Horsham Court Case - the outcome ? [Archive]

brianh

14th May 2003, 05:53

And tell me, do you folks keep a close record of when your driver's licence and bills are due? And your medical - I do, but many do not.

What a sin to fly on an expired medical. As I drive to and from my home airport I am always reminded that the greatest danger when flying is the motorists - WITHOUT medicals - on the road to and from.

Why the cynical comments about Boyd? When I had someone in the ATSB try and improperly pressure and gag me, Boyd was the first and only one to spend his own $ to assist.

If ASA is not there to help you who do you suggest? AOPA were a party to my issue with the ATSB but do you think they would assist. Ha Ha.

Anyway, the crux of the issue is that CASA rmoved the guy's licence WITHOUT a hearing. Is this the sort of justice you want in Australia.

And, re the T shirts - at least ASA got media publicity as being involved in supporting pilots. AOPA would not get involved - forget that this is a significant issue re CASA execrcising powers that are outside the accepted normal treatment of the common man - because the guy was not a member.

My summary of the answer to your question:
1. CASA needs to be removed from its role of sole judge, jury, and executioner.
2. Don't knock the only hand that might come to your aid when you need it.
3. And, yes, Boyd was at Horsham together with many others spending their own $ in the hope that someday pilots will receive the same rights of natural justice as murderers.
Cheers

Gnd Power

15th May 2003, 09:19

Gotta disagree with you Brianh re the inference that flying without a valid medical is a minor matter and can be justified by the fact that motorists do not require medicals.

To take your argument to the next level we could also say that to continue operating without having completed an Instrument renewal, an Instructor renewal, or even a BFR is justified as the motorist has no requirement for any ongoing testing.

Now, using your analogy of old mate the motorist, well he probably doesn't have the same rights as the muderer either. There are many ways the Drivers Licence can be removed, revoked etc, without the matter be decided in a Court of Law.

The fact is that there are certain commitments, (which are not really that onerous), which are required to be made in order to exercise the privileges of the Pilot's Licence. To belittle those rules and regulations does nothing to garner support for your cause from me.

Bill Pike

15th May 2003, 09:51

Brianh,
You had my phone number, yet you made no attempt to contact me re the ATSB case. It is true that I was hors de combat at that time and that you sent an "Open Letter to the Board"(?), may I say demanding? that all other matters be dropped and that your matter take centre stage. This was, as I understand it, and please correct me if I am wrong, that AOPA should pick a fight with the Federal Police about some rather heavy handed demands regarding the removal of what they saw as threats that you made against a public servant, that was on the AOPA website. All other matters regarding NPRM's and CASA heavy handedness against pilots on a daily basis were in your view, less important, yet a complicated bureaucratic fight with the Federal Police would have taken forever, used up precious time and resources, and achieved what? Did anything happen to you as a result? Just what was your case that AOPA should have taken up? AOPA is full steam lobbying for all pilots, it is unfortunate that every fight cannot be fought, and that individual cases cannot be attended to, but at present they cannot. But in your case you did not so much as call and ask for my help, you "demanded " it by a general email! I am pleased that ASA can at times pick up one issue and run with it, good for Boyd. What about Robert Furness, who had his Medical returned on the steps of the AAT one time and taken for the same reason by the same doctor who was over ruled, when he became the new boss? CASA won't even return my calls on that one. There are thousands of such cases, and I wish that we had the resources but we do not. We do not. I personally fully agree that flying without a medical, especially without any adverse condition, is a very minor matter, and it is noteworthy that CASA do not send out reminders, as does the various traffic authorities. There is not, as I understand it ,any safety justification for private pilot medicals, judging from surveys done in the US, AND as the AUF have clearly shown. The sooner the requirement disappears for private pilots as well as AUF pilots the better. However if there is anything that remains of the ATSB case and you would like to discuss it please call on 0249903717. Now that I have a few thousand less issues screaming for my attention I will assist if I can.
Gnd Power,
There never was any reduction in accidents after the introduction of BFR's though more than few saw them as one burden to many, and gave up flying. In the States there isn't a requirement to renew an instrument rating provided recency is retained,and that doesn't appear to cause a safety problem either,

brianh

15th May 2003, 18:28

Gnd Pwr
Sorry, I didn't make my point clear.
The issue is over arbitrary licence removal without a chance to
defend.
I won't even pursue the issue of how many accidents can be attributed to flying with an out of date medical. But, a lot have occurred thru flying into IMC.

Bill P
I cannot adequately respond as PP censors bad language. You have posted absolute bsht in relation to my open letter to the AOPA Board. I posted asking why I could not get support for a legal opinion from the 2 qualified on the Board so I could carry the case further.

Oh, and let's not forget that it related to the ATSB saying black boxes should be an inclusion in GA aircraft. Perhaps you can post a copy of the (non-existent) AOPA response to the ATSB on that?

So, mate, during your term as Pres you allowed the ATSB to illegally - via AFP pressure - censor the AOPA Forum? High distinction indeed. By the way, what action has AOPA taken to protest the proposed ripoff on the Avgas fuel duty in the budget?

Anyway, this email is a tad terse, best I cease. Good to see you back on the public forums once the elction deadline loomed but, no, I don't intend to invoke your help over an issue that AOPA should have acted on in February.
Cheers

tealady

16th May 2003, 21:16

brianh, may I ask who or what is ASA?
I believe this was not a case of just one or two flights on an expired medical, but somewhat in excess of 25 flights?
How did CASA pick up on the fact that the medical was expired?
Where there's smoke there's fire. Having dealt with one of the pilots in particular who flew over to Horsham, I can understand the logic that you and your ilk follow - the logic that says you don't have to follow any rules, that's for everyone else who isn't as good a pilot as what you and your cronies obviously are! The pilot that I know who flew across has absolutely no respect for rules except his own. I reckon I know hundreds of pilots, but I don't personally know of any who have even looked like having their licence removed. Like attracts like I guess!

brianh

17th May 2003, 05:46

Tea Lady
I'm not sure how you decide that people who support natural justice do not fly by the rules, but I do not appreciate unwarranted and unfaur criticism.

I am currently writing the SOP for a CTAF to try and get the new tenants to fly by the rules - as I do. The problem being, they do not wish to.
I fly rigidly by the rules. I tutor the stuff and can probably run rings around you on the rules and their adherence. I also have a 30 year unblemished driving record coz i abide by those rules also.

Having got that steam off my chest, I am NOT supporting the pilot concerned in breaking any rules. I have seen no proof that he did and what I am supporting - same as ASA - is ANY pilot's right to the same justice as rapists, murders, etc - trial by magistrate or jury.

For CASA to arbitrarily remove his licence - and they have the power to do it to anyone - without a hearing or any recourse is against any principles of fairness and law in the Westminster system.

I have personal experience of CASA with a vendetta against a LAME where he took the gutsy step of going to the Ombudsman, thus of course increasing their vendetta out of spite. It is delightful to se the Ombud corro - steeped in law - and the questions he is asking and comments being made about the CASA actions that have included just about every dirty trick you can name. Their final response is that a lesson has been learned and this sort of thing would not happen again. Where is the LAME recompense from CASA.

And remember Whyalla Airlines and how they were guilty of every sin under the sun and put out of business. pity that happened before the world wide recall of the engines had to be done because of the final problem found that was not due to any illegal action but, rather, established legitimate operating procedures.

