|
Originally Posted by bigdoggottaeat
(Post 10616721)
3 casa representatives flew down from Canberra, they hired a van with the hope of obtaining the dodecacopter, they obtained computers transmitters photos and other evidence. anything else you want to know? |
Mordor has realised what this cheap technology can do to it and sent out the Nazgul to try to stop it. |
Innovation?? Unfortunately a dirty word in Australia, the Nanny State of the world.
Thank god the Wright Brothers were American. Read some media about fees the government charges for orange growers being jacked up to stratospheric levels. I ponder why the hell you would need to regulate oranges? Gawd! imagine what CAsA could do with those regs. An orange may contain a maximum of ten Pips. Each Pip must be uniform in size and meet the specifications contained in the orange Manual of standards. Producing Oranges with greater than ten Pips is an offence of strict liability. 50 penalty points. As my old daddy used to say, "Australia has adopted the finest traditions of British bureaucracy and refined it into an Art Form. |
Originally Posted by gerry111
(Post 10616886)
Yes please. Do you have first hand knowledge of this? Or did you just hear it from someone else? (Fact v Rumour.)
|
In Law. real...not CAsA "law" what right do three CaSA persons on a day out of the office have to remove any property of the drone inventor/flyer.
It appears this visit was not a police investigation with any cop powers that may entail. There is an basic law /British, that says the police, and presumably the Cantberra "non-police", cannot seize a person's property until they are charged? or convicted of an offence. And you are not obliged to give them any 'thing', document or comment that may incriminate yourself. Any Legal wizards out there to correct or otherwise.? And I do NOT want any made up answer from Smart Aleck aka Dr Discrepancy who is a know serial Bullsh*ter Supreme. ( How do I know? I have a document from him,explaining at length in verbal vomit,3 pages, that false sworn testimony ( ie LIES) by 3 CAsA persons is but a discrepancy in the wording !) Which confirms that (non) Aviation House really is a Loony Bin. |
The Civil Aviation Act includes a whole Division setting out powers of investigators appointed under the Act, and scads of stuff about searching and seizing with and without warrant.
If it is true that the folks in the video are being investigated for the purposes of criminal prosecution, let us give thanks for those doing the investigation. Can you imagine what might happen if the dangerous criminals involved were not crushed with the full weight of the law? A380s would be crashing into primary schools. Oh the humanity. The safety of air navigation demands an investigation and prosecution. If true, it's just the busy work of picking off of easy targets. |
I can tell you from personal experience that those in CASA needing to execute on their powers of arrest (amongst other powers), are well and truly versed in it and willing to execute by informing the local plod of said powers! |
The fact that a bunch of amateurs can put this together from scratch in two years does rather suggest the effectiveness of Mr Trumps promised wall might be rather temporary! Drug smugglers have been building submarines in Columbian jungles for years now; I can't imagine it will take terribly long for people smugglers to produce drones. And it's not like they're going to be too fussed by rules!
|
Originally Posted by aroa
(Post 10619644)
In Law. real...not CAsA "law" what right do three CaSA persons on a day out of the office have to remove any property of the drone inventor/flyer.
It appears this visit was not a police investigation with any cop powers that may entail. There is an basic law /British, that says the police, and presumably the Cantberra "non-police", cannot seize a person's property until they are charged? or convicted of an offence. And you are not obliged to give them any 'thing', document or comment that may incriminate yourself. Any Legal wizards out there to correct or otherwise.?. Civil Aviation Regulation 305: Access of authorised persons (1)Subject to any aviation security requirements, an authorised person shall, at all reasonable times, have access to any place to which access is necessary for the purpose of carrying out any powers and functions vested in him or her in pursuance of these Regulations, and, in particular: (a) must have access at all times to an aerodrome for the purpose of inspecting the aerodrome; and (b) must have access at all times during working hours to: (i) premises at which an activity authorised by a civil aviation authorisation is being carried out; and (ii) any documents or drawings associated with the activity; and (c) shall, at all reasonable times, have access to any aircraft for the purpose of inspecting the aircraft. (1A)A person must not prevent, or hinder, access by an authorised person to any place to which access is necessary for the purpose of carrying out any of the authorised person's powers or functions under these Regulations. 32AJ Power to require persons to answer questions and produce documents (1) An investigator who is on or in premises that he or she has entered under a warrant under this Part may require anyone on or in the premises to: (a) answer any questions put by the investigator; and (b) produce any books, records or documents requested by the investigator. (2) A person must not fail to comply with a requirement under subsection (1). Penalty: 30 penalty units. (2A) Subsection (2) does not apply if the person has a reasonable excuse. Note: A defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to the matter in subsection (2A) (see subsection 13.3(3) of the Criminal Code). (3) It is not a reasonable excuse for a person to refuse or fail to answer a question or produce a book, record or document on the ground that to do so would tend to incriminate the person, but the answer to any question, or any book, record or document produced, or any information or thing obtained as a direct or indirect consequence of answering the question or producing the book, record or document is not admissible in evidence against the person in any criminal proceedings, other than proceedings for an offence against subsection (2). |
.....and you thought you lived in a free country. The problem for CASA is that the way they are going, they are likely to push some forms of aviation underground (like the man carrying drone). There will be a scramble to try and detect and prosecute people doing this which will predictably fail. Then widespread flaunting of the law becomes the norm, eventually Government realises that the laws are useless and repeal them as bad jokes or exempt the activities. Aviation example: hang gliding. Domestic examples: Victorian liquor licensing laws (BYO restaurant emergence), decriminalisation of marijuana. The next revelation: a judge has told me that booze and cigarette taxes can’t be raised any further because they are now at the point where any further increase leads directly to product substitution with illegal drugs like Ice, dope and worse. My advice to CASA is the same as I was once given in a slightly different context by a senior lawyer: “CASA, if you want to strengthen your regulations, water them down.” It sounds perverse, but it isn’t. |
But Sunny: This is about the safety of air navigation! Any price - including the sacrifice of liberties - is worth paying in return for the protection of air safety.
(And you meant “flouting”, not “flaunting”.) |
Originally Posted by Lead Balloon
(Post 10620737)
(And you meant “flouting”, not “flaunting”.)
|
| All times are GMT. The time now is 15:07. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.