAA in relation to engine deposits that may cause pre-ignition;
- the US FAA and the engine manufacturer on the use of anti-galling compounds between connecting rod bearing inserts and housings during engine assembly;
- CASA in relation to high power piston engine reliability more generally; and
- CASA in relation to providing guidance to pilots on ditching.
No-one should be blamed for this accident, but if the lessons from it are learned, both in Australia and internationally, some good will have come from the tragic deaths of eight people."
Media Contact: 1800 020 616 Last update 04 February 2011
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sale, Australia
Age: 80
Posts: 3,832
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From "Business & Commercial Aviation" February, 2011
Curbing the FAA’s Enforcement Overreach
A proposal by the NTSB could help level the field for FAA certificate holders accused of violating the FARs.
The NTSB recently took a first STEP that could provide FAA certificate holders a better chance of receiving a fair shake if they run afoul of FAA safety inspectors.
In an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) published just before Christmas, the NTSB said it is considering a change in the rules under which the agency's administrative law judges adjudicate appeals of "emergency" certificate suspensions or revocations by the FAA.
Nearly eight years ago, the NTSB adopted a final rule that provides: "Within five days after the Board's receipt of [a petition for review of the FAA’s emergency determination], the ... law judge ... shall dispose of the petition by written order, and, in so doing, shall consider whether, based on the acts and omissions alleged in the administrator's order, and assuming the truth of such factual allegations, the administrator's emergency determination was appropriate under the circumstances, given the potential threat to aviation safety. . ."
In the new ANPRM, the NTSB said it recently received requests from outside organizations to further alter the standard of review for emergency determinations. "In particular, parties have asked the NTSB to consider removing the language of Section 821.54(e) that provides the law judge should assume that the acts and omissions alleged in the FAA’s emergency order are true."
In non-emergency cases, FAA certificate holders can continue to exercise the privileges of the affected certificate while appealing the proposed suspension or revocation to an NTSB administrative law judge (ALJ). That means they can continue to fly or operate their business while hiring legal counsel and attempting to get violation notices reversed and proposed penalties overturned, or modified. If confronted with an unfavorable ruling by the ALJ, the certificate holder can appeal that decision to the full NTSB. The entire process, which can stretch out for months, provides an opportunity for certificate holders to make their case while retaining their certificates until the matter has been fully adjudicated.
But, if the FAA inspector decides the violation constitutes an "emergency," the certificate holder faces an almost impossible task to retain his certificate. First, since the FAA is presumed to be acting to protect air safety, its suspension or revocation order is effective immediately. That means the certificate holder is out of business during the appeals process. Five days whiz past like 5 min. when the feds are on your case and you're trying to produce documents and hire an attorney. And since NTSB law judges currently are required to assume the acts and omissions alleged by the FAA are true, the deck is stacked against the certificate holder from the get-go.
NATA President Jim Coyne feels the changes proposed in the ANPRM are long overdue because of due process concerns that the current standard raises. "It's just a fundamental fairness issue for us when anyone in government comes down on [a certificate holder] and has this overwhelming power to put you out of business in a heartbeat," Coyne said.
Aviation practitioners have complained for years that FAA inspectors and attorneys were running roughshod over certificate holders, imposing penalties that were disproportionate to the types of violations found. An egregious example of this tendency was the FAA’s prosecution of air ambulance operator Air Trek Inc. of Punta Gorda, Fla. After a four-day inspection of the company's facilities and records in May 2008, FAA officials filed a lengthy list of allegations and issued an emergency revocation of its FAR Part 135 operating certificate on June 10, 2008.
Instead of rolling over and abandoning the family-owned business, Air Trek officials hired legal counsel and fought back. The original FAA complaint listed "allegations of 14 regulatory provisions and 38 factual allegation paragraphs within 10 counts," according to the NTSB.
