what bothers me about strict liability...
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Dark side of the moon
Age: 61
Posts: 124
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Thornbird
I didn't say your facts, I said your risible thoughts.
and the facts are what Strict Liability means - argue with that my thorny feathered friend.
Sunny, and aint that the truth!!!!
Those bottom feeding lawyers have
set things up nicely aint they.
Perhaps the answer is make sure your net
worth on paper is zero!!
Those bottom feeding lawyers have
set things up nicely aint they.
Perhaps the answer is make sure your net
worth on paper is zero!!
and the facts are what Strict Liability means - argue with that my thorny feathered friend.
Yes, Owen....
the Guvmin did invent 'strict liability'..but they did not afaik, intend it to be applied to EVERY "THING', however minor as does CAsA , who took to it like a rottweiller with a tasty bone....and wont let go.
The Guvmin also requires the regs to be in plain english, simple and to be understandable by the pilots, engineers and those to which they apply.
NOT a room full of Philadelphia Lawyers..altho like AWIs and FOIs, due to the complexities and words used...there could be "other"/personal interpretations of what its all supposed to mean.
And you could get sh*t on, in their process. As we know.
The Guvmin also requires the regs to be in plain english, simple and to be understandable by the pilots, engineers and those to which they apply.
NOT a room full of Philadelphia Lawyers..altho like AWIs and FOIs, due to the complexities and words used...there could be "other"/personal interpretations of what its all supposed to mean.
And you could get sh*t on, in their process. As we know.
So, how many people know someone who’s actually been convicted of a strict liability offence under the aviation law? Not a mate who told you about a mate. Someone you know first hand.
Round dozens will do.
Round dozens will do.
Creampuff,
I have seen dozens of Strict Liability offences committed by aviation personell, reported a few and had a few of my own reported.
Many many more go by the way, because that is the way of our (real) Australian culture.
In my observation, even when it is a lay-down-maizaire "gotcha", CASA has failed to follow through because the evidence was lacking.
..I have been both grateful for, and frustrated at, this failure of the system.
In a 20-year GA career I have never, ever known of any pilot or engineer of my acquaintance to be prosecuted.
I have, however, seen a few AOCs and CPLs and LAMEs cancelled or suspended through administrative action without the chance to defend the (possibly) defensible
I have seen dozens of Strict Liability offences committed by aviation personell, reported a few and had a few of my own reported.
Many many more go by the way, because that is the way of our (real) Australian culture.
In my observation, even when it is a lay-down-maizaire "gotcha", CASA has failed to follow through because the evidence was lacking.
..I have been both grateful for, and frustrated at, this failure of the system.
In a 20-year GA career I have never, ever known of any pilot or engineer of my acquaintance to be prosecuted.
I have, however, seen a few AOCs and CPLs and LAMEs cancelled or suspended through administrative action without the chance to defend the (possibly) defensible
Last edited by Horatio Leafblower; 4th Jun 2013 at 11:03.
Strict liability has nothing to do with suspension or cancellation action.
That's zero so far.
In a 20-year GA career I have never, ever known of any pilot or engineer of my acquaintance to be prosecuted.
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Dark side of the moon
Age: 61
Posts: 124
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Creampuff
I know of two MROs in the last ten years ttohave been issued with infringement notices.Both were blatant violations of allowing maintenance to be performed without the certifying LAME present, one case he wasn't in the same town.
I have read of some on Pprune, although as you said, they seem to be mostly third hand.
I know of two MROs in the last ten years ttohave been issued with infringement notices.Both were blatant violations of allowing maintenance to be performed without the certifying LAME present, one case he wasn't in the same town.
I have read of some on Pprune, although as you said, they seem to be mostly third hand.
Strict liability has nothing to do with suspension or cancellation action.
I say again: In a 20-year GA career I do not know of anyone actually prosecuted, despite (in several cases) very compelling evidence of reasonably serious and deliberate breaches provided to, and secured by, CASA.
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2013
Location: have I forgotten or am I lost?
Age: 71
Posts: 1,126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Creampuff
I know one. wouldn't show his logbook to them.
strict liability $110 thankyou.
now show us your logbook.
no.
the rest you dont need to know about. he never showed them.
I know one. wouldn't show his logbook to them.
strict liability $110 thankyou.
now show us your logbook.
no.
the rest you dont need to know about. he never showed them.
Owen,
Two things come to mind, one is that you seem to be rather dim, and second, whatever you'r smoking must be really something else again.
At no time did I say that Strict Liability and Absolute Liability were one and the same, what I very clearly said (for anybody with a clear head) is that most people actually in the aviation business understand both Strict Liability and Absolute Liability.
And it is quite clear you are the ones who doesn't understand either or both.
Horatio,
If there is no evidence, where is the offence? For a criminal conviction for any offence, the offence must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt -- and most of us understand that, as well. Those of us who are actually in the aviation business also understand the administrative fine system.
Tootle pip!!
Two things come to mind, one is that you seem to be rather dim, and second, whatever you'r smoking must be really something else again.
At no time did I say that Strict Liability and Absolute Liability were one and the same, what I very clearly said (for anybody with a clear head) is that most people actually in the aviation business understand both Strict Liability and Absolute Liability.
