An aviation researcher, writer, aviation participant, pilot & agricultural researcher. Author of over 35 scientific publications world wide.


Good reads

Oil Prices


CASA lies again in “fobbing off” the truth

In spite of what Gibson claims below, in an interview with Mr Rudd tonight, Mr Rudd, tells me “There were three investigations into the “alleged illegal maintenance”.

These were:

  1. The ICC, Michael Hart [He found that, the three CASA AirWorthiness Inspectors [namely Peter Larard, John Retzke and Ronald Clarke]  “could not have seen what they all claimed to have seen and it is in the public interest that they be dealt with by the Federal Police”];
  2. Independent contract investigator Glenn Birrell [To make it fairer to the staff [sic], had Mr Rudd’s allegations of serious criminality – purguery and conspiracy to convict, by false statement: sidelined by CASA CEO, McCormick to see if they had only breached the CASA code of conduct, which has no provisions of criminal behaviour such as occurred in Mr Rudd’s case. He also found the perpetrators should be dealt with by the Federal Police];
  3. CASA investigator Stephen Cromerius – [Sent a self-generated statement to be sworn by another person, who subsequently advised Mr Rudd that there were untrue facts stated therin. When Cromerius finally came to North Queensland, it was only to witness that statement he had writen earlier, sworn by another person]. This prosecution exercise was overseen by Ms Narelle Tredrea, then manager of Compliance and Enforcement, who had issued Mr Rudd with penalty notices, in breach of her own protocols.

An aviation engineer, said to Cromerius, “Mr Rudd has no case to answer, because the aircraft did not have a current maintenance release, at the time of the alleged offence”. The answer given by Cromerius to the engineer was  “I don’t know about that, there are people in Canberra who think they can make this stick”.

Mr Rudd tells me that “This statement was extremely distressing” and “Was just following a pre-determined party line”.

Cromerius found no witnesses in Mr Rudd’s favour.

In contrast the other investigations found three witnesses supporting Mr. Rudd’s version of events.

The case, Mr Rudd says “Was terminated because I advised the CDPP, with adequate proof, that the CASA air worthiness inspectors could not have seen what they claimed to have seen, because the aircraft in question had a 3.8 metre single elevator, not left and right elevators “seen to be removed” by the CASA inspectors”

“It is both physically and technically impossible to happen”

Mr Rudd completely refutes CASA’s media spokeseperson as “false and completly misleading”.


Angry aviator on his way to Canberra to let fly at CASA

ON THE MOVE: A group of angry aviatiors who claim they've been screwed by CASA are drivin

ON THE MOVE: A group of angry aviatiors who claim they’ve been screwed by CASA are driving down to Canberra to meet with Warren Entsch.

A MAREEBA pilot is taking his frustration with the aviation regulator on the road.

Experienced aviator Richard Rudd is fed up with the Civil Aviation Safety Authority after he claims they falsely accused him of performing illegal maintenance on his private aircraft in 2007.

After a failed court case mounted by CASA in 2008, Mr Rudd is still $10,000 out of pocket and is now travelling to Canberra in his ute, equipped with a sign slamming the regulator.

“The agency is a bureaucracy that’s just running amok without any oversight or governance,” Mr Rudd said.

CASA spokesman Peter Gibson admitted the regulator had botched their case against Mr Rudd in court, but said they had clear evidence that Mr Rudd performed illegal maintenance on his aircraft.“At no time did CASA, or any CASA officer, falsify evidence. Discrepancies in the evidence supporting the prosecution case resulted in the prosecutor determining that a conviction was unlikely and the matter was discontinued,” Mr Gibson said.

Upon arrival in Canberra on October 20, Mr Rudd and fellow pilot Rob Cumming from Albury, NSW, will be meeting with a handful of “pro-aviation” senators including Nick Xenophon, Bill Heffernan, David Fawcett and Susan Ley.

The pair is also meeting top-level CASA officials and Member for Leichhardt Warren Entsch in Canberra, who farewelled them from Cairns last Wednesday.

Mr Rudd said several aviation businesses and maintenance workshops he met with along the way shared similar concerns about CASA.

“They’ve got all sorts of problems with CASA because the people that are in the place are just not the sort of people that should be there,” he said.

