Pudniks and CASA [2021/5950]
And here's an AAT decision from June this year in which the AAT affirmed CASA's decision that the applicant was not a fit and proper person: Schott and Civil Aviation Safety Authority
I commend to you, in particular, the AAT's considerations under the heading "Fitness and propriety" starting at para 47 and the various decisions cited. I also note that the finding that the applicant was not a fit and proper person was made without the applicant having been found guilty of any offence by any court. I further note that CASA cancelled the applicant's authorisation, the AAT affirmed that decision and, therefore, no court cancelled the authorisation.
I commend to you, in particular, the AAT's considerations under the heading "Fitness and propriety" starting at para 47 and the various decisions cited. I also note that the finding that the applicant was not a fit and proper person was made without the applicant having been found guilty of any offence by any court. I further note that CASA cancelled the applicant's authorisation, the AAT affirmed that decision and, therefore, no court cancelled the authorisation.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2021
Location: Sydney
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick Smith slide deck re GA in Aus
THE DESTRUCTION OF THE GENERAL AVIATION AND FLIGHT TRAINING INDUSTRY IN AUSTRALIA - DICK SMITH WAGGA ADDRESS (Dick Smith, 26 Apr 18)
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2021
Location: Sydney
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And here's an AAT decision from June this year in which the AAT affirmed CASA's decision that the applicant was not a fit and proper person: Schott and Civil Aviation Safety Authority.
to compare: i was subject to an unlawful ban (to my freedom of movement) which i disputed. SAFA wrote "there is no defence to your actions". CASA ignored that glaring (natural justice aka procedural fairness) issue, then used my dispute in turn as an excuse to ignore their duty re P149 for over 1 year and counting.
anyways, it'll be quite interesting to see how the AAT treats my case.
What administrative decision do you say has been made that is reviewable by the AAT? Please provide one sentence stating the precise decision that you say CASA has made, one sentence stating the precise provision under the civil aviation rules that you say CASA made that decision and one sentence stating the precise provision of either the civil aviation rules or the AAT Act that gives the AAT jurisdiction to review that decision.
"CASA decided to [e.g. refuse to consider my ... / refuse to grant me...]. CASA made that decision under [e.g. CASR x]. CASR y says that decisions under CASR x are reviewable by the AAT."
If CASA has made a decision reviewable by the AAT in your case, you are entitled to reasons for that decision and CASA would by now have provided you with a thing called a 'section 37 statement' (which is a reference to a section of the AAT Act). Have you been given a 'section 37 statement'? If not, that's a pretty good indication that no decision reviewable by the AAT has been made.
I should stress that I'm on your 'side', in the sense that I despair when I see folks expending so much energy running 'vibe of the thing' arguments and making bush lawyer assertions on PPRuNe as if that advances their interests or bothers CASA in any way. But I'm reminded of the advice of a wise mentor of mine: Leaddie, you can lead a horse to water but you don't have to suck through its *rse to make it drink.
Good luck.
"CASA decided to [e.g. refuse to consider my ... / refuse to grant me...]. CASA made that decision under [e.g. CASR x]. CASR y says that decisions under CASR x are reviewable by the AAT."
If CASA has made a decision reviewable by the AAT in your case, you are entitled to reasons for that decision and CASA would by now have provided you with a thing called a 'section 37 statement' (which is a reference to a section of the AAT Act). Have you been given a 'section 37 statement'? If not, that's a pretty good indication that no decision reviewable by the AAT has been made.
I should stress that I'm on your 'side', in the sense that I despair when I see folks expending so much energy running 'vibe of the thing' arguments and making bush lawyer assertions on PPRuNe as if that advances their interests or bothers CASA in any way. But I'm reminded of the advice of a wise mentor of mine: Leaddie, you can lead a horse to water but you don't have to suck through its *rse to make it drink.
Good luck.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2021
Location: Sydney
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
in the meantime, in short, imho CASA is ignoring their duty aka misfeasance.
when i did the online AAT application and paid $900, i was asked to do an additional form to clarify the decision etc. perhaps i can try attaching that pdf form here, else i can at least copy the key para.
note the most promising thing was that when the AAT wrote back with the hearing date - it was the AAT who called it: “jurisdiction question”. which i take to mean, does CASA have the jurisdiction to ignore my P149 for no reason… 🧐
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2021
Location: Sydney
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Making an Application for Review of Decision (AAT FORM)
30 Aug 21
This form is for use in the AAT’s General Division, Freedom of Information Division, National Disability Insurance Scheme Division, Security Division, Taxation & Commercial Division and Veterans’ Appeals Division.
