Pegasus Airways Pty Ltd and Tapp and Civil Aviation Safety Author Ity

[2003] AATA 884

Administrative

Appeals

Tribunal

 

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2003] AATA 884

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL      )

)     Nos D2002/36, D2003/5, D2003/17

GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION		)
Re		PEGASUS AIRWAYS PTY LTD BEN TAPP

Applicants

And CIVIL AVIATION SAFETY AUTHORITY

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal Senior Member K L Beddoe

Date9 September 2003 

PlaceBrisbane

Decision

The Tribunal make the following decisions:

§   In relation to application number D2002/36: The decision under review is affirmed.

§   In relation to application number D2003/5: The decision under review is affirmed.

§   In relation to application number D2003/17: The decision under review is varied as follows:

(a)   the decision to cancel the commercial licence is affirmed;

(b)   the other licences are suspended until such date as the applicant holds a valid medical certificate.

(Sgd) K L Beddoe

Senior Member

CATCHWORDS

CIVIL AVIATION – regulation and licensing – cancellation – whether applicant has a valid Air Operators’ Certificate – whether applicant has valid medical certificates – whether applicant has flown commercially without an Air Operators’ Certificate or an appropriate medical certificate - whether decision to cancel licences properly made

Civil Aviation Act 1988
Civil Aviation Regulations 1988

Civil Aviation Orders

REASONS FOR DECISION

9 September 2003 Senior Member K L Beddoe         

1.      By a decision notified on 20 August 2002 the respondent refused an application by Pegasus Airways Pty Ltd (“the company”) for approval of the appointment of Ben Tapp as chief pilot of the company.  By application dated 24 September 2002 the company made a valid application for review in this Tribunal (D2002/36).

2.      By a further decision notified on 6 January 2003 the respondent refused to issue an Air Operator’s Certificate to the company.  By an application dated 31 January 2003 the company made a valid application for review in this Tribunal (D2003/5).

3.      By a decision notified on 13 February 2003 the respondent cancelled the following aircrew licences held by Ben Tapp (“the applicant”):

(a)Private and Commercial Pilot (Helicopter) Licence No 442705

(b)Flight Radiotelephone Operator licence; and

(c)Student Pilot (Aeroplane) licence.

By an application dated 28 February 2003 the applicant made a valid application for review in this Tribunal (D2003/17).

4. Division 2 of Part III of the Civil Aviation Act 1988 (“the Act”) provides for the issue and cancellation of Air Operators’ Certificates (“AOC”) by the respondent. An application for an AOC must be accompanied by the appropriate flight manuals and operating manuals as required by section 27AB of the Act.

5. Section 28 of the Act provides that if a person applies for an AOC the respondent must issue an AOC if, and only if, certain specified matters are satisfied. Those matters may be relevantly summarised as follows:

(a)the applicant is capable of complying with the Act, Regulations and Civil Aviation Orders relating to safety and the operations can be conducted or carried out safely having regard to the nature of the operations;

(b)the applicant has a sufficient number of suitably qualified experienced and competent employees to conduct or carry out the AOC operations safely;

(c)the facilities of the applicant are sufficient and the applicant has suitable procedures and practices for control to ensure the AOC operations can be conducted or carried out safely; and

(d)the authorisations on licences of flight crew members are appropriate having regard to the nature of the AOC operations.

6. Sub-sections 28(2) and 27(9) of the Act relevantly provide that, except as authorised by an AOC, an aircraft shall not operate in Australian Territory for such commercial purposes as are prescribed. Those prescribed purposes are set out in the Civil Aviation Regulations 1988 (“the Regulations”). In particular regulation 206(1) prescribes aerial work to include purposes of the following kinds:

(a)aerial surveying;

(b)aerial spotting;

(c)aerial photography; and

(d)any other purpose that is substantially similar.

7.      Part 82 of the Civil Aviation Orders (“CAOs”) applies in respect of AOC’s authorising aerial work operations so as to require an operator conducting aerial work to establish a position of Chief Pilot (CAOs 82.1.2.2 and 82.0.5).  An AOC is subject to conditions including those in Appendix 1 of CAO 82.0.5.

