Horsham Court Case - the outcome ?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 96
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Horsham Court Case - the outcome ?
It has been reported that Tuesday 6th May was to be the day that the court case that Messers Smith & Munroe were most concerned about was to take place.
This was in relation an event whereby a pilot had his licence cancelled before the incident went to court and was proven or disproven.
The case was to be held at Horsham court.
Does any PPRUNER have any news on the event and the outcome ?
Were Messers Smith & Munroe in attendence as they had been most vocal on this case ?
This was in relation an event whereby a pilot had his licence cancelled before the incident went to court and was proven or disproven.
The case was to be held at Horsham court.
Does any PPRUNER have any news on the event and the outcome ?
Were Messers Smith & Munroe in attendence as they had been most vocal on this case ?
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: melb.vic.aust.
Posts: 125
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Horsham court case
CJ, I believe this case was tranferred from Horsham to Melbourne.
Rumours I heard were that the pilot flew about 29 times on an expired medical. Also heard a lot of eggheads wearing some dopey tee shirts fronted up at the courthouse in Horsham. I wonder who paid for the tee shirts?
Rumours I heard were that the pilot flew about 29 times on an expired medical. Also heard a lot of eggheads wearing some dopey tee shirts fronted up at the courthouse in Horsham. I wonder who paid for the tee shirts?
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Emerald, Vic, Aust
Posts: 183
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IT IS ABOUT NATURAL JUSTICE
And tell me, do you folks keep a close record of when your driver's licence and bills are due? And your medical - I do, but many do not.
What a sin to fly on an expired medical. As I drive to and from my home airport I am always reminded that the greatest danger when flying is the motorists - WITHOUT medicals - on the road to and from.
Why the cynical comments about Boyd? When I had someone in the ATSB try and improperly pressure and gag me, Boyd was the first and only one to spend his own $ to assist.
If ASA is not there to help you who do you suggest? AOPA were a party to my issue with the ATSB but do you think they would assist. Ha Ha.
Anyway, the crux of the issue is that CASA rmoved the guy's licence WITHOUT a hearing. Is this the sort of justice you want in Australia.
And, re the T shirts - at least ASA got media publicity as being involved in supporting pilots. AOPA would not get involved - forget that this is a significant issue re CASA execrcising powers that are outside the accepted normal treatment of the common man - because the guy was not a member.
My summary of the answer to your question:
1. CASA needs to be removed from its role of sole judge, jury, and executioner.
2. Don't knock the only hand that might come to your aid when you need it.
3. And, yes, Boyd was at Horsham together with many others spending their own $ in the hope that someday pilots will receive the same rights of natural justice as murderers.
Cheers
What a sin to fly on an expired medical. As I drive to and from my home airport I am always reminded that the greatest danger when flying is the motorists - WITHOUT medicals - on the road to and from.
Why the cynical comments about Boyd? When I had someone in the ATSB try and improperly pressure and gag me, Boyd was the first and only one to spend his own $ to assist.
If ASA is not there to help you who do you suggest? AOPA were a party to my issue with the ATSB but do you think they would assist. Ha Ha.
Anyway, the crux of the issue is that CASA rmoved the guy's licence WITHOUT a hearing. Is this the sort of justice you want in Australia.
And, re the T shirts - at least ASA got media publicity as being involved in supporting pilots. AOPA would not get involved - forget that this is a significant issue re CASA execrcising powers that are outside the accepted normal treatment of the common man - because the guy was not a member.
My summary of the answer to your question:
1. CASA needs to be removed from its role of sole judge, jury, and executioner.
2. Don't knock the only hand that might come to your aid when you need it.
3. And, yes, Boyd was at Horsham together with many others spending their own $ in the hope that someday pilots will receive the same rights of natural justice as murderers.
Cheers
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Aus
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gotta disagree with you Brianh re the inference that flying without a valid medical is a minor matter and can be justified by the fact that motorists do not require medicals.
To take your argument to the next level we could also say that to continue operating without having completed an Instrument renewal, an Instructor renewal, or even a BFR is justified as the motorist has no requirement for any ongoing testing.
Now, using your analogy of old mate the motorist, well he probably doesn't have the same rights as the muderer either. There are many ways the Drivers Licence can be removed, revoked etc, without the matter be decided in a Court of Law.
The fact is that there are certain commitments, (which are not really that onerous), which are required to be made in order to exercise the privileges of the Pilot's Licence. To belittle those rules and regulations does nothing to garner support for your cause from me.
To take your argument to the next level we could also say that to continue operating without having completed an Instrument renewal, an Instructor renewal, or even a BFR is justified as the motorist has no requirement for any ongoing testing.
Now, using your analogy of old mate the motorist, well he probably doesn't have the same rights as the muderer either. There are many ways the Drivers Licence can be removed, revoked etc, without the matter be decided in a Court of Law.
