Glen Buckley and Australian small business -V- CASA
Shipwreck, I started with an unbiased opinion of CASA when I joined this website and even expressed disbelief over the aggressive attitude of much of the industry to CASA and counselled working hand in hand with them in a spirit of cooperation as this is the best way to work with the public service in my experience........
‘’However...... The more I read about their actions, the regulations and their behaviour as evidenced by the Forsyth review, Quadrio, Dominic James, the care flight matter, Jabiru and now Glen Buckley and APTA, I am convinced we need major change otherwise what little investment and jobs remaining will disappear.
‘’However...... The more I read about their actions, the regulations and their behaviour as evidenced by the Forsyth review, Quadrio, Dominic James, the care flight matter, Jabiru and now Glen Buckley and APTA, I am convinced we need major change otherwise what little investment and jobs remaining will disappear.
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: Australia
Posts: 358
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Someone in CASA just woke up one day and decided that what Glen had been led by someone else in CASA to believe was OK is now no longer OK. (Actually, I suspect that the person who 'woke up one day' was just used as a patsy to do the dirty work of someone else who saw Glen's success as a competitive threat.) Is aviation any safer now, as a consequence of that change? Of course! There's less of it.
The irony is that APTA's procedures, protocols and staffing competence was operated to a higher, safer standard than any other operations that I have witnessed before or since their demise. Talk about backwards...
Thread Starter
AAC905
AAC905, thanks for the message. I notice that you are new here, and took the time to register and make your first post. When people go that extra mile to show their support, it carries a lot of weight. Safe travels. Cheers. Glen.
Thread Starter
No response from the CASA Board and insurer. A quick follow up
Dear Mr. Anthony Mathews, Chairperson of the Board of CASA. I am following up on my correspondence sent to you on 22/08/20 and reattached below. I was hoping to have received a reply from you by Friday 4th September, noting that date has now passed.
Therefore could I respectfully request a response as to CASAs chosen path forward. i.e. Has the Board of CASA in conjunction with CASAs insurer elected to meet in a well-intentioned manner, or has CASA chosen to have this matter pursued through litigation.
It's a fairly straightforward question, and I feel that you should reasonably be able to advise me of your decision.
Thank you in anticipation of your response.
Respectfully, Glen Buckley
"22/08/20
To the Board of CASA, comprising the following Individuals
Mr. Anthony Mathews (Chairperson), Mr. Shane Carmody (CEO of CASA), Mr. Mark Rindfleish, Mr. Michael Bridge, Ms. Donna Hardman, Ms. Elizabeth Hallet, and Ms. Marilyn Andre. In your roles, you are responsible for ensuring that CASA performs its role in a "proper, efficient, and effective manner."
You will be fully aware of the significant allegations I have bought against CASA Employees;
I have had discussions with a number of legal firms, and I am confident that I have a valid basis for a claim against CASA on behalf of affected Parties, and it appears that case would be based around misfeasance, malfeasance and negligent misstatement
I am now at a point in this process where I need to clearly ascertain whether I proceed with my legal case or, do we arrive at a mutually agreeable resolution with a less combative approach. The latter clearly being my preferred option.
Should you choose the path of litigation, I need to be very clear that once that journey commences, the opportunity for a negotiated settlement is lost, and I will pursue my matter through to a legal determination. A determination will provide me, and industry with a
The purpose of this correspondence is to seek a very clear direction from the Board of CASA, in conjunction with your insurance company being Comminsure.
The more combative approach will be the more costly, divert valuable CASA resources from primary tasks, and expose CASA to a far higher level of public scrutiny. In my opinion, it should be an unnecessary approach, but that decision now rests with the CASA Board.
As you are aware i have made repeated attempts to resolve this matter, but until this point, the Board has resolutely refused those offers. I am now calling on you to make your decision and advise me of that decision.
As the Board already has the facts in front of them, I anticipate that you should be able to arrive at a prompt and well-considered opinion.
Could you please advise me by 5 PM on Friday 4th September of the Board's decision.
In assisting you to arrive at your decision, I re-extend my offer to meet with the Board at any time prior to that date.
