Hogan and Ors and Civil Aviation Safety Authority - [2004] AATA 1090

Administrative

Appeals

Tribunal

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2004] AATA 1090

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL )

) No A2004/169

GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION		)
Re		JOHN WILLIAM HOGAN, ACTAS PTY LIMITED AND NARROMINE AVIATION PTY LIMITED

Applicants

And

CIVIL AVIATION SAFETY AUTHORITY

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal

Justice Garry Downes, President
Air Marshal I B Gration, AO AFC, RAAF (Retd), Member

Date19 October 2004
PlaceSydney

Decision

1. Direct that ACTAS Pty Limited and Narromine Aviation Pty Limited be added as applicants.

2. The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to review the term of the Air Operator’s Certificate granted by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) to ACTAS Pty Limited pursuant to s 27 of the Civil Aviation Act 1988.

3. In respect of instruments numbered NSWC 04/149 and 04/166, which contain the conditions which form the reviewable decisions relating to banner-towing, the Tribunal remits those instruments to CASA for reconsideration in accordance with the following directions:

(a) Instruments numbered NSWC 04/149 and 04/166 are to be revoked.

(b) The authorization dated 10 March 1988 and the instrument numbered WG FO 18/93 are to be revoked.

(c) A new single instrument in the name of John William Hogan (ARN 106261) is to be issued comprehending the following elements:

Pursuant to reg 149(1) and reg 151, permission is granted for aircraft piloted by John William Hogan to pick-up and tow banners and, pursuant to reg 150, to drop banners, subject to the following conditions:

(i) All operations are to be conducted in accordance with an Operations Manual or an attached schedule prescribing general conditions and requirements.

(ii) Only aircraft specially equipped for banner-towing may be used and all such operations must be in accordance with the aircraft’s Flight Manual and Flight Manual Supplement.

(iii) As a general rule, banner-towing aircraft should be tracked to avoid over-flying built-up areas and public gatherings (see reg 156).

(iv) When a built-up area includes one or more clear spaces of sufficient size to allow a banner-towing aircraft operating over those spaces to remain clear of the surrounding built-up area, then transit flight over or near built-up areas will be permitted in order to reach such clear spaces, provided such transit is of short duration and at an altitude sufficient – in the case of engine failure – to allow the aircraft to be manoeuvred to a clear area where the banner could be dropped before executing a forced landing. Any such intended track and altitude must be approved by CASA in advance.

(v) Apart from the banner pick-up and drop phases, low-level flying when towing a banner is not permitted.

(vi) Low-level flying for the purposes of banner pick-up and drop may be undertaken within 3 km of the appropriate zones provided the aircraft remains clear of built-up areas.

(vii) References to a requirement for a commercial pilot licence and to a period of validity are unnecessary.

4. In respect of instruments numbered NSWC 04/156 and 04/161 granting low-level flying approval, which contain the conditions forming the reviewable decisions, those instruments are remitted to CASA for reconsideration subject to directions that they shall cover the following:

(a) The minimum height shall be not lower than that necessary to achieve the relevant airwork task.

(b) The aircraft shall not be operated lower than a height of 150 feet in accordance with the meaning of “height” in reg 157(3) of the Civil Aviation Regulations 1988.

........(sgd G Downes)........
President

CATCHWORDS

CIVIL AVIATION – Air Operator’s Certificate – certificate issued for 12 months – Tribunal jurisdiction to review refusals and conditions – no refusal – imposition of term of 12 months not a condition – No jurisdiction to review term of certificate

CIVIL AVIATION – Banner-towing Permit – conditions of permit – original permit issued without qualifications or conditions – original permit insufficiently prescriptive – conditions to be imposed on permit – balance of safety concerns and commercial considerations – not linked to air operator’s certificate

CIVIL AVIATION – Low-level Flying Permit – conditions of permit – minimum height requirement – lower height level of 150 feet appropriate – linked to air operator’s certificate

Civil Aviation Act 1988 (Cth) ss 27, 28BA, 28BB, 31

Civil Aviation Regulations 1988 (Cth) regs 149, 150, 151, 156, 157

REASONS FOR DECISION

19 October 2004

Justice Garry Downes, President
Air Marshal I B Gration, AO AFC, RAAF (Retd), Member

Introduction

John Hogan is an experienced commercial pilot. For many years he was associated with ACT Aerial Services Pty Limited which operated out of Canberra Airport.
In 2001 Mr Hogan reorganised the aviation activities with which he was involved. A new company, ACTAS Pty Limited, replaced ACT Aerial Services. Mr Hogan’s interests acquired Narromine Aviation Pty Limited. Mr Hogan has a substantial interest in both ACTAS and Narromine. ACT Aerial Services has been wound up and dissolved.