The fact is that there are certain commitments, (which are not really that onerous), which are required to be made in order to exercise the privileges of the Pilot's Licence. To belittle those rules and regulations does nothing to garner support for your cause from me.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 149
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Brianh,
You had my phone number, yet you made no attempt to contact me re the ATSB case. It is true that I was hors de combat at that time and that you sent an "Open Letter to the Board"(?), may I say demanding? that all other matters be dropped and that your matter take centre stage. This was, as I understand it, and please correct me if I am wrong, that AOPA should pick a fight with the Federal Police about some rather heavy handed demands regarding the removal of what they saw as threats that you made against a public servant, that was on the AOPA website. All other matters regarding NPRM's and CASA heavy handedness against pilots on a daily basis were in your view, less important, yet a complicated bureaucratic fight with the Federal Police would have taken forever, used up precious time and resources, and achieved what? Did anything happen to you as a result? Just what was your case that AOPA should have taken up? AOPA is full steam lobbying for all pilots, it is unfortunate that every fight cannot be fought, and that individual cases cannot be attended to, but at present they cannot. But in your case you did not so much as call and ask for my help, you "demanded " it by a general email! I am pleased that ASA can at times pick up one issue and run with it, good for Boyd. What about Robert Furness, who had his Medical returned on the steps of the AAT one time and taken for the same reason by the same doctor who was over ruled, when he became the new boss? CASA won't even return my calls on that one. There are thousands of such cases, and I wish that we had the resources but we do not. We do not. I personally fully agree that flying without a medical, especially without any adverse condition, is a very minor matter, and it is noteworthy that CASA do not send out reminders, as does the various traffic authorities. There is not, as I understand it ,any safety justification for private pilot medicals, judging from surveys done in the US, AND as the AUF have clearly shown. The sooner the requirement disappears for private pilots as well as AUF pilots the better. However if there is anything that remains of the ATSB case and you would like to discuss it please call on 0249903717. Now that I have a few thousand less issues screaming for my attention I will assist if I can.
Gnd Power,
There never was any reduction in accidents after the introduction of BFR's though more than few saw them as one burden to many, and gave up flying. In the States there isn't a requirement to renew an instrument rating provided recency is retained,and that doesn't appear to cause a safety problem either,
You had my phone number, yet you made no attempt to contact me re the ATSB case. It is true that I was hors de combat at that time and that you sent an "Open Letter to the Board"(?), may I say demanding? that all other matters be dropped and that your matter take centre stage. This was, as I understand it, and please correct me if I am wrong, that AOPA should pick a fight with the Federal Police about some rather heavy handed demands regarding the removal of what they saw as threats that you made against a public servant, that was on the AOPA website. All other matters regarding NPRM's and CASA heavy handedness against pilots on a daily basis were in your view, less important, yet a complicated bureaucratic fight with the Federal Police would have taken forever, used up precious time and resources, and achieved what? Did anything happen to you as a result? Just what was your case that AOPA should have taken up? AOPA is full steam lobbying for all pilots, it is unfortunate that every fight cannot be fought, and that individual cases cannot be attended to, but at present they cannot. But in your case you did not so much as call and ask for my help, you "demanded " it by a general email! I am pleased that ASA can at times pick up one issue and run with it, good for Boyd. What about Robert Furness, who had his Medical returned on the steps of the AAT one time and taken for the same reason by the same doctor who was over ruled, when he became the new boss? CASA won't even return my calls on that one. There are thousands of such cases, and I wish that we had the resources but we do not. We do not. I personally fully agree that flying without a medical, especially without any adverse condition, is a very minor matter, and it is noteworthy that CASA do not send out reminders, as does the various traffic authorities. There is not, as I understand it ,any safety justification for private pilot medicals, judging from surveys done in the US, AND as the AUF have clearly shown. The sooner the requirement disappears for private pilots as well as AUF pilots the better. However if there is anything that remains of the ATSB case and you would like to discuss it please call on 0249903717. Now that I have a few thousand less issues screaming for my attention I will assist if I can.
Gnd Power,
There never was any reduction in accidents after the introduction of BFR's though more than few saw them as one burden to many, and gave up flying. In the States there isn't a requirement to renew an instrument rating provided recency is retained,and that doesn't appear to cause a safety problem either,
Last edited by Bill Pike; 15th May 2003 at 10:29.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Emerald, Vic, Aust
Posts: 183
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SORRY TWO WRONG NUMBERS
Gnd Pwr
Sorry, I didn't make my point clear.
The issue is over arbitrary licence removal without a chance to
defend.
I won't even pursue the issue of how many accidents can be attributed to flying with an out of date medical. But, a lot have occurred thru flying into IMC.
Bill P
I cannot adequately respond as PP censors bad language. You have posted absolute bsht in relation to my open letter to the AOPA Board. I posted asking why I could not get support for a legal opinion from the 2 qualified on the Board so I could carry the case further.
Oh, and let's not forget that it related to the ATSB saying black boxes should be an inclusion in GA aircraft. Perhaps you can post a copy of the (non-existent) AOPA response to the ATSB on that?
So, mate, during your term as Pres you allowed the ATSB to illegally - via AFP pressure - censor the AOPA Forum? High distinction indeed. By the way, what action has AOPA taken to protest the proposed ripoff on the Avgas fuel duty in the budget?
Anyway, this email is a tad terse, best I cease. Good to see you back on the public forums once the elction deadline loomed but, no, I don't intend to invoke your help over an issue that AOPA should have acted on in February.
Cheers
Sorry, I didn't make my point clear.
The issue is over arbitrary licence removal without a chance to
defend.
I won't even pursue the issue of how many accidents can be attributed to flying with an out of date medical. But, a lot have occurred thru flying into IMC.
