Reporting breaches to CASA
 

Does anyone know if there is a legal obligation by an individual or an organisation to report a breach of a regulation to them, or do they have to find it for themselves?

For example if accidentally flew my own aircraft with an AD due, do I have to tell CASA? What about if I just went flying with my family and I realised I didn't have 3 take-off's and landings within the last 90 days?

I know I can self report some breaches to the ATSB to avoid any administrative action, but do I have to tell CASA? I don't tell the police if I accidentally run a stop sign, so is it the same case?

Yes
Welcome to Planet Earth.

and before you do anything, read the advice pertaining to answering a "show cause" invitation from CASA, and then there is this bit of advice. FWIW



https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/l...ution-survival

There is no obligation to self-incriminate...kaz

You blokes answered him. I just though he had his dates mixed and thought it was April the 1st when he wrote his inanity.

I'm just glad that over the years our CAsA leaders have been able to develop and foster a mature, sensible , safety driven culture within our industry as evidenced by the (reasonable) responses above.

But... unlike a stop sign, when your logbook is trolled by CASA and these discrepancies are found, surely you are liable for past offences such as flying for a week or month on an expired medical?

If you're a commercial licence holder there is an obligation to self report.
Is the private world different?

FOIs don't know how to use Trim, sorry RM8! All the evidence will be lost.

"Forgive me father casa, it is 12 months since my last confession".....

"Yes my son, what have you done this time..?"

"Well father casa, I flew the aeroplane until the fuel ran out, and had to glide it in....."
(Or, insert 'sin' of choice......)

"AHA!! Strict Liability = Criminal Offence = 22 demerit points, $10,000 fine plus grounding for two years at least, oh and 10 'our fathers'....."

Plus - you won't be going to Oshkosh this year or ever, because you now have a criminal record.....

"Thankyou father casa"........

:eek: no cheerssss :hmm:

AIP 1.14 - 1 onwards lists reporting requirements.

A Learned member of the Legal Profession once advised me that in the event you are pulled over and subject to interrogation by the Police

You are obliged to give ONLY your Name and Address when questioned by the Police.

After giving the above, your response to ANY further questions should be that you WILL NOT say anything further unless a Solicitor is present.

The same applies to any questions from CASA.

Or....wot Griffo said!

How are ya Mate, btw?

A supplement to what Pinky said; if you have been caught speeding and the police have an absolutely watertight case,......admit it with a friendly smile. If you are dealing with a halfway decent policeman having a reasonable day, there is a good chance you will get the numbers dropped a bit or maybe even let off with a warning.*


* This does not apply to traffic operations group police or women members.

I don't think any of the things you list above are mentioned in AIP 1.14 where they describe what are immediate or routinely reportable matters.

If you stuff up the 90 day takeoff/landing requirements or flew with an outstanding AD not done then there is no statement in the AIPs that you have to report it (that I can see - I may have missed something or there may be regulations published elsewhere).

If you were found out I don't think you would be also in trouble for not self reporting. For doing it yes but not that you didn't report it to someone.

My hunch is if you did those things but can show evidence you tried to rectify the situation when you realised (eg doing some circuits or getting the AD done promptly after you realised it was due) would likely be in your favour if they found out and decided to investigate (eg at a ramp check).

Unfortunately this isn't quite correct.

The name and address scenario above comes from section 456aa of the Crimes Act 1958 where a Police Officer suspects on reasonable grounds that you have committed an offence and you must provide your name and address.

Your obligations when driving a motor vehicle are covered under the transport act and you must produce your licence on request and or provide information as required to be able to identify you.

Without knowing the exact CASA reg number, I'm suspecting that given that we seem to need to provide the MR and flight plan etc, it would possibly not be the best course of action to withhold these items when they are requested.

I've not been able to find any legislative requirement to report breaches unless you are an airline basically. Except for the AIP Reportable matters that is.

"You are very naive, Grasshopper!"

How do I know? :confused:

Dr :8

CASA are selective when it comes to taking action for breaches.

It is difficult to disagree with cancelling the licence of one Roostam Sadri (search Austlii database) who on the evidence seemed way out of his depth in his DA42.

CASA at great expense left no stone unturned prosecuting Quadrio, who appeared to be a very competent pilot but possibly a little enthusiastic in his manouvers, something that goes on all the time in mustering, albeit without pax.

Then there's the latitude CASA gave to Barry Hempel who killed his passenger and himself.

Go figure.:ugh:

Name and address only?

Not quite.

Licence, log book and medical - on request.

The obligation to report immediately reportable and routine reportable matters is an obligation to report to ATSB, not CASA. Whether ATSB then passes on information to CASA probably depends on the notorious MOU between the two...

Logging capabilities of EFIS now selected to "off". Likewise transponder? Your log and maintenance release are now synchronised. Alternatively, EFIS,and transponder breakers pulled so that there is virtually no record of flight at all.


What has been missed now is that the intent of reporting was to trap emerging safety issues, not compliance issues. The ATSB/CASA MOU is a poisoned document.

In Victoria, it's the Road Safety Act, s59(1) that gives certain persons, including police, power to stop a vehicle and require production of licence, and the name and address of the driver.

Kaz

Thanks Kaz, that was a dopey moment on my behalf, thanks for noticing and clarifying!

Do they trawl yr Log book if they get hold of it (..since you are not obliged to incriminate yrself with word, deed or doc ) ? Yes they do.
Will you get prosecuted if there is an oversight. Yes they did.
Late back from a project out in the boonies and and BFR due 2 weeks before. Immediately rectifed..but no matter. Done...and busted.
If it was a 'mate'..wouldnt happen.

Cronyism and corruption is alive and well in CAsA. And inconsistency is their byword.

As Ovation states...Hemple and Quadrio. Chalk and very smelly Cheese.
Hemple kills a pax. No worries...well there must have been a bit of CYA angst in the Fort
Quadrio wasnt even flying that helicopter.!!
And CAsA did what and spent how much.?? And the overall benefit to aviation safety was...as usual ZILCH.

Currawong...you better make sure your log book is 100% squeaky clean before you hand it over.
If there is something in there, as in my case , Bang you're dead...you do NOT have to self incriminate.