Any news on Barrier? Minus the drift.
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: 400 sq. ft box
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Barrier to Appeal CASA
This was just posted on ABC online
.
Far north Queensland-based airline Barrier Aviation is appealing against the aviation watchdog's decision to ground it permanently.
The Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) last week cancelled the Cairns-based airline's operating licence, citing serious safety concerns.
Barrier Aviation has lodged an application to have the matter heard in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.
Owner and managing director David Kilin says he is looking forward to having CASA's allegations tested by an independent umpire.
"A lot of the allegations in their notices don't appear to be 100 per cent correct and we need to get the mistakes taken out of it," he said.
"I feel we've operated a good safe airline for many years now.
"We've never dispatched aircraft that weren't air-worthy or safe.
"We have a safety record spanning over 20 years.
"We really need to get to the bottom of what's going on."
A hearing date is yet to be set
The Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) last week cancelled the Cairns-based airline's operating licence, citing serious safety concerns.
Barrier Aviation has lodged an application to have the matter heard in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.
Owner and managing director David Kilin says he is looking forward to having CASA's allegations tested by an independent umpire.
"A lot of the allegations in their notices don't appear to be 100 per cent correct and we need to get the mistakes taken out of it," he said.
"I feel we've operated a good safe airline for many years now.
"We've never dispatched aircraft that weren't air-worthy or safe.
"We have a safety record spanning over 20 years.
"We really need to get to the bottom of what's going on."
A hearing date is yet to be set
Josh, for too long I have been saying much the same of the apparent good guys in Casa but not any more. When it comes to the crunch their instruction from above ( a recent comment by a FOI ) was, if they don't toe the Casa line then they will be " on their own ". In that case it will be difficult for the " good guy " to remain so.
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Holland
Age: 60
Posts: 560
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Megle2, interesting interjection. So the management bullyboys are bullying the frontline staff as well as industry? Not to mention CASA's smarta#s attitude to state politicians, the media and senators. What a wonderful culture they are breeding? So much for being an example of upholding the values of a 'just culture'?
This really is a diseased organisation which has well and truly rotted from the head. Aargh yes, shades of GWM shine forth, not to mention the stain of sociopathic behaviour trailing their every move.
The iron doesn't get much hotter than it is now (except maybe 3000 degrees centigrade in the core of a smoking hole). Time for the Senators to apply the blowtorch if they have one fully gassed and ready to go!
This really is a diseased organisation which has well and truly rotted from the head. Aargh yes, shades of GWM shine forth, not to mention the stain of sociopathic behaviour trailing their every move.
The iron doesn't get much hotter than it is now (except maybe 3000 degrees centigrade in the core of a smoking hole). Time for the Senators to apply the blowtorch if they have one fully gassed and ready to go!
CASA must answer to their actions, says Entsch
Posted on Tuesday, 19 March, 2013
FEDERAL Member for Leichhardt Warren Entsch has slammed CASA for the permanent grounding of Barrier Aviation, identifying “vested interests” as playing a key role in the airline’s crisis.
“It’s a bloody disgrace – there are people in CASA who should be sacked over this,” he said. “By the time the true facts behind all this come out, the victim will have been financially destroyed.”
Mr Entsch said Barrier Aviation's 20-year safety record had been ignored in CASA's ambush of the company and confirmed he had called the aviation authority to express his concerns. “CASA are on a ‘go slow’ campaign to send Barrier bankrupt. I have contacted them and tried to expedite the investigation process but they were not interested.”
Mr Entsch said the suspension was causing a huge financial, emotional and personal toll, with 50 families reliant on the family-owned business.
“As well as the employees who have worked for them for many years and never had a problem, there are also numerous local businesses that rely on Barrier - from Haggerstone Island Resort to Wongai Hotel on Horn Island and pilot training services in Cairns.
“I personally have used Barrier on many occasions and they have been outstanding. But when the allegations come from a disgruntled employee who was demoted because of circumstances he created himself, (CASA) are denying natural justice.”
Mr Entsch can reveal that the complaint originated from a former employee who was cautioned and demoted following a number of irregular procedural issues, left the country and then filed a complaint of unfair demotion. The situation has also been compounded by Barrier’s ongoing troubles with a particular CASA Airworthiness Inspector (AWI) based in Cairns.
