The Pacific: General Aviation & Questions The place for students, instructors and charter guys in Oz, NZ and the rest of Oceania.

RHS and Boyd at it again?

Old 22nd Jan 2003, 15:57
  #1 (permalink)  

I don't want to be the best pilot in the world - Just the oldest
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Here and there
Posts: 1,015
RHS and Boyd at it again?

Just saw the late news where a Victorian pilot is being prosecuted in the Horsham court by CASA for:
a. Flying without a valid medical, and
b. Failing to have maintenance performed on his aircraft.

Dick and Boyd were interviewed on the news appearing to say that the person in question was being dealt with unfairly by orrible, nasty CASA.

Fer Fark sake!!!! Are they saying it is ok to fly without a medical and an non airworthy aircraft? I suppose this is what they mean by "Affordable Safety" and "Freedom to fly without unnecessary restrictions"

The person in question said, in a poorly prepared press statement: "I have never endangered my passengers or property" or words to that effect. BWWWAAAHHHH! So exactly why doesn't he have a medical? Did he forget to renew it or was a DAME unable to renew it because of his health?

Just wondering what would be his insurance company's view on the matter in the event of a claim? You don't have to be Einstein to figure that one out
Islander Jock is offline  
Old 23rd Jan 2003, 00:33
  #2 (permalink)  
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 271
I think they were going on about the presumption of innocence.

From email loops I am in, it seems that this bloke has been CHARGED with certain offences, but not found guilty or otherwise at this stage.

He is yet to have his day in Court, the episode on Wednesday being adjorned until I believe the 26th February.

Be this as it may, CASA has CANCELLED his licence (I heard, for life), and are following on from their oft touted arrogance in this castle of ineptness by completely negating due process and punishing him in advance.

In this regard, I can only say, if Dick and Boyd bring the matter to the attention of anyone by any method, it can only be of benefit to the aviation community.

The charges could be bulls**t,

I guess I can wait until, or if, he is found guilty before I offer an opinion.

He should be supported on the due process matter in the interim.

new bugga
axiom is offline  
Old 23rd Jan 2003, 11:57
  #3 (permalink)  
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Sydney, NSW, Australia
Posts: 11
Um, maybe I'm missing something here. CASA is the regulator; it is the policeman of the air. There is no-one else who has that responsibility. Now if they perceive that someone has broken the rules then they have a responsibility to bring the full force of the law (in this case the regulations) to bear. There are some in GA that don't think the rules apply to them.

In the absence of a points system (which I think seems a reasonable way to go), then CASA really has no choice when they find out, or think, that someone has been busting the rules.

If there is a disagreement, then that is what the court is for...not a lot different really from some motor vehicle misdemeanours.
Afterall, if there is an accident and the ATSB highlights shortcomings in CASA's oversight of the pilot or operator, then we hear all the 'tut tuts' from the industry.

And let's not forget the insurance issue. The insurance companies these days will happily not payout if there is a whif of rule breaking.

CASA must apply the rules and apply them fairly, without fear or favour. That can be a thankless job even if done well.
And no, I am not a CASA apologist, but I think that we have to recognise the limitations of the system we all work under.
SPLATR is offline  
Old 23rd Jan 2003, 21:39
  #4 (permalink)  
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Oz
Posts: 190
Policeman of the air yes. But how many police do you know that can throw you in goal for life without finding you guilty of anything.

What the guy did (or didn't) do is irrelavent, it is natural justice and CASA's self perceived omnipotence that is at issue here.

So good on Dick and Boyd for upping CASA.

A personal reflection, I understand the guy was a PVT Pilot, on a PVT Flight with NO passengers. If he was AUF (in an aircraft just a few kg lighter) there would have been no issue re the medical and probably none re the 'stuck undercarriage???' (my understanding only).

So pehaps CASA should stick to regulating to protect the fare paying passenger and leave PVT and AWK to another body.

AOPA perhaps ??
ulm is offline  
Old 24th Jan 2003, 00:59
  #5 (permalink)  

I don't want to be the best pilot in the world - Just the oldest
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Here and there
Posts: 1,015

Re medicals and ultralights. There is a case currently going through the WA courts where an ultalight pilot had a heart attack shortly after takeoff and died. The resulting crash has left his passenger a virtual cripple. It has subsequently been revealed that the deceased pilot was told by a doctor that due to his ill health he should not even be driving a car. So to say medicals and ultralights are not an issue is an abhorrent disregard of any sense of responsibility. Especially where carting around a passenger, fare paying or not.