But "Counsel for the [FAA] administrator almost immediately began having difficulties in presenting his case," the NTSB said. "At the outset of the nine-day hearing ... the administrator withdrew seven paragraphs in three counts and two regulatory violations. By the fourth day of the proceedings, the administrator had withdrawn half of the factual allegations, six counts and eight FAR violations." In the end, the ALJ upheld only three FAR violations against the company, a ruling upheld by the full NTSB when the FAA appealed the ALJ's ruling.
The determination shown by Air Trek officials in spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to fight the FAA allegations and get their operating certificate reinstated is the exception, Coyne said, observing that most such cases involve "citizens and small businesses who are hopelessly outgunned [by the government] most of the time." The current system "is an abuse of power if there are no checks and balances," Coyne said, because it denies certificate holders "the fundamental right we give all defendants in our legal system - the assumption that they're innocent until proven guilty."
Comments on the ANPRM, which also solicits suggestions for changes to the NTSB's rules governing the discovery process and exchanges of information in air safety enforcement proceedings, are due Feb. 22. Procedures for filing comments can be found on the NTSB website under 'Press Releases and Advisories," by accessing a Dec. 22 press release with a link to the rulemaking notice. If you think that the current appeals process for certificate actions is flawed, this is your chance to weigh in and suggest ways to make it better ... because you never know when FAA inspectors might come knocking on your door asking for five years of paperwork.
Curbing the FAA’s Enforcement Overreach
A proposal by the NTSB could help level the field for FAA certificate holders accused of violating the FARs.
The NTSB recently took a first STEP that could provide FAA certificate holders a better chance of receiving a fair shake if they run afoul of FAA safety inspectors.
In an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) published just before Christmas, the NTSB said it is considering a change in the rules under which the agency's administrative law judges adjudicate appeals of "emergency" certificate suspensions or revocations by the FAA.
Nearly eight years ago, the NTSB adopted a final rule that provides: "Within five days after the Board's receipt of [a petition for review of the FAA’s emergency determination], the ... law judge ... shall dispose of the petition by written order, and, in so doing, shall consider whether, based on the acts and omissions alleged in the administrator's order, and assuming the truth of such factual allegations, the administrator's emergency determination was appropriate under the circumstances, given the potential threat to aviation safety. . ."
In the new ANPRM, the NTSB said it recently received requests from outside organizations to further alter the standard of review for emergency determinations. "In particular, parties have asked the NTSB to consider removing the language of Section 821.54(e) that provides the law judge should assume that the acts and omissions alleged in the FAA’s emergency order are true."
In non-emergency cases, FAA certificate holders can continue to exercise the privileges of the affected certificate while appealing the proposed suspension or revocation to an NTSB administrative law judge (ALJ). That means they can continue to fly or operate their business while hiring legal counsel and attempting to get violation notices reversed and proposed penalties overturned, or modified. If confronted with an unfavorable ruling by the ALJ, the certificate holder can appeal that decision to the full NTSB. The entire process, which can stretch out for months, provides an opportunity for certificate holders to make their case while retaining their certificates until the matter has been fully adjudicated.
But, if the FAA inspector decides the violation constitutes an "emergency," the certificate holder faces an almost impossible task to retain his certificate. First, since the FAA is presumed to be acting to protect air safety, its suspension or revocation order is effective immediately. That means the certificate holder is out of business during the appeals process. Five days whiz past like 5 min. when the feds are on your case and you're trying to produce documents and hire an attorney. And since NTSB law judges currently are required to assume the acts and omissions alleged by the FAA are true, the deck is stacked against the certificate holder from the get-go.
NATA President Jim Coyne feels the changes proposed in the ANPRM are long overdue because of due process concerns that the current standard raises. "It's just a fundamental fairness issue for us when anyone in government comes down on [a certificate holder] and has this overwhelming power to put you out of business in a heartbeat," Coyne said.