“A lot of people don’t like to stick their head up, and we don’t expect them to because CASA will give them a hard time.”

3 comments to CASA lies again in “fobbing off” the truth

  • […] The Rudd affair is a classic – If you don’t get him witha lie, use more people to lie an… […]

  • Concerned Aviator

    CASA and the model litigant obligation
    Hi All

    I thought this decision was of particular interest and perhaps explains why CASA is using admininstrative action to deal with “miscreants” rather than prosecution… kaz

    Australia: ‘Moral Exemplars’: The model litigant’s duty to tell the full story

    21 July 2012

    Article by Ben Allen and Hamish McNair

    ‘Moral Exemplars’: The model litigant’s duty to tell the full story – Government, Public Sector and Indigenous – Australia


    On 22 June 2012, the Full Federal Court handed down its decision in LVR (WA) Pty Ltd v Administrative Appeals Tribunal which reinforces the overarching obligation of Australian Government Agencies and their legal representatives to act as model litigants in accordance with the Legal Services Directions 2005. This decision illustrates the supremacy of the model litigant obligation which may, in certain circumstances, extend further than merely acting honestly, ethically, legally and in accordance with court rules.

    On 30 July 2010, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the Tribunal) dismissed an application for merits review made by LVR (WA) Pty Ltd (the Applicant) in relation to a decision of the Commissioner of Taxation (the Commissioner). In unique circumstances, the Tribunal dismissed the application without conducting a review of the decision on the basis that the Applicant had failed to comply with a procedural direction made by the Tribunal relating to the filing and serving of evidence.
    The Tribunal’s decision to dismiss the application for review was the subject of a separate dismissal hearing (the Dismissal Hearing), in anticipation of which the Tribunal had made directions for further evidence to be filed in relation to the non-compliance with its earlier directions in the main proceedings. The Applicant filed and served the affidavit of Mr Schokker (the Schokker Affidavit) only three days before the Dismissal Hearing and some seven weeks after it was directed to do so. The Schokker Affidavit responded to the evidence filed by the Commissioner and addressed the applicant’s non-compliance with the directions made by the Tribunal in the main proceedings.
    Save for a small number of paragraphs, the published reasons of the Tribunal relating to its decision to dismiss the Applicant’s application were copied verbatim from the Commissioner’s written submissions (the Submissions) without attribution. Because of the Applicant’s late service of the Schokker Affidavit, only two paragraphs of the Submissions referred to the Schokker Affidavit and those paragraphs were not reproduced in the Tribunal’s reasons.

    Model Litigant Obligations

    The Full Court stated that “being a model litigant requires the Commonwealth and its agencies, as parties to litigation, to act with complete proprietary, fairly and in accordance with the highest professional standards” [at 42]. The Court further indicated that the content of this obligation may surpass other professional obligations to act honestly, ethically and in accordance with the law and court rules.
    The Court also traced the model litigant obligation back to the traditional relationship between the Crown and its subjects and noted that the Commonwealth and its agencies have no legitimate private interest in the performance of their functions and frequently also have greater access to resources than private litigants. For these reasons, the Court held that Australian Government Agencies and their legal representatives should act as moral exemplars when engaging with private litigants.
    In the present case, the Full Court found that the Commissioner had an obligation, as a model litigant, to ensure that the Court was fully aware of the relevant circumstances concerning the source of the Tribunal’s reasons. The Court stated that “if the appellants failed to fully explain the position to the primary judge then the Commissioner should have done so” [at 40] and indicated that it was inadequate of the Commissioner to only respond to the submissions made by the Applicant.


    This decision of the Full Federal Court highlights the critical importance of Australian Government Agencies to act as model litigants to ensure that its interactions with private litigants are fair and transparent. This decision further serves as a reminder that Australian Government Agencies and their internal and external legal representatives must act as model litigants at all times, including where it is not necessarily in the strategic interests of the Agency to do so.
    Last edited by kaz3g; 5th Aug 2012 at 21:59

  • […] This happening [60/ 61], which is now “writ in stone” by this AAT finding, is seen in Quadrio, Rudd and independent investigations into the Christmas eve grounding of Barrier Aviation in Cairns […]

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.