Subsection 29(7) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 provides that a person may apply to the AAT to extend the time for making an application for a review of a decision.
SECTION 4 REASONS FOR THE APPLICATION
Outline your reasons for applying for an extension of time to make your application for review of the decision.
In good faith, I mistakenly allowed CASA + CDPP about 4 months to resolve their false claims about this situation. The CDPP has advised me that they are waiting on further information (I presume from CASA). Because the CDPP process may drag on for an unfair amount of time, I seek to review the CASA decision to needlessly wait upon the CDPP decision, before they will review my Part 149 paperwork (which would resolve the situation). CASA also wishes to review whether I am a "fit and proper person" and I anticipate that this review will be highly compromised due to the fact that CASA staff in this matter do not comply with the CASA conflict of interest (COI) policy. CASA have ignored that a paraglider does not meet the definition of an aircraft under CAA 1988. CASA have ignored the unlawful behaviour of the criminal gang known as SAFA, who use vandalism and violence to get their way.
This form is for use in the AAT’s General Division, Freedom of Information Division, National Disability Insurance Scheme Division, Security Division, Taxation & Commercial Division and Veterans’ Appeals Division.
Subsection 29(7) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 provides that a person may apply to the AAT to extend the time for making an application for a review of a decision.
SECTION 4 REASONS FOR THE APPLICATION
Outline your reasons for applying for an extension of time to make your application for review of the decision.
In good faith, I mistakenly allowed CASA + CDPP about 4 months to resolve their false claims about this situation. The CDPP has advised me that they are waiting on further information (I presume from CASA). Because the CDPP process may drag on for an unfair amount of time, I seek to review the CASA decision to needlessly wait upon the CDPP decision, before they will review my Part 149 paperwork (which would resolve the situation). CASA also wishes to review whether I am a "fit and proper person" and I anticipate that this review will be highly compromised due to the fact that CASA staff in this matter do not comply with the CASA conflict of interest (COI) policy. CASA have ignored that a paraglider does not meet the definition of an aircraft under CAA 1988. CASA have ignored the unlawful behaviour of the criminal gang known as SAFA, who use vandalism and violence to get their way.
Hi FG, and thx LB. i can work on that tmrw. good practice anyways.
in the meantime, in short, imho CASA is ignoring their duty aka misfeasance.
when i did the online AAT application and paid $900, i was asked to do an additional form to clarify the decision etc. perhaps i can try attaching that pdf form here, else i can at least copy the key para.
note the most promising thing was that when the AAT wrote back with the hearing date - it was the AAT who called it: “jurisdiction question”. which i take to mean, does CASA have the jurisdiction to ignore my P149 for no reason… 🧐
in the meantime, in short, imho CASA is ignoring their duty aka misfeasance.
when i did the online AAT application and paid $900, i was asked to do an additional form to clarify the decision etc. perhaps i can try attaching that pdf form here, else i can at least copy the key para.
note the most promising thing was that when the AAT wrote back with the hearing date - it was the AAT who called it: “jurisdiction question”. which i take to mean, does CASA have the jurisdiction to ignore my P149 for no reason… 🧐
You’re way out of your depth.
Better get a lawyer son; better get a real good one.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2021
Location: Sydney
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I’ll bet Cairns to a coconut that the answer to that question is: Yes!
PS. you wrote CASA can hold and use any evidence aka dirt file against people at will. yet Repacholi won.
you wrote CASA can do the fit and proper test at will. yet ASQA was shown to overstep some (reasonable) mark.
you wrote CASA can play the “no reviewable decision” card. CASA claimed with FRMS not to affect pilots, only the standards by which they are judged. in fact, CASA did that for me already, claiming that 1 year of their stalling is still not technically a decision to reject the P149 paperwork lol. yet FRMS + Repacholi shows AAT does have jurisdiction over both CASA decisions and their general conduct incl their inane bureaucratic games on the taxpayers’ dollar.
when i figure out how to upload Paul Phelan’s report, it will illuminate the broader context of CASA’s adversarial approach to air safety in Aus. the irony being, safety is not maximised as a result.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2021
Location: Sydney
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Kurt
You’re carrying on as if Paul Phelan’s and Dick Smith’s analyses and comments are some kind of revelation. It’s all well understood amongst the aviation community, and has been for a long time.
