Casa powers in regards to aircraft inspection.
Thread Starter
Casa powers in regards to aircraft inspection.
Can anyone inform me of what Casa's powers are in regards to going through and inspecting an aircraft without prior knowledge or permission of the owner?
Cheers Dash.
Cheers Dash.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Mel-burn
Posts: 4,875
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can you clarify further on that?
Is the aircraft being operated by someone else, like a student or private hire and got ramp checked or similar?
Was the inspection of the aircraft when it was unmanned, such as on a tarmac, in a hangar or on private property?
Is the aircraft being operated by someone else, like a student or private hire and got ramp checked or similar?
Was the inspection of the aircraft when it was unmanned, such as on a tarmac, in a hangar or on private property?
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Sydney
Age: 45
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Casa powers in regards to aircraft inspection.
You can't refuse them but they can't access a hangar etc if no one is in attendance with out warrants. They can however inspect an aircraft parked in the ramp but I don't think they can access the aircraft itself without the owner/representative in attendance.
That my understanding anyway.
That my understanding anyway.
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Dark side of the moon
Age: 61
Posts: 124
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Who knows what who knows.
Maybe this book knows
http://www.casa.gov.au/enf/009r012.pdf
Under CAR 305 (1A) it is an offence for a person to prevent, or hinder, access by an authorised person to any place to which the authorised person needs access to enable him or her to carry out any of his or her powers or functions under the Regulations.
If an inspector needs to inspect an aircraft in the field, the inspector should, where possible, carry out the inspection without requiring the opening of panels, dismantling or jacking. If a further internal inspection is required, then the inspector should obtain the consent of the owner, maintenance engineer in charge, or pilot-in-command of the aircraft. The person providing the consent should remove and replace any access panels. The inspector should generally not do this.
Maybe this book knows
http://www.casa.gov.au/enf/009r012.pdf
Under CAR 305 (1A) it is an offence for a person to prevent, or hinder, access by an authorised person to any place to which the authorised person needs access to enable him or her to carry out any of his or her powers or functions under the Regulations.
If an inspector needs to inspect an aircraft in the field, the inspector should, where possible, carry out the inspection without requiring the opening of panels, dismantling or jacking. If a further internal inspection is required, then the inspector should obtain the consent of the owner, maintenance engineer in charge, or pilot-in-command of the aircraft. The person providing the consent should remove and replace any access panels. The inspector should generally not do this.
Last edited by owen meaney; 19th Apr 2013 at 03:53.
I do not have knowledge of the CASA situation. But in other areas of federal government inspectors / representatives you don't need to allow access with no notice or necessarily at the timeframe nominated by the official. It is acceptable to offer to co-operate fully but because of xxxxx (insert appropriate reason), now is not suitable and an appointment is made for another time. The strategy is to buy enough time to collect your thoughts & arrange a lawyer to be present. There is no question about not co-operating. You will co-operate fully when you have the opportunity to re-arrange your affairs. Its a matter of arranging a time to properly do the inspection / interview. It could be argued that a demand that you drop everything to comply at the inspectors timeframe is bullying.
Thread Starter
Bullying.... Would just about sum the regulators actions in a lot of situations. No one is preventing/hindering the inspector, nothing at all to hide. It is merely a curtesy. The police don't come up to your car at will and open the door to go through the glove box on a suspicion you might have something of interest in there.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Perth - Western Australia
Age: 75
Posts: 1,805
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The police don't come up to your car at will and open the door to go through the glove box on a suspicion you might have something of interest in there.
However - it's a big jump from a CASA inspector to a Police Officer. The CASA inspector does not have the same powers as a Police Officer, because Police are sworn officers of the Crown and have powers of arrest.
A CASA officer is merely a Govt official with modest powers to carry out inspections relating to aviation regulations. Despite what many Govt inspectors will tell you, they do not have the same power as Police.
They are not authorised to enter private property and search without permission. They are authorised to enter workplaces and areas where operations that fall under their jurisdiction, operate.
Accordingly, a CASA inspector has the right to access an aircraft sitting on a Govt-recognised airstrip/aerodrome.
There are many Govt inspectors who abuse their power and position, and an arrogant and "pushy" Govt inspector is just what we all don't need.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 768
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Theoriginal question was do they have the right to go into private property.
Yes with a search warrant or in company of Federal Police exercising their powers in Probable Cause if a suspectedcrime has or is being committed.
Their right to enter Aviation Related premesis is quite different and a much broader power.
Yes with a search warrant or in company of Federal Police exercising their powers in Probable Cause if a suspectedcrime has or is being committed.
