Hmmmm...

It seems to me that in pursuing the "unedited" tapes before being able to lay charges, or to confirm that an offence has been committed, CASA are accepting that that information would be required for a successful prosecution in a Court of Law.

However, it seems when it's CASA deciding JQ's fate in the court of CASA, dodgy footage downloaded from youtube is all that is necessary to permanently expunge his CASA granted work permit (his licence), and destroy his livelihood.

Are CASA afraid that if they were to apply the same "rules" to someone with the pocket depth that perhaps Milton Jones might have, it could end up before a Court of Law, where they might actaully have to prove something?

DBC mate you have hit the nail on the head!:D Not that it does JQ any good though!:ugh:

High Court
 

If you check the on-line court records, you will find that the court below permitted the warrant to be executed and the original tapes have already been seized.

This was despite Mr Jones's attempt to have the warrant set aside.

Mr Jones sought leave to appeal the release of the tapes to CASA. The tapes are in the possession of the court.

Leave was granted and the tapes are held by the court pending the outcome of Mr Jones's High Court appeal which, not surprisingly, is an action seeking to prevent the release of the original footage.

The action on foot is neither the High Court considering the merit of the case, nor is it a consideration of the characterisation of the purported deeds performed by Mr Jones.

T28D, Gobbledock; the law and how it 'works', to put it in layman's language is obviously not your strength.

To be fair, neither of you purport to be 'learned in the law' so may I suggest you stick to 'google' and the various court websites and then you may just have a better than even money chance of making sense when you talk about legal matters.

Thanks FF, http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/sr...ies/thumbs.gif found that nugget this afternoon. So to be clear, CASA applied for and were granted the pertinent warrant and the tapes where seized. Now the courts are holding the 'evidence' until the injunction (my word apologies to the purists) is resolved.

Is the question being tested related to the warrant being issued and executed, the 'law' on which it relies;or, other. Serious question. http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/sr...s/confused.gif

Information a bit scarce on this or would do my own research, any insight into how the process works would be welcome. Not of'en the chance comes along where the industry can have a clue about the aviation rules being tested and see the 'big guns' doing their thing.

You'll admit it's deep stuff.

Heigh Ho.

High Court
 

Kharon,

I will start by saying that the following in no way should be interpreted as other than the jottings of an observer who has no interest in the matter other than a professional one in the outcome.

I wish all parties well; this information is in the public domain and will shortly be before the courts when comment again would be inappropriate.

So,

This is Jones requesting leave to appeal to the High Court for 'special leave' to appeal to the High Court.

This may sound a bit convoluted but Jones requires the High Court's permission to actually bring his appeal before that court.

It appears that Jones has a date for the High Court to consider whether it will hear his appeal of 08 Feb 12.

If the High Court agrees to hear his appeal, then there will be a hearing of the substantive appeal (more than likely) at a later date.

Here is the last 'action', so to speak:
Jones v Civil Aviation Safety Authority [2011] FCA 1416 (9 December 2011)

In particular, DODDS-STREETON J, said, inter alia, on allowing Jones to go forward to apply for 'special leave to appeal':

'The appellant’s principal argument, however, may fall into the category of special leave application referred to in Westpac, concerning an alleged significant irregularity in the way the court below dealt with the case, said to involve a potentially unlawful invasion of the rights and liberties of a citizen.
In the light of the above, while the appellant has not at this stage precisely articulated the proposed grounds, I proceed on the basis that the appellant has some, but not substantial, prospects for success in an application for special leave, which may be perceived to relate to an issue involving the interests of justice in a particular case.'

So, the judge thinks he may succeed with his application for special leave to appeal. i.e. the pleading will not be 'hopeless'. This is not a comment on the substance of the appeal.

Here is the original action:

Jones v Civil Aviation Safety Authority [2011] FCA 632 (6 June 2011)

I will not rewrite it all here due to time and space issues but I think you will find paragraphs 14 to 25 informative as to the contentious issue, namely the correct interpretation of the word 'suspicion'.

So, the first hurdle is for Jones to convince the HC that it should hear his appeal.

Then, if there is an appeal, the HC will consider the substantial issues in point.

