Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Worldwide > The Pacific: General Aviation & Questions
Reload this Page >

CASA spends millions chasing Milton Jones aviation business

The Pacific: General Aviation & Questions The place for students, instructors and charter guys in Oz, NZ and the rest of Oceania.

CASA spends millions chasing Milton Jones aviation business

Old 18th Jan 2012, 12:06
  #61 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Alabama, then Wyoming, then Idaho and now staying with Kharon on Styx houseboat
Age: 56
Posts: 1,437
I have never been one for deliberately and willfully breaking or violating rules or ignoring regulations but due to the aggressive punitive blood letting attitude that CASA has delivered in the past few years I think I might go and hire a chopper again (its been around 8 years!) and get somebody to film me doing some very very naughty things. Perhaps I may even hang my hairy spotted ass out of the open flight deck! Then I will have the footage expertly edited and doctored to the point that the only possible identifier will be if somebody recognizes my robust freckle!!
Upload it to YouTube from an Internet cafe and enjoy the chase as Fort Fumble commences it's investigation! F#ck the lot of them.
If they are going to take industry down we may as go down in style! I know they will investigate even if as they claim they are only interested in the protection of the fair paying public. That's the ironic thing with Milt, they are out to hang him yet 'technically' he was a risk to himself and the skier, which hardly constitutes te fair paying public or innocent public especially when the tomfoolery took place in a safe environment (for example not under the Sydney Harbor Bridge).
Speaking of only giving a shit about fair paying public and innocent bystander public it is also interesting that CASA assigns pretty much no oversight or surveillance to the freight industry. 737's, A330's, some 747's, 146's, all big enough metal to cause some carnage yet not on the CASA radar when it comes to 'risk management'? Again it makes them look like tools when they are not concerned about those operations yet they go after farmer Joe who has been a bit of a goof.
gobbledock is offline  
Old 19th Jan 2012, 09:21
  #62 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Age: 47
Posts: 934
Too bloody right gobbles!

I'm a pretty fair skier, you can tow me down the river!...it'd be an interesting experience to run a slalom course with no wake to deal with

Actually, you'd be at more risk than me, because of the pressure that a decent skier can put on the tow vehicle. At the end of the day my safety is assured, because if I don;t like the way you tow me, I can always throw the handle at you.
jas24zzk is offline  
Old 20th Jan 2012, 02:07
  #63 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,053
Lets ignore the generalities.

'The Australian' article implies that CASA are being forced to the High court, at great expense in order to obtain 'uncut' un – edited footage. We have all seen 'Lord of the Rings' an so on, so it is fair to assume that the average 'punter' is very much aware of the incredible powers 'movie makers' have to distort reality.

Things that trouble me are:- the TV (media) natural, inherent and commercially driven need to draw attention to their product; the lack of communication in the first place between a named "star" operator and the authority; an finally that none of this is anymore than quasi legal speculation at the moment.

Not one to defend this iteration of CASA, but a 'proper' regulator should (would ?) be given the tapes to help satisfy their questions and if required, lay their charges; I for one would want those charges laid, then proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

But if the tapes disprove the allegations, I want someone's head on a pole for the impost to the country and for being dumb enough to believe everything they see at the movies is real.

I don't believe the disputed 'evidence' can be denied CASA indefinitely, so why bother; except for the obvious reasons. Shades of JQ appear around the edges of this; but I would like some qualified opinion related to the Act and air operations conducted on private property (private operations is a whole other mess); whether it is, or is not illegal to tow a skier behind a chopper and, is it legal to let the rotor slow down unattended after engine shut down ?.

Can anyone not a bar room barrister assist, because on the face of it, it's mess.

Steam off.
Kharon is offline  
Old 20th Jan 2012, 02:33
  #64 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Go west young man
Posts: 1,732
Hey blackhand unless you got something worthwhile to contribute to the thread....why don't you PM or e-mail Kharon if you want to give him a mouthful?
Sarcs is offline  
Old 20th Jan 2012, 04:12
  #65 (permalink)  

Victim of a bored god

Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 1996
Location: Australia
Posts: 6,332
"Would be great if the Warrego looked that good."
"Pretty sure that's Lake Neverfill...."
Would be great if the Warrego or Lake Neverfill had that much water!

Beachie.

Been a bit of fireworks in your home town lately!

Your Mayor has been making this place look untidy in his quest for "higher office"!
tail wheel is offline  
Old 20th Jan 2012, 10:04
  #66 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 769
Kharon,
All the TV "footage" or "Images" belong to the production company who it would seem have no desire to hand them over to a 3rd party, i.e, a party not contracted to them.

This creates a problem for CASA, no "footage" = no probable cause = very difficult to prosecute , the DPP would be somewhat reluctant.

So off to the High Court to argue that CASA has a right to the footage so they can use it to establish probable cause and proceed to prosecute.

Difficult argument given the ownership of the footage and no capital crime.

Plenty of precedent says they won't get it !!!!!
T28D is offline  
Old 20th Jan 2012, 11:28
  #67 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,383
Black Adder..sorry hand.

