Dad’s Army Rides Again!
You’re about to find out why Mareeba pilot Richard Rudd is sometimes less than obsequious in the presence of CASA officials.
On July 11 2007 Mr Rudd was checking the security of a split pin on an elevator hinge of his Wilga aircraft when CASA airworthiness inspector Peter Larard approached him. The aircraft at that time had not flown for almost two years and did not have a current maintenance release.
There is little agreement about the conversation that followed but you don’t need to go past Mr Larard’s sworn statement to see where the rot set in. The salient parts say:
“…..I observed two male persons who appeared to be carrying out maintenance on the right hand elevator and tailplane of VH-AQX
“Whilst speaking with Rudd I observed that he was holding a spanner in each hand. I further observed that he was tightening nuts and bolts on the right hand elevator hinge, which attached the elevator to the tailplane. I also observed the left hand elevator to be sitting on the ground on the other side of the airplane.
And later: “I observed the left hand elevator which was earlier lying on the ground was no longer there and in fact Rudd was attaching it to the tailplane of VH-AQX.”
Mr Rudd does not dispute that his language, including the suggested manner of Mr Larard’s departure, was intemperate.
Two other CASA officials, Senior Airworthiness Inspectors John Retski and Ronald Clark, were also nearby on Mareeba airport but were not with Mr Larard. The observations in their sworn statements however completely supported Mr Larard’s words regarding the dispositions of the left and right hand elevators of the aircraft.
Readers are invited to suggest ways in which Mr Rudd might have, in the short time available, managed to divide the 3.3 metre long single elevator into two halves, scatter them around the aerodrome, then re-attach the two halves and join them so seamlessly that this major engineering feat remained undetectable.
It is significant that the basic qualification for airworthiness inspectors is normally that they are experienced licensed aircraft maintenance engineers, most of whom can tell the difference between a single elevator and two separate elevators.
On July 20 Mr Rudd was served with an infringement notice demanding the maximum penalty of $550, signed by Narelle Tredrea, CASA’s Manager Enforcement & Investigation, payable within 28 days. Mr Rudd wrote to Ms Tredrea requesting its withdrawal and a copy of Mr Larder’s statement.
Ms Tredrea’s title is “Manager Enforcement & Investigation,” which appears to reflect the sequence of these events. If any investigation took place at all, it appears to have been after the enforcement action and limited to letters of demand from CASA investigator Stephen Cremerius to provide documents related to the aircraft’s maintenance history.
A further infringement notice was sent to Mr Rudd on Sep 27. He responded with a letter denying that he had been carrying out maintenance on his aircraft and requesting that the notice be withdrawn.
On January 15 2008 Ms Tredrea again responded with a refusal, and advised him that a brief of evidence was being prepared for the Director of Public Prosecutions.
It seems significant that the allegations against Mr Rudd were:
Description of Offence:
On 11 July 2007, at Mareeba Airport in the State of Queensland, you were the holder of the certificate of registration for Australian registered aircraft, VH- AQX when contrary to reg 42ZC(1) of the Civil Aviation Regulations 1988, you authorised and permitted maintenance to be carried out on the aircraft by a person, namely Richard RUDD who was not authorised by the regulations to carry out the maintenance.
Got it? He was accused of authorising himself to carry out maintenance on his own aircraft. There could have been no evidence that he had done that because he had not carried out any maintenance on his aircraft.
Up until now, Mr Rudd hadn’t been told the specifics of what maintenance he was alleged to have carried out, which we now know to have been removing and replacing (separately) the left and right elevators of this one-elevator aeroplane.
Mr Rudd’s lawyer had told him the CASA was prepared to drop the charges if he didn’t seek costs against them. He decided not to spend any more money on the matter, but did not sign any agreement not to pursue CASA for costs.
He had not been told that the case against him had been or would be dropped. It was left to him to visit the Magistrate’s court and obtain a document that recoded that “the defendant entered no plea” and “The Magistrates Court ordered STRUCK OUT.”
