CASA 292/14 - Conditions and direction about Jabiru engines

[facthunter]

Who will be next? if this type of logic is applied is THE question. I emphasised that aspect of the action at the onset of this sorry saga.

 

Starting a no face saving way out, situation is poor anticipation, bad strategy and an amateur performance. The Bank of knowledge on matters aviation has shifted it's critical mass and direction. Anyone in there (CASA) with ambition want's to be at the cutting edge , not the necessary consolidation, follow up and basic knowledge and principles support rump.. Nev

 

 

[Gnarly Gnu]

but CASA IS 'an engineering organisation'. Within 'Airworthiness' branch, there is a unit dedicated to 'powerplants' - and though it has to be conceded that industry sources who have to deal with them will tell you that they could not find their gluteus maximus even with the assistance of a GPS and a call to a friend, they ought to be able to evaluate basic engineering problems, at least if assisted by competent advisors.

Fabulous! Let's hope the dolts are capable of reading english. Imagine an engine designed by a government bureau...

 

 

 

[Guest john]

With all the bullshxit & claptrap coming from within CASA concerning Jabiru engine failures which has resulted in untold consequential damage for the effected Jabiru owners & RAA Flying Schools , it is apparent that CASA are not going to give in easily over this debacle because they have BEEN CAUGHT RED HANDED WITH THEIR PANTS DOWN.

 

It is a known fact that the manufacturers of Jabiru Aircraft in Australia have already consulted Shine Lawyers for their expert opinion regarding this matter, & it is now considered that if Shine Lawyers were to take on a class action on a NO WIN NO FEE basis on behalf of all effected organisations & owners that have been subjected to this KANGAROO COURT by CASA, then the COURT would in all probability compell CASA to produce their evidence in support of these draconian directives that were actioned late last year. Then & only then are we going to see any forward progress with respect to this matter, which will only go from bad to worse if legal action is not commenced forthwith.

 

 

[turboplanner]

That's right John, that would be the place where CASA would lay their evidence on the table, but be careful what you wish for because the dribble which has be stated on here over and over and over again is not likely to be what is tabled.

 

 

[gandalph]

That's right John, that would be the place where CASA would lay their evidence on the table, but be careful what you wish for because the dribble which has be stated on here over and over and over again is not likely to be what is tabled.

Turbs, that sounds like you know something.

It appears from your post that you have information about data that CASA holds that either the RAA doesn't have or isn't disclosing. Would you care to share? Or are you simply speculating?

 

 

[facthunter]

If CASA have stuff that relates to safety of Jabiru engines and haven't disclosed it, they are derelict in their duty. Nev

 

 

[kgwilson]

If CASA have stuff that relates to safety of Jabiru engines and haven't disclosed it, they are derelict in their duty. Nev

They have been derelict in their duty plenty of times before. Why should they change tack now? I think John is right. It will take Court action before anything more comes out of this.

 

 

[facthunter]

Safety doesn't come from sending two manufacturers broke who are the only means of looking after a large % of the U/L fleet. If they know of hitherto undisclosed problems it is their duty to pass on the information to those affected rather than assist their (CASA's) court case. I would say they are legally required to do so. They aren't given the luxury of keeping it for later to play games in court. Nev

 

 

[gandalph]

Turbs?

 

 

[Russ]

Raa were privy to the "secret documents", did'nt they have 24hrs to respond. ( way back at the beginning )......so where's Raa sitting.......on a fence, ( what i'm saying, is........why aren't Raa releasing info, that they have already said is dubious factually )..........they've got the documents.

 

Other point..........can't see jab using shine type legals, my thinking is.......if jab believed they have a good case, they would seek a higher firm, my thinking is jab actually believe they may be on shakey ground.

 

just sayin..........

 

 

[turboplanner]

Turbs, that sounds like you know something. It appears from your post that you have information about data that CASA holds that either the RAA doesn't have or isn't disclosing. Would you care to share? Or are you simply speculating?

Don't speculate, now you've got Facthunter going; it's just a simple sentence.

 

 

[gandalph]

Don't speculate, now you've got Facthunter going; it's just a simple sentence.

