Low flying penalty

[Bruce Tuncks]

There are risks associated with flying that I am happy to bear... engine failure for example.

 

Now a whole lot of new risks, far more frightening, have been added by the "safety authority".

 

These risks are that you may infringe some regulations and be assulted and incarcerated by the government.

 

Once incarcerated, you may be further assulted by all sorts of things including "guards" with actual bodily harm, with no legal protections.

 

I reckon CASA is the biggest risk in flying.

 

 

[Happyflyer]

There are risks associated with flying ..........These risks are that you may infringe some regulations and be assulted and incarcerated by the government.

Once incarcerated, you may be further assulted by all sorts of things including "guards" with actual bodily harm, with no legal protections.

 

I reckon CASA is the biggest risk in flying.

Wow! I might have to consider not getting out of bed tomorrow.

 

 

[Gnarly Gnu]

For myself, being bankrupted and disposessed would be far worse than being jailed for 6 months.

You are possessed?

 

Sorry Bruce, couldn't resist . Yeah the incarceration costs in this country are outrageous, I can't see why low risk prisoners cant be sent to an 'assemble yourself' tent city out the back of Woomera. Good enough for the Army.

 

 

[farri]

How can an unregistered aircraft be classed as an 'unregistered RA-Aus aircraft', does it not cease to be the responsibility of the RA-Aus once the registration expires, where is the line drawn?.... Makes no sense to me!

 

Frank.

 

 

[kaz3g]

The Ombudsman in Victoria recently conducted a major review of prisons in so far as they are supposed to both punish and rehabilitate convicted criminals incarcerated in them. He found that rehabilitation was a joke and that prisons are primarily just warehousing those held in them.

 

A lot of other research demonstrates not only the truth of this but also that those being released are highly likely to be caught offending again within Two years and that the new offending will be of a higher order. More people leave prison with a drug habit than enter them. More than two-thirds of inmates have significant mental health disorders.

 

Recently, the Full Court of the Supreme Court released its first Guideline Judgment. Their Honours similarly pointed to the lack of rehabilitation and treatment available in prison and held that properly tailored corrections orders are both punitive and rehabilitative, and are a better option for the majority of offending rather than prison and give more certain outcomes for both the convicted person AND the community.

 

There is an awful lot of uninformed bullshit floating around about sentencing and the part the judiciary plays in it, but not a lot gets said about the lack of resources available to prisoners to actually treat their illnesses and address their antisocial personalities. Nothing gets said about the total lack of resources post- release and the almost certain homelessness and unemployment that follows it. The media, especially, is reprehensible for its ongoing "tough on crime" mantra that allows successive governments to underinvest in communities, especially rural and remote communities, and makes the expenditure of $1billion on a new prison appear responsible. Just think how many schools, hospitals and p,acing fields could be built for that. The new prison now being constructed in Victoria will be full by the time it is finished on current incarceration rates and they will already have had to start another one. Multiply that around the country...

 

California had got to the stage where it was spending more on prisons than on schools and hospitals combined because it has one of the highest incarceration levels in the so-called developed world. It is now diverting people from prison and diverting the money otherwise expended on keeping them into communities where it builds schools, funds after school programs to reduce delinquency, promotes apprenticeships and scholarships and invests in employment programs.

 

I think it's time we were doing the same.

 

Kaz

 

 

[PA.]

We should outsource prisoners to India or Indonesia.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

The problem with prisons is they cost money.

 

 

[nong]

Anyway, cheers to our friend with the soggy sapphire. He copped sufficient punishment on the day.

 

 

[nong]

I think the significant factor in the above release is the repeated references to "the member".I read that as saying he had a current membership but was not the holder of a valid pilot certificate; neither was the aircraft registered at the time.

 

Seems like the appropriate situation in which to enliven the "bringing the Association into disrepute" provisions and ensure that membership is no longer an option.

 

Kaz

So, kaz3g, you say you would permanently bar a pilot from membership?

If I were that pilot, I would have to fly illegally because the RAAus (by means of a disreputable act) would not accept my attempt to become legal.

 

You can see the court defense... " I wanted to go legal, your Worship, but they wouldn't let me. They said I was out for ever."

 

Two big threats to natural justice for members in the RAAus system are:

 

1) being accused by the RAAus kangaroo court of "bring RAAus into disrepute"

 

2) being accused of not being a "fit and proper person"...borrowed from CASA.