I could go on but I have a 25 year regulatory background and cannot impart the lessons learned in this sopace. But, i do take very unkindly to you labelling a cautious rule observant pilot such as myself as you have without any substance to do so. And, I hope you do include the airfield name at the start AND FINISH of radio calls at ALL CTAF and MBZ, not just those in proximity if you want to get into fine details of following the rules?

I have been kind about your posting, as i have about Bill Pike's also. Had I wanted to prove him foolish and also quoting incorrect detail, I'd have just posted my original email to the Board to which he referred. But I am by nature - as CASA should also be - of a coaching rather than executioner style.
Cheers

Creampuff

17th May 2003, 08:58

Wagit

17th May 2003, 11:02

Creampuff

There is no natural justice...... There is only the Law....... Don't get justice and the law mixed up now.

If the policeman takes your licence off you for drink driving or speeding then don't blame him. If you don't like the laws ask his political masters to explain...... (if they can!!!!!)

Only small minded people shoot the messenger. Believe me there are plenty of these people in the aviation industry.......

Wagit

Dogimed

17th May 2003, 11:20

You're making comparisons with motorists.

If you go 45 kph above the speed limit, the police in some Australian jurisdictions can suspend your licence on the spot, whether or not you've had an accident and whether or not you and them were the only living thing for 100 miles.

Creampuff, in perspective, you can argue this case in court if you dont like it. What about driving 30km over the speed limit? What happens then? Your talking about very serious offences in motoring. Make the comparisons equal.

If you drive with a blood alchohol level above the prescribed limit, the police can arrest you and lock you up, whether or not you've had an accident and whether or not you and them were the only living thing for 100 miles.

See above.

Where exactly is the natural justice and court participation before the action is taken against the person in these examples?

Jesus, where do you start with these comments..... lets try.

1) Police dont make the LAW in this country, they uphold it. Casa make it and break it at will.
2) You have proper set avenues of appeal in motoring cases. Again set out clearly when your booked.
3) The rules for motoring are uncomplicated and uncluttered. You know exactly what is right or wrong within the motoring world of law. Do we have this comfort with CASA's rules and regs? NO! not me anyway.

What happens to someone driving without a licence? (bearing in mind the bugguh had been driving for some time before he is caught. Suspension for 3 months and a fine?
What happens to a pilot who flies without a medical?
Guess we will soon find out eh!!

Dog

Aussierotor

17th May 2003, 11:40

The whole point is rules are made for reasons.
If you break them then punishment will prevail.
Every one knows this but what seems to get up noses is the penalties--are they too servere and how come Joe Bloggs only got that when i got taken to the cleaners.
I dont know how it works,but if a guy is way over time with a medical etc,then he should get more than someone who is just over.
But the bottom line is ,if you have broken a rule for what ever reason then something has to be done.
I tried the "forgot" reason in my job once(mining) and nearly got the boot,was sent to company doctor and asked stupid questions if i knew where i lived etc-----geeeez

brianh

17th May 2003, 13:05

All
Thanks for the past 3 or 4 posts which at least are getting to the issue.
If the guy flys a 747 or M3, I might feel really strong about his not being current medical.
If GA, then I regard it as a breach of an existing law but whether it warrants immediate suspension is arguable.
On the medical side, we are stuck with the current rules so I abide by them. I find the regular check of great reassurance re my general health anyway. But, how many accidents can be traced to medical reasons - and, in any case, if the person had a valid medical when the accident occurred - what did the medical do to stop the accident - nothing. One wonders why the AUF are gaining strength.
With a car licence, you DO get a reminder. I do not recollect getting one for my AVMED. Does anyone know if we do? If not, then if it is such a significant matter and given that we are about to have the avgas price increased to fund the CASA monolith, then why don't we get a reminder?
Keep the thoughts rolling. It will be interesting to see the wrap up of this case.
Cheers

Creampuff

17th May 2003, 13:06

Wagit – I agree with you.

Doggy – This very thread is about a chap who’s getting his day in court. The issue I am taking Brian H to task about is natural justice. In the examples I gave, the administrative action is taken against you before you get your day in court. Why should aviation be different?

Your opinion about the comparative seriousness of the examples I used and flying without a current medical is just that – your opinion. Like my opinion, in means nothing. The legislature has decided the seriousness of an offence by prescribing penalties, or by delegating the governor-general the power to prescribe offences and penalties. If people don’t like it, then the place to protest is not outside CASA, not in the courthouse: it’s at parliament house.

Which law has CASA – repeat CASA – made for breach of which there is a criminal penalty? Which law has CASA – repeat CASA – made that gives it power to suspend or cancel a pilot’s licence? Which avenues of review are available to the holder of a driver’s licence that aren’t available to a pilot?

The correct answer to all 3 questions is simple: none.

brianh

17th May 2003, 13:06

And by the way, how many of you do honestly make the call with the CTAF or MBZ name at both ends? If not, you too are breaching the law - is that serious?

Creamy
Your post landed just after i posted.
Fair go old mate. Just because the motorist is treated as a criminal to top up Gov't revenue one cannot draw the comparison that pilots should receive equal treatment from CASA.

There are only 2 crimes - driving fast and driving drunk. Both can get your licence grabbed on the spot. That's the Gov't trying to show it cares about the road toll after the event. If it was serious there could perhaps be medicals, student drivers required to go through some of what we did with BAK, AGK, etc etc etc.

But, rape, murder, theft, assault and battery, or stealing and pinching and torching your brand new BMW, and mate - you are out on bail. In my daily moves I regularly hear crims with 10 pages of priors out and about at it again.

So, two wrongs don't make a right. A pilot guilty of a serious breach - eg an experienced pilot (landing head on with someone else on a legitimate approach) on a straight in approach with the wind up the rear at a CTAF (there's 4 breaches in one) should be immediately grounded until his case is heard because he has put life at risk deliberately. An expired medical - well, I remain to be convinced that warrants an immediate suspension. Of cours, CASA may show in Court that there was premeditation, prior history, or whatever and that will change the mindset. But, this is the second adjournment and I find that hard to accept.
Cheers

brianh

17th May 2003, 15:52

Ibex

(By the way I notice no one has yet come clean on whether they have been breaking the rules with their CTAF/MBZ radio calls to pick on just one bit of trivia but nevertheless a rule).

Suspended pending an early hearing - OK.

However, here is a direct extract from what has been provided by ASA and I have not seen the comment refuted by CASA: -
"Although not a word of evidence has yet been heard, CASA's Ian Ogilvie decided more than a year ago that Denis is guilty and has cancelled his license permanently".

Cancelled! Permanently! Not out on bail, not suspended pending a hearing - gone for life.

And, Ibex, do you know the answer to whether we get a reminder when our medical is due? I honestly do not remember (but I do have the date firm in my organiser). Again I say, if it is such a significant part of our pilot legal adherence, we should get a reminder from CASA.

Now, two minutes ago the latest came in from ASA and it says, inter alia: -
Re the CAA Bill 2003, the new section 30DI gives CASA an entirely new power to permanently cancel a persons licence even though that person has never been convicted of any offence.

Ibex, is this the Australian justice system you wish to see in place? I thought even the French system had mellowed with time.

I have not read the CAA Amendment yet but I am aware that ASA are very careful never to print anything that leaves them vulnerable to suit or claim of falsehood.