Yours respectfully, Glen Buckley"
Therefore could I respectfully request a response as to CASAs chosen path forward. i.e. Has the Board of CASA in conjunction with CASAs insurer elected to meet in a well-intentioned manner, or has CASA chosen to have this matter pursued through litigation.
It's a fairly straightforward question, and I feel that you should reasonably be able to advise me of your decision.
Thank you in anticipation of your response.
Respectfully, Glen Buckley
"22/08/20
To the Board of CASA, comprising the following Individuals
Mr. Anthony Mathews (Chairperson), Mr. Shane Carmody (CEO of CASA), Mr. Mark Rindfleish, Mr. Michael Bridge, Ms. Donna Hardman, Ms. Elizabeth Hallet, and Ms. Marilyn Andre. In your roles, you are responsible for ensuring that CASA performs its role in a "proper, efficient, and effective manner."
You will be fully aware of the significant allegations I have bought against CASA Employees;
- Mr. Jonathan Aleck CASA Executive Manager of Legal, International, and Regulatory Affairs
- Mr. Graeme Crawford, CASA Executive Manager of the Aviation Group,
- Mr. Craig Martin, CASA Executive Manager of Regulatory Services and Surveillance.
I have had discussions with a number of legal firms, and I am confident that I have a valid basis for a claim against CASA on behalf of affected Parties, and it appears that case would be based around misfeasance, malfeasance and negligent misstatement
I am now at a point in this process where I need to clearly ascertain whether I proceed with my legal case or, do we arrive at a mutually agreeable resolution with a less combative approach. The latter clearly being my preferred option.
Should you choose the path of litigation, I need to be very clear that once that journey commences, the opportunity for a negotiated settlement is lost, and I will pursue my matter through to a legal determination. A determination will provide me, and industry with a
The purpose of this correspondence is to seek a very clear direction from the Board of CASA, in conjunction with your insurance company being Comminsure.
The more combative approach will be the more costly, divert valuable CASA resources from primary tasks, and expose CASA to a far higher level of public scrutiny. In my opinion, it should be an unnecessary approach, but that decision now rests with the CASA Board.
As you are aware i have made repeated attempts to resolve this matter, but until this point, the Board has resolutely refused those offers. I am now calling on you to make your decision and advise me of that decision.
As the Board already has the facts in front of them, I anticipate that you should be able to arrive at a prompt and well-considered opinion.
Could you please advise me by 5 PM on Friday 4th September of the Board's decision.
In assisting you to arrive at your decision, I re-extend my offer to meet with the Board at any time prior to that date.
Yours respectfully, Glen Buckley"
Thread Starter
POST 1206- Senate Committee
This is the Senate Committe into CASA completed 12 years ago. I particularly draw your attention to the report findings in;
2.63 Cultural change
2.83 Regulatory Reform Program
2.95 Governance Structure
2.111 Strengthening CASAS relationship with Industry.
This clearly highlights that there WERE significant issues a decade ago.
Therefore it must be a "possibility" that that unsafe culture has either become "safer" or "less safe" over the last decade.
Link: file:///C:/Users/ready/AppData/Local/Packages/Microsoft.MicrosoftEdge_8wekyb3d8bbwe/TempState/Downloads/report_pdf%20(1).pdf
2.63 Cultural change
2.83 Regulatory Reform Program
2.95 Governance Structure
2.111 Strengthening CASAS relationship with Industry.
This clearly highlights that there WERE significant issues a decade ago.
Therefore it must be a "possibility" that that unsafe culture has either become "safer" or "less safe" over the last decade.
Link: file:///C:/Users/ready/AppData/Local/Packages/Microsoft.MicrosoftEdge_8wekyb3d8bbwe/TempState/Downloads/report_pdf%20(1).pdf
Last edited by glenb; 8th Sep 2020 at 07:02. Reason: added the missing link
Thread Starter
Post 1207- invitation to join conference
I have offered the CASA Board and Senior Management the opportunity to participate in the Australian Aircraftrcfraft owners and Pilots Association (AOPA) Facebook conference tonight at 7PM.
CASA has declined, because of the ongoing investigation by the Commonwealth Ombudsman.
Surely that would be a reason to appear on the program. To ensure transparency and respectful discussion, that may actually assist the Commonwealth Ombudsman to arrive at the most well-considered decision.
