Pudniks and CASA [2021/5950]
Glen, this is probably one you want to distance yourself from for the good of your own case you’re working on. Definitely a lot different dynamics going on with this compared to your situation to which everyone can sympathize.
Havick
Cheers Havick, and I very much appreciate the intention and the sentiment of your post, and I do agree with you.
Over the course of the last three years, I have been contacted by many that have been affected by CASAs narcissistic and unsafe culture. Many who have had there lives destroyed or impacted by the Legal, International and Regulatory Affairs Department under the stewardship of CASA Executive Manager, Mr Jonathan Aleck. In my opinion, a very dangerous person whose actions negatively impact on the aviation safety, businesses, and in fact the future of the GA industry. Obviously a lifelong "public servant" with little appreciation of the industry that he rules over.
I have, and will continue to keep my case separate from anyone elses.
My interest and involvement comes from an appreciation of the trauma, stress and anxiety that this man has caused to so many, and the complete "head in the sand approach" that the previous CASA CEO, and potentially the new CEO adopt in order to cover up his misconduct.
In other matters, and including this one, i empathize with the victims. I do also recognize that in this particular case there is a tenuous safety card that Mr Aleck can draw on to manipulate and engineer his desired outcome. In my case, CASA has never put forward any safety case at all, and therefore i appreciate that i must not muddy the waters by becoming too involved, although I am keen to offer any support that I can.
You may be aware that a petition has been commenced to submit to Mr. Barnaby Joyce, and i would actively encourage all industry participants, and most particularly those involved in the GA industry to get on board and sign that petition.
I have called repeatedly for an investigation into the Mr. Alecks misconduct, but he must be covered in Teflon, because nothing sticks to him, and the CASA Senior management is complicit in protecting him, and ensuring that he continues to bring so much harm to so many. Perhaps a Royal Commission is warranted and i would encourage everyone to consider signing the petition referred to in another thread "Royal Commission into CASA".
Thanks for the ongoing support of my matter, and all the best to you for the fast approaching New Year, cheers. Glen
Over the course of the last three years, I have been contacted by many that have been affected by CASAs narcissistic and unsafe culture. Many who have had there lives destroyed or impacted by the Legal, International and Regulatory Affairs Department under the stewardship of CASA Executive Manager, Mr Jonathan Aleck. In my opinion, a very dangerous person whose actions negatively impact on the aviation safety, businesses, and in fact the future of the GA industry. Obviously a lifelong "public servant" with little appreciation of the industry that he rules over.
I have, and will continue to keep my case separate from anyone elses.
My interest and involvement comes from an appreciation of the trauma, stress and anxiety that this man has caused to so many, and the complete "head in the sand approach" that the previous CASA CEO, and potentially the new CEO adopt in order to cover up his misconduct.
In other matters, and including this one, i empathize with the victims. I do also recognize that in this particular case there is a tenuous safety card that Mr Aleck can draw on to manipulate and engineer his desired outcome. In my case, CASA has never put forward any safety case at all, and therefore i appreciate that i must not muddy the waters by becoming too involved, although I am keen to offer any support that I can.
You may be aware that a petition has been commenced to submit to Mr. Barnaby Joyce, and i would actively encourage all industry participants, and most particularly those involved in the GA industry to get on board and sign that petition.
I have called repeatedly for an investigation into the Mr. Alecks misconduct, but he must be covered in Teflon, because nothing sticks to him, and the CASA Senior management is complicit in protecting him, and ensuring that he continues to bring so much harm to so many. Perhaps a Royal Commission is warranted and i would encourage everyone to consider signing the petition referred to in another thread "Royal Commission into CASA".
Thanks for the ongoing support of my matter, and all the best to you for the fast approaching New Year, cheers. Glen
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2021
Location: Sydney
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Court Attendance Notice (CAN)
AAT process seems to be frozen for now.
CASA (not the CDPP?!) is prosecuting in matter of R v myself - CAA 1988 - 16x counts of unlicenced operation of an aircraft. Potential fine of $26,640 and/or 2 years jail - all because the non Part 149 PG club (SAFA nee HGFA) unlawfully kicked me out of their club + CASA then ignored my Part 149 paperwork (a whopping 17x pages worth) since Aug 20 🤔
Katoomba local court on Mon 21 Feb 22. I will be representing myself.
I will advise how it goes 🙏🏻
CASA (not the CDPP?!) is prosecuting in matter of R v myself - CAA 1988 - 16x counts of unlicenced operation of an aircraft. Potential fine of $26,640 and/or 2 years jail - all because the non Part 149 PG club (SAFA nee HGFA) unlawfully kicked me out of their club + CASA then ignored my Part 149 paperwork (a whopping 17x pages worth) since Aug 20 🤔
Katoomba local court on Mon 21 Feb 22. I will be representing myself.