Bill P
I cannot adequately respond as PP censors bad language. You have posted absolute bsht in relation to my open letter to the AOPA Board. I posted asking why I could not get support for a legal opinion from the 2 qualified on the Board so I could carry the case further.
Oh, and let's not forget that it related to the ATSB saying black boxes should be an inclusion in GA aircraft. Perhaps you can post a copy of the (non-existent) AOPA response to the ATSB on that?
So, mate, during your term as Pres you allowed the ATSB to illegally - via AFP pressure - censor the AOPA Forum? High distinction indeed. By the way, what action has AOPA taken to protest the proposed ripoff on the Avgas fuel duty in the budget?
Anyway, this email is a tad terse, best I cease. Good to see you back on the public forums once the elction deadline loomed but, no, I don't intend to invoke your help over an issue that AOPA should have acted on in February.
Cheers
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: melb.vic.aust.
Posts: 125
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Horsham courtcase
brianh, may I ask who or what is ASA?
I believe this was not a case of just one or two flights on an expired medical, but somewhat in excess of 25 flights?
How did CASA pick up on the fact that the medical was expired?
Where there's smoke there's fire. Having dealt with one of the pilots in particular who flew over to Horsham, I can understand the logic that you and your ilk follow - the logic that says you don't have to follow any rules, that's for everyone else who isn't as good a pilot as what you and your cronies obviously are! The pilot that I know who flew across has absolutely no respect for rules except his own. I reckon I know hundreds of pilots, but I don't personally know of any who have even looked like having their licence removed. Like attracts like I guess!
I believe this was not a case of just one or two flights on an expired medical, but somewhat in excess of 25 flights?
How did CASA pick up on the fact that the medical was expired?
Where there's smoke there's fire. Having dealt with one of the pilots in particular who flew over to Horsham, I can understand the logic that you and your ilk follow - the logic that says you don't have to follow any rules, that's for everyone else who isn't as good a pilot as what you and your cronies obviously are! The pilot that I know who flew across has absolutely no respect for rules except his own. I reckon I know hundreds of pilots, but I don't personally know of any who have even looked like having their licence removed. Like attracts like I guess!
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Emerald, Vic, Aust
Posts: 183
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DON'T SHOOT THE MESSENGER
Tea Lady
I'm not sure how you decide that people who support natural justice do not fly by the rules, but I do not appreciate unwarranted and unfaur criticism.
I am currently writing the SOP for a CTAF to try and get the new tenants to fly by the rules - as I do. The problem being, they do not wish to.
I fly rigidly by the rules. I tutor the stuff and can probably run rings around you on the rules and their adherence. I also have a 30 year unblemished driving record coz i abide by those rules also.
Having got that steam off my chest, I am NOT supporting the pilot concerned in breaking any rules. I have seen no proof that he did and what I am supporting - same as ASA - is ANY pilot's right to the same justice as rapists, murders, etc - trial by magistrate or jury.
For CASA to arbitrarily remove his licence - and they have the power to do it to anyone - without a hearing or any recourse is against any principles of fairness and law in the Westminster system.
I have personal experience of CASA with a vendetta against a LAME where he took the gutsy step of going to the Ombudsman, thus of course increasing their vendetta out of spite. It is delightful to se the Ombud corro - steeped in law - and the questions he is asking and comments being made about the CASA actions that have included just about every dirty trick you can name. Their final response is that a lesson has been learned and this sort of thing would not happen again. Where is the LAME recompense from CASA.
And remember Whyalla Airlines and how they were guilty of every sin under the sun and put out of business. pity that happened before the world wide recall of the engines had to be done because of the final problem found that was not due to any illegal action but, rather, established legitimate operating procedures.
I could go on but I have a 25 year regulatory background and cannot impart the lessons learned in this sopace. But, i do take very unkindly to you labelling a cautious rule observant pilot such as myself as you have without any substance to do so. And, I hope you do include the airfield name at the start AND FINISH of radio calls at ALL CTAF and MBZ, not just those in proximity if you want to get into fine details of following the rules?
I have been kind about your posting, as i have about Bill Pike's also. Had I wanted to prove him foolish and also quoting incorrect detail, I'd have just posted my original email to the Board to which he referred. But I am by nature - as CASA should also be - of a coaching rather than executioner style.
Cheers
I'm not sure how you decide that people who support natural justice do not fly by the rules, but I do not appreciate unwarranted and unfaur criticism.
I am currently writing the SOP for a CTAF to try and get the new tenants to fly by the rules - as I do. The problem being, they do not wish to.
I fly rigidly by the rules. I tutor the stuff and can probably run rings around you on the rules and their adherence. I also have a 30 year unblemished driving record coz i abide by those rules also.
Having got that steam off my chest, I am NOT supporting the pilot concerned in breaking any rules. I have seen no proof that he did and what I am supporting - same as ASA - is ANY pilot's right to the same justice as rapists, murders, etc - trial by magistrate or jury.
For CASA to arbitrarily remove his licence - and they have the power to do it to anyone - without a hearing or any recourse is against any principles of fairness and law in the Westminster system.
I have personal experience of CASA with a vendetta against a LAME where he took the gutsy step of going to the Ombudsman, thus of course increasing their vendetta out of spite. It is delightful to se the Ombud corro - steeped in law - and the questions he is asking and comments being made about the CASA actions that have included just about every dirty trick you can name. Their final response is that a lesson has been learned and this sort of thing would not happen again. Where is the LAME recompense from CASA.