To anyone in our industry, this is an indicator of potentially unsafe attributes. Reluctance to come forward with information, lack of transparency, lack of accountability, preparedness to be untruthful, bullying and intimidating in nature etc etc. All unsafe indicators.
It would be a challenging place to work I suggest.
CASA has declined, because of the ongoing investigation by the Commonwealth Ombudsman.
Surely that would be a reason to appear on the program. To ensure transparency and respectful discussion, that may actually assist the Commonwealth Ombudsman to arrive at the most well-considered decision.
To anyone in our industry, this is an indicator of potentially unsafe attributes. Reluctance to come forward with information, lack of transparency, lack of accountability, preparedness to be untruthful, bullying and intimidating in nature etc etc. All unsafe indicators.
It would be a challenging place to work I suggest.
Thread Starter
Sunfish
Rest assured i will be polite and respectful.
I will also be truthful. I will be able to back up everything I say, and I welcome being held up to scrutiny. Cheers.
I will also be truthful. I will be able to back up everything I say, and I welcome being held up to scrutiny. Cheers.
Thread Starter
POST 1211- Lnk to current Senate inquiry and submissions
Last edited by glenb; 8th Sep 2020 at 07:43.
All CASA is going to do is argue that APTA’s activities had grown to such an extent that CASA was no longer satisfied that Glen had full operational control over those activities. Once the criterion is some bureaucrat’s subjective satisfaction, it’s ‘game over’.
Don’t forget it was Dr Aleck who came up with this logic to justify the CSF kneejerk: “If we were to wait for sufficiently robust data to support an evidence based decision for every individual decision we took in this space, we would have to wait for a dozen or more accidents to occur.”
CASA couldn’t wait for APTA to bring down an A-380 or B-747 over a playground full of innocent children, but CASA knew that’s where your business was heading, Glen. You should be grateful that CASA saved you and those children.
Don’t forget it was Dr Aleck who came up with this logic to justify the CSF kneejerk: “If we were to wait for sufficiently robust data to support an evidence based decision for every individual decision we took in this space, we would have to wait for a dozen or more accidents to occur.”
CASA couldn’t wait for APTA to bring down an A-380 or B-747 over a playground full of innocent children, but CASA knew that’s where your business was heading, Glen. You should be grateful that CASA saved you and those children.
I’m not sure I said this before but the most frightening thing for a manager or a bureaucrat of any sort is to lose control of the agenda by having their formal position as a leader challenged, innocently, by an informal thought leader. I know exactly what this feels like from both sides of the table.
I put it to you that Glen and APTA had developed a better understanding of the regulations as they applied to their operations than CASA had. They were then in a position to tell CASA what works and what won’t work and where improvements could be made. They knew more about the game then CASA did. Once the higher management understood this deeply unsettling fact, APTAs fate was sealed because no one must know more than CASA.
The reason for that animosity? Because if the government finds out that your so called clients know more than you do, your job and position is surplus to requirements. Furthermore, it would only be a matter of time before other training organisations, seeing APTA’s supremacy, sought them out because they were the informal leader of the training sector and potentially able to marshal support so that the industry was driving the agenda, not CASA.
its sad when it happens. I’ve never felt so useless as when chairing a meeting on high level software architecture for a $60 million system and realising that I didn’t have the faintest idea about what the participants were discussing. I was tempted for a second to replace these experts with people as dumb as I was. Similarly, I’ve never been so frustrated as trying to explain to a manager that what he wanted to do for the business was counterproductive-and had been known to be a waste of time for thirty years.
These confrontations are encapsulated in the managers lament : “I don’t care if it works in practice - make it work in theory!”
I put it to you that Glen and APTA had developed a better understanding of the regulations as they applied to their operations than CASA had. They were then in a position to tell CASA what works and what won’t work and where improvements could be made. They knew more about the game then CASA did. Once the higher management understood this deeply unsettling fact, APTAs fate was sealed because no one must know more than CASA.
