RHS and Boyd at it again?
 

Just saw the late news where a Victorian pilot is being prosecuted in the Horsham court by CASA for:
a. Flying without a valid medical, and
b. Failing to have maintenance performed on his aircraft.

Dick and Boyd were interviewed on the news appearing to say that the person in question was being dealt with unfairly by orrible, nasty CASA. :D

Fer Fark sake!!!! Are they saying it is ok to fly without a medical and an non airworthy aircraft? I suppose this is what they mean by "Affordable Safety" and "Freedom to fly without unnecessary restrictions"

The person in question said, in a poorly prepared press statement: "I have never endangered my passengers or property" or words to that effect. BWWWAAAHHHH! So exactly why doesn't he have a medical? Did he forget to renew it or was a DAME unable to renew it because of his health?

Just wondering what would be his insurance company's view on the matter in the event of a claim? You don't have to be Einstein to figure that one out :eek:

I think they were going on about the presumption of innocence.

From email loops I am in, it seems that this bloke has been CHARGED with certain offences, but not found guilty or otherwise at this stage.

He is yet to have his day in Court, the episode on Wednesday being adjorned until I believe the 26th February.

Be this as it may, CASA has CANCELLED his licence (I heard, for life), and are following on from their oft touted arrogance in this castle of ineptness by completely negating due process and punishing him in advance.

In this regard, I can only say, if Dick and Boyd bring the matter to the attention of anyone by any method, it can only be of benefit to the aviation community.

The charges could be bulls**t,

I guess I can wait until, or if, he is found guilty before I offer an opinion.

He should be supported on the due process matter in the interim.

:rolleyes: new bugga :rolleyes:

Um, maybe I'm missing something here. CASA is the regulator; it is the policeman of the air. There is no-one else who has that responsibility. Now if they perceive that someone has broken the rules then they have a responsibility to bring the full force of the law (in this case the regulations) to bear. There are some in GA that don't think the rules apply to them.

In the absence of a points system (which I think seems a reasonable way to go), then CASA really has no choice when they find out, or think, that someone has been busting the rules.

If there is a disagreement, then that is what the court is for...not a lot different really from some motor vehicle misdemeanours.
Afterall, if there is an accident and the ATSB highlights shortcomings in CASA's oversight of the pilot or operator, then we hear all the 'tut tuts' from the industry.

And let's not forget the insurance issue. The insurance companies these days will happily not payout if there is a whif of rule breaking.

CASA must apply the rules and apply them fairly, without fear or favour. That can be a thankless job even if done well.
And no, I am not a CASA apologist, but I think that we have to recognise the limitations of the system we all work under.

Policeman of the air yes. But how many police do you know that can throw you in goal for life without finding you guilty of anything. :mad:

What the guy did (or didn't) do is irrelavent, it is natural justice and CASA's self perceived omnipotence that is at issue here.

So good on Dick and Boyd for upping CASA. :)

A personal reflection, I understand the guy was a PVT Pilot, on a PVT Flight with NO passengers. If he was AUF (in an aircraft just a few kg lighter) there would have been no issue re the medical and probably none re the 'stuck undercarriage???' (my understanding only).

So pehaps CASA should stick to regulating to protect the fare paying passenger and leave PVT and AWK to another body.

AOPA perhaps ?? :confused:

Ulm,

Re medicals and ultralights. There is a case currently going through the WA courts where an ultalight pilot had a heart attack shortly after takeoff and died. The resulting crash has left his passenger a virtual cripple. It has subsequently been revealed that the deceased pilot was told by a doctor that due to his ill health he should not even be driving a car. So to say medicals and ultralights are not an issue is an abhorrent disregard of any sense of responsibility. Especially where carting around a passenger, fare paying or not.

If the pilot in the Victorian case was flying an ultralight under AUF regs then fair enough. But the fact of the matter is that he wasn't. He was flying an an aircraft of approx 1179kg MTOW with a substantially poorer engine out glide capability that your Gemini Thruster or the like.

