Reckless flying charge for pilot who ditched ultra-light plane in Bass Strait
For those in peril...
... ON the sea.
For the Drifter guy, hardly on the Richter scale of $$s when you look at the cost of collecting the odd sailor, with Naval frigate, Orions and etc'
For a foreign aircraft IN /at the bottom of the sea...not even 'our' ocean but well below/deep "our" SARspace...... how many hundreds of millions of dollars is that costing us.? A sizeable cheque from China might help..!
Yes, yes... I know it would be top stuff if it gets found and the mystery solved.
CAsA claim they have a financial hole...no wonder. They can turn a worm cast event into a Mt Everest of cost and fcuk the taxpayer.!
JQ affair..million $ plus?
The check of a 5c split pin created a "butterfly effect" that caused the Fort to fart $300K + into the wind.
As usual the nett benefit to aviation "safety" ZERO
For the Drifter guy, hardly on the Richter scale of $$s when you look at the cost of collecting the odd sailor, with Naval frigate, Orions and etc'
For a foreign aircraft IN /at the bottom of the sea...not even 'our' ocean but well below/deep "our" SARspace...... how many hundreds of millions of dollars is that costing us.? A sizeable cheque from China might help..!
Yes, yes... I know it would be top stuff if it gets found and the mystery solved.
CAsA claim they have a financial hole...no wonder. They can turn a worm cast event into a Mt Everest of cost and fcuk the taxpayer.!
JQ affair..million $ plus?
The check of a 5c split pin created a "butterfly effect" that caused the Fort to fart $300K + into the wind.
As usual the nett benefit to aviation "safety" ZERO
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Oz
Posts: 331
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The problem with Govt Department expenditure is that it is not seen as real money, it is just something comes out of a bottomless well that is conveniently filled by the taxpayer.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Age: 51
Posts: 931
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The problem with Govt Department expenditure is that it is not seen as real money, it is just something comes out of a bottomless well that is conveniently filled by the taxpayer.
What sort of blithering idiot do you need to be to obtain a highly paid position of responsibility, whilst maintaining a long arm on accountability.
Personally, I hope the guy gets off Scott free.
What is Scott free??
Even if he wins his court case, he will be saddled with a debt that could run to six figures ----- and if he looses he still carries that debt plus whatever sentence is handed down, which includes a high probability of jail time ---- and all the ramifications, for the rest of his life, of such a conviction.
If he chooses to not have adequate legal representation, he will lose.
He is a relatively young man, with a very young and growing family, just what has he done to warrant CASA (pushing the CDDP) going after him with the most serious charge in the Civil Aviation Act 1988.
Can anybody who really knows about this case tell us what was reckless??
Tootle pip!!
PS: Remember, such a conviction will preclude him from ever traveling to the US and Canada, and a number of other destination.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: YMMB
Age: 58
Posts: 703
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Something like this won't preclude him from travelling anywhere. What a stupid thing to say.
His best option would be to roll up to CASA, accept responsibility for his actions and outline the training he will undertake to avoid a repetition of this in the future. He will probably cop a $1,000 fine and be on his way.
Simplest, cheapest and and least stressful way forwards for the guy.
His best option would be to roll up to CASA, accept responsibility for his actions and outline the training he will undertake to avoid a repetition of this in the future. He will probably cop a $1,000 fine and be on his way.
Simplest, cheapest and and least stressful way forwards for the guy.
Ah Peter, so simple ... 
But somehow, I think his admissions to CASA have started the problem and they would be too pig headed to let it go.
I sincerely hope you are right here, but sadly I think Leadsled may be correct.
But somehow, I think his admissions to CASA have started the problem and they would be too pig headed to let it go.
Something like this won't preclude him from travelling anywhere. What a stupid thing to say
Are you sure about that PeterC?
Leadsled is indeed correct..... But.... Reckless operation of a Thruster may not be looked on all that un-favorably, but you never know...
Leadsled is indeed correct..... But.... Reckless operation of a Thruster may not be looked on all that un-favorably, but you never know...
Australian applicants that have been arrested, convicted, cited, or charged for any offense, including those involving the use of a controlled substance, even if the charge was later dismissed, must apply for a visa prior to travel. This applies even to spent convictions or convictions that were not recorded. Individuals who have been convicted of minor traffic violations (such as speeding) do not need to apply for a visa provided they are otherwise eligible to travel on the Visa Waiver Program and receive approval via the Electronic System of Travel Authorization.
