Hands up everyone who's suggesting that drink flying is a good idea for pilots.

I think you may be missing the point, actus.

Leadie,
That is my point.
We have all sorts of comments here that reflect the views of many about CASA but the point is that that this bozo was drinking while flying.
Idiot; fullstop; forget CASA!
But some people cannot accept that sometimes it is not "the government's fault", it is not "CASA's fault", it is not the "Full moon's fault", it might actually be the individual's "fault".
"Personal responsibility" is what it is all about but it is easier to blame "rogue" CASA employees (I am not saying that there are none) then to accept that one is responsible for what one does.
Oh, I forgot: CASA's fault; CASA's fault; CASA's fault; ad infinitum.

In the beginning..
 

there were 10 commandments down from the mountain to define social order.

2016 years later we have 2 squillion regulations down from Non Aviation house to attempt to define aviation's well being by its participants. And it aint working.!!

No one believes there should be NO rules.

But the world is full of individuals like JP, hard working, hard drinking in the wilds of Oz...who may or may not do silly. "unsafe" things.
Havent we all ...at some time or other..committed an aviation "indescretion"

Not difficult to do,considering all those convoluted regs...!
Right,, we cant blame CAsA at all times but in their aggressive methodology
there are those in the CAsA system that just shouldnt be there.

They may have had a 'win' with Pantovic,,, but the crediblity of CAsA ,,,due to the behaviour of certain staff.. as a model litigant has taken yet again a colossal hit.
Hardly likely to endear them to the industry they want be friends with, is it.?

Change of culture required. Tony said a reformation. And it better be soon.

All things considered, that is one of the best reads I've had in years :ok: I do question Pantovic's judgement though. Why would you let Gibb in your helicopter after snagging his missus? Must have felt awful sorry for him but that's no excuse :ugh:

….and everybody knows that no woman can resist a pilot, especially a helicopter pilot.

I think you're still missing the point, actus.

Nobody is blaming CASA for a pilot's decision to drink and fly.

The point is about the proportionality of the response to the risk, and the consistency of that response compared with the response in circumstances of greater risk.

If he'd been in the habit of getting half cut and jumping into a car instead of an aircraft, no equivalent rigmarole would have happened. The nearest police sergeant and magistrate would have sorted him out. But because of the mystique of aviation and the extraordinary complexity and really scary risks - doesn't bear thinking about the carnage that could have ensued - the regulatory response turns into the investigation and prosecution of the crime of the century.

Look at what happened to Polar Aviation, simply because one big ego with a folklore-based strong opinion disagreed with another big ego with a different folklore-based strong opinion. (A very common occurrence in the aviation third world that is Australia.)

But, strangely, the same doesn't appear to happen when some other operators pose greater objective risks to more people.

The phrases "easy targets" and "friends in high places" come to mind.

Yes, either within or without the "Firm" you can check out any time you like, but you can never leave. (Glen Frey).

Guys,
I am not trying to say anything other than the fact that this person who flew and drank alcohol at the same time is a fool and it is all his own doing.

As for CASA, I support no position when it comes to arbitrary interpretations or applications of the 'rules'. But, it happens all around the world; not just in OZ.

For my sins, I have obtained AOCs for various entities from Malta, the Bahamas, the USA, the UK, HKG, China, NZ and Oz; that is what I do.

I can tell you one thing, Oz may have convoluted regulations but they are not unique amongst regulators in that respect.

For a Chinese company I looked at an Oz AOC as they were that way 'inclined'. So, I checked the newly released (at the time) Part 61.

If you compare the Oz reg 61, single paragraph per page as opposed to, say, the FAA where they use smaller font than Oz and use two columns per page, a word count will show you (different numbers for PDF versus WORD), that the Oz Part 61 compared to the CFAR Part 61 and the 'Special' CFAR Part 61 are within plus or minus 5%.
NZ has more words than both.

So, CASA needs to get itself righted but they are light years ahead of many other nations and ICAO recognises that.

I also noted at the time that the Australian National Audit Office 'Best Practice Regulation Guide' that was published for all Oz government agencies in June/July 2014, had as its example of 'how to do it', CASA's procedures for issuing an AOC!!

Still went with the Bahamas though.

No. The ANAO Guide does not say anything about how good, bad or indifferent CASA's "Air Operator’s Certificate Process Manual and Handbook" is, or examine whether it's administered in its terms, consistently, by CASA. The ANAO Guide in effect simply says: "Here's one Agency's shelfware for dealing with these issues."

Nonetheless, you could be correct. It may be a very good Manual and Handbook, and it may be administered in its terms, consistently, by CASA. In that case, credit to CASA. :D

Agreed. I am making no comment on how CASA applies their manual. That is a topic all on its own as we know.

Wuuuullllll, the yawning gap between the words and the actions is kinda the fundamental point.

"But the world is full of individuals like JP, hard working, hard drinking in the wilds of Oz...who may or may not do silly. "unsafe" things.
Havent we all ...at some time or other..committed an aviation "indescretion"

Not difficult to do,considering all those convoluted regs...!
Right,, we cant blame CAsA at all times but in their aggressive methodology
there are those in the CAsA system that just shouldnt be there."

Get a grip, mate - 'hard drinking, wilds of Oz' .... absolute rubbish.

If you want a world where it's fine to get on the swill and then fly, keep going with your wonderfully balanced campaign. They should have just laughed it off as boys being boys, is that your position? What would you have done, in their shoes?
If it's drink driving, there's a well worn route the cops go down. For something like this, clearly it's a far more difficult process to prove anything - but hey, aroa, let's laugh it off as bush highjinks, eh?

AOTW, I think the point is that perhaps CASA, after failing in its "beer run" allegation, went looking for something else…and found it.

This begs the question if the low flying beer drinking allegation would ever have surfaced absent the original allegation.

That, to me, is what appears to be disturbing about CASA investigations; the original allegation triggers a wide ranging unfettered investigation of any and all alleged infractions, no matter how large or small without regard to context.


So the main CASA allegation fails, but there is still a raft of minor stuff with witch to besmirch the pilot - log book errors, missing tire caps, MR entries incorrect and life jackets time expired to build a case that is unrelated to the main allegation.

To put that another way, it is as if the police prosecutor says to the judge; "well, your honour, we agree we can't prove Bloggs murdered Snowy,,, but Bloggs does have Five outstanding parking fines and an unpaid speeding ticket, so you should find him guilty" - and the AAT, true to form, does just that.

This offends my sense of fairness. A single allegation triggers a witch hunt and then CASA rolls it all together into one prosecution. This is not allowed in common law.

Surely CASA would be more effective as a regulator if it didn't do this?

I think that's exactly how they work - get some intel about someone doing dodgy things, and then gather all the info they can to charge them with in the hope that something sticks. Right or wrong, it's a fact of life unless we want to fund a highly skilled team of air police or some such, and it sends a message; keep your nose clean or we'll come gunning for you. If they had the resources and expertise to properly oversee everyone's operations, things might be different. It comes across as a bit Keystone Cops, but I don't know what else they could do that anyone would take notice of.