CASA Suspends Barrier Aviation Operations
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Australia, maybe
Posts: 559
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Two_dogs, apologies, I have no problems with you at all.
I have enjoyed your posts on this and previous topics.
I have no real knowledge of Barrier, I think I met Dave once years ago.
I have a problem with casa's timing with this action.
Perhaps I was affected by the Easter and Christmas shutdowns of Ansett years ago
and find casa doing the same thing over and over again with respect to attacking organisations at a time when they are not able to defend themselves via the 'Friday 5pm' faxes and the holiday closures etc. totally unacceptable.
Gutless halfwits is my opinion.
If you have a problem with someone you stand up to them face to face, not king hit them from behind and run away.
None the less, all the best to you.
regards.
I have enjoyed your posts on this and previous topics.
I have no real knowledge of Barrier, I think I met Dave once years ago.
I have a problem with casa's timing with this action.
Perhaps I was affected by the Easter and Christmas shutdowns of Ansett years ago
and find casa doing the same thing over and over again with respect to attacking organisations at a time when they are not able to defend themselves via the 'Friday 5pm' faxes and the holiday closures etc. totally unacceptable.Gutless halfwits is my opinion.
If you have a problem with someone you stand up to them face to face, not king hit them from behind and run away.
None the less, all the best to you.
regards.
Last edited by Trent 972; 27th Dec 2012 at 08:26. Reason: remove reference to a cns foi dipsh!t
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: (Not always) In front of my computer
Posts: 371
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Trent, Apology accepted, we're back on talking terms!
I too am dismayed at the ongoing tactics of CASA, there is not enough room on this board to list their betrayal to their charter.
GOOGLE is your friend, these cretins know no bounds ...
Or just start here, http://www.pprune.org/dg-p-reporting...ov-2011-a.html
Gets interesting around page 30 odd ...
I too am dismayed at the ongoing tactics of CASA, there is not enough room on this board to list their betrayal to their charter.
GOOGLE is your friend, these cretins know no bounds ...
Or just start here, http://www.pprune.org/dg-p-reporting...ov-2011-a.html
Gets interesting around page 30 odd ...
Last edited by Two_dogs; 27th Dec 2012 at 08:22.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: More than 300km from SY, Australia
Posts: 817
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
casa and the effect on commercial operations
And read on Two Dogs.
The Senate needs to add this to Item (d) of their terms of reference and get to the bottom of this stuff for once and for all.
Further reading at:
http://www.pprune.org/dg-p-general-a...-industry.html
Go for it and lets support these guys.
We cannot let our industry be done over.
The Senate needs to add this to Item (d) of their terms of reference and get to the bottom of this stuff for once and for all.
Further reading at:
http://www.pprune.org/dg-p-general-a...-industry.html
Go for it and lets support these guys.
We cannot let our industry be done over.
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Australia
Age: 53
Posts: 547
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
UITA, is right. If you have concerns or have been similarly affected write to the senate as it is ongoing now and taking submissions. The next hearings are in February.
It does appear contradictory that Pel Air could have had critical audits carried out by their own inspectors yet these were not important in the investigation. Yet, Hardy and now Barrier appear to have been treated very differently? My main concern would be this Sunday afternoon and Xmas eve legal action. Why found so late in the day?
It does appear contradictory that Pel Air could have had critical audits carried out by their own inspectors yet these were not important in the investigation. Yet, Hardy and now Barrier appear to have been treated very differently? My main concern would be this Sunday afternoon and Xmas eve legal action. Why found so late in the day?
ca·pri·cious
/kəˈpriSHəs/
Adjective
Given to sudden and unaccountable changes of mood or behavior.
Synonyms
whimsical - wayward - fickle - freakish - crotchety
/kəˈpriSHəs/
Adjective
Given to sudden and unaccountable changes of mood or behavior.
Synonyms
whimsical - wayward - fickle - freakish - crotchety
Same with Polar - years of peace and quiet, then an eruption.
How many similar stories are there?
If there are many, then we have an obvious problem with the way the rules are either interpreted or enforced because such "unsafe" states (in CASA's view), requiring immediate and drastic action, cannot and do not develop overnight.
To put that another way; why now?
