Advocate wanted.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Illawarra
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Be exceptionally careful and loose lips DO sink ships!
Case: Guy observed doing the wrong thing in an aircraft. CASA invited him in for an interview which he attended on his own.
Result: Show cause; licence suspended by CASA with written notification that a resit of the appropriate examination and a flight test will see it reinstated.
6 months later: 2 x Charges (1 criminal) by the CDPP and the ensuing court case.
That to me is a pretty good example of Double Jeopardy.
Result: Show cause; licence suspended by CASA with written notification that a resit of the appropriate examination and a flight test will see it reinstated.
6 months later: 2 x Charges (1 criminal) by the CDPP and the ensuing court case.
That to me is a pretty good example of Double Jeopardy.
Glen, CASA has nothing in its charter, nor the act, that requires it to take costs, economics or commercial matters into account. It is purely a safety regulator.
If pushed, they will simply stand on that omission and stonewall. Anything you get by way of accommodation from CASA you should consider to be a product of grace and favour. They owe you nothing and if provoked will insist on their right to give you nothing.
Read the AAT cases regarding "regular charter" CASA's QC specifically states in one of them that CASA is not required to take economics into account.
If pushed, they will simply stand on that omission and stonewall. Anything you get by way of accommodation from CASA you should consider to be a product of grace and favour. They owe you nothing and if provoked will insist on their right to give you nothing.
Read the AAT cases regarding "regular charter" CASA's QC specifically states in one of them that CASA is not required to take economics into account.
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 215
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks Glen, and good on you for having the courage of your convictions to take them on head-on. I guess time will tell whether it was worth the effort. For you and your business's sake I sincerely hope you get some positive outcomes from it. We live in hope!
Unfortunately I fear Sunfish et al are probably right about the costs side of things. That is going to require the govt to do something to initiate change. Heard enough platitudes, rhetoric, and assorted bulls***t from them. What is needed is ACTION. And soon. Again, we live in hope, but even for the most optimistic among us, that hope is fading fast.
Unfortunately I fear Sunfish et al are probably right about the costs side of things. That is going to require the govt to do something to initiate change. Heard enough platitudes, rhetoric, and assorted bulls***t from them. What is needed is ACTION. And soon. Again, we live in hope, but even for the most optimistic among us, that hope is fading fast.
3 cheers
for gleb for putting his head above the parapet. Trust nothing gets shot off and some positive outcomes.
Sunny,,,unfortunately CAsA is not just a "safety" regulator altho it continually claims it is.
eg Reg? 27 d Allowing an aeroplane to be used for a commercial purpose.
Strict liability, a criminal offence and all that
If it was a safety reg it would be a criminal offence to use the aircraft recklessly or dangerously...but no...for commerce that harms no one.
Reg 206 is its corrollary.. photography, using an aircraft is "commercial" and therefore a criminal offence.
Never mind that the commerce of photography has got SFA to do with the safe operation of the aircraft.
CAsA has never done a safety case (sic) to show that getting paid for a photograph makes the operation less safe. If I give you the pic its legal.. if you pay me for it its illegal because I have engaged in commerce.!!!
Que ??? Is CAsA a regulatory flustercluck or what?
Its bull****.,, it denies you the right to free trade and earn a living...AND to make matters worse CAsA has NO head of power under the CAA Act 1988/98
to regulate commerce....which it does.
Sunny,,,unfortunately CAsA is not just a "safety" regulator altho it continually claims it is.
eg Reg? 27 d Allowing an aeroplane to be used for a commercial purpose.
Strict liability, a criminal offence and all that
If it was a safety reg it would be a criminal offence to use the aircraft recklessly or dangerously...but no...for commerce that harms no one.
Reg 206 is its corrollary.. photography, using an aircraft is "commercial" and therefore a criminal offence.
Never mind that the commerce of photography has got SFA to do with the safe operation of the aircraft.
CAsA has never done a safety case (sic) to show that getting paid for a photograph makes the operation less safe. If I give you the pic its legal.. if you pay me for it its illegal because I have engaged in commerce.!!!
Que ??? Is CAsA a regulatory flustercluck or what?
Its bull****.,, it denies you the right to free trade and earn a living...AND to make matters worse CAsA has NO head of power under the CAA Act 1988/98
to regulate commerce....which it does.
