Horsham Court Case - the outcome ?
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 66
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Creampuff
Let me guess you have studied law!!!!!!!
With regards to aviation law lets get it right CASA drafts the law the Attorney General writes the law, the political masters pass the law and the now defunct governor general puts a petty little seal on them.
Anyone who thinks that the police don't have a say in the road rules is a fool...... Just look at the history of the drink driving rules and you will see that the police instigated and even possible drafted the rules....
Let me guess you have studied law!!!!!!!
With regards to aviation law lets get it right CASA drafts the law the Attorney General writes the law, the political masters pass the law and the now defunct governor general puts a petty little seal on them.
Anyone who thinks that the police don't have a say in the road rules is a fool...... Just look at the history of the drink driving rules and you will see that the police instigated and even possible drafted the rules....
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Emerald, Vic, Aust
Posts: 183
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AND CONTINUING WAGS THINKING
Wagit
You are on my channel and in line for an oscar.
In terms of law, I hope Creamy doesn't cream me for getting into this territory, we know the following: -
Two elements are needed for a crime to be established -
1. Actus Reus, or to simple people like thee and me, a wrongful act
AND (not OR)
2. Mens Rea - a guilty mind.
The wrongful act was apparently committed. It should be a Court that decides on whether the second matter was deliberate or unintentional - not CASA.
And talking of CASA (let's add in ATSB since they want the TSI Bill to allow them to kill wound and maim anyone in their way) if they truly are an independent judge, jury, and executioner you and I would expect them to treat everyone fairly - no favourites. Is this really the way they work? Let's look at another site on this Forum - the Lake Evella fatality - and see what the father of the pilot has posted on PP: - (I'll condense it a tad, check the original for detail)
Father's Posting
"What you must all understand is that our original advice on the cause of the crash was "mechanical failure”.
This was changed to "pilot error” upon our arrival in Darwin the next day. We could not comprehend the news broadcast on the television that evening and the print media the next day stating “WINGOVER"and stunt flying.
It was thought unusual that the cause of the crash was available so soon after it happening, knowing the ATSB had not visited the site nor interviewed eye witnesses. All media releases were handled by The Operations Manager of the charter company, and at no stage in the four days we were in Darwin were we contacted or interviewed by any journalist or Police, nor did we sanctioned use of any photographs printed or shown. We realise that now in similar circumstances the media no longer report in this manner and I refer you to the new type of media coverage as shown in the Groote Island and Hamilton Island incidents. The pilots name is not mentioned and unauthorised photos are not released. One little step of progress for the grieving Family.
Our family at this time had no reason to doubt that an investigation would be held by an approved body duly appointed. There were some concerns expressed to us by other pilots, and these were communicated to the Coroner and ATSB on our return to NSW. At no time did we form an opinion that Robert was an innocent victim, nor look for scapegoats, or hide behind technicalities to try and get out of our obligations.
What happened on the 4th February 2001 will NEVER be known because the Inquest was unable to determine it. During the inquest it was not able to determine what actually happened as the witnesses were either not actually looking, unable to recall or not able to give an answer. (I guess this is inevitable when Inquest take so long to be heard). But it was a fact that there was no prior discussion of a show, no discussing any display, and what was attempted was not a wingover as ATSB had said but an involuntary stall. The reasons for it will never be known, for the one who does know cannot talk in his defence.
The ATSB chose to make a decision as to the cause within THREE HOURS of the event, and then decided not to attend the scene or give any explanations as to why they came to the conclusions they did. The failure of ATSB not to attend the Inquest meant that their decisions could not be examined.
CASA allowed the company to operate the business under another company’s AOC for three years before the crash, and only suspended the licence because the company was going into liquidation and the AOC was up for renewal.
The company gave evidence that nothing about the running of the business under the new AOC had changed except a new Chief Pilot had been appointed. This has to be questionable considering all the proposed changes to be made according to CASA. When you talk of working conditions and pay there will always be the unscrupulous ones who try and cut corners and costs, including maintenance etc, screw the staff (not literally but financially), ignore the rules and run risks, all for a bigger profit for themselves.
It is only by a large number of people contacting the relevant people that things will be made to change and stop companies from operating this way. It is only you that can achieve this."
What can I say? Here is one outsiders very detailed and reasonable comment on his dealings - or lack thereof - with the two organisations that control our destiny as pilots and/or aircraft owners. What has Australia come to when we accept this. The problem is that aviation is such a small voice that the pollies and bureaucrafts can continue to treat us like excreta.
Wag, you have posted well and I thank you for your succinct comment.
PS Everyone - ASA continues recruiting members and is going from strength to strength - membership being free probably helps but where do you get that nowadays. I have not seen anyone else yet publish anything on the CAA changes including 30DI.
Going back to basics, let a Court decide on Denis's future, not a faceless decision maker lurking in the safety of the bureaucracy.
Cheers
You are on my channel and in line for an oscar.
In terms of law, I hope Creamy doesn't cream me for getting into this territory, we know the following: -
Two elements are needed for a crime to be established -
1. Actus Reus, or to simple people like thee and me, a wrongful act
AND (not OR)
2. Mens Rea - a guilty mind.
The wrongful act was apparently committed. It should be a Court that decides on whether the second matter was deliberate or unintentional - not CASA.
And talking of CASA (let's add in ATSB since they want the TSI Bill to allow them to kill wound and maim anyone in their way) if they truly are an independent judge, jury, and executioner you and I would expect them to treat everyone fairly - no favourites. Is this really the way they work? Let's look at another site on this Forum - the Lake Evella fatality - and see what the father of the pilot has posted on PP: - (I'll condense it a tad, check the original for detail)
Father's Posting
"What you must all understand is that our original advice on the cause of the crash was "mechanical failure”.
This was changed to "pilot error” upon our arrival in Darwin the next day. We could not comprehend the news broadcast on the television that evening and the print media the next day stating “WINGOVER"and stunt flying.