The reason for that animosity? Because if the government finds out that your so called clients know more than you do, your job and position is surplus to requirements. Furthermore, it would only be a matter of time before other training organisations, seeing APTA’s supremacy, sought them out because they were the informal leader of the training sector and potentially able to marshal support so that the industry was driving the agenda, not CASA.
its sad when it happens. I’ve never felt so useless as when chairing a meeting on high level software architecture for a $60 million system and realising that I didn’t have the faintest idea about what the participants were discussing. I was tempted for a second to replace these experts with people as dumb as I was. Similarly, I’ve never been so frustrated as trying to explain to a manager that what he wanted to do for the business was counterproductive-and had been known to be a waste of time for thirty years.
These confrontations are encapsulated in the managers lament : “I don’t care if it works in practice - make it work in theory!”
Thread Starter
You got it!
Sunfish and Lead Balloon, you have hit the nail on the head.
Interestingly, CASA will have several written offers from me over the years prior to the introduction of the new legislation.
I made repeated offers to fund $180,000 over a 12 month period to have a CASA Flight Operations Inspector based in the Company. Together we would write the manuals to CASAs full satisfaction. They would then become the Company procedures. Importantly those templates would be made freely available to industry.
I felt this was a wise business decision, as it would overall work out the most cost-effective option for the business. CASA refused those multiple offers. Years later they did provide templates that were "impractical".
Without wanting to sound arrogant, I have no doubt that I had a better understanding of the safe applcation of the legislation than the CASA Executive did.
A quick recap.
I was called into the CASA Head Office very early on. The entire CASA team of half a dozen was sitting across the table in a confronting manner. They explained to me that I had breached the regulations regarding signage requirements. Apparently, I didn't meet the stipulated regulations in regard to signage and the size of the associated dimensions of that signage.
I explained to them that I wouldn't knowingly breach those regulations so could we have a look at them now in the Head Office. They didn't have access to the regulations apparently. I let them go on. They explained that they would send me a copy of the regulations the next day to support the allegation of the breach.
It was an awkward situation, I didn't want to publicly embarrass them and explain that I thought they were confused with the size requirements for aircraft call signs. Needless to say, CASA never got back to me with the legislation, as it obviously didn't exist. Graciously they didn't issue a Finding against me.
As I've said before. CASA has an enormous pool of talent available to them now due to the Pandemic. Let's hope the Minister takes action and implements a handful of new personnel into the Organisation.
Interestingly, CASA will have several written offers from me over the years prior to the introduction of the new legislation.
I made repeated offers to fund $180,000 over a 12 month period to have a CASA Flight Operations Inspector based in the Company. Together we would write the manuals to CASAs full satisfaction. They would then become the Company procedures. Importantly those templates would be made freely available to industry.
I felt this was a wise business decision, as it would overall work out the most cost-effective option for the business. CASA refused those multiple offers. Years later they did provide templates that were "impractical".
Without wanting to sound arrogant, I have no doubt that I had a better understanding of the safe applcation of the legislation than the CASA Executive did.
A quick recap.
I was called into the CASA Head Office very early on. The entire CASA team of half a dozen was sitting across the table in a confronting manner. They explained to me that I had breached the regulations regarding signage requirements. Apparently, I didn't meet the stipulated regulations in regard to signage and the size of the associated dimensions of that signage.
I explained to them that I wouldn't knowingly breach those regulations so could we have a look at them now in the Head Office. They didn't have access to the regulations apparently. I let them go on. They explained that they would send me a copy of the regulations the next day to support the allegation of the breach.
It was an awkward situation, I didn't want to publicly embarrass them and explain that I thought they were confused with the size requirements for aircraft call signs. Needless to say, CASA never got back to me with the legislation, as it obviously didn't exist. Graciously they didn't issue a Finding against me.
As I've said before. CASA has an enormous pool of talent available to them now due to the Pandemic. Let's hope the Minister takes action and implements a handful of new personnel into the Organisation.
I was called into the CASA Head Office very early on. The entire CASA team of half a dozen was sitting across the table in a confronting manner. They explained to me that I had breached the regulations regarding signage requirements. Apparently, I didn't meet the stipulated regulations in regard to signage and the size of the associated dimensions of that signage.
I explained to them that I wouldn't knowingly breach those regulations so could we have a look at them now in the Head Office. They didn't have access to the regulations apparently. I let them go on. They explained that they would send me a copy of the regulations the next day to support the allegation of the breach.