 

These provisions have, at times, been used as sledge hammers against members. Some previous Ops Managers were offenders in this area.

 

In fact, by their blunt force, unmeasured actions, said Ops Managers did, at the time, "bring RAAus into disrepute."

 

It is much wiser to keep offenders within the fold. Limited sanctions after due and full process is reasonable.

 

However, their should be no life long loss of membership...EVER.

 

Why? Because RAAus is, effectively, a monopoly. That has implications for the individual.

 

 

[jetjr]

Isnt RAA is parrallel pathway

 

If RAA wont have the person, they can get a PPL?

 

Surely if you do something serious enough you can loose flying privileges - it is not a right

 

Its the case with Vehicle license, if you do enough dumb stuff you can no longer drive, some still do and restrictions and fines increase

 

A scary number of unregistered unlicenced drivers out there everyday

 

 

[facthunter]

Without some transparent appeal process, one should be worried about how the RAAus might act. CASA have a "Strict Liability" policy and the deepest pockets in court, are inconsistent, and few of you are concerned about it? Might I respectively suggest get your priorities right here. Aviation in this country is DYING and will continue to do it in the current environment. A LOT needs to be done. Nev

 

 

[turboplanner]

Very simple FH, IO had Chief Stewards who observed behaviour, rule compliance etc and issued penalties which might be a month, six months, year suspension etc, so justice was administered swiftly. Then there was a Tribunal where an aggrieved person could appeal against the stewards decision. The process was transparent and there was natural justice all withing the Incorporation. RAA just haven't bothered to set it up.

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

Very simple FH, IO had Chief Stewards who observed behaviour, rule compliance etc and issued penalties which might be a month, six months, year suspension etc, so justice was administered swiftly. Then there was a Tribunal where an aggrieved person could appeal against the stewards decision. The process was transparent and there was natural justice all withing the Incorporation. RAA just haven't bothered to set it up.

So...for comparison sakes......your Stewards, did they observe Australia wide or just at specified racetracks.......Im pretty sure the latter in which case how would you identify and prosecute someone doing something wrong away from the track.....I imagine you would have relied on the police for that......In what way are we any different? If we take the specific example in this post and for argument sake say that he flew from his own land (and I have no idea if that's true or not) then in your scenario how would the stewards have identified in advance the miscreant?

If people and/or CASA want RAAus to strictly enforce then your funding structure for RAAus will need to change dramatically......either members will pay extra in their membership costs, or CASA will have to fund us better than they are funding us at present......We are now in the 9th month of the financial year and have exactly $0 from CASA sofar this year....There is work apparently on both sides...but I can only speak to ourside, to get the Deed of Agreement in place. From my perspective CASA is getting a hell of a deal for $0 of funding!!! When and if its finalised for this FY there cant be too many obligations in it cause there will only be a month or so to achieve the inevitable raising of the bar that occurs year to year

 

Andy

 

 

[facthunter]

Agree with Turbs comment, above, but surely CASA should set the standard. They are completely a law unto themselves not answerable to anyone in the field and very subject to the whim and fancy of the latest incumbent.

 

Andy It would appear they are not wanting the RAAus to continue and are about frustrating them constantly. Do they wish to coerce them into utter submission or punish them for some perceived lack of deference? I would hope it isn't as infantile as that.Nev

 

 

[kasper]

So, kaz3g, you say you would permanently bar a pilot from membership?If I were that pilot, I would have to fly illegally because the RAAus (by means of a disreputable act) would not accept my attempt to become legal.

You can see the court defense... " I wanted to go legal, your Worship, but they wouldn't let me. They said I was out for ever."

 

Two big threats to natural justice for members in the RAAus system are:

 

1) being accused by the RAAus kangaroo court of "bring RAAus into disrepute"

 

2) being accused of not being a "fit and proper person"...borrowed from CASA.

 

These provisions have, at times, been used as sledge hammers against members. Some previous Ops Managers were offenders in this area.

 

In fact, by their blunt force, unmeasured actions, said Ops Managers did, at the time, "bring RAAus into disrepute."

 

It is much wiser to keep offenders within the fold. Limited sanctions after due and full process is reasonable.

 

However, their should be no life long loss of membership...EVER.

 

Why? Because RAAus is, effectively, a monopoly. That has implications for the individual.