Never convicted, permanently cancelled - then try and get it back if you have unlimited funds to proceed. This is laughable.

I go back to my earlier comment - everyone is entitled to a fair trial. The point has already been made by another that an expired medical hardly rates on par with drink driving or 40 kmh over the limit - they are acts of anti-social, dangerous behaviour.

In the real world, the pilot at the centre of this dispute would have been required to have an immediate medical. If he passed, leave him flying pending legal action for his sin/s of failing to fly previously without one and fine or suspenfd him according to the Court's discretion. If he failed it, ground him pending the Court hearing.

I am amazed to see fellow Australians on this Forum looking for justifications for acts taken by CASA that deny natural justice and have no parallel in the real world. Although I am mindful of Woomera's comments that all those on this Forum may not be whom they appear to be. Hands up all CASA staff posting!

As an aside, since we mentioned the road situation, I suggest to anyone who wishes to visit the ATSB or TAC VIC sites that you will find some interesting stats on the road toll that show a strong relationship to severe attitudinal problems (not expired medicals). A British study has shown that more than half of those convicted for dangerous driving also had non-driving criminal records. If Dennis Grosser is of this ilk, let him swing! However, that is something I expect to see in Court and at sentence time - not in the mind of someone from CASA who has declared themselves judge, jury, and executioner already.
Cheers

Dogimed

17th May 2003, 16:34

Which law has CASA – repeat CASA – made for breach of which there is a criminal penalty? Which law has CASA – repeat CASA – made that gives it power to suspend or cancel a pilot’s licence? Which avenues of review are available to the holder of a driver’s licence that aren’t available to a pilot?

Smoke and mirrors, who recommended that these be introduced as a way of making Aviation safer?

Who does the minister listen to in regards to aviation safety?
A corporation that employees rogue operaters , more often with a bone to pick with previous competors..etc etc It's happened, it's happening, and will continue to happen. How did CASA get the image of vindictiveness, pettyness and oppression?

Dog

brianh

17th May 2003, 18:42

Dog
Spot on.

As soon as a threat or someone who can talk the truth pops its head up, let's enlist them in CASA, give them some $, and remove the threat.

Bill Mattes (ASF) did the night I think "Weatherwise" seminar for CASA in Melbourne a year or two ago, Trevor Wright was seconded to one of the working groups to present - what coincidences. What a coincidence - top operators suddenly on the CASA "don't bite the hand that feeds", payroll. OK, I'll admit I'm peeved coz they did not invite me to join the lunch table with my wealth of low time PPL experience :D

And, you are spot on re rogue operators. Have a look at the ATSB report on the night fatal at Moorabbin - which big multi-state operator's aircraft were hogging the circuit - 6 aircraft in the circuit when 5 is the law. Will the operator concerned be acted on by CASA - if I hang by the proverbial waiting I'll be the next John Holmes.

Also, when I examined the papers on the CASA vendetta re the LAME, it was the little man they wanted to crush despite overwhelming documenation that the CASA investigators didn't know the correct propellor to be fitted. But of course, once caught, their response was to try and crucify the messenger, Bug,er justice.

Flying schools - the weight of paperwork they need to prove to CASA they can operate safely. Can you find me any business that operates the same? Again, the biggies can afford a "Safety Officer" and enuf paper to choke a Caravan - Ah, that must make them safer with their "200 hours I'm a CPL with an instructor rating but on my way to the airlines" passover instructers than the small flying school that has a 6000+ hour instructor who is happy to stay there and impart his knowledge to the students- thank God I had one of these and yet I'm still incompetent!

CASA motto is big is better, get rid of the chickensh!t operators and fliers, RPT and above is God! Don't believe me anyone - OK - call for a VFR QNH or Flight Plan Amendment on the area frequency - POQ sonny, we are dealing with the real people, not the weekend warriors.

Dog, yours was a welcome post. I owe you a beer for saving my sanity.
Cheers

Creampuff

17th May 2003, 20:30

Good – now we’re getting somewhere.

You’ve implicitly conceded that CASA doesn’t make the laws about which you complain. However, from your perspective it’s effectivelyCASA because it’s CASA that recommends these laws.

Jeez those politicians must be stupid.

Do you know why there’s a requirement to have a valid medical?

It’s because many moons ago, before CASA or the CAA or the Dept of Transport or any other organisation that might have been created in your lifetime was created, the Australian government signed the Paris Convention and then the Chicago Convention. The politicians who made that decision had sufficient nous and foresight to realise that if Australia wanted to avoid becoming an aviation backwater, Australia would need to get with the program.

You might think that Australia is the aviation program. Hey - look at QANTAS.

Any credible international analyst takes the view that QANTAS has yet to do sufficient hours to form the basis of a statistically valid comparison with the big boys and girls. QANTAS’s flying hours are barely a blip on the flying hours radar.

The reason the Chicago Convention is important to Australia is that it provides a reasonable level of assurance to the rest of the developed aviation world that they can send aircraft loads of passengers to Australia at agreed standards of safety.

Tell the rest of the world that Australia lets loose in controlled airspace slack-jawed yokels who may or may not be capable of making sure they get a medical examination once every two years, or who aren’t required to get one at all, and watch your aviation reputation go south.

Here’s the bottom line: the politicians have decided that Australia’s aviation and general interests are better served by complying so far as is reasonable with its international obligations, instead of pandering to the interests of a few morons who cannot or will not get their medical done on time.

If you want to blame CASA for that, then enjoy pissing into the wind.

brianh

17th May 2003, 20:49

Creamy
That is drawing a long bow. I was not aware that the person in question in the Horsham case was an international airline pilot.

So CASA does not make the rules?
And did the international area recommend the draconian changes that are embodied in the TSI Bill that ATSB put forward?
And is the international area recommending the CAA 2003 changes I already mentioned?
What of the mooted returning 3 year airframe inspection for GA - is the United nations recommending this?

I spent 25 years working this sort of crap for the Government. No politician has a mind of their own - the Bills put forward come from the authorities in the first place. What comes up for aviation comes from CASA and ATSB - the political mouthpieces change, the anti-pilot culture does not.

CASAs old brigade is full of a militaristc culture that believes discipline and regulation is the answer to the world's evils. Fortunately, there is a growing forest of young trees that believe in a coaching style that includes treating pilots and AOC holders as normal human beings. Unfortunately, like the greenies stuff the forests, unless the deadwood is removed, the new trees will be choked.

I spoke to a CASA bod last week who will sell his soul to the devil to stop these pagan moves to the FARs. I could hear him whistling an old tune about 2 minute reporting for VFR flights.

Must run, I believe an international body has told us we must remove the name "Nugget" from a rugby league stand in Qld because it is demeaning to the race that has us now over Ayers Rock at 4500 instead of 1500 in case we scare the great spirit Wugeridoo - slip us a $ mate. Yes, these international conventions about how we Australians must toe the line are a great thing Creamy.
cheers

Wagit

18th May 2003, 16:57

Creampuff

Let me guess you have studied law!!!!!!!

With regards to aviation law lets get it right CASA drafts the law the Attorney General writes the law, the political masters pass the law and the now defunct governor general puts a petty little seal on them.

Anyone who thinks that the police don't have a say in the road rules is a fool...... Just look at the history of the drink driving rules and you will see that the police instigated and even possible drafted the rules....

brianh

18th May 2003, 17:48

Wagit
You are on my channel and in line for an oscar.