Air Operator’s Certificate

On 9 August 2001 Mr Hogan caused ACTAS to apply to the Civil Aviation Safety Authority for an air operator’s certificate. The application form contained no section for an applicant to indicate what term was sought for the certificate. The form as completed did not specify any term that was sought. The application was accompanied by a letter putting the case that the business of ACTAS was simply a continuation of the business of ACT Aerial Services.
Consideration of the application was not completed until 2004. In the meantime the ACT Aerial Services activities were apparently conducted by Narromine. On 21 April 2004, when Mr Hogan was aware that an air operator’s certificate was about to be issued to ACTAS, he wrote on behalf of ACTAS noting that he understood the certificate was to be issued for one year and requesting that it be issued for three years. He referred to his substantial experience in the industry.
On 30 April 2004, CASA issued ACTAS with an air operator’s certificate effective for twelve months.

Banner-Towing Permit

On 10 March 1988 the Secretary of the Department of Transport and Communications conferred authority on Mr Hogan to pick up, tow and drop banners. The banners referred to included the advertising banners which are occasionally seen being towed behind aircraft. Of two conditions attached to the authority only one is relevant. It required towing operations to be conducted in accordance with the ACT Aerial Services Operations Manual. On 8 October 1993 the then Civil Aviation Authority issued to Mr Hogan a revised authority to tow banners under a new regulation, reg 149(1) of the Civil Aviation Regulations 1988. The authority contained no qualifications or conditions. The authority was given by John Priestly as District Flying Operations Manager.
On 12 and 13 April 2004, apparently prompted by considerations associated with deliberations concerning the application by ACTAS for an air operator’s certificate and the renewal of Narromine’s certificate, fresh banner- towing permits were issued by CASA linked respectively to ACTAS and Narromine. The approvals were issued by Mr Priestly as “Team Leader Flying Operations NSW Country Area Office”. Unlike the earlier permits, these permits expressly addressed picking up banners (reg 151) and dropping banners (reg 150), as well as banner towing (reg 149). This was, no doubt, to enable the permit more accurately to reflect the flying operations involved. Banners are not deployed from aircraft but pulled up from and dropped back to ground by the towing aircraft in flight. The new permits contained a number of conditions. During the hearing, CASA accepted that some of the conditions were not necessary and others required amendment. The form of the permits was revised. Two of the revised conditions remain in dispute: firstly, in relation to banner-towing operations over urban areas; and secondly, associated limitations concerning pick-up and drop zones. Only one permit is now required because CASA accepts that the authorisation does not need to be linked to an owner or operator.

Low-Level Flying Permit

On 8 August 2000, CASA issued a low-level flying approval under reg 157(4)(b) to Narromine. In terms the approval permitted flying below 500 feet. The approval contained a condition that the minimum altitude was “… not lower than that necessary to achieve the relevant airwork task”. That approval expired on 28 February 2004. On 29 March 2004, also apparently prompted by considerations associated with the deliberations concerning the application by ACTAS for an air operator’s certificate and renewal of Narromine’s certificate, a fresh low-level flying approval was issued to Narromine. On 8 April 2004 a similar approval was issued to ACTAS. A minimum altitude condition was prescribed in each approval which is different to that in the prior Narromine approval: “The minimum altitude limit is not lower than 150 feet above ground level” (Narromine) and “The minimum altitude limit shall be no lower than 150 feet above ground level” (ACTAS).