8.      The conditions in Appendix 1 include the following responsibilities of a Chief Pilot.  In particular the responsibilities include:

“(a) ensuring that the operator’s air operations are conducted in compliance with the Act, the Civil Aviation Regulations 1988, the Civil Aviation Regulations 1988 and the Civil Aviation Orders;

(b) …

(c) maintaining a record of licences, ratings and route qualifications held by each flight crew member, including:

(i)   validity; and

(ii) recency; and

(iii) type endorsements and any applicable licence restrictions;

(d)maintaining a system to record flight crew duty and flight times to ensure compliance with duty and flight time limitations, in accordance with Part 48 of the Orders;

(e) …

(f) monitoring operational standards, maintaining training records and supervising the training and checking of flight crew of the operator;

(g) conducting proficiency tests in the execution of emergency procedures and issuing certificates of proficiency as required by section 20.11;

(h) …

(i) maintaining a complete and up-to-date reference library of operational documents as required by CASA for the class of operations conducted;

(j) …”

9.      I have excluded those conditions not raised as an issue in these proceedings.

10.     Appendix 1 also includes Table A which sets out the experience required to qualify in terms of section 82.0.4.1 of the CAOs.  In the context of this case the applicant is required to have six months experience in “commercial operations”.  “Commercial operations” has a defined meaning:

“civil air operations other than private operations.”

11.     By operation of regulations 2(7) and 206 the operations conducted by the business of the applicant and the company are not private operations.  However, there is an exclusion from the general rule where an aircraft is flying or operating for the general purpose of aerial spotting where no remuneration is received by the pilot or owner of the aircraft or by a person or organisation on whose behalf the spotting is conducted (reg 2(7)(d)(ii)).

12. Section 20AB of the Act provides that 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 do that duty; or

(b)the person is authorised by or under the Regulations to perform that duty without the civil aviation authorisation concerned (which I read to mean “the relevant civil aviation authorisation”)

A “civil aviation authorisation” is defined to mean an authorisation under the Regulations to undertake a particular activity (whether the authorisation is called an authority, licence, certificate, rating or endorsement or is known by some other name) (section 3(1)).

13.     Regulation 5.04 prescribes that except with the permission of the respondent, the holder of a flight crew licence must not perform a duty authorised by the licence unless the person holds a current medical certificate that is appropriate to the licence.

14.     For the purpose of regulation 5.04 a medical certificate is appropriate to a flight crew licence if:

(a)in the case of an air transport pilot licence – the medical certificate is a class 1 medical certificate; and

(b)in the case of a private pilot licence – the medical certificate is a class 2 medical certificate (reg 5.05(3)).

15. Part 6 of the Regulations prescribes the basis for issue and refusal of medical certificates (reg 6.06) and, inter alia, prescribes the period of time a particular medical certificate remains in force.

16.     In particular a medical certificate issued under regulation 6.00 comes into force on the “appropriate day”.  In this case the “appropriate day” means, in relation to a new medical certificate issued to a person who does not hold a medical certificate that is in force but who has held a medical certificate that has expired, the day on which the relevant examination of the person for the purpose of the issue of a new certificate is completed.

17.     The respondent may extend time, on application to it, so that a medical certificate remains in force for an additional period of up to one year which is to be endorsed on the medical certificate (reg 6.15).

18. Regulation 6.05 provides for three classes of medical certificate and the medical standards to be satisfied in relation to the relative certificates are set out in Schedule 1 of the Regulations.

19.     The medical standards for Medical Standard 2 are the same as for Medical Standard 1 except that there are less stringent requirements in relation to the respiratory system, diabetes mellitus and hearing loss; the last being relevant in the applicant’s case.

20.     Regulation 5.91 and 5.124 prescribe requirements for regular flight reviews for private and commercial helicopter pilots.  Both require bi-annual flight reviews.  The sanction is that the pilot must not fly a helicopter as pilot in command unless the pilot has satisfactorily completed a helicopter flight review within the previous two years.

21. At the hearing the applicant conducted his own case and that of the company. Mr Harvey of Counsel appeared for the respondent. The documents lodged in the Tribunal pursuant to section 37 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 were before the Tribunal and marked as exhibits except as noted below.  Further documents were tendered and marked.  Oral evidence was given by the applicant, Tracy Tapp, John Beasey and Beverley Davies. 

22.     Document T6, which is part of Exhibit 2, being a copy of a statement by Murray Ronald Mackay and dated 22 March 1993, was the subject of an objection by the applicant.  The Tribunal upheld the objection so that the document is evidence only of its existence but not as to the facts asserted in the document.

23.     Exhibit B is a statement by the applicant dated April 2003 and lodged in the Tribunal on 22 April 2003.  That statement is subject to detailed objections on behalf of the respondent (Exhibit 3). 