And remember Whyalla Airlines and how they were guilty of every sin under the sun and put out of business. pity that happened before the world wide recall of the engines had to be done because of the final problem found that was not due to any illegal action but, rather, established legitimate operating procedures.
I could go on but I have a 25 year regulatory background and cannot impart the lessons learned in this sopace. But, i do take very unkindly to you labelling a cautious rule observant pilot such as myself as you have without any substance to do so. And, I hope you do include the airfield name at the start AND FINISH of radio calls at ALL CTAF and MBZ, not just those in proximity if you want to get into fine details of following the rules?
I have been kind about your posting, as i have about Bill Pike's also. Had I wanted to prove him foolish and also quoting incorrect detail, I'd have just posted my original email to the Board to which he referred. But I am by nature - as CASA should also be - of a coaching rather than executioner style.
Cheers
Riddle me this Brian
You're making comparisons with motorists.
If you go 45 kph above the speed limit, the police in some Australian jurisdictions can suspend your licence on the spot, whether or not you've had an accident and whether or not you and them were the only living thing for 100 miles.
If you drive with a blood alchohol level above the prescribed limit, the police can arrest you and lock you up, whether or not you've had an accident and whether or not you and them were the only living thing for 100 miles.
Where exactly is the natural justice and court participation before the action is taken against the person in these examples?
If you go 45 kph above the speed limit, the police in some Australian jurisdictions can suspend your licence on the spot, whether or not you've had an accident and whether or not you and them were the only living thing for 100 miles.
If you drive with a blood alchohol level above the prescribed limit, the police can arrest you and lock you up, whether or not you've had an accident and whether or not you and them were the only living thing for 100 miles.
Where exactly is the natural justice and court participation before the action is taken against the person in these examples?
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 66
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Creampuff
There is no natural justice...... There is only the Law....... Don't get justice and the law mixed up now.
If the policeman takes your licence off you for drink driving or speeding then don't blame him. If you don't like the laws ask his political masters to explain...... (if they can!!!!!)
Only small minded people shoot the messenger. Believe me there are plenty of these people in the aviation industry.......
Wagit
There is no natural justice...... There is only the Law....... Don't get justice and the law mixed up now.
If the policeman takes your licence off you for drink driving or speeding then don't blame him. If you don't like the laws ask his political masters to explain...... (if they can!!!!!)
Only small minded people shoot the messenger. Believe me there are plenty of these people in the aviation industry.......
Wagit
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: middleofthehighway
Posts: 426
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
creampuff
You're making comparisons with motorists.
If you go 45 kph above the speed limit, the police in some Australian jurisdictions can suspend your licence on the spot, whether or not you've had an accident and whether or not you and them were the only living thing for 100 miles.
If you go 45 kph above the speed limit, the police in some Australian jurisdictions can suspend your licence on the spot, whether or not you've had an accident and whether or not you and them were the only living thing for 100 miles.
If you drive with a blood alchohol level above the prescribed limit, the police can arrest you and lock you up, whether or not you've had an accident and whether or not you and them were the only living thing for 100 miles.
Where exactly is the natural justice and court participation before the action is taken against the person in these examples?
1) Police dont make the LAW in this country, they uphold it. Casa make it and break it at will.
2) You have proper set avenues of appeal in motoring cases. Again set out clearly when your booked.
3) The rules for motoring are uncomplicated and uncluttered. You know exactly what is right or wrong within the motoring world of law. Do we have this comfort with CASA's rules and regs? NO! not me anyway.
What happens to someone driving without a licence? (bearing in mind the bugguh had been driving for some time before he is caught. Suspension for 3 months and a fine?
What happens to a pilot who flies without a medical?
Guess we will soon find out eh!!
Dog
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: nth west-- Australia
Posts: 112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The whole point is rules are made for reasons.
If you break them then punishment will prevail.
Every one knows this but what seems to get up noses is the penalties--are they too servere and how come Joe Bloggs only got that when i got taken to the cleaners.
I dont know how it works,but if a guy is way over time with a medical etc,then he should get more than someone who is just over.
But the bottom line is ,if you have broken a rule for what ever reason then something has to be done.
I tried the "forgot" reason in my job once(mining) and nearly got the boot,was sent to company doctor and asked stupid questions if i knew where i lived etc-----geeeez
If you break them then punishment will prevail.
Every one knows this but what seems to get up noses is the penalties--are they too servere and how come Joe Bloggs only got that when i got taken to the cleaners.
I dont know how it works,but if a guy is way over time with a medical etc,then he should get more than someone who is just over.
But the bottom line is ,if you have broken a rule for what ever reason then something has to be done.
I tried the "forgot" reason in my job once(mining) and nearly got the boot,was sent to company doctor and asked stupid questions if i knew where i lived etc-----geeeez
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Emerald, Vic, Aust
Posts: 183
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AT LEAST WE ARE NOW ON THE ISSUE
All
Thanks for the past 3 or 4 posts which at least are getting to the issue.
If the guy flys a 747 or M3, I might feel really strong about his not being current medical.
If GA, then I regard it as a breach of an existing law but whether it warrants immediate suspension is arguable.
