what bothers me about strict liability...
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Permanently lost
Posts: 1,785
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Creamie, I try not to get involved with the minutia of legal proceedings these days but wouldn't any government (CASA) prosecution these days involve strict liability?
If so then the unsuccessful prosecution of the two QANTAS pilots for allegedly taking off at YMLT at night without the runway lights being on would be an example.
Another would be the legal hounding of the commercial operator and his chief pilot for taking off from a road in South Australia as the nearby airport was under water. The last of that case that I heard was that it was on its way to the High Court. Their names completely escapes me now.
Similarly, the prosecution of a private pilot in Tasmania in the late 1990s' for low flying would have been with strict liability applying. That was a successful prosecution.
The fact that an offence is one of strict liability does not mean that the prosecution has a hands-down winner. It still has to prove that the offence was committed and sometimes that proves very difficult indeed, even with witnesses.
If so then the unsuccessful prosecution of the two QANTAS pilots for allegedly taking off at YMLT at night without the runway lights being on would be an example.
Another would be the legal hounding of the commercial operator and his chief pilot for taking off from a road in South Australia as the nearby airport was under water. The last of that case that I heard was that it was on its way to the High Court. Their names completely escapes me now.
Similarly, the prosecution of a private pilot in Tasmania in the late 1990s' for low flying would have been with strict liability applying. That was a successful prosecution.
The fact that an offence is one of strict liability does not mean that the prosecution has a hands-down winner. It still has to prove that the offence was committed and sometimes that proves very difficult indeed, even with witnesses.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perhaps the questions that should be asked are:
Why was "Strict liability" introduced in the first place?
What other countries have incorporated their aviation Regulations into criminal law?
Has "Strict Liability"had a positive effect on aviation safety? or
Has "Strict liability" had a negative effect on aviation safety?
What economic impact has "Strict Liability" had on the aviation Industry?
What has CAsA's preference for using administrative sanctions rather than the courts cost in terms of livelihoods lost and businesses destroyed?
Do those countries who have not incorporated their aviation regulations into the criminal code achieved better "Safety" outcomes than Australia?
Why was "Strict liability" introduced in the first place?
What other countries have incorporated their aviation Regulations into criminal law?
Has "Strict Liability"had a positive effect on aviation safety? or
Has "Strict liability" had a negative effect on aviation safety?
What economic impact has "Strict Liability" had on the aviation Industry?
What has CAsA's preference for using administrative sanctions rather than the courts cost in terms of livelihoods lost and businesses destroyed?
Do those countries who have not incorporated their aviation regulations into the criminal code achieved better "Safety" outcomes than Australia?
Good questions Thorn Bird. My answers, not based on any real prior study.
1. potential source of easy revenue with minimal legal costs and processes for the prosecution
2. probably most prevalent in dictatorships and countries recently emerged from dictatorship, though democracies would not be exempt (India, perhaps?)
3. no - but how can it be quantified?
4. no - but as above
5. probably none, other than for those caught as in 6 below. There would be some baddies who have not been trapped yet who would reap profit from the demise of a competitor, so heartless cynics could say that it all balances out
6. most examples would be in FNQ, a couple in the Kimberley, one possibly in S.A. - but others who may well be more deserving of this are still trading. CASA's 'preference' of which organizations to target appears to be merely random, otherwise how do we explain away some of the cowboy operators still trading under their noses while others who were probably no worse have been run out of town?
7. some would, some would not - but no thanks to their criminal code whichever way the results stack up. Give some credit (or blame if need be) to the people who actually operate aircraft
1. potential source of easy revenue with minimal legal costs and processes for the prosecution
2. probably most prevalent in dictatorships and countries recently emerged from dictatorship, though democracies would not be exempt (India, perhaps?)
3. no - but how can it be quantified?
4. no - but as above
5. probably none, other than for those caught as in 6 below. There would be some baddies who have not been trapped yet who would reap profit from the demise of a competitor, so heartless cynics could say that it all balances out
6. most examples would be in FNQ, a couple in the Kimberley, one possibly in S.A. - but others who may well be more deserving of this are still trading. CASA's 'preference' of which organizations to target appears to be merely random, otherwise how do we explain away some of the cowboy operators still trading under their noses while others who were probably no worse have been run out of town?