In terms of law, I hope Creamy doesn't cream me for getting into this territory, we know the following: -
Two elements are needed for a crime to be established -
1. Actus Reus, or to simple people like thee and me, a wrongful act
AND (not OR)
2. Mens Rea - a guilty mind.

The wrongful act was apparently committed. It should be a Court that decides on whether the second matter was deliberate or unintentional - not CASA.

And talking of CASA (let's add in ATSB since they want the TSI Bill to allow them to kill wound and maim anyone in their way) if they truly are an independent judge, jury, and executioner you and I would expect them to treat everyone fairly - no favourites. Is this really the way they work? Let's look at another site on this Forum - the Lake Evella fatality - and see what the father of the pilot has posted on PP: - (I'll condense it a tad, check the original for detail)

Father's Posting
"What you must all understand is that our original advice on the cause of the crash was "mechanical failure”.

This was changed to "pilot error” upon our arrival in Darwin the next day. We could not comprehend the news broadcast on the television that evening and the print media the next day stating “WINGOVER"and stunt flying.

It was thought unusual that the cause of the crash was available so soon after it happening, knowing the ATSB had not visited the site nor interviewed eye witnesses. All media releases were handled by The Operations Manager of the charter company, and at no stage in the four days we were in Darwin were we contacted or interviewed by any journalist or Police, nor did we sanctioned use of any photographs printed or shown. We realise that now in similar circumstances the media no longer report in this manner and I refer you to the new type of media coverage as shown in the Groote Island and Hamilton Island incidents. The pilots name is not mentioned and unauthorised photos are not released. One little step of progress for the grieving Family.

Our family at this time had no reason to doubt that an investigation would be held by an approved body duly appointed. There were some concerns expressed to us by other pilots, and these were communicated to the Coroner and ATSB on our return to NSW. At no time did we form an opinion that Robert was an innocent victim, nor look for scapegoats, or hide behind technicalities to try and get out of our obligations.

What happened on the 4th February 2001 will NEVER be known because the Inquest was unable to determine it. During the inquest it was not able to determine what actually happened as the witnesses were either not actually looking, unable to recall or not able to give an answer. (I guess this is inevitable when Inquest take so long to be heard). But it was a fact that there was no prior discussion of a show, no discussing any display, and what was attempted was not a wingover as ATSB had said but an involuntary stall. The reasons for it will never be known, for the one who does know cannot talk in his defence.

The ATSB chose to make a decision as to the cause within THREE HOURS of the event, and then decided not to attend the scene or give any explanations as to why they came to the conclusions they did. The failure of ATSB not to attend the Inquest meant that their decisions could not be examined.

CASA allowed the company to operate the business under another company’s AOC for three years before the crash, and only suspended the licence because the company was going into liquidation and the AOC was up for renewal.

The company gave evidence that nothing about the running of the business under the new AOC had changed except a new Chief Pilot had been appointed. This has to be questionable considering all the proposed changes to be made according to CASA. When you talk of working conditions and pay there will always be the unscrupulous ones who try and cut corners and costs, including maintenance etc, screw the staff (not literally but financially), ignore the rules and run risks, all for a bigger profit for themselves.

It is only by a large number of people contacting the relevant people that things will be made to change and stop companies from operating this way. It is only you that can achieve this."

What can I say? Here is one outsiders very detailed and reasonable comment on his dealings - or lack thereof - with the two organisations that control our destiny as pilots and/or aircraft owners. What has Australia come to when we accept this. The problem is that aviation is such a small voice that the pollies and bureaucrafts can continue to treat us like excreta.

Wag, you have posted well and I thank you for your succinct comment.

PS Everyone - ASA continues recruiting members and is going from strength to strength - membership being free probably helps but where do you get that nowadays. I have not seen anyone else yet publish anything on the CAA changes including 30DI.

Going back to basics, let a Court decide on Denis's future, not a faceless decision maker lurking in the safety of the bureaucracy.
Cheers

Creampuff

18th May 2003, 18:06

There's something about a pilot's licence that infuses in its holder the confidence to assert in one sentence what law professors take volumes to explain.

So wagit, it's CASA who makes the sky rules and the police who make the road rules. Let's assume that's true. The point of protesting in a court is therefore.........what exactly?

Brian H: AT LAST WE'VE GOT TO THE BOTTOM OF THE MISCONCEPTON UNDER WHICH YOU ARE LABOURING.

Flying without a current medical certificate is A STRICT LIABILITY OFFENCE. Mens rea IS NOT AN ELEMENT OF THE OFFENCE.

It's no different from driving a car without a licence. The offence is made out once the actus reas is established.

I've made my views on the Lave Evalla tragedy clear in the thread to which you referred.

brianh

18th May 2003, 18:57

Creamy
Sorry, still not in agreement.

The pilot in question DID have a licence.
The pilot in question did have a medical - it had lapsed.
The Court can decide HOW and WHY it lapsed.

Driving unlicensed is a separate issue - it is usually because of a suspension or cancellation.

No-one has yet answered my question as to whether we DO get reminders re our medicals?
If it is a strict liability offence, then the need for a renewal is something that should drive the regulator to issue reminders.
Do we get one? If not, how seriously is the renewal taken by the Regulator?

We are starting to travel in circles. Logic tells us that the pioneer aviators did not have medicals. Reality tells us that the law has changed and we now need them, unless we accept the CASA challenge to move to the AUF - probably some merit as ultimately a reduction in GA must also chop some of the body away from the CASA dinosaur since it will have less market to manage.

I will sit on my hands and await the decision of the Court. I still believe that is where the decision should have rested from Day 1. If it IS a serious liability offence, why not roll it into Court straight away and have the Magistrate set the legal decision in place then?
Cheers

Creampuff

19th May 2003, 04:59

He didn't have a medical.

It's a strict liability offence.

If you want to split hairs between having had one that's lapsed and not ever having had one, it's equivalent to driving after your registration's 'lapsed'. You get booked for driving without insurance, whether you're licensed or not. That too is a strict liability offence.

The reason you don't get a reminder is that the organisation of which you are a member convinced the regulator that you were responsible enough not to need one! You didn't need to pay a public servant to remember a date for you (so you said).

Now you want the regulator to do it for you again.

One of the many nails in the AOPA credibility coffin.

brianh

19th May 2003, 05:45

Creamy

Just proves that AOPA may not ALWAYS know what is best for members. An argument I have been having over recent months.

Given that the Regulator does allegedly know what is best for pilots and aircraft owners, and brings it in without options, I remain surprised they allowed such a critical matter to be dropped by AOPA lobbying. Obviously, Motor Reg do not trust motorists similarly and do send out licence renewals, even without them having medicals.

I note your post uses the USA address - and the USA was famous in cowboy novels (excepting those wonderful Zane Grey ones) for "The Hanging Judge". Somewhere in your family tree is suspect there will be a link.

Reason? No matter what pontificating postings we have ALL made re this thread, if we were placed in circumstances of alleged breach of Regs or Law, we WOULD expect a fair and early trial by a Court. Very easy to hang the man at the centre of this matter, very different if we stood in his shoes.

I say yet again, if the role of the Regulator is to regulate, the role of the Courts is to ensure justice is done to all. The Courts are there as an independent arbiter. Why is the Regulator not prepared to take such cases to Court before making a decision on a life sentence?