If the pilot in the Victorian case was flying an ultralight under AUF regs then fair enough. But the fact of the matter is that he wasn't. He was flying an an aircraft of approx 1179kg MTOW with a substantially poorer engine out glide capability that your Gemini Thruster or the like.

Now to play Geoffery Robinson and a quick game of Hypothetical here:

What would be the opinion of those currently opposed to CASA's stance had they (CASA) known of the medical deficiencies and failed to act and whilst allowing that pilot to continue to fly, he perhaps has a medical seizure in flight and crashes into a crowded school yard?

I'd suggest those same protagonists would be screaming for the blood of the regulator.

And as for AOPA being the regulator of GA. Well if the info posted on other threads is anything to go on, they seem to be having a nightmare of trying to regulate themselves. The analogy of "letting the fox lose in the hen house" comes to mind

Last edited by Islander Jock; 24th Jan 2003 at 02:51.
Islander Jock is offline  
Old 24th Jan 2003, 07:18
  #6 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: The Hornets Nest, NSW
Posts: 833
IJ, I'm gonna quote you here.......
So exactly why doesn't he have a medical? Did he forget to renew it or was a DAME unable to renew it because of his health
Quite possibly, but then again while I am quite aware of your situation on the coast of Oz re: Dame's (one on every corner), spare a thought for those of us who late last year HAD a Av medico in town, but now have a round trip of up to a thousand k'ms to go for a medical, and that doesn't include the eyesight and blood tests.

You'd have thought by now that ASA might have had the nous to either find or appoint someone in what is perhaps one of the largest inland centres in the country.
OpsNormal is offline  
Old 24th Jan 2003, 08:25
  #7 (permalink)  
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Sydney, NSW, Australia
Posts: 11
Seems CASA can be blamed for everything, even the lack of DAMEs in an area. I thought they were responsible for approving not sourcing medicos...but I amy be wrong. On the one hand we have the industry (AOPA) saying they can do it all and then on the other we have the industry saying 'CASA should do this'. But in the end, if you don't have a valid medical, you just don't fly...full stop. If the aircraft is not airworthy (administratively or practically) just don't fly. It sounds simplistic but the insurance issues, the legal issues and the personal issues when something goes wrong just isn't worth it.
SPLATR is offline  
Old 24th Jan 2003, 23:21
  #8 (permalink)  
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Brisvegas
Posts: 2,744

CASA is the regulator; it is the policeman of the air
Are you familiar with the concept of the separation of powers?

Islander Jock I remember when that accident happened, if it is the Narrogin one and thought at the time that it may provide some interesting legal issues. Something along the lines of the coroner reccommending that ALL pilots need a valid medical. I have never understood why AUF pilots don't need medicals. The medical is to protect the passengers and those on the ground from DEATH FROM ABOVE. It is a mute point that a pilot could suffer a heart attack the day after their medical.
Icarus2001 is offline  
Old 25th Jan 2003, 12:04
  #9 (permalink)  
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: YBBN
Posts: 134
Axiom & Ulm

If my memory serves me correctly licences, be they drivers, firearms, liquor or whatever, are issued by the nominated authority on the proviso that the holder meets certain standards of fitness and suitability. If these standards are not met or maintained then the issuing authority has an obligation in public interests to withdraw that privilege.

CAR 269 inter-alia allows CASA to vary, suspend or cancel a licence, certificate or authority if satisfied that the holder;
 has contravened a provision of the act,
 fails to satisfy a prescribed requirement,
 failed his/her duty in safe navigation of aircraft,
 is not a fit or proper person to have the responsibilities etc., of such licence, or
 has contravened a direction or instruction pertaining to safe navigation.

Before taking such action CASA must give notice to the holder and require him/her to show cause why the variation, suspension or cancellation should not take place.

I suggest that if the holder has, say, a medical condition that won’t improve then CASA would be justified in effecting a life suspension regardless of the outcome of any court hearing in relation to other matters. This is supposition on my part because I do not know what the details are relating to the specific incident.

A licence is a privilege, not a right, so what is all the fuss about?
Blue Hauler is offline  
Old 25th Jan 2003, 12:15
  #10 (permalink)  
Posts: n/a
The media reported that the guy up in front of the beak at Hamilton had 25 CASA charges to answer for. If that is correct then that's not bad for an amateur private pilot.