7. some would, some would not - but no thanks to their criminal code whichever way the results stack up. Give some credit (or blame if need be) to the people who actually operate aircraft
Last edited by Mach E Avelli; 5th Jun 2013 at 11:39.
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Downunda
Posts: 562
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rumours
Mach, they don't target at random. It is rumoured that it is when one disagrees with them, or worse, makes a complaint about one of them to the ICC or takes them on in the AAT that is when one is 'marked for execution' generally.
Why do cowboys robustly dodge regulatory scrutiny? Well again it is rumoured that often when the cowboy does receive a regulatory pineapple he simply bends over and compliantly takes said pineapple - no fuss, no complaint, life goes on. As long as said cowboy doesn't do anything that tarnishes the reputation of a regulator, impedes a regulators promotion by making a complaint to the ICC or action in the AAT, and does not cause the Regulator to come under a spotlight, life goes on.
And again the rumour is that some backyard operators (and some bigger players) have 'mates' inside the regulator (aviation is a small incestuous industry) and again this allegedly explains why some operators are left pretty much unscathed.
The biggest liability is an operators mouth when they attempt to expose an alleged miscarriage of justice, complain about unfair treatment including threats, intimidation and bullying. Best to roll over and take it like a man unless you wish to end up sitting in a star chamber beneath a bright spotlight.
Why do cowboys robustly dodge regulatory scrutiny? Well again it is rumoured that often when the cowboy does receive a regulatory pineapple he simply bends over and compliantly takes said pineapple - no fuss, no complaint, life goes on. As long as said cowboy doesn't do anything that tarnishes the reputation of a regulator, impedes a regulators promotion by making a complaint to the ICC or action in the AAT, and does not cause the Regulator to come under a spotlight, life goes on.
And again the rumour is that some backyard operators (and some bigger players) have 'mates' inside the regulator (aviation is a small incestuous industry) and again this allegedly explains why some operators are left pretty much unscathed.
The biggest liability is an operators mouth when they attempt to expose an alleged miscarriage of justice, complain about unfair treatment including threats, intimidation and bullying. Best to roll over and take it like a man unless you wish to end up sitting in a star chamber beneath a bright spotlight.
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Dark side of the moon
Age: 61
Posts: 124
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Leadsled et al
My bad for assuming Pprune would be populated by the type of pilot I am used to working with.
Snappy repartee and intellectual discussion.
Instead mainly anal retentive passive aggressive individuals.
Apologies to Creampuff, Thornbird and Lookleft, you are the exceptions.
Pittle poop
My bad for assuming Pprune would be populated by the type of pilot I am used to working with.
Snappy repartee and intellectual discussion.
Instead mainly anal retentive passive aggressive individuals.
Apologies to Creampuff, Thornbird and Lookleft, you are the exceptions.
Pittle poop
Last edited by owen meaney; 5th Jun 2013 at 13:08.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: 'Stralia!
Age: 47
Posts: 491
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EXTRA EXTRA - Read all about it!
The future...
Headline - Daily Telegraph 6th of June 2019
CASA REFORMS COMPLETE
After many decades and many millions of dollars spent, CASA have finally released the final version of the aviation law framework.
The most notable change and biggest enhancement to safety has the introduction of legislation requiring all air crew to have a law degree and be practicing members of the Bar. This has reduced air traffic to pre 1900 levels due to the lengthy and involved appeals process most 'pilawyers' file before leaving the ground due to the requested clearance not available.
Another notable change is that aviation will be made an offence of strict liability, punishable by being enslaved in the "Jigsaw" style basement of CASA HQ and made to escape, or "C squared divided by pi" penalty units.
A CASA Spokesman said they look forward to the next round of reform where the requirement to be a QC with at least a 55% case win ratio will be required to fly anything larger than a predetermined MTOW. In determining the weight limit for each pilot the following formula has been released in the form of a CAAP -
"You take the ratio of cases won for the last year, multiplied by the wigs worn by the prosecution during those cases, divided by the number of unsuccessful appeals at the AAT; add the inverse square of the sped of an African swallow carrying a coconut in 20 knot headwind. The answer is next Tuesday."
CASA has hailed the new reforms as a triumph of common sense, enhanced readability, understandability and safety.