Perhaps CASA do not want this because the ability of those against whom they act to focus a public spotlight on their decisions could raise some interesting questions.

Anyway, I await the decision of the Court.
Cheers

Capn Laptop

19th May 2003, 07:22

brian h,

With regards the radio question that you mentioned.

Is the requirement to transmit the aerodrome name at the beginning and end of the transmission in the Aeronautical INFORMATION Publication or the regulations?

While I am at it - are you breaking the LAW if you don't set course within 5 miles?

Finally - I used to be a member of AOPA - but my membership lapsed. Does that mean that I can still consider myself a member?

If it is lapsed it doesn't exist - just ask insurance companies!!

Woomera

19th May 2003, 09:21

Watched that hilarious but thought provoking Billy Connolly movie, "The Man who sued God" on Foxtel last night.

Some interesting semantics and hard logic amongst the fun with an intelligent and intelectually satisfying twist at the end.

My daughter who missed the end asked me "who won" and the only answer I could give here was catch the next run and see for yourself.

Enjoy.

Blue Sky Baron

19th May 2003, 11:05

Creampuff,

I don't believe for a minute that anyone here actually supports breaking the rules however many believe that the rules may not be the right ones.

If I understand you correctly:

You're analogy with the driver who fails to renew his licence really does not make your case as this driver when caught DOES NOT HAVE HIS LICENCE PERMANENTLY CANCELLED BY THE POLICE OFFICER! He is issued with a summons to appear in court to answer the charges. As pilots we should expect the same treatment but alas, we do not get it. Would you accept having your drivers licence cancelled FOREVER if you failed to renew it?

On another point, you seem to be quite switched on regarding this subject of aviation law so I will ask this question of you.

Which other countries who are signaturies to the Chicago Convention would remove a pilots licence permanently without the opportunity of a court hearing FIRST?

I await your answer which I am sure will enlighten us all, and may or may not, solve this debate. :ok:

Thanks,

BSB

tealady

19th May 2003, 15:42

brianh - no, CASA nor anyone else except maybe your DAME, Flying School or aero club issues a reminder that your medical is due. You didn't answer my question - who or what is ASA? My major concern about someone not flying with a current medical is that I believe it would render ones insurance to be invalid - what then for the poor ignorant passengers or others who might be affected in case of some accident? If you are protesting the system that brings the charges to court and not the charges being brought to court, then you must accept that you will be tarred with the same brush as the defendent.

Creampuff

19th May 2003, 17:54

BSB

Some interesting points.

First, you too appear to be labouring under a misapprehension. You appear to believe that if your pilot's licence is cancelled, you can never get another one. If that’s your belief, your belief is wrong.

Secondly – of course a police officer can’t cancel a licence that does not exist. If the driver failed to renew her licence, she has no licence to cancel. But in any event, police officers are given power to cancel driver’s licences, in some cases unilaterally.

Thirdly – While “many may believe that the rules may not be the right ones”, the legislature has decided what the rules are. That’s how it works in a parliamentary democracy.

I am not aware of any ICAO country whose regulator is required to wait for a court decision before the regulator may exercise its licence cancellation powers. Those powers are exercised in those countries - USA included - about as frequently as they are in Australia.

You need to comprehend and understand the differences between administrative and criminal processes. They’re a product of entirely different policy and evidential frameworks.

brianh

19th May 2003, 18:17

laptop
It's in the AIPs, operative word being "Must". I think ENR 80.1, 65. something from memory.

If you want a "legal" opinion, try 131757 Kevin Smith CASA FLying Ops or Andrew (Warland) Browne who produces the CASA VFG. I have already had one. In typical CASA style, the reason is put before the requirement and gives the impression it only applies to airports in proximity. But it applies to all.

But, it is still a legal requirement, more so when MBZ vanish shortly and the new CTAF comes in under the NAS rules - and you will then probably find mandatory calls downwind, base, final, backtrack, and clear runway at what are currently CTAF/MBZ.

We could probably also go into who takes off over water and follows the 500' turn when in fact they are beyond gliding distance from land technically and, if without lifejackets, should turn at 200' for operational dictates. But, let's leave fine points of law - like that and the Horsham case in question - for the Courts rather than us or the regulator.

Woomera
Great call. Thanks. Sometimes your intervention saves my sense of humour.

Iwill
As I said earlier, he should be immediately medded and this aspect critical to the severity of his transgression. If he was dodging an inability to pass a medical, off with his head. If it was inadvertent or he has no medical hindrance, the intention to prostitute the system or transgress is different.

BSB
Spot on. As CASA vacillates between the FARs and the JARs, who knows where our next move will be. And, as far as overseas Conventions are concerned, I am still tickled by the one (you may have seen it) re the Iraq action and some members of the UN
"You know the world has changed when:
the world's best golfer is black.
the best rapper is white,
the french claim to have found a nation more arrogant,
and germany doesn't want to go to war"

Tealady
I'm not protesting the charges being brought to Court, what I am against is a lifetime licence suspension WITHOUT the charges being brought to court. Even the Bali bomber is getting a court appearance before being shot.

And, fair call, I didn't answer your early question re who/what is ASA. I belong to it and AOPA. I am not going to bang ASAs drum, if you are unaware go to www.airsafety.com.au and look for yourself. About 1750 members from memory and possibly the top research man in Oz for aviation matters in my opinion. All that and free membership - why should i complain.

As far as insurance goes, NO-ONE pilots my plane without being checked out by a CFI. Theoretically, anyone can fly below 5700 kg MTOW but I am super cautious in that regard. Yes, his insurance may have been doubtful but I feel that comes back to the Insurer (in my case QBE/AAUP) and the operator. And yes - the other 3 who fly my aircraft have their qualifications fully documented on the insurers files.

Do not label me as premissive, a short cut pilot or owner, etc. I am mature, cautious, have a yellow streak down my back when it comes anywhere near rule breaking or flying outside my capability, and am happy to discuss my personal principles to anyone who wants to meet me at the Melb Flight Safety Forum that i cajole my club into attending each year.

All
This has become another War and Peace. I will, like a broken record now, await the Court appearance. But, while I may not agree with allthat has been posted, i do feel this debate has added some small value to aviation as we know it.

I do not know the person in question. I do not know if he is guilty or not. My emphasis throughout this is that the role of any Regulator is to present a case to the Judiciary and have them judge the defendant. Why should CASA be judge, jury, and executioner - can they not stand public debate, normal legal representation, and an external assessment of their actions?

PS Finally got my new licence booklet today to replace my plastic card ($13 P&P via CASA. You will recognise me at the Seminar by the lean to the side on which I have this tome placed in my trousers - have had to drop the allowable baggage by 2 Kg to carry it as i must )
Cheers::D

Blue Sky Baron

20th May 2003, 07:25

Thank you for clearing that up for me, I knew you would be able to clarify those points for me in such a way that a simple person like me could understand. :hmm:

However:

I still believe that the system needs improving, which is the point that ASA is attempting to make.

Regards,

BSB ;)

brianh

20th May 2003, 11:30

BSB
Very true.

ALL
I have a high regard for Creamy and respect his advice/opinion, but - I notice yesterday's paper that the Pope has Parkinson's Disease. This, plus the fact that you have to be very old to get the position, makes me wonder how the Pope's infallibility is holding up. I'm not worried about Creamy's advice, but I do worry about CASA's infallibility.

