CASA Suspends Barrier Aviation Operations
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: (Not always) In front of my computer
Posts: 371
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Airfix01,
Long time listener, first post, welcome to the discussion ...
I think it's more about the lack of, rather than the quality of the engineering ...
Long time listener, first post, welcome to the discussion ...
I think it's more about the lack of, rather than the quality of the engineering ...
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Australia, maybe
Posts: 559
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just wondering how the deadline in the federal court is decided. Was it requested by CASA, or is eight weeks, a negotiated time frame deemed appropriate to the task.
Section 7.7
7.7
Application to the Federal Court
Under section 30DE of the Act, CASA has only five business days after the holder has been notified of the decision to suspend under section 30DC, to apply to the Federal Court for an Order. If the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for the belief that the holder has engaged, is engaging in, or is likely to engage in conduct that contravenes section 30DB, the court must make an order prohibiting the holder from doing anything that is authorised by the authorisation, but that without the authorisation would be unlawful. The court must have regard to sections 3A and 9A (1) in making that decision.
Because the time for application is so limited it is important that the ALC remain involved with immediate suspension action so that they can expedite action on the application.
The Manager, Enforcement Policy and Practice (EPP) must be kept advised so that an investigator can be made available to undertake the investigation required under section 30DG of the Act, if it is thought necessary for the investigation to be conducted by a Part IIIA Investigator.
It is intended that applications will be made in the Federal Court in Canberra by the LSD. Only the Executive Manager of LSD and the Manager Legal Branch have delegations to make application to the Federal Court under section 30DE.
It is also important to understand and be ready to deal with the implications of the definition of “business day” for the purposes of section 30DE: “business day” means a day that is not a Saturday, a Sunday or a public holiday in the Australian Capital Territory—see section 3(1) of the Act. Thus a public holiday in the State or Territory in which the holder is located may still be a “business day” for the purposes of section 30DE.
Subject to a variation order under section 30DF, an order made by the Federal Court under section 30DE lasts for no more than 40 days to allow CASA to complete its investigation. The Federal Court will determine how long an order will remain in force.
Application to the Federal Court
Under section 30DE of the Act, CASA has only five business days after the holder has been notified of the decision to suspend under section 30DC, to apply to the Federal Court for an Order. If the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for the belief that the holder has engaged, is engaging in, or is likely to engage in conduct that contravenes section 30DB, the court must make an order prohibiting the holder from doing anything that is authorised by the authorisation, but that without the authorisation would be unlawful. The court must have regard to sections 3A and 9A (1) in making that decision.
Because the time for application is so limited it is important that the ALC remain involved with immediate suspension action so that they can expedite action on the application.
The Manager, Enforcement Policy and Practice (EPP) must be kept advised so that an investigator can be made available to undertake the investigation required under section 30DG of the Act, if it is thought necessary for the investigation to be conducted by a Part IIIA Investigator.
It is intended that applications will be made in the Federal Court in Canberra by the LSD. Only the Executive Manager of LSD and the Manager Legal Branch have delegations to make application to the Federal Court under section 30DE.
It is also important to understand and be ready to deal with the implications of the definition of “business day” for the purposes of section 30DE: “business day” means a day that is not a Saturday, a Sunday or a public holiday in the Australian Capital Territory—see section 3(1) of the Act. Thus a public holiday in the State or Territory in which the holder is located may still be a “business day” for the purposes of section 30DE.
Subject to a variation order under section 30DF, an order made by the Federal Court under section 30DE lasts for no more than 40 days to allow CASA to complete its investigation. The Federal Court will determine how long an order will remain in force.
Can CASA on Thursday 14th February appeal to the federal court for an extension to complete their 'on-going, but yet incomplete' investigation?
Court May Vary Period of Order
Under section 30DF the court may extend (by no more than 28 days) or shorten the original period of the order on the application of either party.
The application must be made before the end of the original period and CASA can apply only once to extend the period of the order.......
Under section 30DF the court may extend (by no more than 28 days) or shorten the original period of the order on the application of either party.
The application must be made before the end of the original period and CASA can apply only once to extend the period of the order.......
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: (Not always) In front of my computer
Posts: 371
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks Trent,
I see the application to the court must be made within five business days.
On face value it would seem the first period of 40 days would equate to eight "business day weeks?" Public Holidays notwithstanding.