In May 2011, the airline lodged a formal complaint through the director of CASA that the AWI responsible for inspecting Barrier’s aircraft, Mr Phillip Lister, lacked the experience to fulfil his role and duties and lacked the ability to correctly interpret CASA regulations.
“The matter was referred to the Industry Complaint Commissioner but as of this time, Barrier has not heard a single word back from them,” Mr Entsch commented.
“Given the seriousness of the matter, wouldn’t you think that while it is being investigated, CASA would have allocated another AWI for Barrier? But no action has been taken and Phillip Lister is still on the case; in fact, he has now been promoted to a team leader position and continues to have direct involvement.
“You have to wonder whether this is a personal attack as payback for the original complaint rather than anything that can be attributed to legitimate safety concerns.”
Mr Entsch said it was not the first time he had heard of CASA employing people who had either “failed in the private sector” or had their own agendas.
“You get individuals with a vested interest employed in these positions and they want to prove a point... They drive airlines into the ground and they cite safety as a reason for doing it, so it becomes very difficult for anyone to speak out.
“I see Barrier in this category – the airline has had no opportunity whatsoever of being able to test any of the information they are charged with including these false allegations. You do have to ask if there is a vendetta.”
CASA must answer to their actions, says Entsch > Warren Entsch MP
Very very interesting.
Posted on Tuesday, 19 March, 2013
FEDERAL Member for Leichhardt Warren Entsch has slammed CASA for the permanent grounding of Barrier Aviation, identifying “vested interests” as playing a key role in the airline’s crisis.
“It’s a bloody disgrace – there are people in CASA who should be sacked over this,” he said. “By the time the true facts behind all this come out, the victim will have been financially destroyed.”
Mr Entsch said Barrier Aviation's 20-year safety record had been ignored in CASA's ambush of the company and confirmed he had called the aviation authority to express his concerns. “CASA are on a ‘go slow’ campaign to send Barrier bankrupt. I have contacted them and tried to expedite the investigation process but they were not interested.”
Mr Entsch said the suspension was causing a huge financial, emotional and personal toll, with 50 families reliant on the family-owned business.
“As well as the employees who have worked for them for many years and never had a problem, there are also numerous local businesses that rely on Barrier - from Haggerstone Island Resort to Wongai Hotel on Horn Island and pilot training services in Cairns.
“I personally have used Barrier on many occasions and they have been outstanding. But when the allegations come from a disgruntled employee who was demoted because of circumstances he created himself, (CASA) are denying natural justice.”
Mr Entsch can reveal that the complaint originated from a former employee who was cautioned and demoted following a number of irregular procedural issues, left the country and then filed a complaint of unfair demotion. The situation has also been compounded by Barrier’s ongoing troubles with a particular CASA Airworthiness Inspector (AWI) based in Cairns.
In May 2011, the airline lodged a formal complaint through the director of CASA that the AWI responsible for inspecting Barrier’s aircraft, Mr Phillip Lister, lacked the experience to fulfil his role and duties and lacked the ability to correctly interpret CASA regulations.
“The matter was referred to the Industry Complaint Commissioner but as of this time, Barrier has not heard a single word back from them,” Mr Entsch commented.
“Given the seriousness of the matter, wouldn’t you think that while it is being investigated, CASA would have allocated another AWI for Barrier? But no action has been taken and Phillip Lister is still on the case; in fact, he has now been promoted to a team leader position and continues to have direct involvement.
“You have to wonder whether this is a personal attack as payback for the original complaint rather than anything that can be attributed to legitimate safety concerns.”
Mr Entsch said it was not the first time he had heard of CASA employing people who had either “failed in the private sector” or had their own agendas.
“You get individuals with a vested interest employed in these positions and they want to prove a point... They drive airlines into the ground and they cite safety as a reason for doing it, so it becomes very difficult for anyone to speak out.
“I see Barrier in this category – the airline has had no opportunity whatsoever of being able to test any of the information they are charged with including these false allegations. You do have to ask if there is a vendetta.”
CASA must answer to their actions, says Entsch > Warren Entsch MP
Very very interesting.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Australia
Age: 41
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've been told that a large part of the fleet is still flying, other operators around Australia apparently jumped at the opportunity to use the aircraft.
It has been mentioned here on Pprune a few times that CASA Darwin had no problems with the Darwin operation. The local AWI's found no evidence of any wrong doing during the November audit. Which makes sense because the aircraft are obviously still able to operate.