And it is quite clear you are the ones who doesn't understand either or both.
because the evidence was lacking.
If there is no evidence, where is the offence? For a criminal conviction for any offence, the offence must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt -- and most of us understand that, as well. Those of us who are actually in the aviation business also understand the administrative fine system.
Tootle pip!!
Last edited by LeadSled; 4th Jun 2013 at 15:03.
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Dark side of the moon
Age: 61
Posts: 124
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And a pleasant good evening to you Leadsled,
Mmmm, someone else posting with your name?
SO logically then most people posting here are not actually in aviation
And lastly, for all those who have wondered what an Ad Hominem Abusive is, above is a prime example of this.
Pittle Toop
most of us actually do understand what strict liability (or the absolute liability of the various "Damages by Aircraft" acts, whatever their correct names).
most people actually in the aviation business understand both Strict Liability and Absolute Liability.
Two things come to mind, one is that you seem to be rather dim, and second, whatever you'r smoking must be really something else again.
Pittle Toop
Last edited by owen meaney; 4th Jun 2013 at 16:56.
So that’s one so far.
My point isn’t about strict liability per se. Strict liability offences are the policy of many and successive governments, so it’s here to stay. The words about an offence being strict liability repeated ad nauseam are the result of a court decision, so they are here to stay. (And don’t confuse absolute/strict civil damages liability for absolute/strict civil penalty offences for absolute/strict liability criminal offences. It might also be worth reading the Criminal Code Act 1995 to get a first hand understanding of the criminal stuff.)
My point is that all the prophets of doom predicted that strict liability would result in mass prosecutions of inadvertent criminals in aviation. I predicted a continuation of the prosecution rate that has prevailed for about 6 decades.
Any advance on one?
My point isn’t about strict liability per se. Strict liability offences are the policy of many and successive governments, so it’s here to stay. The words about an offence being strict liability repeated ad nauseam are the result of a court decision, so they are here to stay. (And don’t confuse absolute/strict civil damages liability for absolute/strict civil penalty offences for absolute/strict liability criminal offences. It might also be worth reading the Criminal Code Act 1995 to get a first hand understanding of the criminal stuff.)
My point is that all the prophets of doom predicted that strict liability would result in mass prosecutions of inadvertent criminals in aviation. I predicted a continuation of the prosecution rate that has prevailed for about 6 decades.
Any advance on one?
Probably right Creampuff, very few prosecutions.
However are you implying that this lack of prosecution is due the application of the firm, benevolent and ultimately merciful hand of CASA?
Being an old cynic with a little experience of Government, I could perhaps be forgiven for thinking that it would be the absolute mountain of paperwork that would be required of an FOI before approval was received from multiple CASA levels to approach the DPP, AG Department or whatever and ask for prosecution that actually is responsible for the dearth of prosecutions.
To put that another way, I would blame laziness and inertia, not benevolence.
Furthermore, I would imagine that the CASA system of Administrative fines, show cause notices, licence and AOC removals, etc. is both much easier to administer, requires little or no work, creates far more misery and stress, and is therefore far more entertaining for CASA managers than merely submitting a brief to the DPP.
However are you implying that this lack of prosecution is due the application of the firm, benevolent and ultimately merciful hand of CASA?
Being an old cynic with a little experience of Government, I could perhaps be forgiven for thinking that it would be the absolute mountain of paperwork that would be required of an FOI before approval was received from multiple CASA levels to approach the DPP, AG Department or whatever and ask for prosecution that actually is responsible for the dearth of prosecutions.
To put that another way, I would blame laziness and inertia, not benevolence.
Furthermore, I would imagine that the CASA system of Administrative fines, show cause notices, licence and AOC removals, etc. is both much easier to administer, requires little or no work, creates far more misery and stress, and is therefore far more entertaining for CASA managers than merely submitting a brief to the DPP.
Last edited by Sunfish; 4th Jun 2013 at 21:57.
Mmmm, someone else posting with your name?
No, not somebody else, it's just you having a little trouble reading and comprehending, the matters of absolute liability were separated by brackets, to indicate that the people I deal with in aviation understand the practical meaning of strict liability, and, as Creampuff points out, the separate matters of absolute liability in criminal law, and absolute liability in civil law.
SO logically then most people posting here are not actually in aviation
for all those who have wondered what an Ad Hominem Abusive is, above is a prime example of this.
pprune(or aviation) is hardly the place for shy and sensitive little precious petals.
Tootle pip!!
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: rangaville
Posts: 2,280
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lead I'm with ya!
In any bulletin board discussion or even face to face I've never come across a bigger pack of fairy's, screaming ABUSE, ABUSE, BULLY, BULLY. Can't argue a point so resort to trying to shame their opponent with garbage, politically correct crap.
Not even going to google 'ad hominen crap'
Grow up & harden up
I'm with ya!In any bulletin board discussion or even face to face I've never come across a bigger pack of fairy's, screaming ABUSE, ABUSE, BULLY, BULLY. Can't argue a point so resort to trying to shame their opponent with garbage, politically correct crap.
Not even going to google 'ad hominen crap'
Grow up & harden up
Ranga
OI.
Who you calling fairy?
Who you calling fairy?