CASA strikes again - with video evidence

[Sunfish]

Kaz, the penalty is immaterial. Once you have a criminal record, you have a criminal record. That is what does the damage. It doesn't matter if you were lightly brushed with a feather as penalty.

[aroa]

Pressing....

WoC... if CASA impose a penalty without first knowing all the facts, then apart from placing themselves on the lowest rung of the moral ladder, they are in breach of the Compliance Manual as well as the code of conduct
But let not small legal niceties get in the way of trying to stitch someone up.

Not hearsay and allegations of perjury... FACT. Proven by two investigations.
And written clear as day in sworn statements to be used with a view obtain a criminal conviction in a court of law.
Case struck out, tho, due falsehoods, oh dear !

How does this sound as concise, objective "investigation" by a CASA person.
LAME : "there is no case to answer, the a/c did not have an MR"
"Investigator" (sic) " I dont know about that, there are people in CB who think they can make this stick"

Of all the BS that occurred in the sorry Wilga tale, that was the scariest.
A sure sign it all about 'WHATEVER IT TAKES" to knock someone down and out.

So far, I have 2 down ( 1 fled, 1 retired) and counting, and I havent even been in court yet.
Justice from CASA, AFP, APSC, QPS..NO, not from any of. NONE.
But believe me, I'm pressing. The end game is nigh. BOTH jurisdictions.
TBA

[Wallsofchina]

I'm sorry if I was over the top.

Gobbledock, Walls of China is the name of a local landscape feature, I have no association or friends in CASA.

As the title of this thread implies, people are critical of CASA's methods of enforcement, and plenty of posters have reinforced that.

CASA didn't invent this thrust of the application of law, it's in widespread use, particularly in enforcement, because it is possible to get convictions which previously were evaded by slippery defence tactics.

The same thrust is used widely in the community today, Local Government parking regulations being one not mentioned so far, Chain of Responsibility in the transport industry, where you don't need to be anywhere near the vehicle or to have even spoken to the driver to be convicted is another.

Things have changed.

My issue is that by not spending the time to research this, and learn the relatively simple culture required to live with it, and just publicly attacking CASA there will be no sympathy from the Federal Government who made the changes to catch the slippery operators, and we can just expect a retaliation and tighter rules from CASA.

The way an organization goes about collecting evidence is irrelevant, and the thrust of this thread, the evils of self conviction because of public videos, public statements on public websites and so on are not confined to CASA, but also widespread in the community.

I was involved in an issue where a voice mail was critical evidence, but had been deleted by the phone provider. I was stunned to find that within 20 minutes, from the millions of conversation histories in Australia, an agency armed only with the phone number, date and time, was able to confirm they had the actual wording permanently secure.

Tail Wheel, I'm a PPL, I may have mentioned Natfly and I may have mentioned Jabiru, but the aircraft involved was VH registered, and the boast of flying in IMC is still out there on the web. Anyone who wants to look at it, just PM me.

Publicly blasting CASA about the way they collect their evidence, provided it is done legally, will also invite retaliation, and even tighter scrutiny, and once again those of us who try to do the right thing are the ones who have to cope with more restriction.

You are on tape when you drive down our freeways, walk on our streets, go into a convenience store, catch a train, have a McDonalds, and your home is on camera from the air. If you get a delivery of damaged goods, you just send an Iphone photo back to the supplier.

Things have changed, you can't single out CASA.

I'm not advocating this method of enforcement, I too was a victim of it (non aviation), but I am saying you have to suck it up and live with it.

[Sunfish]

I don't think anyone is too concerned with detection or prosecution of offences Walls, we all agree that there is a cowboy element that needs removing from time to time. There is also criminality, for example, a former airline pilot suggested to me the other day, in apparent seriousness, that the way to keep maintenance costs down was to record one hour flown for every Two on the basis that maintenance schedules are too conservative.

What I think concerns me, even though I've never had a run in with CASA and don't intend to, is that CASA does not appear to be too particular about actual evidence of wrongdoing when it gets an idea into its head, it would appear that it then tries to club the victim senseless via legal stratagems and finally gelds them with a very blunt and rusty knife.

There is apparently ample evidence that such behaviour is ongoing and it worries me because the outcome is potentially a criminal conviction.