Now to play Geoffery Robinson and a quick game of Hypothetical here:

What would be the opinion of those currently opposed to CASA's stance had they (CASA) known of the medical deficiencies and failed to act and whilst allowing that pilot to continue to fly, he perhaps has a medical seizure in flight and crashes into a crowded school yard?

I'd suggest those same protagonists would be screaming for the blood of the regulator. :rolleyes:

And as for AOPA being the regulator of GA. Well if the info posted on other threads is anything to go on, they seem to be having a nightmare of trying to regulate themselves. The analogy of "letting the fox lose in the hen house" comes to mind

IJ, I'm gonna quote you here....... Quite possibly, but then again while I am quite aware of your situation on the coast of Oz re: Dame's (one on every corner), spare a thought for those of us who late last year HAD a Av medico in town, but now have a round trip of up to a thousand k'ms to go for a medical, and that doesn't include the eyesight and blood tests.

You'd have thought by now that ASA might have had the nous to either find or appoint someone in what is perhaps one of the largest inland centres in the country.

Seems CASA can be blamed for everything, even the lack of DAMEs in an area. I thought they were responsible for approving not sourcing medicos...but I amy be wrong. On the one hand we have the industry (AOPA) saying they can do it all and then on the other we have the industry saying 'CASA should do this'. But in the end, if you don't have a valid medical, you just don't fly...full stop. If the aircraft is not airworthy (administratively or practically)...you just don't fly. It sounds simplistic but the insurance issues, the legal issues and the personal issues when something goes wrong just isn't worth it.

SPLATR

Are you familiar with the concept of the separation of powers?

Islander Jock I remember when that accident happened, if it is the Narrogin one and thought at the time that it may provide some interesting legal issues. Something along the lines of the coroner reccommending that ALL pilots need a valid medical. I have never understood why AUF pilots don't need medicals. The medical is to protect the passengers and those on the ground from DEATH FROM ABOVE. It is a mute point that a pilot could suffer a heart attack the day after their medical.

Axiom & Ulm

If my memory serves me correctly licences, be they drivers, firearms, liquor or whatever, are issued by the nominated authority on the proviso that the holder meets certain standards of fitness and suitability. If these standards are not met or maintained then the issuing authority has an obligation in public interests to withdraw that privilege.

CAR 269 inter-alia allows CASA to vary, suspend or cancel a licence, certificate or authority if satisfied that the holder;
 has contravened a provision of the act,
 fails to satisfy a prescribed requirement,
 failed his/her duty in safe navigation of aircraft,
 is not a fit or proper person to have the responsibilities etc., of such licence, or
 has contravened a direction or instruction pertaining to safe navigation.

Before taking such action CASA must give notice to the holder and require him/her to show cause why the variation, suspension or cancellation should not take place.

I suggest that if the holder has, say, a medical condition that won’t improve then CASA would be justified in effecting a life suspension regardless of the outcome of any court hearing in relation to other matters. This is supposition on my part because I do not know what the details are relating to the specific incident.

A licence is a privilege, not a right, so what is all the fuss about?

The media reported that the guy up in front of the beak at Hamilton had 25 CASA charges to answer for. If that is correct then that's not bad for an amateur private pilot.

CASA are not all fools and its a good bet that they have had their eyes on this clown for some time before obtaining the hard evidence necessary to nail him to the wall. Just a shame they miss all the other GA cowboys out there.

I give you a hypothetical:

A Policeman (sorry Woman), stops you for alleged speeding.

You dispute his/her assertions and say, "I'll see you in court".

Fair 'nuff ?

The matter goes to Court and the Defendant is found NOT GUILTY.

The Policeman had powers to stop, arrest if neccesary and provide a Plaint to the Court.

Fair 'nuff ?

The accused goes free, or if the reverse occurs, goes to jail.

