Large scale Multi party action against CASA.
 

Large scale multi party action against CASA. (Class Action) or an application for public interest funding.

I am encouraged to start another thread to deal with a 100% positive PM feedback from a challenge I threw down in another thread. In it I simply stated instead of whinging about your individual complaints about CASA, do something about it.

I agreed to act to collate and have assessed the legal merits of the individual complaints and organise a firm of Lawyers as point of contact whereby individuals can register their complaints without publically compromising their PPRune identities.

This morning I have a telephone meeting with a large Legal Firm that specialises in this type of thing. I will be further guided by that meeting and post the results here. I should have the wording of the terms of reference for an overall complaint which hopefully will ring some bells and force future change as a consequence of such an action.

This thread is not the place for anecdotal discussions.

To put your mind at ease, a little about myself;

I have been in the aviation industry since 1965 and held elected and appointed positions that I applied myself to with no financial benefit simply to be part of any reform agenda that would make the Regulator foster and promote aviation instead of confronting and abusing it.

To this end many would call me a failure, but I was prepared to have a go.

I have a concluded matter against CASA which by it’s definition could be classed as a win. The thing is, after it was all over nothing changed. The cronyism continued such that the matter was never dealt with against the company that started the whole mess. A few CASA functionaries resigned, probably with a good handshake, and The Director of Aviation Safety offered a ‘lame duck” apology.

None of the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s recommendations appear to have been carried out. If anything it all appears to have got worse.

My case took years of effort and only maintained it’s impetus by the hard work of my Local Member and some dear personal friends. I had to force the issue with a pragmatic doublecross of my most excellent Member with a purposely leaked document to the Opposition who tabled it in The Senate during a CASA Estimates Hearing. In this document The Deputy Prime Minister accused CASA of destroying my evidence. This forced The Ministers intervention further, and an Act of Grace payment followed which probably paid for 30% of my losses.

If this post seems ungracious, I apologise, however the cash was paid by The Department of Finance, (the taxpayer), not CASA who never admitted liability even in the Director’s “apology”. This vindicates my ongoing stance. To myself anyway. I was not bound by any confidential agreements, and I have never signed one before or since.

Obviously I am well known and the CASA Lawyers won’t have far to go to find my identity. I don’t care. If they need it they can PM me and I’ll give it to them. They are good at shooting messengers, and I won’t be massaged by any of their spin.

To my friends (and enemies), this matter transgresses any personal involvements we have had in the past. I ask for your help as the majority of you are competent intelligent and passionate about aviation in Australia. If you can help, even a post of support to maintain the rage would be appreciated.

To those with closed or stale matters who believe they were dealt with perhaps at the expense of the rest of the aviation community, throw your hat in the ring.

Once this matter has legs of it’s own I’ll stand aside. My contribution will be for historical record only.

If this thread fizzles out, you only have yourself to blame. Encourage others.

This is serious.!
 

I for one will be throwing my hat into the ring, having being seriously abused twice by the (un)Civil (Non)Aviation (Un)Safety AUTHORITY.

And I know of several other operators that have been subjected to the most disgusting treatment, where CASA persons and others should be in jail, not in a taxpayer funded sinecure. I will urge them to join up also.

If there is another bureaucracy in this country that has done more to harm an industry that it is supposed to regulate, I'd love to know, because CASA are world leaders.

As always happens with entrenched bureaucracies, they lose the plot and become self-serving, and fxcuk the "client" base, they're just a pain.

If all those folk that have an unhappy case to tell, speak up... this may be the start of the long road back to sanity in aviation regulation.

Slater and Gordon,

Lawyers, Lawyers Australia, Law Firm - Slater & Gordon Lawyers

Have agreed to initially assess individual cases on a commercial basis.

If enough complaints with a common theme arise, they will consider a class action against CASA. To this end they give a point of reference number of CS 170399 when addressing your individual complaints.

There is a website contact form or you can ring 1-800-555-777.

Now people, you need simply to give an executive summary to get the ball rolling. The industry needs just a little of your time to possibly make a great contribution.

People;

For those of you who look, privately, respond, but don't participate, thanks for your support.

For those who have pulled posts for legal reasons, I understand.

For those of you who haven't summoned up the courage yet, the silence is part of what you can expect by way of legal proceedure or intimidation.

I have been put on notice based purely on an assumption of my PPRune identity.

Sort of sums up what the whole problem is.

That was quick
 

FA are`you in a position to elaborate or expand. Seems a bit rum to me.

How can you be even remotely threatened for offering to lead the way.

That poor bugger in J* lost his job, not because he couldn't do it, but because he dared to voice an opinion. Xenophon has pulled a Senate inquiry because of genuine concern, have the black hand knocked on his door, I doubt it.

Where are we, the lucky country or some post war Eastern Bloc Gulag.

Pogroms next, you wait. :ugh:

Can't elaborate more than say I was "advised" via a third party to watch my step. Could have been taken two ways I suppose, but it pays to err on the side of caution.