I'd imagine as a pilot you would be extra careful to cross every t and dot every i if you were flying around in an aircraft with 'Barrier' painted on the tail
It has been mentioned here on Pprune a few times that CASA Darwin had no problems with the Darwin operation. The local AWI's found no evidence of any wrong doing during the November audit. Which makes sense because the aircraft are obviously still able to operate.
I'd imagine as a pilot you would be extra careful to cross every t and dot every i if you were flying around in an aircraft with 'Barrier' painted on the tail
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
ABC report this afternoon:
Barrier Aviation to appeal CASA grounding - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)
Barrier Aviation to appeal CASA grounding - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)
Barrier Aviation to appeal CASA grounding
By Sharnie Kim
Updated 6 hours 8 minutes ago
PHOTO: Mr Kilin says he is looking forward to having CASA's allegations tested by an independent umpire. (ABC News: Sharnie Kim)
MAP: Cairns 4870
Far north Queensland-based airline Barrier Aviation is appealing against the aviation watchdog's decision to ground it permanently.
The Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) last week cancelled the Cairns-based airline's operating licence, citing serious safety concerns.
Barrier Aviation has lodged an application to have the matter heard in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.
Owner and managing director David Kilin says he is looking forward to having CASA's allegations tested by an independent umpire.
"A lot of the allegations in their notices don't appear to be 100 per cent correct and we need to get the mistakes taken out of it," he said.
"I feel we've operated a good safe airline for many years now.
"We've never dispatched aircraft that weren't air-worthy or safe.
"We have a safety record spanning over 20 years.
"We really need to get to the bottom of what's going on."
A hearing date is yet to be set.
By Sharnie Kim
Updated 6 hours 8 minutes ago
PHOTO: Mr Kilin says he is looking forward to having CASA's allegations tested by an independent umpire. (ABC News: Sharnie Kim)
MAP: Cairns 4870
Far north Queensland-based airline Barrier Aviation is appealing against the aviation watchdog's decision to ground it permanently.
The Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) last week cancelled the Cairns-based airline's operating licence, citing serious safety concerns.
Barrier Aviation has lodged an application to have the matter heard in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.
Owner and managing director David Kilin says he is looking forward to having CASA's allegations tested by an independent umpire.
"A lot of the allegations in their notices don't appear to be 100 per cent correct and we need to get the mistakes taken out of it," he said.
"I feel we've operated a good safe airline for many years now.
"We've never dispatched aircraft that weren't air-worthy or safe.
"We have a safety record spanning over 20 years.
"We really need to get to the bottom of what's going on."
A hearing date is yet to be set.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: PNG
Age: 59
Posts: 65
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
“As well as the employees who have worked for them for many years and never had a problem, there are also numerous local businesses that rely on Barrier - from Haggerstone Island Resort to Wongai Hotel on Horn Island and pilot training services in Cairns.
I have to wonder if Wazza has ever checked the legalities of landing at Haggerstone in a 402.....................
I have to wonder if Wazza has ever checked the legalities of landing at Haggerstone in a 402.....................
Have the Appeals Tribunal ever reversed a CASA decision before?
Do operators have recourse to the FCA, or only to the AAT?
...or is it simply a matter of running out of money before we make it to the higher court?
Last edited by Horatio Leafblower; 19th Mar 2013 at 10:44.
Hey Justinga, out of curiosity, what would be wrong with the Hicks Island airstrip? looks like about 650-700m and from what I've seen in the books the C402 takes about 650-700m of strip to land on without any kind of VG or STOL upgrades? Just purely out of curiosity, landing into strips they shouldn't be at would add another dimension to the argument of course! 
*Edit*
I had been spending all day converting pounds to kilos and back and as such just automatically did the same conversion from feet to metres, so if anyone saw the glaring mistake before I changed it...that is why!!
*Edit*
I had been spending all day converting pounds to kilos and back and as such just automatically did the same conversion from feet to metres, so if anyone saw the glaring mistake before I changed it...that is why!!
Last edited by Ixixly; 19th Mar 2013 at 11:19.
Slam Click:
I'm going to make the assumption that you are not a troll and attempt to rebut your assertions. These rest on a series of untested assertions.
You say there is "no doubt" that Barriers grounding was "Justified". .......