Something like this won't preclude him from travelling anywhere. What a stupid thing to say.
I suggest you acquaint (just for starters) yourself with entry conditions to the US. A charge under an aviation statute (not even a conviction) will bar you from entry.
Check your facts before you decide who or what is stupid.
Indeed, such is the interchange of information in this day and age, US Dept. of Justice and Homeland Security have extensive records of Australian courts proceedings. Ain't computer data matching wonderful.
Just one example, old mate of mine had a run-in with CASA over a maintenance issue, resulting in a conviction and a fine.
He found out what that meant when he tried to take his young family to Disneyland --- He was turned around at KLAX and on the next QF home.
A number of Australian pilots have had their careers seriously hit, because they cannot enter the US to do such as a Flight Safety course.
Doesn't even have to be an aviation matter ( although aviation matters are treated very harshly), a drink driving conviction can bar you from both the US and Canada.
No secret about any of this, so no reason for your ignorance.
Tootle pip!!
PS: As I understand this matter, it is already set for trial in the Supreme Court. A little beyond "tea and bikkies" with CASA
Last edited by LeadSled; 18th Dec 2015 at 08:37. Reason: PS added
So if he pranged his car and had also say (allegedly) broken the road rules about alcohol consumption, would you be crying the same "oh no he might not be able to go to the USA" tune?
Get a grip, that's such a bloody irrelevant tangent it doesn't matter. He might not even want to ever go there anyway!
Even if it wasn't an aviation matter, don't do **** that will jeopardise it. Pretty simple.
Crikey.
Get a grip, that's such a bloody irrelevant tangent it doesn't matter. He might not even want to ever go there anyway!
Even if it wasn't an aviation matter, don't do **** that will jeopardise it. Pretty simple.
Crikey.
Given Peterc005's previously biased, ill-informed and just plain wrong postings, why are we surprised this time? Leadie is absolutely correct about the implications of traveling to the USA....
The problem PeterC is that you are already a felon, you just haven't been charged or convicted yet.
CASA admitted as much when one of its senior legal persons declared pilots to be "uncaught criminals".
The situation arises because CASA regulations are deliberately written to be obtuse, contradictory and riddled with opportunities for selective, subjective, interpretation by CASA when it suits them in order to stitch you up, and the offences are criminal offences, not civil matters or misdemeanours.
….And there is little you can do to defend yourself because CASA has very, very deep pockets when if comes to legal fees, much deeper than your pockets can ever be.
I will guarantee you that a forensic examination of your flying career will demonstrate you have committed multiple felonies and that the only thing stopping CASA prosecuting you is a lack of self interest in seeing you removed from the industry.
There can be no meaningful, trusting relationship between industry and CASA, ever, in CASAs current form because its corporate structure dictates its corporate strategy.
There needs to be a total disconnect - separate organisations, between rule writing and enforcement for a start.
CASA admitted as much when one of its senior legal persons declared pilots to be "uncaught criminals".
The situation arises because CASA regulations are deliberately written to be obtuse, contradictory and riddled with opportunities for selective, subjective, interpretation by CASA when it suits them in order to stitch you up, and the offences are criminal offences, not civil matters or misdemeanours.
….And there is little you can do to defend yourself because CASA has very, very deep pockets when if comes to legal fees, much deeper than your pockets can ever be.
I will guarantee you that a forensic examination of your flying career will demonstrate you have committed multiple felonies and that the only thing stopping CASA prosecuting you is a lack of self interest in seeing you removed from the industry.
There can be no meaningful, trusting relationship between industry and CASA, ever, in CASAs current form because its corporate structure dictates its corporate strategy.
There needs to be a total disconnect - separate organisations, between rule writing and enforcement for a start.
Car Ramrod,
( A Freudian examination of that name would be intersting, no??)
Clearly, your comprehensive ignorance of aviation law includes ignorance of the fact that many minor matters involving automobiles and many other things in life are civil matters or, as somebody else said, minor misdemeanors.
In aviation, everything is a criminal offense, and the prescriptive detail in aviation legislation is such that it is impossible to not commit offenses, to the degree that it is likely that you will commit an offense against one regulation, to comply with another.
