Fair 'nuff, I don't believe in the tooth fairy, but do believe that,

The presumption of innocence
Natural justice and
Due process,

Are part of our laws by which we live.

If we work outside these principles, we are working outside the rule of law.

If working outside of the rule of law is now assumed to be the norm, then this is a part of society that I would prefer not to be part of.

The law may be enacted by Parliament, but the laws are written by CASA for Parliament, for CASA to exercise and prosecute at their whim.

Of note here was an announcement by John Anderson, 18th November 2002, that an air standards advisory body would be set up (I guess 30th June), to complete the reform of the aviation safety regulations.

This is a positive move that may have the corollary to take away from CASA the rulemaking for rubber stamping by the Parliamentarians.

A further announcement was to the effect of a direct judicial involvement in the application and punishment by miscreants of the laws.

I could then live with CASA being the policeman.

I don't know the guy either, I don't want to argue his case and, would rather wait until after the matter goes to court to offer further comment.

I respect your opinion SPLATR, but I 'm sorry, I really am an idealist who doesn't abide with any barstar*isation of our way of life or the rule of law.

What do you think of the 3 tiers idea with CASA in the middle ?

Axiom,

Perhaps the guy didn’t have a medical because he lacked the necessary fitness. CASA probably asked him to show cause why his licence shouldn’t be cancelled and after seven months of procrastination he couldn’t, so they took it off him. They wouldn’t need a trial for that!

SPLATR

Rest assured that the onus of proof for criminal offences rests with the Crown and the standard required is ‘beyond reasonable doubt’. CASA would have to present their twenty-something charges before a magistrate, or if indictable offences, before a jury on that basis. Any penalty imposed by a court may also include suspension or cancellation of the said licence.

If you drive on a road or fly an aeroplane you have to accept that you and your equipment is open for inspection by the policing authority!
:rolleyes:

MissB,

Have recieved your PM, and by the sound of what I hear around here, there would be at least two others that I know of that might be in a position to make an arrangement of such a nature!

Stand by, I'm off to the phone! :D

Many Thanks,

OpsN.

Blue H:

Beyond a reasonable doubt........Criminal offence.

On the balance of probabilities...Summary offence.

There IS an element in CASA that wants absolute power, unfortunate !

BUT, CASA of late are running scared being the payors of some substantial out of Court thingies !

While ever there is discretionary powers given to CASA (ie. they may get it wrong), they can be sued.

Answer, make everything illegal and with parliamentary assent, take away the discretionary element and guess what ? nobody can sue CASA for doing what is in the reg's.

Back to the Australian Constitution;

Guaranteed free trade between the States.

If these regulations hinder free trade or obstruct free trade becuse of these same reg's that are made by CASA

THEN

IT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL

But getting back to my original objection, if this guy was a one legged pyromaniac with matches having sex with his neighbours dog in the back seat of a PA32 on autopilot without a medical (because he never had one in the first place) or a bloke who forgot to (or his paperwork was late as has happened to me), have a valid medical, WHAT WOULD YOU CHARGE HIM WITH ???

A summary offence or

A criminal offence.

I understand the guy in question has had criminal offences to face and if totalled up could equal 60 + years in jail.

As I said, it is the manner in which CASA dispenses justice that is of concern.

Lets not hang him until he is found guilty please all.. :rolleyes: bugga.

Hmmm...I understand where you're coming from Ax...I guess I'm arguing the situation as it is now, maybe not the ideal. There is little rubber stamping of legislation...look at the hold ups on the new legislation for the ATSB. Everyone is having their say, as it should be, so no, I don't think anything is really rubber stamped. I do believe that if good cogent arguments (and I don't include the rubbish certain high-profile pilots sprout forth with) are put up, then I think they have a chance of being championed by one side of politics or the other.

Blue Hauler, agree with much of what you say. My problem I guess with RBT and why I think it has a negative effect on the presumption of innocence is that before RBT, if a police office noted something amiss with your driving, then he had a reason to pull you over. RBT requires no reason..it just plucks people at random. Now, I don't for one minute deny that it, probably more than anything else, has reduced the road toll...I guess it was something we as a society was willing to enact although I still believe it whittled away at our so-called 'rights'. Look at the anti-terror laws that are being enacted...

I'll get off my soapbox now and retire.;)

Axiom

You are confusing criminal law with civil law.

All Crimes, Misdemeanours and Simple Offences must be proven ‘beyond reasonable doubt’. Onus of proof rests with the crown be it CASA, ATO or the local constabulary.

In civil actions the standard of proof is ‘on the balance of probabilities.’ Onus rests with the defendant.


