WA Air Operator sues CASA and Officials
Genesis of the problems with CASA
4. During a routine operational "audit" conducted by CASA at the premises of
Polar Aviation in May 2004, Butson became involved in a heated argument
with one of the CASA "audit" officers in relation to an operational matter
concerning asymmetric practices (being a procedure involving flight with "one
engine out" simulation) and training requirements in light multi engine
aircraft, and in relation to the carriage of life jackets on certain flights.
4. During a routine operational "audit" conducted by CASA at the premises of
Polar Aviation in May 2004, Butson became involved in a heated argument
with one of the CASA "audit" officers in relation to an operational matter
concerning asymmetric practices (being a procedure involving flight with "one
engine out" simulation) and training requirements in light multi engine
aircraft, and in relation to the carriage of life jackets on certain flights.
Folks,
The above is from the Polar Air submission to the last ( but far from the first) Senate Inquiry into CASA.
Then, and again now, some FOIs are taking a very literal position on what "engine failure" means for the purposed of training re. CAO 40 ( 40.1.0 ---- from memory).
As the CAO ( "The Law" and unlike certain CASA advisory documents that are not "The Law") makes no reference to "zero thrust", or running the "failed" engine at idle, such "advisory" practices --- despite being in CASA publications --- are not The Law, and are, therefore, not in compliance with The Law.
Hence (informal, never in writing) demands that the engine failure on takeoff sequence requires the engine to be shut down on the mixture. Sadly, this approach is not limited to a few in CASA, there are still too many industry pilots adopting such procedures.
In a similar fashion, recent demands that to "do stalls" in a Metro, the stall warning/stick pusher had to be de-activated ---- contrary to the AFM, otherwise The Law would not be complied with.
That the Metro 111/23 in question have a stick pusher for a bloody good reason was of no interest to the said FOI, only "legal compliance".
In a morbid sort of way, I suppose you could say that writing off a Metro in an un-recoverable deep stall would at least make a change from investigating Metro asymmetric training and other accidents and incidents.
Tootle pip!!
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sale, Australia
Age: 80
Posts: 3,833
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Be a good chap and remind us what CAO 40.1.0 Appendix III paragraph 1(d) - the law - actually says.
The problem with communication is the illusion that is has occurred
The reg:
My ignorant questions:
Does this mean that the failure has to be performed "on take off" or can it be performed elsewhere at the required speeds and configuration?
Exactly what determines what the aircraft is capable of? The POH? I also assume this is done IAW the MEL.
....And of course there is that word "simulated", How?
Asymmetric flight: The attainment of optimum performance following a simulated engine failure on take-off (at least twice). The speed at which the failure is simulated must be as follows:
(i) in the case of an aeroplane for which the take-off performance is predicated on the establishment of a V1 — failure of the engine must be simulated at a speed greater than V1;
(ii) in the case of any other aeroplane — failure of the engine must be simulated at a speed greater than:
(A) the 1 engine inoperative best rate of climb speed; or
(B) the take-off safety speed plus 10 knots;
whichever is the higher.
If the aeroplane is capable of the manoeuvre, going around again with 1 or more engines simulated failed (at least twice). Cruising flight with 1 or more engines inoperative — feathering and unfeathering propellers. Medium and steep turns with and against live engines.
(i) in the case of an aeroplane for which the take-off performance is predicated on the establishment of a V1 — failure of the engine must be simulated at a speed greater than V1;
(ii) in the case of any other aeroplane — failure of the engine must be simulated at a speed greater than:
(A) the 1 engine inoperative best rate of climb speed; or
(B) the take-off safety speed plus 10 knots;
whichever is the higher.
If the aeroplane is capable of the manoeuvre, going around again with 1 or more engines simulated failed (at least twice). Cruising flight with 1 or more engines inoperative — feathering and unfeathering propellers. Medium and steep turns with and against live engines.
Does this mean that the failure has to be performed "on take off" or can it be performed elsewhere at the required speeds and configuration?
Exactly what determines what the aircraft is capable of? The POH? I also assume this is done IAW the MEL.
....And of course there is that word "simulated", How?
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sale, Australia
Age: 80
Posts: 3,833
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well I must admit to a measure of confusion because Appendix III applies to
FAR 23 GA twins are listed under Appendix IA Part 1. Question, what reference re training requirements then applies to Appendix IA Part 1 aircraft? It's not Appendix III as far as I can see from its header.