Now that to my mind raises far more serious issues because there are a limited number of things that can have happened:
1. The first possibility that has to be ruled out is that either CASA is totally incompetent or complaisant in its regulation of the operator for many many years and either suddenly discovered its errors or fell out of love on a Sunday morning. Neither situation reflects well on CASA.
2. The second possibility that must be ruled out is that the operator has been consistently falsifying records for many years, and brilliant CASA detective work suddenly discovered a thirty(?) year orchestrated litany of lies by Barrier. This does not speak well of the operator and perhaps CASA's capabilities.
3. There has been some changed requirement by CASA or Barriers operations have changed in perhaps the last year and then the entire change management process has been totally and absolutely botched by both CASA and the operator. If this is the case, then while the operator may be at fault, CASA still shares the blame for allowing this situation to deteriorate to the point of total failure of what should be a normal business relationship.
To put all that another way:
Barrier, WTF did you do?
CASA, WTF did you take an axe to Barrier?
I don't like surprises and neither does anyone else in business or Government. They are extremely irritating because they tell us that something is very wrong with attitudes somewhere.
CASA has some explaining to do about how it let this situation develop and most particularly, why the sudden grounding so close to Christmas?
anyway, so much for amateur detective Sunfish and his long winded BS.
Last edited by Sunfish; 27th Dec 2012 at 18:48.
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Australia
Age: 53
Posts: 547
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I remembered this article by Paul Phelan regarding Polar. Makes an interesting read and has relevance to Barrier.
CASA cites Polar judgement in Repacholi case
Posted by: Paul Phelan Posted date: August 13, 2012 | comment : 0
The Civil Aviation Safety Authority (through its expensive law firm Ashurst, formerly Blake Dawson) today brought an application in the Federal Court at Perth to strike out the claim by WA agricultural and seaplane operator Gerald Repacholi against CASA for negligence, based upon the decision in the recent decision against Polar Aviation in its damages claim against CASA..
The Sydney barrister hired by CASA for the application, brought under s31A of the Federal Court Act, argued inter alia:
“As found by the Court in Polar, a duty to take reasonable care to exercise statutory powers having regard to the interests of the person regulated would necessarily impinge on the statutory duty to exercise the powers by reference to safety considerations”
“There can be no duty of care imposed on CASA to have regard to the economic interests of the Applicants…”
Opinion
In effect, CASA’s lawyer is claiming that its officers can do what they like to whomever they like, using the cloak of respectability of “safety” under s9A (1) of the Civil Aviation Act, with impunity and at the discretion and subjective opinions of the officials concerned, with a total disregard to any person’s personal or business rights, no matter how trivial (or negligently false) the alleged “safety” issue might be, and no matter how devastating the effect any such heavy handed action might have on an individual or business.
Is this the way any industry should be regulated?
Many will recall (then) Minister John Anderson’s Second Reading speech at the introduction of the bill to enshrine the draconian section 30DC of the Civil Aviation Act into law. This Section enables CASA to suspend immediately a certificate/approval at will, based on an allegation of “serious & imminent risk to safety” and which refers the matter to the Federal Court to rubber stamp the application.” The Minister said the Bill was intended to “address the industry concerns that somehow CASA was judge, jury and executioner”.
Some victims believe the Minister overlooked several of CASA’s roles in the process. In several cases, they observe, CASA appears to take the roles of informant, investigator, prosecution witness, prosecutor, judge, jury, court of appeal, and executioner.
It would be interesting to test how CASA’s argument would stand up in a few other cases we have analysed, particularly where the actions of a CASA official have been demonstrably safety-negative, and we’ll be following that agenda in more detail over the coming weeks.
Meanwhile it’s valuable to weigh recent and not-so-recent events against the Commonwealth Attorney General’s model litigant directions, unless there’s a clause somewhere that exempts CASA as a result of the Polar findings.
If you’re interested in the future of aviation in Australia, the document published below is part of a detailed document titled Legal Services Directions, issued by the Attorney-General pursuant to section 55ZF of the Judiciary Act 1903, with effect from 1 September 1999.
The Australian National Audit Office, perhaps supported by the Law Reform Commission, could well be tasked to evaluate CASA’s performance against the standards the A-G sets out.
Go on, it’s an informative read.