As Brinsmead QC remarked in the "Lane" Report, the nature of complex, contradictory and prescriptive aviation law in Australia creates "inadvertent criminals". And that was long before the complexity of the current aviation law.
As it stands, if you have ever held an aviation license, even not "committing aviation" doesn't mean you will not commit an inadvertent offense.
As I hope I have made clear, I believe that what is being done to this young chap is an abuse of the criminal justice system, and a lot of people agree with me.
Tootle pip!!
( A Freudian examination of that name would be intersting, no??)
Clearly, your comprehensive ignorance of aviation law includes ignorance of the fact that many minor matters involving automobiles and many other things in life are civil matters or, as somebody else said, minor misdemeanors.
In aviation, everything is a criminal offense, and the prescriptive detail in aviation legislation is such that it is impossible to not commit offenses, to the degree that it is likely that you will commit an offense against one regulation, to comply with another.
As Brinsmead QC remarked in the "Lane" Report, the nature of complex, contradictory and prescriptive aviation law in Australia creates "inadvertent criminals". And that was long before the complexity of the current aviation law.
As it stands, if you have ever held an aviation license, even not "committing aviation" doesn't mean you will not commit an inadvertent offense.
As I hope I have made clear, I believe that what is being done to this young chap is an abuse of the criminal justice system, and a lot of people agree with me.
Tootle pip!!
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: In my Swag
Posts: 490
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Leadsled has identified the main issue with the regs, the complexity its self leads to unintentional breaking of the rules.
Reading the reg that Tail Wheel posted is a prime example. Para 2 appears to say that any task concerned with the flight is encompassed by the 8 hour rule, which to me includes preflight, may even include opening the office.
Of course my interpretation carries no more weight than others.
Is an offence of strict liability necessarily a criminal offence?
Reading the reg that Tail Wheel posted is a prime example. Para 2 appears to say that any task concerned with the flight is encompassed by the 8 hour rule, which to me includes preflight, may even include opening the office.
Of course my interpretation carries no more weight than others.
Is an offence of strict liability necessarily a criminal offence?
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Oz
Posts: 331
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Eddie,
Strict liability has nought to do with being a criminal offence or not.
To put it very simply, strict liability means the prosecution do not have prove a deliberate intention, knowledge, negligence or recklessness.
For an example with the States speeding laws (admittedly generally minor, or summary, offences) there is no need to prove the intent to speed, just that one did speed.
Strict liability has nought to do with being a criminal offence or not.
To put it very simply, strict liability means the prosecution do not have prove a deliberate intention, knowledge, negligence or recklessness.
For an example with the States speeding laws (admittedly generally minor, or summary, offences) there is no need to prove the intent to speed, just that one did speed.
Leadie,
Probably not as interesting as you might be hoping, whatever it is that you are thinking. The name is pretty simple actually.
Without confirming, because I am lazy right meow, I do believe the USofA don't let convicted drink drivers in.
You obviously comprehensively missed my point in my previous post, which is what does any travel restrictions to the USA have in the relevance to this thread??
Meow!
( A Freudian examination of that name would be intersting, no??)
Without confirming, because I am lazy right meow, I do believe the USofA don't let convicted drink drivers in.
You obviously comprehensively missed my point in my previous post, which is what does any travel restrictions to the USA have in the relevance to this thread??
Meow!
Duck:
Ramrod:
You both fail to comprehend the simple facts that have been patiently explained to you. This saddens me because it conclusively demonstrates your complete vulnerability to CASA because of your ignorance.
1. The transgression of any aviation regulation is a criminal act. That means that if CASA decides to prosecute you and succeeds in gaining a conviction then you are a felon, just like any convicted burglar, bank robber or murderer.
2. CASAs job of prosecuting you is made considerably easier by the fact that almost all offences are offences of strict liability. As Square Bear explained, that CASA doesn't have to prove you meant to commit the offence, just that you did. The proof of "guilty mind" (mens Rea in Latin) is unnecessary.
In fact, an accused murderer caught over the body of the victim with a smoking gun in his hand has an easier time of it then our Thruster pilot.
The accused murderer when on trial can argue self defence (like Mick Gatto successfully did).
They can argue provocation.
They can argue they didn't know the gun was loaded.
They can argue they just wanted to scare the victim.