24.     The applicant resides in the Northern Territory, owns two cattle stations and raises cattle on those stations for export through Darwin.  The properties are 120km apart.  One is proximate to Katherine but becomes isolated for periods of ten days at a time due to flooding, thereby requiring the use of a helicopter for access to Katherine.

25.     The applicant and his family have also resided at Nobby, Queensland on a property used for training horses and agisting cattle especially during the wet season.  On the material before me it appears that aerial operations are also conducted on this property.

26.     One property is 28.46 sq km (7,000 acres) and the other 900 sq km.  The applicant has flown a helicopter for many years in conjunction with the operation of these two stations.  The helicopter is used for mustering and inspection of cattle on these stations, for travelling between the stations and for access to Katherine when road access is not available.

27.     The applicant also does contract mustering on a commercial basis, and sometimes uses his helicopter in conjunction with ground mustering.  The evidence of copy invoices satisfies me that the helicopter was used for commercial purposes. 

28.     It appears that since the incorporation of the company contract mustering has been conducted through the company.  Documents 93 to 98 in Exhibit 1 satisfy me that contract mustering was conducted in the applicant’s name prior to July 2001.  From July 2001 the contract mustering was sometimes conducted in the applicant’s name and sometimes in the company’s name.

29.     I am also satisfied, on the basis of the applicant’s evidence, that the aircraft was flown in the course of conducting operations on the applicant’s stations.  I am also satisfied, on the basis of the applicant’s evidence, that the aircraft was flown for purposes connected with the applicant’s cattle mustering business operations and the aircraft was used in those operations.  The aircraft was also used for other aerial work which the applicant described as checking a bore, checking fences, mustering, dropping supplies or taxiing from A to B.

30.     The applicant denied he knew that he or the company required an AOC to carry out aerial operations for remuneration.  That denial is inconsistent with the fact of the company’s application for an AOC made in July 2000, the respondent’s refusal of that application dated 11 May 2001, the setting aside of that decision by this Tribunal (Senior Member Muller, Mr Way and Major-General Stein, Members) by a decision dated 12 April 2002 and the refusal of the respondent to give effect to the Tribunal’s decision.  In my view it was as clear as it could be that the company required an AOC in relation to aerial operations conducted for remuneration as distinct from certain aerial work conducted for private purposes.  In that regard I have taken into account the following paragraphs in the reasons for decision of the Tribunal dated 12 April 2002:

“There is not doubt that Mr Tapp has been using his helicopter to do contract mustering from 1998 to mid-way through 2001 without an AOC when he should have had one.  However, he was the one who raised the matter with CASA in July 2000, that is, whether he needed an AOC or not.  The representatives of CASA to whom he initially spoke were unsure as to whether he needed an AOC for his operation or not.  There were some doubts along the lines that Mr Tapp was using his helicopter for his own mustering operation and that it was therefore private in nature.  He waited months before he was eventually informed that he needed an AOC.

The Tribunal accepts the statement by Mr Tapp that if he had thought that he needed an AOC for aerial mustering for his own operation from 1998 onwards, he would have applied for one.  The Tribunal also points out that if it should have been obvious to Mr Tapp that he needed an AOC, why did it take CASA’s representatives so long to work it out.”

31.     The applicant’s explanation as to why he thought he could conduct aerial work for remuneration is confused.  Surprisingly he relied in part on a document obtained by his brother and marked as Exhibit C in these proceedings.  That document on letterhead of Indigenous Land Corporation and Land Enterprise Australia sets out an informal advice by a legal officer which ultimately seeks to explain advice said to have been given by one of the respondent’s officers.  The document is dated 10 October 2001, that is 15 months after the company applied for an AOC.  It can hardly be, as the applicant claimed, his excuse for operating without an AOC.  By 10 October 2001 the application for an AOC had been refused and the applicant had applied to this Tribunal for review of that decision.  The letter of refusal from the respondent dated 11 May 2001 (Exhibit 2/T13) gave a full explanation of the relevant legislation and made it clear, in my view, that at least some of the applicant’s/the company’s aerial work was required to be conducted under an AOC.

32.     In so far as the applicant asserts that he entered into barehull agreements and his services as pilot was free, I do not accept that evidence.  To make that assertion is to assert a sham.  The real contract was for aerial spotting/cattle mustering of which the applicant as pilot provided the service contracted for. 

