Honour amongst thieves.

[Kharon]

Multiple Miggs – a creepy character in "The Silence of the Lambs". A sad case of multiple personalities who, ended up swallowing his own tongue. Largely ignored by the critics.

However, the good doctor had some wise words:-

Lecter : First principles, Clarice. Simplicity. Read Marcus Aurelius. Of each particular thing ask: what is it in itself ?. etc.

Does FOI stand for Flick off Idiot ?? - help me here.

[Kharon]

Crucifixion as a solution.

ATSB/ AO-2011-141. The ATSB has been advised by the flying training organisation of the following proactive safety action in response to this occurrence; A briefing is to be conducted before any emergency training is performed.

Oh goody – well done. How about a cross for those who issued the approval for the mess which omitted this as a documented, matter of course briefing in the first place?.

ATSB/ AO-2011-141. ATSB - Implementation of the, IMSAFE personal checklist for both instructor and student, to assess their fitness to fly prior to every lesson.

This weasel worded, probably dictated pile of pony – pooh may fool mug punters (read half the Senate), the AAT, a Coroner or two, even some of the 'experts' posting here. But as far as providing a satisfactory safety based outcome, generated by a proper investigation of the radical causes, it leaves much to be desired.

It does manage to imply, whilst repeating the dictated script that the CASA is busy pissing around with 'prosecutions', but not actively assessing, processing and implementing the management of internal safety systems, again.

More ticks - glad it's not my dog.

Desmo - instructor prangs student/owners chopper? .. i'd be livid.

Sunny's mate, 'Snowy' reckons, with just cause.

"There are wheels within wheels here" he says; then adds "which, having been suitably greased worked just fine until one fell off". He reckons "if SM Fice ever gets to the bottom of this can of worms I'd take my hat off to him". "What a mess; he'll need an independent authority to have a look under the skirts, a size 10 broom to shift the layers of muck and a strong stomach to deal with what's there".

Ah yes - Industry intelligence is a fine source, not that anyone should believe a word heard from refullers. parrots, blokes in the pub, qualified flight instructors or even St Casa. They're all at it, gilding the Lilly, swinging a line; there's not a lot of that happening here though.

Fact :- CASA would not go to any length to cover up the facts. or other pivotal information related to this matter.
Fact : There is no systemic corruption visible in this case.
Fact : Even if the good Senior Member gets this one wrong, there will be no serious repercussions, at all; ever.

Yes Minister.

[Sarcs]

However one of the basic civil liberties is the presumption of innocence, it is a given everyday of the week..

The civil liberties issue is a good one in relation to the regulator's use of the AAT to prosecute their prejudices. It would be worth reviewing AAT hearings that feature Fort Fumble in one corner and poor sacrificial pilot or operator in the other, then note the number of times basic civil liberties are breached...bet its a few!

Civil liberties definition: Fundamental individual rights, such as freedom of speech and religion, protected by law against unwarranted governmental or other interference.

[Frank Arouet]

The introduction of strict liability removed that presumption and shifted the burden of proof to the accused. It also, strangely, made minor misdemenors criminal offences which normally had the burden of proof placed on the accuser.

Further, "beyond any reasonable doubt" overtook "on the balance of probabilities" as the test for such criminal offences.

Strange world we have let develop around us, eh?

[blackhand]

This is the reference of Strict Liability from CASA site.
CRIMINAL CODE ACT 1995 - SCHEDULE The Criminal Code
Not easily interpreted.

[Checkboard]

The introduction of strict liability removed that presumption and shifted the burden of proof to the accused.

Not true at all. The burden of proof is still on the regulator in order to obtain a conviction - they must still prove that the act took place, and that the accused performed that act. Strict Liability means they no longer have to prove that the accused intended to commit the act.

Example: Say a shop keeper sells cigarettes. Selling cigarettes to minors is against the law. The shop keeper employs a worker, and before allowing that worker to operate the till, provides training including strict instructions to check ID for anyone buying cigarettes who appears, say, less than 21.

A 15 year old goes into the store and buys cigarettes, the police find out and charge the shopkeeper. CCTV clearly shows the under age person being sold the cigarettes by the shop worker.