It was thought unusual that the cause of the crash was available so soon after it happening, knowing the ATSB had not visited the site nor interviewed eye witnesses. All media releases were handled by The Operations Manager of the charter company, and at no stage in the four days we were in Darwin were we contacted or interviewed by any journalist or Police, nor did we sanctioned use of any photographs printed or shown. We realise that now in similar circumstances the media no longer report in this manner and I refer you to the new type of media coverage as shown in the Groote Island and Hamilton Island incidents. The pilots name is not mentioned and unauthorised photos are not released. One little step of progress for the grieving Family.
Our family at this time had no reason to doubt that an investigation would be held by an approved body duly appointed. There were some concerns expressed to us by other pilots, and these were communicated to the Coroner and ATSB on our return to NSW. At no time did we form an opinion that Robert was an innocent victim, nor look for scapegoats, or hide behind technicalities to try and get out of our obligations.
What happened on the 4th February 2001 will NEVER be known because the Inquest was unable to determine it. During the inquest it was not able to determine what actually happened as the witnesses were either not actually looking, unable to recall or not able to give an answer. (I guess this is inevitable when Inquest take so long to be heard). But it was a fact that there was no prior discussion of a show, no discussing any display, and what was attempted was not a wingover as ATSB had said but an involuntary stall. The reasons for it will never be known, for the one who does know cannot talk in his defence.
The ATSB chose to make a decision as to the cause within THREE HOURS of the event, and then decided not to attend the scene or give any explanations as to why they came to the conclusions they did. The failure of ATSB not to attend the Inquest meant that their decisions could not be examined.
CASA allowed the company to operate the business under another company’s AOC for three years before the crash, and only suspended the licence because the company was going into liquidation and the AOC was up for renewal.
The company gave evidence that nothing about the running of the business under the new AOC had changed except a new Chief Pilot had been appointed. This has to be questionable considering all the proposed changes to be made according to CASA. When you talk of working conditions and pay there will always be the unscrupulous ones who try and cut corners and costs, including maintenance etc, screw the staff (not literally but financially), ignore the rules and run risks, all for a bigger profit for themselves.
It is only by a large number of people contacting the relevant people that things will be made to change and stop companies from operating this way. It is only you that can achieve this."
What can I say? Here is one outsiders very detailed and reasonable comment on his dealings - or lack thereof - with the two organisations that control our destiny as pilots and/or aircraft owners. What has Australia come to when we accept this. The problem is that aviation is such a small voice that the pollies and bureaucrafts can continue to treat us like excreta.
Wag, you have posted well and I thank you for your succinct comment.
PS Everyone - ASA continues recruiting members and is going from strength to strength - membership being free probably helps but where do you get that nowadays. I have not seen anyone else yet publish anything on the CAA changes including 30DI.
Going back to basics, let a Court decide on Denis's future, not a faceless decision maker lurking in the safety of the bureaucracy.
Cheers
There's something about a pilot's licence that infuses in its holder the confidence to assert in one sentence what law professors take volumes to explain.
So wagit, it's CASA who makes the sky rules and the police who make the road rules. Let's assume that's true. The point of protesting in a court is therefore.........what exactly?
Brian H: AT LAST WE'VE GOT TO THE BOTTOM OF THE MISCONCEPTON UNDER WHICH YOU ARE LABOURING.
Flying without a current medical certificate is A STRICT LIABILITY OFFENCE. Mens rea IS NOT AN ELEMENT OF THE OFFENCE.
It's no different from driving a car without a licence. The offence is made out once the actus reas is established.
I've made my views on the Lave Evalla tragedy clear in the thread to which you referred.
So wagit, it's CASA who makes the sky rules and the police who make the road rules. Let's assume that's true. The point of protesting in a court is therefore.........what exactly?
Brian H: AT LAST WE'VE GOT TO THE BOTTOM OF THE MISCONCEPTON UNDER WHICH YOU ARE LABOURING.
Flying without a current medical certificate is A STRICT LIABILITY OFFENCE. Mens rea IS NOT AN ELEMENT OF THE OFFENCE.
It's no different from driving a car without a licence. The offence is made out once the actus reas is established.
I've made my views on the Lave Evalla tragedy clear in the thread to which you referred.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Emerald, Vic, Aust
Posts: 183
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
STILL NOT AGREEING
Creamy
Sorry, still not in agreement.
The pilot in question DID have a licence.
The pilot in question did have a medical - it had lapsed.
The Court can decide HOW and WHY it lapsed.
Driving unlicensed is a separate issue - it is usually because of a suspension or cancellation.
No-one has yet answered my question as to whether we DO get reminders re our medicals?
If it is a strict liability offence, then the need for a renewal is something that should drive the regulator to issue reminders.
Do we get one? If not, how seriously is the renewal taken by the Regulator?
We are starting to travel in circles. Logic tells us that the pioneer aviators did not have medicals. Reality tells us that the law has changed and we now need them, unless we accept the CASA challenge to move to the AUF - probably some merit as ultimately a reduction in GA must also chop some of the body away from the CASA dinosaur since it will have less market to manage.
I will sit on my hands and await the decision of the Court. I still believe that is where the decision should have rested from Day 1. If it IS a serious liability offence, why not roll it into Court straight away and have the Magistrate set the legal decision in place then?
Cheers
Sorry, still not in agreement.
The pilot in question DID have a licence.
The pilot in question did have a medical - it had lapsed.
The Court can decide HOW and WHY it lapsed.
Driving unlicensed is a separate issue - it is usually because of a suspension or cancellation.
No-one has yet answered my question as to whether we DO get reminders re our medicals?
If it is a strict liability offence, then the need for a renewal is something that should drive the regulator to issue reminders.
Do we get one? If not, how seriously is the renewal taken by the Regulator?
We are starting to travel in circles. Logic tells us that the pioneer aviators did not have medicals. Reality tells us that the law has changed and we now need them, unless we accept the CASA challenge to move to the AUF - probably some merit as ultimately a reduction in GA must also chop some of the body away from the CASA dinosaur since it will have less market to manage.
I will sit on my hands and await the decision of the Court. I still believe that is where the decision should have rested from Day 1. If it IS a serious liability offence, why not roll it into Court straight away and have the Magistrate set the legal decision in place then?
