Large scale Multi party action against CASA.

[Frank Arouet]

Large scale multi party action against CASA. (Class Action) or an application for public interest funding.

I am encouraged to start another thread to deal with a 100% positive PM feedback from a challenge I threw down in another thread. In it I simply stated instead of whinging about your individual complaints about CASA, do something about it.

I agreed to act to collate and have assessed the legal merits of the individual complaints and organise a firm of Lawyers as point of contact whereby individuals can register their complaints without publically compromising their PPRune identities.

This morning I have a telephone meeting with a large Legal Firm that specialises in this type of thing. I will be further guided by that meeting and post the results here. I should have the wording of the terms of reference for an overall complaint which hopefully will ring some bells and force future change as a consequence of such an action.

This thread is not the place for anecdotal discussions.

To put your mind at ease, a little about myself;

I have been in the aviation industry since 1965 and held elected and appointed positions that I applied myself to with no financial benefit simply to be part of any reform agenda that would make the Regulator foster and promote aviation instead of confronting and abusing it.

To this end many would call me a failure, but I was prepared to have a go.

I have a concluded matter against CASA which by it’s definition could be classed as a win. The thing is, after it was all over nothing changed. The cronyism continued such that the matter was never dealt with against the company that started the whole mess. A few CASA functionaries resigned, probably with a good handshake, and The Director of Aviation Safety offered a ‘lame duck” apology.

None of the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s recommendations appear to have been carried out. If anything it all appears to have got worse.

My case took years of effort and only maintained it’s impetus by the hard work of my Local Member and some dear personal friends. I had to force the issue with a pragmatic doublecross of my most excellent Member with a purposely leaked document to the Opposition who tabled it in The Senate during a CASA Estimates Hearing. In this document The Deputy Prime Minister accused CASA of destroying my evidence. This forced The Ministers intervention further, and an Act of Grace payment followed which probably paid for 30% of my losses.

If this post seems ungracious, I apologise, however the cash was paid by The Department of Finance, (the taxpayer), not CASA who never admitted liability even in the Director’s “apology”. This vindicates my ongoing stance. To myself anyway. I was not bound by any confidential agreements, and I have never signed one before or since.

Obviously I am well known and the CASA Lawyers won’t have far to go to find my identity. I don’t care. If they need it they can PM me and I’ll give it to them. They are good at shooting messengers, and I won’t be massaged by any of their spin.

To my friends (and enemies), this matter transgresses any personal involvements we have had in the past. I ask for your help as the majority of you are competent intelligent and passionate about aviation in Australia. If you can help, even a post of support to maintain the rage would be appreciated.

To those with closed or stale matters who believe they were dealt with perhaps at the expense of the rest of the aviation community, throw your hat in the ring.

Once this matter has legs of it’s own I’ll stand aside. My contribution will be for historical record only.

If this thread fizzles out, you only have yourself to blame. Encourage others.

[aroa]

This is serious.!

I for one will be throwing my hat into the ring, having being seriously abused twice by the (un)Civil (Non)Aviation (Un)Safety AUTHORITY.

And I know of several other operators that have been subjected to the most disgusting treatment, where CASA persons and others should be in jail, not in a taxpayer funded sinecure. I will urge them to join up also.

If there is another bureaucracy in this country that has done more to harm an industry that it is supposed to regulate, I'd love to know, because CASA are world leaders.

As always happens with entrenched bureaucracies, they lose the plot and become self-serving, and fxcuk the "client" base, they're just a pain.

If all those folk that have an unhappy case to tell, speak up... this may be the start of the long road back to sanity in aviation regulation.

[Frank Arouet]

Slater and Gordon,

Lawyers, Lawyers Australia, Law Firm - Slater & Gordon Lawyers

Have agreed to initially assess individual cases on a commercial basis.

If enough complaints with a common theme arise, they will consider a class action against CASA. To this end they give a point of reference number of CS 170399 when addressing your individual complaints.

There is a website contact form or you can ring 1-800-555-777.

