Another CASA gab fest
A sign of change perhaps:
Chair of CASA’s Board speaks out on unintended problems. Australian Aviation Magazine, January/February 2016 Edition, Prefight Comment feature. In part, article stated: Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) Chairman, Jeff Boyd, recently stated the implementation of CASA Part 61 licensing regulations had been “a debacle”. Boyd was named chairman in July 2015 after joining the board a year earlier. The report stated the nation’s aviation safety regulator has formed a full-time task force and an industry advisory panel in an effort to resolve issues raised by Part 61, which covers pilot ratings, licenses and endorsements, as well as a number of other licensing regulations.
Boyd said the Part 61 regulations were written up without adequate communication with industry and he had lobbied against their introduction before he joined the CASA Board. “We knew Part 61 was never going to work. It got put in a drawer for 12 months and instead of being reworked and rejigged unfortunately the very last day that our previous CEO was in the organisation he promulgated Part 61 as it was 12 months previously,” Boyd said. The results have been horrendous for the organisation and for industry. It’s a debacle.
Boyd said the Part 61 regulations were written up without adequate communication with industry and he had lobbied against their introduction before he joined the CASA Board. “We knew Part 61 was never going to work. It got put in a drawer for 12 months and instead of being reworked and rejigged unfortunately the very last day that our previous CEO was in the organisation he promulgated Part 61 as it was 12 months previously,” Boyd said. The results have been horrendous for the organisation and for industry. It’s a debacle.
At last: Some honesty. In plain English. Well done Mr Boyd. 
I look forward to the next opportunity he has to speak candidly. At the point he states that the entire regulatory reform program is an abject failure and CASA has no hope of fixing the mess, I will hold a glimmer of hope of some restoration of trust in the regulator.
I look forward to the next opportunity he has to speak candidly. At the point he states that the entire regulatory reform program is an abject failure and CASA has no hope of fixing the mess, I will hold a glimmer of hope of some restoration of trust in the regulator.
However the problems go deeper than regulation, just look at the cluster**** of the Cairns office fitting up a helicopter pilot.
Pantovic and Civil Aviation Safety Authority [2015] AATA 992 (18 December 2015)
Basically once they decide to "get" you, they leave no stone unturned. There is no presumption of innocence and the AAT gleefully joins in the process.
Furthermore a person can make an allegation about you years after the alleged event.
Pantovic and Civil Aviation Safety Authority [2015] AATA 992 (18 December 2015)
Basically once they decide to "get" you, they leave no stone unturned. There is no presumption of innocence and the AAT gleefully joins in the process.
Furthermore a person can make an allegation about you years after the alleged event.
Sadly All Too true...
Sunny.
It goes well into, and past just the use and abuse of "regulations."
Its a sign of immorality, dishonesty and lack of integrity displayed by so many CAsA employees. All requirements of their 'code'...what a sick joke.
The financial destruction of Pantovic by courtesy of CAsA and a cuckcolded witness with revenge intent is another classic case with 'discrepancies" in the evidence and a 'botched' approach. Nothing new there for CAsA.
Like you say...whatever it takes to make the 'hit'.
And the total cost to the taxpayer was $$s ???
And the safety benefit to Oz aviation is , as usual a big ZERO.
And out of this (infamous) office there is yet another debacle supreme regarding an R 22 ..the damage to. flying of, false MR entries re, evidence dispersed, NO penalties applied to the perp...and many innocent others, falsely accused ending up having to foot the substantial legal bills.!!
The anecdotes about this exercise/half arsed"investigation" would read like some mad criminal comedy script if it wasnt so serious with allegations of bribery and corruption by the perp as well..
CB claim no knowledge of.
Draw your own conclusions as to why.
Until there is a Judicial Inquiry into these issues, so they can be bought out into the open and rectified, nothing will change.
Power corrupts etc .. you know the rest.
It goes well into, and past just the use and abuse of "regulations."
Its a sign of immorality, dishonesty and lack of integrity displayed by so many CAsA employees. All requirements of their 'code'...what a sick joke.
The financial destruction of Pantovic by courtesy of CAsA and a cuckcolded witness with revenge intent is another classic case with 'discrepancies" in the evidence and a 'botched' approach. Nothing new there for CAsA.
Like you say...whatever it takes to make the 'hit'.
And the total cost to the taxpayer was $$s ???
And the safety benefit to Oz aviation is , as usual a big ZERO.
And out of this (infamous) office there is yet another debacle supreme regarding an R 22 ..the damage to. flying of, false MR entries re, evidence dispersed, NO penalties applied to the perp...and many innocent others, falsely accused ending up having to foot the substantial legal bills.!!