CASA doesn’t care about that stuff. Governments don’t care about that stuff. The AAT doesn’t care about that stuff.
I tried. Flaming Galah has also tried.
Good luck and good bye.
You’re carrying on as if Paul Phelan’s and Dick Smith’s analyses and comments are some kind of revelation. It’s all well understood amongst the aviation community, and has been for a long time.
CASA doesn’t care about that stuff. Governments don’t care about that stuff. The AAT doesn’t care about that stuff.
I tried. Flaming Galah has also tried.
Good luck and good bye.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2021
Location: Sydney
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Part 149 Certificate Application (CASA email reply)
25 Jun 21
Dear Mr Pudniks
Further to your previous requests seeking recognition as a Part 149 organisation.
On considering the issues further and noting that CASA may only grant an authorisation on the basis that it is not likely have an adverse effect on the safety of air navigation, I am of the view that it is in the best interests of ongoing resource allocation and limiting the potential costs of a formal application that any assessment should first determine your suitability (including whether you are a fit and proper person) to be approved to be issued with a Part 149 ASAO approval.
It is anticipated that this initial assessment of your suitability can be undertaken upon receipt of a Part 149 Application that fulfils the statutory requirements, including regulation 11.030 of the CASR. For the avoidance of doubt, the material supplied by you to this time does not constitute a properly completed formal application.
I also draw to your attention that under regulation 11.055 of the CASR, CASA must take the following matters into account (emphasis added):
(a) the applicant's record of compliance with regulatory requirements (in Australia or elsewhere) relating to aviation safety and other transport safety; and
(b) the applicant's demonstrated attitude towards compliance with regulatory requirements (in Australia or elsewhere) relating to aviation safety and other transport safety; and
(c) the applicant's experience (if any) in aviation; and
(d) the applicant's knowledge of the regulatory requirements applicable to civil aviation in Australia; and
(e) the applicant's history, if any, of serious behavioural problems; and
(f) any conviction (other than a spent conviction, within the meaning of Part VIIC of the Crimes Act 1914) of the applicant (in Australia or elsewhere) for a transport safety offence; and
(g) any evidence held by CASA that the applicant has contravened:
(i) the Act or these Regulations; or
(ii) a law of another country relating to aviation safety; or
(iii) another law (of Australia or of another country) relating to transport safety; and
(h) in the case of an authorisation referred to in subregulation 11.040(2), the applicant's financial standing and financial stability; and
(i) any other matter relating to the fitness of the applicant to hold the authorisation.
As you have been previously informed, CASA has presented a brief of evidence to the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions regarding your reported recent and ongoing alleged non-compliances with regulatory requirements. These matters are also relevant towards both your demonstrated attitude towards compliance with the regulatory requirements as well as any serious behavioural problems. The repeated nature of your alleged conduct has also occurred despite CASA’s best efforts on numerous occasions to ensure that you have an awareness of the regulatory requirements.
It is proposed that by initially conducting an assessment of your suitability (or as a controlling member of an applicant body) to be entrusted with privileges as a Part 149 ASAO, this will avoid a situation where considerable time and resources are expended by all involved.
Given the scope of regulatory responsibilities associated with a Part 149 ASAO approval, a person's fitness and propriety will also be measured against the particular functions and activities to be authorised, and the nature and extent of the wider responsibilities necessarily attendant upon the performance of those functions and activities in the broader interests of safety.
I also draw to attention that irrespective of the above suggested initial approach to the assessment, a final decision as to any Part 149 ASAO approval will need to be deferred until the matters the subject of the brief to the CDPP have been concluded.
If you should have concerns with the above proposed approach to assessment, then please let me know.
Regards
———
Manager Sport Aviation
General, Recreational and Sport Aviation Branch
CASA\Stakeholder Engagement Division
Dear Mr Pudniks
Further to your previous requests seeking recognition as a Part 149 organisation.
On considering the issues further and noting that CASA may only grant an authorisation on the basis that it is not likely have an adverse effect on the safety of air navigation, I am of the view that it is in the best interests of ongoing resource allocation and limiting the potential costs of a formal application that any assessment should first determine your suitability (including whether you are a fit and proper person) to be approved to be issued with a Part 149 ASAO approval.