Their right to enter Aviation Related premesis is quite different and a much broader power.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Adelaide, South Australia
Posts: 394
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CASA have the power to detain an aircraft if they choose. They also can, with a warrant, enter premises and seize evidential material. That might be a part, a document (either written or stored on a computer), or even an aircraft, as "evidential material".
The operative word here is "should" which is not "shall" or "must". I don't know what powers apply if the owner declines to assist.
With respect to the Police and Motor Vehicles, they have broad powers to search if they believe the vehicle has been used, is being used, or is likely to be used, in the commission of an Australian road law offence. The officer may form the "necessary belief" during or after an inspection or independently of an inspection. They have no power to search a person under this act but no doubt their would be another piece of legislation to provide for this. Note that they can come to that "necessary belief" after the inspection i.e. they can go on a fishing expedition if they so choose.
There is no direction in the legislation as to whether the officer has to advise any reason to the driver or owner of the vehicle prior to the search.
From the South Australian Road Traffic Act 1961
32ACA Search with consent for evidence in relation to civil aviation offences
Subject to section 32ACB, if an investigator has reasonable grounds for suspecting that there is on, or in, any premises a particular thing which may be evidential material, the investigator may:
(a) enter the premises; and
(b) search the premises for the thing
Subject to section 32ACB, if an investigator has reasonable grounds for suspecting that there is on, or in, any premises a particular thing which may be evidential material, the investigator may:
(a) enter the premises; and
(b) search the premises for the thing
32AK Powers in relation to aircraft etc.
(1) An investigator may, for the purpose of performing the functions or exercising the powers of an investigator under this Part in relation to an aircraft, vessel or vehicle, require the person apparently in control of the aircraft, vessel or vehicle to do either or both of the following:
(a) to stop and detain the aircraft, vehicle or vessel for such reasonable period as the investigator specifies;
(b) to take all reasonable steps to ensure that the aircraft, vehicle or vessel, or a specified part of it, is left undisturbed for such reasonable period as the investigator specifies.
(2) A person must not fail to comply with a requirement under subsection (1).
Penalty: 30 penalty units.
(3) Subsection (2) does not apply if the person has a reasonable excuse.
Note: A defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to the matter in subsection (3) (see subsection 13.3(3) of the Criminal Code).
(4) An offence under subsection (2) is an offence of strict liability.
Note: For strict liability, see section 6.1 of the Criminal Code.
(1) An investigator may, for the purpose of performing the functions or exercising the powers of an investigator under this Part in relation to an aircraft, vessel or vehicle, require the person apparently in control of the aircraft, vessel or vehicle to do either or both of the following:
(a) to stop and detain the aircraft, vehicle or vessel for such reasonable period as the investigator specifies;
(b) to take all reasonable steps to ensure that the aircraft, vehicle or vessel, or a specified part of it, is left undisturbed for such reasonable period as the investigator specifies.
(2) A person must not fail to comply with a requirement under subsection (1).
Penalty: 30 penalty units.
(3) Subsection (2) does not apply if the person has a reasonable excuse.
Note: A defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to the matter in subsection (3) (see subsection 13.3(3) of the Criminal Code).
(4) An offence under subsection (2) is an offence of strict liability.
Note: For strict liability, see section 6.1 of the Criminal Code.
If an inspector needs to inspect an aircraft in the field, the inspector should, where possible, carry out the inspection without requiring the opening of panels, dismantling or jacking. If a further internal inspection is required, then the inspector should obtain the consent of the owner, maintenance engineer in charge, or pilot-in-command of the aircraft. The person providing the consent should remove and replace any access panels. The inspector should generally not do this.
With respect to the Police and Motor Vehicles, they have broad powers to search if they believe the vehicle has been used, is being used, or is likely to be used, in the commission of an Australian road law offence. The officer may form the "necessary belief" during or after an inspection or independently of an inspection. They have no power to search a person under this act but no doubt their would be another piece of legislation to provide for this. Note that they can come to that "necessary belief" after the inspection i.e. they can go on a fishing expedition if they so choose.
There is no direction in the legislation as to whether the officer has to advise any reason to the driver or owner of the vehicle prior to the search.
From the South Australian Road Traffic Act 1961
40R—Power to search vehicle on road or certain official premises
(1) This section applies to a vehicle located at a place—
(a) on a road; or
(b) in or on premises occupied or owned by a public authority, whether or not the vehicle is unattended.
(2) An authorised officer or police officer may search a vehicle for compliance purposes, if the officer believes on reasonable grounds that—
(a) the vehicle has been used, is being used, or is likely to be used, in the commission of an Australian road law offence or in the commission of a breach of an approved road transport compliance scheme; or
(b) the vehicle has been or may have been involved in an accident.