Cheers
He didn't have a medical.
It's a strict liability offence.
If you want to split hairs between having had one that's lapsed and not ever having had one, it's equivalent to driving after your registration's 'lapsed'. You get booked for driving without insurance, whether you're licensed or not. That too is a strict liability offence.
The reason you don't get a reminder is that the organisation of which you are a member convinced the regulator that you were responsible enough not to need one! You didn't need to pay a public servant to remember a date for you (so you said).
Now you want the regulator to do it for you again.
One of the many nails in the AOPA credibility coffin.
It's a strict liability offence.
If you want to split hairs between having had one that's lapsed and not ever having had one, it's equivalent to driving after your registration's 'lapsed'. You get booked for driving without insurance, whether you're licensed or not. That too is a strict liability offence.
The reason you don't get a reminder is that the organisation of which you are a member convinced the regulator that you were responsible enough not to need one! You didn't need to pay a public servant to remember a date for you (so you said).
Now you want the regulator to do it for you again.
One of the many nails in the AOPA credibility coffin.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Emerald, Vic, Aust
Posts: 183
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
THE HANGING JUDGE
Creamy
Just proves that AOPA may not ALWAYS know what is best for members. An argument I have been having over recent months.
Given that the Regulator does allegedly know what is best for pilots and aircraft owners, and brings it in without options, I remain surprised they allowed such a critical matter to be dropped by AOPA lobbying. Obviously, Motor Reg do not trust motorists similarly and do send out licence renewals, even without them having medicals.
I note your post uses the USA address - and the USA was famous in cowboy novels (excepting those wonderful Zane Grey ones) for "The Hanging Judge". Somewhere in your family tree is suspect there will be a link.
Reason? No matter what pontificating postings we have ALL made re this thread, if we were placed in circumstances of alleged breach of Regs or Law, we WOULD expect a fair and early trial by a Court. Very easy to hang the man at the centre of this matter, very different if we stood in his shoes.
I say yet again, if the role of the Regulator is to regulate, the role of the Courts is to ensure justice is done to all. The Courts are there as an independent arbiter. Why is the Regulator not prepared to take such cases to Court before making a decision on a life sentence?
Perhaps CASA do not want this because the ability of those against whom they act to focus a public spotlight on their decisions could raise some interesting questions.
Anyway, I await the decision of the Court.
Cheers
Just proves that AOPA may not ALWAYS know what is best for members. An argument I have been having over recent months.
Given that the Regulator does allegedly know what is best for pilots and aircraft owners, and brings it in without options, I remain surprised they allowed such a critical matter to be dropped by AOPA lobbying. Obviously, Motor Reg do not trust motorists similarly and do send out licence renewals, even without them having medicals.
I note your post uses the USA address - and the USA was famous in cowboy novels (excepting those wonderful Zane Grey ones) for "The Hanging Judge". Somewhere in your family tree is suspect there will be a link.
Reason? No matter what pontificating postings we have ALL made re this thread, if we were placed in circumstances of alleged breach of Regs or Law, we WOULD expect a fair and early trial by a Court. Very easy to hang the man at the centre of this matter, very different if we stood in his shoes.
I say yet again, if the role of the Regulator is to regulate, the role of the Courts is to ensure justice is done to all. The Courts are there as an independent arbiter. Why is the Regulator not prepared to take such cases to Court before making a decision on a life sentence?
Perhaps CASA do not want this because the ability of those against whom they act to focus a public spotlight on their decisions could raise some interesting questions.
Anyway, I await the decision of the Court.
Cheers
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: uppercumbuktawest
Posts: 126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
brian h,
With regards the radio question that you mentioned.
Is the requirement to transmit the aerodrome name at the beginning and end of the transmission in the Aeronautical INFORMATION Publication or the regulations?
While I am at it - are you breaking the LAW if you don't set course within 5 miles?
Finally - I used to be a member of AOPA - but my membership lapsed. Does that mean that I can still consider myself a member?
If it is lapsed it doesn't exist - just ask insurance companies!!
With regards the radio question that you mentioned.
Is the requirement to transmit the aerodrome name at the beginning and end of the transmission in the Aeronautical INFORMATION Publication or the regulations?
While I am at it - are you breaking the LAW if you don't set course within 5 miles?
Finally - I used to be a member of AOPA - but my membership lapsed. Does that mean that I can still consider myself a member?
If it is lapsed it doesn't exist - just ask insurance companies!!
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Dunnunda & Godzone
Age: 74
Posts: 4,275
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Watched that hilarious but thought provoking Billy Connolly movie, "The Man who sued God" on Foxtel last night.
Some interesting semantics and hard logic amongst the fun with an intelligent and intelectually satisfying twist at the end.
My daughter who missed the end asked me "who won" and the only answer I could give here was catch the next run and see for yourself.
Enjoy.
Some interesting semantics and hard logic amongst the fun with an intelligent and intelectually satisfying twist at the end.
My daughter who missed the end asked me "who won" and the only answer I could give here was catch the next run and see for yourself.
Enjoy.
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 241
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rules are Rules
Creampuff,
I don't believe for a minute that anyone here actually supports breaking the rules however many believe that the rules may not be the right ones.
If I understand you correctly:
You're analogy with the driver who fails to renew his licence really does not make your case as this driver when caught DOES NOT HAVE HIS LICENCE PERMANENTLY CANCELLED BY THE POLICE OFFICER! He is issued with a summons to appear in court to answer the charges. As pilots we should expect the same treatment but alas, we do not get it. Would you accept having your drivers licence cancelled FOREVER if you failed to renew it?
On another point, you seem to be quite switched on regarding this subject of aviation law so I will ask this question of you.
Which other countries who are signaturies to the Chicago Convention would remove a pilots licence permanently without the opportunity of a court hearing FIRST?
I await your answer which I am sure will enlighten us all, and may or may not, solve this debate.
Thanks,
BSB
I don't believe for a minute that anyone here actually supports breaking the rules however many believe that the rules may not be the right ones.