It is anticipated that this initial assessment of your suitability can be undertaken upon receipt of a Part 149 Application that fulfils the statutory requirements, including regulation 11.030 of the CASR. For the avoidance of doubt, the material supplied by you to this time does not constitute a properly completed formal application.
I also draw to your attention that under regulation 11.055 of the CASR, CASA must take the following matters into account (emphasis added):
(a) the applicant's record of compliance with regulatory requirements (in Australia or elsewhere) relating to aviation safety and other transport safety; and
(b) the applicant's demonstrated attitude towards compliance with regulatory requirements (in Australia or elsewhere) relating to aviation safety and other transport safety; and
(c) the applicant's experience (if any) in aviation; and
(d) the applicant's knowledge of the regulatory requirements applicable to civil aviation in Australia; and
(e) the applicant's history, if any, of serious behavioural problems; and
(f) any conviction (other than a spent conviction, within the meaning of Part VIIC of the Crimes Act 1914) of the applicant (in Australia or elsewhere) for a transport safety offence; and
(g) any evidence held by CASA that the applicant has contravened:
(i) the Act or these Regulations; or
(ii) a law of another country relating to aviation safety; or
(iii) another law (of Australia or of another country) relating to transport safety; and
(h) in the case of an authorisation referred to in subregulation 11.040(2), the applicant's financial standing and financial stability; and
(i) any other matter relating to the fitness of the applicant to hold the authorisation.
As you have been previously informed, CASA has presented a brief of evidence to the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions regarding your reported recent and ongoing alleged non-compliances with regulatory requirements. These matters are also relevant towards both your demonstrated attitude towards compliance with the regulatory requirements as well as any serious behavioural problems. The repeated nature of your alleged conduct has also occurred despite CASA’s best efforts on numerous occasions to ensure that you have an awareness of the regulatory requirements.
It is proposed that by initially conducting an assessment of your suitability (or as a controlling member of an applicant body) to be entrusted with privileges as a Part 149 ASAO, this will avoid a situation where considerable time and resources are expended by all involved.
Given the scope of regulatory responsibilities associated with a Part 149 ASAO approval, a person's fitness and propriety will also be measured against the particular functions and activities to be authorised, and the nature and extent of the wider responsibilities necessarily attendant upon the performance of those functions and activities in the broader interests of safety.
I also draw to attention that irrespective of the above suggested initial approach to the assessment, a final decision as to any Part 149 ASAO approval will need to be deferred until the matters the subject of the brief to the CDPP have been concluded.
If you should have concerns with the above proposed approach to assessment, then please let me know.
Regards
———
Manager Sport Aviation
General, Recreational and Sport Aviation Branch
CASA\Stakeholder Engagement Division
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2021
Location: Sydney
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have posted the CASA email to me in question (see above).
In the ASQA case (link above at post #38) the AAT did take an interest in whether the “fit and proper” person test was done fairly.
For CASA to delay processing my P149 on such a weak basis (ie my dispute with SAFA, who CASA allow to operate unlawfully) is tantamount to misfeasance. Change my mind 🤨
Based on your timeline this far, it appears that you were grounded, but continued to fly anyway.
That on its own is enough to block your application.
What is irrelevant is that you believe that the grounding was not legal / legitimate. Once this element is removed, the fit and proper person issue ceases to exist (assuming the other points are not relevant), although, you have showed that you can’t follow the regulatory framework, because you chose to fly illegally.
The first step is to prove that your licence was removed illegally and the rest will flow from there, although not smoothly.
Let’s just say that Vicroads say that your car is unregistered and you choose to drive and pick up 10 unregistered fines from VicPol.
To fix this problem, you don’t take VicPol to the AAT because someone at Vicroads screwed up.
That on its own is enough to block your application.
What is irrelevant is that you believe that the grounding was not legal / legitimate. Once this element is removed, the fit and proper person issue ceases to exist (assuming the other points are not relevant), although, you have showed that you can’t follow the regulatory framework, because you chose to fly illegally.
The first step is to prove that your licence was removed illegally and the rest will flow from there, although not smoothly.
Let’s just say that Vicroads say that your car is unregistered and you choose to drive and pick up 10 unregistered fines from VicPol.
