Fatal accident Loss of all four engines due fuel exhaustion
Me? No. I haven’t a clue what I’m talking about. 
Originally Posted by Led Balon
If sufficient people disagree with the policy of a law that makes it a strict liability offence to wear a pink bunny suit, the parliament will repeal the law or change it so that an element of the offence is the “why”.
The example I gave was what’s called “speaking in the abstract”, Capn. I’m not trying to get any “support” here.
And you’re supposed to be ignoring me, remember?
And you’re supposed to be ignoring me, remember?
Lead Balloon
So what did CASA do to you to give you this venom?
I've been in this industry a similar length of time as you and my dealings with CASA have always been professional and respectful.
So what did CASA do to you to give you this venom?
I've been in this industry a similar length of time as you and my dealings with CASA have always been professional and respectful.
Clearly, you have been leading a quite extraordinarily sheltered aviation existence, I guess that would explain why your rose coloured glasses remain undisturbed.
I guess all the inquiries over the years, up to and including Royal Commissions were just to fill in time, nothing to see here??
Tootle pip!!
Lead Sled
How about debating the debate rather than debating the person. If you really want to know what my "extraordinary sheltered aviation existence" looks like, I'll tell you. I've been in this industry 32 years, 14 years in GA in FNQ and PNG as a CP, CFI and an ATO, and 18 years working in the airline industry currently in role of a senior captain. I hold a Aus, HK and US ATPL and logged approximately 20k hours. Oh did I mention I'm also an aircraft owner? I'm very well aware of the Royal Commision into the then CAA and more recently the Senate enquiry into CASA and the ATSB. I'm not a fan of what CASA has become especially under a former colleague who was director of aviation safety, but that's not what I was discussing with Lead Balloon.
How about debating the debate rather than debating the person. If you really want to know what my "extraordinary sheltered aviation existence" looks like, I'll tell you. I've been in this industry 32 years, 14 years in GA in FNQ and PNG as a CP, CFI and an ATO, and 18 years working in the airline industry currently in role of a senior captain. I hold a Aus, HK and US ATPL and logged approximately 20k hours. Oh did I mention I'm also an aircraft owner? I'm very well aware of the Royal Commision into the then CAA and more recently the Senate enquiry into CASA and the ATSB. I'm not a fan of what CASA has become especially under a former colleague who was director of aviation safety, but that's not what I was discussing with Lead Balloon.
Originally Posted by Led Balon
I’m not trying to get any “support” here.
So what did CASA do to you to give you this venom?
I’m merely pointing out what I consider to be the consequences of the Instrument that will come into effect in November 18, and why those consequences are, in my view, contrary to the basic principles of the rule of law. The new fuel regs and instrument are patently contrary to the rhetoric about ‘safety through simplicity’ and ‘outcomes based’ rules. The new rules are, in my view, counter-productive and will, in my view, have unintended consequences in so far as they apply to GA in the third world.
Subject to compliance with PPRuNe’s rules, I can express whatever opinion I like for whatever reasons I like.
You may disagree. Bloggs may disagree. Who cares?
Lead Balloon
While I do see your concern regarding aviation laws in Australia being "Strict Liability", laws, I don't agree with your doom and gloom opinion. As well as my aviation qualifications, I'm also an accountant. Tax law in Australia is also "Strict Liability". So are road rules for that matter. For those unfamiliar with "Strict Liability" laws, the prosecution doesn't have to prove guilt. The burden of proof lies with the defendant to prove their innocence. In other words you're guilty until proven innocent. The point here is there is an avenue to defence. If the laws though were "Absolute Liability" where the prosecution doesn't need proof and the defendant has no avenue to defence I would be up in arms as well.
Australia tends to use "Strict Liability" laws more than most democratic countries. Areas that readily come to mind are Aviation, Tax, Work Place Health and Safety and Road Laws. They tend to be used in areas where a strong deterrent wants to be shown. The merits of this though are for another debate.
