Another Establishment About To Close?
 

A certain helicopter operator is going to get the Friday afternoon fax pulling the AOC on Christmas Eve from what I've heard.

Deserved or not, timing this stuff to coincide with major holidays is an infantile lawyers game that should be beneath an alleged Government instrumentality.

Low life's perform low life acts!

Disconnect the fax friday morning?

It is actually a email these days.

But to keep with the very long tradition of the CASA Friday Arvo Fax!


We still call "that email" a fax out of respect for the dead.

Either way, what happens if you "didnt receive it until Tuesday"?

Generally Styx75, a lot of emails can have a "Receipt of Email" attached to it, basically they send it and the moment you open it it'll send another email back automatically acknowledging it has been opened. I'm not 100% sure of the ins and outs of that sort of thing but from what I understand it's not hard to implement and I'm sure they probably would have something similar.

But regardless, it's exactly this sort of sneaky, underhanded BS that has completely destroyed any trust between CAsA and the Industry.

They did the same thing with Hardy's in Darwin four years ago. Must be in their SOP manual. :sad:

Any hints. Which operator?

Would be a real bugger if it ended up in the Junk Mail folder. :E

Megan, I thought Hardy's misinterpreted the letter and they stopped all operations when they didn't actually have to.

It was a little while ago and the memory is foggy.

"I thought Hardy's misinterpreted the letter and they stopped all operations when they didn't actually have to"

I believe this is wrong, but a incorrect report to the media from CASA. The senior person I knew at Hardy's with the letter on their desk had no misinterpretation as to grounded or not - if it were in fact true it would not have been sent after CASA closing hours = 4.22 pm

sending an email is legally the same as sending a letter...

Do you have a reference for this?

Yes.

Electronic Transactions Act 1999 (C'wealth) I believe?

This may also be relevant: https://www.casa.gov.au/standard-pag...ing-electronic

In Outlook it is possible to request a 'delivered' message, which means it is on their server or a 'read' message which has to be initiated by the recipient when they open it (and may not be initiated). However, it is also possible for a server to be rigged to not acknowledge any messages and to only send a "We do not acknowledge message being read" auto message, like our ever helpful Shire office!

Delivery receipts are not reliable as the user can send or choose not to send.

A service like "Read notify" would be better. Tells you when it was received, opened, from where and also those it was forwarded to.

I think you will find that having agreed or consented to receive electronic communications, when an email is sent to the email address you provided, the communication is considered delivered.

So who's in the sight hairs Sunny? Spill the beans!

Baseless thread without any facts, or is this just an excuse for another CASA bashing exercise?

Wait and see Ducky.

The clock is still ticking down.
Would not surprise me in the least if it actually comes true. Usual christmas present for someone in industry.
SOP:
3:59pm: Reach for the "send" button over the office partition with a broomstick from the waiting elevator?

So Sunfish, is this operator the one that yeaterday took off backwards over the river and flew backwards over my boat heading down stream without even knowing they power-blasted me from 30 feet above?

Or is the mob in question more "professional" than the one above?

So squawk, you blindly sailed into a helicopter downwash for no good reason? This sounds like manufactured rage to me. keep clear of helipads Nimby lad.

I was travelling downstream. It was facing west, lifted off, turned to the north, then proceeded to reverse out over the river, blind as to what was behind. As one not involved in this aviation activity, during the hover and takeoff phase, it's not something you want directly over your head.

I believe it is normal procedure on lift off from a helipad to back away from the pad and climb at the same time until reaching transition height. This allows for a return to the pad in the event of a power failure.

So, who got shut down, anyone??

The time has now passed so what happened?

Nothing happened. It was an unconfirmed Sunfish rumour.

will check today

Electronic transactions act. Just updated version of the old postal rule that reflects changes in technology.the precedent is 'if I send it, claiming you never received it, is not a legal defence.'

Hey squawk, do you mean to tell me some atmospheric molecules were moved around your person without your explicit consent? Did the decibel level exceed an sensitive aural threshold? Quick! Take to the internet to right this injustice!