However on Sept 14 2008 Mr Rudd filed a complaint against the various officials with CASA’s Industry Complaints Commissioner Michael Hart, alleging criminality in some of the officials’ actions. Mr Hart responded on Dec 19 2008 that he had provided a report on the matter to (then) CASA CEO Bruce Byron, with a recommendation that the matters be referred to the Australian Federal Police, and advising that the matter had in fact been handed over to the AFP.
On Nov 7 2008 Mr Rudd advised Mr Byron that: “I have lodged documents with the Australian Federal Police with a view to Criminal charges being laid against CASA employees, for perjury, conspiring to pervert the course of justice and misfeasance in public office. And they were certainly negligent and failed in their duty of care towards me as CASA ‘client’”.
On 19 Dec 2008 he received a letter from the AFP which explained that matters referred to the AFP often exceed that organisation’s capacity to investigate. It stated:
The AFP was advised during the evaluation of this matter that your complaint has also been referred to CASA and the AFP has been advised that this matter would not be accepted for further investigation.”
We asked CASA:
1. Is it now CASA’s position that no further action is necessary in respect of Mr Rudd’s complaint because the AFP has declined involvement?
2. Has the CASA assessment of these matters (mentioned in the AFP letter) reached any conclusions?
3. Has any CASA employee been counselled or taken to task in any way?
4. Has the matter been referred to the DPP?
CASA’s Manager of Corporate Communications Peter Gibson has responded: “CASA is not going to make any comment on the matter.”
It was a matter which cost Mr Rudd over $5,000 in lawyers’ fees, and considerable time, effort, angst and inconvenience.
Despite Mr Gibson’s response we were made aware, shortly after filing this story, that senior CASA officials are now taking the matter very seriously.
Update and sequel
Opinion – May 3 2009
Throughout this entire process there appear to have been a large number of failures in observance of due process, legal accountability, compliance with published procedures, Australian legal evidentiary requirements, CASA administrative guidelines and executive orders, any one of which should have signalled that the matter should be stopped in its tracks, at least until the deficiencies were exposed to competent scrutiny.
Instead, the blunders appear to have continued and expanded to the very end.
The relevant Civil Aviation Regulation reads:
42ZC Maintenance on Australian aircraft in Australian territory
(1) The holder of the certificate of registration for, the operator of, and the pilot in command of, an Australian aircraft must not authorise or permit any maintenance to be carried out on the aircraft in Australian territory by a person if the person is not permitted by this regulation to carry out the maintenance.
Penalty: 50 penalty units.
So the regulation can be applied to the CofR holder of an aircraft, its operator, or its pilot in command.
The allegation against Mr Rudd as spelt out on the infringement notice, was:
……you were the holder of the certificate of registration for Australian registered aircraft, VH- AQX when contrary to reg 42ZC(1) of the Civil Aviation Regulations 1988, you authorised and permitted maintenance to be carried out on the aircraft by a person, namely Richard RUDD who was not authorised by the regulations to carry out the maintenance. (Our highlighting)
But by the time it reached the Mareeba court, as we’ve now become aware, the charge against Mr Rudd, had become:
PILOT IN COMMAND AUTHORISE OR PERMIT MAINTENANCE BE CARRIED OUT ON AIRCRAFT IN AUST TERRITORY BY PERSON NOT PERMITTED TO CARRY OUT MAINTENANCE (Our highlighting)
This represented yet another opportunity for the penny to drop – but perhaps it was at this time that it actually did drop. CASA has declined to comment any further so it is still unclear at what point and by whom (CASA or the DPP) the decision was made to withdraw from the attempted prosecution. It would have been interesting for example to watch CASA’s lawyers seeking to establish that at the time of the alleged offence Mr Rudd was in fact the “pilot in command” of an aeroplane that had not flown for over a year and was clearly incapable of flight, an aeroplane that had not had a current maintenance release for the same length of time, and an aeroplane that no pilot would consider flying in its condition.
These deficiencies clearly point to a need for senior CASA management to take a long, hard look not only at individuals at the coal face in airworthiness, compliance and enforcement and legal affairs, but also at whether the management overseeing their activities has been doing its job – or is part of the problem.
