Honour amongst thieves.

[thorn bird]

"GA should form an organisation similar to AMROBA which has had influence on the regs and enforcement for maintenance orgs."

Blacky I wholeheartedly agree with you. Until the industry as a whole faces down CASA they will continue to regulate the industry out of existence until Australia becomes a GA desert,like the UK, I know it's not personal, its just what bureacrats do, and will continue to do until "Foster and Promote" gets firmly inserted into their brief by the Pollies.

[Creampuff]

Kharon: Now you know that broad sweeping statement is a bit naughty; some AAT decisions have been brilliant and some of the findings pure gold, for instance SM. Fice and Reg. 206.

So are you saying that the AAT decisions with which you happen to personally agree are ‘brilliant’ and ‘pure gold’, whereas the AAT decisions with which you happen not to personally agree, aren’t? If so, that’s called ‘hypocrisy’.

Most of SM Fice’s decisions have upheld the CASA decision under review, although I do note one matter in which he set aside CASA’s decision to suspend a pilot’s licence, and substituted a decision to cancel the licence. In effect, he considered CASA’s decision to have been too soft. Are SM Fice’s decisions correct when you agree with the decision, and incorrect when you don’t?

Kharon: My only 'beef' is, after reading many, many transcripts, is the manner in which the CASA continuosly exploit the AAT system, ruthlessly, cynically and achieve little or no return value to the industry.

So you think the Tribunal members are oblivious to, or a prepared to acquiesce in, the ruthless, cynical exploitation of the AAT system by government agencies? There must be parallel universes, one containing the AAT of which I’m aware, and the other containing the anti-AAT that allows itself to be exploited by government agencies.

Honest questions – there are seemingly conflicting 'statements' given, can the AAT safely rely solely on the veracity of a radically changed statement as it stands; or does it become a Police matter to sort out?.

The AAT decides what the facts are for the purposes of its review, based what’s put in front of it and the AAT’s assessment of, among other things, the credibility and reliability of witnesses and material submitted.

Facts are often relevant to administrative decisions and criminal proceedings. For example, a doctor who’s been found by Medicare Australia to have been submitting lots of incorrect medicare refund claims can have their participation in Medicare revoked as an administrative action, the decision to revoke can be reviewed by the AAT, during all of which a brief to the DPP may be prepared and a prosecution for fraud launched.

Administrative decisions are often aimed at different policy outcomes than criminal proceedings.

Can the AAT request or require an independent investigation of the 'facts' by a disinterested third party?.

The AAT is a disinterested third party, and it spends a lot time sorting what the ‘facts’ are.

Does the AAT have the power to prevent what is effectively a life sentence being requested ?.

Of course it does. It has the power to set aside the decision under review and to make its own decision. That’s why people go there. The profound financial and other consequences of administrative decisions are frequently matters considered in the course of review of the decisions – especially applications for a stay of decisions, pending a full review. This issue would have featured in many of the many, many transcripts you’ve read.

[Frank Arouet]

I think what he's trying to say is why need it get that far in the first place.

Common sense has long been proven to no longer exist when there is no discretion available under strict liability and the first avenue of exploration of an action is by-passed and given straight to CAA for determination.

As for representative body's, they come and go dependant upon the foibles of the agenda driven. Few are vested with altruism and even the best of leaders are only as good as their followers. Most are at best "an arm of the regulator" having sold their soul to the Devil.

Reminds me of one bloke who called me a coward knowing I was fairly proud of my military service. "His men", (I think he was a retired recruit), no doubt followed him everywhere. (simply out of curiosity).

[blackhand]

Frank, the other option is not to have an AAT.
Seen this in operation in other countries.
One has to go straight to court, with the encumbent costs.(SHudders with memory of the process). A simple injuction to have a stay of the Regulator's ruling is very costly.

Your understanding of the concept of Strict Liability may not be correct.
As explained to me by a solicitor, it means that ignorance of the law is not an excuse.
All other rights stand.

Reminds me also of the bloke that called me a coward, but then again I was hiding behind the handmaiden at the time.

[Frank Arouet]

your ignorance

Since when was my ignorance a criminal offence?

That would be noice if you could explain.

Moi Oi also ask youse if you were not aware of the possibilities of someone like me of non Torres Strait and Islander heritage being aware of my real chronological age in determining my cognative insight and judgement in relation to the possibility of a relapse to cigarette smoking which I haves not done since since 10SEP1983, but notwithstanding all that, how that would play out in a SB5 Abbreviated IQ (ABIQ), test battery administered assessment of intelligence and cognative abilities for ages 2 through to 85+ years of age, and further, how it relates to a Nonverbal IQ scale and a verbal IQ test. Also how this compares with a WRAT4 comprehension subtest of math academic skills and word reading, sentence comprehension subtest, spelling and math comprehension.