While I do see your concern regarding aviation laws in Australia being "Strict Liability", laws, I don't agree with your doom and gloom opinion. As well as my aviation qualifications, I'm also an accountant. Tax law in Australia is also "Strict Liability". So are road rules for that matter. For those unfamiliar with "Strict Liability" laws, the prosecution doesn't have to prove guilt. The burden of proof lies with the defendant to prove their innocence. In other words you're guilty until proven innocent. The point here is there is an avenue to defence. If the laws though were "Absolute Liability" where the prosecution doesn't need proof and the defendant has no avenue to defence I would be up in arms as well.
Australia tends to use "Strict Liability" laws more than most democratic countries. Areas that readily come to mind are Aviation, Tax, Work Place Health and Safety and Road Laws. They tend to be used in areas where a strong deterrent wants to be shown. The merits of this though are for another debate.
So because Australia is awash with strict liability offences - “more than most democratic countries” - that makes it OK?
I suppose it might be OK, if Australia had better aviation safety, WHS and road toll outcomes than other “democratic countries”.
But that’s just the venom showing.
I suppose it might be OK, if Australia had better aviation safety, WHS and road toll outcomes than other “democratic countries”.
But that’s just the venom showing.
404 Titan,
All I can say is that, in Australia, you have been extraordinarily lucky, and sadly, in dealing with CASA , you can't "make your own luck".
In my experience, and the record shows, the experience of many others, the level of day to day grief that CASA routinely meters out has no counterpart in NZ, UK, SA, Canada or the US.
The whole approach to aviation regulation and enforcement in Australia is, with very limited exception, the deliberate creation of CASA, including the impenetrable "in the negative" regulatory style, that does so much to create "inadvertent" criminals.
What does stand out is the CASA use of "strict liability", outside the guidelines, for "offences" where there is clearly a "mental element" to the alleged offence, and in my opinion, these matters of FFR ( or FRF -- Final Reserve Fuel, as it now seems to be) are areas where it is not appropriate for the use of strict liability.
Tootle pip!!
All I can say is that, in Australia, you have been extraordinarily lucky, and sadly, in dealing with CASA , you can't "make your own luck".
In my experience, and the record shows, the experience of many others, the level of day to day grief that CASA routinely meters out has no counterpart in NZ, UK, SA, Canada or the US.
The whole approach to aviation regulation and enforcement in Australia is, with very limited exception, the deliberate creation of CASA, including the impenetrable "in the negative" regulatory style, that does so much to create "inadvertent" criminals.
What does stand out is the CASA use of "strict liability", outside the guidelines, for "offences" where there is clearly a "mental element" to the alleged offence, and in my opinion, these matters of FFR ( or FRF -- Final Reserve Fuel, as it now seems to be) are areas where it is not appropriate for the use of strict liability.
Tootle pip!!
Leadslead,
I appreciate you have had serious issues with CASA in the past but I can assure you my dealing with them aren't because I'm "lucky". It's because I worked with them, including when we disagreed. Yes there have been abuses of Strict Liability and maybe that's grounds for another Royal Commission, not the party political talk fests that are Senate Enquires but I'm a firm believer in Strict Liability law for areas of law that involve public safety as long as they are used appropriately and not abused. I vehemently disagree with you regarding FFR and some of the posts here and the other thread reinforce my opinion.
I appreciate you have had serious issues with CASA in the past but I can assure you my dealing with them aren't because I'm "lucky". It's because I worked with them, including when we disagreed. Yes there have been abuses of Strict Liability and maybe that's grounds for another Royal Commission, not the party political talk fests that are Senate Enquires but I'm a firm believer in Strict Liability law for areas of law that involve public safety as long as they are used appropriately and not abused. I vehemently disagree with you regarding FFR and some of the posts here and the other thread reinforce my opinion.