True story about my aircraft and the new AFMs: -
1. CASA are dropping the CASA Flight Manuals (we always had to carry on fear of penalty) and going for the Manufacturer FMs.
2. My C172 doesn't have an "approved" Manufacturer FM - same handbook as the later C172 but not FAA certified.
3. Therefore, CASA has decreed my C172 (and many other aircraft) come in the "No Flight Manual Required" category.
4. The "how to do the AFM" CASA book requires me to placard my C172 with certain things, and does not require me to keep the 29 years mandatory CASA FM.
5. THAT FM BEING THROWN OUT CONTAINS THE W&B AND T/O & LDG CHARTS - nor is this information required to be placarded.

Therefore, my aircraft can now legally fly and be on line hire WITHOUT the pilot having access to either W&B or T/O and LDG charts for it.

Now, what has been a cause of numerous accidents/incidents - High density T/O and Ldg, aircraft within MTOW but loaded out of balance etc - ever tried to fly a C172 loaded too far aft?

I tried to get them included. No way.
So, an Incident report to ATSB. Result - a CASA blurb refusing the thought, and an ATSB senior comment that they cannot intrude into CASA policy - ie wait until someone dies as a result of the omission, then we can do so.

What are the PPL and CPL exams loaded with - Alpha, Bravo, Charlie W&B and Cessna and Piper T/O and Ldg - because they are critical to flight safety.

But, hire my C172 and many others and you do not have a legal right to this information - CASA has decreed otherwise.

Ok, you all know I am a reasonable conscientious pilot and aircraft owner. I have kept the data in a separate folder in the aircraft. But, remember, that is DESPITE the CASA direction not as a result.

Sorry all to go off on a tangent but, if BSB believes the system needs improving, I multiply his thought by 100! Here we have an organisation which to some posting on this thread is close to God, yet the same organisation has introduced a policy that only potentially places us closer to getting to God.

After having my squad move a marquee three times in one day as different levels of officer changed their mind, I learned early in life not to confuse position with authority. Getting back to the original theme of this thread, CASAs position does not in my opinion place it correctly to exercise an authority best exercised by the judiciary.
Cheers, BSB how many beers do I owe you now?

Bill Pike

20th May 2003, 16:14

Creampuff,
Yes we have moved from a make-work system wherein my licence was in the post to the regulator to be stamped as renewed more than it was in my pocket where it legally had to be, and I applaud that and AOPA's part in it. Personally, and I speak for myself here, I believe that regulator should send out reminders if it can do that without grinding the entire apparatus back into gear. However if it doesn't and someone commits the unspeakable and forgets to renew, that is an offence of course, but how serious? Is it an "immediate threat to safety, cancel a licence without a hearing" offence? CASA might think so, but I don't. A local disqualified driver caught a $500 fine in the Cessnock Courts, and he had been previously disqualified. By a Court! That might give some real life perspective. (And he didn't have a current medical either). US surveys have indicated that pilots with medicals black out over the Melbourne CBD about the same rate as those without, so a bit less excitement about the dangers of un-medicalled pilots might be in order.

BrianH,

CASA has not precluded you from supplying the weight and balance data, it just doesn't shoot you if you don't. As you say when the data was presented it didn't stop people from over/mis loading did it? Pilots who want to fly safely will do so, we don't need a multiplicity of prescriptive, detailed and complicated regulations to make it so.

brianh

20th May 2003, 18:09

Bill
I'm in general agreement with what you have posted above, and yes I cannot get shot for not providing the data.

The point is was trying to make is that it HAS been mandatory in the FM for years, it IS the cause of accidents, CASA recognise this in the way they set their exams for PPL/CPL, yet this organisation allegedly creating "safe skies for all" has allowed their commercial imperative of getting out of FMs to allow the baby to be thrown out with the bathwater.

Technically, I do not need the T/O&LDG or W&B data to be available for my C172. They remove a guys licence for an expired medical but they themselves have removed by legislation documentation significant to flying safely.

Anyway, outside all this, may the force be with the new Board this weekend.
cheers

Creampuff

21st May 2003, 05:39

Brian

Cutting the flight manual umbilical cord from CASA was another idea of the organisation of which you are a member. The story went that you didn’t need CASA to second guess the manufacturer and the NAA.

And if you understood the existing rules, you would know that the overwater rules have an exception for aircraft “in the course of departing from or landing at an aerodrome in accordance with a normal navigational procedure for departing from or landing at that aerodrome”. (Reg 258(b))

Bill

CASA does not have power to cancel someone’s licence without giving them a ‘show cause’ (unless the person asks for the licence to be cancelled). You might say that a ‘show cause’ from CASA does not constitute a ‘hearing’. The law says it does. And the recipient of the show cause can go to the AAT and ask for a stay of any decision – all they have to do is put two sentences on a page and fax it to the AAT. The application is free if the person is broke, and the hearing can be done by telephone. The recipient of the show cause can also go to the Federal Court and ask for an injunction stopping CASA making the decision, if there is some defect in the process. That will cost money. But if you think being prosecuted is free and easy, you’re wrong.

How much does it cost to do a mail out to each of AOPA's members? Do the math for all licence holders and be up front: you expect the taxpayers to fund that and the person to do it.

All of this strikes me as what I call “flying free from responsibility” syndrome. Someone else is responsible if I don’t renew my medical; someone else is responsible for my flight manual; and when I get exactly what everyone says is the apotheosis of justice – my day in court for breaches of the rules – someone else is responsible because the rules shouldn’t be the way they are.

Zero credibility.

Bill Pike

21st May 2003, 07:49

Creampuff,
We will allow others to judge who has zero credibility. You have been part of the "accuser, judge, jury and executioner" system for so long you appear to have begun to believe that because the law allows it to be so it must be all right. It isn't all right, it is repugnant.
It isn't whether or not a private pilot flying with an expired medical has broken the law, clearly he has, it is about whether or not he deserves to be shot. The point is that if it is so important, (and it isn't ) why doesn't CASA make the system more workable? I receive bull**** communications from CASA constantly, a reminder that one's medical is due shouldn't be too hard, (especially if it will prevent me from crashing into the Melbourne CBD, which it won't!.)
I'm not clear on what your references to lifejackets is about. Of course in the CASA way the Reg to which you refer has been "amended" by a CAO, and certainly for charter ops a lifejacket is required "over water" period. (Even floodwater for chrissakes. Only in Australia of course. Should be popular in Cobar.) Only Australia would require private pilots to wear lifejackets below 2,000' over water. Wearing a lifejacket inside a submerging aircraft is a known health hazard, and in any case aviation lifejackets aren't designed to be pulled around.

brianh

21st May 2003, 09:14

Creamy

I'm starting to feel you may be wearing rose coloured specs issued by CASA? :cool:

This is a number of times you have "blamed" AOPA for CASA policy making. Are we to believe that CASA decisions are made when AOPA pulls the strings. This is great news indeed but at odds to my findings. If AOPA has suggested a good idea to CASA, well done AOPA, but let CASA take the FULL responsibility for expert consideration and a decision on the merit of that idea - don't try and pass the buck after the event.

The simple fact re the Flight Manuals is that CASA want to get out of administering them - so they can get on to more practical things - and are well aware that the CASA involvement in the FM situation added NO value to what the manufacturer has issued in the first place but was simply a carry through of the old military mindset that to operate in Australia was somehow different to operating anywhere else in the world so we better have a bureaucratic pull apart and reglue of the manufacturer's paperwork.