Now, I will caveat what I have said with the health warning that my summation has been a 'quick and dirty' one and that this is not a case that I have followed with other than a passing interest.

However, the substance of the appeal is LIKELY to be that the magistrate erred when he issued the warrant, and that he has misinterpreted the meaning of the word 'suspicion' as it relates to the legislative provisions.

Others who are either closer to the case than I, or who prefer to differ from my 'read' are more than welcome to comment; I certainly will not take offence.

You are right on the money when you said that this is the big time.

I also note that all costs, including the upcoming action on the 08 Feb are billed to Jones.

CASA has spent very little money, if any at all so the public purse is protected so far.


Others may disagree with me but one thing I do know; it is far preferable to never be in a position to have to have a thread like this one written about you than to be the one to fly the escutcheon of righteousness.

Hope this helps.

FF

High Court
 

I should add, EVERY lawyer is interested in the decisions of the High Court.

This is the highest court in the land and as such, its decisions invoke 'binding precedent'.

In law, this is the 'superbowl'.

:ok:

FF

The winters Tale.
 

FF. Thank you for the links, very much appreciated. This is what I was hunting for. :D http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/sr...ies/thumbs.gif

It's amazing 'how' cold blooded facts and the (for want of a better expression) the law works in real life. The 'links' are a pretty tough study, but recommended reading for all who are interested in how the system works and more instructively, what makes it tick.

Super Bowl indeed; this is not a simple, clear cut and dried issue, not at all. However, unaccustomed as I am to defending the 'Authority'; the first thing that struck me was none of the allegations mention acting contrary to the approval (s) granted. It is an important point. Even on it's worst day the Authority has always been approachable about 'special' events, awkward airwork exercises and 'stuff' a bit out of the square. For instance.

'Dear Plod. The producers of documentary we are making have asked if we could do a scene showing us towing a water skier behind a Robbie'. 'The guy is an insured stunt skier, the pilot has done 5 zillion towing exercises (flags, banners etc) and we will have safety boats out along a 1 mile stretch of very isolated dam on a private property'. 'What do you think?. Huh ?. 'Best regards Dodgy Ops'.

This achieves two very desirable outcomes. 1 CASA can answer any questions that may be asked of it when, very publicly, a 'perceived' breach of CAR 149 is viewed in a million homes; 2, it provides them an opportunity to have a say in the overall safety of the operation and provides 'cover' to ensure that if it all goes pear shaped, they don't have to mess about prosecuting someone. (Ma'am, I can assure that absolutely no rabbits were harmed in the making of this commercial).

Instead of;

Which has now become a 'Reckless and negligent' allegation with 2 years pokey.

The links provided by FF are worth the trouble to read.

To borrow 'the Kelpies' tag. More to follow.

As you say K definitely worth the read!:ok:

All that legal 'toing and froing' just so the CASA investigator can view the uncut footage, says a lot about the legal system!:ugh::ugh:

Now because of all the stalling the investigator (MH) is concerned that the proposed evidence that the uncut footage may/may not show could become null and void as it approaches a statutory time limit (3 years). No wonder the appellant's lawyers are stalling!

This explains a lot in another CASA investigation that I am aware of.

Kharon said:It is a blight on the regulator that we have come to this impasse. No longer do operators feel free and unencumbered to consult with the regulator on operational matters. Dodgy operators now seem to take great delight in thumbing their nose at the regulator, as a consequence there is less incentive for an operator to be compliant and ultimately safer!

The regulator has become more and more disassociated from the industry, they have lost their mandate to regulate and consult. Sadly this will probably mean we will see more of these types of cases (for those that can afford it) tying up the courts!

Can this be challenged? Sure I do not think skiing behind a Robbie is a smart thing to do, and for 360 days a year doing 300km/h down conrod straight in a road car is not a smart thing to do, but the other 5 it makes perfect sense.

I would think it is no more dangerous than the Bridge to Bridge ski race on the Hawksbury River.

Issue would be finding a credible expert witness that can testify strongly enough to counter the CASA "we will all be killed" argument.

Brings a new meaning to slung load though.

Folks,
A point that will have most definitely occurred to the defense counsel is a matter of the fundamental meaning of "reckless" behavior.