In perusing the CAA/CARs I don’t see anything different in the legal right of CASA as compared to any other law enforcement agency.

Offences under the regulations don’t attract huge penalties, but if a number of offences are committed that could substantiate ‘recklessness’ then a charge under Section 20A of the Act would no doubt attract a hefty jail term. This is no different to charging a motorist under the Criminal Code for multiple traffic offences, as I alluded to in an earlier post. Alternatively charges could be placed under the Crimes Act. But I don’t know the case in question and have only passing interest in the debate as raised in this thread.


BH

Guys, (and ladies), I could be flogged in the stocks for this, but I thought that the real problem with casa enforcement is the right of appeal - take your licence or aoc and you can fight it out in the aat - supposedly months of waiting with no income - no opportunity for interim operations - guilty and penalised without a real right of appeal.
Am I missing something - and is this all about to change?

Regulations???

Someone said, was it axiom, that Regualtions are passed by the parliament after industry consultation. Hah :D

A bit like shooting crows, everyone checks there are no Currawongs in there, don't they.

The regulations are coming so fast and so complex these days I challenge even the most wordy of those here to tell me just what Regs are up that affect them. No cheating, stay off the web.

CASA are making JARs (ooops, I mean CASRs ;) ) at an amazing rate. They are big, thick and confusing, once they are big enough, thick enough and confusing enough with the right amount of useless words so they don't look like cut and pasted JARs, off 'for comment' they go. Of course we miss most of them, or the innuendo within.

Then they go before the lower house. Bit like putting the circuit diagram for a RADAR set in front of a lawyer and asking her opinion.

Then they are 'tabled' in the upper house. There they are not read, or even glanced at, unless someone (with clout) in industry gets a Senator or two interested enough (and motivated enough to unstick thier lazy bums from the red leather) to disallow.

Then you gotta get enough Senators to vote it down in the house. Same problem as above.

The system is rorted by CASA who rely on the fact that the Parliamentarians (both houses) just can't be expected to understand the intricate detail of every Reg and industry is just swamped and basically too busy to look at it all.

Democracy, what in interesting concept, I think we should just bomb Iraq, that'll fix everything!!! :)

Blue hauler; perhaps I am wrong, but then again..??? can someone clarify this point please ?

I recall in NSW some time ago, The Wran years (NSW State), I think, that they did away with the summary offences act, but I was always of the opinion that my previous was correct and, I guess ignorance is no excuse.

ulm; we don't always see eye to eye, but I think you have valid points all the time and would miss your input if you "bugged out", SO DON'T BUGGA :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: OFF, I SHOULD HAVE SAID ABOUT INDUSTRY CONSULTATION :confused: :confused: :confused:

all the best, ax.

OpsNormal:

Have you checked with the locally based RFDS Medical Officers - in Qld they are all DAMES as well.......simplifies things for the RFDS drivers I suppose :)

Dunno about the main thrust of this thread but - too complex for me, I'll stick to flying aeroplanes and pray I don't stuff up badly enough to draw the flies:cool:

Axiom,

Just to clarify,

Summary Offences are offences against various Acts and Regulations that may be dealt with by two Justices in Petty Sessions or a Magistrate. In contrast, Indictable Offences are usually remanded to a District or Supreme Court and heard before a jury. In some instances the offender may be able to opt for summary jurisdiction and cop out with a much lesser penalty. Offences against the CARs would be dealt with summarily. Offences against the CAA would be for the ‘high jump’. Mind you indictable offences are still heard before a Magistrate to determine if a case exists. If the Magistrate is so satisfied it is then remanded to the higher court for hearing. That is usually associated with a price rise when the solicitor passes you to a barrister!

Not sure about NSW ‘Summary Offences’ but suspect that may have been the Police Offences Act or something similar. Queensland had the Vagrants, Gaming and Other Offences Acts that contained many simple offences that were dealt with summarily. These included begging alms, soliciting, obscene language and so forth. Many offenders under that act could also be dealt with under other Acts or the Criminal Code. As recent as the 1960’s it was an offence against the Vag. Act to be found at night with face blackened and wearing ‘indian rubber shoes’! Or found in possession of ‘picklock keys’ or ‘silent matches’. The Vag. Act was abolished in Queensland and I guess most other states did the same and replaced by more updated Acts. But summary offences still exist.

Haven't had to work through such law for nearly twenty years but always found it interesting.:eek:

And you reckon we've got it bad....from Rotorhub:

TSA: FAA tickets could be pulled at a moment's notice
Source: Defence & Public Service Helicopter
28 January 2003

U.S. aviation personnel holding FAA certificates - pilots, mechanics, dispatchers etc. - are studying a notice of proposed rulemaking that would permit TSA to cancel those certificates at a moment’s notice without prior consultation with the issuing authority.

