Model Litigants? What Model Litigants?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Queensland
Posts: 686
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Model Litigants? What Model Litigants?
http://www.aviationadvertiser.com.au...with-diabetes/
A variant on the 5PM Friday fax? Few pilots would have the time, drive, persistence and financial resources of Mr Ovens. He should be congratulated for his dogged persistence in pursuing his right to continue flying.
Under the FAA protocol more than 500 pilots with diabetes are flying in the US. There have been NO diabetes related incidents.
Why, once again, does CASA want to develop special rules for Australia? Is our diabetes different from American diabetes?
Their smart-arse trick of introducing new rules after the case had started seems to set another low bar in their style of litigation. The question should be asked - Why are they more interested in stopping people flying than in any concerns about safety?
It's not often that they would have the luxury of examining a tried and tested protocol before deciding what's needed here. Obviously they completely ignored the US experience. As someone on another post stated, their underlying principle must be 'Empty skies are safe skies'.
What will this needless case eventually cost CASA, ie the Australian taxpayer? It seems there are some very expensive egos in CASA.
Remember "Law" is only the legalised opinion of the current government or the interpretation of those administrating that law.
That is why if you ask an legal opinion from a bunch of lawyers, you will get a bunch of answers (opinions).
One only has to look at the first (in 2003 if I remember correctly) "Aviation Ruling" that gave a ruling that aerial baiting was a private operation and did not require an AOC.
When Part 135 was enacted for aeroplanes which included aerial baiting, had the effect, for a period, that you needed an AOC for baiting from an aeroplane but you could do the same from a helicopter without an AOC.
So to solve the problem, the "Aviation Ruling" relating to aerial baiting was rescinded overnight.
What changed?????
Legal one day as a private operation in a helicopter and not the next day.
That is why if you ask an legal opinion from a bunch of lawyers, you will get a bunch of answers (opinions).
One only has to look at the first (in 2003 if I remember correctly) "Aviation Ruling" that gave a ruling that aerial baiting was a private operation and did not require an AOC.
When Part 135 was enacted for aeroplanes which included aerial baiting, had the effect, for a period, that you needed an AOC for baiting from an aeroplane but you could do the same from a helicopter without an AOC.
So to solve the problem, the "Aviation Ruling" relating to aerial baiting was rescinded overnight.
What changed?????
Legal one day as a private operation in a helicopter and not the next day.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Mel-burn
Posts: 4,875
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hasn't Roger Serong been flying with Diabetes for a few years now? I thought I read it in a well known flying magazine. Seems like they are treating each case in absolute isolation at best.
Join Date: May 2008
Location: on the beach :-)
Age: 50
Posts: 127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It seems there are some very expensive egos in CASA.
Name and shame the officials who waste the money,
Name and shame the officials who obstruct business,
Name and shame the officials who hurt aviation.
We are responsible to them for our failings and they punish us.
Make them responsible to us for their failings and we punish them.
Pilots and operators live in fear of aviation bureaucracies,
yet we are the men out there in the rain, snow, and storms, saving lives while they wait for their computers to boot up and the coffee to arrive.
We are ten times the men any of them are.
Yet why do we live in fear of their arbitrariness?
They should live in fear of us.
When we sit across the table from us and we ask why they haven't yet approved X they should fear that they are in the presence of men and not mice.
If you have the courage to bring a crippled bird in for a safe landing when the cards are stacked against you, you have the courage to pull the masks off the faceless officials.
Stand up as a pilot or be held down by a paper pusher.
Last edited by weloveseaplanes; 13th Feb 2013 at 07:27.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: More than 300km from SY, Australia
Posts: 817
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
casa and making information available
The Federal Court finding is interesting and Chris McKeon's part comment as follows:
Just view my highlighted section - this is a problem that I have repeately seen in casa and AAT cases, where they withold information or mis-state information.
Again
Well mr. casa??
The draft protocol was available, but because of its prohibition of insulin use within 90 minutes of flight Mr Ovens largely ignored it. The AAT decision was based on the finding that there was no evidence of his ability to fit within certain parts of the new CASA Protocol.
Given that CASA must have known of the existence of its own and now amended protocol, it is not easily understood why it only tendered the amended protocol at the eleventh hour.
Was it to avoid argument comparing its protocol with that of the FAA?
The new CASA protocol permits the use of an insulin pump, but the pilot did not know of this amendment until the eleventh hour.
Given that CASA must have known of the existence of its own and now amended protocol, it is not easily understood why it only tendered the amended protocol at the eleventh hour.
Was it to avoid argument comparing its protocol with that of the FAA?
The new CASA protocol permits the use of an insulin pump, but the pilot did not know of this amendment until the eleventh hour.
Again
Well mr. casa??
senate hearing....
weloveseaplanes...have you put all those names and examples into a RRAT submission.
Better hurry.!
Tell 'em all and tell 'em like it REALY is.
get to it
Better hurry.!
Tell 'em all and tell 'em like it REALY is.
get to it
