"developer faces jail for flying plane"????

[Gnarly Gnu]

Are you even serious? They can come from another country and you support their ignoring of our laws because it doesn't suit them?

We allow foreign tourists to drive here. These are just long-term tourists, doesn't seem to cause a lot of trouble that I'm aware of.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Yes Bex, if you had ever dealt with the South Australian dept of Transport you would understand Gnarly saying that.Just last week there was a Vic road transport company looking at setting up in South Australia but they gave up. The bureaucrats were too awful. I understand your move to China from these guys alone.

Bruce, you're on the wrong forum for fairyland stories.

 

 

[Bruce Tuncks]

Wish you were right Turbs, but I could tell you a story to make a grown man weep about that lot. It concerns an elderly couple and their 20 year-old garden trailer. You would find the story too distressing to hear all the details.

 

The Vic transport company story was in the Adelaide Advertiser so it must be true.

 

 

[dutchroll]

Well, having read the report above, he has quite a history.

 

- barges through various controlled airspace on multiple occasions without clearance including a military airfield and a major commercial airport.

 

- fails to comply with arrival procedures at busy class D airports.

 

- flies IMC under VFR.

 

- flies with an expired maintenance release (100 hourly).

 

- has radio failure & could've diverted to non controlled airport to fix it but barges into major regional airport without a flight plan.

 

- flies certified aircraft with time expired critical electrical components.

 

- failed multiple ground exams and flight tests.

 

I have no issue at all with CASA going after him.

 

I question whether he should be flying at all, ever.

 

 

[Downunder]

Has the will (and the money) but not the aptitude I guess......and doesn't know when to give up. Perhaps he should just play golf.....

 

 

[onetrack]

This important instructor witness' line has been extracted from the AAT case that Kaz linked to, above ....

 

"Further, through belief in his (Sadri's) own ability, gained through years of successful business practice, and in applying a business process to the art of flying and the act of aircraft ownership, he has a level of self confidence with regards to aviation, far in excess of his true capacity, given his very low level of actual aviation experience."

 

Right there, you've got the most succinct and accurate opinion that you could ever hear - from a highly experienced Navy air arm instructor - that this bloke is an arrogant corporate type, used to getting his own way in everything - and he's merely an (aviation) accident looking for a place to happen - particularly if in charge of the Diamond twin, that he currently owns.

 

The bottom line is, we could be faced with the old situation here - exactly as in the Hempel case - whereby CASA can cancel a blokes licence - but if he's the type to just merely consider that that cancellation is just a petty annoyance - he'll keep on flying regardless, anyway - at great risk to all others in the aviation industry. This bloke is a Tatar, they consider themselves a law unto themselves.

 

 

[Garfly]

I've just come across this thoughtful post - parts of which are relevant here - by Peetwo on the Auntypru forum (03/10/15).

 

http://auntypru.com/forum/-The-search-for-investigative-probity

 

In which he quotes this "excellent blog opinion piece courtesy of Dan Parsons (Mid 2013)"

 

PARTIAL QUOTE:

 

"It’s a hard thing to let go of but, I think, we have to let go of the criminal view of personal responsibility when we are dealing with accidents in complex socio-technical systems, such as aviation. I’m just going to come out and say it:

 

 

 

No one, who participates in the aviation system, should ever go to jail, be fined or sanctioned as a criminal. Ever. Regardless of the error, violation, failing, mistake, slip, lapse, omission, commission, faux-pas, foul-up, whatever.

 

 

 

If we accept that aviation is indeed a system – a complex set of individuals, machines, procedures, tools, organisations – all working to achieve the objective of moving stuff from A to B – then no single part of that system can be singled out as having “failed”.

 

 

 

As a system there are, or should be, feedback loops. Sub-systems for checking and re-checking. There should be self-correction. If one part has failed, more parts have failed; in fact, the whole system has failed.

 

 

 

If you are going to blame one, you need to blame all. Jail one, jail all. Fine one, fine all.

 

 

 

Whoa Warden, Don’t Open that Door Yet

 

 

 

I am definitely not advocating some criminal reform agenda that would see society’s jails shut-down and personal responsibility disappear. I am arguing for a clear distinction between how we view undesirable events within the aviation endeavour and in society at large. I don’t think it is appropriate to look at the aviation industry as a sub-set of society and apply the same thinking.

 

 

 

The big differences between aviation and society are choice and intent. Pilots, ATC’ers, LAMEs, AROs and many others choose to be part of the aviation with the intent on achieving the industry’s objective of moving stuff from here to there safely."

 

 

[cooperplace]

Yes Bex, if you had ever dealt with the South Australian dept of Transport you would understand Gnarly saying that.Just last week there was a Vic road transport company looking at setting up in South Australia but they gave up. The bureaucrats were too awful. I understand your move to China from these guys alone.

I couldn't agree more re the SA transport dept. A more difficult, unhelpful, rule-bound, small-minded, crowd would be hard to find. I imported a motorcycle. Never again: they just keep on thinking up reasons why it shouldn't be registered.

 

 

[Oscar]

CASA has been known to apply severe penalty points for what are technical breaches of regs. that had no realistic adverse safety implications, and yet fail to act on others that had major potential.

 

In this case, I think that flagrant and repeated breaches of basic observance of airspace reporting and use requirements - particularly where the safety of RPT flights was possible - is a case where serious repercussions are warranted. I've been present at one strip 'beat-up' - by an F111 through the middle of winch-launch glider operation - where two deaths were absolutely likely, if not for some extremely fortunate action on the part of someone not actually flying at that moment. You don't 'laugh that one off', believe me.