The proposed policy - included in last Friday’s Federal Register - in effect gives TSA, the new Transportation Security Administration, the right to pre-empt normal FAA certificate action.

Under the changes, TSA would not necessarily be required - under the rubric of national security - to provide a basis for its decision. It merely has to advise FAA which must then issue a notice of certificate action to the affected holder immediately suspending his or her certificate.

It will then be up to the individual to convince TSA that he or she does not constitute a security risk. FAA would have no say in the matter, and TSA would not be required to detail the reasons for its action.

Not surprisingly the move has been taken badly by an aviation community already feeling it has become the target for heavy-handed security measures in the wake of 9/11.

Most of the major alphabet soup organisation representing the affected communities are expected to weight in with comments during the 90 day comment period once they have studied the proposal.

Gee wizz;

I now know what I think I am doing???/

When I was in the Army, I was a much maligned and misunderstood officer cadet.

When our indiscretions were found out, we were always offered (as was our right), the offer of a Courts Martial or having the matter summarily dealt with.

mostly we were of the opinion that if you wanted to graduate, you took the sumary punishment.

I graduated.

I worked within the system for 15 years.

Now nobody say's Sir to me and I don't expect salutes.

BUT it appears the system that we worked within in the late 60's and 70's is remanifistated in the form of CASA.

I cannot believe that people believe in this convoluted excuse for justice in this day and time.

Thanks for the info Blue H it has really made my day;

God bless all of you ax.....

:confused:

Ax my dear friend.

I shall never 'bugga orf' but nor shall I always agree with you. As was explained to our mutual friend? LedSled just the other day, I suffer from a multiple personality.

In fact some times two personalities can express themselves at the same time, but never more that two (right now anyway) :)

But to justice, summary or otherwise. Has it occured to you why that silly system these days perpetuated at ADFA and Duntroon seems familiar in CASA. Because oh so many of them come from that system (or in a particualr case, the US equivalent).

Now when one of us went to OCS (oops, showing my age now :) ) we spent many a sad month realising that all the nasty stuff thought about officers was actually true!!!

Not to say they are all ******* (I did that :) ) only a mere 99.98%. Trouble is I know the .02% and they don't work in CASA!!!

And those ex-sir CASA wallies still DO expect a salute. :rolleyes:

Ho-hum

They turned me into an officer ... I got better! :p

ulm,

Roses are red, violets are blue,

I'm schizophrenic and so am I.

Sorry, couldn't help myself.

Actually I couldn't handle lance corporal's and used to make a habit of making and breaking them until (actually Bombadiers), they used to have press studs on the stripe.

Sergeants were too streety cunning for me and I used to set them up with the boss.

Warrant Officers used to give me the sh*ts and I left them alone.

My men loved me though.

Conclusion;

It is my firm belief that all CASA must be Warrant Officers or the RAAF equivalent. (ie elevated to the level of their incompetance, or promoted out of harms way).

Don't know about the Yanks, but the British system had worked for some 300 years hearabouts and thereabouts, and it saddens me to think that this mentality still exists in Civvy life today.

Have I told you about the Cathay Club ??






:( :(

Certainly an interesting thread......
 

No medical...............no fly! Simple rule that applys to each and every one of us WITHOUT EXCEPTION! How absolutely simple could it be.
AOPA running GA....:* yeah right!
A few years back, a chap hired a plane which was 20 hours overdue for a 100 hourly. He had it away for 6 days and never once completed the maintenance release but flew it every day. On the way home, with 4 pax onboard, he had an engine failure and pulled off a forced landing in a paddock. Nobody hurt! CASA prosecuted him for his indiscretions! AOPA published his story and went to bat for him suggesting he should have been applauded for his handling of the emergency instead of being prosecuted - I personally think he should have been locked up and barred from flying for ever-more!
RHS and BOYD running GA........affordable safety......please, not in the same breath!:mad:
Anyone remember the Seaview accident several years back...pilot had no medical....insurance company paid NO-ONE because the flight was deemed to be illegal from the start!:}
The ramifications of some of these actions are far reaching and like it or not, CASA has a role and a job to do. We might not like it but that is the way it is! Simple actually isn't it?:D

THREEGREENS mate,

Nothing to do with CASA is simple, but I take your point.

Regards Seaview, wasn't there a Royal commission into this ?

I didn't hear or see anything about the pilot being without a medical, infirm or unfit.

I do remember quiet a bit of sensationalism about some CASA involvement and possible palm greasing in the engineering side of things.