CASA are not all fools and its a good bet that they have had their eyes on this clown for some time before obtaining the hard evidence necessary to nail him to the wall. Just a shame they miss all the other GA cowboys out there.
Old 26th Jan 2003, 08:15
  #11 (permalink)  
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 271
I give you a hypothetical:

A Policeman (sorry Woman), stops you for alleged speeding.

You dispute his/her assertions and say, "I'll see you in court".

Fair 'nuff ?

The matter goes to Court and the Defendant is found NOT GUILTY.

The Policeman had powers to stop, arrest if neccesary and provide a Plaint to the Court.

Fair 'nuff ?

The accused goes free, or if the reverse occurs, goes to jail.

Fair 'nuff ?

Another hypothetical.

CASA ramp you and find you in some breach of the act.. They then "CANCELL" you licence even after you have said, "I'll see you in Court".

They then up the "ante" by providing you and your well paid ambulance chaser, with another 23 CRIMINAL charges.

You go to Court and the Court finds that the charges were preposterously inflated and find you guilty of not dotting a sentence on your MR.

Penalty: bugga all !

Blue Hauler, a question, where does it say that a licence is a privelege and not a right ?

Icarus 2001, perhaps some of these people should read the AUSTRALIAN CONSTITUTION especially the following which CASA seem to treat with contempt.

Chapters 1, 11, and 111 of the Constitution confer the legislative, executive and judicial powers on three different bodies which are established by the Constitution- the Parliament(chapter 1), The Commonwealth Executive (chapter 11), and the judiciary (chapter 111).

The legislative power is the power to make laws.

The executive power is the power to administer the laws and carry out the business of Government through such bodies as government departments, statutory authorities and the defence forces.

The judicial power is the power traditionally exercised by the courts such as the conduct of criminal trials and determining disputes in relation to contracts.

There is no strict demarcation between the legislative and executive powers, however by contrast, the separation of he powers between the judicature on the one hand, and the parliament and executive is STRICT.



The principles and proceedures that govern the adjudication of disputes between persons or organisations. Chief among which are that the adjudication should be unbiased and given in good faith and that each party should have equal access to the tribunal and should be aware of arguements and documents adduced by the other.


CASA ARE FOOLS !!!!!!!!!!

If you are a bank runner, I'll give you a point of concern.

Two airsick pax, mid summer, a "dog" of an aircraft, and, some C310 jockey abuses me for not advising him when I had passed his comfort zone so he could climb to a nice cool altitude. "******"

I'm a cowboy apparantly even though I said sorry!


Perhaps this guy forgot ??? Dom't know but a bit harsh accusing him of being a threat to mankind.


Policeman of the air, OK if they are not the rule makers, the administrators, the Judge jury executioner etc etc etc.......

They can't be all of these people, it is SIMPLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

and Islander Jock;

You appear to not full understand the Australian Constitution, OR IS IT ME THAT IS IN THE TWILIGHT ZONE ?????????????

axiom is offline  
Old 26th Jan 2003, 10:06
  #12 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: The Hornets Nest, NSW
Posts: 833

Nice post axiom, I'd only hope that it would be so simple in a perfect world. Of course there is always the old goodie "an immediate and ongoing threat to safety", so I guess they can get it both ways.

My previous post obviously didn't state my position clear enough... I do not believe that it is OK to breach the rules (re: lapsed medical), but however the main crux of what I was trying to say was that sometimes you are put in a situation that arises (usually by the sudden and unexpected removal of a service in your area), that you cannot fix within the alloted (by CASA/ASA) timeframe.

I have no direct problem with the regulators of our industry, but they can take some bewildering directions sometimes.... ?
OpsNormal is offline  
Old 26th Jan 2003, 10:46
  #13 (permalink)  
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Sydney, NSW, Australia
Posts: 11
Interesting debate.

Okay, if the policeman (woman) finds your licence is invalid (out of date?), you can't drive. You can say you'll see them in court as much as you like, but you aint gonna drive! If your medical is not valid, you cannot exericse the privleges of a pilot's licence. All licences are one has the right to operate most forms of transport in public without a licence of some sort. If a policeman (woman) pulls over a vehicle that is unroadworthy, they can stop you from driving it and you can huff and puff about court as much as you like and you may win...and you may lose. Fact is, the police, in some circumstances, can take you off the road before you've been to court.

The CARS are passed by the politicians, whether you like it or not, CASA does have the power to cancel/suspend licences and the have the responsibility of enforcing the regulations as they stand. They are hammered when they do and they are hammered when they don't.

You can go to court and you can have CASA decisions you can go to court and have police decisions reversed?