They can argue the victim asked him to shoot him.
Pilots have no such defences - strict liability - we prove you did it, you are automatically convicted.
3. Travel restrictions? They are the least of your worries. Once you are labelled a felon, you cannot stand for parliament. Many jobs are permanently closed to you. You certainly won't be working in aviation or aviating either because by definition a convicted felon is not a fit and proper person to hold a licence.
You should also note that it matters not if the judge is sympathetic and fines you one dollar a conviction is still a conviction. a finding of guilt without conviction is equally bad.
A strait "not guilty" is your only hope, but that is hard to obtain because of point number 2.
If it's a strict liability offence he won't receive a criminal conviction, end of story. Are the offences strict liability?
Strictly liability offences are there so you are able to get booked, pay the fine and move on. Exactly what happens if you get booked for speeding, or driving a car with bald tyres.
I don't think the application of strict liability is really explained that well by CASA.
Strictly liability offences are there so you are able to get booked, pay the fine and move on. Exactly what happens if you get booked for speeding, or driving a car with bald tyres.
I don't think the application of strict liability is really explained that well by CASA.
You obviously comprehensively missed my point in my previous post, which is what does any travel restrictions to the USA have in the relevance to this thread??
1. The transgression of any aviation regulation is a criminal act. That means that if CASA decides to prosecute you and succeeds in gaining a conviction then you are a felon, just like any convicted burglar, bank robber or murderer.
2. CASAs job of prosecuting you is made considerably easier by the fact that almost all offences are offences of strict liability. As Square Bear explained, that CASA doesn't have to prove you meant to commit the offence, just that you did. The proof of "guilty mind" (mens Rea in Latin) is unnecessary.
In fact, an accused murderer caught over the body of the victim with a smoking gun in his hand has an easier time of it then our Thruster pilot.
The accused murderer when on trial can argue self defence (like Mick Gatto successfully did).
They can argue provocation.
They can argue they didn't know the gun was loaded.
They can argue they just wanted to scare the victim.
They can argue the victim asked him to shoot him.
Pilots have no such defences - strict liability - we prove you did it, you are automatically convicted.
3. Travel restrictions? They are the least of your worries. Once you are labelled a felon, you cannot stand for parliament. Many jobs are permanently closed to you. You certainly won't be working in aviation or aviating either because by definition a convicted felon is not a fit and proper person to hold a licence.
You should also note that it matters not if the judge is sympathetic and fines you one dollar a conviction is still a conviction. a finding of guilt without conviction is equally bad.
A strait "not guilty" is your only hope, but that is hard to obtain because of point number 2.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Oz
Posts: 331
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Duck,
Most drink driving laws in Australian States are strict liability laws, and I would consider one of those a pretty serious conviction.
Most Air Safety Regulations will be strict liability.
There is a little more to strict liability than simply getting a fine and "moving on."
Most drink driving laws in Australian States are strict liability laws, and I would consider one of those a pretty serious conviction.
Most Air Safety Regulations will be strict liability.
There is a little more to strict liability than simply getting a fine and "moving on."
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Age: 39
Posts: 85
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
1 Post
Once you are labelled a felon, you cannot stand for parliament. Many jobs are permanently closed to you. You certainly won't be working in aviation or aviating either because by definition a convicted felon is not a fit and proper person to hold a licence.
The only restriction on standing for election related to crime is that you can't be *currently serving* a prison term of longer than 12 months.
No one can be not a fit and proper person "by definition" because there is no written definition. Certainly there is no definition that says someone with a criminal record cannot hold a license. I agree that someone who has been convicted of reckless flying may not be considered fit and proper, but surely that is obvious.
A bit off topic but my last reading of US visa requirements was that they regarded a drink driving conviction as not a crime of "moral turpitude" and not a disqualification for a visa.
Bottums Up
I wonder if drink driving, where there is a limit that's hard to judge until one is pinged and blood/breathalyser tested, is looked at differently to flying where there is an absolute 8 hours prior to departure prohibition.
With the former one can make an error of judgement. With the latter it's more likely a conscious decision to disregard the law.
Or, Mickey's hands fell off and one could no longer tell the time.
With the former one can make an error of judgement. With the latter it's more likely a conscious decision to disregard the law.
Or, Mickey's hands fell off and one could no longer tell the time.