This matter is far from being an isolated case. AviationAdvertiser is well aware that quite a large number of individuals in CASA have quietly taken their leave of the organisation as a result of similar misdemeanors over the last several years. However these departures have not been made public and the question of whether the individual offenders were disciplined under available law or rewarded with automatic public service payouts is one that needs to come under close scrutiny. The same scrutiny now needs to extend to their immediate supervisors.
The systemic failure in Mr Rudd’s case gives little hope that anybody with sufficient authority in CASA currently has the assertiveness or the will to analyse dozens of similar unresolved matters over many years that are well known to industry, to acknowledge that the regulator has failed in these matters, and failed to acknowledge the issue of adequate redress.
It is certainly time for Minister Albanese to take a better-informed interest in these matters. Recent experience seems to show either that he will not learn much from his existing advisor network, or that he simply doesn’t want to know. If the Minister needs any guidance we are willing to provide volumes of information from our files to any competent independent investigator.
AviationAdvertiser is aware that some people believe the title of this post is a little unfair to the honest and competent individuals who manage to keep the regulatory body on the rails. Our “Dad’s Army” isn’t intended to describe them. It applies only to those individuals in the organisation who continue, either as individuals or (apparently) more commonly in networking groups, to defile the reputation of the regulator and harm its ability to meet its industry, national and international obligations.
They would not be missed.
UPDATE
On April 30 CASA engaged the services of an external investigator to assist in a review of Mr Rudd’s allegations that the thee inspectors have “acted in a way that braeches the CASA Code of Conduct. Although there are numerous references to that code, we have been unable to find a copy of the document.
This whole episode smacks of Laurel and Hardie, however, it is far below their standard. How did it ever get off the rails so far that it is now in the costly hands of lawyers and courts, who only seem bent on proving Criminal Intent (obviously the AFP have other better things to do). My sympathy lies with the man who allegedly had the spanners in his hand.The day that CASA took the Airworthiness Surveyors away from easy access to the industry by putting them in in-accessable offices guarded by the cost recovery of time given in advice and direction, was one big step in the continuing down-hill slide of a valuable asset to the safe operation of our great aviation industry. How many pilots in GA would not at least take a look at a safety of flight issue, before bringing their aircraft to a place where maintenance can be performed. How many more rules and regulations have to be written to protect us against ourselves, when we are supposedly mature professionals in our respective fields and when will the Surveyors resume their roles of technicians and take off their policeman hat? After 41 years in aviation engineering, I have given up in sheer frustration of a mindless bureaucracy. I really don’t know why Mr Rudd can be bothered either.
Even after the recent Senate Committee report into CASA there appears to be no change in any of their methods of operation. These bureaucrats are a law unto themselves and perhaps the only way is to act like Qantas and simply ignore them. Just use common sense to keep flying safely. Just imagine if all that “power” could be harnessed for good, the G.A. Industry would be buoyant and professionalism could prevail on both sides.
In Richard Rudd’s case it is again apparent that aviation talent is sorely lacking among the ranks of CASA. Aviation is a “calling” and “flying a desk” was always regarded as retrograde or punishment. What better way to get back at an industry which couldn’t use [your] dubious talent but to be in such a position of power.(apoligies to the few genuine ones who have been absorbed by the system)
Unfortunately whilst CASA retains not only the image but, as established by the Senators, also the concept of ineptitude, deceit and misfeasance, no self respecting professional would consider joining its ranks. So how do we, as an industry, clean them up?
I bother because I am a citizen “Aviationist” of over 50 years : PPL/ Photographer, small business operator and vintage aircraft rebuilder.
I bother now, because 10 years ago I got a graphic insight into CASA’s modus operandi when my business was destroyed at the behest of a competitor company. I quickly learnt first hand about bullying, bullshit and bureaucratic bastardry that entailed.
Throughout decades it has been the same for many, many other CAA/CASA “clients/ Victims, to the great detriment of the GA industry, which is so vital to this vast country.
So this time around, instead of tugging the forelock and paying the demanded penalty, I dug my heels in… most ably assisted by the arrant stupidity of the CASA AWIs and others.
So mesmerised were they over an easy individual “kill”, they lost the plot both technicaly and legally.
I bother because if these people get away with serious criminal acts, then no one is safe from petulant CASA persons and frivolous prosecution.