I believe that aviation should be regulated; I've seen too many untrustworthy, unknowledgeable or just plain dishonest people in GA not to be cynical about some of the people spruking about freedom to fly...we have no more 'right' to fly than people have a 'right' to drive. Everytime an aircraft crashes, we see the media, the families and the public questioning standards in aviation and quite frankly, my view is that standards in GA has dived dramatically over the past 30 years.

I have also seen some really strange actions by CASA that makes me realise it is like any other public service has internal politics, external politics, and 'personalities' with 'strong opinions' as every pilot in this country seems to have.

The regulations as they stand have to be enforced and CASA has that authority. Are you suggesting that CASA is operating outside its authority?
SPLATR is offline  
Old 26th Jan 2003, 12:01
  #14 (permalink)  
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: YBBN
Posts: 134

… A Policeman (sorry Woman), stops you for alleged speeding….The Policeman had powers to stop, arrest if neccesary and provide a Plaint to the Court….
No powers of arrest under the Traffic Act for speeding, although there are such powers for other offences. The Criminal Code (Queensland at least) provides for powers of arrest for Dangerous Driving the proof of which may consist of a number of offences, including speeding.

Commit enough speeding offences and you will be asked to show cause why your licence should not be suspended or cancelled. Such suspension or cancellation is effected by a police officer, not a court, exercising similar rights as contained under CAR 269.

The lawmakers (Parliament) confer those powers upon the regulators.

… Blue Hauler, a question, where does it say that a licence is a privelege and not a right ?
Section 9 of the Civil Aviation Act confers powers upon CASA to issue licences, certificates etc. Where does it say that a person has a right to hold a licence? It doesn’t. Therefore a licence is a privilege conferred by CASA

As stated in my post above CASA has the power under CAR 269 to vary, suspend or cancel such licence, certificate or authority. Sub-paragraph (3) of that regulation requires “…CASA to give notice in writing to the holder…the facts and circumstances that in the opinion of CASA, warrant consideration being given to …cancellation of the licence, and allow the holder…to show cause, within such time as CASA specifies in that notice…”

CAR 272A states that if “…CASA suspends a licence…its holder is taken not to be the holder of the licence…during the period of the suspension.” The lawmakers have conferred a right upon CASA to withdraw privileges previously granted.

An aggrieved party does have a right of appeal by virtue of Section 31 of the Civil Aviation Act by making “…application to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal for review of a reviewable decision”

My hypothetical: An authority issues a person with a licence to carry a hand gun subject to certain conditions. That person abuses those conditions. Shouldn’t that authority have the power to rescind its original decision based on such evidence it has at its disposal? Would the general public feel safe if the licence was not rescinded? Supposing the condition was a non-reversible mental illness (loss of fitness) could they not cancel the licence for life? In any event the aggrieved person is always at liberty to appeal the decision of the authority through the courts. All sounds constitutional to me!
Blue Hauler is offline  
Old 26th Jan 2003, 12:05
  #15 (permalink)  
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: australia
Posts: 264
CASA s problem is that there own people dont even know there legislation.You ring three difrent ofices and you get 6 difrent answers.Had a casa guy up north issue asr on couple of aircraft and one was that the weight limits on placards in the aircraft were in lbs and not KGs,Aircraft was certfied in australia with all weights in LBS,Soo weres the problem?
Any change too get the gastabo mentality out has too be a good one.End of the day they are all public servents.PS anyone tried to get a new aircraft type on there AOCs within 6 months.
bush mechanics is offline  
Old 26th Jan 2003, 12:13
  #16 (permalink)  
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: YBBN
Posts: 134

As an addendum to your previous:


Perhaps this guy forgot ??? Dom't know but a bit harsh accusing him of being a threat to mankind…
By law you are not allowed to forget…ignorance is not an acceptable excuse for failing to comply with the law.
Blue Hauler is offline  
Old 26th Jan 2003, 15:13
  #17 (permalink)  

I don't want to be the best pilot in the world - Just the oldest
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Here and there
Posts: 1,015

I do not for one minute purport to have any in depth knowledge or experience with the Australian Constitution. Probably only on a par with Denis Dinuto in The Castle . As to whether or not you are in the "Twilight Zone". That is a question best answered by yourself.

What I do have though is a fairly good understanding of CARs CAOs and AIP as they apply to me. Should I fail to abide by the provisions of those documents then I expect to be dealt with by the body which issues my licence and associated privileges or as you seem to prefer, authorisations. If I don't like it, then I don't fly but I certainly don't take it upon myself to decide which provisions I will chose to abide by and which I will not.