I am only the messenger, but the firm probably see me in a different light of course.

G'day,

I have a bucket load of stuff I could pass on but what are the lawyers able to do about issues dropped on CASA that they stonewall?

G'day all;

I have only just finished replying to a heap of PM's encouraging me to greater efforts. It is inspirational stuff when a lot of people without a real issue support the action if only because they have witnessed the incompetence and bastardisation of others.

One of the first things I was asked by Slater and Gordon was if I was ringing on behalf or had anything to do with a Union. I didn't, but it surprised me they asked and I don't know why.

Stonewalled stuff is the food of lawyers I would imagine and adds to the notion of a regulator out of control that will stop at nothing to defend their stupidity.

I can only encourage you to pass what you have on, if only as a collector or collator of evidence on behalf of your members. Even if they have thing about Unions, they should at least read the stuff in conjunction with others received if it has a common theme.

I was told yesterday by one respondent the problem with claiming personal injury against CASA especially if there is a mental stress, anxiety component is that CASA then use that as an admission on your part and relieve you of your licence on health grounds.

I believe this to be a classic bastardisation of the system when they caused the stress in the first place and then perpetuate the possibility of someone flying and "bottling up" this stress because of it.

Doesn't sound very safe to me. They should encourage self diagnosis and self action of mental stress related illness. CRM seems wasted if this is the attitude.

I believe lawyers have a scale to measure and quantify stress and anxiety and in cases such as this, I would imagine it would be into six figures if one's livelihood was definently at risk by such an admission.

This aspect is probably a claim in it's own right.

If you make one, make it a good one. How much would you loose if you lost your job, in dollars per annum from now to when you would normally be expected to retire from the flight deck. Then add a factor to make someone sit up and listen and $jit themserlves.

Go for it people.:ok:

Readers of this thread are not privy to the individual responses I receive and it may seem that nothing is happening. The opposite is in fact true. Any complaints cannot be discussed here except in very general terms and once a matter has been passed to S&G it remains confidential with them.

There have been a considerable number and I am sure many have been forwarded under the reference number without involving me.

One general concern is an emerging trend of complaints to the Commonwealth Ombudsman that have been stonewalled and then closed after reams of paperwork. There appears to be a common factor with one officer that the matters were subsequently handed to, and I would urge anyone else with similar concerns to PM me.

Cheers.

Straws in the Wind.
 

Good to hear things are moving, perhaps with this initiative and the Senate, things may get a little brighter for the poor old industry.

This may be the glue to give the GA industry a cohesive voice, instead of just hiding under the bed, hoping the 'Boogey man' goes next door.

I wonder just how many people understand exactly what is happening within their own backyard.

Heigh Ho. :D

Meeting January 2011.
 

If interested, please advise preferences to a capital city venue and preferred dates.

I don't yet have a committment for an attendance by S&G and I am not privy to matters already under way, but there are issues of claim that need discussing beforehand. These issues pivot around negligence.

Response to an email from Slater and Gordon this afternoon.

DF file doesn't allow reproduction without editing personal details. The answer is self explanatory. Follows;

Thank you for your response to our concerns.

It should be noted that I, personally, have no current or outstanding claim against the CASA and my input onto the PPRune.org website was to make people with a grievance against them aware of an avenue that may or may not be available to a conglomerate of like minded individuals who have been similarly bastardised and that could join together in a common action based on much claimed CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE leading to claimable amounts for psychological, physical and monetary injuries and losses.

I have nearly learned to deal with my loss of quality of life, but I am sincerely and seriously concerned for others who are now going through what I had to endure.

How does one quantify such losses?

Eight years of my life wasted fighting with little legal support.

How does one recover the loss of respect and dignity after such confrontational situations?

Your attached letter allows me no means of reproducing it onto that website by way of updates without revealing my identity. The PDF format does not allow me to edit same.

I can relay the basic text but fear it may be taken "out of text". Perhaps you may respond in a manner that can be reproduced while maintaining my anonymity. (although I wager most in the industry know who I am it is not the point).

I also fear the contents as I read them would make even the most ardent complaintant shiver at the prospects of having to initially fund such an action.

This is why the CASA are so out of control. (perhaps I should rephrase that and say they are "IN" control with such knowledge).

You must see the CASA have so much power and access to taxpayer funds that it makes them monopolistically untouchable. Such power can only be smashed by individuals with very deep pockets, or political intervention at the highest level or a joint attack.

There is no political will, because there are no votes in it.

There is no public support because the CASA stand behind the "mantle of safety" to justify their actions and no fare paying passenger wants his/ her "safety" jeopardised.

The CASA basic insurance with Lloyds has excess brought about by a succession of individual losses and makes them legally unable and unwilling by the excuse, to admit liability.

The one thing I can guarantee is the mess the industry is in will continue under the CASA stewardship and a succession of individuals such as myself and those who have already contacted you WILL simply NOT GO AWAY.

Please consider publishing a letter that can be reproduced.

Whistleblower Wanted.
 