On the medical side, we are stuck with the current rules so I abide by them. I find the regular check of great reassurance re my general health anyway. But, how many accidents can be traced to medical reasons - and, in any case, if the person had a valid medical when the accident occurred - what did the medical do to stop the accident - nothing. One wonders why the AUF are gaining strength.
With a car licence, you DO get a reminder. I do not recollect getting one for my AVMED. Does anyone know if we do? If not, then if it is such a significant matter and given that we are about to have the avgas price increased to fund the CASA monolith, then why don't we get a reminder?
Keep the thoughts rolling. It will be interesting to see the wrap up of this case.
Cheers
Thanks for the past 3 or 4 posts which at least are getting to the issue.
If the guy flys a 747 or M3, I might feel really strong about his not being current medical.
If GA, then I regard it as a breach of an existing law but whether it warrants immediate suspension is arguable.
On the medical side, we are stuck with the current rules so I abide by them. I find the regular check of great reassurance re my general health anyway. But, how many accidents can be traced to medical reasons - and, in any case, if the person had a valid medical when the accident occurred - what did the medical do to stop the accident - nothing. One wonders why the AUF are gaining strength.
With a car licence, you DO get a reminder. I do not recollect getting one for my AVMED. Does anyone know if we do? If not, then if it is such a significant matter and given that we are about to have the avgas price increased to fund the CASA monolith, then why don't we get a reminder?
Keep the thoughts rolling. It will be interesting to see the wrap up of this case.
Cheers
Wagit – I agree with you.
Doggy – This very thread is about a chap who’s getting his day in court. The issue I am taking Brian H to task about is natural justice. In the examples I gave, the administrative action is taken against you before you get your day in court. Why should aviation be different?
Your opinion about the comparative seriousness of the examples I used and flying without a current medical is just that – your opinion. Like my opinion, in means nothing. The legislature has decided the seriousness of an offence by prescribing penalties, or by delegating the governor-general the power to prescribe offences and penalties. If people don’t like it, then the place to protest is not outside CASA, not in the courthouse: it’s at parliament house.
Which law has CASA – repeat CASA – made for breach of which there is a criminal penalty? Which law has CASA – repeat CASA – made that gives it power to suspend or cancel a pilot’s licence? Which avenues of review are available to the holder of a driver’s licence that aren’t available to a pilot?
The correct answer to all 3 questions is simple: none.
Doggy – This very thread is about a chap who’s getting his day in court. The issue I am taking Brian H to task about is natural justice. In the examples I gave, the administrative action is taken against you before you get your day in court. Why should aviation be different?
Your opinion about the comparative seriousness of the examples I used and flying without a current medical is just that – your opinion. Like my opinion, in means nothing. The legislature has decided the seriousness of an offence by prescribing penalties, or by delegating the governor-general the power to prescribe offences and penalties. If people don’t like it, then the place to protest is not outside CASA, not in the courthouse: it’s at parliament house.
Which law has CASA – repeat CASA – made for breach of which there is a criminal penalty? Which law has CASA – repeat CASA – made that gives it power to suspend or cancel a pilot’s licence? Which avenues of review are available to the holder of a driver’s licence that aren’t available to a pilot?
The correct answer to all 3 questions is simple: none.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Emerald, Vic, Aust
Posts: 183
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And by the way, how many of you do honestly make the call with the CTAF or MBZ name at both ends? If not, you too are breaching the law - is that serious?
Creamy
Your post landed just after i posted.
Fair go old mate. Just because the motorist is treated as a criminal to top up Gov't revenue one cannot draw the comparison that pilots should receive equal treatment from CASA.
There are only 2 crimes - driving fast and driving drunk. Both can get your licence grabbed on the spot. That's the Gov't trying to show it cares about the road toll after the event. If it was serious there could perhaps be medicals, student drivers required to go through some of what we did with BAK, AGK, etc etc etc.
But, rape, murder, theft, assault and battery, or stealing and pinching and torching your brand new BMW, and mate - you are out on bail. In my daily moves I regularly hear crims with 10 pages of priors out and about at it again.
So, two wrongs don't make a right. A pilot guilty of a serious breach - eg an experienced pilot (landing head on with someone else on a legitimate approach) on a straight in approach with the wind up the rear at a CTAF (there's 4 breaches in one) should be immediately grounded until his case is heard because he has put life at risk deliberately. An expired medical - well, I remain to be convinced that warrants an immediate suspension. Of cours, CASA may show in Court that there was premeditation, prior history, or whatever and that will change the mindset. But, this is the second adjournment and I find that hard to accept.
Cheers
Creamy
Your post landed just after i posted.
Fair go old mate. Just because the motorist is treated as a criminal to top up Gov't revenue one cannot draw the comparison that pilots should receive equal treatment from CASA.
There are only 2 crimes - driving fast and driving drunk. Both can get your licence grabbed on the spot. That's the Gov't trying to show it cares about the road toll after the event. If it was serious there could perhaps be medicals, student drivers required to go through some of what we did with BAK, AGK, etc etc etc.
But, rape, murder, theft, assault and battery, or stealing and pinching and torching your brand new BMW, and mate - you are out on bail. In my daily moves I regularly hear crims with 10 pages of priors out and about at it again.