I will advise how it goes 🙏🏻
Jeeez, brave dude.
Interesting the CDPP isn't prosecuting and CASA it. If true, it would suggest to me that the CDPP didn't think it was worth it but CASA reckons you were going to bring down an A380 with your dangerous, extra-club hang gliding.
You'd better hope the magistrate sees through the CASA smoke and mirrors, and you're acquitted or discharged without conviction.
Good luck.
Interesting the CDPP isn't prosecuting and CASA it. If true, it would suggest to me that the CDPP didn't think it was worth it but CASA reckons you were going to bring down an A380 with your dangerous, extra-club hang gliding.
You'd better hope the magistrate sees through the CASA smoke and mirrors, and you're acquitted or discharged without conviction.
Good luck.
Are you still qualified and current, to be able to fly, as in you’ve done an AFR or similar and posses a medical if required to be able to fly legally, however they have just taken away your piece of paper?
I doubt you would be wanting to bring up the 149 stuff as it does not seem relevant to the charges. If you can find a friend you are allowed to take them along, they might help keep you settled in the courtroom.
I doubt you would be wanting to bring up the 149 stuff as it does not seem relevant to the charges. If you can find a friend you are allowed to take them along, they might help keep you settled in the courtroom.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2021
Location: Sydney
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CAO 95.8 says PG are exempt from CAA 1988 - so long as you are a member of the HGFA.
The HGFA changed their name to SAFA, their company structure, their constitution, and breached the AATA 1975 to suspend my membership in Mar 20.
I chose to no longer associate with such an unlawful group and submitted my own P149 paperwork instead, around Aug 20.
Which CASA has not reviewed properly ever since, citing their own pending "investigation" in Jun 21 as the reason. Hence I took them to the subject AAT process in Sep 21, result is pending.
CAN was served in Jan 22. We shall see what happens next in Katoomba local court.
The HGFA changed their name to SAFA, their company structure, their constitution, and breached the AATA 1975 to suspend my membership in Mar 20.
I chose to no longer associate with such an unlawful group and submitted my own P149 paperwork instead, around Aug 20.
Which CASA has not reviewed properly ever since, citing their own pending "investigation" in Jun 21 as the reason. Hence I took them to the subject AAT process in Sep 21, result is pending.
CAN was served in Jan 22. We shall see what happens next in Katoomba local court.
Good lord. If the alleged breaches of the AAT Act by an organisation that legislation doesn’t even apply to is one of the planks of your defence, the Magistrate is going to lose patience with your self-represented bush lawyer schlock quick fast.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2021
Location: Sydney
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What makes SAFA immune to the laws of the land?
I also had a conversation with CASA in May 20. CASA said they cannot control SAFA. CASA suggested I apply for Part 149 so I did :)
PS. I wrote to the Minister 5x times since Sep 20. No meaningful progress was made re Part 149 paperwork stonewalling by CASA. Remember the paperwork is 17x pages long, yet it has taken them almost 2 years to still not even *start* their review :o
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2021
Location: Sydney
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Court Attendances
Proceedings are listed to appear in court within six weeks of the defence being filed. During the first appearance, the court will give the parties directions designed for a swift determination.
Common directions that the court gives include:
• filing and service of any additional pleadings;
• allocating of a return date for any subpoena (if necessary);
• referral of the parties to mediation or arbitration;
• filing and service of evidence; and
• listing of the matter for trial and pre-trial review.
If a trial date is not set, the matter will be listed for a second appearance, usually 28 days after the first one. At the second appearance, the court will decide whether previous orders have been complied with. If both parties are ready to proceed, a trial date will be set. However, if the parties have failed to comply with previous orders and are not ready to proceed, the court will list the matter for a directions hearing.
https://legalvision.com.au/i-am-a-pa...ould-i-expect/
Proceedings are listed to appear in court within six weeks of the defence being filed. During the first appearance, the court will give the parties directions designed for a swift determination.
Common directions that the court gives include:
• filing and service of any additional pleadings;
• allocating of a return date for any subpoena (if necessary);
• referral of the parties to mediation or arbitration;
• filing and service of evidence; and
• listing of the matter for trial and pre-trial review.
If a trial date is not set, the matter will be listed for a second appearance, usually 28 days after the first one. At the second appearance, the court will decide whether previous orders have been complied with. If both parties are ready to proceed, a trial date will be set. However, if the parties have failed to comply with previous orders and are not ready to proceed, the court will list the matter for a directions hearing.
https://legalvision.com.au/i-am-a-pa...ould-i-expect/
Prosecutors love your type. You’re stuck on transmit. You’ve made all the necessary admissions and can’t or won’t listen to good advice.