Fair 'nuff ?

Another hypothetical.

CASA ramp you and find you in some breach of the act.. They then "CANCELL" you licence even after you have said, "I'll see you in Court".

They then up the "ante" by providing you and your well paid ambulance chaser, with another 23 CRIMINAL charges.

You go to Court and the Court finds that the charges were preposterously inflated and find you guilty of not dotting a sentence on your MR.

Penalty: bugga all !

Blue Hauler, a question, where does it say that a licence is a privelege and not a right ?

Icarus 2001, perhaps some of these people should read the AUSTRALIAN CONSTITUTION especially the following which CASA seem to treat with contempt.

Chapters 1, 11, and 111 of the Constitution confer the legislative, executive and judicial powers on three different bodies which are established by the Constitution- the Parliament(chapter 1), The Commonwealth Executive (chapter 11), and the judiciary (chapter 111).

The legislative power is the power to make laws.

The executive power is the power to administer the laws and carry out the business of Government through such bodies as government departments, statutory authorities and the defence forces.

The judicial power is the power traditionally exercised by the courts such as the conduct of criminal trials and determining disputes in relation to contracts.

There is no strict demarcation between the legislative and executive powers, however by contrast, the separation of he powers between the judicature on the one hand, and the parliament and executive is STRICT.

ONLY A COURT MAY EXERCISE THE JUDICIAL POWER.


NATURAL JUSTICE:

The principles and proceedures that govern the adjudication of disputes between persons or organisations. Chief among which are that the adjudication should be unbiased and given in good faith and that each party should have equal access to the tribunal and should be aware of arguements and documents adduced by the other.

Menen;

CASA ARE FOOLS !!!!!!!!!!

If you are a bank runner, I'll give you a point of concern.

Two airsick pax, mid summer, a "dog" of an aircraft, and, some C310 jockey abuses me for not advising him when I had passed his comfort zone so he could climb to a nice cool altitude. "******"

I'm a cowboy apparantly even though I said sorry!

SPLATR

Perhaps this guy forgot ??? Dom't know but a bit harsh accusing him of being a threat to mankind.

ulm;

Policeman of the air, OK if they are not the rule makers, the administrators, the Judge jury executioner etc etc etc.......

They can't be all of these people, it is SIMPLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

and Islander Jock;

You appear to not full understand the Australian Constitution, OR IS IT ME THAT IS IN THE TWILIGHT ZONE ?????????????





:confused: :confused: :confused:

Nice post axiom, I'd only hope that it would be so simple in a perfect world. Of course there is always the old goodie "an immediate and ongoing threat to safety", so I guess they can get it both ways.

My previous post obviously didn't state my position clear enough... I do not believe that it is OK to breach the rules (re: lapsed medical), but however the main crux of what I was trying to say was that sometimes you are put in a situation that arises (usually by the sudden and unexpected removal of a service in your area), that you cannot fix within the alloted (by CASA/ASA) timeframe.

I have no direct problem with the regulators of our industry, but they can take some bewildering directions sometimes.... ?

Interesting debate.

Okay, if the policeman (woman) finds your licence is invalid (out of date?), you can't drive. You can say you'll see them in court as much as you like, but you aint gonna drive! If your medical is not valid, you cannot exericse the privleges of a pilot's licence. All licences are priviliges...no one has the right to operate most forms of transport in public without a licence of some sort. If a policeman (woman) pulls over a vehicle that is unroadworthy, they can stop you from driving it and you can huff and puff about court as much as you like and you may win...and you may lose. Fact is, the police, in some circumstances, can take you off the road before you've been to court.

The CARS are passed by the politicians, whether you like it or not, CASA does have the power to cancel/suspend licences and the have the responsibility of enforcing the regulations as they stand. They are hammered when they do and they are hammered when they don't.

You can go to court and you can have CASA decisions reversed...like you can go to court and have police decisions reversed?