So, two wrongs don't make a right. A pilot guilty of a serious breach - eg an experienced pilot (landing head on with someone else on a legitimate approach) on a straight in approach with the wind up the rear at a CTAF (there's 4 breaches in one) should be immediately grounded until his case is heard because he has put life at risk deliberately. An expired medical - well, I remain to be convinced that warrants an immediate suspension. Of cours, CASA may show in Court that there was premeditation, prior history, or whatever and that will change the mindset. But, this is the second adjournment and I find that hard to accept.
Cheers
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Emerald, Vic, Aust
Posts: 183
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SUSPENDED, YES - CANCELLED, NO WAY
Ibex
(By the way I notice no one has yet come clean on whether they have been breaking the rules with their CTAF/MBZ radio calls to pick on just one bit of trivia but nevertheless a rule).
Suspended pending an early hearing - OK.
However, here is a direct extract from what has been provided by ASA and I have not seen the comment refuted by CASA: -
"Although not a word of evidence has yet been heard, CASA's Ian Ogilvie decided more than a year ago that Denis is guilty and has cancelled his license permanently".
Cancelled! Permanently! Not out on bail, not suspended pending a hearing - gone for life.
And, Ibex, do you know the answer to whether we get a reminder when our medical is due? I honestly do not remember (but I do have the date firm in my organiser). Again I say, if it is such a significant part of our pilot legal adherence, we should get a reminder from CASA.
Now, two minutes ago the latest came in from ASA and it says, inter alia: -
Re the CAA Bill 2003, the new section 30DI gives CASA an entirely new power to permanently cancel a persons licence even though that person has never been convicted of any offence.
Ibex, is this the Australian justice system you wish to see in place? I thought even the French system had mellowed with time.
I have not read the CAA Amendment yet but I am aware that ASA are very careful never to print anything that leaves them vulnerable to suit or claim of falsehood.
Never convicted, permanently cancelled - then try and get it back if you have unlimited funds to proceed. This is laughable.
I go back to my earlier comment - everyone is entitled to a fair trial. The point has already been made by another that an expired medical hardly rates on par with drink driving or 40 kmh over the limit - they are acts of anti-social, dangerous behaviour.
In the real world, the pilot at the centre of this dispute would have been required to have an immediate medical. If he passed, leave him flying pending legal action for his sin/s of failing to fly previously without one and fine or suspenfd him according to the Court's discretion. If he failed it, ground him pending the Court hearing.
I am amazed to see fellow Australians on this Forum looking for justifications for acts taken by CASA that deny natural justice and have no parallel in the real world. Although I am mindful of Woomera's comments that all those on this Forum may not be whom they appear to be. Hands up all CASA staff posting!
As an aside, since we mentioned the road situation, I suggest to anyone who wishes to visit the ATSB or TAC VIC sites that you will find some interesting stats on the road toll that show a strong relationship to severe attitudinal problems (not expired medicals). A British study has shown that more than half of those convicted for dangerous driving also had non-driving criminal records. If Dennis Grosser is of this ilk, let him swing! However, that is something I expect to see in Court and at sentence time - not in the mind of someone from CASA who has declared themselves judge, jury, and executioner already.
Cheers
(By the way I notice no one has yet come clean on whether they have been breaking the rules with their CTAF/MBZ radio calls to pick on just one bit of trivia but nevertheless a rule).
Suspended pending an early hearing - OK.
However, here is a direct extract from what has been provided by ASA and I have not seen the comment refuted by CASA: -
"Although not a word of evidence has yet been heard, CASA's Ian Ogilvie decided more than a year ago that Denis is guilty and has cancelled his license permanently".
Cancelled! Permanently! Not out on bail, not suspended pending a hearing - gone for life.
And, Ibex, do you know the answer to whether we get a reminder when our medical is due? I honestly do not remember (but I do have the date firm in my organiser). Again I say, if it is such a significant part of our pilot legal adherence, we should get a reminder from CASA.
Now, two minutes ago the latest came in from ASA and it says, inter alia: -
Re the CAA Bill 2003, the new section 30DI gives CASA an entirely new power to permanently cancel a persons licence even though that person has never been convicted of any offence.
Ibex, is this the Australian justice system you wish to see in place? I thought even the French system had mellowed with time.
I have not read the CAA Amendment yet but I am aware that ASA are very careful never to print anything that leaves them vulnerable to suit or claim of falsehood.
Never convicted, permanently cancelled - then try and get it back if you have unlimited funds to proceed. This is laughable.
I go back to my earlier comment - everyone is entitled to a fair trial. The point has already been made by another that an expired medical hardly rates on par with drink driving or 40 kmh over the limit - they are acts of anti-social, dangerous behaviour.
In the real world, the pilot at the centre of this dispute would have been required to have an immediate medical. If he passed, leave him flying pending legal action for his sin/s of failing to fly previously without one and fine or suspenfd him according to the Court's discretion. If he failed it, ground him pending the Court hearing.
I am amazed to see fellow Australians on this Forum looking for justifications for acts taken by CASA that deny natural justice and have no parallel in the real world. Although I am mindful of Woomera's comments that all those on this Forum may not be whom they appear to be. Hands up all CASA staff posting!
As an aside, since we mentioned the road situation, I suggest to anyone who wishes to visit the ATSB or TAC VIC sites that you will find some interesting stats on the road toll that show a strong relationship to severe attitudinal problems (not expired medicals). A British study has shown that more than half of those convicted for dangerous driving also had non-driving criminal records. If Dennis Grosser is of this ilk, let him swing! However, that is something I expect to see in Court and at sentence time - not in the mind of someone from CASA who has declared themselves judge, jury, and executioner already.