If the offence is given as strict liability, then the shop keeper has no defence (assuming the above is proven) - the act is illegal, and it took place. End of. The fact that the shopkeeper made every effort to prevent the act (thus had no Mens Rea) is not a defence in a strict liability case.

If the offence is NOT a strict liability offence, then the CPS would also have to prove that the shopkeeper intended to sell cigarettes to under age people - i.e. that he knew, or should have reasonably known, that the buyer was under age.

[thorn bird]

Kharon,
starting to smell a rat here.
This Hanley guy, an alleged instructor has, two training related
accidents. Who was doing the flying at the time? him or the student?
If it was him I would imagine someone should have had a look at his flying standard's, if it was the students then I imagine someone should have had a look at his instructional standards and if deficient, go after whoever gave him his instructors rating.
I can see no mention this occured, CASA went straight to the not a fit and proper or whatever dodgy reason they were using on that day and went straight for the licence based on outward appearance, dodgy evidence, why??
"Industry Intelligence"??...CASA considers itself part of the industry, which part is anyones guess, now they are morphing into a CIA clone??, this new training centre in Brissy to show off to the FAA in reality is it a "Spook School"? did the "Industry Intelligence" come from within CASA itself??
I dunno, but something about this affair just dont smell right, and it aint just did he or didnt he air taxi a damaged chopper.

[Kharon]

Rats in the belfry ??.

CB - Not true at all. The burden of proof is still on the regulator in order to obtain a conviction" etc.

The words proof and conviction feature all the way through a good example of what is not happening in this case. I just wonder why they bother with the 'criminal' stuff, they hardly ever use it. They never need go to that amount of trouble. The guys involved could be Jekyll and Hide or the 'Bobbsy Twins', it shouldn't matter.

The CASA are setting up to remove a mans livelihood, that is a big, big punishment, seems to me that before they do this there can be no doubt. As RUTAN said, if it was a muggle driving license pulled like this – there'd be a 'bloody' riot. Even then, the punishment should fit the crime and time off for good behaviour.

Evil thought for the day - what about supplying incontravertible industry evidence after the event, now that would be fun to watch. Dreaming of course.

Supportable - "Bloggs – I sentence you to 6 months suspension for being proven to be as dumb as a hammer".

Insupportable - "Bloggs we will not give you a fair trial, you are sentenced to the wilderness because we are too far above the law to prosecute; oh, and by the way there is no appeal process, no rehabilitation, no soft toilet paper and definitely no time off for good behaviour".

Imagine the fun real criminal lawyers would have that.
No, it's wrong; I'm getting tired of saying it but if the guy has been proven to have 'done' wrong, fair enough I'd support the action. But unless it's a 'clean kill' with proof positive supplied, it's just another CASA administrative fairy story without a happily ever after.

[blackhand]

Does the proposed punishment fit the 'alleged' crime?.
What does a jury of peers think ?.

You have no interest in what fellow pilots and engineers think about this incident.
Mutiple posts full of specious argument about how you want the regulations to work.
A pretence that you understand strict liability offences.
Mr Hanley stuffed doing a power recovery from autorotation by not opening the throttle to WOT, and then allegedly lied to the regulator.
If you haven't worked it out , Mr Hope allegedly changed his evidence when he realised the alleged lie couldn't be sustained in a court.
You and your dopple gangers have turned this forum into a kindergarten club.
There have been some real stuff ups by CASA that are worthy of analysis, for example trying to prevent the owner of an organisation from being the Manager - thrown out of court of course.

regulator's use of the AAT to prosecute their prejudices.

Application to the AAT isn't from CASA, CASA is taken to the AAT and then has to justify it's actions.
The Dog Pooh on this thread balances the Pony Pooh at the regulator

[thorn bird]

So blacky,
by your argument if some OH&S official receives a piece of "Industrial Intelligence" from a union official about not correct labels on the power points at BHP head quarters that official should have the power to shut down BHP, wipe out share holders funds and throw its work force on the dole, because in his "opinion" BHP has been a naughty boy!! same result, same flawed logic just different scale.
The AAT is not a court, its a tribunal nothing needs to be proven beyond reasonable doubt, there is no penaty for lying, nor are costs awarded.
Yes CASA is taken to the AAT for the very reason that the average person simply does not have the funds to finance a legal team to match CASA, who have the tax payers wallets to feed their bottom feeders with.