Conversely, the subsequent extension period of 28 eight days appears to be four complete weeks including non-business days?
No wonder lawyers are needed ...
I see the application to the court must be made within five business days.
On face value it would seem the first period of 40 days would equate to eight "business day weeks?" Public Holidays notwithstanding.
Conversely, the subsequent extension period of 28 eight days appears to be four complete weeks including non-business days?
No wonder lawyers are needed ...
Last edited by Two_dogs; 8th Jan 2013 at 11:22. Reason: Posting after a nice shiraz
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: The Outback
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was one of the first maintenance controllers in Oz back in the 80's. this discussion has all the elements of the problems then and there is not a simple solution other than to conform to the regs, which I agree can be insurmountable.
It took 2.5 years for my day of reckoning to happen due to the investigator becoming ill and almost dying. That was in in the late nineties, so the rules of timing actions may have changed.
It changed my life in ways that I can't describe here. Driving a truck was a very sobering experience. The wheels of machinery of justice can be very slow.
It took 2.5 years for my day of reckoning to happen due to the investigator becoming ill and almost dying. That was in in the late nineties, so the rules of timing actions may have changed.
It changed my life in ways that I can't describe here. Driving a truck was a very sobering experience. The wheels of machinery of justice can be very slow.
Can CASA on Thursday 14th February appeal to the federal court for an extension to complete their 'on-going, but yet incomplete' investigation?
Problem solved without all that messy Court stuff!
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Queensland
Posts: 686
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LEADSLED
Tootle pip!!
Now let me see if I've got this right. The Hazeltons maintenance recording system was perfectly safe when used by Hazeltons but was so dangerous it grounded an airline when used by Arcas. Que????
RA
A major issue was that a maintenance recording system, approved for use by Hazeltons, came with the aircraft, and was carried through by Arcas, but Arcas never had the Hazelton system approved by CASA, for use by Arcas.
Now let me see if I've got this right. The Hazeltons maintenance recording system was perfectly safe when used by Hazeltons but was so dangerous it grounded an airline when used by Arcas. Que????
RA
It was the approved system at Hazelton's and not a hidden system as it was at Arcas, that is the difference. Arcas approved system for recording defects was the CASA Maintenance release.
Regarding defects, MEL's and PUS's the Young / Monarch investigation is also well worth a read. Should be compulsory reading for HAAMC's, Maintenance Controllers, Chief Pilots, Engineers and CEO's. http://www.atsb.gov.au/media/25055/a...301743_001.pdf
Seaview, Monarch, Arcas ........ Ancient history but seems many operators do not learn from the past.
Regarding defects, MEL's and PUS's the Young / Monarch investigation is also well worth a read. Should be compulsory reading for HAAMC's, Maintenance Controllers, Chief Pilots, Engineers and CEO's. http://www.atsb.gov.au/media/25055/a...301743_001.pdf
Seaview, Monarch, Arcas ........ Ancient history but seems many operators do not learn from the past.
Last edited by edsbar; 8th Jan 2013 at 20:09.
rutan around
Oh boy. If this thread is any indication of the number of ignorant/confrontational pilots/operators there are out there, no wonder they are getting scr*wed over by CASA.
Creampuff has already answered this question in #307. Whether you like it or not, there is a legal process that MUST be followed. If you try and f**k with this system the system WILL f**k with you. And who said it had anything to do with safety? There are ways and means of trying to getting the reg’s changed. Breaking them ISN’T one of them.
Oh boy. If this thread is any indication of the number of ignorant/confrontational pilots/operators there are out there, no wonder they are getting scr*wed over by CASA.
Creampuff has already answered this question in #307. Whether you like it or not, there is a legal process that MUST be followed. If you try and f**k with this system the system WILL f**k with you. And who said it had anything to do with safety? There are ways and means of trying to getting the reg’s changed. Breaking them ISN’T one of them.
If you'd actually read the ARCAS report rutan around, you'd know the facts. But don't let the facts get in the way of a good story. 
Last edited by Creampuff; 8th Jan 2013 at 20:04.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Queensland
Posts: 686
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
404 TITAN
You've opened up a biggie now. I'm busy today doing non aviation things today. Less frustrating and more profitable.
I'll attempt a full answer in the near future.
Cheers RA
You've opened up a biggie now. I'm busy today doing non aviation things today. Less frustrating and more profitable.
I'll attempt a full answer in the near future.Cheers RA
Lets get back to an original question - we agree that the rules must be followed.