Justify = " To demonstrate or prove to be just, right, or valid" Exactly what process was employed to demonstrate Barriers non compliance? The evidence is untested in Court and perhaps even inadmissible. As to grounding and the financial destruction this causes, there is the question of proportionality.
You say that the grounding was "warranted". Says who? A disgruntled AWI about whom Barrier had already complained? On what evidence? In which Court? In front of which impartial judge?
You say that the "necessary" changes "wouldn't" be able to be "satisfactorilly" implemented.
Again, says who? And on what evidence? What are the necessary changes? Who said an organisation wouldn't be able to implement them? The behaviour of profit seeking organisatoins is predictable, especially when costs are involved. Who says what is "satisfactory"?
You may be right in your prediction regarding the AAT, not because evidence is produced and tested and found to be 100% correct. Not because the judgement of CASA will be solemnly weighed by the good commissoners who agree that the punishment fits the crime. But because CASA will read the regulations to the AAT and explain that they can do what they ****1ng well like to anybody in the name of an abstract concept called "Safety", and provided the AAT can't find a procedural legal flaw in their process then CASAs verdict stands, and the AAT will roll over to have its tummy tickled.
As for killing people, companies do it all the time, as do car drivers and anyone else engaged with machinery. The difference though is that they get their day in court and the penalties applied are commensurate with the sin committed after thoughtful consideration by an impartial judge. Not so aircraft operators.
To put that another way, BHP just got fined $130,000 over the crushing death of one of its workers. Was BHP's "licence to operate" cancelled? Did the worksafe people try to shut down BHPs operations and bankrupt the company? Of course not. Why should aircraft operators face anything different?
Ahhh! You will say "but aircraft fly over the heads of an unsuspecting public who dislike the prospect of being crushed in their sleep by flaming aircraft wreckage". Ever driven on the roads Slam Click? Ever been next to a B - Double truck carrying 55,000 litres of petrol? Do you know what Vinyl Chloride is? Ever seen Thirty tonnes of that on the road -capable of poisoning or incinerating an entire suburb if there is an accident - and the vehicle is operated and maintained to a standard far below an aircraft by minimum wage workers.
Ever been on a train Slam Klick - along with 300+ other people? Do we shut down rail companies at will? Did you know that at least One person dies every day in Melbourne from coming into contact with a train?
....We accept those risks daily, and trucks and trains kill people daily, but aircraft? Oh the horror! Think of the risk!!!!!
BHP fined over worker being crushed to death - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)
There's no doubt that Barrier's grounding was warranted, and the necessary culture changes within the organisation wouldn't be able to be introduced to a satisfactory standard.
I don't see what appealing their decision will do, all they'd get is lifting of the AOC cancellation and resurection of the suspension.
Quote: "We've never dispatched aircraft that weren't air-worthy or safe."
Ah no...you just forced your pilots to do it for you....Just because you haven't killed passengers/staff (or own or others) yet, doesn't mean you weren't about to!
I don't see what appealing their decision will do, all they'd get is lifting of the AOC cancellation and resurection of the suspension.
Quote: "We've never dispatched aircraft that weren't air-worthy or safe."
Ah no...you just forced your pilots to do it for you....Just because you haven't killed passengers/staff (or own or others) yet, doesn't mean you weren't about to!
You say there is "no doubt" that Barriers grounding was "Justified". .......
Justify = " To demonstrate or prove to be just, right, or valid" Exactly what process was employed to demonstrate Barriers non compliance? The evidence is untested in Court and perhaps even inadmissible. As to grounding and the financial destruction this causes, there is the question of proportionality.
You say that the grounding was "warranted". Says who? A disgruntled AWI about whom Barrier had already complained? On what evidence? In which Court? In front of which impartial judge?
You say that the "necessary" changes "wouldn't" be able to be "satisfactorilly" implemented.
Again, says who? And on what evidence? What are the necessary changes? Who said an organisation wouldn't be able to implement them? The behaviour of profit seeking organisatoins is predictable, especially when costs are involved. Who says what is "satisfactory"?
You may be right in your prediction regarding the AAT, not because evidence is produced and tested and found to be 100% correct. Not because the judgement of CASA will be solemnly weighed by the good commissoners who agree that the punishment fits the crime. But because CASA will read the regulations to the AAT and explain that they can do what they ****1ng well like to anybody in the name of an abstract concept called "Safety", and provided the AAT can't find a procedural legal flaw in their process then CASAs verdict stands, and the AAT will roll over to have its tummy tickled.