Genuine search. Person must have legitimate compensatory claim or altruistic concerns.

Preferrably under current employment with CASA or recently departed.

Reply in strict confidence by Personal Mail to this poster who will direct the matter to the appropriate avenue. Your anonymity must be maintained until you are satisfied of the level of confidentiality and security from prosecution. Please don't identify yourself in this initial contact.

Please don't reply on this thread to this post.

Your courage could help determine future aviation direction in Australia.

Only thing is.
 

What about the old "disgruntled employee" defense. It still works you know.

Can't score runs if you are in the pavilion. Just a thought for the other fellahin.

But well done, top marks for courage, tenacity and 'crew membership'.

Tailwinds.

you cowboys and your casa pick on me bs is hilarious
aviation has rules for a reason and i have never seen casa after anyone who hasnt broken them.
try focusing your efforts on following the rules and your life may be a whole lot simpler
flogs

Simple words written by simple person with much to be simple about.

Yes there are rules. All written by the Judge Jury and Executioner.

Anybody involved in this matter please check your PM's for updated details.

the rule of law will be progressively replaced by the rule of the regulator, the anti
 

• Robin Speed
• From:The Australian
• January 15, 2010 12:00AM
• 33 comments
IN 2009, more than 50,000 pages of new laws were enacted at the federal, state and territory levels. These were in addition to the 100,000s of pages of existing laws.
The consequences are serious. The first is that Australia will cease to be a world leader in being governed in accordance with the rule of law, and instead become ruled by law (there being a fundamental difference). Secondly, the rule of law will be progressively replaced by the rule of the regulator, the antithesis of the rule of law.
As the number and complexities of laws increase, there is a corresponding decrease in knowing and voluntarily observing the laws by the community. And, as it becomes practically impossible for the community to know, let alone apply the law, ensuring compliance is passed to the persons charged with administering the laws - such as ASIC, ACCC, ATO - the regulators. However, it is not practical for the regulators to enforce the mass of laws against everyone, nor even against one person, all the time. They therefore announce how they will apply the law, impose penalties on those who act otherwise, and reward those who act in accordance with their blessings. A few are prosecuted as a warning to the rest of the community. In this way, the rule of the regulator begins.
The result is a fundamental shift in the relationship between the individual and the law. Increasingly, the relationship is not of the individual knowing and complying with what the law states, but of knowing and complying with what the regulators state the law states, and then knowing the extent to which the regulators will apply the law as stated by them.
For many, the new relationship focuses on not being seen by the regulators; keeping the lowest possible profile on those matters that the regulators prioritise for enforcement. What is of practical importance is the relationship of the individual with the regulators. For in such an environment few have the time, fortitude or money to be visible to the regulators and to apply the law in a way that differs from the one taken by the regulators. This new relationship can also be readily observed by the practical necessity of going cap in hand to the regulators for approval to carry out many transactions. For example, in the last eight years the ATO has issued more than 80,000 private rulings on what it says the law says (these rulings became law to the applicant, regardless of what the High Court might declare the law to mean for the rest of the community). No new law administers itself. More and more people are required to be employed by regulators to enforce an increasing number of laws. This becomes difficult, and the next stage in the shift to regulator rule begins.
One of the first signs of this shift is the conferral on the regulators of more and more powers of search, access to private property, detention, telephone tapping, together with the increase in penalties. This happens not because a material number of Australians have suddenly become terrorists or members of organised crime. Rather, the intimidation of existing powers is believed insufficient to obtain compliance, so greater powers and harsher penalties are deemed necessary. Yet the futility of forcing compliance in this way was seen centuries ago by the penalty of hanging for stealing a loaf of bread. Further, the regulators increasingly find it difficult before an independent court to obtain a conviction. The regulators know that a crime has been committed but are frustrated because they have not the powers to get the evidence or get the court to agree with their view of the law. For those who doubt whether Australia is at this stage, they need look no further than the recent unsuccessful prosecutions by ASIC.
One of the other signs of the rule of the regulator is the attempt to reverse the onus of proof so that the regulators can get convictions to send a clear message to the rest of the community. The Australian courts are a real impediment to regulators in this regard as they insist that no one is presumed to be guilty unless proved so. However, if an Act reverses the onus of proof a court can do nothing. The legislative attempts to reverse the onus of proof come in several forms, often behind a government announcement (regardless of political persuasion) that it is "streamlining" or "codifying" the existing laws. This is often accompanied by government publicity demonising the group to be subject to the new law. It is fundamental to the Australian way of life that everyone, whether an alleged terrorist or member of organised crime group, or an ordinary Australian, is presumed to be innocent until the prosecution proves otherwise. Any attempts to weaken that principle must be strongly and loudly resisted.
Robin Speed is president of the Rule of Law Association of Australia.
33 comments on this story
COMMENTS ON THIS STORY

• Paul Phelan of Mount Beauty Posted at 6:16 PM January 16, 2010
Congratulations! Almost every word of Mr Speed's article had relevance to the activities of the legal and compliance/enforcement offices of our aviation regulator. Their success rate in court and in the AAT is deservedly appalling, yet the organisation's track record in shutting down or damaging businesses and destroying the jobs of individuals through "administrative decisions" is awesome. With an aviation industry background and more recently as an aviation writer, I have followed and documented many dozens of such cases, and the most concerning aspect is the ability of wrong-doers at the regulatory body to evade scrutiny and retribution. One reason for this is the legal adventurism that is enabled by an apparently bottomless budget, and another is the lack of external legal oversight. I had literally no idea this malaise was so endemic across so many industries. Is there an acceptable end in sight?