The anecdotes about this exercise/half arsed"investigation" would read like some mad criminal comedy script if it wasnt so serious with allegations of bribery and corruption by the perp as well..
CB claim no knowledge of.
Draw your own conclusions as to why.
Until there is a Judicial Inquiry into these issues, so they can be bought out into the open and rectified, nothing will change.
Power corrupts etc .. you know the rest.
What I fail to understand is why a decent, honest, person would wish to work at CASA with the likes of the CASA Cairns office "investigators" whose behaviour, according to the contents of the AAT transcript and in the opinion of the Commissioner, falls rather far short of anything remotely like procedural fairness, equity and natural justice….and I'm being kind.
I doubt that CASA can be 'saved". It's too far gone judging by the crap they spew at AAT hearings as in the case against Pantovic.
To put that another way; CASA is the problem with Australian Aviation. We are never going to see jobs, investment and growth in the aviation industry while they are in power..
I doubt that CASA can be 'saved". It's too far gone judging by the crap they spew at AAT hearings as in the case against Pantovic.
To put that another way; CASA is the problem with Australian Aviation. We are never going to see jobs, investment and growth in the aviation industry while they are in power..
Your joking aren't you?
You are using the findings in that report to suggest CASA shouldn't have gone on the offensive with that guy?
Tell me you are joking?
None are so blind...
You are using the findings in that report to suggest CASA shouldn't have gone on the offensive with that guy?
Tell me you are joking?
None are so blind...
No joke..
Oz b..its the method in their madness.
With Pantovic they got lucky that some video existed of the low flight over water with beer in hand. And from the witness with malice.
read #28 and suggest why CAsA did NOT go on the offensive with THAT guy !
Or is the only thing consistent with CAsA is its inconsistencies.?
Examples abound of CAsA serial madness...
Barrier Aviation TERMINATED WITH EXTREME PREJUDICE.
And NO ONE ever prosecuted or found guilty in a court of law.
J Quadrio. Destroyed job wise and financially. NEVER prosecuted or found guilty in a court of law.
A la Pantovic... a dodgy "witness" as well... but that does not worry those in CAsA with an agenda. The end result is all ...however achieved.
Cost to the taxpayer..$million +. Safety benefit ZERO
Sunny's last sentence is ABSOLUTELY TRUE
With Pantovic they got lucky that some video existed of the low flight over water with beer in hand. And from the witness with malice.
read #28 and suggest why CAsA did NOT go on the offensive with THAT guy !
Or is the only thing consistent with CAsA is its inconsistencies.?
Examples abound of CAsA serial madness...
Barrier Aviation TERMINATED WITH EXTREME PREJUDICE.
And NO ONE ever prosecuted or found guilty in a court of law.
J Quadrio. Destroyed job wise and financially. NEVER prosecuted or found guilty in a court of law.
A la Pantovic... a dodgy "witness" as well... but that does not worry those in CAsA with an agenda. The end result is all ...however achieved.
Cost to the taxpayer..$million +. Safety benefit ZERO
Sunny's last sentence is ABSOLUTELY TRUE
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: In my Swag
Posts: 490
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes Sunfish, I have read the transcript of Mr Pantovic's appearance before the AAT.
I know the pub, the publican, the bloke who was back doored, his missus, as well as the tree in question.
As to three up in a R22, I have seen more than one take off with 100kilo pilot, ringer not much smaller, a swag and 20 litres of avgas, plus all the other bits and pieces for a three day muster.
I know the pub, the publican, the bloke who was back doored, his missus, as well as the tree in question.
As to three up in a R22, I have seen more than one take off with 100kilo pilot, ringer not much smaller, a swag and 20 litres of avgas, plus all the other bits and pieces for a three day muster.
Last edited by Eddie Dean; 17th Jan 2016 at 06:38.
And yet....
The sky didn't come crashing in.
I'm not saying activities like those are 'acceptably safe' and not an accident waiting to happen, Eddie. I'm merely saying that it's an extraordinary amount of resources to allocate to addressing risks to - what - three people at a go?
Lots of other accidents waiting to happen seem to me to get a different treatment from the regulator. The operator of VH-NGA comes to mind. But I'm probably not sufficiently expert to understand the extraordinarily complex grounds for the ostensibly different treatment, if any.
The sky didn't come crashing in.
I'm not saying activities like those are 'acceptably safe' and not an accident waiting to happen, Eddie. I'm merely saying that it's an extraordinary amount of resources to allocate to addressing risks to - what - three people at a go?
Lots of other accidents waiting to happen seem to me to get a different treatment from the regulator. The operator of VH-NGA comes to mind. But I'm probably not sufficiently expert to understand the extraordinarily complex grounds for the ostensibly different treatment, if any.
Last edited by Lead Balloon; 17th Jan 2016 at 08:06.