If I understand you correctly:
You're analogy with the driver who fails to renew his licence really does not make your case as this driver when caught DOES NOT HAVE HIS LICENCE PERMANENTLY CANCELLED BY THE POLICE OFFICER! He is issued with a summons to appear in court to answer the charges. As pilots we should expect the same treatment but alas, we do not get it. Would you accept having your drivers licence cancelled FOREVER if you failed to renew it?
On another point, you seem to be quite switched on regarding this subject of aviation law so I will ask this question of you.
Which other countries who are signaturies to the Chicago Convention would remove a pilots licence permanently without the opportunity of a court hearing FIRST?
I await your answer which I am sure will enlighten us all, and may or may not, solve this debate.
Thanks,
BSB
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: melb.vic.aust.
Posts: 125
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Horsham Courtcase
brianh - no, CASA nor anyone else except maybe your DAME, Flying School or aero club issues a reminder that your medical is due. You didn't answer my question - who or what is ASA? My major concern about someone not flying with a current medical is that I believe it would render ones insurance to be invalid - what then for the poor ignorant passengers or others who might be affected in case of some accident? If you are protesting the system that brings the charges to court and not the charges being brought to court, then you must accept that you will be tarred with the same brush as the defendent.
BSB
Some interesting points.
First, you too appear to be labouring under a misapprehension. You appear to believe that if your pilot's licence is cancelled, you can never get another one. If that’s your belief, your belief is wrong.
Secondly – of course a police officer can’t cancel a licence that does not exist. If the driver failed to renew her licence, she has no licence to cancel. But in any event, police officers are given power to cancel driver’s licences, in some cases unilaterally.
Thirdly – While “many may believe that the rules may not be the right ones”, the legislature has decided what the rules are. That’s how it works in a parliamentary democracy.
I am not aware of any ICAO country whose regulator is required to wait for a court decision before the regulator may exercise its licence cancellation powers. Those powers are exercised in those countries - USA included - about as frequently as they are in Australia.
You need to comprehend and understand the differences between administrative and criminal processes. They’re a product of entirely different policy and evidential frameworks.
Some interesting points.
First, you too appear to be labouring under a misapprehension. You appear to believe that if your pilot's licence is cancelled, you can never get another one. If that’s your belief, your belief is wrong.
Secondly – of course a police officer can’t cancel a licence that does not exist. If the driver failed to renew her licence, she has no licence to cancel. But in any event, police officers are given power to cancel driver’s licences, in some cases unilaterally.
Thirdly – While “many may believe that the rules may not be the right ones”, the legislature has decided what the rules are. That’s how it works in a parliamentary democracy.
I am not aware of any ICAO country whose regulator is required to wait for a court decision before the regulator may exercise its licence cancellation powers. Those powers are exercised in those countries - USA included - about as frequently as they are in Australia.
You need to comprehend and understand the differences between administrative and criminal processes. They’re a product of entirely different policy and evidential frameworks.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Emerald, Vic, Aust
Posts: 183
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'LL ANSWER WHAT I CAN
laptop
It's in the AIPs, operative word being "Must". I think ENR 80.1, 65. something from memory.
If you want a "legal" opinion, try 131757 Kevin Smith CASA FLying Ops or Andrew (Warland) Browne who produces the CASA VFG. I have already had one. In typical CASA style, the reason is put before the requirement and gives the impression it only applies to airports in proximity. But it applies to all.
But, it is still a legal requirement, more so when MBZ vanish shortly and the new CTAF comes in under the NAS rules - and you will then probably find mandatory calls downwind, base, final, backtrack, and clear runway at what are currently CTAF/MBZ.
We could probably also go into who takes off over water and follows the 500' turn when in fact they are beyond gliding distance from land technically and, if without lifejackets, should turn at 200' for operational dictates. But, let's leave fine points of law - like that and the Horsham case in question - for the Courts rather than us or the regulator.
Woomera
Great call. Thanks. Sometimes your intervention saves my sense of humour.
Iwill
As I said earlier, he should be immediately medded and this aspect critical to the severity of his transgression. If he was dodging an inability to pass a medical, off with his head. If it was inadvertent or he has no medical hindrance, the intention to prostitute the system or transgress is different.
BSB
Spot on. As CASA vacillates between the FARs and the JARs, who knows where our next move will be. And, as far as overseas Conventions are concerned, I am still tickled by the one (you may have seen it) re the Iraq action and some members of the UN
"You know the world has changed when:
the world's best golfer is black.
the best rapper is white,
the french claim to have found a nation more arrogant,
and germany doesn't want to go to war"
Tealady
I'm not protesting the charges being brought to Court, what I am against is a lifetime licence suspension WITHOUT the charges being brought to court. Even the Bali bomber is getting a court appearance before being shot.
And, fair call, I didn't answer your early question re who/what is ASA. I belong to it and AOPA. I am not going to bang ASAs drum, if you are unaware go to www.airsafety.com.au and look for yourself. About 1750 members from memory and possibly the top research man in Oz for aviation matters in my opinion. All that and free membership - why should i complain.
As far as insurance goes, NO-ONE pilots my plane without being checked out by a CFI. Theoretically, anyone can fly below 5700 kg MTOW but I am super cautious in that regard. Yes, his insurance may have been doubtful but I feel that comes back to the Insurer (in my case QBE/AAUP) and the operator. And yes - the other 3 who fly my aircraft have their qualifications fully documented on the insurers files.
Do not label me as premissive, a short cut pilot or owner, etc. I am mature, cautious, have a yellow streak down my back when it comes anywhere near rule breaking or flying outside my capability, and am happy to discuss my personal principles to anyone who wants to meet me at the Melb Flight Safety Forum that i cajole my club into attending each year.
All
This has become another War and Peace. I will, like a broken record now, await the Court appearance. But, while I may not agree with allthat has been posted, i do feel this debate has added some small value to aviation as we know it.
I do not know the person in question. I do not know if he is guilty or not. My emphasis throughout this is that the role of any Regulator is to present a case to the Judiciary and have them judge the defendant. Why should CASA be judge, jury, and executioner - can they not stand public debate, normal legal representation, and an external assessment of their actions?