Conclusions

The first question in this matter is whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear an application for review of the term of an air operator’s certificate. We have decided that it does not. Section 31 of the Civil Aviation Act 1988 confers jurisdiction on the Tribunal to review refusals to grant certificates and the imposition of conditions. There was no refusal to grant a certificate. The determination of a term of one year was not the imposition of a condition. Other sections of the Act support this conclusion.
The second question we have to decide is whether the banner-towing permit of 1993 should be revoked. We agree that this was appropriate because the permit was too general in form. Next we have to consider whether the conditions now relied upon should be imposed. It was suggested that we could not consider requirements relating to dropping banners because they are described in the Regulations (reg 150) as directions and not conditions. However, we consider that in the present context we are dealing with conditions however described. We have concluded that the existing permits should be revoked and replaced by a single permit in the name of Mr Hogan which includes conditions agreed by the parties during the hearing and also expanded conditions determined by us relating to banner-towing operations over urban areas.
The third question in this matter is whether the new low-level flying condition should be imposed. Mr Hogan contends for the prior condition as it was in the Narromine approval. We have decided that a 150 feet minimum is appropriate. However, the parties accepted that the form of the existing condition was ambiguous. It was agreed that, if the application failed in substance, the condition should read: “The aircraft shall not be operated lower than a height of 150 feet in accordance with the meaning of ‘height’ in reg 157(3).” Low-level flying approvals are given to owners or operators of aircraft, not pilots. This is why the approvals under consideration are in favour of Narromine and ACTAS. Neither of these companies is a party to the proceedings. However, Mr Hogan has authority to represent them. It was accordingly agreed that the two companies should be added as applicants. We will so direct.

Air Operator’s Certificate – Term (Jurisdiction)

Air Operators’ Certificates are provided for in s 27 of the Act. CASA is authorised to issue them. The section does not contemplate that applicants may seek specified terms. It provides that “the term of an AOC shall be as determined by CASA” (subs (7)). The jurisdiction of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal to review decisions of CASA is conferred in s 31 of the Act. The Tribunal is empowered to hear an application “for review of a reviewable decision”. By subs 31(1) “reviewable decision” is defined to mean:
“(a)a refusal to grant or issue, or a cancellation, suspension or variation of, a certificate, permission, permit or licence granted or issued under this Act or the regulations; or
(b)the imposition or variation of a condition, or the cancellation, suspension or variation of an authorisation, contained in such a certificate, permission, permit or licence.”
Section 28BA of the Act imposes general conditions on air operators’ certificates. Section 28BB permits CASA to impose and vary particular conditions. Nothing in these sections nor the associated sections which follow appear to contemplate that the length of an air operator’s certificate should be treated as a condition.
The question before us is whether we can review the decision of CASA to issue a certificate for twelve months rather than three years. We could only have jurisdiction if that decision was a refusal to issue a certificate (namely a three year certificate) or if the term or length of operation of the certificate was a condition of the certificate. We do not think that either argument is sustainable.
First, CASA did not refuse a Certificate. Even if it could be said that ACTAS applied for a three year certificate, nothing in the Act authorized it to do so. The Act expressly provides that CASA will determine the term of an air operator’s certificate. There was no refusal to issue an air operator’s certificate.
Secondly, the term or length of operation of a certificate is not a condition of the certificate. A condition is a provision upon which the legal force or effect of an instrument, such as a contract, depends. If the condition determines whether a contract comes into existence and the condition is not satisfied, the contract does not come into effect (condition precedent); if the condition determines whether a contract continues in effect and the condition is satisfied, the contract can be put to an end (condition subsequent). Terms are contrasted with conditions in the law. The length of operation of an instrument may be affected by a condition. It may be cut short by breach of a condition. However, the length of operation of an instrument is not itself a condition. Where time is of the essence of a contract, a provision to perform an obligation within a precise period of time may be a condition but that does not mean that the term or length of a contract is itself a condition.
These considerations lead to the conclusion that the length of an air operator’s certificate is not a condition. This conclusion is strengthened by the provisions of the Act. Section 27 expressly confers the power to determine the term of an air operator’s certificate on CASA. Nothing in subs 27(7) suggests that the term is a condition. “Condition” is used in s 28BA and following in a context which does not suggest that the length of an air operator’s certificate is a condition.
It is plain that the legislature intended to confer a right of review when an application for issue of an air operator’s certificate was refused or where unacceptable conditions were imposed, but not when an air operator’s certificate was issued for a period which the applicant considered was too short. At worst such an applicant might be forced to seek review if the certificate was not renewed when it expired.

