CASA changes

[Guest Maj Millard]

It's actually ICAO who made the standard for paper licenses, if CASA didn't follow the same system then Australian pilots flying internationally may find their plastic credit card license (or APP) useless. Another reason why we should get away from this one size fits all CASR and split RPT/Commerical Operations from that of Recreational within the Regs.

The FAA went to plastic some years back, that's put the RAAus way ahead of CASA with licensing...

I've never really wanted the CASA ones...I figure I've already earned the real thing.

 

 

 

[Camel]

Years ago CASA went to the plastic card and then went back to the piece of paper. No matter how you look at it CASA know more about nothing than most people ! And when it's all said and done there is more said than done !

 

They are a waste of space and are not happy until you are unhappy !

 

 

[DonRamsay]

As far as I read the law (as a non lawyer) CASA can't be sued, there is no ombudsman, they can't be taken to the Administrative Appeals tribunal. They seem top be a law unto themselves. They have absolute power and we know what absolute power does . . . corrupts absolutely some might say. No employee of a corporation can be sued for actions done "in good faith" as a servant of his/her employer. Directors of corporations can be sued but they are usually covered by insurance. I doubt there is any chance of holding CASA accountable for anything. The only "weapon" available is bad publicity.

 

For all that, I am prepared to give the new brooms a chance to fix the CASA culture. So far SKidmore and the Chairman are doing a good job in getting rid of the bad apples that led and created the poor culture. If only they had the requirement that the FAA has of promoting aviation they might not be so awful.

 

 

[Camel]

For you Don, http://www.worldlawdirect.com/forum/civil-litigation/74521-suing-civil-aviation-safety-authority-australia.html

 

Look it up Don if you got a few months to spare, https://books.google.com.au/books?id=oX5BatrjbswC&pg=PA857&lpg=PA857&dq=is+the+civil+aviation+authority+able+to+be+sued&source=bl&ots=pyrjCYVmWR&sig=wgiBFznUA9lO-3iPPPKfmxzLLFU&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CDcQ6AEwCWoVChMI2pq36YOhxwIVJRemCh1cyQYl#v=onepage&q=is%20the%20civil%20aviation%20authority%20able%20to%20be%20sued&f=false

 

 

[coljones]

For you Don, http://www.worldlawdirect.com/forum/civil-litigation/74521-suing-civil-aviation-safety-authority-australia.htmlLook it up Don if you got a few months to spare, https://books.google.com.au/books?id=oX5BatrjbswC&pg=PA857&lpg=PA857&dq=is+the+civil+aviation+authority+able+to+be+sued&source=bl&ots=pyrjCYVmWR&sig=wgiBFznUA9lO-3iPPPKfmxzLLFU&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CDcQ6AEwCWoVChMI2pq36YOhxwIVJRemCh1cyQYl#v=onepage&q=is the civil aviation authority able to be sued&f=false

And as I recall, CASA was taken to the AAT who ordered a change in how CASA AVMED handled diabetes.

 

 

[turboplanner]

As far as I read the law (as a non lawyer) CASA can't be sued, there is no ombudsman, they can't be taken to the Administrative Appeals tribunal. They seem top be a law unto themselves. They have absolute power and we know what absolute power does . . . corrupts absolutely some might say.

I've recommended several times that posters refer to the Civil Aviation Act 1988, and other Acts relating to CASA rather than continuing to post crap.

 

CASA can sue and can be sued - see Part II section 8 ©

 

Part II—Establishment, functions etc. of CASA

 

 

 

8 Establishment of CASA

 

(1) An authority called the Civil Aviation Safety Authority is established by this subsection.

 

(2) CASA:

 

(a) is a body corporate with perpetual succession;

 

(b) shall have a seal; and

 

© may sue and be sued in its corporate name.

 

 

Not only that, but Natural Justice is built into the system through access to an Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

 

 

 

In the case of Camel's campaign, I drew attention to the involvement of DIRD in Instrument 292/14

 

 

 

I also suggested people check the powers available to CASA regarding that particular instrument.

 

 

 

Checking as I recommended would have showed up the process CASA followed, that there was no requirement for any numbers (so the endless fight over mythical numbers was a distraction), and that there was an opportunity for Natural Justice through AAT, apparently not taken up.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Camel]

I've recommended several times that posters refer to the Civil Aviation Act 1988, and other Acts relating to CASA rather than continuing to post crap.CASA can sue and can be sued - see Part II section 8 ©

 

Part II—Establishment, functions etc. of CASA

 

 

 

8 Establishment of CASA

 

(1) An authority called the Civil Aviation Safety Authority is established by this subsection.

 

(2) CASA:

 

(a) is a body corporate with perpetual succession;

 

(b) shall have a seal; and

 

© may sue and be sued in its corporate name.