PS Finally got my new licence booklet today to replace my plastic card ($13 P&P via CASA. You will recognise me at the Seminar by the lean to the side on which I have this tome placed in my trousers - have had to drop the allowable baggage by 2 Kg to carry it as i must )
Cheers:
It's in the AIPs, operative word being "Must". I think ENR 80.1, 65. something from memory.
If you want a "legal" opinion, try 131757 Kevin Smith CASA FLying Ops or Andrew (Warland) Browne who produces the CASA VFG. I have already had one. In typical CASA style, the reason is put before the requirement and gives the impression it only applies to airports in proximity. But it applies to all.
But, it is still a legal requirement, more so when MBZ vanish shortly and the new CTAF comes in under the NAS rules - and you will then probably find mandatory calls downwind, base, final, backtrack, and clear runway at what are currently CTAF/MBZ.
We could probably also go into who takes off over water and follows the 500' turn when in fact they are beyond gliding distance from land technically and, if without lifejackets, should turn at 200' for operational dictates. But, let's leave fine points of law - like that and the Horsham case in question - for the Courts rather than us or the regulator.
Woomera
Great call. Thanks. Sometimes your intervention saves my sense of humour.
Iwill
As I said earlier, he should be immediately medded and this aspect critical to the severity of his transgression. If he was dodging an inability to pass a medical, off with his head. If it was inadvertent or he has no medical hindrance, the intention to prostitute the system or transgress is different.
BSB
Spot on. As CASA vacillates between the FARs and the JARs, who knows where our next move will be. And, as far as overseas Conventions are concerned, I am still tickled by the one (you may have seen it) re the Iraq action and some members of the UN
"You know the world has changed when:
the world's best golfer is black.
the best rapper is white,
the french claim to have found a nation more arrogant,
and germany doesn't want to go to war"
Tealady
I'm not protesting the charges being brought to Court, what I am against is a lifetime licence suspension WITHOUT the charges being brought to court. Even the Bali bomber is getting a court appearance before being shot.
And, fair call, I didn't answer your early question re who/what is ASA. I belong to it and AOPA. I am not going to bang ASAs drum, if you are unaware go to www.airsafety.com.au and look for yourself. About 1750 members from memory and possibly the top research man in Oz for aviation matters in my opinion. All that and free membership - why should i complain.
As far as insurance goes, NO-ONE pilots my plane without being checked out by a CFI. Theoretically, anyone can fly below 5700 kg MTOW but I am super cautious in that regard. Yes, his insurance may have been doubtful but I feel that comes back to the Insurer (in my case QBE/AAUP) and the operator. And yes - the other 3 who fly my aircraft have their qualifications fully documented on the insurers files.
Do not label me as premissive, a short cut pilot or owner, etc. I am mature, cautious, have a yellow streak down my back when it comes anywhere near rule breaking or flying outside my capability, and am happy to discuss my personal principles to anyone who wants to meet me at the Melb Flight Safety Forum that i cajole my club into attending each year.
All
This has become another War and Peace. I will, like a broken record now, await the Court appearance. But, while I may not agree with allthat has been posted, i do feel this debate has added some small value to aviation as we know it.
I do not know the person in question. I do not know if he is guilty or not. My emphasis throughout this is that the role of any Regulator is to present a case to the Judiciary and have them judge the defendant. Why should CASA be judge, jury, and executioner - can they not stand public debate, normal legal representation, and an external assessment of their actions?
PS Finally got my new licence booklet today to replace my plastic card ($13 P&P via CASA. You will recognise me at the Seminar by the lean to the side on which I have this tome placed in my trousers - have had to drop the allowable baggage by 2 Kg to carry it as i must )
Cheers:
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 241
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Creampuff, you're a legend!
Thank you for clearing that up for me, I knew you would be able to clarify those points for me in such a way that a simple person like me could understand. 
However:
I still believe that the system needs improving, which is the point that ASA is attempting to make.
Regards,
BSB
However:
I still believe that the system needs improving, which is the point that ASA is attempting to make.
Regards,
BSB
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Emerald, Vic, Aust
Posts: 183
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I AGREE
BSB
Very true.
ALL
I have a high regard for Creamy and respect his advice/opinion, but - I notice yesterday's paper that the Pope has Parkinson's Disease. This, plus the fact that you have to be very old to get the position, makes me wonder how the Pope's infallibility is holding up. I'm not worried about Creamy's advice, but I do worry about CASA's infallibility.
True story about my aircraft and the new AFMs: -
1. CASA are dropping the CASA Flight Manuals (we always had to carry on fear of penalty) and going for the Manufacturer FMs.
2. My C172 doesn't have an "approved" Manufacturer FM - same handbook as the later C172 but not FAA certified.
3. Therefore, CASA has decreed my C172 (and many other aircraft) come in the "No Flight Manual Required" category.
4. The "how to do the AFM" CASA book requires me to placard my C172 with certain things, and does not require me to keep the 29 years mandatory CASA FM.
5. THAT FM BEING THROWN OUT CONTAINS THE W&B AND T/O & LDG CHARTS - nor is this information required to be placarded.
Therefore, my aircraft can now legally fly and be on line hire WITHOUT the pilot having access to either W&B or T/O and LDG charts for it.
Now, what has been a cause of numerous accidents/incidents - High density T/O and Ldg, aircraft within MTOW but loaded out of balance etc - ever tried to fly a C172 loaded too far aft?
I tried to get them included. No way.
So, an Incident report to ATSB. Result - a CASA blurb refusing the thought, and an ATSB senior comment that they cannot intrude into CASA policy - ie wait until someone dies as a result of the omission, then we can do so.
What are the PPL and CPL exams loaded with - Alpha, Bravo, Charlie W&B and Cessna and Piper T/O and Ldg - because they are critical to flight safety.
But, hire my C172 and many others and you do not have a legal right to this information - CASA has decreed otherwise.
Ok, you all know I am a reasonable conscientious pilot and aircraft owner. I have kept the data in a separate folder in the aircraft. But, remember, that is DESPITE the CASA direction not as a result.