[Frank Arouet]

Strict Liability means they no longer have to prove that the accused intended to commit the act

If there was no intent to commit the action, it suggests it could have been an accident? So this alone prevents the defence attempting to ameliorate the charge to reflect a fair punishment fitting the circumstances of the alleged act.

In criminal law the standard of proof is that guilt must be shown beyond all reasonable doubt. While in civil law the burden of proof is that liability must be shown on the balance of probabilities. The burden of proof (the side which must prove their case) lies with whichever party is bringing the case.

Who is carrying this case?

[Sunfish]

Blackhand:

Mr Hanley stuffed doing a power recovery from autorotation by not opening the throttle to WOT, and then allegedly lied to the regulator.
If you haven't worked it out , Mr Hope allegedly changed his evidence when he realised the alleged lie couldn't be sustained in a court.

But of course this hasn't been proved in court has it Blackhand? With respect,your interpretation of events is no more valid than anyone elses.

..And that is the trouble. isn't it Blackie? CASA operates a "show cause" system where the "evidence" of misdeeds is never going to be tested to the standard a real court demands. There is no evidence whatsoever that CASA has ever intended to put this matter before a court is there?

Futhermore Blackie, given the arguments used by CASA in another case when defending its own officers, it would appear that lieing to CASA is not perjury or even an offence, simply on the grounds of equity. CASA officers have been caught lieing at least once.

Here is my fanciful interpretation - which is pure fiction.

1. Somebody in CASA doesn't like Mr. Handley.

2. Mr. Hope doesn't like Mr. Handley after he was involved with him in a training accident.

3. A perusal of Mr. Handleys file by CASA reveals an attempted prosecution of Handley that failed. CASA has a long memory.

4. Mr. Hope is "prevailed upon" by CASA to accuse Handley of the behaviour alleged in (3).

5. When Mr. Handley arcs up and goes to the AAT, CASA invokes a Deus Ex Machina after Tice queries Hopes evidence - to wit: "Industry Intelligence" aka "The Townsville refueller" of "Snowy on the trams".

Of course this is just fiction on my part, for all I know, Mr. Hope is pure as the driven snow and Mr. Handley has bent more helicopters than I've had hot dinners. However this cannot be safely determined unless evidence is tested in a real courtt of law.

[blackhand]

However this cannot be safely determined unless evidence is tested in a real court of law.

That is a fair call Sunfish.
I know Mr Hanley, and would put my ass in a machine with him anytime.
To recover as he did with only minor damage to the 206 is a testament to his skill.

I also can theorise:
When he got out of the helo, from the LH side, none of the damage would have been evident to him - a quick taxi over to the hangar and then the shock of seeing the damage after shut down.
Some *anker with nothing better to do dobs him in.
Hopefully said *anker will not be "brave" enough to tender evidence.

Yes CASA is taken to the AAT for the very reason that the average person simply does not have the funds to finance a legal team

This is raison d'etre for the AAT.

[thorn bird]

"This is raison d'etre for the AAT."

Yup,
BUT..ever seen the cast of bottom feeders that turn up for CASA at an AAT hearing???....enough to make sure a multi billionaire gets swamped, let alone a simple punter. Suddenly the whole purpose of the AAT gets corrupted by the "model Litigant"...as has been said by a lot here, prosecution and penalty by decree aint justice and the scumbags know it.

[Creampuff]

Don’t you see, Blackhand? If you have the temerity to have a different point of view than some others, you’re on suspicion of being a ‘scumbag’. [Too slow there, thorn bird.]

Some of these people take the same attitude to the AAT. They assume that the AAT is a kangaroo court run by people who have no clue about aviation. They fail to realise that some AAT members were veteran aviators before the applicant was out of nappies, and can smell aeronautically-fertilised bullsh*t a mile off.