I don't think that's what the electronic transaction act does, at least in so far as electronic communications from government to a private citizen or company are concerned. However, I'm prepared to stand corrected.

Can you quote the provisions of the electronic transaction act that have the effect of deeming emails sent by the government as having been received by a private citizen or company?

Well, I hope that rule has been changed. Posted out the Xmas cards in 2015 and many reported "never received", and in fact a number arrived back "return to sender" with no reason given, though we know the address's to be correct. Waiting to see how the 2016 cards fared.

I know for certain that several emails sent from DIBP (certainly a government org) have not been received at all (some went to spam). Non response to these "sent" emails within the 28 days has lead to visa refusals or cancelations. The applicants then have appealed the decision of these visas at the AAT (MRT) but decision stands as email was sent!

These private citizens often have no other option but to reapply for another visa at a cost of $6,865 again. The AAT (MRT) also cost them around $2k.

I think it is safe to say they only need to prove they sent it.

Contracts which expressly permit the giving of notices by email typically deem the notice to have been received at:


(a) the time the email is sent by the sender;


(b) a specific period after the time it is sent by the sender; or


(c) the time shown on a "delivery receipt" received by the sender.


There are potential issues with all of these methods and no easy solutions.
For option
(a), any delay between when the email is sent and when it is received is not accounted for, so what happens when the email is not received the instant it is sent? For option
(b), what if the email is received after the specified period or not received at all? In both cases, it would be unfair on the recipient to deem the email to have been received before the recipient could have received it.
While option
(c) overcomes these issues, it creates a problem for the sender, as recipients can set up their email systems so that delivery receipts are never issued, even if the sender requests one. How then does the sender prove the time of receipt?

Electronic Transactions Act 1999 (Cth) – risks

This Act (and its state counterparts) provides some rules for determining when emails are taken to have been received. It says that, unless the parties agree otherwise:

• if the email address is set out in the contract, the time of receipt is when the email enters the recipient's mail server; and
• if the contract does not designate an email address, the time of receipt is when it comes to the attention of the recipient.

But do these rules adequately protect the interests of both senders and recipients of emailed notices? Consider the following:

• What if the sender gets a response from the recipient's email server saying that the email could not be delivered because it was too many megabytes?
• What if the sender gets an "out of office" response?
• What if the recipient has left the organisation?

In each case, the email has entered the recipient's mail server, but it has not, or may not have, been received by the recipient. If the email address was set out in the contract, should the recipient be deemed to have received the email in each case? If so, how does the sender prove the time of receipt in the third scenario if it doesn't receive a "delivery receipt" from the recipient's server?

The subject matter of this thread has nothing to do with contracts.

It's not safe to say that all the government has to do is prove it sent an email to someone.

This act covers email and faxs - I know it is the case with DIBP (Department of Immigration and Boarder Protection) and it certainly would not surprise many (yourself excluded Lead Balloon) if it is a CASA policy in fine print that if you elect/agree (contact with your signature and date) to communication via email, they have elected option (a) above.

In fact I would assume most if not all Government agencies have it as a default Leady.


(Remember if CASA sent a "fax" on Christmas eve - but the fax did not print - fax was indeed considered received by CASA)

Electronic Transactions Act 1999 (Cth)


Is a faxed message an electronic communication for the purposes of the Act?




Yes, it falls within the definition of ‘electronic communication’ because it is a message sent over phone lines as information. Usually the recipient receives the message through their fax machine in paper form but it can just as easily be received by a computer as an electronic document if the computer is attached to a fax modem. Alternatively, a computer can be used to send a fax to another computer. There will be no paper involved until either the sender or the recipient prints out the fax.

My apologies, BaL. It's obvious you're an expert. :ok:

It's wonderful to note that bush lawyerism, within GA, continues to prevail.

A very happy New Year to all.

People (and legislators) have forgotten that a lot of email is a 'store-and-forward' system. There can be many points in the path between the devices at the sender and the recipient, for a message to be 'lost'.

Web-based email has less intermediate nodes, but without some form of 'delivery receipt' it is still not a guaranteed-delivery system.

Yup biggles,
but since when have the facts,logic or common sense ever got in the way of the law?