I believe the Monarch accident was similarly tainted, but didn't hear anything about simplistic outcomes and CASA having a job to do. 10 pax a/c CFIT without an autopilot but 2 pilots?

Problem about talking about simplistic and CASA in the same sentence is that you hit the nail right on the head.

We mostly don't like it and can't do a thing about it !!!

Irrespective of whatever Government we choose, this mob have sealed themselves into a legal bunker that even a change of Gov't cant alter with the best blockbusters that are available.

No medical (because you are not fit, OK, but no medical because some CASA wahhah has held up your paperwork for 3 months when you planned a flight 12 months ago is not OK).

The words "set up" spring to mind.

AOPA running GA, talk to ulm about that.

The story about the bloke with the 20 hour overdue MR, was he told it is OK because of some over run arrangements.

I remember when I was in my early days, hired an aircraft, and was told my fingers would be broken if I made a defect entry on the MR. Flew 200 nm with an open door. Survived.

I have hired aircraft for the day, signed the MR and before leaving, had same taken back to office. flew without one and the aircraft made it somehow. My signature on the paper however.

I have flown my aircraft to a maintenance facility when the MR was 3 days out of date, the aircraft didn't know the difference and I am alive to talk about it.

Locked up and barred for ever more, again whatever happened to the differentiation between a criminal and summary offence.

Affordable safety ?

perhaps calculated risk ??

perhaps risk management ??

perhaps risk minimilisation ??

Whatever, it's got to be better than RISK ELIMINATION which CASA is now in the business of promoting.

It's OK for you blokes with Ops managers, duty time rosters, etc etc and others who do your maintenance and sign your chits. Blokes like me sometimes screw up but we ar NOT a menace to society.

Struth !!



:yuk: :yuk:

Oh Axe, I had retired but your last post brought me back.

You choosing which rules to follow and which you decide you won't is the sort of thing that only confirms GA's cr*p reputation in my mind. Insurance companies would love you because it gives them the 'out' they look for.

Look, saying your aircraft didn't fall out of the sky when it didn't have a valid maintenance release is a silly argument. It's like saying, 'my car registration is out of date but I didn't have an accident so it's okay'. The regulations are there as the framework under which we work and they are the law of the land whether you happen to like them or not.

It doesn't matter if CASA takes 3 months to process the paperwork...if one doesn't have a valid whatever, one just does not fly! Take it up with the politicians, the media, I don't care but if one does not have the appropriate certifications and clearances, there is no excuse to fly. Past actions such as yours and others are why CASA has so much power! Think about it! If people played by the rules (and if they didn't like the rules, then they lobbied to have them changed through a credible organisation), then the need for CASA to play policeman lessens.

My point was that my misdemenors (which occurred over a 35 year period), although culpable in the legal and insurance world in which we live hardly seem like the sort of offence that should bring the noose into play.

You are right, in every sense of the word, but if you make everything a criminal offence, is the insurance ramifications any less or more than an infringement ?

Again I say, it is CASA's application of the law that is the problem, not the rights or wrongs or grey areas.

Can you honestly say to me that you have not made any legal indiscretions (either on purpose or by mistake), in your career, and, were they of a magnitude that would warrant the heavy handed tactics of CASA. honestly ???

Just to set things straight, I have never been busted by CASA or it's prior's, but have had a very costly and nasty thing happen to me because of their incompetence and whitewashing.

I therefor have a very keen interest in bringing about reform in the aviation industry and intend to continue to agitate for same.

I don't choose which rules to follow, but sometimes you get caught up in a series of events that overtake you (usually by CASA), and you have no control over the outcome.

PPrune allows me let off a bit of steam. I am not beholding to AOPA, Boyd Munroe, Dick Smith or anyone. I am acting alone, but pragmatic enough to adopt any ideology that helps in my quest.



:ok: :ok:

But Axe, (now I've had a few wines)...can I say I have not been indiscreet...no. I could never say that :O I guess the point I am trying to make is that there are the legal issues, there are the public expectations and there is this thing called professionalism, And we are probably way off the thread here..but busting the rules won't change things. Arguing their inapropriateness may...but don't forget others may not agree.

My personal and professional dealings with the individuals within CASA has been nothing but amicable except when issues got to Canberra but then, when has Canberra NOT clouded and screwed up an issue?

I still fail to see the shades of grey you see. Either you have a valid medical or you don't. You either have a valid maintenance release or you don't. I don't see the shades of grey there.

Anyhow mate...keep the anger alive and you may achieve change but in my humble opinion, if you want to achieve change then it has to be done through lobbying and well-reseached argument. It can be done.......