Look at the positive in this. One day the Police won't be able to fine you by way of a speed camera, they will have to 'regulate' speed rules, which means you are less likely to actually receive a fine !
It's got my vote.

Think you are looking at it backwards Cactusjack - if the Police "regulate" the road rules then they would be deciding how much you were speeding based on their interpretation of the infringement and what the penalty for that is in their view at the time. Think of what the fines could be when Sgt Plod is trying to complete the extension to his house.

Australia needs a new name REGULATIA and a new anthem, We will Obey all who challenge our right to live in a free and democratic society.

Don't let it happen. The world is going to pot, we got to stand up for what is right.
This malaise is endemic these days through all aspects of society, it's a sickness. Not just in this instance, but through every level of society. The military know this all too well.
God bless and all the best.

And we continue to elect lawyers as Prime Minister etc :yuk:

The rise and rise of the regulators
 

• Robin Speed
• From:The Australian
• January 15, 2010 12:00AM
• 33 comments
IN 2009, more than 50,000 pages of new laws were enacted at the federal, state and territory levels. These were in addition to the 100,000s of pages of existing laws.
The consequences are serious. The first is that Australia will cease to be a world leader in being governed in accordance with the rule of law, and instead become ruled by law (there being a fundamental difference). Secondly, the rule of law will be progressively replaced by the rule of the regulator, the antithesis of the rule of law.
As the number and complexities of laws increase, there is a corresponding decrease in knowing and voluntarily observing the laws by the community. And, as it becomes practically impossible for the community to know, let alone apply the law, ensuring compliance is passed to the persons charged with administering the laws - such as ASIC, ACCC, ATO - the regulators. However, it is not practical for the regulators to enforce the mass of laws against everyone, nor even against one person, all the time. They therefore announce how they will apply the law, impose penalties on those who act otherwise, and reward those who act in accordance with their blessings. A few are prosecuted as a warning to the rest of the community. In this way, the rule of the regulator begins.
The result is a fundamental shift in the relationship between the individual and the law. Increasingly, the relationship is not of the individual knowing and complying with what the law states, but of knowing and complying with what the regulators state the law states, and then knowing the extent to which the regulators will apply the law as stated by them.
For many, the new relationship focuses on not being seen by the regulators; keeping the lowest possible profile on those matters that the regulators prioritise for enforcement. What is of practical importance is the relationship of the individual with the regulators. For in such an environment few have the time, fortitude or money to be visible to the regulators and to apply the law in a way that differs from the one taken by the regulators. This new relationship can also be readily observed by the practical necessity of going cap in hand to the regulators for approval to carry out many transactions. For example, in the last eight years the ATO has issued more than 80,000 private rulings on what it says the law says (these rulings became law to the applicant, regardless of what the High Court might declare the law to mean for the rest of the community). No new law administers itself. More and more people are required to be employed by regulators to enforce an increasing number of laws. This becomes difficult, and the next stage in the shift to regulator rule begins.
One of the first signs of this shift is the conferral on the regulators of more and more powers of search, access to private property, detention, telephone tapping, together with the increase in penalties. This happens not because a material number of Australians have suddenly become terrorists or members of organised crime. Rather, the intimidation of existing powers is believed insufficient to obtain compliance, so greater powers and harsher penalties are deemed necessary. Yet the futility of forcing compliance in this way was seen centuries ago by the penalty of hanging for stealing a loaf of bread. Further, the regulators increasingly find it difficult before an independent court to obtain a conviction. The regulators know that a crime has been committed but are frustrated because they have not the powers to get the evidence or get the court to agree with their view of the law. For those who doubt whether Australia is at this stage, they need look no further than the recent unsuccessful prosecutions by ASIC.
One of the other signs of the rule of the regulator is the attempt to reverse the onus of proof so that the regulators can get convictions to send a clear message to the rest of the community. The Australian courts are a real impediment to regulators in this regard as they insist that no one is presumed to be guilty unless proved so. However, if an Act reverses the onus of proof a court can do nothing. The legislative attempts to reverse the onus of proof come in several forms, often behind a government announcement (regardless of political persuasion) that it is "streamlining" or "codifying" the existing laws. This is often accompanied by government publicity demonising the group to be subject to the new law. It is fundamental to the Australian way of life that everyone, whether an alleged terrorist or member of organised crime group, or an ordinary Australian, is presumed to be innocent until the prosecution proves otherwise. Any attempts to weaken that principle must be strongly and loudly resisted.
Robin Speed is president of the Rule of Law Association of Australia.
33 comments on this story
COMMENTS ON THIS STORY