To fix this problem, you don’t take VicPol to the AAT because someone at Vicroads screwed up.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2021
Location: Sydney
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PG licence suspension (SAFA email sans right of reply)
17 Apr 20
Kurt,
The only documents that pertain to this are the SAFA Operations Manual and the CASA CAO 95.8
Suffice to say, you appear to be ignorant of various sections of the current Op's Manual.
I suggest you reacquaint yourself with the document. In particular "Pilot Responsibilities"
and the "Privileges and Limitations" section under each certification.
Further to the above, I suggest you also reacquaint yourself with the "SAFA Pilot Code Of Conduct".
Any breach of the Operations Manual by ANY pilot irrespective of club membership, nullifies insurance coverage of the pilot.
The insurer will not respond to any claim where an Operations Manual beach has occurred.
You have failed to establish any grounds for defence to the breach committed and quite simply there is no defence to it.
The manner in which the flight was conducted is irrelevant.
You have breached a directive from the committee of the managing club, a committee of which you were a part and well aware of the determination.
CASA and I will not be entertaining your irrelevant quibbling any further.
Your suspension stands. Any breach of the suspension and CASA will initiate criminal charges.
(COO, SAFA).
Kurt,
The only documents that pertain to this are the SAFA Operations Manual and the CASA CAO 95.8
Suffice to say, you appear to be ignorant of various sections of the current Op's Manual.
I suggest you reacquaint yourself with the document. In particular "Pilot Responsibilities"
and the "Privileges and Limitations" section under each certification.
Further to the above, I suggest you also reacquaint yourself with the "SAFA Pilot Code Of Conduct".
Any breach of the Operations Manual by ANY pilot irrespective of club membership, nullifies insurance coverage of the pilot.
The insurer will not respond to any claim where an Operations Manual beach has occurred.
You have failed to establish any grounds for defence to the breach committed and quite simply there is no defence to it.
The manner in which the flight was conducted is irrelevant.
You have breached a directive from the committee of the managing club, a committee of which you were a part and well aware of the determination.
CASA and I will not be entertaining your irrelevant quibbling any further.
Your suspension stands. Any breach of the suspension and CASA will initiate criminal charges.
(COO, SAFA).
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2021
Location: Sydney
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
b. i am taking CASA to AAT, not NSW Police.
c. not sure why (you think) the fit and proper person (FPP) test “ceases to exist” tho? perhaps you can explain, here or via pm is fine.
a. i have posted SAFA’s clumsy and unprofessional email above re PG licence suspension. the AAT Act 1975 says a person must be given a right of reply. instead, i got “… there is no defence to it”. i also like when SAFA speaks on behalf of CASA, that was cute.
b. i am taking CASA to AAT, not NSW Police.
c. not sure why (you think) the fit and proper person (FPP) test “ceases to exist” tho? perhaps you can explain, here or via pm is fine.
b. i am taking CASA to AAT, not NSW Police.
c. not sure why (you think) the fit and proper person (FPP) test “ceases to exist” tho? perhaps you can explain, here or via pm is fine.
I can’t see that taking CASA to AAT is relevant because CASA didn’t take away your licence. It feels like you should be working to discredit the other mob first. Right now you’re saying that casa should approve your application because the other mob illegally took away your licence.
Get the licence suspension sorted and the breaches go away, however you’re still left with the fact that you broke the rules by flying so are a risk to aviation safety and considered a cowboy.
You can lead a horse to water….
LB succinctly and clearly specified what the scope of AAT is in post 4. It ain’t CASA’s conduct champ.
This fundamentally bush lawyer stuff is getting almost to sovcit freeman of the land level of nonsense. You’re really helping SAFA and CASA if you perpetuate this tripe. But, all the best to you and Dennis Dinuto and the Constitution and CASA conduct vibes.
LB succinctly and clearly specified what the scope of AAT is in post 4. It ain’t CASA’s conduct champ.
This fundamentally bush lawyer stuff is getting almost to sovcit freeman of the land level of nonsense. You’re really helping SAFA and CASA if you perpetuate this tripe. But, all the best to you and Dennis Dinuto and the Constitution and CASA conduct vibes.
Where is Skinduptruk?
I believe that he is on a short break for some punctuation errors.
I have chatted to him and believe he will be back fairly soon to respond to any questions.
Cheers. Glen
I have chatted to him and believe he will be back fairly soon to respond to any questions.
Cheers. Glen