Also, while I'm at it, the ABASII adult form should provide a comprehensive, non referenced assessment of adaptive skills for individuals aged birth to 89 years,which probably focuses on evaluating an individuals display of various functional skills necessary for daily living and without assistance like a co-pilot. There are also things like adaptive domains and the global adaptive composite of which the self support norms are a factor to be considered.

Now the PAI is a different bit of bull****e which provides a number of validity indices that are designated to provide an assessment of factors that could distort the results.

I'm glad my PAI was negative, or was that positive, and I am either/or careless, have reading difficulties, am confused, exaggerate, malinger, and (I don't give a rat's what youse think), defensive.

Now the DRG scale has me stumped, in that I may be particularly exhibit certain areas of difficulty, probably inherited via my GG Grandfathers preponderence to Eucalypt oil. (Uncle Stan we called him).

However I completed the CAPI test OK which re asserted my belief that I had not been touched up by Uncle Stan. (he had a black pushbike).

And all this because someone asked me "was I not aware of the possibility that I may run over a Koala bear, and should I not have taken steps to circumvent such an occurrence in case it happened".

My answer was, "and when did you stop beating your wife"?

And thats when my troubles started.

[thorn bird]

Frank....what can I say....pure gold

[T28D]

Frank, If it was Red it was bloody good red, truly inspired, and just neuters the academically qualified Know it all.

I am truly humbled.

[Kharon]

A star is born

Oh BRAVO !! Voltaire, Bravo;

Yes, yes CP, lets agree to disagree, and waive aside the semantics and rhetoric :-

Wikipedia. Semantics.
Semantics contrasts with syntax, the study of the combinatorics of units of a language (without reference to their meaning), and pragmatics, the study of the relationships between the symbols of a language, their meaning, and the users of the language.

"Let us be cautious in making assertions and critical in examining them, but tolerant in permitting linguistic forms". Rudolph Carnap.

Wikipedia. Rhetoric.
Rhetoric is the art of discourse, an art that aims to improve the facility of speakers or writers who attempt to inform, persuade, or motivate particular audiences in specific situations.
"Art has always been this – pure interrogation, rhetorical questions less the rhetoric – whatever else may have been obliged by social reality to appear". Samuel Beckett.

What I asked was Can?, i.e. will the SM; not Can? as "in is he allowed to". Semantics, get it?.

Now, where was I -
The Senior Member - AATA 183 – parts 25 through to 39 seems to disagree with the CASA standard spiel, which is all to the good. Perhaps SM Fice, brought up though a much more genteel, honourable, rose coloured era in aviation, is finally caching up with the modern CASA ethos.

Perhaps, had Quadrio, Davies and half a dozen others like them had this latitude and forbearance, their lives may have been different and CASA would know that they are not above the law and that arbitrary execution by administrators denies civil liberties, makes a mockery of their remit and is embarrassing to industry.

Perhaps I should rename this thread – His Honour amongst thieves. But Frankly - I can't do anymore for laughing.

[Fantome]

Rutan Around, ask ozzie friends about your name, not sure it inspires me either. Here we have ROTO Rooter for cleaning sewerage pipes. Good articles that you referred to. Online search didn't show any action taken against Aust Authority for corruption. Is your entire government colluding in this corruption?

This from NO HOPER who was queried early on here about his strange choice of pseudonym.

As I have no immediate input, commentary or informed views to air on the excellent run of contributions to the important debate exercising minds on this thread, forgive me if I go into trivia mode again with this piece that relates to the choice of inane names for a person, a child, even a prooner , for if you missed this one at the time it will surely raise a grim smile or two.

FAMILY'S WINNER BECOMES A LOSER AND LOSER A WINNER

August 1 2002

The name of the game is not always what it seems to be, Sean Gardiner writes from New York.

One son was named Loser, the other Winner.

One became a policeman and was eventually promoted to detective.

The other fell into the life of a small-time crook, racking up at least 31 arrests before being jailed for two years.

But for the brothers Lane it was not a case of their unique names sealing their fates. "I went a totally separate route right from the start," said Loser Lane, 41, a detective in the South Bronx.

Loser, a star student and athlete, went on scholarship to an elite prep school, on to Lafayette College in Pennsylvania, and then joined the force.