CASA cites Polar judgement in Repacholi case – aviationadvertiser.com.au
CASA cites Polar judgement in Repacholi case
Posted by: Paul Phelan Posted date: August 13, 2012 | comment : 0
The Civil Aviation Safety Authority (through its expensive law firm Ashurst, formerly Blake Dawson) today brought an application in the Federal Court at Perth to strike out the claim by WA agricultural and seaplane operator Gerald Repacholi against CASA for negligence, based upon the decision in the recent decision against Polar Aviation in its damages claim against CASA..
The Sydney barrister hired by CASA for the application, brought under s31A of the Federal Court Act, argued inter alia:
“As found by the Court in Polar, a duty to take reasonable care to exercise statutory powers having regard to the interests of the person regulated would necessarily impinge on the statutory duty to exercise the powers by reference to safety considerations”
“There can be no duty of care imposed on CASA to have regard to the economic interests of the Applicants…”
Opinion
In effect, CASA’s lawyer is claiming that its officers can do what they like to whomever they like, using the cloak of respectability of “safety” under s9A (1) of the Civil Aviation Act, with impunity and at the discretion and subjective opinions of the officials concerned, with a total disregard to any person’s personal or business rights, no matter how trivial (or negligently false) the alleged “safety” issue might be, and no matter how devastating the effect any such heavy handed action might have on an individual or business.
Is this the way any industry should be regulated?
Many will recall (then) Minister John Anderson’s Second Reading speech at the introduction of the bill to enshrine the draconian section 30DC of the Civil Aviation Act into law. This Section enables CASA to suspend immediately a certificate/approval at will, based on an allegation of “serious & imminent risk to safety” and which refers the matter to the Federal Court to rubber stamp the application.” The Minister said the Bill was intended to “address the industry concerns that somehow CASA was judge, jury and executioner”.
Some victims believe the Minister overlooked several of CASA’s roles in the process. In several cases, they observe, CASA appears to take the roles of informant, investigator, prosecution witness, prosecutor, judge, jury, court of appeal, and executioner.
It would be interesting to test how CASA’s argument would stand up in a few other cases we have analysed, particularly where the actions of a CASA official have been demonstrably safety-negative, and we’ll be following that agenda in more detail over the coming weeks.
Meanwhile it’s valuable to weigh recent and not-so-recent events against the Commonwealth Attorney General’s model litigant directions, unless there’s a clause somewhere that exempts CASA as a result of the Polar findings.
If you’re interested in the future of aviation in Australia, the document published below is part of a detailed document titled Legal Services Directions, issued by the Attorney-General pursuant to section 55ZF of the Judiciary Act 1903, with effect from 1 September 1999.
The Australian National Audit Office, perhaps supported by the Law Reform Commission, could well be tasked to evaluate CASA’s performance against the standards the A-G sets out.
Go on, it’s an informative read.
CASA cites Polar judgement in Repacholi case – aviationadvertiser.com.au
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 705
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm just saying
In an effort to provide a little clarity and take a bit of heat out of the argument I would like to put forward the following scenario and qualify it with the admission that I am a former Chief pilot, Engineer and FSO.
I am not and will not be an apologist for CASA (or the operator) but the following is one scenario where after an audit and renewal of an AOC the AOC is suddenly withdrawn:
A regular, programmed audit is conducted and several deficiencies are discovered that attract a number of NCNs and possibly one person is responsible for identifying the root cause and implementing the corrective action.
Given the number of NCNs and the time accepted to implement the changes and the impending renewal of the AOC, CASA renews the AOC for a period of 6 months conditional on the fixes being implemented in that period.
With the "wet" approaching and with a now higher workload the person responsible for implementing the changes for whatever reason decides to leave the organisation.
This leaves CASA with no "faith" that the required changes will be implemented in the required time and an operator that is missing a possible "key" person. If the operator cannot solve the problem then the only option is to withdraw the AOC until acceptable personnel have been brought into the organisation and the corrective actions are implemented.
This is only one possible scenario and I am not saying it is the case with Barrier but it might explain the chain of events. And no, I have not discussed the goings on with Barrier with any of my former colleagues.
I am not and will not be an apologist for CASA (or the operator) but the following is one scenario where after an audit and renewal of an AOC the AOC is suddenly withdrawn:
A regular, programmed audit is conducted and several deficiencies are discovered that attract a number of NCNs and possibly one person is responsible for identifying the root cause and implementing the corrective action.