Sorry all to go off on a tangent but, if BSB believes the system needs improving, I multiply his thought by 100! Here we have an organisation which to some posting on this thread is close to God, yet the same organisation has introduced a policy that only potentially places us closer to getting to God.
After having my squad move a marquee three times in one day as different levels of officer changed their mind, I learned early in life not to confuse position with authority. Getting back to the original theme of this thread, CASAs position does not in my opinion place it correctly to exercise an authority best exercised by the judiciary.
Cheers, BSB how many beers do I owe you now?
Very true.
ALL
I have a high regard for Creamy and respect his advice/opinion, but - I notice yesterday's paper that the Pope has Parkinson's Disease. This, plus the fact that you have to be very old to get the position, makes me wonder how the Pope's infallibility is holding up. I'm not worried about Creamy's advice, but I do worry about CASA's infallibility.
True story about my aircraft and the new AFMs: -
1. CASA are dropping the CASA Flight Manuals (we always had to carry on fear of penalty) and going for the Manufacturer FMs.
2. My C172 doesn't have an "approved" Manufacturer FM - same handbook as the later C172 but not FAA certified.
3. Therefore, CASA has decreed my C172 (and many other aircraft) come in the "No Flight Manual Required" category.
4. The "how to do the AFM" CASA book requires me to placard my C172 with certain things, and does not require me to keep the 29 years mandatory CASA FM.
5. THAT FM BEING THROWN OUT CONTAINS THE W&B AND T/O & LDG CHARTS - nor is this information required to be placarded.
Therefore, my aircraft can now legally fly and be on line hire WITHOUT the pilot having access to either W&B or T/O and LDG charts for it.
Now, what has been a cause of numerous accidents/incidents - High density T/O and Ldg, aircraft within MTOW but loaded out of balance etc - ever tried to fly a C172 loaded too far aft?
I tried to get them included. No way.
So, an Incident report to ATSB. Result - a CASA blurb refusing the thought, and an ATSB senior comment that they cannot intrude into CASA policy - ie wait until someone dies as a result of the omission, then we can do so.
What are the PPL and CPL exams loaded with - Alpha, Bravo, Charlie W&B and Cessna and Piper T/O and Ldg - because they are critical to flight safety.
But, hire my C172 and many others and you do not have a legal right to this information - CASA has decreed otherwise.
Ok, you all know I am a reasonable conscientious pilot and aircraft owner. I have kept the data in a separate folder in the aircraft. But, remember, that is DESPITE the CASA direction not as a result.
Sorry all to go off on a tangent but, if BSB believes the system needs improving, I multiply his thought by 100! Here we have an organisation which to some posting on this thread is close to God, yet the same organisation has introduced a policy that only potentially places us closer to getting to God.
After having my squad move a marquee three times in one day as different levels of officer changed their mind, I learned early in life not to confuse position with authority. Getting back to the original theme of this thread, CASAs position does not in my opinion place it correctly to exercise an authority best exercised by the judiciary.
Cheers, BSB how many beers do I owe you now?
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 149
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Creampuff,
Yes we have moved from a make-work system wherein my licence was in the post to the regulator to be stamped as renewed more than it was in my pocket where it legally had to be, and I applaud that and AOPA's part in it. Personally, and I speak for myself here, I believe that regulator should send out reminders if it can do that without grinding the entire apparatus back into gear. However if it doesn't and someone commits the unspeakable and forgets to renew, that is an offence of course, but how serious? Is it an "immediate threat to safety, cancel a licence without a hearing" offence? CASA might think so, but I don't. A local disqualified driver caught a $500 fine in the Cessnock Courts, and he had been previously disqualified. By a Court! That might give some real life perspective. (And he didn't have a current medical either). US surveys have indicated that pilots with medicals black out over the Melbourne CBD about the same rate as those without, so a bit less excitement about the dangers of un-medicalled pilots might be in order.
BrianH,
CASA has not precluded you from supplying the weight and balance data, it just doesn't shoot you if you don't. As you say when the data was presented it didn't stop people from over/mis loading did it? Pilots who want to fly safely will do so, we don't need a multiplicity of prescriptive, detailed and complicated regulations to make it so.
Yes we have moved from a make-work system wherein my licence was in the post to the regulator to be stamped as renewed more than it was in my pocket where it legally had to be, and I applaud that and AOPA's part in it. Personally, and I speak for myself here, I believe that regulator should send out reminders if it can do that without grinding the entire apparatus back into gear. However if it doesn't and someone commits the unspeakable and forgets to renew, that is an offence of course, but how serious? Is it an "immediate threat to safety, cancel a licence without a hearing" offence? CASA might think so, but I don't. A local disqualified driver caught a $500 fine in the Cessnock Courts, and he had been previously disqualified. By a Court! That might give some real life perspective. (And he didn't have a current medical either). US surveys have indicated that pilots with medicals black out over the Melbourne CBD about the same rate as those without, so a bit less excitement about the dangers of un-medicalled pilots might be in order.
BrianH,
CASA has not precluded you from supplying the weight and balance data, it just doesn't shoot you if you don't. As you say when the data was presented it didn't stop people from over/mis loading did it? Pilots who want to fly safely will do so, we don't need a multiplicity of prescriptive, detailed and complicated regulations to make it so.
Last edited by Bill Pike; 20th May 2003 at 16:29.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Emerald, Vic, Aust
Posts: 183
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GENERALLY AGREE
Bill
I'm in general agreement with what you have posted above, and yes I cannot get shot for not providing the data.
The point is was trying to make is that it HAS been mandatory in the FM for years, it IS the cause of accidents, CASA recognise this in the way they set their exams for PPL/CPL, yet this organisation allegedly creating "safe skies for all" has allowed their commercial imperative of getting out of FMs to allow the baby to be thrown out with the bathwater.
Technically, I do not need the T/O&LDG or W&B data to be available for my C172. They remove a guys licence for an expired medical but they themselves have removed by legislation documentation significant to flying safely.