Winner's life has gone the other way. Now 44, Winner last month completed a two-year jail sentence for breaking into a car. He is living in a homeless shelter in upstate New York, shuttling back and forth between it and the city trying to get his life on track.

Why did he commit so many crimes? "It's just some situations I got in," Winner said.

Loser said of his brother: "Most of the crimes are minor crimes. He's just kooky, not a heavy drinker, some domestic violence problems, but was never a heavy drinker, never into drugs ... He's just not all there, I think."

The brothers rarely see each other, though Winner will phone Loser when he is short of money, but they are no longer close. "I'm a cop," said Loser, who is known as Lou on the job. "And I have a way with me, I don't tolerate a lot."

The Lane boys ran in the same circles while growing up in public housing in Harlem, where their names never seemed to arouse curiosity or ridicule from the neighbourhood kids.

"When you're young you don't know that it's a bad name, and by the time you hit grade school, everybody knows you. It was a regular thing," Loser Lane said.

It helped that Loser was the youngest of eight brothers and sisters and that he was a natural athlete, admired by the other kids for his on-field achievements.

The story of how Loser got his name is simple. The day he was born, their late father, Robert, asked his daughter what to name the baby. "My dad comes home and asks my oldest sister what to name me and she said, 'Well, we've got a Winner, why don't we have a Loser?' And there you go."

While Loser's friends had no problem calling him by his name, his teachers and other adults "couldn't bring themselves to call me Loser", so he became Lou.

[Frank Arouet]

Nevertheless, CASA contended that the incident demonstrated that Mr Hanley had a previous history of operating a helicopter in similar circumstances after the helicopter had sustained damage in an uncontrolled ground contact.

How does one incident demonstrate to CAA a prior history of flying with a bent tailboom? Also an "uncontrolled ground contact"?

Is this the reverse of a CFIT?

[blackhand]

Court ruling here, may answer some of yous questions
Hanley and Civil Aviation Safety Authority [2012] AATA 820 (21 November 2012)

[Stan van de Wiel]

Referring mainly to CP #62

Most of SM Fice’s decisions have upheld the CASA decision under review, although I do note one matter in which he set aside CASA’s decision to suspend a pilot’s licence, and substituted a decision to cancel the licence. In effect, he considered CASA’s decision to have been too soft.

SM Fice and all the other members can only act on the information available this is where the problems exist. CASA like all Government instrumentalities are required to follow the AAT Act - Obligation to assist. If the victim is not aware of material used by CASA, WITHHELD by CASA !! He/she can hardly request it. Was D. James aware of the 50/50 opinions held by CASA re Diversions? I bet the AAT weren't, just a slight oversight. No wonder the majority of decisions favor CASA as to the pilot loosing his license! CASA nearly always challenge AAT decisions on the basis that the AAT cannot impose such measures - possibly only applies one way? Maybe the pilot should have lost license, what information did SM Fice have to act on?

So you think the Tribunal members are oblivious to, or a prepared to acquiesce in, the ruthless, cynical exploitation of the AAT system by government agencies? There must be parallel universes, one containing the AAT of which I’m aware, and the other containing the anti-AAT that allows itself to be exploited by government agencies.

Prepared to acquiesce is more likely. Forget about the Members obligation to assist the unrepresented Victim, but that's another story.

The AAT decides what the facts are for the purposes of its review, based what’s put in front of it and the AAT’s assessment of, among other things, the credibility and reliability of witnesses and material submitted.

If only it had all the facts. Look at the earlier decisions based on R206. The SM Fice decision in Caper vs CASA was overturned in November based on what was implied by the Act. No mention of John Anderson's second reading of the Bill re the use of Commercial ( based on the Acts Interpretations Act 1901 this is LAW) considering that lawyers are obliged to even point out legislation which is advantageous to the the other side why does CASA continuously overlook such aspects. R206 has its origins in the two airline policy it no longer has a head of power. If "lawyers" had the same license restrictions as Pilots most wouldn't be practicing.

[Creampuff]

SM Fice and all the other members can only act on the information available this is where the problems exist.

That ‘problem’ doesn’t exist when the question is about the proper interpretation of legislation. Everyone, including the AAT, knows what the law says. It’s not about ‘information’.

In the decision at the link in Blackhand’s post at #71, the Federal Court decided that the AAT had interpreted the law incorrectly. That’s a ‘real’ court deciding that the AAT’s interpretation was wrong and that CASA’s interpretation was correct. (There was a time at which some ppruners were howling for review of CASA's decisions to be taken out of the hands of the AAT and put in the hands of ‘real’ courts. Well, that’s happened in the Repacholi, Polar Air and Hanley matters, and CASA’s decisions have ultimately been supported.)

