Proof – 'beyond reasonable doubt' (criminal); or even 'on the balance of probabilities' (civil) have long been the foundation of the 'presumption of innocence – world wide. The task of proving guilt is sheeted home to the prosecution; the defence must create reasonable doubt – a simple enough, democratic process (in theory).
"If CASA do not agree, our opinion is that the onus is on CASA to prove that the aircraft does not comply, not the other way around."
Quite correct – and the quoted statement clearly defines how far from the 'Rule of Law pathway CASA have strayed. How many cases now, particularly with 'strict liability' involved have ignored this simple tenet? CASA must prove their guilty argument; they say the BRM aircraft is XYZ – fine; their 'opinion' now they must prove it. For far too long the presumption of innocence has been taken away by 'strict liability' the chance to mount a reasonable defence denied.
McGillvray has the right of it – if this aircraft is 'dangerous' then CASA must prove it. However, if they attempt to use the data provided by RAOz then its a hiding to nothing. AOPA has produced a reasoned statement which should not only create all the reasonable doubt required, but highlight some fairly ordinary behaviour from both the regulator and that organisation.
AOPA - "At the centre of this debacle is the now infamous and amateurish test flight report carried out in December 2017, authored by a pilot in Victoria, that cast considerable shade on the aircraft. The report was commissioned at the request of the Recreational Aviation Australia Limited. It then found it’s way to CASA and was used by them as the basis for requesting certification data including spin testing."
AOPA - "The owner of the aircraft used to conduct the test flight, was informed that the test and subsequent report had been requested by the Victorian Coroner and that RAAus were simply complying with that request. The Victorian Coroner’s office has subsequently confirmed in writing, that no such request was ever made. In fact the aircraft owner was advised by the RAAus representative present on the day that the Coroner would be arriving to oversee the tests, that never happened of course."
MTF – Oh yes....
"If CASA do not agree, our opinion is that the onus is on CASA to prove that the aircraft does not comply, not the other way around."
Quite correct – and the quoted statement clearly defines how far from the 'Rule of Law pathway CASA have strayed. How many cases now, particularly with 'strict liability' involved have ignored this simple tenet? CASA must prove their guilty argument; they say the BRM aircraft is XYZ – fine; their 'opinion' now they must prove it. For far too long the presumption of innocence has been taken away by 'strict liability' the chance to mount a reasonable defence denied.
McGillvray has the right of it – if this aircraft is 'dangerous' then CASA must prove it. However, if they attempt to use the data provided by RAOz then its a hiding to nothing. AOPA has produced a reasoned statement which should not only create all the reasonable doubt required, but highlight some fairly ordinary behaviour from both the regulator and that organisation.
AOPA - "At the centre of this debacle is the now infamous and amateurish test flight report carried out in December 2017, authored by a pilot in Victoria, that cast considerable shade on the aircraft. The report was commissioned at the request of the Recreational Aviation Australia Limited. It then found it’s way to CASA and was used by them as the basis for requesting certification data including spin testing."
AOPA - "The owner of the aircraft used to conduct the test flight, was informed that the test and subsequent report had been requested by the Victorian Coroner and that RAAus were simply complying with that request. The Victorian Coroner’s office has subsequently confirmed in writing, that no such request was ever made. In fact the aircraft owner was advised by the RAAus representative present on the day that the Coroner would be arriving to oversee the tests, that never happened of course."
MTF – Oh yes....