Given the number of NCNs and the time accepted to implement the changes and the impending renewal of the AOC, CASA renews the AOC for a period of 6 months conditional on the fixes being implemented in that period.
With the "wet" approaching and with a now higher workload the person responsible for implementing the changes for whatever reason decides to leave the organisation.
This leaves CASA with no "faith" that the required changes will be implemented in the required time and an operator that is missing a possible "key" person. If the operator cannot solve the problem then the only option is to withdraw the AOC until acceptable personnel have been brought into the organisation and the corrective actions are implemented.
This is only one possible scenario and I am not saying it is the case with Barrier but it might explain the chain of events. And no, I have not discussed the goings on with Barrier with any of my former colleagues.
Last edited by flying-spike; 28th Dec 2012 at 21:11.
THE M Others....
Man/2Bikky/2...good one.!! 
While CASA may have won the argument against Repacholi, they might exercise their "stautory powers" for "safety" and ignore economic considerarations ...they cant avoid civil liability for defective decision making..and there's plenty of that going on lately.
2.13 Legal basis for reg enforcement.... C & E manual
"...the Authority ..or an officer or delegate, may be found liable for damages as a result of failure to observe the rules and principles of administrative law" ( which may cause economic angst!).
And..."...where it can be shown that in the process of exercising decision making powers under CASA legislation, an officer or a delegate has acted negligently, the Authority may be held liable to pay the costs associated with any harm or injury a person may have suffered as a direct and proximate result of that action, (or as the case may be a failure to act)"
And Sunny is right ...there are some CASA persons that just do what they effing like...in the knowlege that they wil be protected by their system right up to the very top of the sh*theap.
JMac has a lot to answer for.
I do read his monthly bullsh*tins just for the crapspeak and a laugh.
As for your costs, dont get too excited about MLO either with CASA, merit reviews or the AGs office...its all just a great WOFTAM on yr part.
Only a Court may yield a result.
And as for this thread..and the Barrier bash, like many others I wait with interest to see the 'meat and bones' of what actually constitutes such a sudden "grave and imminent danger" of falling aeroplanes.
Remember ANYTHING can be done in the name of "safety".
While CASA may have won the argument against Repacholi, they might exercise their "stautory powers" for "safety" and ignore economic considerarations ...they cant avoid civil liability for defective decision making..and there's plenty of that going on lately.
2.13 Legal basis for reg enforcement.... C & E manual
"...the Authority ..or an officer or delegate, may be found liable for damages as a result of failure to observe the rules and principles of administrative law" ( which may cause economic angst!).
And..."...where it can be shown that in the process of exercising decision making powers under CASA legislation, an officer or a delegate has acted negligently, the Authority may be held liable to pay the costs associated with any harm or injury a person may have suffered as a direct and proximate result of that action, (or as the case may be a failure to act)"
And Sunny is right ...there are some CASA persons that just do what they effing like...in the knowlege that they wil be protected by their system right up to the very top of the sh*theap.
JMac has a lot to answer for.
I do read his monthly bullsh*tins just for the crapspeak and a laugh.
As for your costs, dont get too excited about MLO either with CASA, merit reviews or the AGs office...its all just a great WOFTAM on yr part.
Only a Court may yield a result.
And as for this thread..and the Barrier bash, like many others I wait with interest to see the 'meat and bones' of what actually constitutes such a sudden "grave and imminent danger" of falling aeroplanes.
Remember ANYTHING can be done in the name of "safety".
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Australia
Age: 53
Posts: 547
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From ABC FNQ. The good thing is Barrier are getting their side of the story some press.
Grounded airline seeks resolution with CASA - ABC Far North Qld - Australian Broadcasting Corporation
28 December, 2012 2:51PM AEST
Grounded airline seeks resolution with CASA
By Sam Davis
Queensland airline Barrier Aviation says it is working with lawyers to have an extended suspension imposed by the Civil Aviation and Safety Authority [CASA] lifted early.
The Cairns based charter service was grounded by CASA last week till February 15 next year for a range of alleged 'maintenance related deficiencies'.
If the suspension is upheld for its duration it would mean the company which employs 55 staff and runs around 30 flights a day would be out of the sky for almost three months.
Lawyer for Barrier Aviation Derek Perkins said the company was working 'night and day' to get back in the air.
"It wouldn't take Blind Freddy to work out that every day that we're suspended the airline is losing a very substantial amount of money," he said.