Now people, you need simply to give an executive summary to get the ball rolling. The industry needs just a little of your time to possibly make a great contribution.

[Frank Arouet]

People;

For those of you who look, privately, respond, but don't participate, thanks for your support.

For those who have pulled posts for legal reasons, I understand.

For those of you who haven't summoned up the courage yet, the silence is part of what you can expect by way of legal proceedure or intimidation.

I have been put on notice based purely on an assumption of my PPRune identity.

Sort of sums up what the whole problem is.

[Rose_Thorns]

That was quick

FA are`you in a position to elaborate or expand. Seems a bit rum to me.

How can you be even remotely threatened for offering to lead the way.

That poor bugger in J* lost his job, not because he couldn't do it, but because he dared to voice an opinion. Xenophon has pulled a Senate inquiry because of genuine concern, have the black hand knocked on his door, I doubt it.

Where are we, the lucky country or some post war Eastern Bloc Gulag.

Pogroms next, you wait.

[Frank Arouet]

Can't elaborate more than say I was "advised" via a third party to watch my step. Could have been taken two ways I suppose, but it pays to err on the side of caution.

I am only the messenger, but the firm probably see me in a different light of course.

[ALAEA Fed Sec]

G'day,

I have a bucket load of stuff I could pass on but what are the lawyers able to do about issues dropped on CASA that they stonewall?

[Frank Arouet]

G'day all;

I have only just finished replying to a heap of PM's encouraging me to greater efforts. It is inspirational stuff when a lot of people without a real issue support the action if only because they have witnessed the incompetence and bastardisation of others.

One of the first things I was asked by Slater and Gordon was if I was ringing on behalf or had anything to do with a Union. I didn't, but it surprised me they asked and I don't know why.

Stonewalled stuff is the food of lawyers I would imagine and adds to the notion of a regulator out of control that will stop at nothing to defend their stupidity.

I can only encourage you to pass what you have on, if only as a collector or collator of evidence on behalf of your members. Even if they have thing about Unions, they should at least read the stuff in conjunction with others received if it has a common theme.

I was told yesterday by one respondent the problem with claiming personal injury against CASA especially if there is a mental stress, anxiety component is that CASA then use that as an admission on your part and relieve you of your licence on health grounds.

I believe this to be a classic bastardisation of the system when they caused the stress in the first place and then perpetuate the possibility of someone flying and "bottling up" this stress because of it.

Doesn't sound very safe to me. They should encourage self diagnosis and self action of mental stress related illness. CRM seems wasted if this is the attitude.

I believe lawyers have a scale to measure and quantify stress and anxiety and in cases such as this, I would imagine it would be into six figures if one's livelihood was definently at risk by such an admission.

This aspect is probably a claim in it's own right.

If you make one, make it a good one. How much would you loose if you lost your job, in dollars per annum from now to when you would normally be expected to retire from the flight deck. Then add a factor to make someone sit up and listen and $jit themserlves.

Go for it people.

[Frank Arouet]

Readers of this thread are not privy to the individual responses I receive and it may seem that nothing is happening. The opposite is in fact true. Any complaints cannot be discussed here except in very general terms and once a matter has been passed to S&G it remains confidential with them.

There have been a considerable number and I am sure many have been forwarded under the reference number without involving me.

One general concern is an emerging trend of complaints to the Commonwealth Ombudsman that have been stonewalled and then closed after reams of paperwork. There appears to be a common factor with one officer that the matters were subsequently handed to, and I would urge anyone else with similar concerns to PM me.

Cheers.

[Kharon]

Straws in the Wind.

Good to hear things are moving, perhaps with this initiative and the Senate, things may get a little brighter for the poor old industry.

This may be the glue to give the GA industry a cohesive voice, instead of just hiding under the bed, hoping the 'Boogey man' goes next door.

I wonder just how many people understand exactly what is happening within their own backyard.

Heigh Ho.

[Frank Arouet]

Meeting January 2011.

If interested, please advise preferences to a capital city venue and preferred dates.