It was an awkward situation, I didn't want to publicly embarrass them and explain that I thought they were confused with the size requirements for aircraft call signs. Needless to say, CASA never got back to me with the legislation, as it obviously didn't exist. Graciously they didn't issue a Finding against me.
I explained to them that I wouldn't knowingly breach those regulations so could we have a look at them now in the Head Office. They didn't have access to the regulations apparently. I let them go on. They explained that they would send me a copy of the regulations the next day to support the allegation of the breach.
It was an awkward situation, I didn't want to publicly embarrass them and explain that I thought they were confused with the size requirements for aircraft call signs. Needless to say, CASA never got back to me with the legislation, as it obviously didn't exist. Graciously they didn't issue a Finding against me.
Unfortunately for GA, the Keystone Cops have been given real regulatory guns but no adult supervision. And most if not all of them at that table was/is on a six figure salary.
I’m occasionally forced to read some of the stuff produced by CASA in the last decade or so, and I usually shake my head in disbelief at the crap that it is.
I have to hand it to you: You have patience that I couldn’t muster. In the same situation I would simply have said: “You arseclowns have no idea. Stop wasting my time.”
Gosh, I stand corrected and apologise for calling the CASA officers concerned ‘arseclowns’.
203.976 Interpretation for Division 203.ZD.4
For this Division
(a) aviation-related signage includes any mark, symbol, figure, words and depictions, whether represented in electronic or physical form, of any object, service, person or place connected with aviation, if the mark, symbol, figure, word or depiction, or any combination of them, is visible to any person whether through electronic means or by physical observation;
(b) Manual of Standards for the safety of aviation-related signage means the manual approved from time time by the Authority under regulation 203.979.
203.977 Prohibition on display of aviation-related signage.
A person must not cause or permit the erection or display or publication of any aviation-related signage unless the signage:
(a) complies with the Manual of Standards for the safety of aviation-related signage; and
(b) has been approved by CASA for erection or display or publication (as the case may be).
203.978. Offences relating to contravention of regulation 203.977
(1) A person commits an offence if:
(a) the person does an act or omits to do an act; and
(b) the act or omission contravenes regulation 203.977; and
(c) the person intends the act or omission to create a risk to the safety of air navigation.
Penalty: Imprisonment for life or 15,000 penalty units, or both.
(2) A person commits an offence if:
(a) the person does an act or omits to do an act; and
(b) the act or omission contravenes regulation 203.977; and
(c) the person is reckless as to whether the act or omission creates a risk to the safety of air navigation.
Penalty: 1,000 penalty units.
(3) A person commits an offence if:
(a) the person does an act or omits to do an act; and
(b) the act or omission contravenes regulation 203.977; and
(c) the person is negligent as to whether the act or omission creates a risk to the safety of air navigation.
Penalty: 500 penalty units.
(4) A person commits an offence if:
(a) the person does an act or omits to do an act; and
(b) the act or omission contravenes regulation 203.977.
Penalty: 100 penalty units.
(5) An offence against subregulation (4) is an offence of strict liability.
203.979 Manual of Standards for the safety of aviation-related signage
The Manual of Standards for the safety of aviation-related signage may specify the following matters:
(a) if the signage is physical - the dimensions of the sign;
(b) if the signage is electronic - the maximum number of bytes of data that the signage may contain;
(c) the words, symbols, figures that must not be depicted in the signage;
(d) safety procedures that must be followed in the design, construction and location of the signage;
Example for paragraph (d): The Manual of Standards for the safety of aviation-related signage may specify that the corners of physical signs be rounded so as to avoid risks created by pointy corners.
(e) requirements for the display of material worshipping our dear leader (the Director of Aviation Safety - blessed be the DAS) and his regulations - blessed be his regulations.
203.980 Annual review of aviation-related signage
A person must not cause or permit the continued display or publication of any aviation-related signage for a period in excess of a cumulated period of twelve months unless, during that period, the person has:
(a) undertaken or caused the undertaking of a review to confirm the ongoing compliance of the signage with the Manual of Standards for the safety of aviation-related signage; and
(b) obtained from CASA a renewal of the approval for the continued display or publication (as the case may be); and
(c) made a written record of the review conducted in compliance with paragraph (a).