As for killing people, companies do it all the time, as do car drivers and anyone else engaged with machinery. The difference though is that they get their day in court and the penalties applied are commensurate with the sin committed after thoughtful consideration by an impartial judge. Not so aircraft operators.
To put that another way, BHP just got fined $130,000 over the crushing death of one of its workers. Was BHP's "licence to operate" cancelled? Did the worksafe people try to shut down BHPs operations and bankrupt the company? Of course not. Why should aircraft operators face anything different?
Ahhh! You will say "but aircraft fly over the heads of an unsuspecting public who dislike the prospect of being crushed in their sleep by flaming aircraft wreckage". Ever driven on the roads Slam Click? Ever been next to a B - Double truck carrying 55,000 litres of petrol? Do you know what Vinyl Chloride is? Ever seen Thirty tonnes of that on the road -capable of poisoning or incinerating an entire suburb if there is an accident - and the vehicle is operated and maintained to a standard far below an aircraft by minimum wage workers.
Ever been on a train Slam Klick - along with 300+ other people? Do we shut down rail companies at will? Did you know that at least One person dies every day in Melbourne from coming into contact with a train?
....We accept those risks daily, and trucks and trains kill people daily, but aircraft? Oh the horror! Think of the risk!!!!!
BHP Billiton has been fined $130,000 over the death of one of its workers in Port Hedland five years ago.
Last edited by Sunfish; 19th Mar 2013 at 18:10.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Did you know that at least One person dies every day in Melbourne from coming into contact with a train?
But your points are otherwise hard to argue.
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
An article has been published in the Cairns Post this am:
Barrier Aviation Media Comments | Assistance to the Aviation Industry
or:
Grounded air boss lets fly at CASA- Local Cairns News | cairns.com.au
and the following:
It is interesting the rapidity of the casa response!!
Barrier Aviation Media Comments | Assistance to the Aviation Industry
or:
Grounded air boss lets fly at CASA- Local Cairns News | cairns.com.au
and the following:
Tweets
CASA @CASABriefing 46m
CASA rejects claims re the grounding of Barrier Aviation. Proper processes were followed. Action based on evidence and facts.
CASA @CASABriefing 46m
CASA rejects claims re the grounding of Barrier Aviation. Proper processes were followed. Action based on evidence and facts.
Last edited by Up-into-the-air; 19th Mar 2013 at 23:52. Reason: more stuff
Slam click:
slam click, good try. Yes, like it or not, we are all governed by laws, but that is not the point. If any Australian police force behaved as CASA is alleged to behave, meaning vindictive, selective, spiteful and capricious, there would be blood in the streets.
As the saying goes; any set of laws are acceptable when enforced by Angels and no set of laws is any good if enforced by the devil. The laws are not the issue, it is the alleged method of enforcement. why was not Hempels AOC not cancelled long ago?
Why did it take CASA 20 years to detect Barriers "unsafe culture"? If you accept the alleged CASA assertion that change is impossible, it means their audits failed for Twenty years to detect anything and it was only a helpful disgruntled ex employee who blew the whistle.
The laws themselves have nothing to do with the matter, it is the apparent total failure of CASA to operate under anything like a "just culture".
As far as "absolute safety" is concerned there is no such thing, which is why I mentioned the mining and ground transport industries and it is specious to argue that aviation should be held to some higher standard that automatically precludes aviators from the same legal protections as other citizens.
Without knowing how the BHP employee was killed, it's a bit hard to draw a comparison. But the reason why AOC operators should be handled differently is because every step of operating an aircraft, everything we do, is regulated by law. Laws designed to maintain safety. The servicability of an aircraft, the way it is maintained, loaded, fueled, operated and documented, is all laid out in the CAA, CAR, CAO, CASR, along with other various acts, standards and manuals.
Many of those rules are below what you could expect to be as safe as reasonably possible, but this allows operators to develop their processes to manage the risks of operating, and remain financially viable. The problem being is the operators that don't use that lowest, baseline safety standard, and fall below it because of commercial pressures.
Many of those rules are below what you could expect to be as safe as reasonably possible, but this allows operators to develop their processes to manage the risks of operating, and remain financially viable. The problem being is the operators that don't use that lowest, baseline safety standard, and fall below it because of commercial pressures.