 

 

[turboplanner]

History is littered with utterly reckless individuals with a known history of breaching regulations, taking reckless short cuts, injuring other people and themselves, who have been tried for a crime, and acquitted because, on that occasion they simply didn't commit it. Probably doesn't happen often, but if it was you, you would appreciate going into Court facing only the evidence which applied to the current case. If you are found guilty, then all the priors come out and have a bearing on the penatly.

 

However, so far, other than the newspaper inference, I haven't heard or seen the slightest indication of what this CURRENT case is about, or why there would be the suggestion of a prison sentence.

 

He's already been dealt with for the past which is being speculated on in this thread.

 

 

[Garfly]

Perhaps the quote above (#57) is not such a good fit to this case (which, in its bizarre detail, is a statistical outlier anyway) but it does bear on the general drift of the thread towards the philosophy of Crime and Punishment in the aviation sphere; what, if any, kinds of accidents or transgressions should be regarded as 'criminal'.

 

The writer of that quote would probably have had the PelAir debacle in mind. And what a debacle.

 

Thanks to a vigilant media and a Senate Enquiry it became clear that there was far more perfidy than philosophy that had that 'crime' sheeted home to an individual pilot, precisely as a way of exculpating 'the system' that (at least partly) put him in that position.

 

And yet, even in the strange case that started this thread, the writer's analysis might be seen to hold: "If one part has failed, more parts have failed; in fact, the whole system has failed."

 

 

Anticipating the obvious objections he hastens to add:

 

"I am definitely not advocating some criminal reform agenda that would see ... personal responsibility disappear."

 

 

 

 

 

[Oscar]

History is littered with utterly reckless individuals with a known history of breaching regulations, taking reckless short cuts, injuring other people and themselves, who have been tried for a crime, and acquitted because, on that occasion they simply didn't commit it. Probably doesn't happen often, but if it was you, you would appreciate going into Court facing only the evidence which applied to the current case. If you are found guilty, then all the priors come out and have a bearing on the penatly.However, so far, other than the newspaper inference, I haven't heard or seen the slightest indication of what this CURRENT case is about, or why there would be the suggestion of a prison sentence.

 

He's already been dealt with for the past which is being speculated on in this thread.

FFS, READ the reference quoted in Post #38.

 

 

[jakej]

http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/cth/AATA/2012/239.html?stem=0&synonyms=0&query=Johanson

[turboplanner]

FFS, READ the reference quoted in Post #38.

In response to this Colonel Blimp-esque exhortation, believe it or not I had read Post #38, but I went further and read the report from the LINK it contained, which refers to past events and decision:

 

• The decisions under review were affirmed by Deputy President D.G. Jarvis and Senior Member E. Fice, Administrative Appeals Tribunal of Australia, Adelaide, on September 28, 2012
   
   
  
• in relation to incidents on May 16, 2008, December 27, 2010, January 22, 2011, June 27, 2011.
   
   
  

 

 

 

On the other hand:

 

The Adelaide Now story (OP) of March 27, 2016 refers to:

 

• Is facing (present tense)
   
   
  
• IS being prosecuted by CASA (present tense)
   
   
  
• Court documents ALLEGE (present tense)
   
   
  
• in relation to incidents on January 25, 2014 and January 27, 2014
   
   
  

 

 

 

 

[kaz3g]

The AAT is a federal tribunal that handles civil matters such as fitness to hold an AOC, pilots licence, etc. It can be a decision maker at first instance but more commonly is the first step in an appeal process which is a review of the original decision by CASA.

 

Criminal matters are dealt with by Courts and information put to, or gleaned from, a tribunal hearing may also be evidence of criminal conduct leading to convictions and punishment. This may be transgressions against the CARs or CASRs, or it may be other criminal conduct such as perjury.

 

You have to draw your own conclusions about what is happening in the instance referred to in posts above because I'm not going to draw them for you.

 

Kaz

 

 

[Happyflyer]

History is littered with utterly reckless individuals with a known history of breaching regulations, taking reckless short cuts, injuring other people and themselves, who have been tried for a crime, and acquitted because, on that occasion they simply didn't commit it. Probably doesn't happen often, but if it was you, you would appreciate going into Court facing only the evidence which applied to the current case. If you are found guilty, then all the priors come out and have a bearing on the penatly.However, so far, other than the newspaper inference, I haven't heard or seen the slightest indication of what this CURRENT case is about, or why there would be the suggestion of a prison sentence.

 

He's already been dealt with for the past which is being speculated on in this thread.

It would seem the newspaper article quoted at post #5 has some fairly detailed information of the charge. They would not name a person and detail the charge without running it by their legal department. Especially if this person had the means to sue them if the facts of the story were wrong.

It would appear to me the story is alleging he is being charged with a breach of CAA Section 20AB which has a penalty of up to two years jail. It may be this has something to do with losing his licence in the first place for the offences committed earlier. In addition there is an allegation of a false statement in an application for a student licence. Note the similarity of the wording in (1) with the line in the newspaper article.

 

CIVIL AVIATION ACT 1988 - SECT 20AB Flying aircraft without licence etc.

 

(1) A person must not perform any duty that is essential to the operation of an Australian aircraft during flight time unless:

 

(a) the person holds a civil aviation authorisation that is in force and authorises the person to perform that duty; or

 

(b) the person is authorised by or under the regulations to perform that duty without the civil aviation authorisation concerned.

 

Penalty: Imprisonment for 2 years.

 

 

[Bruce Tuncks]

South Australia had this female US judge as a "thinker in residence" and her report was how we could save millions by NOT jailing so many people. She said you only needed to jail people who you were afraid of. Others can be punished without jailing.

 

One day I asked our local MP ( then a minister) about why there were so many in jail at $300 per day each in the light of this report. He said the government knew the jailing was stupid but the public demanded it and they wanted to stay in power .