Cheers
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: middleofthehighway
Posts: 426
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Creamy
Which law has CASA – repeat CASA – made for breach of which there is a criminal penalty? Which law has CASA – repeat CASA – made that gives it power to suspend or cancel a pilot’s licence? Which avenues of review are available to the holder of a driver’s licence that aren’t available to a pilot?
Who does the minister listen to in regards to aviation safety?
A corporation that employees rogue operaters , more often with a bone to pick with previous competors..etc etc It's happened, it's happening, and will continue to happen. How did CASA get the image of vindictiveness, pettyness and oppression?
Dog
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Emerald, Vic, Aust
Posts: 183
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DOG ON THE SCENT
Dog
Spot on.
As soon as a threat or someone who can talk the truth pops its head up, let's enlist them in CASA, give them some $, and remove the threat.
Bill Mattes (ASF) did the night I think "Weatherwise" seminar for CASA in Melbourne a year or two ago, Trevor Wright was seconded to one of the working groups to present - what coincidences. What a coincidence - top operators suddenly on the CASA "don't bite the hand that feeds", payroll. OK, I'll admit I'm peeved coz they did not invite me to join the lunch table with my wealth of low time PPL experience
And, you are spot on re rogue operators. Have a look at the ATSB report on the night fatal at Moorabbin - which big multi-state operator's aircraft were hogging the circuit - 6 aircraft in the circuit when 5 is the law. Will the operator concerned be acted on by CASA - if I hang by the proverbial waiting I'll be the next John Holmes.
Also, when I examined the papers on the CASA vendetta re the LAME, it was the little man they wanted to crush despite overwhelming documenation that the CASA investigators didn't know the correct propellor to be fitted. But of course, once caught, their response was to try and crucify the messenger, Bug,er justice.
Flying schools - the weight of paperwork they need to prove to CASA they can operate safely. Can you find me any business that operates the same? Again, the biggies can afford a "Safety Officer" and enuf paper to choke a Caravan - Ah, that must make them safer with their "200 hours I'm a CPL with an instructor rating but on my way to the airlines" passover instructers than the small flying school that has a 6000+ hour instructor who is happy to stay there and impart his knowledge to the students- thank God I had one of these and yet I'm still incompetent!
CASA motto is big is better, get rid of the chickensh!t operators and fliers, RPT and above is God! Don't believe me anyone - OK - call for a VFR QNH or Flight Plan Amendment on the area frequency - POQ sonny, we are dealing with the real people, not the weekend warriors.
Dog, yours was a welcome post. I owe you a beer for saving my sanity.
Cheers
Spot on.
As soon as a threat or someone who can talk the truth pops its head up, let's enlist them in CASA, give them some $, and remove the threat.
Bill Mattes (ASF) did the night I think "Weatherwise" seminar for CASA in Melbourne a year or two ago, Trevor Wright was seconded to one of the working groups to present - what coincidences. What a coincidence - top operators suddenly on the CASA "don't bite the hand that feeds", payroll. OK, I'll admit I'm peeved coz they did not invite me to join the lunch table with my wealth of low time PPL experience
And, you are spot on re rogue operators. Have a look at the ATSB report on the night fatal at Moorabbin - which big multi-state operator's aircraft were hogging the circuit - 6 aircraft in the circuit when 5 is the law. Will the operator concerned be acted on by CASA - if I hang by the proverbial waiting I'll be the next John Holmes.
Also, when I examined the papers on the CASA vendetta re the LAME, it was the little man they wanted to crush despite overwhelming documenation that the CASA investigators didn't know the correct propellor to be fitted. But of course, once caught, their response was to try and crucify the messenger, Bug,er justice.
Flying schools - the weight of paperwork they need to prove to CASA they can operate safely. Can you find me any business that operates the same? Again, the biggies can afford a "Safety Officer" and enuf paper to choke a Caravan - Ah, that must make them safer with their "200 hours I'm a CPL with an instructor rating but on my way to the airlines" passover instructers than the small flying school that has a 6000+ hour instructor who is happy to stay there and impart his knowledge to the students- thank God I had one of these and yet I'm still incompetent!
CASA motto is big is better, get rid of the chickensh!t operators and fliers, RPT and above is God! Don't believe me anyone - OK - call for a VFR QNH or Flight Plan Amendment on the area frequency - POQ sonny, we are dealing with the real people, not the weekend warriors.
Dog, yours was a welcome post. I owe you a beer for saving my sanity.
Cheers
Good – now we’re getting somewhere.
You’ve implicitly conceded that CASA doesn’t make the laws about which you complain. However, from your perspective it’s effectivelyCASA because it’s CASA that recommends these laws.
Jeez those politicians must be stupid.
Do you know why there’s a requirement to have a valid medical?
It’s because many moons ago, before CASA or the CAA or the Dept of Transport or any other organisation that might have been created in your lifetime was created, the Australian government signed the Paris Convention and then the Chicago Convention. The politicians who made that decision had sufficient nous and foresight to realise that if Australia wanted to avoid becoming an aviation backwater, Australia would need to get with the program.
You might think that Australia is the aviation program. Hey - look at QANTAS.
