Keith Page Posted March 8, 2018 Share Posted March 8, 2018 And - where is RAA in all of this - Not a word of support or its a problem with the operation ever! Why? anyone else and they would have phone calls from the office and paperwork???? No these days the management is out playing police people, help when one is in trouble is no-existent.As I said in post #24 watch out. That old saying "Careful of what you wish for". KP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnm Posted March 9, 2018 Share Posted March 9, 2018 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SSCBD Posted March 9, 2018 Share Posted March 9, 2018 RAA is being wise to stay out of it; check the legislation. So the RAA are the first to want paper work and reporting of any infringement (check the ops manual turbo) on what any member is doing, so why do we pay fees, to NOT be notified of the review of the operation of the Pauline Jab as it is OK or not. RAA are the police of RAA before running to big brother.Again some serious questions, by the effectiveness of board that should have answered to us as members, on the operation of the aircraft as it reflects on use as this high media profile operation many months ago, does it not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happyflyer Posted March 9, 2018 Share Posted March 9, 2018 Slap on the wrist - for anyone else! Depends if it was accidental or deliberate. In other words did he just stray into ATC on the way to somewhere or put in a plan to deliberately fly into class C. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Borgelt Posted March 10, 2018 Share Posted March 10, 2018 People who think the RAAus is not CASA are deluded. It IS CASA. Bought and paid for. Operates with CASA approved manuals and doesn't do anything without CASA's approval. In business terms this could be called "Misleading and deceptive behaviour". Why would anyone expect RAAus to act on any member's behalf or for the member's benefit just because CASA has engineered a situation where you pay TWICE over for aviation regulation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pmccarthy Posted March 10, 2018 Share Posted March 10, 2018 Why make statements that are demonstrably not true with just a little personal research? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Borgelt Posted March 10, 2018 Share Posted March 10, 2018 Regarding CASA prosecuting Ashby: You need to understand that all the government authorities involved in regulating activities properly don't have that as their primary goal. The primary goal is the survival of the organisation so that its employees maintain their pay, position, perks, pension and the power to keep it all happening. This depends on political support hence they like prosecuting high profile cases which attract media publicity to keep the politicians convinced the body is doing its job. Quite a while ago now ASIC in WA had 12000 complaints a year about cons and scams involving companies. Most were regarded as legitimate.They prosecuted 20. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted March 10, 2018 Share Posted March 10, 2018 So the RAA are the first to want paper work and reporting of any infringement (check the ops manual turbo) on what any member is doing, so why do we pay fees, to NOT be notified of the review of the operation of the Pauline Jab as it is OK or not. RAA are the police of RAA before running to big brother.Again some serious questions, by the effectiveness of board that should have answered to us as members, on the operation of the aircraft as it reflects on use as this high media profile operation many months ago, does it not? CASA is taking the action on a CASA regulation; when you fly in CASA airspace you are subject to CASA regulations.CASA is a Controlling Body, which brings with it legal risks and fights where the government foots the bill. RAA is a Self Administering Body. If CASA succeeds in getting convictions, RAA could then advise shareholders of what happened, why, and how to avoid making the same mistake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danny_galaga Posted March 11, 2018 Share Posted March 11, 2018 Always amusing when politicians claim an investigation is a waste of tax payers money when it’s THEM being investigated Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RecComGarry Posted March 11, 2018 Share Posted March 11, 2018 About a year ago, we were at the refuelling pumps at Kalgoorlie airport. Ashby was also there. He had a retractable, single engine, piper. Three passengers, including Pauline. Susgest he has, at least, a GA licence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fly_tornado Posted March 11, 2018 Author Share Posted March 11, 2018 who do you reckon is paying for the advancement of Ashby's license? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim McDowall Posted March 11, 2018 Share Posted March 11, 2018 who do you reckon is paying for the advancement of Ashby's license? It is dangerous to presume that Ashby needs someone else to pay for his flying activities, as distinct from the potential that someone does. Presumably, as Paulines CoS he is paid a reasonable sum and who knows what his personal circumstances might be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim McDowall Posted March 11, 2018 Share Posted March 11, 2018 Why make statements that are demonstrably not true with just a little personal research? Which statements aren't true? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fly_tornado Posted March 11, 2018 Author Share Posted March 11, 2018 I was just asking who you thought was paying for his licensing? After all we don't really know who paid for his plane. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