CASA REFORMS COMPLETE
After many decades and many millions of dollars spent, CASA have finally released the final version of the aviation law framework.
The most notable change and biggest enhancement to safety has the introduction of legislation requiring all air crew to have a law degree and be practicing members of the Bar. This has reduced air traffic to pre 1900 levels due to the lengthy and involved appeals process most 'pilawyers' file before leaving the ground due to the requested clearance not available.
Another notable change is that aviation will be made an offence of strict liability, punishable by being enslaved in the "Jigsaw" style basement of CASA HQ and made to escape, or "C squared divided by pi" penalty units.
A CASA Spokesman said they look forward to the next round of reform where the requirement to be a QC with at least a 55% case win ratio will be required to fly anything larger than a predetermined MTOW. In determining the weight limit for each pilot the following formula has been released in the form of a CAAP -
"You take the ratio of cases won for the last year, multiplied by the wigs worn by the prosecution during those cases, divided by the number of unsuccessful appeals at the AAT; add the inverse square of the sped of an African swallow carrying a coconut in 20 knot headwind. The answer is next Tuesday."
CASA has hailed the new reforms as a triumph of common sense, enhanced readability, understandability and safety.
Creamie, I try not to get involved with the minutia of legal proceedings these days …
[B]ut wouldn't any government (CASA) prosecution these days involve strict liability?
If so then the unsuccessful prosecution of the two QANTAS pilots for allegedly taking off at YMLT at night without the runway lights being on would be an example.
Another would be the legal hounding of the commercial operator and his chief pilot for taking off from a road in South Australia as the nearby airport was under water. The last of that case that I heard was that it was on its way to the High Court. Their names completely escapes me now.
Similarly, the prosecution of a private pilot in Tasmania in the late 1990s' for low flying would have been with strict liability applying. That was a successful prosecution.
The fact that an offence is one of strict liability does not mean that the prosecution has a hands-down winner. It still has to prove that the offence was committed and sometimes that proves very difficult indeed, even with witnesses.
That’s why there are so few of them.
That’s my point.
So we’re up to two. Any advance on two?
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Permanently lost
Posts: 1,785
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How can you possibly function each day without involving yourself in those minutia? Are you not frozen in fear by all that strict liability and all those impenetrable rules used by government bully boys to repress you?
They weren’t prosecuted for a strict liability offence. They were prosecuted for reckless operation of an aircraft, endangering life. “Reckless” is a fault element. (As an aside, others have suggested that stalling tactics were used by Qantas, resulting in the matter being dismissed. Also as an aside, I wonder what all the “take me to court rather than take administrative action” brigade thought about the judge’s comment. The judge said disciplinary action against the pilots, such as suspension or retraining, “might have provided a more effective response to the needs of public interest and safety than a prosecution some six years later".)
From my memory of what evidence I did read of there was a very strong presumption that the lights may have been improperly re-activated during the last 10 minutes of the PAL cycle and the lights extinguished during the take-off roll.
My imperfect memory is that strict liability offences were brought down during one of the Howard government's time and was basically mandated by the Justice Department as was the prescription that offences were to be prosecuted. It was all to do with cost recovery and making the Commonwealth public service more cost neutral. Hah - fat chance!
I do, however, agree with your basic premise that strict liability has hardly opened the floodgates with a rush to court. There are far more grievous sins out there in regulatory land than that.
Creamie, wouldn't all the offences written up at numerous shows and various fly-ins and gatherings be enforced under strict liability? Carrying documentation with the wrong colour is something I would consider as criminal according to strict liability. You seem to be applying those charges that are processed to the courts by provision of a summons. If you look at it the same way as how the coppers handle traffic offences....strict liability....ticket..pay up, your choice. Or, choose to front a magistrate and prove it wasn't you what did it.
So, would a better comparison be...how many written up offences...tickets...processed under strict liability as opposed to the old 225 regime? Are there more occurrences of ticket writing FOIs descending on congregations of pilots compared to pre strict liability?
So, would a better comparison be...how many written up offences...tickets...processed under strict liability as opposed to the old 225 regime? Are there more occurrences of ticket writing FOIs descending on congregations of pilots compared to pre strict liability?
Last edited by OZBUSDRIVER; 7th Jun 2013 at 12:05.