• Paul Phelan of Mount Beauty Posted at 6:16 PM January 16, 2010
Congratulations! Almost every word of Mr Speed's article had relevance to the activities of the legal and compliance/enforcement offices of our aviation regulator. Their success rate in court and in the AAT is deservedly appalling, yet the organisation's track record in shutting down or damaging businesses and destroying the jobs of individuals through "administrative decisions" is awesome. With an aviation industry background and more recently as an aviation writer, I have followed and documented many dozens of such cases, and the most concerning aspect is the ability of wrong-doers at the regulatory body to evade scrutiny and retribution. One reason for this is the legal adventurism that is enabled by an apparently bottomless budget, and another is the lack of external legal oversight. I had literally no idea this malaise was so endemic across so many industries. Is there an acceptable end in sight?

RoLIA

In case anyone was wondering.

the simple life....
 

majorrazor..has obviously led a very simple and sheltered aviation ? life.... and not had the misfortune to be on the receiving end of CASA BS bullies who wish to exercise their penile power muscle and give you a shafting.

I can supply ...if you are interested.. documentary evidence of gross misfeasance by CASA persons who should be in jail... not (non) Aviation House, for spiteful/ wrongful attacks on individuals who have NOT broken any regulation, and the CASA persons themselves were complicite in the criminality !!!

There are MANY victims out there..just because you havent heard of any, doesnt mean its not happening. Think youself bloody lucky it hasnt happened to you...yet. Like down in the woods... you'll be in for a BIG surprise.!

CASA is a dysfunctional train wreck of ratbag regulation and (some) very vindictive employees; truly, pschologically unfit for the job.

They will say and do anything to make a case: for these bastards "truth" and "honesty" aren't in their vocabulary.

They are only slow -
 

Another side to the story
 

Frank sorry to hear you have had so much trouble with CASA but I feel compelled to share one other side of the story.

By way of background I've been in the Oz GA industry as a commercial pilot since 1979, in numerous roles from instructor to chief pilot. Not as long as yourself but over 30 years none the less. I've established my own charter business operating multiple twins, written a few ops manuals for myself and others etc. I have never worked for the regulator.

CASA and its predecessors like any organisation is not without its faults but... it has been my experience that CASA performs its role reasonably well given the circumstances. I have had a number of FOI’s over the years, interactions with various others and I have at all times found the individuals I have dealt with to be dedicated professionals there to help.

In the 80's when as a young pilot I wanted to establish a charter business, quite a few at my local airport (a secondary control zone) told me I was nuts and that they were all bastards and I'd never get one. Quite disheartened and almost persuaded I was wasting my time I made an appointment and went into Lonsdale St to meet with the Dept Aviation Flying Operations Manager. I had one question... Everyone tells me you guys probably won't give me a charter license and are hard to deal with, am I wasting my time applying and what does one have to do to make do this successfully?

His reply surprised me. He told me coming to see him first was a good start, going on to explain that in his time he couldn't remember anyone doing that up front. He then spent a terrific hour with me. I talked about what I wanted to do and he explaining how to go about it properly and where applicants mostly go wrong. The essence of the conversation was that they found it challenging that so many people simply copy an existing ops manual, see applying for a charter license as a paperwork process, then get up and running and exist in an environment where cutting corners is the norm and safety often compromised. "All" they wanted... were people to be professional and take safety seriously.

With that I wrote my own ops manual tailored to "my" operation, wrote my first business plan ever, taught myself how to identify up front areas where safety could easily be compromised and wrote a handful of procedures that would prevent that up front.

The department gave me my charter license with strong support. My Chief Pilot interview was great - being young I was far from perfect but the interviewer could not have been more pleasant and helpful. Every annual inspection was a good experience. I use to look forward to meeting with my various FOI's. Like all of us I had non-conformances and things they wanted fixed but that's "not" a bag thing, it's the purpose of the inspection. I viewed NC's as a good thing and would eagerly action them as part of a continuous improvement process (not that I knew that was the name of what we were doing at the time). I use to look forward to an hour or so with my FOI after the inspection shooting the breeze and dumping a pile of questions I'd accumulate between inspections.

We operated for several years without incident and during that time I was amazed that most other operators would dread their inspections.

The point I'm trying to make is that over the years I've heard many people criticise CASA, The DOA, CAA or whoever it was at the time, complaining about this or that, bagging individuals, always up for a fight etc. At the same time I have seen many GA business operate with no business plan, their arse hanging out of their pants, operating less than adequately maintained aircraft, with little regard for the pilots they employed. I suspect that the confrontational tone some have with CASA may be part of their problem.

All I did was (inadvertently) take the approach of "What can I do to help them help me" In the end I had to do very little, but "they" did a lot. I learnt much and had some great mentors who made themselves available to me over the years.

