Admin Law

An avenue open to Taluluans for Air Safety (TAS) is internal review. This involves a more senior officer looking at the decision. TAS can apply for internal review by writing to the minister. TAS is also able to seek review of the situation to the ombudsman1 . S(6)(b)(ii)2 will pose a problem for TAS in obtaining a reciew. The section specifies that ombudsman can refuse to investigate if the complainant does not have a sufficient interest in the subject matter of the complaint. Tas's interest is to improve public interest, they have no other interest that will be beneficial to themself.

The ombudsman is unlikely to view this interest as sufficient enough to investigate. TAS may also apply to the AAT, however before they can do so they must have standing. The mere fact that TAS consists of injured members is not enough to give it standing , the organisation must have an interest that is greater the ordinary members of the public. 3 TAS's main object is to promote air safety, it will give it a right to encourage air lines and ASA in improving their airline safety, but it will not entitle them to questioning the actions of ASA.

This means that its interest will not be greater than the ordinary person and will not have standing in regards to challenging the decision of ASA to the AAT. TAS may seek rely on the broader terms of S(27)(2)4 to have standing in the AAT. The section specifies that an organisation shall be taken to have interests, if the decision relates to a matter included in the objects of the organization. The object of TAS is to merely promote air safety. By challenging the decision it is taking on a more prohibitive role that goes beyond the description of promoting. From this, it can be concluded that TAS would need have standing under S(27)(2)5

Alternatively, TAS can appeal to the Federal Court or a Human Rights Commission in Tulalu. Q3 I. Introduction Dan Prasad is entitled to review under S7(a) of the Aviation Safety Operations Act 2000 (Tulalu). The grounds for his review is that the evidence that were used by the decision maker to apply on 6(a)-6(c) of the Aviation Safety Operation Act 2000 (Tulalu) were different and missing elements from his version of the facts. At the tribunal, Dan would be expected to prevent written submission of the facts or evidence to the tribunal. The tribunal would then explore and define the issues.

The tribunal should take into account of facts as at the day of the tribunal. 6 The tribunal may also play a more active role by conducting their own research or calling in witnesses. If the AAT requires more evidence, it will require Dan to Submit more documents. The AAT may also call for an alternative dispute resolution such as conferencing or mediation. Dan would need to explain and provide his version of the facts for the incidents that occurred while he was flying the plane. II. Disobeying the Air Traffic Control (ATC) Instructions Dan was instructed by ATC to make an orbit left west, however he went into a right-hand orbit.

Dan argues this by stating he did not intentionally disobey the order but did not hear it due to radio interference caused by turbulence. In order to show this, Dan would require: A) Recording from the black box, showing the conversation between him and the ATC. B) Expert reports on the likelihood of atmospheric interference on the day C) Reports/evidence from other Pilots on whether they also received turbulence during that day. D) A report of the Plane after it landed. E) A report on whether the plane caused any safety hazards to any nearby planes.

The Aviation Safety Authority would not be able to cancel his license under S(6)(c) of the Aviation Safety Operation Act on his version of the evidence. III. Wheels Failing to descend properly In this incident, Dan was unable to verify that the wheels locked into the position. Dan deviated from the accepted procedure of diverting to a landing strip fully equipped with emergency facilities by continuing on his original flight path. Dan justified this by stating he chose the runway with soft sand which was less risky in that situation than the hard airstrip at an alternative location.

The evidence that Dan would need to provide are: A) Photographs of the runway depicting the soft sand B) Photographs of the alternative runway showing the hard surface C) Opinions from other pilots/experts in regards to whether they think the path chosen by Dan was safer. D) A report from the airport in regards to the safety of the plane right after his landing. E) Reports from other pilots who had taken off/ landed, around the time of his landing, in regards to how their own plane was been affected by his landing. IV. The incident on the 21st of January

Dan overshot the runway while landing and ditched the plan in a river, causing a number of casualties. The arguments that he could put forth are that the plane malfunctioned as the flaps were not able to reduce his landing speed. This resulted in him overshooting the runway, not his piloting skills. The poor visibility due to the bad weather was another factor in play at the time. This reduced Dan's ability to land the play properly, and in Dan's opinion he achieved the best result, taking all factors into consideration. The evidence that Dan would need to provide are:

A) Weather Reports on the day B) Forensic reports from the crash If Dan's version of the facts are accepted from III and IV, it would be concluded that Dan has not failed his duty in regards to any matter affecting the safe navigation or operation of an aircraft. It can also be concluded that Dan is a fit and proper person to be the holder of a license, as he was able to land the Aircraft with minimal harm done to passengers, even under bad circumstances. Prospects of Success Dan has a pretty strong case against the cancellation of his license.

A point where he may face some difficulties is in regards to his actions during the atmospheric interference in II. A question arises as to the reason why he proceeded with his own actions and did not wait until the atmospheric disappeared to hear clearer instructions. However, as long as he is able to show that his action did not cause any danger to passengers or other planes, he is able to get past this. If Dan is successful it is likely that the AAT will make a decision in substitution of the decision to set aside, as under S43(1)(C)(i) of the AAT act.