 

 

Not only that, but Natural Justice is built into the system through access to an Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

 

 

 

In the case of Camel's campaign, I drew attention to the involvement of DIRD in Instrument 292/14

 

 

 

I also suggested people check the powers available to CASA regarding that particular instrument.

 

 

 

Checking as I recommended would have showed up the process CASA followed, that there was no requirement for any numbers (so the endless fight over mythical numbers was a distraction), and that there was an opportunity for Natural Justice through AAT, apparently not taken up.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Don't know about campaign, but the action CASA took was not in everyone's best interest. I think there was a better way and this has damaged Jabiru, flying schools, operators and owners and the values of Jabirus.

Doing it on the last day of the CFI conference after being present and saying nothing, then getting so much feed back and ignoring it and putting limitation on just before Christmas, then extending for a year and also the data is not good. They attacked other manufacturers before and now it has to be fixed !

 

 

[Keith Page]

Hello Turbo,

 

In a nut shell --- CASA has been given the duty of managing/overseeing the regulation/management of all things aviation this duty has been given to CASA by an act of parliament.

 

For want of a better term CASA is a government board.

 

That is about it in simplistic view.

 

Regards,

 

KP.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Don't know about campaign, but the action CASA took was not in everyone's best interest. I think there was a better way and this has damaged Jabiru, flying schools, operators and owners and the values of Jabirus.Doing it on the last day of the CFI conference after being present and saying nothing, then getting so much feed back and ignoring it and putting limitation on just before Christmas, then extending for a year and also the data is not good. They attacked other manufacturers before and now it has to be fixed !

There's no doubt the fallout has been very painful for a lot of people.

Re the CFI conference, that's not unusual for large organizations; I've experienced it many times through the years. It can be because the people who made the decision didn't tell the people who attended the conference, or the people who made the decision told the people who attended the conference that no one was to say anything until the decision had been centrally released/recipient advised etc. Every time this happens in large organizations they look like clutzes - a very foolish way of handling things.

 

Re before Christmas - someone could have gone down Christmas Day; I've been in situations where I've had to push for a vote for safety action, in one case affecting 1100 young and enthusiastic competitors, and you're never going to be popular, but once you become aware of a perceived risk, legally you have to act there and then.

 

Re the data; why don't you talk to CASA and find out who gave it to them and why?

 

 

[Keith Page]

Re.the Data; why don't you talk to CASA and find out who gave it to them and why?

 

Very good point Turbo.

 

Would be a very good job for Tony Fitzgerald get his teeth into.

 

I think we all will be surprised who will be flushed out of the wood work.

 

Regards,

 

KP.

 

 

[Camel]

There's no doubt the fallout has been very painful for a lot of people.Re the CFI conference, that's not unusual for large organizations; I've experienced it many times through the years. It can be because the people who made the decision didn't tell the people who attended the conference, or the people who made the decision told the people who attended the conference that no one was to say anything until the decision had been centrally released/recipient advised etc. Every time this happens in large organizations they look like clutzes - a very foolish way of handling things.

 

Re before Christmas - someone could have gone down Christmas Day; I've been in situations where I've had to push for a vote for safety action, in one case affecting 1100 young and enthusiastic competitors, and you're never going to be popular, but once you become aware of a perceived risk, legally you have to act there and then.

 

Re the data; why don't you talk to CASA and find out who gave it to them and why?

Most of the data came from RAA and they already have said they disputed the numbers as these were not all faulty engines but other related matters like fuel starvation etc. RAA submission was correct to dispute numbers. https://www.raa.asn.au/2014/11/recreational-aviation-australia-submission-to-casa-regarding-jabiru/

 

There was a total of 66 reports, 9 of those were not reported by RAA.

 

 

[Keith Page]

Hello Camel,

 

This what I can not get a handle on.

 

In this case who is "they" that you refer. I will assume RAAus in this case.

 

The data came from RAAus then RAAus is asking CASA where is their data.

 

So did CASA start the Jab issue from RAAus data.?

 

Now RAAus defending it?

 

Regards,KP.

 

 

[kaz3g]

I've recommended several times that posters refer to the Civil Aviation Act 1988, and other Acts relating to CASA rather than continuing to post crap.CASA can sue and can be sued - see Part II section 8 ©

 

Part II—Establishment, functions etc. of CASA

 

 

 

8 Establishment of CASA

 

(1) An authority called the Civil Aviation Safety Authority is established by this subsection.

 

(2) CASA:

 

(a) is a body corporate with perpetual succession;

 

(b) shall have a seal; and

 

© may sue and be sued in its corporate name.

 

 

 

Employees of CASA will be protected if they are working in good faith within the terms of their employment and powers given them under the legislation. CASA will be vicariously liable for any negligent action by those employees in the course of their employment.

 

 

 

If the employees deliberately act outside the powers given under legislation such as making an unlawful arrest which they knew was unlawful, the employer may no longer be vicariously liable in which case only the individuals might be held to account.