Now as I said I'm not saying CASA or all its people are perfect. Perhaps because like us they are not perfect they sometimes respond to how they are treated and react accordingly. Your claim of large numbers of "PM's" surprises me.

Litigation is complex, expensive, and fraught with challenges and there is only ever one winner and that's the lawyers. I don’t know the facts of your case but if it were me, I'd put my guns back in there holsters, carefully think what exactly it is you want from CASA, then go and sit down with the guys and mediate. You may get a far better, less stressful and certainly less costly outcome. This industry is tough enough as it is, we need to work together.

I sincerely hope somehow you can find a path forward that leads to a satisfactory result for you.

For any young new entrants to the industry my message is there is a "whole" other side to this story.

Kowolski;

I don't have any current trouble with CASA. My matter is closed with a TKO by myself having won $30K and only lost $100K.

I have no desire to reopen any old matters and act simply out of a frustration of listening to people whinge about CASA but do noting about it. My challenge was to those, to put together their respective cases and I would see things through until something had legs of it's own. There is now a groundswell of support that I may soon stand down. You certainly have been living a sheltered life if you find it hard to believe the amount of response to this thread.

I personally know many dedicated people, some very high within CASA, and I have seen some very good people go by the wayside. (Some I may add that were involved in my particular matter). These blokes were "sacrificed" for the common "good".

Be this as it may, there is a plethora of remnant vegetation that obey no known rules of law or common decency. They are thugs, stand-over men and gangsters. One very senior was recently and accurately called a "corporate psychopath"

The word "cronyism" comes to mind so often that it appears endemic to that particular organization. I hope you have prospered out of your own abilities and not done so as a result of being what's called "compliant" or having known someone.

CASA have a system of "mentor-ism" which guarantees all the bad influences are handed down from generation to generation and the incumbents appear unaware of the fact that some problem must exist if so many people hate them.

As for sitting down and "mediating" with CASA, I would strongly advise anyone "NOT" to take this course of action. Do so at your peril.

I must say I am struggling with your bona fides and suspect the worst. But you have the benefit of the doubt for the time being.

Appreciate your point of view Frank. Your experience is unfortunate.

After 30 plus years in the GA industry at the driving end I smile at someone uncertain as to my bona fides.

I'm into my 46th year and I see nothing to smile about. Sorry mate, just call me cynical.

Its interesting Frank, that regardless, when a complaint is made, these people suddenly appear out of the wood work, almost on Cue, telling us what a "wonderful" organisation and job CASA is doing.
Yet a troll around various websites turns up continuous criticism and angst from within the Industry. These people label us all as "Cowboys", and with the added input of CASA's spin doctors the general perception
is thats exactly what we are in the public's mind.
Can anyone ever remember when CASA had "ANYTHING" positive to say about GA. We are a bunch of homicidal maniacs hell bent on wiping out the entire population of Australia, and the only thing standing between them and "US" is Ta Da...CASA..I'm surprised the spin doctors dont have the "SKULL" mounted on a white charger dressed in armour holding aloft escalibur!! Look great in their self promotional press releases!!
To those CASA apologists who say abide by the rules and you are safe, I say, get off your collective asses and give us a set of rules thet we can understand,are not open to a wide variety of interpretation,dependant on the FOI of the day, that meet world best practice, are ICAO compliant and conform to the directions YOU were given by the government of the day. You've blown 300 million of the taxpayers money pissing about with no result, that in itself is IMHO corruption on a grand scale.
Meanwhile across the Tasman the GA industry continues to grow and prosper, with a safety record which makes ours look like a joke, much the same as the USA's does, something you will never admit to a gullible public.
Frank, its easy to critisize, but its meaninless unless an alternative is offered, thats why I am impressed by the AMROBA website, they dont just critisize they offer alternatives, and a call to everyone in this industry we have spent our lives in, and love, to unite and face down these incompetents destroying our industry.
There has just been a judgement handed down from the AAT which many have commented on, a business shutdown and many thrown out of work.
Given the "horrendous" crimes allegely committed, when will the perpetrators be bought to "Justice"???.....Bit of a problem though, they would have to be bought before a "Proper" court, in front of a "Proper unbiased Judge" who perhaps would take a dim view of manufactured "evidence" and perjury. If these people are not charged then its a fair indication of the "Crock of S...t" the AAT is, and how it is used and manipulated by the regulators to avoid the rule of law.

Thornbird - a thorough reading of the AAT decision shows a number of things. In the first instance, I saw a number of points where the decision was against CASA, either because their evidence could not be corroborated or the line of attack they took was not able to be backed up. To my reading it was a considered and balanced decision reached.

I would think if CASA could find criminal charges, I am sure they would persue them, if nothing else to wave around headlines. Standard practice for a government regulator. But the AOC suspension is not about a raft of convictions - its about the confidence CASA has that the operator was safe.

