Glen Buckley and Australian small business -V- CASA

[glenb]

Aviation Ruling

So anyway, after CASA initiated the initial action on the Temporary locations procedure, and embarrassingly realised it was actually their own procedure that they had, suggested, provided, approved, and audited, the topic moved to the "Aviation Ruling". Once again its the same double edged sword,. The failure of CASA to achieve clear and concise aviation safety standards and the stubborn refusal to act with good intent towards industry.

Now it must have been bring your kid to work day at CASA, because to use that particular document was quite ludicrous. After 9 weeks of robust discussion with CASA, CASA conceded that the Aviation Ruling was not relevant in this case and took it “off the table”. The Aviation Ruling was not the appropriate document to be using to take such substantive action. I recall the introduction of the Aviation Ruling and the circumstances around its introduction. It was a consequence of Charter Operators having their operations shut down by CASA, and they would “pop” up the next day under a different Operators approval. There was a specific occurrence at Essendon Airport that prompted its release. From initial receipt I made it clear that it was not the appropriate document to be using, as it;

1. Does not have a “head of power”.
2. Was written in 2006 for an entirely different regulatory environment.·
3. Was written for the Charter Industry, or what is referred to as Civil Aviation Regulation 206 (CAR206) operation for commercial purposes. CASA themselves determined that flying training was not a CAR 206 operation in September of 2014 and removed it.
4. The terminology refers to personnel positions that are in CAR 206 operations, and do not exist in flying training organisations.
5. On its release the flying schools were advised that in fact it did not apply to them, and that is the recollection of peers in the industry.

I lodged correspondence to that effect, and if you are wanting more detail please refer to the attachment.

So after 9 weeks with the Temporary locations identified as CASAs own procedure, and the Aviation Ruling off the table, one would reasonably expect that the temporary date of approval on my business would be lifted and we would be back to Business as Usual. Ahhh, its not to be. The changing goal posts begin, the problem quickly snowballs as CASA now move to the topic of contracts. As the Business Owner it was becoming increasingly apparent their is not a lot of "good intention being displayed"

I remind you that this entire fiasco could have been avoided, had my Flight Operations Inspector (FOI, the subject matter expert from my CMT) come and verbally raised his/her concerns with me. Quite simply, a well intentioned 2 hour discussion would have been a better starting point for the process, although CASA chose the most intrusive action available to it, and that is despite their obligations under their own Regulatory Philosophy and most particularly their own regulatory philosophy point 9, and I remind CASA that there have been no safety concerns raised. https://www.casa.gov.au/about-us/sta...ory-philosophy

https://www.casa.gov.au/sites/defaul.../2006/ar01.pdf
Aviation Ruling https://www.casa.gov.au/rules-and-regulations/standard-page/aviation-rulings