"Quite frankly, I would imagine that if we can't operate [sooner] ... then we can't survive."
While Barrier Aviation runs flights out of Darwin, Gove and Cairns Mr Perkins said CASA was most concerned with the airline's Horn Island operation.
"We're working with CASA to present a satisfactory response to their concerns," he said. "We're not out to be protagonists. We're actively working with them to resolve the matter constructively."
Discussions between Barrier Aviation's legal team were held on Christmas Eve and Mr Perkins said despite CASA being closed over the holiday period high level discussions would continue.
CASA suspended Barrier Aviation for five working days on December 23.
An application to extend the suspension until at least February 15, 2013 was made to the Federal Court the following day.
Barrier Aviation's suspension remains in place until either the Federal Court refuses CASA's application or CASA withdraws it.
In a statement CASA said they believe 'permitting Barrier Aviation to continue to fly poses a serious and imminent risk to air safety' and that the service had been operating aircraft with 'serious and known defects'.
Grounded airline seeks resolution with CASA - ABC Far North Qld - Australian Broadcasting Corporation
28 December, 2012 2:51PM AEST
Grounded airline seeks resolution with CASA
By Sam Davis
Queensland airline Barrier Aviation says it is working with lawyers to have an extended suspension imposed by the Civil Aviation and Safety Authority [CASA] lifted early.
The Cairns based charter service was grounded by CASA last week till February 15 next year for a range of alleged 'maintenance related deficiencies'.
If the suspension is upheld for its duration it would mean the company which employs 55 staff and runs around 30 flights a day would be out of the sky for almost three months.
Lawyer for Barrier Aviation Derek Perkins said the company was working 'night and day' to get back in the air.
"It wouldn't take Blind Freddy to work out that every day that we're suspended the airline is losing a very substantial amount of money," he said.
"Quite frankly, I would imagine that if we can't operate [sooner] ... then we can't survive."
While Barrier Aviation runs flights out of Darwin, Gove and Cairns Mr Perkins said CASA was most concerned with the airline's Horn Island operation.
"We're working with CASA to present a satisfactory response to their concerns," he said. "We're not out to be protagonists. We're actively working with them to resolve the matter constructively."
Discussions between Barrier Aviation's legal team were held on Christmas Eve and Mr Perkins said despite CASA being closed over the holiday period high level discussions would continue.
CASA suspended Barrier Aviation for five working days on December 23.
An application to extend the suspension until at least February 15, 2013 was made to the Federal Court the following day.
Barrier Aviation's suspension remains in place until either the Federal Court refuses CASA's application or CASA withdraws it.
In a statement CASA said they believe 'permitting Barrier Aviation to continue to fly poses a serious and imminent risk to air safety' and that the service had been operating aircraft with 'serious and known defects'.
Last edited by halfmanhalfbiscuit; 28th Dec 2012 at 15:19.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aye, tis a passing strange world.
Just browsing through the Senate questions on notice from Pel Air and referring the answers back to Hansard, supplementary documents and notes made on an infant time line. Thought this was worth sharing with Pruners; to quote the Laird of the Chairman's lounge – "it's passing strange".
5). 7 December 2009: CASA Audit and Investigation team (same same) meet with Pel-Air management to discuss a number of deficiencies within the Westwind Operation. This is supported by CASA correspondence 9/12/2009. (Aside - It's passing strange that the Auditors formed the bulk of the investigating team; suppose it saved time, money and all that nasty conflict stuff?).
6). 16 December 2009: CASA accept the Pel-Air ‘Management Action Plan’ which consisted of three phases.
7).18 December 2009: Pel-Air successfully completed Phase 1 items and were able to recommence domestic operations.
8). 23-24 December 2009: The Pel Air CASA FOI issues 14 RCA and a number of AO.
Note: The RCA are required to be acquitted by 28/01/2010.
9). 24 December 2009: Pel-Air successfully completed Phase 2 items and were able to recommence international operations.
10). 8 January 2010: CASA issue seven more RCA and "several" more AO, all of which were signed off by Audit Coordinator, on behalf of several SAR team members.
Here's hoping that operations at Barrier can be given the same degree of latitude and speedy recovery. There must be some difference between being deemed "operationally sound" and being declared "legally unsafe"; perhaps it's all in the translation, maybe in the rhetoric, or is it just lost amid the piles of spun down pony pooh.