I believe that aviation should be regulated; I've seen too many untrustworthy, unknowledgeable or just plain dishonest people in GA not to be cynical about some of the people spruking about freedom to fly...we have no more 'right' to fly than people have a 'right' to drive. Everytime an aircraft crashes, we see the media, the families and the public questioning standards in aviation and quite frankly, my view is that standards in GA has dived dramatically over the past 30 years.

I have also seen some really strange actions by CASA that makes me realise it is like any other public service entity..it has internal politics, external politics, and 'personalities' with 'strong opinions' as every pilot in this country seems to have.

The regulations as they stand have to be enforced and CASA has that authority. Are you suggesting that CASA is operating outside its authority?

AXIOM

No powers of arrest under the Traffic Act for speeding, although there are such powers for other offences. The Criminal Code (Queensland at least) provides for powers of arrest for Dangerous Driving the proof of which may consist of a number of offences, including speeding.

Commit enough speeding offences and you will be asked to show cause why your licence should not be suspended or cancelled. Such suspension or cancellation is effected by a police officer, not a court, exercising similar rights as contained under CAR 269.

The lawmakers (Parliament) confer those powers upon the regulators.

Section 9 of the Civil Aviation Act confers powers upon CASA to issue licences, certificates etc. Where does it say that a person has a right to hold a licence? It doesn’t. Therefore a licence is a privilege conferred by CASA

As stated in my post above CASA has the power under CAR 269 to vary, suspend or cancel such licence, certificate or authority. Sub-paragraph (3) of that regulation requires “…CASA to give notice in writing to the holder…the facts and circumstances that in the opinion of CASA, warrant consideration being given to …cancellation of the licence, and allow the holder…to show cause, within such time as CASA specifies in that notice…”

CAR 272A states that if “…CASA suspends a licence…its holder is taken not to be the holder of the licence…during the period of the suspension.” The lawmakers have conferred a right upon CASA to withdraw privileges previously granted.

An aggrieved party does have a right of appeal by virtue of Section 31 of the Civil Aviation Act by making “…application to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal for review of a reviewable decision”

My hypothetical: An authority issues a person with a licence to carry a hand gun subject to certain conditions. That person abuses those conditions. Shouldn’t that authority have the power to rescind its original decision based on such evidence it has at its disposal? Would the general public feel safe if the licence was not rescinded? Supposing the condition was a non-reversible mental illness (loss of fitness) could they not cancel the licence for life? In any event the aggrieved person is always at liberty to appeal the decision of the authority through the courts. All sounds constitutional to me!

CASA s problem is that there own people dont even know there legislation.You ring three difrent ofices and you get 6 difrent answers.Had a casa guy up north issue asr on couple of aircraft and one was that the weight limits on placards in the aircraft were in lbs and not KGs,Aircraft was certfied in australia with all weights in LBS,Soo weres the problem?
Any change too get the gastabo mentality out has too be a good one.End of the day they are all public servents.PS anyone tried to get a new aircraft type on there AOCs within 6 months.

AXIOM

As an addendum to your previous:

By law you are not allowed to forget…ignorance is not an acceptable excuse for failing to comply with the law.

Axiom,

I do not for one minute purport to have any in depth knowledge or experience with the Australian Constitution. Probably only on a par with Denis Dinuto in The Castle :D . As to whether or not you are in the "Twilight Zone". That is a question best answered by yourself. :rolleyes:

What I do have though is a fairly good understanding of CARs CAOs and AIP as they apply to me. Should I fail to abide by the provisions of those documents then I expect to be dealt with by the body which issues my licence and associated privileges or as you seem to prefer, authorisations. If I don't like it, then I don't fly but I certainly don't take it upon myself to decide which provisions I will chose to abide by and which I will not.

It appears that the original concept of the presumption of innocence until proved guilty has been lost in a maze of red herrings.

Some valid points, some argueable, but most do not address the simple fact that this guy has been punished before he has been found guilty.