(3) The officer may form the necessary belief during or after an inspection or
independently of an inspection.
(4) The officer may enter the vehicle for the purpose of or in connection with conducting the search.
(5) The officer may exercise powers under this section at any time, and without the consent of the driver or other person apparently in charge of the vehicle or any other person.
(6) Without limiting the above, the power to search a vehicle under this section includes any or all of the following:
(a) the power to search for evidence of an Australian road law offence or a breach of an approved road transport compliance scheme;
(b) the power to search for and inspect any records, devices or other things that relate to the vehicle or any part of its equipment or load and that are located in or on the vehicle;
(c) the power to take copies of or extracts from any or all of the following:
(i) any records that are located in or on the vehicle and that are required to be carried in or on the vehicle under an Australian road law or under an approved road transport compliance scheme;
(ii) any transport documentation or journey documentation located in or on the vehicle;
(iii) any other records, or any readout or other data obtained from any device or thing, located in or on the vehicle that the officer believes on reasonable grounds provide, or may on further inspection provide, evidence of an Australian road law offence or a breach of an approved road transport compliance scheme;
(d) any powers that may be exercised during an inspection of a vehicle under section 40Q(5).
(7) The power to search a vehicle under this section does not include a power to search a person.
(8) The officer may seize and remove any records, devices or other things from the vehicle that the officer believes on reasonable grounds provide, or may on further inspection provide, evidence of an Australian road law offence or a breach of an approved road transport compliance scheme.
(9) The officer may use reasonable force in the exercise of powers under this section.
(1) This section applies to a vehicle located at a place—
(a) on a road; or
(b) in or on premises occupied or owned by a public authority, whether or not the vehicle is unattended.
(2) An authorised officer or police officer may search a vehicle for compliance purposes, if the officer believes on reasonable grounds that—
(a) the vehicle has been used, is being used, or is likely to be used, in the commission of an Australian road law offence or in the commission of a breach of an approved road transport compliance scheme; or
(b) the vehicle has been or may have been involved in an accident.
(3) The officer may form the necessary belief during or after an inspection or
independently of an inspection.
(4) The officer may enter the vehicle for the purpose of or in connection with conducting the search.
(5) The officer may exercise powers under this section at any time, and without the consent of the driver or other person apparently in charge of the vehicle or any other person.
(6) Without limiting the above, the power to search a vehicle under this section includes any or all of the following:
(a) the power to search for evidence of an Australian road law offence or a breach of an approved road transport compliance scheme;
(b) the power to search for and inspect any records, devices or other things that relate to the vehicle or any part of its equipment or load and that are located in or on the vehicle;
(c) the power to take copies of or extracts from any or all of the following:
(i) any records that are located in or on the vehicle and that are required to be carried in or on the vehicle under an Australian road law or under an approved road transport compliance scheme;
(ii) any transport documentation or journey documentation located in or on the vehicle;
(iii) any other records, or any readout or other data obtained from any device or thing, located in or on the vehicle that the officer believes on reasonable grounds provide, or may on further inspection provide, evidence of an Australian road law offence or a breach of an approved road transport compliance scheme;
(d) any powers that may be exercised during an inspection of a vehicle under section 40Q(5).
(7) The power to search a vehicle under this section does not include a power to search a person.
(8) The officer may seize and remove any records, devices or other things from the vehicle that the officer believes on reasonable grounds provide, or may on further inspection provide, evidence of an Australian road law offence or a breach of an approved road transport compliance scheme.
(9) The officer may use reasonable force in the exercise of powers under this section.
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Sarnia, ON
Posts: 89
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If some punter arrives on the tarmac and demands to check out my plane, is it permissible to establish the legitimacy of their identity and authority before allowing them to violate my presumption of innocence?
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Mel-burn
Posts: 4,875
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If I've arrived at Essendon airport for example for a business meeting and I've just locked my plane, that's it, nobody is getting inside regardless of who they are (CASA). They can make an appointment if they feel the need and I'll happily give them my business card. If they want to argue with that, they can call my solicitor. If they are a state or federal police officer and they want to have a look for drugs, good on them, they can go ahead, but they will need a search warrant or probable cause which would be hard to prove unless they knew something I didn't.
Seems that many CASA employees are ex Police officers and these are the ones that you want to worry about especially when they think they still are cops
Absolutely yes. Same with the Police.
Seems that many CASA employees are ex Police officers and these are the ones that you want to worry about especially when they think they still are cops
If some punter arrives on the tarmac and demands to check out my plane, is it permissible to establish the legitimacy of their identity and authority before allowing them to violate my presumption of innocence?
Last edited by VH-XXX; 19th Apr 2013 at 11:14.