"And who are you to demand anything."
err Pardon??
And who the hell are you to say that?? unless of course
you are a member of the CASA clubs corrupt,unaccountable incompetents.
Even then you have no right.
Last time I checked Australia, despite the efforts of the emasculated Harpy and the rest of her cohorts is still a democracy.
CASA is a government Institution, are you suggesting that a citizen of this country has no right to question the actions of a public institution?
If that is what you believe perhaps the new leader of North Korea would welcome you into his institution, I imagine you'd be exactly the sort of person he'd be looking for
thorn bird is offline  
Old 20th Jan 2012, 11:46
  #68 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 769
The rule of Law is paramount here, no matter how desperate CASA might be or how damning the suggested footage is, the real position is the High Court will be asked to test and interprate the Law.

My bet is they will stand with the owner of the footage, not accede to populist opinion but uphold the rights of the owner.

Without mounting a formal legal argument here there are authorities that in the normal course of argument support this position.

Possession is a powerful position.
T28D is offline  
Old 20th Jan 2012, 14:47
  #69 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Age: 47
Posts: 934
Hang on a sec...........


blackhand, back in your box old bean.....................


Some interesting points raised, mostly about CASA seeking access to the real footage. If you go back to JQ's case, they don't need it, they don't need a successful prosecution! They only need the AAT to tick off their dubious decision which was never tested in a court of law....and thats where it sux for all of us.
jas24zzk is offline  
Old 20th Jan 2012, 20:12
  #70 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,053
Dueced tricky.

T28D- The rule of Law is paramount here, no matter how desperate CASA might be or how damning the suggested footage is, the real position is the High Court will be asked to test and interpret the Law.
Good point, can/could CASA under obtain a search warrant and just go get them ?. They have before, on many occasions. Do the rules for search apply if it is just alleged a crime has been done ?; the dreaded 301 opens up a lot of otherwise closed doors; are the alleged criminal aspects of this case substantial enough to allow this to happen?.

T28D - Without mounting a formal legal argument here there are authorities that in the normal course of argument support this position.
Agreed, understood and it's what you would expect, but this is the CASA, who knows. This 'legal' bit is interesting enough as it could affect everyone with an aircraft strapped to his arse appearing in a photo or video.

Another thing that puzzles me is that if criminal charges are brought do the rules of disclosure work equally i.e. the defence has to provide 'their discovery' to the prosecution (i.e. the tapes')?. Just these points alone must be worth a new swimming pool and a trip to Europe for some lucky lawyer. ( We are definitely in the wrong profession).


Disclaimer – I am not defending or attacking anyone here, just trying to understand a complex issue which has now made several appearances, to whit; guilty as charged out of a court room with only 'video' evidence.
Kharon is offline  
Old 20th Jan 2012, 20:49
  #71 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 702
Just these points alone must be worth a new swimming pool and a trip to Europe for some lucky lawyer. ( We are definitely in the wrong profession).
There's help at hand
Blood Sucking Lawyers - The Law Firm
Super Cecil is offline  
Old 20th Jan 2012, 22:21
  #72 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Go west young man
Posts: 1,732
SC that is priceless! Love the Captain's testimonial:

I was a captain of large bodied JETS. I had some misfortune with my airline and it seemed as though I'd never see the inside of a cockpit again. The BSL team had the airine shaking in their boots hahahah. Now, thanks to Lex and his team of specialists I've nearly finished my flight attendant training and I'll be back in the air in no time.
...and this

I'm an airline pilot and I got into a spot of rough air. I never thought I'd fly again until I contacted the BSL team. Thanks to their innovative approach, I may be out of pocket but I am back at the sharp end. Thanks BSL
Captain (withheld)
Good find and oh so true!
Sarcs is offline  
Old 21st Jan 2012, 00:09
  #73 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Next door to the wrong neighbours
Posts: 241
What about the Australian Film Industry. If CASA go Milton and succeed then shouldn't they also go any Aussie made film that shows / depicts some sort of stunt flying?
FWIW my view is the bloke was overflying his own property, no public safety issue.
truthinbeer is offline  
Old 21st Jan 2012, 00:31
  #74 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Go west young man
Posts: 1,732
If CASA go Milton and succeed then shouldn't they also go any Aussie made film that shows / depicts some sort of stunt flying?
They would have to start with 'Skippy', I can destinctly remember Skip doing aeros with Sonny in the Park chopper!
Sarcs is offline  
Old 21st Jan 2012, 02:50
  #75 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 14
Exclamation

Hmmmm...

It seems to me that in pursuing the "unedited" tapes before being able to lay charges, or to confirm that an offence has been committed, CASA are accepting that that information would be required for a successful prosecution in a Court of Law.

However, it seems when it's CASA deciding JQ's fate in the court of CASA, dodgy footage downloaded from youtube is all that is necessary to permanently expunge his CASA granted work permit (his licence), and destroy his livelihood.

Are CASA afraid that if they were to apply the same "rules" to someone with the pocket depth that perhaps Milton Jones might have, it could end up before a Court of Law, where they might actaully have to prove something?
D B Cooper is offline  
Old 21st Jan 2012, 03:29
  #76 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Go west young man
Posts: 1,732
DBC mate you have hit the nail on the head! Not that it does JQ any good though!
Sarcs is offline  
Old 21st Jan 2012, 06:59
  #77 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: everwhere
Age: 64
Posts: 16
High Court

If you check the on-line court records, you will find that the court below permitted the warrant to be executed and the original tapes have already been seized.