Leadslead,
I appreciate you have had serious issues with CASA in the past but I can assure you my dealing with them aren't because I'm "lucky". It's because I worked with them, including when we disagreed. Yes there have been abuses of Strict Liability and maybe that's grounds for another Royal Commission, not the party political talk fests that are Senate Enquires but I'm a firm believer in Strict Liability law for areas of law that involve public safety as long as they are used appropriately and not abused. I vehemently disagree with you regarding FFR and some of the posts here and the other thread reinforce my opinion.
I appreciate you have had serious issues with CASA in the past but I can assure you my dealing with them aren't because I'm "lucky". It's because I worked with them, including when we disagreed. Yes there have been abuses of Strict Liability and maybe that's grounds for another Royal Commission, not the party political talk fests that are Senate Enquires but I'm a firm believer in Strict Liability law for areas of law that involve public safety as long as they are used appropriately and not abused. I vehemently disagree with you regarding FFR and some of the posts here and the other thread reinforce my opinion.
Let me be very clear, it is not "me" who has had the problems with CASA over the years, but the countless people I have assisted/represented, over longer than I care to remember, who have become embroiled with CASA and its predecessors. Enough that it is statistically significant, and very unfavorably compared to other national jurisdictions.
As for "believing" in strict liability, that is not the issue, it is the manner in which it is used in aviation legislation in Australia that is the problem. Use of the strict liability classification of an offence in secondary aviation legislation in Australia has and continues to defy just about every guideline ever published, starting with the ALRC report, "Securing Compliance", which originally recommended all Commonwealth secondary legislation clearly spell out the gravity of the offence and the penalty, to every guideline published by the Attorney-Generals, Senate Standing Committee on Scrutiny of Bills and Ordinances (or whatever it is currently called), OBPR and I could go on.
As for FRF (FFR) let me be clear, I understand what it is for, how the concept came about, what "order of accuracy" means in engineering terms, and why it is not to be considered as usable fuel. I have effectively observed it, long before it got a name. As for "it" being a strict liability offence, for multiple reasons, I am of the view that is contrary to the various guidelines mentioned in the previous para., but above all else, there is mens rea applicable, where mens rea is involved, it cannot fairly be a strict liability criminal offense.
Tootle pip!!
How does the Columbian accident in the OP relate to anything here? It was a monumental f**k up and a great case study for human factors, hardly a straightforward fuel emergency.
Has anyone ever seen Leadsled and Lead Balloon in the same room?
Has anyone ever seen Leadsled and Lead Balloon in the same room?
Quite a few, probably, as we are both (I presume he still is) members of a professional organisation ---- not to mention the occasional chat at a fly-in/show/conference here or there over the years.
And always entirely civilised.
Tootle pip!!
Titan 404,
I do not agree with your definition of "strict liability", I do suggest you have a look at the definition at, as I recall, the Criminal Code Act 1995, S6.1, the only defence is S9.2, and as the run of cases show, it is a very high test.
Last edited by LeadSled; 29th Jun 2018 at 08:30. Reason: PS added.
Has anyone ever seen Leadsled and Lead Balloon in the same room?
If you do an even superficial review of PPRuNe threads you’ll see that we occasionally disagree on stuff. Ironically, one of the matters on which we’ve disagreed - recently and right here on PPRuNe - is the need to transmit a MAYDAY when calculated FFR is below 30 minutes. However, I reckon there’s no disagreement in substance - Leadsled’s talking heavy metal and I’m talking about us nobody bugsmasher pilots.
I reckon that I may have, although many years ago. There was an AOPA AGM at Murray Bridge around 2002? We all adjourned to a pub in town to enjoy a few Coopers Pale Ales. The good thing is that despite the personal hatreds that some may see on PPRuNe, when we all have a beer together, all is forgiven!
What happens when somebody calls a fuel mayday and subsequently discovers they have the required reserves on board after landing?
For example, I have a header tank, all of which is useable but ungauged (about 10 minutes worth). I am going to have to carefully word the POH about what is in fact useable fuel.
For example, I have a header tank, all of which is useable but ungauged (about 10 minutes worth). I am going to have to carefully word the POH about what is in fact useable fuel.