Why has it taken CASA Thirty years to discover Barriers non compliance?
It also seems obvious, at least to me, that Barrier has not a snowballs chance in hell of ever flying again. no matter what its alleged state of guilt or innocence.
The CASA audit will be aimed at discovering every undotted "i" and every uncrosssed "t" on every document ever associated with Barrier and this process will produce a mountain of evidence that no one can jump over.
It's called "file stacking" in the public service and it is a lethally effective tactic against anyone or anything that, rightly or wrongly, becomes a target. Even BHP would not have enough money to afford QCs arguing for days over the hundreds, if not thousands, of alleged transgressions a detailed CASA audit will no doubt detect.
The question then becomes, given that Barrier is to be put out of business, whether CASA wishes to jail the operators, if possible, to encourage the others?
Why has it taken CASA Thirty years to discover Barriers non compliance?
It also seems obvious, at least to me, that Barrier has not a snowballs chance in hell of ever flying again. no matter what its alleged state of guilt or innocence.
The CASA audit will be aimed at discovering every undotted "i" and every uncrosssed "t" on every document ever associated with Barrier and this process will produce a mountain of evidence that no one can jump over.
It's called "file stacking" in the public service and it is a lethally effective tactic against anyone or anything that, rightly or wrongly, becomes a target. Even BHP would not have enough money to afford QCs arguing for days over the hundreds, if not thousands, of alleged transgressions a detailed CASA audit will no doubt detect.
The question then becomes, given that Barrier is to be put out of business, whether CASA wishes to jail the operators, if possible, to encourage the others?
Let me assist you, rutan.
From the Arcas Report
[bolding added]
So Leaddie and rutan around, were Hazeltons running 'defect records' in parallel with Maintenance Releases, in which the same defect was recorded in one document as having arisen on one date but on a different date in the other? It's also worth reading how the "Defect Record" documents were obtained by CASA (that is, if you're interested in facts).
Also from the Report:
Did anyone from Hazeltons ever give written, signed statements to CASA, to the effect that Hazeltons put pressure on pilots to falsify logbooks, old bean?
From the Arcas Report
Each defect book pertained to one of the three aircraft operated by ARCAS for the period 1996 to 1999, with the ARCAS name and logo, and the words “Defect Record” printed on the top of each page. In his summary of their content, [the CASA investigator] stated:
In general, some of the defects entered on the Maintenance Release correspond to defects entered in the defect record book, in other cases there are entries on the Maintenance Release that do not appear in the defect books and more often there are defects entered in the defect books that do not appear on the maintenance release. In some cases, those defects that appear on both the maintenance release and defect book have different dates, specifically that the defect appears to have been presented some days of even weeks before it actually appears on the maintenance release.
So Leaddie and rutan around, were Hazeltons running 'defect records' in parallel with Maintenance Releases, in which the same defect was recorded in one document as having arisen on one date but on a different date in the other? It's also worth reading how the "Defect Record" documents were obtained by CASA (that is, if you're interested in facts).
Also from the Report:
In addition [to the allegations about defects], the informant also alledged that he was placed under pressure to falsify his flight and duty log so that his flight and duty times complied with regulatory requirements. In this regard, [the informant provided to CASA] photcopies of pages from his logbook.
The informant subsequently signed a formal written statement of these allegations in the presence of ... a CASA investigator ....
The informant subsequently signed a formal written statement of these allegations in the presence of ... a CASA investigator ....
Sunfish
First, we don't know if Barrier has been doing the same thing for 30 years. I have no knowledge of the specifics, but my guess is not.
Secondly, as you know, all these defect issues usually only affect tiny probabilities. A few blown bulbs, second AH dodgy, second VHF weak and distorted transmissions, transponder intermittent etc, etc. It's been that way for months and everyone still gets from A to B and no one complains. Therefore, there's no safety issue, is there?
You know the answer. Would you like your loved ones to be on board? I wouldn't.
And when someone lobs into the regulator's office and puts photcopies and signed statements on the table, the regulator doesn't have much of a choice.
First, we don't know if Barrier has been doing the same thing for 30 years. I have no knowledge of the specifics, but my guess is not.
Secondly, as you know, all these defect issues usually only affect tiny probabilities. A few blown bulbs, second AH dodgy, second VHF weak and distorted transmissions, transponder intermittent etc, etc. It's been that way for months and everyone still gets from A to B and no one complains. Therefore, there's no safety issue, is there?