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: In my Swag
Posts: 490
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Indeed Leadballoon, the beer run and excess AUW may be but a trifle to one of your legal background; the AAT Member also viewed it as much ado about nothing, so you may well be correct. On the other hand a belt slip and engine over speed would have made the whole tree backdoor johnny, and helicopter AUW into quite an adventure.
As for your lack of expertise, do not hide your light under a bushel mate.
As old Bill said, kill all the lawyers
As for your lack of expertise, do not hide your light under a bushel mate.
As old Bill said, kill all the lawyers
Ozbiggles, the guilt or innocence of Pantovic is not the issue. The issue is the method CASA used to deal with him.
The normal requirement of the application of ALL law in this land is fairness equity and natural justice or procedural fairness and/or due process. I will not bore you or anyone else with the definitions, you can google them yourselves.
It is sufficient to say that Pantovic received none of the above from CASA and only a small bit of it at great cost from the AAT. Convicted murderers have more rights and access to justice than pilots do, and for free.
To put it another way, CASA investigators have the exact same mentality as an American lynch mob. The evidence of the behaviour of the CASA investigators is contained in the AAT transcript. They set out to "get" Pantovic by whatever means, fair means or foul, they could find. Furthermore the "safety" justification does not cut it. We are talking about a mustering pilot in the middle of nowhere.
This brings the entire organisation into disrepute which leads to my question as to how an honest and upstanding person can continue to work in that place, I certainly could not as I value my reputation.
The normal requirement of the application of ALL law in this land is fairness equity and natural justice or procedural fairness and/or due process. I will not bore you or anyone else with the definitions, you can google them yourselves.
It is sufficient to say that Pantovic received none of the above from CASA and only a small bit of it at great cost from the AAT. Convicted murderers have more rights and access to justice than pilots do, and for free.
To put it another way, CASA investigators have the exact same mentality as an American lynch mob. The evidence of the behaviour of the CASA investigators is contained in the AAT transcript. They set out to "get" Pantovic by whatever means, fair means or foul, they could find. Furthermore the "safety" justification does not cut it. We are talking about a mustering pilot in the middle of nowhere.
This brings the entire organisation into disrepute which leads to my question as to how an honest and upstanding person can continue to work in that place, I certainly could not as I value my reputation.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A vexatious witness and a vexatious prosecutor make for poor maintenance of the rule of law. CAsA are a poor example of the model litigant.
My negativity comes from the simple fact of my experience as a corporate strategy consultant at Coopers and Lybrand, an MBA and as group general manager, of a reasonably sized IT systems integrator dealing with Government as well as a CEO of another business.
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: australia
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hmm, interesting how Quadrio is considered a hero.
What was said?
'The expression “fit and proper person” is not defined. I discussed the expression in my reasons in Jones and Civil Aviation Safety Authority [2014] AATA 820. In that case, I concluded the applicant had demonstrated remarkably poor judgment in the operation of a helicopter, while accepting he was a skilful pilot. Good pilots have good judgment, although I accept even good pilots occasionally make errors of judgment. Errors of judgment are a problem where they suggest the person’s judgment is flawed. A person with bad judgment (as opposed to a person who has merely made a mistake) is not fit to hold a pilot’s licence, no matter how skilful he or she may be.
Flying low over water at high speed while consuming alcohol demonstrates remarkably bad judgment, as opposed to a series of individual errors in judgment. (Leaving the helicopter unattended while the engine was running in the mistaken belief that the collective lock was an adequate safeguard was an error of judgment, as was failing to insist that passengers wore life jackets. Either of these transgressions might not, in isolation, reflect on the applicant’s fitness.) It follows I accept the applicant is not a fit and proper person to hold the flight crew licences. But what action should be taken?
I decided Mr Jones’s judgment was not irredeemably flawed in Jones and Civil Aviation Safety Authority. I accepted he had the intelligence and insight to appreciate his errors and learn from them. On that basis, I decided a more lenient regulatory response was justified. The position of Mr Jones can be contrasted with that of the applicant in Quadrio and Civil Aviation Safety Authority [2011] AATA 709. In that case, the applicant actively ignored the rules in order to entertain his passengers. The Tribunal took a tougher line. Mr Pantovic’s errors were in at least one respect more serious than those of Mr Jones: I concluded Mr Jones did not knowingly flout the rules, whereas Mr Pantovic knew he was not permitted to consume alcohol while flying, for example. Having said that, Mr Pantovic’s judgment does not strike me as being as flawed as that of Mr Quadrio, who apparently regarded the regulatory action against him as a form of persecution'.
I wonder what is in paragraphs 16-22 of the decision which have been redacted?
Will CASA appeal to the Federal Court?
