* Airline wants court to interdict CAAB for suspending their licence
Air aviation spotlight focuses on Lobatse High Court where Justice Rainer Busang is due to deliver judgement in a case in which Major Blue Air (MBA) wants the court to turn down Civil Aviation Authority (CAAB) decision to suspend the Air Operation Certificate (AOC).
The management of Major Blue Air resorted to court on urgent basis after CAAB suspended its AOC after their aircraft - Gipps-Aero GA-8 Airvan – of registration A2-MBE, crashed, killing three including two American billionaire tourists and a pilot late June at Eaton and Sons farm, near Ghanzi, Botswana Guardian has established.
In their plea, the airline wanted the court to interdict or suspend CAAB’s decision contained in their letter of 13th July 2023.
They also wanted the court to set aside the suspension pending hearing of the review, as well as interdict or restrain any CAAB and its officials from taking steps to put the decision of the Authority contained in the letter. Their decision to go to court opened a can of worms, if the affidavit of the Chief Executive Officer of CAAB, Dr. Bao Mosinyi is anything to go by. Mosinyi said following its urgent and decisive act of suspension, the Authority continued to be receptive to receiving any further representations that the Applicant wanted to make.
Further, oral and written representations were made and they were considered ex post facto and these did not change the Respondent’s conclusion.
He said he established that the training results of the pilots that Major Blue engages, in most instances, do not meet the standard expected by the Respondent.
On the information available, the accident that occurred was clearly the result of an elementary pilot error. It is most telling that the Applicant has not in these proceedings proffered a view as to what the cause of the accident was, Mosinyi said.
He said the risk of further loss of life attributable to non-compliance with aviation safety regulations far outweighs any harm that would flow from the loss of profit. The loss of life is irreparable, whereas any loss of profit can always be made good by a damages award.
Mosinyi said given what has been outlined and having regard to the response to the Applicant’s complaint, there is no doubt that the balance of convenience is heavily weighted in favour of the Respondent.
In fact, the Applicant’s founding affidavit fails to canvass the issue of balance of convenience.
He said it was critical that the Authority acts decisively and that is what it did. The Respondent has concluded a phase of its investigation.
Given the information already gathered and what has been learnt from it, failing to immediately act would be recklessly placing lives at risk. He said the failure to swiftly respond to request to approve manuals did not entitle the Applicant to use unapproved manuals.
Mosinyi denied what Major Blue Air management said, stating that the investigation was carried to determine the extent of the Applicant’s non-compliance with Civil Aviation Act and its regulations.
The Respondent was entitled to suspend the Applicant in terms of Civil Aviation (Air Operator Certification and Administration) Regulation 13 (a).
He said the Authority was entitled to take the action that it did in order to safeguard human life and ensure the continued safety of air transport.
Further, that the Department of Transport and Works does not have the authority to intervene in the manner that the CAAB did as Major Blue Air management claims.
The management of Major Blue Air resorted to court on urgent basis after CAAB suspended its AOC after their aircraft - Gipps-Aero GA-8 Airvan – of registration A2-MBE, crashed, killing three including two American billionaire tourists and a pilot late June at Eaton and Sons farm, near Ghanzi, Botswana Guardian has established.
In their plea, the airline wanted the court to interdict or suspend CAAB’s decision contained in their letter of 13th July 2023.
They also wanted the court to set aside the suspension pending hearing of the review, as well as interdict or restrain any CAAB and its officials from taking steps to put the decision of the Authority contained in the letter. Their decision to go to court opened a can of worms, if the affidavit of the Chief Executive Officer of CAAB, Dr. Bao Mosinyi is anything to go by. Mosinyi said following its urgent and decisive act of suspension, the Authority continued to be receptive to receiving any further representations that the Applicant wanted to make.
Further, oral and written representations were made and they were considered ex post facto and these did not change the Respondent’s conclusion.
He said he established that the training results of the pilots that Major Blue engages, in most instances, do not meet the standard expected by the Respondent.
On the information available, the accident that occurred was clearly the result of an elementary pilot error. It is most telling that the Applicant has not in these proceedings proffered a view as to what the cause of the accident was, Mosinyi said.
He said the risk of further loss of life attributable to non-compliance with aviation safety regulations far outweighs any harm that would flow from the loss of profit. The loss of life is irreparable, whereas any loss of profit can always be made good by a damages award.
Mosinyi said given what has been outlined and having regard to the response to the Applicant’s complaint, there is no doubt that the balance of convenience is heavily weighted in favour of the Respondent.
In fact, the Applicant’s founding affidavit fails to canvass the issue of balance of convenience.
He said it was critical that the Authority acts decisively and that is what it did. The Respondent has concluded a phase of its investigation.
Given the information already gathered and what has been learnt from it, failing to immediately act would be recklessly placing lives at risk. He said the failure to swiftly respond to request to approve manuals did not entitle the Applicant to use unapproved manuals.
Mosinyi denied what Major Blue Air management said, stating that the investigation was carried to determine the extent of the Applicant’s non-compliance with Civil Aviation Act and its regulations.
The Respondent was entitled to suspend the Applicant in terms of Civil Aviation (Air Operator Certification and Administration) Regulation 13 (a).
He said the Authority was entitled to take the action that it did in order to safeguard human life and ensure the continued safety of air transport.
Further, that the Department of Transport and Works does not have the authority to intervene in the manner that the CAAB did as Major Blue Air management claims.