Syllabus of flying training for a type endorsement specified in Part 2 or Part 4 of Appendix I or a class endorsement specified in Part 3 or Part 5 of Appendix IA
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Oz
Posts: 469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bit of an update at
Aircraft for Sale, Plane Sales, Planes for Sale – Aviation Advertiser ? – Online Magazine Federal Court win for WA operator
QUOTE:
Federal Court win for WA operator
Paul Phelan , 22 September 2010 – 10:24 amMake a Comment
Western Australian air operator certificate (AOC) holder Gerald Repacholi has won an appeal to the Full Federal Court against an earlier judgment of Federal Court Justice McKerracher, which had refused an application for an extension of time and for leave to appeal from an interlocutory judgment refusing further amendments to a statement of claim.
The claims surrounded a CASA regulatory action against Mr Repacholi, who seeks damages from CASA, from senior CASA official Terence Farquharson and from five other officials for alleged breaches of statutory duty.
Justice Gilmour has determined that the Judge in the Court below, Justice McKerracher, appeared to have erred, and leave has now been granted to Mr Repacholi to file his appeal to the Full Court.
CASA contested this matter with considerable energy, but it appears from the judgment of Justice Kenny in the earlier matter of Polar Aviation (Mr Repacholi’s company) v CASA, that Her Honour had referred extensively to the original judgment of Justice McKerracher when formulating her own judgment in that case.
Justice Gilmour ordered that:
1. The time for the applicants filing an application for leave to appeal against the orders of Justice McKerracher made on 11 December 2009 be extended to 25 January 2010 to validate an appeal already filed.
2. The applicants have leave to appeal against the orders limited in substance to grounds as to the refusal to allow further amendments to the statement of claim to plead misfeasance in public office and the issue of an alleged duty of good faith.
3. The issue of costs was reserved.
Applicants were Repacholi Aviation Pty Limited and its proprietor Gerald Repacholi, represented by represented by Maitland Lawyers, who appeared and instructed Mr P G Nash QC appearing with Mr P W Lithgow. Respondents were CASA and separately Mr Farquharson, represented by Mr Ian Harvey appearing with Mr N Manuchehri, instructed by Blake Dawson.
The decision is of considerable interest to a number of other aviation businesses who are either contemplating similar actions against CASA and individual employers, or have already initiated them.
UNQUOTE:
I imagine there are a number of fellow PPRuNers that will not be surprised at some of the "names" representing CASA.
tipsy
Aircraft for Sale, Plane Sales, Planes for Sale – Aviation Advertiser ? – Online Magazine Federal Court win for WA operator
QUOTE:
Federal Court win for WA operator
Paul Phelan , 22 September 2010 – 10:24 amMake a Comment
Western Australian air operator certificate (AOC) holder Gerald Repacholi has won an appeal to the Full Federal Court against an earlier judgment of Federal Court Justice McKerracher, which had refused an application for an extension of time and for leave to appeal from an interlocutory judgment refusing further amendments to a statement of claim.
The claims surrounded a CASA regulatory action against Mr Repacholi, who seeks damages from CASA, from senior CASA official Terence Farquharson and from five other officials for alleged breaches of statutory duty.
Justice Gilmour has determined that the Judge in the Court below, Justice McKerracher, appeared to have erred, and leave has now been granted to Mr Repacholi to file his appeal to the Full Court.
CASA contested this matter with considerable energy, but it appears from the judgment of Justice Kenny in the earlier matter of Polar Aviation (Mr Repacholi’s company) v CASA, that Her Honour had referred extensively to the original judgment of Justice McKerracher when formulating her own judgment in that case.
Justice Gilmour ordered that:
1. The time for the applicants filing an application for leave to appeal against the orders of Justice McKerracher made on 11 December 2009 be extended to 25 January 2010 to validate an appeal already filed.
2. The applicants have leave to appeal against the orders limited in substance to grounds as to the refusal to allow further amendments to the statement of claim to plead misfeasance in public office and the issue of an alleged duty of good faith.
