Norfolk Island Ditching ATSB Report - ?
Although Esso had its own CASA approved check and training section, it never held an AOC, and they fought tooth and nail against it when CASA tried to make them hold an AOC. Don't know who won, but I'd put my money on Esso with their phalanx of silk.
I’m only guessing, but perhaps Esso’s operation was properly characterised as ‘private’ under the classification of operations scheme.
There is nothing preventing a private operator from choosing to have a check and training organisation (although I’m scratching my head wondering why it would need or be able to get CASA approval).
There is nothing preventing a private operator from choosing to have a check and training organisation (although I’m scratching my head wondering why it would need or be able to get CASA approval).
Although Esso had its own CASA approved check and training section, it never held an AOC, and they fought tooth and nail against it when CASA tried to make them hold an AOC.
"Traditional" Private Operations was to be limited to "the immediate family of the owner of the aircraft" ---- which immediately precluded a PPL hiring an aircraft, unless it was operated by a holder of a said "POAOC".
It was intended to bring ALL corporate operations, and most traditional private operations in Australia under an AOC. Also Limited Cat. C.of A aircraft.
The ABAA were smart enough to see off the proposal, not so AWAL.
In a wonderful example of gross over-regulation of non-existent problems (about 15 years of satisfactory and safe operations without it) Part 132 came about, no "safety" problem to mitigate, no benefit/cost analysis, it happened. But all the usual downsides, cost, complexity, and in this case, a few category unique problems.
A not so isolated example of how hard it is to kill a bad idea in CASA, once it takes root.
Tootle pip!!
I’m scratching my head wondering why it would need or be able to get CASA approval
Originally Posted by Lead Balloon:
Nonsense.
An “organisation holding an AOC” is a person, natural or unnatural. Otherwise, an AOC could not be issued to the “organisation” in the first place.
Qantas Airways Limited is a person. CASA is a person.
Persons can be sued and prosecuted.
Response posted by Eddie Dean: Are you positive?
Answer by me: Absolutely. Companies and Authorities take on the legal (but not physical) attributes of persons - that of a Corporate Body. (And CASA as an Authority is defined as such, as are all Australian companies also.) Google & Wikipedia will answer your questions. If in doubt though, refer to the relevant Act(s). So the entity can be "sued/ charged/ whatever," however it may still be possible to "sue/ charge/ whatever" certain individuals within.
Nonsense.
An “organisation holding an AOC” is a person, natural or unnatural. Otherwise, an AOC could not be issued to the “organisation” in the first place.
Qantas Airways Limited is a person. CASA is a person.
Persons can be sued and prosecuted.
Response posted by Eddie Dean: Are you positive?
Answer by me: Absolutely. Companies and Authorities take on the legal (but not physical) attributes of persons - that of a Corporate Body. (And CASA as an Authority is defined as such, as are all Australian companies also.) Google & Wikipedia will answer your questions. If in doubt though, refer to the relevant Act(s). So the entity can be "sued/ charged/ whatever," however it may still be possible to "sue/ charge/ whatever" certain individuals within.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not so sure in CAsA's case, maybe Lead ballon would be across the legal stuff.
I'm a total legalese dyslexic, trying to read CAsA's reg's gives me an instant migraine and my eye's start to water, but wasn't there a case in the federal court in Perth some years ago brought against CAsA for alleged malfeasance, where the judge ruled CAsA could do anything they wanted and were therefore unaccountable? or did I read that all wrong.
I'm a total legalese dyslexic, trying to read CAsA's reg's gives me an instant migraine and my eye's start to water, but wasn't there a case in the federal court in Perth some years ago brought against CAsA for alleged malfeasance, where the judge ruled CAsA could do anything they wanted and were therefore unaccountable? or did I read that all wrong.
In past years the Attorney Generals Dept has advised CAsA that it can be sued, and likewise individuals within the organization can be done also.
In the old Compliance and Enforcement Manual...there is a 'warning' comment page.
The protocols for any 'enforcement' written there in, are not necessarily the MOs used by some CAsA persons.
In the old Compliance and Enforcement Manual...there is a 'warning' comment page.
The protocols for any 'enforcement' written there in, are not necessarily the MOs used by some CAsA persons.
Not so sure in CAsA's case, maybe Lead ballon would be across the legal stuff.
I'm a total legalese dyslexic, trying to read CAsA's reg's gives me an instant migraine and my eye's start to water, but wasn't there a case in the federal court in Perth some years ago brought against CAsA for alleged malfeasance, where the judge ruled CAsA could do anything they wanted and were therefore unaccountable? or did I read that all wrong.
I'm a total legalese dyslexic, trying to read CAsA's reg's gives me an instant migraine and my eye's start to water, but wasn't there a case in the federal court in Perth some years ago brought against CAsA for alleged malfeasance, where the judge ruled CAsA could do anything they wanted and were therefore unaccountable? or did I read that all wrong.
The very fact that CASA was a party to the proceedings in the first place shows that, as is plainly stated in section 8(2)(c) of the CA Act, CASA can be sued. The claim of malfeasance in that case, as with the other claims that were made, were found by the Court not to have been proved.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Permanently lost
Posts: 1,785
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are multiple cases in the Federal Court where CASA is a party and is stated as such in the case title.
Individuals in CASA are protected from individual legal action so long as they act within the relevant legislation. The moment a government employee steps outside of that they can be subject to legal proceedings in a civil court or even prosecution in a criminal court.