onetrack Posted March 11, 2018 Share Posted March 11, 2018 Ashby has lied about who owns the aircraft. McNee has lied and obfuscated about who owns the aircraft. Pauline Hanson has lied and obfuscated about who owns the aircraft. But there are two W.A. founding members of the ON party that are prepared to sign affidavits that McNee told them during political conversation, that he bought the plane. Former One Nation members say McNee bought Hanson's plane Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoff13 Posted March 11, 2018 Share Posted March 11, 2018 Who bought the aircraft and who owns it need not be the same thing. I have bought many things that I never owned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shafs64 Posted March 11, 2018 Share Posted March 11, 2018 I Don't understand why they are going after Ashby now he has done things in the past that didn't pass the sniff test. or is the reason he was a friend of the LNP but now they have no use for him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim McDowall Posted March 11, 2018 Share Posted March 11, 2018 I was just asking who you thought was paying for his licensing? After all we don't really know who paid for his plane. It only matters to those with a political interest who owns the plane(s) in question. In this forum I would have thought the question is "was he flying it within the rules?". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yenn Posted March 11, 2018 Share Posted March 11, 2018 Does it matter who owns a plane? I was under the assumption that I could fly any RAAus plane, that I was qualified to fly, if the owner gave his permission. I don't know where there is any reason I could not fly someones plane with their permission and with them also putting the fuel in the plane. I could also take a passenger and legally get that passenger to pay half the costs to me of flying the plane. Does anyone know if what I am saying would be breaking the law? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danny_galaga Posted March 11, 2018 Share Posted March 11, 2018 The main question they will be asking is did he fly in controlled airspace and is he licensed to do so? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruce Tuncks Posted March 11, 2018 Share Posted March 11, 2018 Remember they actually jailed Hansen on trumped up charges. And look what they did to Slipper. More of the same and disgraceful I reckon. I wish I could sack the lot of them. No pun intended Pauline, but this is called a witch hunt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shafs64 Posted March 11, 2018 Share Posted March 11, 2018 The LNP used ashby to go after slipper. And when it didn't work out ashby went for a ride under the bus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted March 11, 2018 Share Posted March 11, 2018 Remember they actually jailed Hansen on trumped up charges. And look what they did to Slipper.More of the same and disgraceful I reckon. I wish I could sack the lot of them.No pun intended Pauline, but this is called a witch hunt. Anyone going on a witch hunt is only going to find brooms.The legislation is straighforward; he either contravened it or he didn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruce Tuncks Posted March 11, 2018 Share Posted March 11, 2018 What nonsense turbs. Just look at the "straightforward" legislation they jailed Hansen on. If it was so straightforward, why did she get off on appeal? And what about the selective way in which targets are chosen? Amazing how the targets are just the same people who threaten the establishment in some way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted March 11, 2018 Share Posted March 11, 2018 What nonsense turbs. Just look at the "straightforward" legislation they jailed Hansen on. If it was so straightforward, why did she get off on appeal? And what about the selective way in which targets are chosen? Amazing how the targets are just the same people who threaten the establishment in some way. When you go into a court case, two lawyers (or legal teams) are adamant their version of events is correct; one wins and one loses.Sometimes afterwards one finds that either his side didn't have a critical piece of information, or something put up by the other side didn't stack up under later scrutiny. Or sometimes the Judge makes a mistake. Or sometimes the charge is incorrect. I spent quite a few years studying the legislation to try to find a legal way of covering my marketing territory by air instead of car, so I've looked over that legislation a lot of times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now