Banner-Towing Permit

In respect of banner-towing, the instruments under review are made in the name of Mr Hogan and linked to the relevant companies – ACTAS and Narromine – and are dated 12 April 2004 and 13 April 2004 respectively. These instruments are essentially identical except for the respective company names and validity dates. Mr Hogan objected to several aspects of the permits.
First, he was concerned that the new permits revoked earlier instruments (dated 10 March 1988 and 8 October 1993) which authorized Mr Hogan to undertake banner-towing operations (including pick-up and drop) in the “Private category” (10 March 1988) and, more generally, under reg 149 (8 October 1993). Apart from quoting reg 149(1), the latter instrument contains no directions. Mr Hogan was happy to operate under these personal instruments as they allowed him the freedom to operate either in the Private category or, consistent with an air operator’s certificate, in the Commercial category. However, the replacement instruments tied the authorization to Commercial category operations of a specific operator and added conditions not previously specified. As a result, Mr Hogan considered that CASA had unreasonably constrained the operating freedom previously available to him.
During the hearing, the respondent’s counsel conceded that the apparent adverse effect on Mr Hogan’s ability to undertake a Private category banner-towing operation was unintended, and that a revised wording to correct this effect would be acceptable. On the other hand, the respondent’s counsel informed us that CASA considered the previous instruments to be insufficiently prescriptive in defining safe operating parameters and imposed the conditions included in the new instruments to correct that deficiency.
The contentious directions were:
“(b)Operations are permitted only by aircraft specifically approved for banner towing and then only in accordance with the procedures and limitations specified in the aircraft’s approved Flight Manual.
“(c)The flight path is at all times to be clear of built up or populous areas to the extent that, in the event of separation of the banner from the aircraft, (intentional or unintentional) there is a reasonable probability that the banner will not cause a hazard to persons or property on the ground.
“(d)The aircraft is not [to] be flown below 500 feet above obstacles within a 600 metre radius except when within 3 kilometres of the banner drop zone or pick up point.
“(e)The aircraft is not to be flown below 1000 feet above obstacles within a 600 metre radius of a built up or populous area.”
In detailing his further concerns, Mr Hogan proposed a rewording of sub-par (b) concerning the aircraft to be used and the related procedures. He objected to sub-par (c) as being unduly restrictive of operations over urban areas, and somewhat in conflict with sub-par (e) which appeared to contemplate flights over urban areas provided sufficient obstacle clearance was maintained. He considered that sub-pars (d) and (e) were confusing and superfluous except to emphasise that, apart from the pick-up and drop phases, the minimum altitudes for towing operations were to be as prescribed in reg 149(1). In respect of the 3 km qualification, this simply added a further limitation by, in effect, defining the limit of the pick-up and drop phases. Mr Hogan stated that, reluctantly, he could “live with” such a limitation.
During the hearing, the respondent’s counsel conceded that, in respect of the intention of CASA to prohibit low-level flying by an aircraft towing a banner – apart from the pick-up and drop phases – the wording of sub-pars (d) and (e) was confusing and would be better achieved by simply prohibiting low-level flying whilst towing a banner.
Mr Hogan also suggested that the requirement for a pilot to hold a valid commercial pilot licence was unnecessary. He said there was no requirement for particular flying experience for banner-towing. For private flying towing a banner, a private licence will suffice. For commercial operations towing a banner, a commercial licence will automatically be required. No special provision in the banner-towing permit is required. During the hearing, the respondent’s counsel conceded that this paragraph was unnecessary in the permit.