He has been punished by the same people who have a vested interest in enforcing the rules they made up, (sure, after industry consultation) !

A lot of postees to this thread would have this bloke hung by now and I simply say it is blo*dy wrong, unconstitutional, un Australian, and epitomises what is wrong with aviation in Australia today.

Because a law is a law, it doesn't go that it is always a good law. My main grievance with CASA is their application of the law.

It has been suggested to me that CASA took 7 months to find him guilty (and before any trial), and I would suggest to you all that this factor removes the "smoking gun" from the equation.

If he was such a menace to society (as in a drunk driver, or a bank robber with an unlicenced pistol), why was he allowed to meander through life as normal, oblivious to his fate.

I hate it when people refer to poor sods like this bloke as "cowboys" and I will defend them against the taxi driver mentality of a lot of our so called professionals who believe that they are the only ones who should be on the road (sky).

On Australia day long weekend, what has happened to the "fair go mate" ideal we once cherished.

I am prepared to debate anyone on anything, but not CAR's when they are used as red herrings in what is a simple case of our rights as Australians.

struth, bugga bugga bugga



:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Axiom,

Presumption of innocence? Um, come on, in Australia that concept disappeared years ago with random breath testing (pulling you over for no reason except to test your breath to see if you have been drinking...to see if you havebeen breaking the law) and harassment cases where the names are published in the media well before the trial so any 'presumption' is thrown out the window.

Ax, I don't know this guy, I don't know the case, don't know whether he is guilty and I wasn't even arguing this case. I am debating the general priniciples. Sometimes the machinery of CASA does take an inordinate time but then they would also be accused of shooting from the hip if they acted quicker.

Good law, bad law? I guess that's a matter of opinion and where you stand on issues and there are many examples of that in Australia. The law is enacted by the parliament which is supposed to represent the people and the law is the law until it is changed. We do not have the luxury of choosing which laws we follow and which ones we don't without ramification, thank goodness.

Now, when it comes to aviation, the laws with which we must comply that are intended to put some order in the system and provide protection PRIMARILY to those on the ground and the passenger. CASA is charged with enforcing the laws made by the politicians and so it must. If there is a problem with the way they administer the laws then there are avenues of redress.

Are you really suggesting that if CASA finds someone breaking the law that they have to go to court each time to administer the consequence? I hope not. Now, CASA should act fairly and without malice and I know that individuals within the organisation have not always done that; but that is a management issue within CASA that needs to be addressed. But I also believe that if CASA finds pilots flying with invalid medicals, invalid endorsements, invalid ratings, false entries in log books, fake training, invalid maintenance releases etc, then they should take action. I can see the public demanding action if CASA was not to act.

"The rules they made up"....if you saw the process the regs and legislation undergo getting through parliament, then you would realise there are ample avenues for people to have their 'say'...often that 'say' is not agreed with by others but that is the system we work under and in general it seems to work okay.

Now, how can we make the system better? I don't have a problem with a 'points' type system IF it is concieved and administered without fear or favour; I wouldn't mind seeing an decision review committee consisting of industry/CASA/joe public who could review questioned CASA decisions-a sort of ombudsman...there are ways and means.

But the law we have right now is the law that CASA has to administer...I don't see their current powers contrasting dramatically from the powers the police have at present.

I do believe that we need strong enforcement for the industry's sake.

Sorry, that is just my opinion.

Remote aviation medicals
 

Ops Normal

If there is noone who does aviation medicals in The Alice why not ask one of the Darwin medicos if they would consider flying down.

A number of Darwin specialists fly down to do clinics for a day or two every couple of months. Why not ask the local medical centre if this is an option.

If it ain't you could always get a few pilot mates together & pay the Dr's airfare DN/AS/DN $450.00 divided by a few of you is a lot cheaper than airfares ex AS for everybody to fly to the nearest major centre that does them. :p :p

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.......