I quote from the Act:
Firstly, it is fundamental that you can't be reckless and negligent to yourself (although and older version of S20A(2) purported to advance that curious legal concept), so it remains for CASA to prove that towing a water skier is being "reckless" to the person being towed.

This is a completely different issue to the matter of whether regulations have a provision for towing anything, water skier or whatever, from a chopper.

The legal test for "reckless" (and negligent) is a high test. Even if CASA get their hands on all the footage, to prove the event, they will still have a long way to go to prove recklessness and/or negligence ---- particularly as the water skier was obviously a willing participant.

Voluntary assumption of risk by the person towed will be significant.

flyingfiend,

I can assure you that T28D (being a lawyer) has a very good grasp of the law!!

Tootle pip!!

Well unless the rope was tied around the skiers neck I guess that's the end of that charge then.

Except that if the individual being towed was under the age of 18 and possibly not mature enough to assess the risks for themselves. It's been a while since I saw the episode so I can't confirm his age.

If he's old enough to water ski he might just know how to let go of a ski rope.

If I may put in a couple of points, assuming that most of you here are stiff wing drivers and maybe not overly familiar with rotary ops and the background of towing from a hook?

When towing from a hook there are stresses imposed that the hook and/or frame are not always designed to take: within reasonable limits the hook load is expected to be perpendicular to the airframe. When towing, that stress becomes an aft pull at a point below and around the CG thus pulling the nose down: some airframes can cope, some cannot. With its tall mast and teetering head the R22 falls more into the latter category; towing a water skier from the hook on a 'loose' line would meet many definitions of high risk.

I know that CASA have approved towing of this nature under a permission, but one requirement was to have a heavy deadweight on a long line off the hook and attach the tow line to that weight. The pull is then on the bottom of the long line, keeping the line more perpendicular to the hook.

The other safety feature of pulling from the bottom of a long line (50 - 100ft) is to safeguard the tail rotor should the skier let go of the tow rope. Straight off the hook the tow rope could well fly up into the TR, especially given the sudden release of a force giving a nose down moment at the same time.

None of this is rocket science: it's just not particularly bright to let oneself be filmed for national TV doing it in such a cavalier manner, and then try to dismiss it as perfectly OK and safe.

It isn't, and it wasn't.

...not always, though in this case do we know the particulars of the hook STC.. ?


Personly ah thinks the R22 is a danger just sitting on the ground, let alone actualy flying one - though each to his own..:) (note - I fly other brands of heli)



Use a shorter rope and fly faster....;)

Slung Jury.
 

A stand alone alleged breach of 149 if proven carries a 50 point penalty, so to get a Judge sufficiently interested in issuing a search and seizure warrant you'd have to 'spice it up a bit' otherwise no warrant. I think it would be hard to get a 'conviction' on this item. It's not illegal under the FAR, happens all over the world regularly, willing participant and it is an event for which CASA may issue an approval. So scratch bait towing from the list of heinous crimes and assign it to the naughty boy pile, (a fine perhaps). Whether it was foolhardy or not don't signify much; Mum went ballistic but his mates thought it well cool. The CASA hysterical screams of reckless and negligent seem to fade away a little about now.

Now this one is sinister:-
I expect the crocodile community and the local green welly mob are grateful for CASA safety concerns in the airspace surrounding their habitat. That said we are back to the PP regulations defining what is or is not a 'commercial' operation. Now the FAR are tough on people conducting a pre determined 'commercial' operation with a PPL. The great egg hunt may or may not 'technically' be illegal under Gods Own Rules, but again stand alone what is it. I doubt it is sufficient grounds for 'his honour' to issue serious paper work, more like he'd sling 'em out of his court.

Depends on how the information was provided to the layman I should imagine. But when the Daemon of myth and legend "The Safety Monster" raises it's head seems all bets are off.

CASA and the psychic DAMP test.
 

I guess it just shows nobody here knows anything about trolling for croc's.

Spoon Bending Indeed!!
 

The best spoon bender is the whitch doctor of casa, has a Doctorate of Philosophy in law from the Research School of Social Sciences at the Australian National University

[Title Law and sorcery in Papua New Guinea : a reconsideration of the relationship between law and custom - Published 1996]