You’d better hope the magistrate understands the triviality of the risks rather than allow you to dig yourself into an even deeper hole.
You’d better hope the magistrate understands the triviality of the risks rather than allow you to dig yourself into an even deeper hole.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2021
Location: Sydney
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes I will do my best to explain the risks. Perhaps sailing vs powerboats?
Ironically, those same risks happen to be fully documented in my Part 149 paperwork that CASA wont touch! :P
I do listen to advice that references case law or legislation. The rest is just opinion. Which is fine but I wont rely on it.
Ironically, those same risks happen to be fully documented in my Part 149 paperwork that CASA wont touch! :P
I do listen to advice that references case law or legislation. The rest is just opinion. Which is fine but I wont rely on it.
The level of risk issue will be a matter for mitigation of penalty or discharge without conviction, either of which means the court has already found the offence/s to have been proved against you. But I realise I haven't cited any legislation or case law in support of that. Dang.
Can you cite the legislation or case law that says the AAT has jurisdiction to review the decisions of a non-government association like HGFA/SAFA? There is none, and it's difficult to cite something that doesn't exist. Dang.
You've got this nailed.
Can you cite the legislation or case law that says the AAT has jurisdiction to review the decisions of a non-government association like HGFA/SAFA? There is none, and it's difficult to cite something that doesn't exist. Dang.
You've got this nailed.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2021
Location: Sydney
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for the reply LB, sorry if my style is frustrating and/or seems stupid to you.
There was a great comment made in RRAT sub #70 on the SAFA appeals issue.
RRAT Submission #70 (PDF)
CASA’s remedy “for members” - Part 149
At the Senate RRAT Estimates hearing 20th October 2020, Dr Aleck for CASA said in response to questions from Senator Patrick said:
“Under Part 149, if a person has one of their authorisations suspended or varied by RAAus they can chal- lenge that. That decision can be referred to CASA, and CASA reviews that decision, and CASA’s decision on that is reviewable in the AAT. Previously RAAus members did not have that option. If they lost their authori- sation as a result of a decision of RAAus, they had no recourse through the tribunals; they would have to go to court and claim unfairness of some sort”
However, in adoption of RAAus’s Part 149 the principle of “justice delayed is justice denied” is realised as a person that is the subject of a suspension or variation of an authorisation will be put through a process that is considerably longer than the process a CASA licenced pilot without the protections afforded in the legislation or CASA’s policies and procedures.
As for the risk issue. I suppose I'm hoping the issue can be seen as: unlawfully suspended for no reason = administrative error = any actions done were essentially while still "licenced". I fear you will laugh at this idea. So be it :)
PS. Whatever does happen, good, bad, or ugly - CASA will seek to use it as a reason to stonewall their review of my Part 149 paperwork!!
There was a great comment made in RRAT sub #70 on the SAFA appeals issue.
RRAT Submission #70 (PDF)
Originally Posted by Sub #70 (page 2)
CASA’s remedy “for members” - Part 149
At the Senate RRAT Estimates hearing 20th October 2020, Dr Aleck for CASA said in response to questions from Senator Patrick said:
“Under Part 149, if a person has one of their authorisations suspended or varied by RAAus they can chal- lenge that. That decision can be referred to CASA, and CASA reviews that decision, and CASA’s decision on that is reviewable in the AAT. Previously RAAus members did not have that option. If they lost their authori- sation as a result of a decision of RAAus, they had no recourse through the tribunals; they would have to go to court and claim unfairness of some sort”
However, in adoption of RAAus’s Part 149 the principle of “justice delayed is justice denied” is realised as a person that is the subject of a suspension or variation of an authorisation will be put through a process that is considerably longer than the process a CASA licenced pilot without the protections afforded in the legislation or CASA’s policies and procedures.
PS. Whatever does happen, good, bad, or ugly - CASA will seek to use it as a reason to stonewall their review of my Part 149 paperwork!!
No need to apologise. It's your arse on the line. Any frustration I have is a consequence of people like you and Glen either digging deeper holes for themselves or expending energy on entirely unproductive activities.
I've read all the submissions ever made to any Parliamentary inquiry related to CASA (and its predecessors).
I hope you are able to show the Court that you were "unlawfully suspended". That would require you to cite the legislation and caselaw on which you are relying. The vibe and Mabo won't cut it.
I've read all the submissions ever made to any Parliamentary inquiry related to CASA (and its predecessors).