This was despite Mr Jones's attempt to have the warrant set aside.

Mr Jones sought leave to appeal the release of the tapes to CASA. The tapes are in the possession of the court.

Leave was granted and the tapes are held by the court pending the outcome of Mr Jones's High Court appeal which, not surprisingly, is an action seeking to prevent the release of the original footage.

The action on foot is neither the High Court considering the merit of the case, nor is it a consideration of the characterisation of the purported deeds performed by Mr Jones.

T28D, Gobbledock; the law and how it 'works', to put it in layman's language is obviously not your strength.

To be fair, neither of you purport to be 'learned in the law' so may I suggest you stick to 'google' and the various court websites and then you may just have a better than even money chance of making sense when you talk about legal matters.
flyingfiend is offline  
Old 21st Jan 2012, 08:26
  #78 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,053
If you check the on-line court records, you will find that the court below permitted the warrant to be executed and the original tapes have already been seized.
Thanks FF, found that nugget this afternoon. So to be clear, CASA applied for and were granted the pertinent warrant and the tapes where seized. Now the courts are holding the 'evidence' until the injunction (my word apologies to the purists) is resolved.

The action on foot is neither the High Court considering the merit of the case, nor is it a consideration of the characterisation of the purported deeds performed by Mr Jones.
Is the question being tested related to the warrant being issued and executed, the 'law' on which it relies;or, other. Serious question.

Information a bit scarce on this or would do my own research, any insight into how the process works would be welcome. Not of'en the chance comes along where the industry can have a clue about the aviation rules being tested and see the 'big guns' doing their thing.

You'll admit it's deep stuff.


Heigh Ho.
Kharon is offline  
Old 21st Jan 2012, 10:40
  #79 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: everwhere
Age: 64
Posts: 16
High Court

Kharon,

I will start by saying that the following in no way should be interpreted as other than the jottings of an observer who has no interest in the matter other than a professional one in the outcome.

I wish all parties well; this information is in the public domain and will shortly be before the courts when comment again would be inappropriate.

So,

This is Jones requesting leave to appeal to the High Court for 'special leave' to appeal to the High Court.

This may sound a bit convoluted but Jones requires the High Court's permission to actually bring his appeal before that court.

It appears that Jones has a date for the High Court to consider whether it will hear his appeal of 08 Feb 12.

If the High Court agrees to hear his appeal, then there will be a hearing of the substantive appeal (more than likely) at a later date.

Here is the last 'action', so to speak:
Jones v Civil Aviation Safety Authority [2011] FCA 1416 (9 December 2011)

In particular, DODDS-STREETON J, said, inter alia, on allowing Jones to go forward to apply for 'special leave to appeal':

'The appellant’s principal argument, however, may fall into the category of special leave application referred to in Westpac, concerning an alleged significant irregularity in the way the court below dealt with the case, said to involve a potentially unlawful invasion of the rights and liberties of a citizen.
In the light of the above, while the appellant has not at this stage precisely articulated the proposed grounds, I proceed on the basis that the appellant has some, but not substantial, prospects for success in an application for special leave, which may be perceived to relate to an issue involving the interests of justice in a particular case.'

So, the judge thinks he may succeed with his application for special leave to appeal. i.e. the pleading will not be 'hopeless'. This is not a comment on the substance of the appeal.

Here is the original action:

Jones v Civil Aviation Safety Authority [2011] FCA 632 (6 June 2011)

I will not rewrite it all here due to time and space issues but I think you will find paragraphs 14 to 25 informative as to the contentious issue, namely the correct interpretation of the word 'suspicion'.

So, the first hurdle is for Jones to convince the HC that it should hear his appeal.

Then, if there is an appeal, the HC will consider the substantial issues in point.

Now, I will caveat what I have said with the health warning that my summation has been a 'quick and dirty' one and that this is not a case that I have followed with other than a passing interest.

However, the substance of the appeal is LIKELY to be that the magistrate erred when he issued the warrant, and that he has misinterpreted the meaning of the word 'suspicion' as it relates to the legislative provisions.

Others who are either closer to the case than I, or who prefer to differ from my 'read' are more than welcome to comment; I certainly will not take offence.

You are right on the money when you said that this is the big time.

I also note that all costs, including the upcoming action on the 08 Feb are billed to Jones.

CASA has spent very little money, if any at all so the public purse is protected so far.


Others may disagree with me but one thing I do know; it is far preferable to never be in a position to have to have a thread like this one written about you than to be the one to fly the escutcheon of righteousness.

Hope this helps.

FF
flyingfiend is offline  
Old 21st Jan 2012, 10:54
  #80 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: everwhere
Age: 64
Posts: 16
High Court

I should add, EVERY lawyer is interested in the decisions of the High Court.

This is the highest court in the land and as such, its decisions invoke 'binding precedent'.

In law, this is the 'superbowl'.



FF
flyingfiend is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.