Transparency and accountability are key elements in our approach to the regulation of aviation safety. It is also integral to the responsible performance of our enforcement functions under the Civil Aviation Act.
In keeping with our commitment to these principles, we publish a list of enforcement actions and decisions.
On this page you will find details about the nature of, and reasons for, recent enforcement decisions and actions as well information about the steps we take to ensure that the information we publish is current and correct.
Enforcement actions include administrative actions to vary, suspend or cancel civil aviation authorisations, including:
- air operator’s certificates
- maintenance and flying training organisation approvals
- flight crew and maintenance engineer licences
- ReOCs and RPLs
- medical certificates.
We also publish the details of enforceable voluntary undertakings as we are required to do under section 30DK of the Civil Aviation Act.
The information we publish
We publish information about the:
- the kind of enforcement action we’ve taken
- the date the decision was taken
- a brief summary of the conduct giving rise to the decision.
If the person involved is a corporate entity, we will publish the name of the company. If the person involved is an individual , then, consistent with our obligations under the Privacy Act, we will not publish their name.
We will make every effort to ensure the information we publish about our enforcement decisions is correct and up-to-date.
If you believe the information we publish is incorrect or out-of-date, you can get contact us using our contact us form. We will review those concerns and adjust our published information where appropriate.
Information we do not publish
We do not publish decisions to refuse to issue an authorisation for which a person has applied or to impose conditions on an authorisation we have issued.
We do not publish details of aviation infringement notice (AINs) that have been issued, as, on payment of the administrative penalty, the person will have discharged any liability in respect of the offence specified in the AIN and will not be regarded has having been convicted of the offence.
We will, however, publish the number of AINs issued during the last 6 months and a summary of the general nature of the offences for which those AINs were issued.
We will make every effort to ensure the information we publish about our enforcement decisions is correct and up-to-date.
CASA enforcement decisions that have been varied, set aside or overturned
In most cases, the Administrative Review Tribunal (ART) or the Federal Court can review our decision to vary, suspend or cancel an authorisation.
The ART can affirm our decision, or it may vary or set the decision aside, replacing it with the ART’s own decision.
The Federal Court may uphold our decision, or overturn it, returning the matter to us for reconsideration.
Where, following review of CASA’s decision by the ART or the court, CASA’s decision is varied, set aside or overturned, we will publish that information, along with details about the effect of that action on CASA’s decision.
CASA decisions subject to a ‘stay’
In some cases, the ART or the Federal Court may grant a ‘stay’ of our decision—effectively postponing the implementation of that decision. A stay normally remains in effect until the AAT or the court reviews the matter.
Where the ART or the court grants a stay of our enforcement decision until they reconsider the matter, we will publish that information, along with details about the effect of the stay.
Note: decisions to vary, suspend or cancel an authorisation that are reviewable by the ART are subject to an automatic stay of 5 business days. This does not apply to decisions under the Civil Aviation Act to immediately suspend an authorisation for a serious and imminent risk to safety.
Aviation Infringement Notices (AINs) issued
In the six-months from 1 January 2024 to 30 June 2024, CASA issued 46 AINs for offences of the kind shown below.