The RAA has the ULTIMATE sanction of revoking membership (or refusing membership of not already one) BUT has the ability under its powers to place conditions on individual members rights/obligations etc in relation to pilots certificates.

 

So IF a naughty individual wants to see the light then on a case by case basis the RAA have the power to impose additional/varied conditions on training, recurrency and operations eg general limits to operation of revocation/amendment to endorsements.

 

EG if they were a pilot certificate holder with a history of bad behavior in relation to airspace you could remove their cross country and impose an additional requirement on gaining the cross country of check flight with Ops Manager rahter than just the ususal. Or change the requirement for cross country from just the required std to include a requirement that the qualifying cross country goes into X airspace and lands at Y airfield and get tower stamp etc.

 

If not a member then you can write your own syllabus with whatever additional times/checks you want.

 

If they are unhappy with this then there is an appeals process ... don't forget they have already broken laws and/or RAA requirements beforehand so they are not likely to get much sympathy if we offer a way in that addresses their specific needs.

 

As I have posted before - the RAA are a regulator and have significant powers in relation to operating as one in relation to our members but this is an area where we have a poor track record of operation.

 

But as a comment - there will always be bad eggs. In the UK at the club I flew from we had a nice young chap become a student, train per the syllabus and progress to solo stage ... then went AWOL - he bought an out of regn plane and was next heard of floating in the English Channel after running out of fuel while out flying .... Went to court and got whacked by them (no licence, no regn, no insurance etc) and paid his fine ... came back to continue training for a few more lessons ... then went AWOL again and next appeared on the 6pm news being nabbed on landing in a field for importing drugs from the continent into the UK ... in another unregistered aircraft he and others had bought and were using to transport across the water.

 

Bad eggs will exist and nothing anyone says or tries to provide in terms of help will change behaviors in some.

 

 

[farri]

If not a member then you can write your own syllabus with whatever additional times/checks you want

Kasper, Exactly what do you mean? I take it you`re talking about an RA-Aus member, if so, RA-Aus does not come into it, " If not a member."

 

he bought an out of regn plane and was next heard of floating in the English Channel after running out of fuel while out flying .....

Just out of interest, I remember a news report here (was quite some time ago) that a guy flying a Trike (Microlite) over the English channel, was attempting to fly around the world and due to bad weather, ditched into the ocean, between England and France. Was it the same guy?

 

Frank.

 

 

[Guest Crezzi]

Just out of interest, I remember a news report here (was quite some time ago) that a guy flying a Trike (Microlite) over the English channel, was attempting to fly around the world and due to bad weather, ditched into the ocean, between England and France. Was it the same guy?

No definitely not !

 

Cheers

 

John

 

 

[turboplanner]

So...for comparison sakes......your Stewards, did they observe Australia wide or just at specified racetracks.......Im pretty sure the latter in which case how would you identify and prosecute someone doing something wrong away from the track.....I imagine you would have relied on the police for that......In what way are we any different? If we take the specific example in this post and for argument sake say that he flew from his own land (and I have no idea if that's true or not) then in your scenario how would the stewards have identified in advance the miscreant?If people and/or CASA want RAAus to strictly enforce then your funding structure for RAAus will need to change dramatically......either members will pay extra in their membership costs, or CASA will have to fund us better than they are funding us at present......We are now in the 9th month of the financial year and have exactly $0 from CASA sofar this year....There is work apparently on both sides...but I can only speak to ourside, to get the Deed of Agreement in place. From my perspective CASA is getting a hell of a deal for $0 of funding!!! When and if its finalised for this FY there cant be too many obligations in it cause there will only be a month or so to achieve the inevitable raising of the bar that occurs year to year

 

Andy

We had about 800 Stewards, and while they, like the Sporting Shooters had the advantage of specific venues, the majority of actions don't originate with the Steward. All were volunteers, so there was no additional cost.

RAA would not be expected to cover every caravan park and lake every day, but many repeat offenders are well known in the local area and a tribunal doesn't have to work to the same level of proof to a Court.

 

As to RAA not receiving money, that's an Admon issue, the Deed is an Annual formality which sounds out of control and neither impinge on something which should have been proposed, seconded and voted on years ago.

 

 

[nong]

I too think Turbs is close to the mark.

 

What the sapphire jockey did was about equivalent to laying down a couple of burnouts on a public street to entertain (!) the bystanders, loosing it, and ending up in a ditch.