My personal view is that the Federal Court’s reasoning in the Hanley matter is patently wrong, and SM Fice got it less wrong. But my personal view is completely irrelevant to the proper interpretation of the law once the Federal Court has made its judgment.

What we can all agree, and what we are all entitled and justified to agree, is that CASA’s failure to push through any meaningful change to CAR 206 is a scandal.

[Sunfish]

All aviation is illegal in Australia.

[Stan van de Wiel]

What information?

That ‘problem’ doesn’t exist when the question is about the proper interpretation of legislation. Everyone, including the AAT, knows what the law says. It’s not about ‘information’.

It's all about INFORMATION !!!

A CASA action starts of with Information, whether alleged, fabricated or genuine and then proceeds in genuine cases to a collection and analysis before applying it to the legislation allegedly breached. By the time it gets to the AAT or court there should be sufficient "information" ( frequently searched for well after the event) to make the charges stick.

Many charges are based on not conforming to "policy" and many a time the AAT have been convinced that this is a breach? In the case of the AAT, the tribunal is now the decision maker? But with less information than the CASA decision maker Had, how can in such cases a proper decision be made?

The AAT may know what the law says, but to apply the correct laws (subject to interpretation) even CASA operatives have differing opinions ( to divert or not to divert remains the question) not to start on the unlawfulness of Aviation laws.

When the same rules of (airmanship) were to be applied to the law in this country (read morals, ethics, transparency and accountability) we wouldn't need the current parliamentary "debate" re Certain lawyer's behaviour, Would we?

[Kharon]

Oh everyone; you, me and the hangar cat knows exactly how the system is worked: especially when the CASA version of "facts and circumstances" are heavily relied on by a court or tribunal. IF ever it could be proven that one, just one of the 'official' CASA versions is "flawed" and added to the Senate knowledge pile; then every judgement or ruling handed down under the present "regime" would become legally unsafe. We must robustly pray this never happens, but it might. Lord, the court costs alone; not to mention "ex gratia" will keep the dear old treasurer awake at night, that's real money on the line.

I wonder if "team" ATSB/CASA boys, boyettes and even the lasses getting nervous? seems they need to be, the way the Senate enquiry is rolling out. However, the truth will out and time will tell the tale.

Seems to me is there are only two choices, no options for the "team" - be part of the going to goal crew; or, get wise, confess now and hope for some form of indemnity by turning "King's evidence"; (for want of a better phrase). Tick Tock - indeed.

[Stan van de Wiel]

INFALLIBILITY: the PROBLEM that DOESN'T exsist

CP #73

That ‘problem’ doesn’t exist when the question is about the proper interpretation of legislation. Everyone, including the AAT, knows what the law says. It’s not about ‘information’.

Interesting that it took SM Fice several pages to expand on the "grammatical" proper interpretation of R206 - something he and others at AAT had previously never attempted - they used the interpretation best suited to the protagonist - its referred to as impartiality (?) at a plebeian level.

VID 289 of 2011- BETWEEN:
CIVIL AVIATION SAFETY AUTHORITY
Applicant
AND:
CAPER PTY LTD
Respondent
JUDGE:MURPHY J
DATE:
21 NOVEMBER 2012
PLACE:
MELBOURNE

The central issue for determination by the Court was the correct construction of the relevant provisions of the Civil Aviation Regulations 1988 ("the Regulations") as applied to the facts found by the Tribunal. I held that the Tribunal wrongly construed the Regulations

Everyone, including the AAT, knows what the law says

Now who is confused?

[Creampuff]

You, Stan. You continue to be confused.

When the issue is the correct interpretation of the law, it doesn’t matter what ‘information’ anyone provides (or those evil conspirators in CASA withhold) from anyone.

CAR 206 is a law that says what it says. Egon Fice interpreted it one way. It went to the Federal Court and the Federal Court interpreted it another way.

Unless someone successfully appeals the Federal Court’s decision, the Federal Court’s interpretation is the authoritative one that takes precedence.

[I]t took SM Fice several pages to expand on the "grammatical" proper interpretation of R206 - ….

… and the Federal Court said SM Fice got it wrong …

… something he and others at AAT had previously never attempted - they used the interpretation best suited to the protagonist.

I think the legal term for that assertion is: “Complete bollocks”.

[blackhand]

I think the legal term for that assertion is: “Complete bollocks”.

Succint as always, Mr Creampuff