Aereotechnology Pty Ltd and Civil Aviation Safety Authority

[2000] AATA 188

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL      )

)     No. T2000/3

GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION          )          

Re      AEREOTECHNOLOGY PTY LIMITED  

Applicant

And    CIVIL AVIATION SAFETY AUTHORITY

Respondent

INTERLOCUTORY DECISION [2000] AATA 188

Tribunal       Mr C P Webster (Senior Member)

Date12 January 2000

PlaceHobart

Decision      Pursuant to s.41(2) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975, I hereby order that the implementation of the decision of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority to suspend the Air Operator's Certificate No. 225441-14 held by Aerotechnology Pty Ltd on the grounds set out in its letter dated 8 January 2000, be stayed until further review.  The Tribunal notes the undertakings given by Mr. Wells:   (a)    that he will at all times comply with the Act, the Regulations and the orders;   (b)     that he will not use class B aircraft for RPT flights.     
  [Sgd C P Webster]
  Senior Member

CATCHWORDS
AVIATION – Stay order
Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 – s.43(2A)

STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR INTERLOCUTORY DECISION

8 March 2000         Mr C P Webster (Senior Member)            

1. This is a statement of reasons pursuant to s.43(2A) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 in respect of a stay order made on 12 January 2000.

2. This was an application for a stay of the effect of the notice given by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) to the applicant.

3. The applicant had the burden of demonstrating the factual circumstances that exist to give the Tribunal power to grant a stay.

4. The Tribunal's power to grant a stay is under s.41(2) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 and it can only be given for the purposes of securing the effectiveness of a hearing and determination of the application for review.

5. The Tribunal must be satisfied that the decision of a successful review would be rendered nugatory if a stay were not granted.

6. In the present case, I was satisfied that a future review hearing would be rendered nugatory if I were not to grant a stay.   It was clear on the evidence, and it is uncontested, that the financial position of the applicants would be that they would be unable to continue in business as air operators even if they were ultimately successful in the review.

7. I  was satisfied that this was an appropriate matter where a stay could be granted.   That was not the end of the matter however.   The question to be determined by the Tribunal was whether or not weighing up all the competing interests of the parties whether or not a stay should be granted.

8. I agreed with the proposition advanced by Mr. Estcourt Q.C., that there is a difference to be drawn between a situation where an aircraft is unsafe per se or where a pilot is clearly incompetent i.e. the aircraft or the pilot should not fly.   In such situations there would be a risk to the public that will continue if a stay were to be granted and a stay should not be granted in such circumstances.

9. In this case however, there was a number of complaints which in themselves none of which would justify the granting of an immediate suspension of licence.   Certainly in this case, CASA did not consider any single breach was sufficient to justify the suspension of a pilot's licence or air operator's licence.

10. In this case CASA is relied upon the cumulative effect of those breaches to justify its actions.

11. It appears to me that the behaviour complained about by CASA can be remedied by the pilot and air operator, and that there is not likely to be any ongoing danger to the public, particularly as the applicants are aware of the ongoing investigation by CASA.

12. I also took into account the financial implications upon the applicant to which I have already referred and the devastation financially upon the applicants if a stay were not granted.    I therefore ordered that the implementation of the decision of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority to suspend Air Operator's Certificate No. 225441-14 held by Aerotechnology Pty Limited on the grounds set out in its letter dated 8 January 2000 be stayed until further review.

13. I noted the undertakings given by Mr. Wells:

    (a)that he will at all times comply with the Act, the Regulations and the orders;

    (b)that he will not use class B aircraft for RPT flights.

    I certify that the 15 preceding paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Mr C P Webster (Senior Member)

    Signed:         .....................................................................................
      Personal Assistant

    Date/s of Hearing  12 January 2000
    Date of Decision  12 January 2000
    Counsel for the Applicant        Mr S Estcourt Q.C.,
    Solicitor for Applicant               
    Counsel for the Respondent    Mr D Stack
    Solicitor for the Respondent