Aviation practitioners have complained for years that FAA inspectors and attorneys were running roughshod over certificate holders, imposing penalties that were disproportionate to the types of violations found. An egregious example of this tendency was the FAA’s prosecution of air ambulance operator Air Trek Inc. of Punta Gorda, Fla. After a four-day inspection of the company's facilities and records in May 2008, FAA officials filed a lengthy list of allegations and issued an emergency revocation of its FAR Part 135 operating certificate on June 10, 2008.
Instead of rolling over and abandoning the family-owned business, Air Trek officials hired legal counsel and fought back. The original FAA complaint listed "allegations of 14 regulatory provisions and 38 factual allegation paragraphs within 10 counts," according to the NTSB.
But "Counsel for the [FAA] administrator almost immediately began having difficulties in presenting his case," the NTSB said. "At the outset of the nine-day hearing ... the administrator withdrew seven paragraphs in three counts and two regulatory violations. By the fourth day of the proceedings, the administrator had withdrawn half of the factual allegations, six counts and eight FAR violations." In the end, the ALJ upheld only three FAR violations against the company, a ruling upheld by the full NTSB when the FAA appealed the ALJ's ruling.
The determination shown by Air Trek officials in spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to fight the FAA allegations and get their operating certificate reinstated is the exception, Coyne said, observing that most such cases involve "citizens and small businesses who are hopelessly outgunned [by the government] most of the time." The current system "is an abuse of power if there are no checks and balances," Coyne said, because it denies certificate holders "the fundamental right we give all defendants in our legal system - the assumption that they're innocent until proven guilty."
Comments on the ANPRM, which also solicits suggestions for changes to the NTSB's rules governing the discovery process and exchanges of information in air safety enforcement proceedings, are due Feb. 22. Procedures for filing comments can be found on the NTSB website under 'Press Releases and Advisories," by accessing a Dec. 22 press release with a link to the rulemaking notice. If you think that the current appeals process for certificate actions is flawed, this is your chance to weigh in and suggest ways to make it better ... because you never know when FAA inspectors might come knocking on your door asking for five years of paperwork.
Thread Starter
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
"Within five days after the Board's receipt of [a petition for review of the FAA’s emergency determination], the ... law judge ... shall dispose of the petition by written order, and, in so doing, shall consider whether, based on the acts and omissions alleged in the administrator's order, and assuming the truth of such factual allegations, the administrator's emergency determination was appropriate under the circumstances, given the potential threat to aviation safety. . ."
Model litigants.
My ar
e!
Frank, the thing that’s so right about your posts is that they’re usually so wrong.
Read this phrase, twice:
Whose ‘judges’ were those?
I’m guessing you might already have guessed the answer, because you omitted some pretty important words from your quote.
If only the noisy Australian advocates of the US system knew how it really works.
By the way, how’s the large scale multi-party action against CASA going? When can we expect a representative claim to be filed in the Federal Court? When can we expect the rivers of compensation gold to start flowing?
Read this phrase, twice:
… the agency's administrative law judges …
I’m guessing you might already have guessed the answer, because you omitted some pretty important words from your quote.
If only the noisy Australian advocates of the US system knew how it really works.
By the way, how’s the large scale multi-party action against CASA going? When can we expect a representative claim to be filed in the Federal Court? When can we expect the rivers of compensation gold to start flowing?
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sale, Australia
Age: 80
Posts: 3,832
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If only the noisy Australian advocates of the US system knew how it really works
Thread Starter
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
Cream puff;
Are you asking for information on matters pertaining to current actions against CASA?
Why don't you ask The Director if he is aware of any actions. Alternatively give OLC a call. You have their numbers I assume?
You are right. The post obviously has no bearing on matters in Australia, even as a discussion piece where CASA are so benevolent and understanding in all matters they prosecute.
Are you asking for information on matters pertaining to current actions against CASA?
Why don't you ask The Director if he is aware of any actions. Alternatively give OLC a call. You have their numbers I assume?
Curbing the FAA’s Enforcement Overreach