I don't yet have a committment for an attendance by S&G and I am not privy to matters already under way, but there are issues of claim that need discussing beforehand. These issues pivot around negligence.

[Frank Arouet]

Response to an email from Slater and Gordon this afternoon.

DF file doesn't allow reproduction without editing personal details. The answer is self explanatory. Follows;

Thank you for your response to our concerns.

It should be noted that I, personally, have no current or outstanding claim against the CASA and my input onto the PPRune.org website was to make people with a grievance against them aware of an avenue that may or may not be available to a conglomerate of like minded individuals who have been similarly bastardised and that could join together in a common action based on much claimed CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE leading to claimable amounts for psychological, physical and monetary injuries and losses.

I have nearly learned to deal with my loss of quality of life, but I am sincerely and seriously concerned for others who are now going through what I had to endure.

How does one quantify such losses?

Eight years of my life wasted fighting with little legal support.

How does one recover the loss of respect and dignity after such confrontational situations?

Your attached letter allows me no means of reproducing it onto that website by way of updates without revealing my identity. The PDF format does not allow me to edit same.

I can relay the basic text but fear it may be taken "out of text". Perhaps you may respond in a manner that can be reproduced while maintaining my anonymity. (although I wager most in the industry know who I am it is not the point).

I also fear the contents as I read them would make even the most ardent complaintant shiver at the prospects of having to initially fund such an action.

This is why the CASA are so out of control. (perhaps I should rephrase that and say they are "IN" control with such knowledge).

You must see the CASA have so much power and access to taxpayer funds that it makes them monopolistically untouchable. Such power can only be smashed by individuals with very deep pockets, or political intervention at the highest level or a joint attack.

There is no political will, because there are no votes in it.

There is no public support because the CASA stand behind the "mantle of safety" to justify their actions and no fare paying passenger wants his/ her "safety" jeopardised.

The CASA basic insurance with Lloyds has excess brought about by a succession of individual losses and makes them legally unable and unwilling by the excuse, to admit liability.

The one thing I can guarantee is the mess the industry is in will continue under the CASA stewardship and a succession of individuals such as myself and those who have already contacted you WILL simply NOT GO AWAY.

Please consider publishing a letter that can be reproduced.

[Frank Arouet]

Whistleblower Wanted.

Genuine search. Person must have legitimate compensatory claim or altruistic concerns.

Preferrably under current employment with CASA or recently departed.

Reply in strict confidence by Personal Mail to this poster who will direct the matter to the appropriate avenue. Your anonymity must be maintained until you are satisfied of the level of confidentiality and security from prosecution. Please don't identify yourself in this initial contact.

Please don't reply on this thread to this post.

Your courage could help determine future aviation direction in Australia.

[Kharon]

Only thing is.

What about the old "disgruntled employee" defense. It still works you know.

Can't score runs if you are in the pavilion. Just a thought for the other fellahin.

But well done, top marks for courage, tenacity and 'crew membership'.

Tailwinds.

[majorrazor]

you cowboys and your casa pick on me bs is hilarious
aviation has rules for a reason and i have never seen casa after anyone who hasnt broken them.
try focusing your efforts on following the rules and your life may be a whole lot simpler
flogs

[Frank Arouet]

try focusing your efforts on following the rules and your life may be a whole lot simpler

Simple words written by simple person with much to be simple about.

Yes there are rules. All written by the Judge Jury and Executioner.

[Frank Arouet]

Anybody involved in this matter please check your PM's for updated details.

[Stan van de Wiel]

the rule of law will be progressively replaced by the rule of the regulator, the anti

• 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?

[Cactusjack]

Look at the positive in this. One day the Police won't be able to fine you by way of a speed camera, they will have to 'regulate' speed rules, which means you are less likely to actually receive a fine !
It's got my vote.

[SgtBundy]

Think you are looking at it backwards Cactusjack - if the Police "regulate" the road rules then they would be deciding how much you were speeding based on their interpretation of the infringement and what the penalty for that is in their view at the time. Think of what the fines could be when Sgt Plod is trying to complete the extension to his house.