203.981. Offences relating to contravention of regulation 203.980
(1) A person commits an offence if:
(a) the person does an act or omits to do an act; and
(b) the act or omission contravenes regulation 203.980; and
(c) the person intends the act or omission to create a risk to the safety of air navigation.
Penalty: Imprisonment for life or 15,000 penalty units, or both.
(2) A person commits an offence if:
(a) the person does an act or omits to do an act; and
(b) the act or omission contravenes regulation 203.980; and
(c) the person is reckless as to whether the act or omission creates a risk to the safety of air navigation.
Penalty: 1,000 penalty units.
(3) A person commits an offence if:
(a) the person does an act or omits to do an act; and
(b) the act or omission contravenes regulation 203.980; and
(c) the person is negligent as to whether the act or omission creates a risk to the safety of air navigation.
Penalty: 500 penalty units.
(4) A person commits an offence if:
(a) the person does an act or omits to do an act; and
(b) the act or omission contravenes regulation 203.980.
Penalty: 100 penalty units.
(5) An offence against subregulation (4) is an offence of strict liability.
203.982 Keeping of records of reviews of aviation-related signage
A person who undertakes or causes the undertaking of a review to comply with paragraph 203.980(a) must keep the records created to comply with paragraph 203.980(b) for a period of at least seven years from the date of creation and make those records available for inspection by the Authority on demand by the authority.
203.983. Offences relating to contravention of regulation 203.982
(1) A person commits an offence if:
(a) the person does an act or omits to do an act; and
(b) the act or omission contravenes regulation 203.982; and
(c) the person intends the act or omission to create a risk to the safety of air navigation.
Penalty: Imprisonment for life or 15,000 penalty units, or both.
(2) A person commits an offence if:
(a) the person does an act or omits to do an act; and
(b) the act or omission contravenes regulation 203.982; and
(c) the person is reckless as to whether the act or omission creates a risk to the safety of air navigation.
Penalty: 1,000 penalty units.
(3) A person commits an offence if:
(a) the person does an act or omits to do an act; and
(b) the act or omission contravenes regulation 203.982; and
(c) the person is negligent as to whether the act or omission creates a risk to the safety of air navigation.
Penalty: 500 penalty units.
(4) A person commits an offence if:
(a) the person does an act or omits to do an act; and
(b) the act or omission contravenes regulation 203.982.
Penalty: 100 penalty units.
(5) An offence against subregulation (4) is an offence of strict liability.
I feel safer already.
Subdivision 203.ZD.4.1—Safety of aviation-related signage
203.976 Interpretation for Division 203.ZD.4
For this Division
(a) aviation-related signage includes any mark, symbol, figure, words and depictions, whether represented in electronic or physical form, of any object, service, person or place connected with aviation, if the mark, symbol, figure, word or depiction, or any combination of them, is visible to any person whether through electronic means or by physical observation;
(b) Manual of Standards for the safety of aviation-related signage means the manual approved from time time by the Authority under regulation 203.979.
203.977 Prohibition on display of aviation-related signage.
A person must not cause or permit the erection or display or publication of any aviation-related signage unless the signage:
(a) complies with the Manual of Standards for the safety of aviation-related signage; and
(b) has been approved by CASA for erection or display or publication (as the case may be).
203.978. Offences relating to contravention of regulation 203.977
(1) A person commits an offence if:
(a) the person does an act or omits to do an act; and
(b) the act or omission contravenes regulation 203.977; and
(c) the person intends the act or omission to create a risk to the safety of air navigation.
Penalty: Imprisonment for life or 15,000 penalty units, or both.
(2) A person commits an offence if:
(a) the person does an act or omits to do an act; and
(b) the act or omission contravenes regulation 203.977; and
(c) the person is reckless as to whether the act or omission creates a risk to the safety of air navigation.
Penalty: 1,000 penalty units.
(3) A person commits an offence if:
(a) the person does an act or omits to do an act; and
(b) the act or omission contravenes regulation 203.977; and
(c) the person is negligent as to whether the act or omission creates a risk to the safety of air navigation.
Penalty: 500 penalty units.
(4) A person commits an offence if:
(a) the person does an act or omits to do an act; and
(b) the act or omission contravenes regulation 203.977.
Penalty: 100 penalty units.
(5) An offence against subregulation (4) is an offence of strict liability.