Finally, Mr Hogan objected to the imposition of a closed period of validity for what was a personal authorization as distinct from one tied to a particular air operator’s certificate. Again the respondent’s counsel accepted that a time limit was unnecessary.
The only matter of contention remaining to be addressed by the Tribunal is how best to express the scope of approval for banner-towing operations over urban areas. Mr Hogan claimed that the condition at sub-par (c) was so restrictive as to preclude effective aerial banner advertising over inland cities such as Canberra; while the respondent believed that the chance – albeit small – of unintended banner release over a built-up area provided a public safety risk sufficient to warrant the requirement for the “flight path … to be clear of built up or populous areas”.
In explaining the thinking behind the wording of sub-par (c), the respondent’s counsel referred to the possibility that a built-up area may include expanses of open land, parks, waterways or lakes of sufficient size to allow a banner-towing aircraft to remain “clear of built up areas” in the sense that, in the event of an unintended separation of the banner, there would be “a reasonable probability that the banner [would] not cause a hazard to persons or property on the ground”.
In evidence, while addressing the intent of sub-pars (d) and (e), Mr Priestly described how the provision of 1000 feet obstacle clearance over built-up areas provided some margin for a pilot to manoeuvre his aircraft in the event of an emergency such as engine failure. The Tribunal also noted that the ACTAS Operations Manual – under the heading “Engine Failure” in the banner-towing section D – required the pilot “When a partial or total failure is experienced … [to] determine a suitable site for releasing the banner taking into account built-up areas and wind effect on the falling banner”.
In contemplating these various views, we concluded that, in respect of banner-towing operations over urban areas, there were two risks additional to those associated with any normal flight: aircraft engine failure and inadvertent banner release. While the chance of either event occurring is small, it is not zero and needs to be considered against the essentiality of the operation. Obviously, aerial banner advertising would rarely, if ever, be considered ‘essential’. Nevertheless, as banner-towing is apparently an accepted commercial operation without adverse incident history, new restrictions which might effectively preclude such operations in some circumstances need to be carefully considered.
We then considered the possibility of drawing together the following intentions:
(a)As a general rule, banner-towing aircraft should be tracked so as to avoid over-flying built-up areas and public gatherings (taking in reg 156).
(b)Where a built-up area includes one or more clear spaces of sufficient size to allow a banner-towing aircraft operating over those spaces to remain clear of the surrounding built-up area, then transit flight over or near built-up areas might be permitted in order to reach such clear spaces, provided such transit was of short duration and at an altitude sufficient – in the case of engine failure – to allow the aircraft to be manoeuvred to a clear area where the banner could be dropped before executing a forced landing. Any such intended track and altitude must be approved by CASA in advance.
(c)Apart from the banner pick-up and drop phases, low-level flying when towing a banner should not be permitted.
(d)Low-level flying for the purposes of banner pick-up and drop might be undertaken within 3 km of the appropriate zones provided the aircraft remains clear of built-up areas.

We concluded that such provisions would meet CASA’s safety concerns while offering operators some scope for operating near built-up areas.