Re the overwater, yes I am well aware of the exception. However, I am also aware of the 500' before turn reg and that it allows exceptions where operational justification exists. Therefore, at two places where I fly the convention on overwater takeoffs is a turn at 200' as this keeps one within gliding distance of land.

You see, you have gone back to the Reg that allows one to risk one's life by proceeding to 500' before turning - a good CASA approach - I have gone for the mix of Regs which allows one to keep ones feet dry in the event of an EFTO - first because I can think laterally and second because I cannot swim.

Bill
The ref by Creamy to overwater is because he and I have been enjoying some legal trivial pursuit and i raised the issue first. Blame me for that diversion off track.

Creamy
Keep 'em coming because I DO value your opinions and input.
Now, for today's trivia, what about the PPL 3 T/O and LDG in 90 days before passengers can be carried (and a current medical and BFR of course).

For all those who rush down either every 89 days or just before their annual outback trip and do 3 circuits - two of these touch and goes of course to save $ - are they legally performing their obligation for 3 Takeoffs and 3 Landings or not?

Must away, I am tuting a PPL for her exam and I need to brush up because I think she is getting the edge on me and I don't want to look silly to her as well as on this Forum.
Cheers

Bill Pike

22nd May 2003, 09:26

BrianH,
There is always a little truth in what Creampuff says, however usually he also knows the whole truth but does not disclose it. Therefore I find his posts deliberately deceptive. (An old sayings about bikinis revealing that which is interesting but concealing that which is vital ,comes to mind.). The new Flight Manual System is better than what we had and AOPA did support it. In fact when I served on the Program Advisory Panel I was appraised of the new system and supported it, but it was put that this was for new aircraft comimg onto the register. Nothing was said about deep sixing the old system for aircraft already registered. Perhaps I was naive, it did not cross my mind that CASA intended anything so ridiculous as to require registered private aircraft to change. At first I was then told that the change was so simple that it didn't matter, and in fact for my C185 it wasn't hard, (but still unnecessary,) however for some it has been very difficult. When the proposal developed the way it did, AOPA (I) pushed CASA to "grandfather" the Australian Flight Manual System for those already with them, but CASA would not. I could not get a straight answer as to why not, something along the lines of "God giveth and God taketh away". None of the angst that occurred would have occurred if our suggestion had been acted upon. While the Minister allows CASA to act in such a bloody minded fashion we all suffer.

brianh

22nd May 2003, 09:57

Bill

Funny, when you and I disagree we do it violently but when we agree it is 100%. We certainly agree here.

No matter what input CASA had from AOPA or anyone to the Flight Manual proposal, CASA must take 100% responsibility for the ultimate Regulation introduced.

Therefore, and I certainly appreciate that you had the foresight to see the ultimate risk but did not have a way to prevent it, CASA - certainly not AOPA - must take the ultimate responsibility for three things:

1. Bringing in a Regulation that does not require W&B and T/O and LDG charts to be kept in an aircraft in the "NO AFM Category".
2. Having the gap brought to their attention but refusing to budge from their position (this seems an enforced militaristic organisational trait).
3. Knowing that W&B and T/O & LDG issues have been the cause of fatalities in the past and now more likely in the future due to the omission. And, aircraft like the C172M are still in both training and on'line hire mode, thus making the risk even greater than single owner flying.

Although an owner can decide to keep a folder - clearly marked by decree as "Notes" but not under any circumstances "Flight Manual" - with the data, does it not strike any "reasonable man" as amazing that the Regulator is allowing owner discretion in such a serious matter with a recognised fatality link, yet pulling the licence permanently of someone who flew without a medical (I thought it might be worth a reminder to us all of how this thread started).

For those browsing this Forum, have a think about how many questions there are in the PPL exam on "medicals" versus how many on "T/O and LDG CHarts" and "W&B" calculations - and I think the one if any medical is a one point score, the others numerous and 2 and 3 pointers.

No matter how Creamy tries to water this one down with his distinct political, legislative, and communication skills, I don't think he can turn it into a winner for CASA.
Cheers (good luck tonight)

djpil

22nd May 2003, 11:45

This thread has ended up on one of my favourite subjects - flight manuals. Last August I put the following to CASA:
The issue is that the Australian P-chart gives significantly shorter distances than the Bellanca Pilot's Operating Manual for the same set of conditions. To do the comparison required consideration of the differences between the two sets of data:
- operation from a sealed surface vs short, dry grass for the Australian P-chart;
- acceleration to the higher take-off safety speed required by the Australian P-chart;
- lower climb gradient of the Australian P-chart resulting from climb at airspeed higher than speed for best angle of climb.
The discrepancy is not covered by the 1.15 factor on the Australian P-chart and is significantly greater than the margin offered by this extra 15% of distance.
If the Bellanca POM provides unfactored, reasonably accurate data then the Australian P-chart, even with that 1.15 factor, represents unsafe data. At I.S.A., S.L. with take-off distance available as per the Australian P-chart, the manufacturer's data indicates that the aircraft will hit the "15.2m high screen" at about 3 m below the top. The reason an accident has not occurred may be that no pilot has attempted a take-off in such limiting conditions. It may never happen but ....

Just recently CASA responded withThe AFM consistent with the airplane and any manufacturer's data should be used. There is a proviso as discussed. If one had perf data more conservative than the manufacturers then it would be possible to use that. At all times the AFM must reflect the aircraft configuration i.e Manufacturers AFM + FMS for changes.

It was disappointing that there was no interest in resolving the technical query and no interest in advising other Decathlon operators of the issue. The clear message I got was that CASA will not stand behind those P Charts - they are now obsolete. I'm not happy that I'm taking sole responsibility for providing adequate perfomance data to pilots. Firstly, I'm not going to let pilots fly per the POM with an approach speed only 13% above stall. I'm not going to let them fly into strips as short as that given by the old P Charts. I wonder why the P Chart has a 10% higher take-off safety speed than the manufacturer's data, which is 1.2 times stall speed.

The good news for other aircraft types is that the P Charts are generally more conservative and more appropriate but it is the operator's decision and the operator takes responsibility for it.

Referring to an earlier post here - I have seen examples of the P Charts being inserted into AFM's, reportedly per CASA advice.

The W&B aspects of the new AFM's often do not hang together too well as another noted previously. There is a regulation somewhere to the effect that we must follow the procedures in the AFM. i.e. the old loading system from the superseded Australian manual must not be used. The actual empty weight is required of course, then we must use the loading system from the "new" official AFM which generally means converting to lbs and ins.

So, having got my "new" AFM I'm still trying to sort out all the information and this is probably the most simple airplane in the country. The next thing I've just noticed is that an Australian AD was issued back in 1973 which conflicts with information in the new AFM. Please be patient with me, I'll research it a bit more and suggest an appropriate course of action.

brianh

22nd May 2003, 12:06

DJ

You are lucky - at least you have an AFM. We "of the never never" only have placards (not including W&B or P) and it is hard for hirers to take the aircraft home to study the placards before flying!!!!! On the other hand, if we give them the "unauthorised" data, we are legally vulnerable if something goes wrong.

Be interested to see how your further research goes.

Your findings to date reflect mine - even where a potential risk to life is identified, there is a refusal to con.sdider how to act to fill the safety gap.

