Administrative
Appeals
Tribunal
DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2004] AATA 1092
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL )
) No W2000/255, 293, 294
GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION ) Re DARREL MOWBRAY COLE Applicant
And
CIVIL AVIATION SAFETY AUTHORITY
Respondent
DECISION
Tribunal Associate Professor S D Hotop, Deputy President
Mr E Fice, MemberDate18 October 2004
PlacePerth
Decision The Tribunal affirms:
· the decision of the respondent, dated 27 June 2000, to cancel the applicant’s Commercial Pilot Licence (Application No W2000/255);
· the decision of the respondent, dated 21 July 2000, to refuse to reissue an Air Operator’s Certificate to the applicant (trading as “Kookaburra Air”) (Application No W2000/294); and
· the decision of the respondent, dated 31 July 2000, to cancel the approval of Kookaburra Air’s appointment of the applicant as a Chief Pilot (Application No W2000/293).
...........(sgd S D Hotop)................
Deputy President
CATCHWORDS
CIVIL AVIATION – Commercial Pilot Licence – Air Operator’s Certificate – Chief Pilot Approval – flight exceeded flight and duty time limitations prescribed by Part 48 of Civil Aviation Orders – false or misleading written statements in pilot log book – failure to enter on maintenance release total time-in-service of aircraft – commencing flight when aircraft would require maintenance before completion of flight – failure properly to plan flight in relation to available information regarding weather conditions before commencing flight – failure to enter endorsement on maintenance release regarding aircraft undercarriage gear door defect – conducting instrument flying practice when not holding appropriate command aeroplane instrument rating – failure to record flights in flight and duty records – permitting person to pilot aircraft on flight when person did not have prescribed minimum flying time as pilot in command of that aircraft type – applicant contravened provisions of Civil Aviation Act and Civil Aviation Regulations – applicant failed in duty with respect to matters affecting safe navigation or operation of aircraft – applicant not a fit and proper person to hold Commercial Pilot Licence – applicant’s Commercial Pilot Licence should be cancelled – Air Operator’s Certificate not required to be reissued to applicant – approval of appointment of applicant as Chief Pilot should be cancelled – reviewable decisions affirmed.
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Jurisdiction – decision to cancel approval of appointment of person as Chief Pilot a “reviewable decision”.
Civil Aviation Act 1988 (Cth) s 20AB(1), s 27, s 28, s 28BA, s 31 and s 98
Civil Aviation Regulations 1988 reg 43B, reg 47, reg 50, reg 133, reg 172, reg 206, reg 216, reg 239, reg 269 and reg 283
Civil Aviation Orders Section 40.0, Section 48.0, Section 48.1, Section 82.0 and Section 82.1
Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond (1990) 170 CLR 321
Australian National University v Burns (1982) 43 ALR 25
Evans v Friemann (1981) 35 ALR 428
Re Griffiths and Civil Aviation Authority (1994) 34 ALD 554
Re Repacholi and Civil Aviation Safety Authority (2003) 75 ALD 312
Re Seaview Lord Howe Pty Ltd and Civil Aviation Authority (1995) 38 ALD 422
Re Surf Air…
Continue reading Cole and Civil Aviation Safety Authority
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Cole and Civil Aviation Safety Authority [2004] AATA 1092
- Case
- [2004] AATA 1092
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The Tribunal was required to determine whether the decisions made by CASA were reviewable and, if so, whether those decisions were lawful and could be affirmed. The Tribunal considered the provisions of the Civil Aviation Act and Civil Aviation Regulations, as well as relevant case law. The Tribunal found that the decisions made by CASA were reviewable under the Civil Aviation Act, and proceeded to consider the merits of the decisions. The Tribunal found that CASA’s decisions were supported by the evidence and were lawful, and therefore affirmed the decisions.
The Tribunal affirmed the decision of CASA to cancel Cole’s Commercial Pilot Licence, to refuse to reissue his Air Operator’s Certificate, and to cancel the approval of his appointment as Chief Pilot of Kookaburra Air. The Tribunal found that CASA had correctly applied the relevant provisions of the Civil Aviation Act and Civil Aviation Regulations in making these decisions, and that the decisions were supported by the evidence. The Tribunal also found that the decisions were not unreasonable, and therefore could be affirmed.
Orders
Orders of the court
The Tribunal affirms:
· the decision of the respondent, dated 27 June 2000, to cancel the applicant’s Commercial Pilot Licence (Application No W2000/255);
· the decision of the respondent, dated 21 July 2000, to refuse to reissue an Air Operator’s Certificate to the applicant (trading as “Kookaburra Air”) (Application No W2000/294); and
· the decision of the respondent, dated 31 July 2000, to cancel the approval of Kookaburra Air’s appointment of the applicant as a Chief Pilot (Application No W2000/293).
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.