There is plenty in the AAT decision that shows this operator was an accident waiting to happen. The pressures to do jobs fatigued, the "go up and see what its like" attitude to icing and poor weather, the implied resistance to adding MR entries. You might argue these are subjective, but there were enough pilots and witnesses for the AAT to find these conditions existed. But then on top of this the history of the operator shows even when given time and opportunity to fix issues raised in audits they did not. The way they dodged and tried to shift issues between their two AOCs shows they were not interested in fixing them, they were more interested in dodging blame. To my mind, CASA actually took too long to bring this to a conclusion and it cost three people their lives.

I am not saying there is not a case for review of the way CASA operates. There seems to be plenty of examples raised on this forum alone where power is unchecked and the right of reply is limited, as well as examples of vendettas and personal issues escalating to administrative action. But if you are going to argue that, don't use the recent AAT decision - there was more than enough in that to show CASA took the correct action.

CASA problems
 

CASA problems

The need for a regulator to regulate is important in this argument. However, every time there is a rule, there are potentially more errors introduced into the argument.

We need to look at the regulator carefully and see if the regulator is regulating to improve or just paper up the lower part of their body.

There are many cases where "the rules" just make the decision making of the pilot more difficult. The Whyalla incident, where CASA acted quickly is one - acted against the operator, but the problem eventually was an endemic issue with the TIO-540 crankshafts.

Where is the operator now??

Where are the jobs??

Did the operator get an apology???

I attach the ATSB report to refresh our memories:


Release of the Whyalla Airlines Piper Chieftain, VH-MZK report



Date: 19 December 2001
The final report on the Whyalla Airlines Piper Chieftain VH-MZK accident on 31 May 2000, in which all eight occupants died, was released today by the Australian Transport Safety Bureau.
ATSB Executive Director, Kym Bills, made the following statement: "The VH-MZK accident occurred after mechanical failures involving both engines forced the pilot to ditch the aircraft in Spencer Gulf, about 26km from Whyalla, on a dark, cloudy and moonless night.
Based on careful analysis of the engine failures and recorded radar and audio data, it is likely that the left engine failed first as a result of a fatigue crack in the crankshaft. This was initiated about 50 flights before the accident flight due to the breakdown of a connecting rod bearing insert. The combined effects of high combustion gas pressures developed as a result of deposit-induced pre-ignition, and lowered bearing insert retention forces due to an 'anti-galling' lubricating compound used during engine assembly by the manufacturer, led to this breakdown.
Lean fuel practices used by the operator increased the likelihood of lead oxybromide deposit-induced pre-ignition but were within the engine operating limits set by the aircraft manufacturer.
It is likely that because of the increased power demanded of the right engine after the left engine failed, abnormal combustion (detonation) occurred and rapidly raised the temperature of the pistons and cylinder heads. As a result, a hole melted in the number 6 piston causing loss of engine power and erratic engine operation. The subsequent ditching involved great pilot skill.
The ATSB examined components from a further ten similar engines that have failed since January 2000 (including two engines from another manufacturer) in order to better understand the failure mechanisms. Combustion chamber deposits that may create lead oxybromide deposit-induced pre-ignition were found in these engines. The Bureau concluded that engines that were operated at lean fuel-air mixtures during climb, and towards best economy mixtures during cruise flight, were more likely to show signs of such deposit-induced pre-ignition than those engines operated at full rich mixture during climb and at best power mixture during cruise.
On 30 October 2000 ATSB released recommendations about the risks of detonation and lean running and in relation to the desirability of life jackets and other life-saving equipment on smaller passenger aircraft flying over water. Today, we release further recommendations to:

• the US FAA in relation to engine deposits that may cause pre-ignition;
• the US FAA and the engine manufacturer on the use of anti-galling compounds between connecting rod bearing inserts and housings during engine assembly;
• CASA in relation to high power piston engine reliability more generally; and
• CASA in relation to providing guidance to pilots on ditching.

While there were deficiencies with the Whyalla Airlines safety culture and gaps with the extent of the regulator's surveillance of the operator, neither were significant accident factors.
No-one should be blamed for this accident, but if the lessons from it are learned, both in Australia and internationally, some good will have come from the tragic deaths of eight people."
Media Contact: 1800 020 616 Last update 04 February 2011

CASA Motto
 

Remmember the CASA moto.

Here At CASA We are Not Happy Till Your Not Happy..:D

From "Business & Commercial Aviation" February, 2011

Curbing the FAA’s Enforcement Overreach

A proposal by the NTSB could help level the field for FAA certificate holders accused of violating the FARs.

The NTSB recently took a first STEP that could provide FAA certificate holders a better chance of receiving a fair shake if they run afoul of FAA safety inspectors.

In an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) published just before Christmas, the NTSB said it is considering a change in the rules under which the agency's administrative law judges adjudicate appeals of "emergency" certificate suspensions or revocations by the FAA.

Nearly eight years ago, the NTSB adopted a final rule that provides: "Within five days after the Board's receipt of [a petition for review of the FAA’s emergency determination], the ... law judge ... shall dispose of the petition by written order, and, in so doing, shall consider whether, based on the acts and omissions alleged in the administrator's order, and assuming the truth of such factual allegations, the administrator's emergency determination was appropriate under the circumstances, given the potential threat to aviation safety. . ."