33.     Another matter of concern is that the applicant accepted in his evidence that it was necessary for him to do a flight review, bi-annually, in relation to his commercial pilot’s licence.  He did such a review on 3 May 1994 but did not do another until 31 January 2003 (Exhibit 5).  He did not give the Tribunal an explanation for not undertaking the flight reviews when they fell due.

34.     Exhibit 5 is the applicant’s logbook covering the period January 1991 to January 2003. The logbook shows, on its face, that it has not been properly completed for many years and is often completed in retrospect or not at all.  Flying time is recorded without any other detail in many cases.  Certainly the logbook could not be used to establish the aircraft used, the pilot in command, the route and other details of flights.

35.     Exhibit 4 is a Maintenance Release in relation to aircraft VH-THI which I accept is the R22B helicopter owned by the applicant.  That document also has the appearance of a document filled out in retrospect although the applicant denied this was the case.  It is generally consistent with the bare details in the logbook except that a flight of 3.5 hours on 16 December 2002 recorded in the logbook does not show on the maintenance release.  I have inferred, on the basis of the applicant’s evidence that the 3.5 hours flying time was conducted in VH-THI.  I note that required maintenance has not been certified in Part 2 of the Maintenance Release.

36.     The applicant said in evidence that he had failed to keep his medical certificate up to date.  The consequence was that from 1998 to April 2001 he was flying the aircraft without being in possession of a valid medical certificate.  He did not accept that he had also flown without a medical certificate between July 2001 and March 2003 but did concede that he had flown the aircraft during this time.  I am satisfied that the applicant flew the aircraft from 1998 to 2003 without a medical certificate issued by the respondent because the applicant was unable to produce such a document covering that period of time, and the respondent asserts it had not issued such a medical certificate.

37.     The applicant attended for medical examination in February 2000.  The aviation medical examiner apparently told the applicant that he was “all clear”..  However, there is no report in relation to this examination.

38.     On 27 April 2001 the applicant was examined by an aviation medical examiner at Warwick (Qld) – a Dr Hetherington (Exhibit 2/87-94).  The applicant is recorded as living at Nobby at the time.  He is also recorded as having 6250 total flying hours with 160 hours flown in the past six months.  Exhibit 5, which is the applicant’s logbook does not show total flying hours and does not show any flying hours in the six months to 27 April 2001.  It does show flying hours from May 2001 to September 2001 by the applicant, (I accept that “BT” is the applicant) totalling 152 hours as pilot in command.  The logbook has not been totalled but it appears that the applicant has flown 2600 hours approximately between January 1991 and January 2002.  The figures adopted by Dr Hetherington do not accord with the logbook and I infer were false figures supplied by the applicant even though he asserted in evidence that the 160 hours “could be right” although then admitting “I don’t know”.  At the time of the medical examination either the applicant had not flown in the prior six months or he had not completed his logbook for flights undertaken.

39.     There seems to have been some confusion in the handling of Dr Hetherington’s report. It did not lead to the respondent issuing a medical certificate although the applicant and the respondent both appear to have proceeded, at that time, on the basis that the applicant had a class 1 medical certificate.  He clearly did not and I am satisfied that Dr Hetherington did not revalidate an existing medical certificate for two months as was asserted by the applicant. 

40.     The applicant attended for a further medical examination by Dr Scattini on 29 May 2002 at Katherine.  The applicant apparently told Dr Scattini that his total flying hours was 5000 and he had flown 80 hours in the last six months.  According to the applicant’s logbook he had actually flown 58.3 hours in the previous six months.  Notwithstanding the fact that he had been flying he told Dr Scattini that he needed a complete medical examination rather than a renewal of an existing medical certificate examination.

41.     The respondent, by letter dated 11 June 2002, requested a further audiogram.  Although that test was done shortly thereafter, the report did not reach the respondent until 15 January 2003 when Northern Territory Health Services faxed a copy to the respondent.  After receiving the results of blood glucose tests the respondent issued the applicant Class 1 and Class 2 medical certificates on 21 March 2003.  The Class 1 medical certificate was valid until 29 May 2003 and the Class 2 medical certificate is valid until 29 May 2006.  The Class 1 medical certificate had expired at the time of hearing. 

42.     The applicant was prosecuted in 1994 for flying without a valid medical certificate.  In his oral evidence he said that he remembered being prosecuted in 1994 and that he was convicted for flying an aircraft without holding a current medical certificate in 1993.  It is apparent from Exhibit 9 that he was not the holder of a current Class 2 medical certificate from 13 December 1992 until the medical certificate was renewed on 12 February 1993 and that certificate remained valid until 12 February 1997 unless cancelled or suspended.