The GA ‘industry’ in Australia is its own worst enemy because, frankly, it’s culturally retarded. It’s ‘genes’ render it incapable of deciding upon then communicating a mature, united, coherent and compelling argument about any issue – I say again: any issue – relevant to GA.

This handicap is exacerbated by successive governments which don’t care about GA, because the health or death of GA is perceived to be irrelevant to the electoral prospects of governments. That happens because the retarded GA constituency will almost invariably choose one party or the other: “Me love Labor; hate Coalition”. “Me hate Coalition; love Labor”. Four legs good; two legs bad. Or was that vice versa?

It makes no difference. They’re all destroying GA slowly, by neglect, because the slow deterioration of GA makes no difference – zero difference – to either side’s electoral prospects.

It’s like watching an experiment in a zoo.

[Checkboard]

If there was no intent to commit the action, it suggests it could have been an accident?

Accident, according to the regs? If, by "accident" you mean "it's just a boo-boo, and no one is to blame" - then of course not. You may operate a car (for instance) recklessly (say, at high speed on a wet road) and crash it. You never meant to crash it (no one ever does) - but it doesn't mean that it's "just" an accident!

If, however, you are driving with due care and attention, but an outside factor puts control of the car beyond reasonable human control (diesel spill on the road maybe, or unexpected strong wind gust) then that is a different thing. Yes- that's what courts are for. Yes - I think the "show cause" rule should be removed. Write to your local politician about it.

[Frank Arouet]

The GA ‘industry’ in Australia is its own worst enemy because, frankly, it’s culturally retarded. It’s ‘genes’ render it incapable of deciding upon then communicating a mature, united, coherent and compelling argument about any issue – I say again: any issue – relevant to GA.

One can only agree unfortunately. If I were to ask 1000 pilots locked in a room for a consensus on any issue they would all starve to death before that happened. You see they are all autocrats. (no room for democracy on the flight deck).

As for CAA, Basic military tactic and strategy. Divide and conquer.

Checkerboard: I'm talking about mens rea in the criminal sense. Landing with a defect can't possibly be a criminal matter unless the pilot took off knowing the defect existed. A magneto for example.

And why do people keep calling me Frankly?

[Kharon]

CP – "Some of these people take the same attitude to the AAT. They assume that the AAT is a kangaroo court run by people who have no clue about aviation". etc.

Now you know that broad sweeping statement is a bit naughty; some AAT decisions have been brilliant and some of the findings pure gold, for instance SM. Fice and Reg. 206. Within its limits, constraints and powers the AAT theoretically should be able to resolve 'administrative' disputes. I think you'll find that the majority of "GA" have little or no problem with the concept of the AAT system.

My only 'beef' is, after reading many, many transcripts, is the manner in which the CASA continuosly exploit the AAT system, ruthlessly, cynically and achieve little or no return value to the industry.

CP – "The GA ‘industry’ in Australia is its own worst enemy". etc.

I do agree with the rest of your sentiments, never were truer words writ; what's the old saying about the road to Hell being paved with good intentions. But I digress.

Honest questions – there are seemingly conflicting 'statements' given, can the AAT safely rely solely on the veracity of a radically changed statement as it stands; or does it become a Police matter to sort out?.

Can the AAT request or require an independent investigation of the 'facts' by a disinterested third party?.

Does the AAT have the power to prevent what is effectively a life sentence being requested ?.

This is not a punitive sentence, suspension, fine or wrist slapping exercise, this is the full weight of the system demanding the administrative right to effectively prevent a man from working for the rest of his life. Now that, IMO is not an administrative matter.

[blackhand]

The Show Cause can work well. Having replied to a few with satisfactory outcome for my clients.
More serious ones that have ended up at AAT have variable outcomes.
Some GA operators interpret a reg to their own advantage and then find a Solicitor that agrees with them. Well for a substantial fee anyway.
GA should form an organisation similar to AMROBA which has had influence on the regs and enforcement for maintenance orgs.

[thorn bird]

creamie,
I was referring to lawyers old mate.
If you happen to be one I apologise in advance
if you happen to one of the few who aint