 

That might be worth six months suspension and a $1,200 fine, plus $1600 for unregistered.

 

This was not the crime of the century and he even turned out to be the victim!

 

 

[nong]

Re: Andy

 

When will RAAus learn to stop accepting money from CASA?

 

 

[rhysmcc]

When they say no pilot certificate, was it because his membership hadn't been renewed or was he only a non flying member?

 

 

[kasper]

Kasper, Exactly what do you mean? I take it you`re talking about an RA-Aus member, if so, RA-Aus does not come into it, " If not a member."

 

Just out of interest, I remember a news report here (was quite some time ago) that a guy flying a Trike (Microlite) over the English channel, was attempting to fly around the world and due to bad weather, ditched into the ocean, between England and France. Was it the same guy?

 

Frank.

h1. If not a member the RAA can still allow entry as a path to correct behavior and they can place whatever restrictions on that membership and training that they see fit given the prior history of bad behavior. That's all I meant

2. Absolutely not. The guy that died in the channel was a friend and nothing to do with drugs. The guy with drugs was just a bad egg learning to fly just to do the drug running.

 

 

[farri]

Thanks Kasper.

 

Frank.

 

 

[kaz3g]

Nong said:

 

So, kaz3g, you say you would permanently bar a pilot from membership?

 

I didn't actually say I would permanently bar him but, Yes...or at least for an extended period.

 

If I were that pilot, I would have to fly illegally because the RAAus (by means of a disreputable act) would not accept my attempt to become legal.

 

Why would you HAVE to fly illegally? You could comply with the law and stay out of the air for the greater safety of the rest of us. If you were flying with a PPL it could be cancelled by either CASA or the Court. You can go to gaol for flying without a licence so a serious penalty from RAA is very appropriate.

 

You can see the court defense... " I wanted to go legal, your Worship, but they wouldn't let me. They said I was out for ever."

 

Try running that and see how quickly you end up in deep doodoo.

 

Two big threats to natural justice for members in the RAAus system are:

 

1) being accused by the RAAus kangaroo court of "bring RAAus into disrepute"

 

2) being accused of not being a "fit and proper person"...borrowed from CASA.

 

The bigger threat is idiots that go out and behave like freeking maniacs and place lives at risk. If we don't demand responsible members and severely sanction blatant offenders, none of us will be left in the air.

 

These provisions have, at times, been used as sledge hammers against members. Some previous Ops Managers were offenders in this area.

 

That doesn't make the action wrong in this instance, no matter how badly someone else may have been treated in the past. What is needed is a process for expulsion that is equitable and includes an appeal process that satisfies the rules of procedural fairness.

 

In fact, by their blunt force, unmeasured actions, said Ops Managers did, at the time, "bring RAAus into disrepute."

 

I'm not excusing people or things done in the past because of the way in which they did it. I'm also not going to enter into the realms of defamation to discuss it with you on a public forum. Perhaps, however, we need a rule that said person can only be re licensed by order of a magistrate as occurs with convicted drink drivers?

 

It is much wiser to keep offenders within the fold.

 

Serious driving offenders go to gaol, lose their licence and have to ask a court for permission to apply for a new one once the cancellation period is finished. They don't continue to enjoy privileges.

 

Limited sanctions after due and full process is reasonable.

 

However, their should be no life long loss of membership...EVER.

 

Why? Because RAAus is, effectively, a monopoly. That has implications for the individual.

 

CASA and VicRoads are both comparable monopolies and they both take permanent action when circumstances require it.

 

What would you think would be a reasonable sanction if, by his actions, he had killed someone? I disagree with you as is my right and I'd be happy to see his rights abrogated...by a court if necessary. I think he got off lightly and I think by his actions he diminished the reputation of all of us who love to fly.

 

Kaz

 

 

[kaz3g]

I too think Turbs is close to the mark.What the sapphire jockey did was about equivalent to laying down a couple of burnouts on a public street to entertain (!) the bystanders, loosing it, and ending up in a ditch.

That might be worth six months suspension and a $1,200 fine, plus $1600 for unregistered.

 

This was not the crime of the century and he even turned out to be the victim!

If he got caught doing what you suggest in a motor vehicle in Victoria his licence would be cancelled, his car would be seized and crushed, and he would be paying something more than you suggest. If he hurt someone, he would face a short term in the slammer. If he killed someone he'd probably do 10 years.

 

Kaz