Anyway, outside all this, may the force be with the new Board this weekend.
cheers
I'm in general agreement with what you have posted above, and yes I cannot get shot for not providing the data.
The point is was trying to make is that it HAS been mandatory in the FM for years, it IS the cause of accidents, CASA recognise this in the way they set their exams for PPL/CPL, yet this organisation allegedly creating "safe skies for all" has allowed their commercial imperative of getting out of FMs to allow the baby to be thrown out with the bathwater.
Technically, I do not need the T/O&LDG or W&B data to be available for my C172. They remove a guys licence for an expired medical but they themselves have removed by legislation documentation significant to flying safely.
Anyway, outside all this, may the force be with the new Board this weekend.
cheers
Brian
Cutting the flight manual umbilical cord from CASA was another idea of the organisation of which you are a member. The story went that you didn’t need CASA to second guess the manufacturer and the NAA.
And if you understood the existing rules, you would know that the overwater rules have an exception for aircraft “in the course of departing from or landing at an aerodrome in accordance with a normal navigational procedure for departing from or landing at that aerodrome”. (Reg 258(b))
Bill
CASA does not have power to cancel someone’s licence without giving them a ‘show cause’ (unless the person asks for the licence to be cancelled). You might say that a ‘show cause’ from CASA does not constitute a ‘hearing’. The law says it does. And the recipient of the show cause can go to the AAT and ask for a stay of any decision – all they have to do is put two sentences on a page and fax it to the AAT. The application is free if the person is broke, and the hearing can be done by telephone. The recipient of the show cause can also go to the Federal Court and ask for an injunction stopping CASA making the decision, if there is some defect in the process. That will cost money. But if you think being prosecuted is free and easy, you’re wrong.
How much does it cost to do a mail out to each of AOPA's members? Do the math for all licence holders and be up front: you expect the taxpayers to fund that and the person to do it.
All of this strikes me as what I call “flying free from responsibility” syndrome. Someone else is responsible if I don’t renew my medical; someone else is responsible for my flight manual; and when I get exactly what everyone says is the apotheosis of justice – my day in court for breaches of the rules – someone else is responsible because the rules shouldn’t be the way they are.
Zero credibility.
Cutting the flight manual umbilical cord from CASA was another idea of the organisation of which you are a member. The story went that you didn’t need CASA to second guess the manufacturer and the NAA.
And if you understood the existing rules, you would know that the overwater rules have an exception for aircraft “in the course of departing from or landing at an aerodrome in accordance with a normal navigational procedure for departing from or landing at that aerodrome”. (Reg 258(b))
Bill
CASA does not have power to cancel someone’s licence without giving them a ‘show cause’ (unless the person asks for the licence to be cancelled). You might say that a ‘show cause’ from CASA does not constitute a ‘hearing’. The law says it does. And the recipient of the show cause can go to the AAT and ask for a stay of any decision – all they have to do is put two sentences on a page and fax it to the AAT. The application is free if the person is broke, and the hearing can be done by telephone. The recipient of the show cause can also go to the Federal Court and ask for an injunction stopping CASA making the decision, if there is some defect in the process. That will cost money. But if you think being prosecuted is free and easy, you’re wrong.
How much does it cost to do a mail out to each of AOPA's members? Do the math for all licence holders and be up front: you expect the taxpayers to fund that and the person to do it.
All of this strikes me as what I call “flying free from responsibility” syndrome. Someone else is responsible if I don’t renew my medical; someone else is responsible for my flight manual; and when I get exactly what everyone says is the apotheosis of justice – my day in court for breaches of the rules – someone else is responsible because the rules shouldn’t be the way they are.
Zero credibility.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 149
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Creampuff,
We will allow others to judge who has zero credibility. You have been part of the "accuser, judge, jury and executioner" system for so long you appear to have begun to believe that because the law allows it to be so it must be all right. It isn't all right, it is repugnant.
It isn't whether or not a private pilot flying with an expired medical has broken the law, clearly he has, it is about whether or not he deserves to be shot. The point is that if it is so important, (and it isn't ) why doesn't CASA make the system more workable? I receive bull**** communications from CASA constantly, a reminder that one's medical is due shouldn't be too hard, (especially if it will prevent me from crashing into the Melbourne CBD, which it won't!.)
I'm not clear on what your references to lifejackets is about. Of course in the CASA way the Reg to which you refer has been "amended" by a CAO, and certainly for charter ops a lifejacket is required "over water" period. (Even floodwater for chrissakes. Only in Australia of course. Should be popular in Cobar.) Only Australia would require private pilots to wear lifejackets below 2,000' over water. Wearing a lifejacket inside a submerging aircraft is a known health hazard, and in any case aviation lifejackets aren't designed to be pulled around.
We will allow others to judge who has zero credibility. You have been part of the "accuser, judge, jury and executioner" system for so long you appear to have begun to believe that because the law allows it to be so it must be all right. It isn't all right, it is repugnant.
It isn't whether or not a private pilot flying with an expired medical has broken the law, clearly he has, it is about whether or not he deserves to be shot. The point is that if it is so important, (and it isn't ) why doesn't CASA make the system more workable? I receive bull**** communications from CASA constantly, a reminder that one's medical is due shouldn't be too hard, (especially if it will prevent me from crashing into the Melbourne CBD, which it won't!.)
I'm not clear on what your references to lifejackets is about. Of course in the CASA way the Reg to which you refer has been "amended" by a CAO, and certainly for charter ops a lifejacket is required "over water" period. (Even floodwater for chrissakes. Only in Australia of course. Should be popular in Cobar.) Only Australia would require private pilots to wear lifejackets below 2,000' over water. Wearing a lifejacket inside a submerging aircraft is a known health hazard, and in any case aviation lifejackets aren't designed to be pulled around.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Emerald, Vic, Aust
Posts: 183
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AOPA SETS CASA POLICY?
Creamy
I'm starting to feel you may be wearing rose coloured specs issued by CASA?