3. The issue of costs was reserved.
Applicants were Repacholi Aviation Pty Limited and its proprietor Gerald Repacholi, represented by represented by Maitland Lawyers, who appeared and instructed Mr P G Nash QC appearing with Mr P W Lithgow. Respondents were CASA and separately Mr Farquharson, represented by Mr Ian Harvey appearing with Mr N Manuchehri, instructed by Blake Dawson.
The decision is of considerable interest to a number of other aviation businesses who are either contemplating similar actions against CASA and individual employers, or have already initiated them.
UNQUOTE:
I imagine there are a number of fellow PPRuNers that will not be surprised at some of the "names" representing CASA.
tipsy
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Alabama, then Wyoming, then Idaho and now staying with Kharon on Styx houseboat
Age: 61
Posts: 1,437
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The claims surrounded a CASA regulatory action against Mr Repacholi, who seeks damages from CASA, from senior CASA official Terence Farquharson and from five other officials for alleged breaches of statutory duty.
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Cairns
Age: 50
Posts: 295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From my understanding:
Gerald Repacholi owns Repacoli Aviation ( Ag company, his car is often parked in a suburb near JT ), and
Clark Butson owns Polar ( charter etc etc, Port Hedland ).
Pretty sure they are different entities.
Gerald Repacholi owns Repacoli Aviation ( Ag company, his car is often parked in a suburb near JT ), and
Clark Butson owns Polar ( charter etc etc, Port Hedland ).
Pretty sure they are different entities.
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Alabama, then Wyoming, then Idaho and now staying with Kharon on Styx houseboat
Age: 61
Posts: 1,437
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Homework for Senator Xenaphon?
Any updates on this matter ?
Perhaps Senator Xenaphon can update us ?
More light reading here;
http://www.pprune.org/dg-p-general-aviation-questions/414063-wa-air-operator-sues-casa-officials.html
and
http://www.pprune.org/dg-p-reporting-points/159810-casa-reply-pprune-email-re-tvl-13.html\
Perhaps Senator Xenaphon can update us ?
More light reading here;
http://www.pprune.org/dg-p-general-aviation-questions/414063-wa-air-operator-sues-casa-officials.html
and
http://www.pprune.org/dg-p-reporting-points/159810-casa-reply-pprune-email-re-tvl-13.html\
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Permanently lost
Posts: 1,785
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perhaps the appellants will now go to the High Court, on the ground that they shouldn’t have to provide any evidence to support their allegations.
For all non-lawyers, it seems to be a wide-spread view that because you make an allegation against someone they are then required to disprove it. Not so.
If you are the applicant in a court action then you have to prove your case, the respondent can sit back and say nothing if you can't. 
Perhaps the applicants in this case should have taken better advice before rushing to court.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Working overtime mate or just a quicky from the Wig and Pen?
Friday of all things. Must be serious or you're on the wagon.
I'm having one for you now.
Cheers.
Friday of all things. Must be serious or you're on the wagon.
I'm having one for you now.
Cheers.
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: everwhere
Age: 69
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CASA
Clinton,
Repacholi will most probably need to seek leave to appeal to the High court. It would be surprising if he was successful from this judgement but he may have the option of trying to convince the High Court directly to hear this but he better go out and find a bus load of rabbit feet or faires from the bottom of the garden to increase his likelyhood of success.
Frank,
From the other thread, too late for me to name people...
FF
Repacholi will most probably need to seek leave to appeal to the High court. It would be surprising if he was successful from this judgement but he may have the option of trying to convince the High Court directly to hear this but he better go out and find a bus load of rabbit feet or faires from the bottom of the garden to increase his likelyhood of success.
Frank,
From the other thread, too late for me to name people...
FF
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well Mr Fiend,
newby PPruner..Hmm?..wouldnt be acting on Instructions would you?
Well the Cohorts from CASA legal are probably high fiving each other now..
Another "little" person crushed by the might of unlimited, unaccountable, public funds, and malignant intent.. "Model Litigants?"..Yeah right!!
So the bottom feeders can grovel about in the muck fighting over the spoils..
Who wins the bonus out of this one??
In the end its futile, win you may, for a time, but ultimately the corrupt come unstuck.
I just pray that come the revolution the AFP have the balls to ignore political pressure and actually prosecute and jail the corrupt...notice a recently departed one of yours!!..didnt have his nose in the trough did he?
newby PPruner..Hmm?..wouldnt be acting on Instructions would you?