In the new ANPRM, the NTSB said it recently received requests from outside organizations to further alter the standard of review for emergency determinations. "In particular, parties have asked the NTSB to consider removing the language of Section 821.54(e) that provides the law judge should assume that the acts and omissions alleged in the FAA’s emergency order are true."

In non-emergency cases, FAA certificate holders can continue to exercise the privileges of the affected certificate while appealing the proposed suspension or revocation to an NTSB administrative law judge (ALJ). That means they can continue to fly or operate their business while hiring legal counsel and attempting to get violation notices reversed and proposed penalties overturned, or modified. If confronted with an unfavorable ruling by the ALJ, the certificate holder can appeal that decision to the full NTSB. The entire process, which can stretch out for months, provides an opportunity for certificate holders to make their case while retaining their certificates until the matter has been fully adjudicated.

But, if the FAA inspector decides the violation constitutes an "emergency," the certificate holder faces an almost impossible task to retain his certificate. First, since the FAA is presumed to be acting to protect air safety, its suspension or revocation order is effective immediately. That means the certificate holder is out of business during the appeals process. Five days whiz past like 5 min. when the feds are on your case and you're trying to produce documents and hire an attorney. And since NTSB law judges currently are required to assume the acts and omissions alleged by the FAA are true, the deck is stacked against the certificate holder from the get-go.

NATA President Jim Coyne feels the changes proposed in the ANPRM are long overdue because of due process concerns that the current standard raises. "It's just a fundamental fairness issue for us when anyone in government comes down on [a certificate holder] and has this overwhelming power to put you out of business in a heartbeat," Coyne said.

Aviation practitioners have complained for years that FAA inspectors and attorneys were running roughshod over certificate holders, imposing penalties that were disproportionate to the types of violations found. An egregious example of this tendency was the FAA’s prosecution of air ambulance operator Air Trek Inc. of Punta Gorda, Fla. After a four-day inspection of the company's facilities and records in May 2008, FAA officials filed a lengthy list of allegations and issued an emergency revocation of its FAR Part 135 operating certificate on June 10, 2008.

Instead of rolling over and abandoning the family-owned business, Air Trek officials hired legal counsel and fought back. The original FAA complaint listed "allegations of 14 regulatory provisions and 38 factual allegation paragraphs within 10 counts," according to the NTSB.

But "Counsel for the [FAA] administrator almost immediately began having difficulties in presenting his case," the NTSB said. "At the outset of the nine-day hearing ... the administrator withdrew seven paragraphs in three counts and two regulatory violations. By the fourth day of the proceedings, the administrator had withdrawn half of the factual allegations, six counts and eight FAR violations." In the end, the ALJ upheld only three FAR violations against the company, a ruling upheld by the full NTSB when the FAA appealed the ALJ's ruling.

The determination shown by Air Trek officials in spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to fight the FAA allegations and get their operating certificate reinstated is the exception, Coyne said, observing that most such cases involve "citizens and small businesses who are hopelessly outgunned [by the government] most of the time." The current system "is an abuse of power if there are no checks and balances," Coyne said, because it denies certificate holders "the fundamental right we give all defendants in our legal system - the assumption that they're innocent until proven guilty."

Comments on the ANPRM, which also solicits suggestions for changes to the NTSB's rules governing the discovery process and exchanges of information in air safety enforcement proceedings, are due Feb. 22. Procedures for filing comments can be found on the NTSB website under 'Press Releases and Advisories," by accessing a Dec. 22 press release with a link to the rulemaking notice. If you think that the current appeals process for certificate actions is flawed, this is your chance to weigh in and suggest ways to make it better ... because you never know when FAA inspectors might come knocking on your door asking for five years of paperwork.

As opposed to our system of The Administrative Appeals tribunal being in place of a "REAL LAW JUDGE" where there is no taxing of costs and CASA can and do send the applicant broke with interruptions, adjournments, appeals and "safety" argument of dubious merit.

Model litigants.

My ar:mad:e!

Frank, the thing that’s so right about your posts is that they’re usually so wrong.

Read this phrase, twice:Whose ‘judges’ were those?

I’m guessing you might already have guessed the answer, because you omitted some pretty important words from your quote.

If only the noisy Australian advocates of the US system knew how it really works.

By the way, how’s the large scale multi-party action against CASA going? When can we expect a representative claim to be filed in the Federal Court? When can we expect the rivers of compensation gold to start flowing?

Creampuff, my post, to clarify, was not as an advocate of the US system, but merely to show what was happening elsewhere, and perhaps add information to the general debate.

Cream puff;

Are you asking for information on matters pertaining to current actions against CASA?

Why don't you ask The Director if he is aware of any actions. Alternatively give OLC a call. You have their numbers I assume?

You are right. The post obviously has no bearing on matters in Australia, even as a discussion piece where CASA are so benevolent and understanding in all matters they prosecute.