I hope you are able to show the Court that you were "unlawfully suspended". That would require you to cite the legislation and caselaw on which you are relying. The vibe and Mabo won't cut it.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2021
Location: Sydney
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act (AATA) 1975 says a person must be informed of their right of reply when given an unfavourable decision.
Seems black and white to me. We shall see!
PS. Thanks for explaining your perspective. I look forward to helping Glen B, Shannon B, and any others in the future, regardless of what happens in my case.
*sigh*
The AAT Act has nothing to do with decisions of a non-government association like HGFA/SAFA. Of course, you will say that it's outrageous that the aviation 'safety' regulatory system in Australia runs that way. And you'd be right. That's why I said: "Welcome to the party".
The AAT Act has nothing to do with decisions of a non-government association like HGFA/SAFA. Of course, you will say that it's outrageous that the aviation 'safety' regulatory system in Australia runs that way. And you'd be right. That's why I said: "Welcome to the party".
Yep. And Dr A has checkmated you.
All I see in #70 is that you have the right to challenge your revocation of your flying permission by SAFA by writing to CASA, if CASA denies, you can then take CASA to AAT for that decision. If however you have flown before any decision is formalised, being aware that you were grounded, you have acted illegally as you are not authorised to fly. Same as if your drivers licence is revoked, you can't drive around while the matter is resolved, unless you are given express permission to do so.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2021
Location: Sydney
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FOI request (18 Jan 22)
18 Jan 22
FOI Documents requested.
I seek access, under the FOI Act, to the following documents:
Hello FOI Team,
As discussed recently, may I make two requests under the FOI Act.
1. PG safety management documents (2017+)
May I seek any documents that capture CASA's ongoing safety management of SAFA within the date range (2017+) i.e. any documentation generated by CASA's work activities relating to the CASA review of PG safety statistics - as captured and reported in summary by SAFA's AIRS system - which may include, but not be limited to:
- Records of (phone and in-person) conversations between CASA and SAFA.
- Any meetings and workshop agendas, terms of reference, minutes, and tabled documents in support of any such meetings and workshops.
- Any reviews and reports including summary reviews and reports.
- Summary details of any surveillance actions by CASA on SAFA.
I agree to the removal of names of CASA staff and third parties, such that the requirement for consultation might be reduced.
2. ATSB-provided data documents (2017+)
May I seek access to notifications of pilot-reported paragliding incidents and accidents provided to CASA from the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) within the date range (2017+). The documents within this scope might include a centralised report of data, removing the duplication of data supplied through several sources, to provide me with a resource should I wish to subsequently seek access to documents relating to specific reports. I agree to the removal of names of CASA staff and third parties, such that the requirement for consultation might be reduced.
Date from
2017-01-01
Date to
2022-01-17
Do you agree to the removal of the names of any CASA officers from the documents you are seeking?
Yes
Do you agree to the removal of the names of any third parties from the documents you are seeking?
Yes
Consultation and charges
Consultation with third parties
Where consultation with a third party is necessary, do you agree to the disclosure of your identity for the purposes of third-party consultation?
Yes
FOI Documents requested.
I seek access, under the FOI Act, to the following documents:
Hello FOI Team,
As discussed recently, may I make two requests under the FOI Act.
1. PG safety management documents (2017+)
May I seek any documents that capture CASA's ongoing safety management of SAFA within the date range (2017+) i.e. any documentation generated by CASA's work activities relating to the CASA review of PG safety statistics - as captured and reported in summary by SAFA's AIRS system - which may include, but not be limited to:
- Records of (phone and in-person) conversations between CASA and SAFA.
- Any meetings and workshop agendas, terms of reference, minutes, and tabled documents in support of any such meetings and workshops.
- Any reviews and reports including summary reviews and reports.
- Summary details of any surveillance actions by CASA on SAFA.
I agree to the removal of names of CASA staff and third parties, such that the requirement for consultation might be reduced.
2. ATSB-provided data documents (2017+)
May I seek access to notifications of pilot-reported paragliding incidents and accidents provided to CASA from the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) within the date range (2017+). The documents within this scope might include a centralised report of data, removing the duplication of data supplied through several sources, to provide me with a resource should I wish to subsequently seek access to documents relating to specific reports. I agree to the removal of names of CASA staff and third parties, such that the requirement for consultation might be reduced.
Date from
2017-01-01
Date to
2022-01-17
Do you agree to the removal of the names of any CASA officers from the documents you are seeking?
Yes
Do you agree to the removal of the names of any third parties from the documents you are seeking?
Yes
Consultation and charges
Consultation with third parties
Where consultation with a third party is necessary, do you agree to the disclosure of your identity for the purposes of third-party consultation?
Yes