The whole thing, this entire event, is a pathetic example of the low level that aviation gets down to in OZ.
Drinking and flying? What are we talking about here while we jump up and down about CASA!!
Too many fools...
What was said?
'The expression “fit and proper person” is not defined. I discussed the expression in my reasons in Jones and Civil Aviation Safety Authority [2014] AATA 820. In that case, I concluded the applicant had demonstrated remarkably poor judgment in the operation of a helicopter, while accepting he was a skilful pilot. Good pilots have good judgment, although I accept even good pilots occasionally make errors of judgment. Errors of judgment are a problem where they suggest the person’s judgment is flawed. A person with bad judgment (as opposed to a person who has merely made a mistake) is not fit to hold a pilot’s licence, no matter how skilful he or she may be.
Flying low over water at high speed while consuming alcohol demonstrates remarkably bad judgment, as opposed to a series of individual errors in judgment. (Leaving the helicopter unattended while the engine was running in the mistaken belief that the collective lock was an adequate safeguard was an error of judgment, as was failing to insist that passengers wore life jackets. Either of these transgressions might not, in isolation, reflect on the applicant’s fitness.) It follows I accept the applicant is not a fit and proper person to hold the flight crew licences. But what action should be taken?
I decided Mr Jones’s judgment was not irredeemably flawed in Jones and Civil Aviation Safety Authority. I accepted he had the intelligence and insight to appreciate his errors and learn from them. On that basis, I decided a more lenient regulatory response was justified. The position of Mr Jones can be contrasted with that of the applicant in Quadrio and Civil Aviation Safety Authority [2011] AATA 709. In that case, the applicant actively ignored the rules in order to entertain his passengers. The Tribunal took a tougher line. Mr Pantovic’s errors were in at least one respect more serious than those of Mr Jones: I concluded Mr Jones did not knowingly flout the rules, whereas Mr Pantovic knew he was not permitted to consume alcohol while flying, for example. Having said that, Mr Pantovic’s judgment does not strike me as being as flawed as that of Mr Quadrio, who apparently regarded the regulatory action against him as a form of persecution'.
I wonder what is in paragraphs 16-22 of the decision which have been redacted?
Will CASA appeal to the Federal Court?
The whole thing, this entire event, is a pathetic example of the low level that aviation gets down to in OZ.
Drinking and flying? What are we talking about here while we jump up and down about CASA!!
Too many fools...
Heroics...
The only people who think they are heroes are the CAsA "investigators" who score a "hit". All without any due consideration of how they go about doing it. Legal or otherwise.
Quadrio's no hero, nobody thinks he is, BUT his case is a classic example of the CAsA way of bastardising an individual. Whatever it takes.
And the true story has yet to emerge.
The phrase 'not a fit and proper' person can be as readily applied to people within CAsA as without. No question. Its just that the result differs.
That CAsA even talks about 'due process', 'fairness' and " a just culture".. WETF that might be...is bs/ rubbish/ meaningless.
Individuals can do nothing.. and get slaughtered, and other very serious issues just dont quite seem to make it to the score board.
Why is that..corruption, cronyism, mates or bureaucratic sloth.? Go for the easy bash of an individual?
Which gets us back to the ASRR. One of the changes required,,URGENTLY.
When breaches of the regs are found, the evidence be passed to an agency independent of CAsA to fully and properly investigate the matter.
NOT CAsA dealing with its own interpretations of regs, running any agenda and protecting its own as required.
And convictions and penalties only made in a court of law. Not in the AAT.
What about the other phrase.. 'a dire and imminent threat to aviation safety'
CAsA is just that,... To the safety of the GA industry and the sanity of aviation participants.
Quadrio's no hero, nobody thinks he is, BUT his case is a classic example of the CAsA way of bastardising an individual. Whatever it takes.
And the true story has yet to emerge.
The phrase 'not a fit and proper' person can be as readily applied to people within CAsA as without. No question. Its just that the result differs.
That CAsA even talks about 'due process', 'fairness' and " a just culture".. WETF that might be...is bs/ rubbish/ meaningless.
Individuals can do nothing.. and get slaughtered, and other very serious issues just dont quite seem to make it to the score board.
Why is that..corruption, cronyism, mates or bureaucratic sloth.? Go for the easy bash of an individual?
Which gets us back to the ASRR. One of the changes required,,URGENTLY.
When breaches of the regs are found, the evidence be passed to an agency independent of CAsA to fully and properly investigate the matter.
NOT CAsA dealing with its own interpretations of regs, running any agenda and protecting its own as required.
And convictions and penalties only made in a court of law. Not in the AAT.
What about the other phrase.. 'a dire and imminent threat to aviation safety'
CAsA is just that,
... To the safety of the GA industry and the sanity of aviation participants.