|
Originally Posted by Lead Balloon
(Post 10584348)
I think AndrewR makes a legitimate point about ramp checks being quasi-investigations into the past. https://www.avweb.com/flight-safety/...es-for-pilots/ The moment an inspector asks you about something that happened in the past, even one second ago, its no longer just a ramp check, its an investigation. The FAA is supposed to tell you when its doing an investigation, but sometimes an inspector slips up. You do not have to answer investigation questions. If you are asked about something in the past, my suggestion is that you politely say that it sounds like this is becoming an investigation and that you will speak to your attorney before you answer any further questions. That is your right and inspectors are used to such an answer. I have my doubts that CASA inspectors would be as accepting of this answer. |
Originally Posted by andrewr
(Post 10584414)
If you are asked about something in the past, my suggestion is that you politely say that it sounds like this is becoming an investigation and that you will speak to your attorney before you answer any further questions.
|
AndrewR you have put your finger on the point that was eluding me for years. Something didn’t feel right about ramp checks but I couldn’t work out what it was. The inquiry about past activity is definitely an investigation, potentially leading to criminal charges and a felony conviction, therefore you have a right to remain silent and perhaps more importantly, the courts are not allowed to make any inference of guilt from your silence. Furthermore, comparisons of CASA operations with Police methods and investigations don’t pass the smell test. The Police are governed by stringent standards of behavior backed up by a fearful internal investigatory watchdog that scrutinizes everything they do. Not so CASA. |
Just adding to Lead Balloon's post a few above, in both criminal and civil law, strict liability is a standard under which a person is legally responsible for the consequences of an activity even in the absence of fault or criminal intent on the part of that person.
In tort, it is the imposition of liability on a someone without a finding of fault - the claimant does not have to prove fault but need only prove that the tort occurred and that the defendant was responsible. The defendant however, can raise a defense of absence of fault. Strict liability differs to absolute liability..... an actus reus (or physical act of the crime) may be excused from strict liability if due diligence is proved. Absolute liability, requires only an actus reus or physical act.. Strict liability is also found in criminal law, though it may not always be called that.....it can apply to traffic offences. In a speeding case for example, whether the defendant knew that the speed limit was being exceeded is irrelevant; it only need be proven that the defendant was driving the vehicle in excess of the speed limit. |
Sunny nails it. The 'Airstapo' / CasA Polis have NO INDEPENDENT WATCHDOG with teeth to pull them into line and take any action for penalties as required. Just what the criminals in the CAsA employ enjoy .
Any INTERNAL watchdog , certainly doesnt pass the stench test, inside jobs can be and are corrupted by 'colleagues' managers and the upper echelon. While the ICC does his best within a disgustingly puny budget (for obvious reasons ) he can be/ has been sidelined by those above and investigations directed elsewhere for the desired result. Its like Police investigating Police..it just doesnt cut the mustard for due process and any natural justice. Another couple of phrases in the CAsA Code of (mis)Conduct that nobody takes any notice of. Any old BS will do.! |
Before telling the FOI/AWI to F@ck off, you might want to read CAR 302 and 305, both strict liability offences.
As for calling the police, the local cop would be pointed to those Regs by the FOI and he would go fair enough and leave. Commonwealth law trumps State Law. If you think being ramped by CASA is a pain, wait until you get a SAFA check overseas. SAFA is being adopted by a lot of countries including Australia, and the domestic version is SANA. |
Neither of those Regs requires the answering of an FOI’s/AWI’s questions. Neither of those Regs prohibits someone saying to an FOI or AWI: “F*ck off”. But I think you are correct on the State cop point. |
Show me "ramp check" in the regulations. "Ramp" would even get you half a point.
|
Civil Aviation Act 1988 Section 9.1(f)
|
The previous answer listing CAR 302 and CAR 305 seems most likely. But I don't know where the rest of the stuff listed in the ramp check guidance comes from.
|
With regards to CAR 305, basically it is saying "Access to any place, AND, in particular: An aerodrome (Not an ALA) AND an authorised activity is occurring (Flying School, Maintenance etc) AND access to any aircraft (at a reasonable time) to inspect that aircraft. All the AND's in there logically means that all of those conditions must be met to allow the access, i.e it MUST be an aerodrome (Certified, Registered or RPT or Charter at least once a week), it MUST have either a LAME, GA School or other CASA Approved activity before they can walk in and inspect an aircraft at a reasonable time. This is how I read it but it's quite possible that lawyer logic is different...
|
I don’t read it your way at all. Any aircraft any where any time in general. |
It looks to me that as you have the right to refuse consent for an inspection. This would make CASA get a warrant which it can do by telephone. So unless you consent they must leave the premises until they have a warrant.
|
There is no need for an authorised person to obtain consent under CAR 305. However, access must be “for the purpose of carrying out any powers and functions vested in him or her in pursuance of these Regulations” i.e. the authorised person must have some power or function other than that of access under 305 in order to be entitled to access under the 305 and, if the authorised person is asked for ID but does not produce it, the right of access is terminated. I don’t think your interpretation is correct, Dexta. An inspector (which is not the same as an authorised person) is required to obtain consent to enter premises, which consent may be refused. That’s in section 32ACB of the Civil Aviation Act. Are private pilots and their private aircraft on private property part of the “aviation industry”, Vag? |
Many years ago now, inspectors were being flown around a certain GA-heavy region with lots of airstrips on islands in a fairly compact area, in a heli and a fixed wing aircraft, and local legend has it these chariots been directed by the inspectors not to make radio calls, somewhat of a covert operation. Well, we figured it out relatively quickly. One of the local flyers may or may not have “shadowed” one of these aircraft, may or may not have made transmissions on their behalf with the words “carrying .... inspectors for ramp checks.” Everyone ended up keeping each other up to date on their whereabouts. The inspectors were not appreciative of that. They were fun times! |
That brings me to memories of inspectors hiring and flying a B58 around the North. For some reason the call sign jumps at me as VH ICB. May not have been that one but I do remember when they hired said aircraft that the bush telegraph was in full swing, despite their attempts to keep quiet where they were going. Now ‘‘twas a long time ago and I could be very wrong! :) |
So we have “nothing to fear” from CASA inspectors? Then why the fuss about their operations? |
Originally Posted by Sunfish
(Post 10585325)
Then why the fuss about their operations? Hmmmm... were they really actually the good old days that LS and his mates say they were? |
Originally Posted by Sunfish
(Post 10585325)
So we have “nothing to fear” from CASA inspectors? Then why the fuss about their operations? Like i said in the Coffs thread, a long time ago an AWI went and told my boss the plane was busted to save me having to cop the boss’s wrath because the plane was grounded- he knew what was coming my way if it was me telling the boss it was grounded! Yes I’ve had some inspectors that have probably been “over zealous” but if you don’t be a prick to them, they generally won’t be a prick to you. Like any other interaction with humans basically. And when you know your right, can back it up, and doing things correctly etc, you’ve got nothing to worry about. |
Do warning RT alerts still refer to the Ramp Inspectors as "Mermaids"?
CC |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 22:37. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.