This is a number of times you have "blamed" AOPA for CASA policy making. Are we to believe that CASA decisions are made when AOPA pulls the strings. This is great news indeed but at odds to my findings. If AOPA has suggested a good idea to CASA, well done AOPA, but let CASA take the FULL responsibility for expert consideration and a decision on the merit of that idea - don't try and pass the buck after the event.
The simple fact re the Flight Manuals is that CASA want to get out of administering them - so they can get on to more practical things - and are well aware that the CASA involvement in the FM situation added NO value to what the manufacturer has issued in the first place but was simply a carry through of the old military mindset that to operate in Australia was somehow different to operating anywhere else in the world so we better have a bureaucratic pull apart and reglue of the manufacturer's paperwork.
Re the overwater, yes I am well aware of the exception. However, I am also aware of the 500' before turn reg and that it allows exceptions where operational justification exists. Therefore, at two places where I fly the convention on overwater takeoffs is a turn at 200' as this keeps one within gliding distance of land.
You see, you have gone back to the Reg that allows one to risk one's life by proceeding to 500' before turning - a good CASA approach - I have gone for the mix of Regs which allows one to keep ones feet dry in the event of an EFTO - first because I can think laterally and second because I cannot swim.
Bill
The ref by Creamy to overwater is because he and I have been enjoying some legal trivial pursuit and i raised the issue first. Blame me for that diversion off track.
Creamy
Keep 'em coming because I DO value your opinions and input.
Now, for today's trivia, what about the PPL 3 T/O and LDG in 90 days before passengers can be carried (and a current medical and BFR of course).
For all those who rush down either every 89 days or just before their annual outback trip and do 3 circuits - two of these touch and goes of course to save $ - are they legally performing their obligation for 3 Takeoffs and 3 Landings or not?
Must away, I am tuting a PPL for her exam and I need to brush up because I think she is getting the edge on me and I don't want to look silly to her as well as on this Forum.
Cheers
I'm starting to feel you may be wearing rose coloured specs issued by CASA?
This is a number of times you have "blamed" AOPA for CASA policy making. Are we to believe that CASA decisions are made when AOPA pulls the strings. This is great news indeed but at odds to my findings. If AOPA has suggested a good idea to CASA, well done AOPA, but let CASA take the FULL responsibility for expert consideration and a decision on the merit of that idea - don't try and pass the buck after the event.
The simple fact re the Flight Manuals is that CASA want to get out of administering them - so they can get on to more practical things - and are well aware that the CASA involvement in the FM situation added NO value to what the manufacturer has issued in the first place but was simply a carry through of the old military mindset that to operate in Australia was somehow different to operating anywhere else in the world so we better have a bureaucratic pull apart and reglue of the manufacturer's paperwork.
Re the overwater, yes I am well aware of the exception. However, I am also aware of the 500' before turn reg and that it allows exceptions where operational justification exists. Therefore, at two places where I fly the convention on overwater takeoffs is a turn at 200' as this keeps one within gliding distance of land.
You see, you have gone back to the Reg that allows one to risk one's life by proceeding to 500' before turning - a good CASA approach - I have gone for the mix of Regs which allows one to keep ones feet dry in the event of an EFTO - first because I can think laterally and second because I cannot swim.
Bill
The ref by Creamy to overwater is because he and I have been enjoying some legal trivial pursuit and i raised the issue first. Blame me for that diversion off track.
Creamy
Keep 'em coming because I DO value your opinions and input.
Now, for today's trivia, what about the PPL 3 T/O and LDG in 90 days before passengers can be carried (and a current medical and BFR of course).
For all those who rush down either every 89 days or just before their annual outback trip and do 3 circuits - two of these touch and goes of course to save $ - are they legally performing their obligation for 3 Takeoffs and 3 Landings or not?
Must away, I am tuting a PPL for her exam and I need to brush up because I think she is getting the edge on me and I don't want to look silly to her as well as on this Forum.
Cheers
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 149
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BrianH,
There is always a little truth in what Creampuff says, however usually he also knows the whole truth but does not disclose it. Therefore I find his posts deliberately deceptive. (An old sayings about bikinis revealing that which is interesting but concealing that which is vital ,comes to mind.). The new Flight Manual System is better than what we had and AOPA did support it. In fact when I served on the Program Advisory Panel I was appraised of the new system and supported it, but it was put that this was for new aircraft comimg onto the register. Nothing was said about deep sixing the old system for aircraft already registered. Perhaps I was naive, it did not cross my mind that CASA intended anything so ridiculous as to require registered private aircraft to change. At first I was then told that the change was so simple that it didn't matter, and in fact for my C185 it wasn't hard, (but still unnecessary,) however for some it has been very difficult. When the proposal developed the way it did, AOPA (I) pushed CASA to "grandfather" the Australian Flight Manual System for those already with them, but CASA would not. I could not get a straight answer as to why not, something along the lines of "God giveth and God taketh away". None of the angst that occurred would have occurred if our suggestion had been acted upon. While the Minister allows CASA to act in such a bloody minded fashion we all suffer.
There is always a little truth in what Creampuff says, however usually he also knows the whole truth but does not disclose it. Therefore I find his posts deliberately deceptive. (An old sayings about bikinis revealing that which is interesting but concealing that which is vital ,comes to mind.). The new Flight Manual System is better than what we had and AOPA did support it. In fact when I served on the Program Advisory Panel I was appraised of the new system and supported it, but it was put that this was for new aircraft comimg onto the register. Nothing was said about deep sixing the old system for aircraft already registered. Perhaps I was naive, it did not cross my mind that CASA intended anything so ridiculous as to require registered private aircraft to change. At first I was then told that the change was so simple that it didn't matter, and in fact for my C185 it wasn't hard, (but still unnecessary,) however for some it has been very difficult. When the proposal developed the way it did, AOPA (I) pushed CASA to "grandfather" the Australian Flight Manual System for those already with them, but CASA would not. I could not get a straight answer as to why not, something along the lines of "God giveth and God taketh away". None of the angst that occurred would have occurred if our suggestion had been acted upon. While the Minister allows CASA to act in such a bloody minded fashion we all suffer.
Last edited by Bill Pike; 22nd May 2003 at 09:40.