 

 

 

Kaz

 

 

[kaz3g]

?... If only they had the requirement that the FAA has of promoting aviation they might not be so awful.

Hi Don

 

I said exactly this to my local member in an email yesterday.

 

There are a lot of people on this list but I wonder how many have actually contacted their representative to make their views known?

 

It's not hard, peeps. Have a look at Sandy Reith's recent statements on Vocasupport, link them in an email to your pollie person and tell them you aren't a happy camper. Doesn't matter which party they belong to because none of the responsible Ministers in recent decades has been anything more than an ornament on the CEO's desk.

 

Kaz

 

 

[djpacro]

If only they had the requirement that the FAA has of promoting aviation they might not be so awful.

That was removed after the ValueJet accident many years ago, I don't know why people still claim it is so. I suggest that people take a look at the FAA website before making a fool of themselves with their local member.

 

I said exactly this to my local member in an email yesterday.

Hope I wasn't too late.

[kaz3g]

That was removed after the ValueJet accident many years ago, I don't know why people still claim it is so. I suggest that people take a look at the FAA website before making a fool of themselves with their local member.Hope I wasn't too late.

Thank you kindly but I dont think I put my foot in it...it was the sentiment I was agreeing with.

 

We have the best country in the world in which to promote GA. it's a big country with long distances between population centres. We have good weather and relatively flat terrain. Yet, unlike the USA and even our small neighbour, NZ, aviation outside the big four is dying. And it is dying from strangulation by a Regulator that has managed to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on stand alone regulation that leaves the rest of the world wondering what the hell Australia thinks it's about.

 

Kaz

 

 

[Camel]

Hello Camel,This what I can not get a handle on.

In this case who is "they" that you refer. I will assume RAAus in this case.

 

The data came from RAAus then RAAus is asking CASA where is their data.

 

So did CASA start the Jab issue from RAAus data.?

 

Now RAAus defending it?

 

Regards,KP.

I think you summed it up.

 

 

[Camel]

But the problem is CASA is the regulator and RAA is not in a position to start a fight with CASA but I'm sure this has opened a few eyes to how RAA was treated.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Before you make continued assumptions and cloud the issue for another year, how about finding out EXACTLY what happened?

 

 

[DonRamsay]

For you Don, http://www.worldlawdirect.com/forum/civil-litigation/74521-suing-civil-aviation-safety-authority-australia.htmlLook it up Don if you got a few months to spare, https://books.google.com.au/books?id=oX5BatrjbswC&pg=PA857&lpg=PA857&dq=is+the+civil+aviation+authority+able+to+be+sued&source=bl&ots=pyrjCYVmWR&sig=wgiBFznUA9lO-3iPPPKfmxzLLFU&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CDcQ6AEwCWoVChMI2pq36YOhxwIVJRemCh1cyQYl#v=onepage&q=is the civil aviation authority able to be sued&f=false

Thanks Camel, I had a look but the second ref was a bit too heavy for this time of night.

 

While it sounded like I was suggesting CASA can't be sued for legal reasons, it is perhaps closer to reality to say that they have bottom less pockets and would be extremely difficult financially to take on.

 

 

[DonRamsay]

I've recommended several times that posters refer to the Civil Aviation Act 1988, and other Acts relating to CASA rather than continuing to post crap . . . .

A bit harsh Turbs but informative.

 

 

[DonRamsay]

Before you make continued assumptions and cloud the issue for another year, how about finding out EXACTLY what happened?

I heard to day that somebody, an individual (CAMEL?), has been successful in a Freedom of Information request and supports the notion that the data CASA relied on for its harsh punitive action against Jabiru owners and operators was grossly inadequate.

RAAus had requested this info from CASA on several occasions but as far as I know got stonewalled.

 

 

[turboplanner]

I'd suggest that would be a lesson for anyone making an FoI request; always know the answer, so you can ask the right questions.

 

 

[coljones]

I'd suggest that would be a lesson for anyone making an FoI request; always know the answer, so you can ask the right questions.

Camel suggested that he had asked the right questions via FoI and got some right questions. It appears that RAA hasn't pursued the FoI route, asked the right questions of the wrong people and got fobbed off.

FoI does work quite a lot of the time, which is why pollies are getting cunning and claiming Cabinet paper, working paper, never wrote it down, commercial in confidence or some such.

 

 

[Jabiru Phil]

I would like to see the individuals that illegally initiated this action against Jabiru based on no data or definable criteria personally sued. It's simply not acceptable that public servants be free of all consequences and responsibility.

Used to make my blood pressure rise reading the comments by a forum member of some note.

 

I would think he posted a couple of hundred anti Jab comments here.

 

I also note that since the CASA directive his comments have reduced to a dribble!

 

Perhaps a coincident? I think not.

 

I'm with GG on this one.

 

phil