5). 7 December 2009: CASA Audit and Investigation team (same same) meet with Pel-Air management to discuss a number of deficiencies within the Westwind Operation. This is supported by CASA correspondence 9/12/2009. (Aside - It's passing strange that the Auditors formed the bulk of the investigating team; suppose it saved time, money and all that nasty conflict stuff?).
6). 16 December 2009: CASA accept the Pel-Air ‘Management Action Plan’ which consisted of three phases.
7).18 December 2009: Pel-Air successfully completed Phase 1 items and were able to recommence domestic operations.
8). 23-24 December 2009: The Pel Air CASA FOI issues 14 RCA and a number of AO.
Note: The RCA are required to be acquitted by 28/01/2010.
9). 24 December 2009: Pel-Air successfully completed Phase 2 items and were able to recommence international operations.
10). 8 January 2010: CASA issue seven more RCA and "several" more AO, all of which were signed off by Audit Coordinator, on behalf of several SAR team members.
Here's hoping that operations at Barrier can be given the same degree of latitude and speedy recovery. There must be some difference between being deemed "operationally sound" and being declared "legally unsafe"; perhaps it's all in the translation, maybe in the rhetoric, or is it just lost amid the piles of spun down pony pooh.
Last edited by Kharon; 28th Dec 2012 at 19:36. Reason: Got to get AC fitted to the sleigh, fark it gets cool of night time.
Rumor via friend of friend I saw last night I shall paraphrase to the effect that CASA was justified.
That still leaves the question open: why did it take so long to discover this alleged can of worms?
That still leaves the question open: why did it take so long to discover this alleged can of worms?
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Australia
Age: 53
Posts: 547
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sunfish, That would be a good question for the senators to ask wouldn't it!
Surely a process shouldn't go out of control before it is addressed.
I was wondering if it is like the self regulation of banks? Did CASA reduce the amount of oversight and delegate more to industry through self regulation. That is OK as long as industry is kept current and the regulator offers training for them to be able to do that.
Surely a process shouldn't go out of control before it is addressed.
I was wondering if it is like the self regulation of banks? Did CASA reduce the amount of oversight and delegate more to industry through self regulation. That is OK as long as industry is kept current and the regulator offers training for them to be able to do that.
AOPA Australia Editorial April 1997 - Unchecked Bureaucratic Power in Action
interesting system running down under...
interesting system running down under...
Join Date: May 2010
Location: More than 300km from SY, Australia
Posts: 817
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
casa and the effect on commercial operations
Just a Sunday read, following the reference to Falcon:
3 November 1997
Falcon Airlines plane crashed into the sea off Cairns with the occupants safely reaching the shore. The subsequent report by David Wheelahan QC found a possible conflict of interest between CASA, the airline and Minister John Sharp. The Minister had sought an independent report after stating that a response from CASA was inadequate.
AAP, 18 February 1997; Canberra Times, 8 November 1996
From:
Aviation safety regulation timeline 1982-2011 – Parliament of Australia
and:
February 1997
Vigorous debates in Parliament regarding CASA Board placements by Transport Minister John Sharp, who continued his criticism of the CASA Board in response to the Wheelahan report and Kimpton inquiry.
Australian, 13, 15 and 17 February 1997.
3 November 1997
Falcon Airlines plane crashed into the sea off Cairns with the occupants safely reaching the shore. The subsequent report by David Wheelahan QC found a possible conflict of interest between CASA, the airline and Minister John Sharp. The Minister had sought an independent report after stating that a response from CASA was inadequate.
AAP, 18 February 1997; Canberra Times, 8 November 1996
From:
Aviation safety regulation timeline 1982-2011 – Parliament of Australia
and:
February 1997
Vigorous debates in Parliament regarding CASA Board placements by Transport Minister John Sharp, who continued his criticism of the CASA Board in response to the Wheelahan report and Kimpton inquiry.
Australian, 13, 15 and 17 February 1997.
Looks like this isn't the first time that CASA has taken action against the owners. After looking at the links above and doing a bit of Googling it's not hard to find more info. Very interesting to note that a now ex CASA PNG FOI was involved with the Falcon saga, obviously long before he joined the regulator in PNG. Maybe what he said at the time had some substance? (Although I could be wrong).