Well the Cohorts from CASA legal are probably high fiving each other now..
Another "little" person crushed by the might of unlimited, unaccountable, public funds, and malignant intent.. "Model Litigants?"..Yeah right!!
So the bottom feeders can grovel about in the muck fighting over the spoils..
Who wins the bonus out of this one??
In the end its futile, win you may, for a time, but ultimately the corrupt come unstuck.
I just pray that come the revolution the AFP have the balls to ignore political pressure and actually prosecute and jail the corrupt...notice a recently departed one of yours!!..didnt have his nose in the trough did he?
Join Date: May 2010
Location: More than 300km from SY, Australia
Posts: 817
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CASA, Malfeasance and the Blame Game
Using an allegation that the person has a 'few loose in the belfry' is a tactic used by the public service in the mid-nineties.
To pull someones medical on that type of allegation certainly goes to malfeasance.
In fact in NSW, that type of activity seems to have disappeared, but can have a long lasting effect on someone when it gets into public documents.
Just having the matter refuted is not enough, it needs to be pursued vigourously by the Commonwealth Ombudsman. In fact this organisation is not having much effect in this total argument.
This is the organisation (Ombudsman), together with the Parliament, that must ensure that the issue of malfeasance in public office cannot continue and to do that, it must be dealt with by summary dismissal, fines and a jail term.
Come on Parlimentarians and the Ombudsman - make CASA become a model litigant and stamp out these underlying practices.
This is not about SAFETY, it is about ultimate contriol and making the most money for one-self.
Start Mr CASA in getting rid of the "nasty regs", get on with using the FAA or NZ model and "move on"
To pull someones medical on that type of allegation certainly goes to malfeasance.
In fact in NSW, that type of activity seems to have disappeared, but can have a long lasting effect on someone when it gets into public documents.
Just having the matter refuted is not enough, it needs to be pursued vigourously by the Commonwealth Ombudsman. In fact this organisation is not having much effect in this total argument.
This is the organisation (Ombudsman), together with the Parliament, that must ensure that the issue of malfeasance in public office cannot continue and to do that, it must be dealt with by summary dismissal, fines and a jail term.
Come on Parlimentarians and the Ombudsman - make CASA become a model litigant and stamp out these underlying practices.
This is not about SAFETY, it is about ultimate contriol and making the most money for one-self.
Start Mr CASA in getting rid of the "nasty regs", get on with using the FAA or NZ model and "move on"
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mate,
the old "screw loose" excuse to ground a pilot has long gone.
Much easier these days since the introduction of DAMP.
Just let CASA medical know you want to nail someone, tell them you thought he was drunk three or four months ago and voila! Medical vanishes.
No Damp test, no investigation, no accountability, just a word in the right ear.
Bit like a copper pulling you over and charging you with DUI because four months ago he thought you were drunk...wonder where that would go in a proper court?
Incidently the one that pulled this would probably be a prime candidate for the "Screw loose" Technique, serious anger management issues.
the old "screw loose" excuse to ground a pilot has long gone.
Much easier these days since the introduction of DAMP.
Just let CASA medical know you want to nail someone, tell them you thought he was drunk three or four months ago and voila! Medical vanishes.
No Damp test, no investigation, no accountability, just a word in the right ear.
Bit like a copper pulling you over and charging you with DUI because four months ago he thought you were drunk...wonder where that would go in a proper court?
Incidently the one that pulled this would probably be a prime candidate for the "Screw loose" Technique, serious anger management issues.
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Alabama, then Wyoming, then Idaho and now staying with Kharon on Styx houseboat
Age: 61
Posts: 1,437
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I just pray that come the revolution the AFP have the balls to ignore political pressure and actually prosecute and jail the corrupt...notice a recently departed one of yours!!..didnt have his nose in the trough did he?
Anyway, just because one mire covered pig has it's snout cut off from the trough doesn't fix the indemic, ingrained disgrace that they are. There are plenty more 'legacy bottom dwellers' hiding deep inside the bowels of 'malfeasance central' that still need to be outed and sacrificed so to speak. CASA know who they are, the government know who they are, the aviation community know who they are and I am sure Xenaphon know's who they are by now.
Oh, flyingfiend, I could apologize for lambasting your mentors, idols and favourite 'faceless men' but I won't.