203.979 Manual of Standards for the safety of aviation-related signage
The Manual of Standards for the safety of aviation-related signage may specify the following matters:
(a) if the signage is physical - the dimensions of the sign;
(b) if the signage is electronic - the maximum number of bytes of data that the signage may contain;
(c) the words, symbols, figures that must not be depicted in the signage;
(d) safety procedures that must be followed in the design, construction and location of the signage;
Example for paragraph (d): The Manual of Standards for the safety of aviation-related signage may specify that the corners of physical signs be rounded so as to avoid risks created by pointy corners.
(e) requirements for the display of material worshipping our dear leader (the Director of Aviation Safety - blessed be the DAS) and his regulations - blessed be his regulations.
203.980 Annual review of aviation-related signage
A person must not cause or permit the continued display or publication of any aviation-related signage for a period in excess of a cumulated period of twelve months unless, during that period, the person has:
(a) undertaken or caused the undertaking of a review to confirm the ongoing compliance of the signage with the Manual of Standards for the safety of aviation-related signage; and
(b) obtained from CASA a renewal of the approval for the continued display or publication (as the case may be); and
(c) made a written record of the review conducted in compliance with paragraph (a).
203.981. Offences relating to contravention of regulation 203.980
(1) A person commits an offence if:
(a) the person does an act or omits to do an act; and
(b) the act or omission contravenes regulation 203.980; and
(c) the person intends the act or omission to create a risk to the safety of air navigation.
Penalty: Imprisonment for life or 15,000 penalty units, or both.
(2) A person commits an offence if:
(a) the person does an act or omits to do an act; and
(b) the act or omission contravenes regulation 203.980; and
(c) the person is reckless as to whether the act or omission creates a risk to the safety of air navigation.
Penalty: 1,000 penalty units.
(3) A person commits an offence if:
(a) the person does an act or omits to do an act; and
(b) the act or omission contravenes regulation 203.980; and
(c) the person is negligent as to whether the act or omission creates a risk to the safety of air navigation.
Penalty: 500 penalty units.
(4) A person commits an offence if:
(a) the person does an act or omits to do an act; and
(b) the act or omission contravenes regulation 203.980.
Penalty: 100 penalty units.
(5) An offence against subregulation (4) is an offence of strict liability.
203.982 Keeping of records of reviews of aviation-related signage
A person who undertakes or causes the undertaking of a review to comply with paragraph 203.980(a) must keep the records created to comply with paragraph 203.980(b) for a period of at least seven years from the date of creation and make those records available for inspection by the Authority on demand by the authority.
203.983. Offences relating to contravention of regulation 203.982
(1) A person commits an offence if:
(a) the person does an act or omits to do an act; and
(b) the act or omission contravenes regulation 203.982; and
(c) the person intends the act or omission to create a risk to the safety of air navigation.
Penalty: Imprisonment for life or 15,000 penalty units, or both.
(2) A person commits an offence if:
(a) the person does an act or omits to do an act; and
(b) the act or omission contravenes regulation 203.982; and
(c) the person is reckless as to whether the act or omission creates a risk to the safety of air navigation.
Penalty: 1,000 penalty units.
(3) A person commits an offence if:
(a) the person does an act or omits to do an act; and
(b) the act or omission contravenes regulation 203.982; and
(c) the person is negligent as to whether the act or omission creates a risk to the safety of air navigation.
Penalty: 500 penalty units.
(4) A person commits an offence if:
(a) the person does an act or omits to do an act; and
(b) the act or omission contravenes regulation 203.982.
Penalty: 100 penalty units.
(5) An offence against subregulation (4) is an offence of strict liability.
Last edited by Lead Balloon; 11th Sep 2020 at 04:03. Reason: Safety of air navigation
"Example for paragraph (d): The Manual of Standards for the safety of aviation-related signage may specify that the the corners of physical signs be rounded so as to avoid risks created by pointy corners.
(e) requirements for the display of material worshipping our dear leader (the Director of Aviation Safety - blessed be the DAS) and his regulations - blessed be his regulations."
:LOL...
(e) requirements for the display of material worshipping our dear leader (the Director of Aviation Safety - blessed be the DAS) and his regulations - blessed be his regulations."
:LOL...