CASA Prosecution (pending)
 

This is not the first time either: Sadri and Civil Aviation Safety Authority [2012] AATA 656 (28 September 2012) I can only agree with CASA, having read the transcript. Of particular interest is the assessments by 2 well known instructors at Parafield.

I understand there is a precedent set already in the matter of an unauthorized flight in a Caravan up North by a Director of Aviation Safety some years back. If the punishment should fit the crime, this should be held up as the standard.

Frank,
Mick is/was an avid pprune reader, perhaps he could post his view on the matter.
I wonder who dobbed the poor sod in??
Tootle pip!!

Based on the incidents formally reported and referred to in the AAT matter, I'd guess that he dobbed himself in by flying in a way that suggested he was either unaware of or not competent to comply with some fairly important rules.

No comparison to the MT zephyr in a thimble, IMO.

That is absolute rubbish, muck raking by one or two dead beats in CASA. It was a private flight and the pilot in command in the left seat was a Grade 1 Instructor, very experienced on type. The Director briefly flew the aircraft under supervision as part of a discussion on the suitability of C208 aircraft for inter island and short strip air services in the Torres Strait.

A female reporter from the Torres News.

How do I know? I was sitting right behind the Director.

Awww Torres. There you go again, pouring the cold water of fact on a good forum frenzy.

From a brief perusal of the AAT matter it would appear to be a classic case of a high achiever with a fascination for aviation. Not always a good mix.

The facts are different for the rank and file to the "enlightened ones" who can appear downwind at a left hand circuit and nothing is said. However if a 'pleb" does the same he/she it/LGBTI will be persecuted to the last cent in the taxpayers purse. A CP follows standard procedure in an single engine out exercise and ditches to avoid people on a beach gets persecuted when he should have been given a medal because it follows a pre "ordained" agenda. Some election preferences, no worry, we'll just persecute some poor bugga so you can get the job and when you f*%k up, well, we'll persecute you because you're now an embarrassment.


Torres old mate, we've seen a lot here and the "facts" don't always tally when it comes to the AAT and other ar$e covering entities. I remember the story as told by you, but put yourself in the other poor sod's place who have been persecuted for less. I say again, a precedent has been set and the punishment should follow the same example.

Is that the same chief pilot who had a flameout in a C208 after use of the fuel condition lever while doing training. Green Island always has tourists on the beach at that time of day, so water landing was always the most likely outcome.
Is it also the same chief pilot who on a visit to ATC tried to tell the controllers that a Restricted area was marked incorrectly on their radar screen - this after he had been pinged for entering the R Area whereas all the other scenic flights manage to fly around it.

No, I don't believe so. From what I know he was nowhere near Canberra beach when he joined a right hand circuit from the left. Nor was he the bloke with anything to do with aerobatics or Hemple. And I don't believe he was anywhere near the Port Moresby Gliding club. Or for that matter anywhere near the Federal seat of Leichardt.

So i had to rattle off to an ATO once that flight training can't be conducted under pvt ops, only aerial work under a flight training AoC. And if you were a pax, (i.e. not cabin crew/crew under training), then dual training also couldn't be undertaken. So basically, he, and the PIC, broke the rules... as is my limited understanding of course...

topdrop,
Re. the C208 ditching, the "use" of the emergency fuel control was AS DEMANDED BY CASA in endorsement training, despite the warnings in the AFM.

Re. the Green Island area, it was determine that there was a problem with radar in airways surveying, the aircraft was finally proved to not have entered the area.
This particular radar problem was not unique, there were once position shifts around NW Sydney of sufficient magnitude to show an aircraft legally in the light aircraft lane committing an airspace violation.
These radar position problems were only first "discovered" with the first use of accurate GPS.
I think, but I am not certain, that the first aircraft to demonstrate the anomalies, on contract to CAA, had differential GPS.
The C208 engine (CASA didn't wait for any investigations, guilty until proven innocent, CASA SOP) was found to have an internal problem that caused the flameout, see the ATSB report.
After years of persecuting the poor sod who was the PIC of the C208, CASA had to make considerable reparations, including funding all the time he had to do to get himself back up to speed again, and get his life back, and for good measure, they made him an ATO at the same time.

Could I suggest you stick to the facts (or the "true facts" as some like to call them), and not defame a very capable pilot.

Tootle pip!!

Folks,
As to the original subject of the thread, you have to feel sorry for the poor chap, desperate to fly, financially able to afford it, but some people just should not fly, just like some people should not drive.
It is a pity that the law had to be used, and that he could not accept, and nobody could convince him, that he should give it away.
Tootle pip!!

But lucky he didn't kill himself or others first....

Very, very lucky!!

Tootle pip!!

PS:
By any measure, an example of the blind stupidity of much of Australian aviation regulation, and the "compliance with the L-A-W" mindset, that it was possible to make it an issue to embarrass Mick.

You have to admire the Australian rules for the absurdity that they create.

CAR REG228.

You cant even have a passenger tune the radio to the next frequency while you look at the map/watch traffic.

Leadie,
My statement re the C208 engine operation is from the ATSB report - I am no expert and accept that there was probably something outside his control.
My statement re his comment to ATC about incorrect map marking is accurate- I was there when it was made. I wasn't aware he was prosecuted for the R area penetration and so obviously not aware that it was not proven - was this in court or AAT and what expert evidence was provided about anomalies in that area?
I am interested in the radar anomalies you quote NW of Sydney. Was a determination made about the cause of the anomalies? Did the anomaly affect all aircraft equally that were in the area at the same/similar time i.e. I am interested in the effect on aircraft separation.
Ta.

car 228, can a passenger legally mark a position on a map, read ERSA or pass the iPad?

CAR 228 is a strict liability offence. So I am correct in thinking that a passenger taking action in an emergency is committing an offence?

Back to the thread, I'm quite happy to know I'm not sharing airspace with this guy. It's a little surprising that some with his achievements couldn't discipline himself to the task.

Flying ted
No you are wrong. That's not what strict liability means.

Having had numerous business dealings with the defendant, all I can say is I am sad to see all this in a public forum and slightly amazed that he didn't do better in aviation. A gentleman to deal with and a good bloke too.