43.     The applicant also said in his oral evidence that he failed to renew his medical certificate in 1998 and I so find.  The applicant’s explanation was that it was pure oversight.

44.     On the material before me I am satisfied that the applicant next obtained a valid medical certificate on 21 March 2002. The applicant’s evidence that he obtained a valid medical certificate in 2001 after the examination by Dr Hetherington is not supported by any other evidence.  Dr Hetherington is recorded as having re-certified a valid medical certificate.  In fact no such certificate has been produced and I am satisfied such a certificate never existed.

45.     I accept that there were delays in the issue of the medical certificate until March 2003 because of the audiogram test results not being received by the respondent after the tests were completed in June 2002.  There was also a misunderstanding between the applicant and the respondent and possibly Dr Scattini about the need for a further blood glucose test.  I am satisfied that if those reports had been handled properly the respondent could have been expected to have issued the Class 1 and Class 2 medical certificates in mid 2002. 

46.     Ms Davies conceded in her evidence that a Class 2 medical certificate should have been issued to the applicant on the basis of Dr Hetherington’s report and the only reason for not issuing it was that the respondent did not have the applicant’s address in the Northern Territory (it clearly had the address at Nobby and should have used it).  If a Class 2 certificate had been issued it would have been valid until 27 April 2005.  In my view Ms Davies was wrong to assume that the applicant only wanted a Class 1 Medical Certificate.

47.     On 31 July 2001 the respondent, being uncertain as to the applicant’s address decided to “wait for ‘phone call from applicant” and put a medical alert on the respondent’s system.  That telephone call came on 29 May 2002 when the applicant complained he had not received his medical certificate.  He was then given an explanation along the lines of a letter to Dr Hetherington (copy to applicant) dated 14 May 2001 (Exhibit 2, T15).  I accept the evidence of Mrs Tapp about the mail situation in 2001 at Katherine so that it is possible the applicant did not receive the drop copy.  Dr Hetherington returned his letter to the respondent. 

48.     I am unable to determine the cause for the delays in the medical procedures.  I am satisfied however that the delays were probably exacerbated by the applicant’s failure to carefully follow-up matters of importance to him and the respondent’s lack on concern that matters were not proceeding as they should.  For example, the respondent was well aware that the applicant’s medical certificates had expired and that he had attended Dr Hetherington in May 2001.  There was some follow-up in relation to the deficiencies in process, but that follow-up was desultory apparently assuming that the applicant was responsible for completing the process for issue of the medical certificates.

Consideration

49.     The parties made oral submissions at the hearing and subsequently made written submissions. The applicant and the company elected not to make submissions in reply.  I have taken all of the submissions into account.

50. While the applicant appears to have a firm conviction that his problems emanate from officers employed by the respondent I am satisfied that the primary cause of his problems, in the context of these proceedings, is his indifferent approach to the requirements of the Act, Regulations and CAOs. That he regards requirements of an administrative/procedural character as an unnecessary imposition on a person conducting successful business operations is apparent from the material before me.

51.     There is nothing before me to suggest that the applicant (and the company) engages in unsafe practices, is other than responsible in the care and maintenance of his helicopter, and that he has had any incidents that suggest unsafe or irresponsible operation of the R22B helicopter. 

52. I agree with the previous Tribunal that the applicant (and the company) are capable of complying with the Act, Regulations and CAOs that relate to safety. Furthermore, there is nothing in the extensive material before me to suggest that the applicant does not operate the helicopter in a safe manner. Exhibit 11 is a pictorial entitled “Safety Around Mustering Helicopters”. There is nothing before me that satisfies me that the applicant operates other than in accordance with Exhibit 11.

53.     By notices dated 17 December 2002 and 17 January 2003 (Exhibit 2, T36 and T43) the applicant was asked to show cause as to why his flight crew licences should not be varied, suspended or cancelled.  On 28 January 2003 the applicant’s then solicitor responded by drawing attention to proceedings pending in the Tribunal in relation to the refusal to issue an AOC and requested an immediate decision.  That was a strange response given that three days later the applicant completed, satisfactorily, a helicopter flight review at Caboolture.

54.     Given that review of a decision required the Tribunal to consider the facts as at the date of cancellation and that the respondent might be thought to be under the same obligation it is surprising that nothing was done to acquaint the respondent with the fact of the flight review on 31 January 2003.