I suppose, on the brighter bureaucratic side, we would not want CASA to do the ATSB out of business. Safe skies for (nearly) all!
Cheers

Neddy

22nd May 2003, 12:36

Creampuff,

Now normally I tend to agree with your usually reasoned and well thought out arguments but I’m afraid it is patently obvious you have no real understanding of the pressures and responsibilities befitting the aeronautically endowed. However, I think our mate Pikey and others are barking up the wrong regulatory tree in terms of testing the resolve and jurisdiction of the regulator.

Personally, I don’t have a problem with keeping my medical up to date (Tip- acquire a notifiable disease and the reminders come not only thick and fast but free) but in terms of nonsensical regulations being arbitrarily imposed upon law abiding, gun toting members of the aviation community this is but one example.

The one regulation which epitomises the heavy handed and ridiculous approach CASA take when over regulating the simple folk is that which prevents me from participating in my constitutional right to fly simply because I may or may not have knocked the top off one or six relaxing (as I am required to do under CAO 48) drinks within the previous eight hours. Entrapment and restraint of trade (certainly as far as the Pub is concerned) are but a few defences that come to mind.

I mean, how utterly absurd to suggest that a mere mortal such as I (though gifted in all things aviation) should somehow be capable of knowing when I last partook of the Square Bear. Talk about unworkable! At the time when my faculties have deserted me I am expected to calculate, with mathematical precision, the moment (local converted to utc and daylight saving) at which I last delved into the black elixir of life.

Never the less, as a RESPONSIBLE member of the aviation community, I understand the necessity of ensuring one’s dexterity is sufficient prior to acting as the winged Coach Captain to the great unwashed. To that end (and with thanks to WF “Bill” for demonstrating the principle) I judiciously impose a self test upon myself before taking flight. If I am capable of driving my trusty (now unregistered – again thanks for the guidance Bill) ute not only home but also to the airport, without discolouring the asphalt with last night’s dinner (that’s what those little bags are for in the a/c seat pockets are they not) surely I am fit to carry out what the aeronautically challenged cannot.

Now until such time as the Boffins can find a way of notifying me of the time at which I ceased to slurp (a text message from a personal chaperone would suffice) I see no justification or responsibility for complying with this preposterous impost.

And while we’re rewriting CASA duty statements, I find getting the weather and flight planning just a tad on the tiresome side (it’s a faculty thing again). Maybe we could have some nice folk stationed throughout the country to assist me should I decide to exercise said privilege. Oh, and for Snarek, someone to personally deliver QNH on demand would be a nice gesture.

Vague recollections of such a system which was disembowelled by “one” and ably assisted by an association!

But of course all at “no cost” because “I ain’t gunna pay for it”!

“Flying free from responsibility”. Beautiful!!

Capn Laptop

22nd May 2003, 18:26

Brianh

Sorry for the delay in replying.

"MUST" does not a rule make.

If it doesn't have head of power in the regs it doesn't mean diddly squat.

The AIP is an aeronautical INFORMATION publication, and as such a fair chunk of the scribblings in it are just that INFORMATION.

People seem to not realise that unless there is a regulation to empower the AIP statement it has no legal standing.

ie if CASA tried to take action against you for say doing night assymetrics - they could not use the AIP provisions against you as they do not have head of power - if you had an AOC they would probably trot out good ole section 28 of the act.

The point I am making is you made the statement about people breaking the law if they don't put the aerodrome name at both ends of the transmission - the reality is that if they don't they are NOT breaking the law, because there is NO LAW that says that they must do so.

brianh

23rd May 2003, 08:55

Capn Laptop

Welcome back. We are going to differ on this one.

Best I correct any misconception held by other readers of this Forum. I add that I’m having withdrawal symptoms of Creampuff – if he was here I am sure he could quote the substantiation in even more detail.

I draw everyone’s attention to the AIPs.
Specifically Page GEN 0.1 – 2, Last revision 9 Aug 01, Paragraph 4.6, as below:
(Capitals are mine, just for emphasis).

4.6 “Throughout the AIP the term “should” implies that all users are ENCOURAGED to conform with the applicable procedure. The terms “must” and “shall” are synonymous and mean that the applicable procedure is MANDATORY and supported by REGULATIONS or ORDERS.”

I am not prepared to fight CASA on this one. If they say it is supported by Regs or Orders, I am not going to breach the AIP “Must” and be the test case. Just because they do not quote the head of power against every item in the AIP (it is meant to bea reader friendly publication) doesn't mean that they won't find it when we are tied to the shooting stake! They do have some expertise in that regard.

Therefore, I stand by my original comment.

PS just got the latest QBE Avlinks - notice they are reporting on the FLOT conference strongly re punitive measures proposed in the regulations "with the inclusion of strict liability penalties there is a very real threat that safety reporting will be compromised and flight safety in general will be jeopardised". Oh where are the safer skies of yesteryear!
Cheers

tealady

25th May 2003, 14:13

brianH - just read the ASA site - thanks for directing me to it. Don't like the bit where you give up the right to make up your own mind whether or not to offer support to a member in a particular circumstance. At least I know what angle you are now coming from - you have no choice except to support a member, even when they have done the wrong thing! If you do support a member who has broken the rules, is he then dealt with by ASA behind closed doors? (you know, a bit like when the tribal elders dish out punishment for an aborigine that has broken the white mans law but is dealt with by the tribal elders). Or does the member just get off scott free?

brianh

26th May 2003, 08:44

Tealady

You are not having much luck at the moment; don't buy a lotto ticket or back a horse this week - you'll do you dough!

In answer to your question - I'll kindly call it that instead of a criticism/attack - I refused to join ASA first time around for that very reason - I reserve the right to make up my OWN mind and be independent.

When they found out my rationale, I was invited to cross out the parts I did not accept, initial them to confirm it was me doing the crossing out, and submit an application modified as I saw fit.

I did, and was accepted on those terms. That, my friend, is democracy and freedom - as distinct from what is happening to our colleague at Horsham via the organisation you are supporting as a consequence of criticising ASA and individuals like myself who suggest that the French legal system is innapropriate for Australia.

Below is a direct copy from the CASA site.

"Variation, Suspension and Cancellation
CASA's role is to protect aviation safety, and its powers to vary, suspend and cancel licences, certificates and authorities must be seen in this light. The purpose of suspension or cancellation action is to 'remove a threat to aviation safety'.

Prosecution
CASA should investigate with a view to referring the matter to the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), any contraventions that:
are deliberate and serious or that demonstrate a reckless disregard of the safety rules;
are part of a pattern of similar contraventions by the same individual or organisation;
involve knowing or reckless breaches of the Civil Aviation Act; or
seriously endanger the safety of persons other than the person committing the contravention."

We can deduce from the first part that the cancellation of our colleague would be litmus tested against 'to remove a threat to aviation safety'.

Yet nowhere yet have I seen this aspect tested in a Court of Law to verify that a genuine threat existed. Of course, if it did, and others were jeopardised, it seems that CASA would have to move to prosecution on the basis of 'knowing or reckless breaches' or seriously endangering the safety of other persons. Perhaps the Horsham court situation is exactly that - I don't know.

But, I stand by my earlier comment - let him FIRST have a fair trial, then - and only then - off with his head if he is guilty.

I think, as an old bureaucrat, I can find my original modified application and fax you a copy if you need reassurance - provided the fax hasn't faded away to nowt!
Cheers