Any credible international analyst takes the view that QANTAS has yet to do sufficient hours to form the basis of a statistically valid comparison with the big boys and girls. QANTAS’s flying hours are barely a blip on the flying hours radar.
The reason the Chicago Convention is important to Australia is that it provides a reasonable level of assurance to the rest of the developed aviation world that they can send aircraft loads of passengers to Australia at agreed standards of safety.
Tell the rest of the world that Australia lets loose in controlled airspace slack-jawed yokels who may or may not be capable of making sure they get a medical examination once every two years, or who aren’t required to get one at all, and watch your aviation reputation go south.
Here’s the bottom line: the politicians have decided that Australia’s aviation and general interests are better served by complying so far as is reasonable with its international obligations, instead of pandering to the interests of a few morons who cannot or will not get their medical done on time.
If you want to blame CASA for that, then enjoy pissing into the wind.
You’ve implicitly conceded that CASA doesn’t make the laws about which you complain. However, from your perspective it’s effectivelyCASA because it’s CASA that recommends these laws.
Jeez those politicians must be stupid.
Do you know why there’s a requirement to have a valid medical?
It’s because many moons ago, before CASA or the CAA or the Dept of Transport or any other organisation that might have been created in your lifetime was created, the Australian government signed the Paris Convention and then the Chicago Convention. The politicians who made that decision had sufficient nous and foresight to realise that if Australia wanted to avoid becoming an aviation backwater, Australia would need to get with the program.
You might think that Australia is the aviation program. Hey - look at QANTAS.
Any credible international analyst takes the view that QANTAS has yet to do sufficient hours to form the basis of a statistically valid comparison with the big boys and girls. QANTAS’s flying hours are barely a blip on the flying hours radar.
The reason the Chicago Convention is important to Australia is that it provides a reasonable level of assurance to the rest of the developed aviation world that they can send aircraft loads of passengers to Australia at agreed standards of safety.
Tell the rest of the world that Australia lets loose in controlled airspace slack-jawed yokels who may or may not be capable of making sure they get a medical examination once every two years, or who aren’t required to get one at all, and watch your aviation reputation go south.
Here’s the bottom line: the politicians have decided that Australia’s aviation and general interests are better served by complying so far as is reasonable with its international obligations, instead of pandering to the interests of a few morons who cannot or will not get their medical done on time.
If you want to blame CASA for that, then enjoy pissing into the wind.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Emerald, Vic, Aust
Posts: 183
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A LONG BOW
Creamy
That is drawing a long bow. I was not aware that the person in question in the Horsham case was an international airline pilot.
So CASA does not make the rules?
And did the international area recommend the draconian changes that are embodied in the TSI Bill that ATSB put forward?
And is the international area recommending the CAA 2003 changes I already mentioned?
What of the mooted returning 3 year airframe inspection for GA - is the United nations recommending this?
I spent 25 years working this sort of crap for the Government. No politician has a mind of their own - the Bills put forward come from the authorities in the first place. What comes up for aviation comes from CASA and ATSB - the political mouthpieces change, the anti-pilot culture does not.
CASAs old brigade is full of a militaristc culture that believes discipline and regulation is the answer to the world's evils. Fortunately, there is a growing forest of young trees that believe in a coaching style that includes treating pilots and AOC holders as normal human beings. Unfortunately, like the greenies stuff the forests, unless the deadwood is removed, the new trees will be choked.
I spoke to a CASA bod last week who will sell his soul to the devil to stop these pagan moves to the FARs. I could hear him whistling an old tune about 2 minute reporting for VFR flights.
Must run, I believe an international body has told us we must remove the name "Nugget" from a rugby league stand in Qld because it is demeaning to the race that has us now over Ayers Rock at 4500 instead of 1500 in case we scare the great spirit Wugeridoo - slip us a $ mate. Yes, these international conventions about how we Australians must toe the line are a great thing Creamy.
cheers
That is drawing a long bow. I was not aware that the person in question in the Horsham case was an international airline pilot.
So CASA does not make the rules?
And did the international area recommend the draconian changes that are embodied in the TSI Bill that ATSB put forward?
And is the international area recommending the CAA 2003 changes I already mentioned?
What of the mooted returning 3 year airframe inspection for GA - is the United nations recommending this?
I spent 25 years working this sort of crap for the Government. No politician has a mind of their own - the Bills put forward come from the authorities in the first place. What comes up for aviation comes from CASA and ATSB - the political mouthpieces change, the anti-pilot culture does not.
CASAs old brigade is full of a militaristc culture that believes discipline and regulation is the answer to the world's evils. Fortunately, there is a growing forest of young trees that believe in a coaching style that includes treating pilots and AOC holders as normal human beings. Unfortunately, like the greenies stuff the forests, unless the deadwood is removed, the new trees will be choked.
I spoke to a CASA bod last week who will sell his soul to the devil to stop these pagan moves to the FARs. I could hear him whistling an old tune about 2 minute reporting for VFR flights.
Must run, I believe an international body has told us we must remove the name "Nugget" from a rugby league stand in Qld because it is demeaning to the race that has us now over Ayers Rock at 4500 instead of 1500 in case we scare the great spirit Wugeridoo - slip us a $ mate. Yes, these international conventions about how we Australians must toe the line are a great thing Creamy.
cheers