To put that another way, I have a magistrate and now a (probationary) Constable in the family and the procedures they have to apply to the detection and punishment of malefactors makes CASA look like a Neanderthal. Just ask Mr. Aroa, he apparently tells one CASA bloke to piss off and the next minute he has three of them perjuring themselves by stating he was doing illegal maintenance on an aeroplane, followed by prosecution. Don't you agree that this isn't a good look? Aren't we all striving for safe outcomes? Apparently not.

[Wallsofchina]

The system was introduced by the Commonwealth Government, so its members are the ones you have to convince to change it.

Where the system is abused by a Department, the aggrieved party can write to the Commonwealth Ombudsman. He can't change the system, but he can see that it's not abused.

[gupta]

but he can see that it's not abused

New keyboard please!!!!

[halfmanhalfbiscuit]

He can't change the system, but he can see that it's not abused.

This is the link if you feel worthwhile to complain to the Ombudsman. Perhaps they need to see a number of complaints and the same issues. Perhaps should also make senators aware of these complaints?
Contact us - Commonwealth Ombudsman

The question to be asked though is it worthwhile? I have no idea and would be interested to know.

Below is a good summary by Paul Phelan from the article Birds? What birds?

These events have numerous aspects in common with numerous similar cases I have examined in which CASA appears to have single-mindedly pursued the destruction of an individual’s life, career, reputation and financial well-being using similar tactics to those described here. These activities, many of which I have documented, seem to be characterised by:

• Eagerness to run with almost any allegation against an individual as fact without adequate and competent investigation, and to take action simply on a ‘reason to believe’ basis, sometimes (as in this case) without any formal regulatory action at all;
• Willingness on the part of senior managers to close ranks behind its employees, rather than concede that errors may have been made, and apparently ignoring the duty of care to test the validity of the allegations and decisions:
• An apparent preference for dealing with individuals who are perceived to be (relatively) financially defenceless;
• Formal signed statements by CASA individuals which often reveal a lack of awareness of case-relevant technical issues;
• Failure to assess and evaluate witness statements and credentials accurately and competently;
• Determined reluctance to provide in a timely manner information which CASA is legally obliged to furnish;
• Apparent wasteful manipulation of court processes in order to prolong matters to the financial disadvantage of the other party;
• A lack of documentation which would identify participants, managers, deliberations and processes in the decision-making process;
• Flouting of the “model litigant” obligations by which government agencies which are bound;

One of the most disturbing aspects is that once again events have highlighted the apparent existence of an unacceptable culture permeating some elements of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority that not only allows the kind of misconduct we have detailed to continue, but either supports it or stolidly denies it exists. That kind of a culture cannot survive without the awareness of senior management. It is relevant that some of the names associated with these events he go back more than fifteen years.

And almost everybody in the industry knows who they are. It is really time for an independent external investigation. AviationAdvertiser and (we’re sure) others can provide some suggested terms of reference.

[Wallsofchina]

This is not strictly relevant, because Victorian and Commonwealth Ombudsman powers may be different, but if you want to see an Ombudsman in full flight, look up what the Victorian Ombudsman did to Brimbank Council and one of the major political parties.

[Up-into-the-air]

Commonwealth Ombudsman aand casa Complaints

If you speak to the Commonwealth Ombudsman and mention casa [don't deserve large letters!!], they will not take a complaint until it has been to the ICC [Industry Complaints Commissioner] - which is within casa. [Note there are severe limitations to the issues that the ICC can look at]

From the 2010-2011 casa Annual Report:

Investigations by the Commonwealth Ombudsman

The Commonwealth Ombudsman commenced investigations into five matters involving CASA during 2010–11. One matter remained outstanding at the end of the year and one matter relating to an investigation commenced by the Ombudsman’s office in the preceding financial year remained unresolved.

You tell me why in 2011, there were only five matters investigated??

[Wallsofchina]

In Victoria the Ombudsman doesn't kick in until all the other corrective steps have been exhausted.

ie, if you disagree with a decision by an FOI, you can't go straight to the Ombudsman.

[halfmanhalfbiscuit]

Do the ICC thing and then put that into the Ombudsman submission if not satisfied.

[Sarcs]

In Victoria the Ombudsman doesn't kick in until all the other corrective steps have been exhausted.

I think you will find that is the same principle for all Ombudsman Offices, State or Federal, criminal or civil matters. Kind of makes sense as the Ombudsman can look at the case in its entirety. Doesn't help though if you been fighting a case for years that smells of corruption and your fast running out of money!