Individuals in CASA are protected from individual legal action so long as they act within the relevant legislation. The moment a government employee steps outside of that they can be subject to legal proceedings in a civil court or even prosecution in a criminal court.
“Protected” through what mechanism?
Action can be taken, and has been taken, against individual officers of CASA, in that capacity, and by name.
The usual impediment to a successful action is the lack of admissible evidence sufficient to prove the elements of the claim to the requisite standard. That’s how the law works.
Action can be taken, and has been taken, against individual officers of CASA, in that capacity, and by name.
The usual impediment to a successful action is the lack of admissible evidence sufficient to prove the elements of the claim to the requisite standard. That’s how the law works.
“Protected” through what mechanism?
Action can be taken, and has been taken, against individual officers of CASA, in that capacity, and by name.
The usual impediment to a successful action is the lack of admissible evidence sufficient to prove the elements of the claim to the requisite standard. That’s how the law works.
Action can be taken, and has been taken, against individual officers of CASA, in that capacity, and by name.
The usual impediment to a successful action is the lack of admissible evidence sufficient to prove the elements of the claim to the requisite standard. That’s how the law works.
I suspect that Australian public servants enjoy a common law protection from prosecution while doing their jobs in a responsible way (in "good faith"). There are also a great many Acts that spell this out.
I've had experience with trying to bring an action against a public servant and have witnessed the dramatic closing of the ranks by most fellow public servants against this threat. This wasn't in an aviation setting.
There is more info here:
https://www.alrc.gov.au/sites/defaul..._liability.pdf
I was merely responding to the suggestion that individuals are protected from legal action. They are not.
Whether the legal action is successful is, of course, an entirely separate question that depends on stuff called “facts” and “law”.
Polar Aviation Pty Ltd v Civil Aviation Safety Authority [2012] FCAFC 97 (4 July 2012)
PARTIES:
POLAR AVIATION PTY LTD and CLARK ANDREW BUTSON
v
CIVIL AVIATION SAFETY AUTHORITY
TERRENCE FARQUHARSON
GARY PRESNEILL
ROBERT COLLINS
JIM MARCOLIN
PETER JOHN and
ALLAN COOK
Each of the individuals was a separate defendant/respondent in the action.
Whether the legal action is successful is, of course, an entirely separate question that depends on stuff called “facts” and “law”.
Polar Aviation Pty Ltd v Civil Aviation Safety Authority [2012] FCAFC 97 (4 July 2012)
PARTIES:
POLAR AVIATION PTY LTD and CLARK ANDREW BUTSON
v
CIVIL AVIATION SAFETY AUTHORITY
TERRENCE FARQUHARSON
GARY PRESNEILL
ROBERT COLLINS
JIM MARCOLIN
PETER JOHN and
ALLAN COOK
Each of the individuals was a separate defendant/respondent in the action.
"Character" is unfortunately a term missing in action these days in the western world so it is not possible to exhume it and paint the PIC with it. If it were otherwise we would not have had the procession of flawed Prime Ministers we have had.
Furthermore, to make your point you would have to compare the PIC character with the ATSB, CASA and his employers "character" as well. None of those are necessarily pretty either.
As for your contention regarding the PICs actions, none of us were there and few of us have even done ditching training anyway. None of us can predict our reactions to such a traumatic event nor our behaviour in the aftermath. I note that "but for' the PICs torch being spotted it is doubtful that there would be any rescue at all.
In any case the treatment of the pilot by CASA must not be a function of his alleged "attitude" - which is part of the problem with CASA.
Furthermore, to make your point you would have to compare the PIC character with the ATSB, CASA and his employers "character" as well. None of those are necessarily pretty either.
As for your contention regarding the PICs actions, none of us were there and few of us have even done ditching training anyway. None of us can predict our reactions to such a traumatic event nor our behaviour in the aftermath. I note that "but for' the PICs torch being spotted it is doubtful that there would be any rescue at all.
In any case the treatment of the pilot by CASA must not be a function of his alleged "attitude" - which is part of the problem with CASA.
I agree to a certain extent with what you said Zanthrus, but I think we shouldn’t hold such a simplistic view of aviation safety unless that view allows room for consideration of the circumstances and factors that were present leading up to events such as these. If we don’t , we miss the opportunity to make improvements to the systems that support the P in C . We fail to get safer.
So, we can have “responsibility and duty of care” as well as finding shortcomings with other individuals and/or organisations.
My two cents anyway.
So, we can have “responsibility and duty of care” as well as finding shortcomings with other individuals and/or organisations.
My two cents anyway.
I’ve got to say that I’m really surprised by some of the attitudes here. Unless you’ve been in a similar situation, it’s difficult to imagine how you’re qualified on the character of the people involved. For mine, the captain’s handling of the situation after arrival was as good as you could hope. I thought the FO actions read really well and she should be very proud of her CRM throughout the arrival. A great result given that all survived given the circumstances. I noted the nurse backs the captain up to this day. That says more than those character assasins.
Hear! Hear! kellykelpie
I’m always dubious of the provenance of posters with single digit numbers of posts that suddenly appear then disappear. Always smells like deliberate character assassination to me.
ratwood: Single digit number of posts, despite being a member during the 9 year period since the ditching. Very abstemious of you!
Why does the number of your posts seem to be reducing?
I’m always dubious of the provenance of posters with single digit numbers of posts that suddenly appear then disappear. Always smells like deliberate character assassination to me.
ratwood: Single digit number of posts, despite being a member during the 9 year period since the ditching. Very abstemious of you!
Why does the number of your posts seem to be reducing?