32AA Appointment of investigators
(1) CASA may, in writing, appoint an officer to be an investigator for the purposes of this Part.
(2) CASA must not appoint an officer as an investigator unless CASA is satisfied that the officer has suitable qualifications and experience to properly exercise the powers of an investigator.
(3) An investigator must, in exercising powers as an investigator, comply with any directions of CASA.
(4) If a direction is given under subsection (3) in writing, the direction is not a legislative instrument.
Does anyone know if all airworthiness and flying operations inspectors are appointed as investigators?
(1) CASA may, in writing, appoint an officer to be an investigator for the purposes of this Part.
(2) CASA must not appoint an officer as an investigator unless CASA is satisfied that the officer has suitable qualifications and experience to properly exercise the powers of an investigator.
(3) An investigator must, in exercising powers as an investigator, comply with any directions of CASA.
(4) If a direction is given under subsection (3) in writing, the direction is not a legislative instrument.
Does anyone know if all airworthiness and flying operations inspectors are appointed as investigators?
Last edited by pcx; 19th Apr 2013 at 11:43.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Perth - Western Australia
Age: 75
Posts: 1,805
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If some punter arrives on the tarmac and demands to check out my plane, is it permissible to establish the legitimacy of their identity and authority before allowing them to violate my presumption of innocence?
I've done it to a plain-clothes policemen in an unmarked car, when he pulled me up and started acting a little "bolshie".
He only had some red and blue flashing lights on the dashboard and he was wearing a suit. After he started coming on a little "bolshie", I requested - and I was entitled to request - ID verifying his claim as a Police Officer.
He didn't object and immediately produced photographic Police ID - and I would expect any Govt inspector to do the same, if requested - no matter what field of industry he operated in.
There was a recent case here of an idiot selling his cars who posed as a Qantas FO, without any qualifications. He went to the trouble of acquiring a uniform and forged papers to impress potential buyers.
The two vehicles he sold still had money owing on them. He was duly nicked - for impersonation as well as fraud. He wouldn't have fooled me, of course - everyone knows FO's are nearly all broke.
'Fake pilot' admits car sale fraud - The West Australian
Last edited by onetrack; 19th Apr 2013 at 12:04.
Ex coppers...
pcx..I dont think they pay too much attention to 32 AA (2)...
I am aware of one ex cop that didnt do the job properly, practised his "verballing " sklls, cobbled up some home made facts, leavened with some malicious untruths in his sworn statement.
Having been with CASA for only a few weeks, and knowing Mr J Sh*te about aviation and the regs...he could only exercise all his previous cop-that "skills".
And after that taxpayer funded jolly, back at FF a week later he was signed in as a Part 111 "investigator" Jesus wept.!
Recycling of paper, cans, and bottles is all good...but these sort of people ????
Never mind..."CASA is satisfied" So that's all right then.
RE inspectors etc..obliged to state their name, show their ID, state the reason/requirements of the visit and convenience of, and ask permission to enter the hangar / premises.
Unless of course its a raid with the Feds and I hear tell some funny story about one of those in CNS...!
FF can also stand for Funny Farm.
I am aware of one ex cop that didnt do the job properly, practised his "verballing " sklls, cobbled up some home made facts, leavened with some malicious untruths in his sworn statement.
Having been with CASA for only a few weeks, and knowing Mr J Sh*te about aviation and the regs...he could only exercise all his previous cop-that "skills".
And after that taxpayer funded jolly, back at FF a week later he was signed in as a Part 111 "investigator" Jesus wept.!
Recycling of paper, cans, and bottles is all good...but these sort of people ????
Never mind..."CASA is satisfied" So that's all right then.
RE inspectors etc..obliged to state their name, show their ID, state the reason/requirements of the visit and convenience of, and ask permission to enter the hangar / premises.
Unless of course its a raid with the Feds and I hear tell some funny story about one of those in CNS...!
FF can also stand for Funny Farm.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If CASA breaks into an aircraft or premises to conduct an alleged "Investigation" are they liable for any damage they do?.
If they are permitted to enter premises without a search warrent then they have been given the same powers as customs which police found rather handy at times until they kicked in the front door of a wrong house.
Of course the next question is when will hopalong FOI's be issued with kevlar vests and glocks.
If they are permitted to enter premises without a search warrent then they have been given the same powers as customs which police found rather handy at times until they kicked in the front door of a wrong house.
Of course the next question is when will hopalong FOI's be issued with kevlar vests and glocks.
Last edited by thorn bird; 19th Apr 2013 at 23:45.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Adelaide, South Australia
Posts: 394
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If CASA breaks into an aircraft or premises to conduct an alleged "Investigation" are they liable for any damage they do?