I wasn't speculating. I was asking if you were.

Simple sentences sometime obscure complicated meanings. Are you privy to special information about the CASA "secret" data or not? Simple question.

 

Let's not deflect from that simple question by trying to divert attention away to Facthunter. It wasn't he who made the cryptic comment, it was you. That's why I asked you.

 

This is not a trivial matter. It has had a huge negative impact on recreational aviation. If you do "know" something, it would be good manners to let the group know. There is no court case yet so the matter can't be sub judice nor can it be commercial in confidence, so how 'bout fessing up?

 

 

[Oscar]

If we can just pass beyond the static in the airwaves here...

 

It is certainly my understanding, and others have the same belief, that a small group of RAA Board members were allowed to see the original CASA 'data' under very strict injunctions of confidence. Given the necessity for RAA to respect the relationship with CASA, it is not - I suggest - a case that RAA is (or may be) 'sitting on the fence' in relation to commenting directly on that data, but a practical necessity that certain communications, if presented as 'confidential', must be respected. If that particular arrangement is broken, then the operational relationship between CASA and RAA is also broken.

 

In my limited legal expertise, I believe the term that is used to indicate that information held by one side of a dispute as confidential is that it needs to be 'discovered' so that it can be challenged by the opposing side. Let's not get caught up in discussion of the similar requirement in other jurisdictions: 'tabled' in Parliament, 'scheduled' in contract documents etc.

 

Assuming that RAA has at least some - albeit 'confidential' - knowledge of the CASA data, it beggars belief that RAA would pursue an FOI to 'discover' that data if it had reasons to suggest that the end result of that process would not be advantageous to resolving the situation. It is equally unbelievable that CASA would not promptly make that data publicly available if it believes that public knowledge of the data would not validate its action. CASA has most certainly released information relevant to other actions it has taken, sometimes with the result of public/parliamentary excoriation of the actions - PEL Air, everyone?

 

So, on the one hand, we have an organisation seeking to provide public access to the relevant data: RAA. On the other, we have an organisation acting to block access to the data upon which they state their action was validated: CASA.

 

The application of basic intellect would lead one to conclusions as to which organisation is seeking to provide clarity to the current situation.

 

 

[gandalph]

The application of basic intellect would lead one to conclusions as to which organisation is seeking to provide clarity to the current situation.

Was there ever any doubt?

 

 

[jetjr]

So you know something TP or just being contrary?

 

 

[Oscar]

Was there ever any doubt?

I refer you to the concept of 'basic intellect'.

 

 

[Guest john]

Raa is supposed to be a legally constituted organisation so as to represent the members that make up this association. It is not & I repeat IT IS NOT there for the purpose to act for & on behalf of CASA. The Board members of RAA who are elected by the members have a legal duty to act in the interests of its members, & to put it bluntly, they are doing bugger all about this Jabiru debacle for fear that they will fall out of favour with CASA.

 

We have recently seen 1 good Board member (who is a Jab owner) resign from the Board mainly for personal reasons, although in his recent post he has been straight forward enough to admit that there were frustrations issues he had to deal with amongst other Board members.

 

Unless the RAA Board have the GUTS without fear or favour to tell CASA to put up or shut up about the Jab issue , this matter will only go from bad to worse.

 

 

[frank marriott]

Should the matter end up in court (which must be likely) some of the overt critics may well get an "invitation " for a bit of he said, I said , to explain their evidence for making public statements and involvement with CASA. Interesting times.

 

True identies, when not already know, are not difficult to obtain if needed.

 

Only time will tell.

 

 

[gandalph]

John, I understand your sentiments but Oscar does have a point in that IF the RAA was given access to CASA's secret file (for however time limited that access that might have been) on the understanding that the Board did not make it public then, the RAA was, and still is in my opinion, bound to keep to that agreement.