Last edited by Islander Jock; 26th Jan 2003 at 16:19.
Islander Jock is offline  
Old 26th Jan 2003, 23:40
  #18 (permalink)  
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 271
It appears that the original concept of the presumption of innocence until proved guilty has been lost in a maze of red herrings.

Some valid points, some argueable, but most do not address the simple fact that this guy has been punished before he has been found guilty.

He has been punished by the same people who have a vested interest in enforcing the rules they made up, (sure, after industry consultation) !

A lot of postees to this thread would have this bloke hung by now and I simply say it is blo*dy wrong, unconstitutional, un Australian, and epitomises what is wrong with aviation in Australia today.

Because a law is a law, it doesn't go that it is always a good law. My main grievance with CASA is their application of the law.

It has been suggested to me that CASA took 7 months to find him guilty (and before any trial), and I would suggest to you all that this factor removes the "smoking gun" from the equation.

If he was such a menace to society (as in a drunk driver, or a bank robber with an unlicenced pistol), why was he allowed to meander through life as normal, oblivious to his fate.

I hate it when people refer to poor sods like this bloke as "cowboys" and I will defend them against the taxi driver mentality of a lot of our so called professionals who believe that they are the only ones who should be on the road (sky).

On Australia day long weekend, what has happened to the "fair go mate" ideal we once cherished.

I am prepared to debate anyone on anything, but not CAR's when they are used as red herrings in what is a simple case of our rights as Australians.

struth, bugga bugga bugga

axiom is offline  
Old 27th Jan 2003, 01:17
  #19 (permalink)  
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Sydney, NSW, Australia
Posts: 11

Presumption of innocence? Um, come on, in Australia that concept disappeared years ago with random breath testing (pulling you over for no reason except to test your breath to see if you have been see if you havebeen breaking the law) and harassment cases where the names are published in the media well before the trial so any 'presumption' is thrown out the window.

Ax, I don't know this guy, I don't know the case, don't know whether he is guilty and I wasn't even arguing this case. I am debating the general priniciples. Sometimes the machinery of CASA does take an inordinate time but then they would also be accused of shooting from the hip if they acted quicker.

Good law, bad law? I guess that's a matter of opinion and where you stand on issues and there are many examples of that in Australia. The law is enacted by the parliament which is supposed to represent the people and the law is the law until it is changed. We do not have the luxury of choosing which laws we follow and which ones we don't without ramification, thank goodness.

Now, when it comes to aviation, the laws with which we must comply that are intended to put some order in the system and provide protection PRIMARILY to those on the ground and the passenger. CASA is charged with enforcing the laws made by the politicians and so it must. If there is a problem with the way they administer the laws then there are avenues of redress.

Are you really suggesting that if CASA finds someone breaking the law that they have to go to court each time to administer the consequence? I hope not. Now, CASA should act fairly and without malice and I know that individuals within the organisation have not always done that; but that is a management issue within CASA that needs to be addressed. But I also believe that if CASA finds pilots flying with invalid medicals, invalid endorsements, invalid ratings, false entries in log books, fake training, invalid maintenance releases etc, then they should take action. I can see the public demanding action if CASA was not to act.

"The rules they made up"....if you saw the process the regs and legislation undergo getting through parliament, then you would realise there are ample avenues for people to have their 'say'...often that 'say' is not agreed with by others but that is the system we work under and in general it seems to work okay.

Now, how can we make the system better? I don't have a problem with a 'points' type system IF it is concieved and administered without fear or favour; I wouldn't mind seeing an decision review committee consisting of industry/CASA/joe public who could review questioned CASA decisions-a sort of ombudsman...there are ways and means.

But the law we have right now is the law that CASA has to administer...I don't see their current powers contrasting dramatically from the powers the police have at present.

I do believe that we need strong enforcement for the industry's sake.

Sorry, that is just my opinion.
SPLATR is offline  
Old 27th Jan 2003, 02:27
  #20 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Darwin
Posts: 229
Remote aviation medicals

Ops Normal

If there is noone who does aviation medicals in The Alice why not ask one of the Darwin medicos if they would consider flying down.

A number of Darwin specialists fly down to do clinics for a day or two every couple of months. Why not ask the local medical centre if this is an option.

If it ain't you could always get a few pilot mates together & pay the Dr's airfare DN/AS/DN $450.00 divided by a few of you is a lot cheaper than airfares ex AS for everybody to fly to the nearest major centre that does them.
MIss Behaviour is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.