Low-level Flying

In respect of the general low-level flying approvals granted to ACTAS and Narromine (dated 8 April 2004 and 29 March 2004 respectively), the applicants sought review on three grounds.
First, Mr Hogan stated that his companies had operated quite satisfactorily under the previous approvals where the minimum height limit was defined as “not lower than that necessary to achieve the relevant airwork task”. This expression of limit relied on the professionalism of the operator to avoid unnecessarily low operations while allowing the operator to use its professional judgment as to what was “necessary” to achieve the task. Despite an apparently satisfactory safety record, the applicants were now subject to a more restrictive limit – “not lower than 150 feet above ground level”.
In respect of this submission, we immediately observed that the previous approvals were uncertain and practicably unenforceable because the height down to which an aircraft would need to operate in order to achieve the task was left completely at large. We considered that the condition did give appropriate guidance but that it was also appropriate for an absolute and certain minimum height limit to be imposed.
Mr Hogan’s second ground for review concerned the perceived restrictive nature of the 150 feet lower limit which, he claimed, was insufficient to allow effective completion of some airwork tasks, especially powerline inspection. When pressed for justification of this submission, Mr Hogan cited the professional advice of his chief pilot, Mr Banks, that a lower limit of 50 feet above terrain was required for, in particular, powerline inspection and also for other tasks such as fauna spotting and feral animal control. Mr Hogan also referred to the well-established and long-standing procedures used successfully by his companies which he said occasionally required limits lower than 150 feet above terrain.
At this juncture, the respondent’s counsel tendered Exhibit 1 – the Electricity Supply Association of Australia’s National Electricity Network Safety Code – ESAA NENS 08-2004 – National Guidelines for Aerial Surveillance of Overhead Electricity Networks. These Guidelines (at pars 13.2 and 13.3.4) indicate that “Aerial Surveillance Work” is to be carried out in the “Aerial Surveillance Zone” which, for fixed-wing aircraft, is a roughly semi-circular shaped zone positioned above the overhead lines which requires surveillance from at least 30 m above the lines but not more than 100 m from them. An aircraft operating within the Zone would never be closer to the ground than 100 feet (30 m) and, taking account of a supporting structure height of, say, 10 m, would not be closer than 130 feet. Similarly, the aircraft would need to remain below about 110 m (360 feet) above terrain. This would suggest a convenient operating altitude of 150 feet or more.
In his evidence, Mr Priestly advised the Tribunal that, to his knowledge, no other operator had sought a limit lower than 150 feet above terrain for powerline surveillance.
Faced with this official ESAA guidance and CASA’s experience, and in the absence of any convincing evidence otherwise from Mr Hogan, we accept the respondent’s case that a lower height limit of 150 feet above terrain (as defined in reg 157(3)) is sufficient for a general low-level flying approval, with the understanding that an operator could always seek a special approval for a particular task or type of aerial work necessitating a lower limit. This will be the appropriate course, where necessary, for fauna spotting, feral animal control and any other circumstances where a case for flying lower than 150 feet can be made out.
Mr Hogan’s final ground for review was based on his contention that an approval limitation expressed quantitatively as a specific height above terrain was impossible for a pilot to comply with. His arguments rested on the inherent inaccuracy of aircraft altimeters, the fact that such altimeters indicated altitude above a pressure datum – not the ground and the fact that the reality for a pilot flying close to the ground is that his attention must be concentrated outside the cockpit – he should not be continually referring to an instrument.
We acknowledge these points but consider that the last one – which is undoubtedly correct for general aviation aircraft – makes Mr Hogan’s reference to altimeters irrelevant. The real question for the Tribunal is whether or not a pilot could, with some certainty, visually judge the height of his aircraft above the terrain when flying below 500 feet, such that prescription by CASA of a specific minimum height level could be complied with practically.
The Tribunal drew on its specialist knowledge to present a set of propositions to Mr Hogan which concluded with the belief that, as an aircraft’s height above the terrain reduced below 500 feet, the experienced pilot’s ability to judge visually the aircraft’s height increased so that, below about 200 feet, a pilot could judge height quite accurately. Mr Hogan basically accepted these propositions.
The difficulty for CASA – as the Tribunal sees it – is to find a set of words which conveys the need for operators to fly no lower than necessary to achieve a task (as expressed in the Approval dated 8 August 2000) but also sets – for safety reasons – an absolute limit below which special approval is needed.
CASA also obviously realizes that maintaining a constant height above undulating terrain can be difficult, if not impossible, and is usually both impractical and unnecessary. Mr Hogan expressed concern that a quantitative limit could leave a pilot open to a charge of not complying with a minimum height condition despite that pilot’s best efforts to do so. The respondent’s counsel assured Mr Hogan that such infractions were accepted in low-level flying and would not normally provide a basis for legal action. Of course, a prudent pilot faced with such circumstances might choose to increase the aircraft’s height above the terrain to avoid approaching too close to rapidly rising terrain.
We conclude that prescription of a quantitative minimum height is a reasonable approach for CASA to take, both as a practical matter and as a trigger for an operator to seek a special approval when he considers the task to require it. We also believe that a general low-level flying approval would benefit from the inclusion of both the principle of an operator flying not lower than that necessary to achieve a task and a practical minimum height limit.
Finally, the Tribunal notes that, although the intention of CASA was to align the end of the period of validity with the term of the relevant air operator’s certificate, in the case of the Low-Level Flying Approval for ACTAS, by mistake this was not achieved.
Accordingly, the Tribunal remits instruments numbered NSWC 04/156 and 04/161 to CASA for reconsideration, with the directions that they should cover the following:
(a)The minimum height shall be not lower than that necessary to achieve the task.
(b)The minimum height shall be no lower than 150 feet, with “height” having the meaning defined in reg 157(3).
(c)In the case of 04/161, the termination of validity is to be aligned with that of the relevant air operator’s certificate.

I certify that the 47 preceding paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Justice Garry Downes, President, and Air Marshal I B Gration, AO AFC, RAAF (Retd), Member

Signed: ........(sgd S Toomey)........

Associate

Dates of Hearing  20 & 21 September 2004
Date of Decision  19 October 2004
Advocate for the Applicants               Mr W Hogan
Counsel for the Respondent             Mr G Parkin
Solicitor for the Respondent              Office of Legal Counsel, Civil Aviation Safety Authority