 

The question then becomes: Should the RAA have agreed to that conditional access? That's where the determination of something or some act being "in the best interests of the members" comes into play. Let's not get into the can of worms that is: how does someone determine what is in the best interest of the members (all of the members? Some of the members? The most vocal of the members - read through the recent posts re magazine access for some idea of the size and complexity of that conundrum). Was it in the best interests of members to have the board sight the CASA data so that it had some idea of how to respond? Or should it have told CASA to shove it and gone it alone on the assumption that the Board had all the relevant information already? That would have been, again in my opinion, a brave but foolhardy decision.

 

To suggest that the RAA Board should tell CASA to put up or shut up would likely lead CASA to say: We'll shut up thanks and just renew the flight restrictions for an indefinite period. Thanks for your input."

 

RAA has no standing or power to direct CASA to do or provide anything. That power rests with the legislature or the Courts. To think otherwise is to dream.

 

 

[facthunter]

For injustice to be done it is only necessary for good men to remain silent.

 

John. From some things I hear the RAAus has been quite upfront. Some will think that may disadvantage us.

 

We might as well give up IF it does. CASA is in the public domain, and they can't just shelter somewhere. When the last CASA CEO came along HE threatened to sue people saying things he didn't like. That's NOT the way to behave If you take those jobs. They MUST be answerable to aviation for their actions when they don't appear to be the best.. Nev

 

 

[facthunter]

RAAus is in a difficult position with this matter but they should be able to strongly express their considered view without fear or favour.

 

WE have to work WITH CASA, I would suggest in a relationship of mutual respect and trust. The power relationship in this arrangement is one sided at the final measure and can come to grief anytime potentially.

 

The RAAus has to act in the interests of its MEMBERS ( or we won't have any) and balance that with carrying out it's delegated enforcement of standards maintenance, construction. flying training, aircraft change of ownership testing etc In all a fairly large field of oversighting..

 

I think CASA have a great unease about U/L's partly because of their inability to accept the idea of it (the movement) existing at all, despite some form of it occurring in most countries. It would be difficult to procede logically if this is a fact.

 

Nev

 

 

[gandalph]

Perhaps John, you should redirect your angst from the Board of the RAA and focus on those who have intimated that they know more about the CASA secret documents than anyone else here, but despite repeated invitations and exhortations to reveal all have declined. If he/they were to divulge whatever information he/they have on the horrendous data that CASA has based their action on we would all be the wiser and the Board would be off the hook.

 

 

[jetjr]

I believe CASA simply dont reply to communications

 

There is possibly more discussion currently than in the last few years

 

We are basically asking CASA to admit fault and present data to confirm this.

 

Dont hold your breath

 

Hence why I asked, as a genuine question, is it better to let the issue expire and move on? Or push for satisfaction and maybe see continued action

 

I have learnt dealing with consultants and beureaucrats, in some situations, you can be right or you can be happy

 

It is not a matter of guts or force, we have no power over CASA, theres no checks and balances, no ombudsman. RAA are walking carefully for good reason.

 

Have you considered they could bring in same limitations to all RAA aircraft, in which case the debated numbers count for nothing

 

 

[Russ]

Are you prepared to go down with a bullit in your back, or go down with a bullit in your chest.

 

This whole sorry saga was at the outset, a " let's hurt the barstard" ...outgoing casa staff, just wanted to cause pain. Remaining staff are forced to defend this action. ( just follow the early comments re....24 hrs, Christmas Eve etc etc )

 

If.......the supporting documentation is seriously flawed, then open it, and let's see some red faces. Dropping to your knees, and taking it you know where, is not in our Aussie DNA.

 

The....do nothing, for fear of consequences at some later time, is garbage, if your right....then defend that , fight for it, take no prisoners. Will force the bully to think real hard, before pulling another stunt.

 

If.......however, the document has merit, well cop it sweet and move on.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Should the matter end up in court (which must be likely) some of the overt critics may well get an "invitation " for a bit of he said, I said , to explain their evidence for making public statements and involvement with CASA. Interesting times.True identies, when not already know, are not difficult to obtain if needed.

Only time will tell.

If you're referring to me Frank, I'd be happy to accept an invitation to provide under oath, should the matter end up in court, details of any and all dealings I've had with CASA.

Gandalph went off on his own tangent in post #681 so he can stew in his own juice.