You know the answer. Would you like your loved ones to be on board? I wouldn't.
And when someone lobs into the regulator's office and puts photcopies and signed statements on the table, the regulator doesn't have much of a choice.
Creamy, I know not what Barrier may have done.
What concerns me is that CASA, if PPrune is to be believed, is judge, jury and executioner and it's punishment appears to be very bloody.
Furthermore, the regulations appear to be so complicated and confusing that even honest folk may have trouble complying through no fault of their own.
What concerns me is that CASA, if PPrune is to be believed, is judge, jury and executioner and it's punishment appears to be very bloody.
Furthermore, the regulations appear to be so complicated and confusing that even honest folk may have trouble complying through no fault of their own.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: on the edge
Posts: 823
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Slam-click
Mmm sounds like you are getting close to specifics here, CASA may be considering time out of service against "normal" time to carry out the full intent of SB190, rather than "pencil whip" that sucker.
About 10 years ago during an audit of a particular company operating in FNQ, found maintenance entry for SB190 that had been carried out in three days. Had not been noticed by the Maintenance controller nor by CASA.
Sunfish,
It is not an issue that you do not understand the maintenance regs, apart from your obvious misunderstanding of what constitutes a defect. The issue is that companies carrying out commercial ops MUST understand the regs and the accountable manager's responsibilities.
From this statement I can assume you have never been subject to a compliance audit by CASA or anyone else??
but does anyone think if there were dodgy SB190 inspections being done on the BN2's?
About 10 years ago during an audit of a particular company operating in FNQ, found maintenance entry for SB190 that had been carried out in three days. Had not been noticed by the Maintenance controller nor by CASA.
Sunfish,
It is not an issue that you do not understand the maintenance regs, apart from your obvious misunderstanding of what constitutes a defect. The issue is that companies carrying out commercial ops MUST understand the regs and the accountable manager's responsibilities.
The CASA audit will be aimed at discovering every undotted "i" and every
uncrosssed "t" on every document
uncrosssed "t" on every document
Last edited by blackhand; 8th Jan 2013 at 23:56. Reason: sin tax
If anyone "pencil whipped" a mandatory corrosion inspection they should have their tickets pulled and do some time in the slammer. That is the sort of sh!t that does get people killed.
Sunfish
In my opinion, industry participants who are confused by the rules about the recording of defects, the consequences of recording defects, or the circumstances in which an aircraft may or may not be flown with 'open' endorsements on its MR or approved equivalent, should not be let loose on, or left loose on, innocent fare paying pax.
In my opinion, FOIs and AWIs who are confused by the rules about the recording of defects, the consequences of recording defects, or the circumstances in which an aircraft may or may not be flown with 'open' endorsements on its MR or approved equivalent, should not be let loose on, or left loose on, innocent industry participants.
Fortunately, the vast majority of industry participants and CASA FOIs and AWIs seem not to be confused.
In my opinion, industry participants who are confused by the rules about the recording of defects, the consequences of recording defects, or the circumstances in which an aircraft may or may not be flown with 'open' endorsements on its MR or approved equivalent, should not be let loose on, or left loose on, innocent fare paying pax.
In my opinion, FOIs and AWIs who are confused by the rules about the recording of defects, the consequences of recording defects, or the circumstances in which an aircraft may or may not be flown with 'open' endorsements on its MR or approved equivalent, should not be let loose on, or left loose on, innocent industry participants.
Fortunately, the vast majority of industry participants and CASA FOIs and AWIs seem not to be confused.
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Land Down Under
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Would repeatedly flying a charter aircraft with a u/s landing light represent a "serious and iminent risk to air safety"...
Two questions, Would and (2) should CASA ground an operator purely based on the above deviation from the rules?
If the operator did it once would it be overlooked?.. what about twice... or does 10 occassions warrant enough of a threat to air safety?
How does CASA quantify risk based on repeated infringments and in the case of Barrier is the grounding due to the type of infringments or the frequency?
Two questions, Would and (2) should CASA ground an operator purely based on the above deviation from the rules?
If the operator did it once would it be overlooked?.. what about twice... or does 10 occassions warrant enough of a threat to air safety?
How does CASA quantify risk based on repeated infringments and in the case of Barrier is the grounding due to the type of infringments or the frequency?