I will rest easy when the perpetrators have been dealt with by the Courts, have Criminal convictions and /or out of a job, or both.
Until CASA roots out, and boots out these people who have no rightful place under the CASA Charter, then there is NO hope for a sane GA environment in Oz.
Until then, Bill, I bother.
More power to your arm Richard. As one who has also been bastardised by CASA at great personal cost I can most certainly feel your pain.
Marcus Einfield has been sent to jail for perjury.
The circumstances seem remarkably similar to me, if the allegations against the CASA officers are true. Both cases involve sworn statements made.
If the sworn statements alleged to have been made by the CASA officers were in fact made, then they should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. If true then, in my opinion, their offence is significantly worse that of Marcus Einfield. In his case he was trying to avoid a penalty levied for a traffic offence. No other person was directly effected. In this case, if true, they were deliberately and with malice trying to convict another person of an offence.
I do not know the truth of these matters, but they certainly require a full and complete investigation by the Federal or QLD police.
Anything less is a disgrace.
Richard,
1. Under freedom of information you should be able to obtain a copy of the alleged statements given by these three persons.
2. ” On 11 July 2007, at Mareeba Airport in the State of Queensland, you were the holder of the certificate ” etc.
For this statement to be made it had to be supported by signed statements from Messes.Larard and or John Retski and Ronald Clark.
3. I would personally sue all three of them as individuals and not as employees of CASA where they are afforded the protection of a Commonwealth Government body at the tax payers expense.
4. You will find a significant change in the facade of the policeman when he stands up in court without the uniform.
In conclusion, if this chap Lararde had an element of common sense he could have suggested sitting down over a cup of coffee to discuss what he perceived to be a possible infringement instead of taking the egotistical action that you allege took place, compounded by the conspiracy of Retski & Clark.
Richard as Voltaire said back in 1764 ” there is nothing less common than common sense “.
Ross, I dont have to go FOI… these are not ALLEGED statements, these are the SWORN Statements as in the CDPP’s Prosecution Brief! Once made aware of the “errors” contained and as corroborated by others, the case got dropped like a sh***y stick.
“Not to puruse CASA for costs” request was acually not to have costs levied against the CDPP… who would have had to wear the CASA bill, so to speak… having been handed a “lemon” from CASA.
The behaviour of the individuals concerned… and not just the 3 amigos from the tarmac, leaves them and CASA wide open. Individually and collectively.
Instead of coming on all hot and heavy… as you say a common sense approach should have prevailed. Even the bleedin’ Compliance and Enforcement protocols state,… that if its an issue of interpretation of a Reg..you TALK about it, counselling, if warranted, since its on the lowest end of the “naughty corner” scale..
Court, and the costs asociated all round is supposed to be the LAST resort! NOT for these buggers on a Mission.!
The CDPPs words…” case terminated because of insufficient evidence”. So how the hell did it get that far? Because the control freaks in CB… “think they can make it stick”! ( Statement of the “investigator”)
Right from the word go, I advised the Manager, Compliance and Enforcement, to reconsider as this was nothing other than ‘revenge theatre’ for my reaction to a wrong call… AND NO PERJURY this time please.! Well at least I was prophetic, because that’s exactly what I got.
Its now beyond CASA, up the Political food chain. When someone pulls the handle, we’ll see what drops out.
I await with interest.
Congratulations Richard for sticking to your guns and pursuing this
rediculous and illegal CASA action.
We all need to do exactly the same when confronted with similar CASA actions. This is the only way to possibly cleanup the “bad apples”within ANY government debt and bring about positive change and a fair system.
I left OZ and aviation back there because of the whole Bl**dy system and moved to Thailand 5 yrs ago where it is funnily, far worse! But at least you EXPECT it here! And even here in the most corrupt, backward country in Asia, you can bring about slow and positive change.
Good luck to you and keep going strong!.
[...] of convictions apparently regardless of cost, damage, or veracity. As one recent example, see http://www.aviationadvertiser.com.au/2009/04/dad’s-army-rides-again/. That travesty, which resulted in Mareeba pilot Richard Rudd being charged with an offence which [...]