| AINs issued | Offence |
|---|---|
| 33 | Disorderly or disruptive passenger |
| 4 | Alcohol or other Drugs |
| Operational offence | |
| 2 | Maintenance-related offence |
| 6 | RPAS-related offence |
| 1 | Licensing offence |
Showing 1 - 6 of 6 results
| Date of decision | Authorisation holder | Authorisation(s) affected and action taken | Summary of reasons for decision | Decision outcomes |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Individual Licence Holder | Commercial Pilot Licence Helicopter and Air Transport Licence Helicopter cancelled in accordance with paragraphs 269(1)(c) and (d) of the Civil Aviation Regulations 1988. | CASA found that the pilot who held a position of responsibility in an aviation organisation failed to carry out their duties to ensure the safe operations and navigation of aircraft under their control. The pilot engaged in conduct that included flight operations that were reckless in their nature, the failure to record aircraft maintenance faults, making false statements in maintenance documentation and the failure to record the time in service of aircraft that the pilot was operating. |
Was the decision stayed? Not at this time. Has the decision been varied, set aside or remitted for reconsideration or review? Not at this time. |
|
| Helibrook Pty Ltd | Air Operator’s Certificate issued under section 27 of the Civil Aviation Act 1998 cancelled in accordance with subsection 28BA(3) of the Civil Aviation Act 1988. | It was identified that:
|
Was the decision stayed? Not at this time. Has the decision been varied, set aside or remitted for reconsideration or review? Not at this time. |
|
| Individual licence holder | Recreational Pilot Licence was suspended immediately under section 30DC of the Civil Aviation Act 1988. | CASA has reason to believe that the pilot had engaged and may engage in conduct that constitutes, contributes to or results in a serious and imminent risk to air safety. Find out more about CASA’s power to immediately suspend an authorisation for serious and imminent risk to safety. |
Was the decision stayed? No. Has the decision been varied, set-aside or remitted for reconsideration on review? In the first instance, the disposition of this decision will be a matter for the Federal Court, to which CASA has made an application for orders allowing for the suspension to continue pending CASA’s further investigation into the circumstances that gave rise to CASA’s decision to suspend the authorisation. |
|
| Individual Licence Holder | Commercial Pilot Licence Helicopter cancelled in accordance with paragraphs 269(1)(c) and (d) of the Civil Aviation Regulations 1988. | CASA found that the pilot engaged in conduct that included flight operations that the pilot was not authorised to carry out, unlawful conduct of maintenance, the failure to record aircraft maintenance faults, the fraudulent submission of maintenance documentation and the failure to record the time in service of aircraft that the pilot was operating. |
Was the decision stayed? Not applicable Has the decision been varied, set aside or remitted for reconsideration or review? Not at this time. |
|
| Individual Licence Holder | Commercial Pilot Licence Helicopter and Aircraft Engineer Licence (AEL) suspended for a period of 12 months in accordance with paragraphs 269(1)(c) and (d) of the Civil Aviation Regulations 1988. | CASA found that the pilot engaged in conduct that included the unlawful carriage of dangerous goods, unlawful conduct of maintenance, the failure to record aircraft maintenance faults, the fraudulent submission of maintenance documentation and the failure to record the time in service of aircraft that the pilot was operating. |
Was the decision stayed? Not applicable Has the decision been varied, set aside or remitted for reconsideration or review? No |
|
| Amber Aero Engineering (Australia) Pty Ltd | Cancellation of Certificate of Approval issued under regulation 30 of the Civil Aviation Regulations 1988 (CAR). | Between 19-21 July 2022, a CASA surveillance event was conducted. A total of 20 safety findings were made by the audit team. Safety findings are required to be correctively actioned by the organisation in a timely fashion. In this case, 17 of the 20 safety findings were not acquitted. The company committed to an Action Plan to address the unacquitted findings, but did not adequately fulfill its commitment to do so. Due to failures in the organisation's maintenance record keeping obligations, quality control and, among other things, the use of unqualified personnel, The company was found by CASA to have contravened CAR 30(3A), CAR 42ZE(1) and CAR 42ZP(1). On this basis, CASA found that the authorisation holder failed in its duty as the holder of a Certificate of Approval; and no longer satisfied the requirements for the issue of a Certificate of Approval. On 9 May 2024, CASA decided to cancel the company’s Certificate of Approval. |
Was the decision stayed? Yes. CASA's decision was automatically stayed by operation of law when Amber lodged an application for review with the AAT on 25 May 2024 and applied for a stay, pending the Tribunal's determination of the matter, at the same time. At a hearing scheduled for 14 August 2024, the Tribunal will consider Amber's application to continue the stay until the AAT decides the matter on its merits. Has the decision been varied, set-aside or remitted for reconsideration on review? If CASA's decision is appealed to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) and the AAT varies or sets aside CASA's decision, updated information reflecting the AAT's decision will be published on this page. |