55.     Regulation 269(1) sets out five grounds upon which a licence may be varied, suspended or cancelled as follows:

(a)that the holder of the licence, certificate or authority has contravened, a provision of the Act or these Regulations, including these Regulations as in force by virtue of a law of a State;

(b)that the holder of the licence, certificate or authority fails to satisfy, or to continue to satisfy, any requirement prescribed by, or specified under, these Regulations in relation to the obtaining or holding of such a licence or certificate or an authority;

(c)that the holder of the licence, certificate or authority has failed in his or her duty with respect to any matter affecting the safe or efficient navigation or operation of an aircraft;

(d)that the holder of the licence, certificate or authority is not a fit and proper person to have the responsibilities and exercise and perform the functions and duties of a holder of such a licence or certificate or an authority; or

(e)that the holder of the licence, certificate or authority has contravened, a direction or instruction with respect to a matter affecting the safe navigation and operation of an aircraft, being a direction or instruction that is contained in Civil Aviation Orders.

56. As to (a) I am satisfied that by flying commercial operations without an AOC, by flying without completing a satisfactory helicopter flight review, and by flying without a valid medical certificate I must be satisfied that the applicant has contravened the provisions of the Act and Regulations.

57.     I am also satisfied for the same reasons that the applicant failed to satisfy requirements within the terms of paragraph (b).

58.     As to paragraphs (c), (d) and (e) I am not satisfied, on the basis of the material before me that these paragraphs have application to the applicant.

59.     Given that I have the benefit of hindsight and given the evidence of Ms Davies that a Class 2 medical certificate could have been issued to the applicant before the cancellation decision was made and given that the applicant had satisfactorily completed a helicopter flight review before the cancellation decision was made, I have come to the view that the decision in relation to the licences other than the Commercial Pilot (Helicopter) licence should be varied to suspension rather than cancellation – the suspension to be until such time as the applicant is the holder of a valid and appropriate medical certificate.  He became the holder of such a certificate on 21 March 2003.

60.     Different issues arise in relation to the commercial pilot’s licence.  The applicant has conducted operations of a commercial nature while he was not the holder of an AOC, not the holder of a medical certificate and had not completed satisfactorily the required helicopter flight reviews.  In this regard I do not accept the applicant’s explanation that until Exhibit C came into existence his attention had not been directed to the requirement to have an AOC.

61.     I have already found that the 1994 prosecution made the applicant aware of the requirement to have a current medical certificate. To conduct commercial operations in defiance of that requirement is, in my view, sufficient to justify cancellation of the commercial licence.

62.     Whilst I accept that the applicant is a competent and safe pilot, his failure to undertake the bi-annual helicopter flight review, as required, is also a factor which justifies cancellation of the commercial licence. 

63.     I am satisfied that the decision to cancel the applicant’s commercial licence was correct.  The decision to refuse the Chief Pilot’s licence and the AOC must also be affirmed.

64. In relation to the AOC this is because at the date of my decision the applicant does not hold a commercial licence so that the company has no basis upon which section 28 of the Act can be satisfied. The applicant is the controlling mind of the company and the only relevant employee. The company does not have a suitably qualified employee to conduct or carry out the AOC operations because the applicant no longer has a commercial licence.

65.     In relation to the Chief Pilot’s licence I am satisfied that the applicant has not had experience of operating under an AOC and does not properly maintain essential records including his own logbook and maintenance releases.  The applicant’s failure to maintain his medical certificates and his renewals also satisfies me that he is unlikely to be able to satisfy the prescribed responsibilities of a Chief Pilot (CAO 82 – Appendix 1).

66.     For these reasons the Tribunal make the following decisions:

§In relation to application number D2002/36: the decision under review is affirmed.

§In relation to application number D2003/5: the decision under review is affirmed.

§In relation to application number D2003/17: the decision under review is varied as follows:

(a)the decision to cancel the commercial licence is affirmed;

(b)the other licences are suspended until such date as the applicant holds a valid medical certificate.

I certify that the 66 preceding paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Senior Member K L Beddoe 

Signed:         .......................................................................................
  Associate

Dates of Hearing  16-19 June 2003 (at Darwin)
Date of Decision   9 September 2003

The Applicant appeared in person
Counsel for the Respondent     Mr Harvey
Solicitor for the Respondent     Legal Services Group, CASA