As the saying goes; any set of laws are acceptable when enforced by Angels and no set of laws is any good if enforced by the devil. The laws are not the issue, it is the alleged method of enforcement. why was not Hempels AOC not cancelled long ago?
Why did it take CASA 20 years to detect Barriers "unsafe culture"? If you accept the alleged CASA assertion that change is impossible, it means their audits failed for Twenty years to detect anything and it was only a helpful disgruntled ex employee who blew the whistle.
The laws themselves have nothing to do with the matter, it is the apparent total failure of CASA to operate under anything like a "just culture".
As far as "absolute safety" is concerned there is no such thing, which is why I mentioned the mining and ground transport industries and it is specious to argue that aviation should be held to some higher standard that automatically precludes aviators from the same legal protections as other citizens.
Slammy you’re kind of missing the point here it’s not about the ‘good’, the ‘bad’ or the ‘ugly’ of Barrier, it is about the fact that everyone in Australia deserves the ‘Rule of Law’ principles. Catch phrases like the ‘presumption of innocence’, ‘onus of proof’, ‘natural justice’, ‘due process’, ‘chain of evidence’ and ‘everyone deserves their day in court’ seem not to be applicable when it comes to the regulator.
And when FF declares “Oh but you can appeal to the AAT”, well the AAT is not a court of law and doesn’t have to adhere to the normal rules of evidence and full disclosure. Also the onus of proof falls on the appealing party.
Meanwhile FF are not obligated to prove their case in the AAT unless the President so requests, so the appellant is on a hiding to nothing if they don’t have all their ducks in a row.
The Hoodoo Voodoo doctor and other members of the GWM worked out a long time ago that the AAT suits their sociopathic purposes when it comes to ‘kicking heads’ of some GA upstart that dared to complain.
However having just listened to the ABC local radio news bulletin which had interview cuts to Mr Entsch then Mr Gibson and finally Mr Kilin. It would appear that DK concedes that Barrier may well be done and dusted but he still wants to go to the AAT on a matter of principle, sort of in the context of what I just mentioned i.e. ‘due process’.
That’s the spirit DK don’t challenge them on the law, the Voodoo doc has that well and truly wrapped up in over 1700 pages of gobbledygook legalese and you will never win. However if you challenge ‘due process’ (and there’s a list as equally impressive as the regs contained within the enforcement manual, the SPM and the hidden ‘Investigator’s manual) and ask to see the required documentation for an enforcement action as per the AGIS 2011 and the required process outlined in the CAsA Enforcement manual….well game on I reckon and the Barrier case could well be a test case for the legal legitimacy of CAsA as a ‘enforcement’ agency, a privilege that they well and truly don’t deserve while FF is ruled by Sociopaths (like that Sunny?)!
And when FF declares “Oh but you can appeal to the AAT”, well the AAT is not a court of law and doesn’t have to adhere to the normal rules of evidence and full disclosure. Also the onus of proof falls on the appealing party.
Meanwhile FF are not obligated to prove their case in the AAT unless the President so requests, so the appellant is on a hiding to nothing if they don’t have all their ducks in a row.
The Hoodoo Voodoo doctor and other members of the GWM worked out a long time ago that the AAT suits their sociopathic purposes when it comes to ‘kicking heads’ of some GA upstart that dared to complain.
However having just listened to the ABC local radio news bulletin which had interview cuts to Mr Entsch then Mr Gibson and finally Mr Kilin. It would appear that DK concedes that Barrier may well be done and dusted but he still wants to go to the AAT on a matter of principle, sort of in the context of what I just mentioned i.e. ‘due process’.
That’s the spirit DK don’t challenge them on the law, the Voodoo doc has that well and truly wrapped up in over 1700 pages of gobbledygook legalese and you will never win. However if you challenge ‘due process’ (and there’s a list as equally impressive as the regs contained within the enforcement manual, the SPM and the hidden ‘Investigator’s manual) and ask to see the required documentation for an enforcement action as per the AGIS 2011 and the required process outlined in the CAsA Enforcement manual….well game on I reckon and the Barrier case could well be a test case for the legal legitimacy of CAsA as a ‘enforcement’ agency, a privilege that they well and truly don’t deserve while FF is ruled by Sociopaths (like that Sunny?)!
