Ahhh, so now its about contracts
So, we initially had the Temporary Locations procedure as an issue, and the Aviation Ruling. Unfortunately for CASA, they didn’t stick, so the new topic for the last 6 months has been contracts. This is a complicated one, and I will endeavour to keep it as straight forward as possible.
You will recall that CASA specifically identified to industry in 2006 when the Aviation Ruling was released that it did not apply to flying schools. Evidence of that fact is that CASA for my last 25 years in the industry has accepted two or more schools sharing the one AOC. Latrobe Valley Aero Club operated under the approval of a respected regional Victorian operator right up until the night they joined APTA, and in fact I had TVSA at Bacchus Marsh under our AOC for a period of time, as they were unable to secure the required Key Personnel. I am also aware of QLD operators doing the same thing, and it was accepted by CASA. In our case CASA had been advised and was fully aware.
At the time I had the good fortune to operate under CMT 2 who would always endeavour to find safe and compliant solutions to support industry. To sum it up, I guess you could say they were well intentioned and professional. So, we have ascertained that the practice was accepted by CASA.
"Dear Mr CASA. I don’t believe you have ever required or hold on file at any time in CASAs history, a requirement for the parties involved to have a contract between those Parties. The requirement for a contract was a new requirement, and a requirement placed on APTA specifically. If I am incorrect in those assertions, please feel free to advise me of so.
I am taking a bit of poetic licence with the exact terminology, but the exchange went something like this.
CASA You don’t have contracts
APTA We were never required to have contracts, you had never mentioned them previously, and other operators don’t have them, but due to our foresight we actually do have contracts, cant you recall that we have provided them to you on numerous occasions.
CASA No you haven’t.
APTA Please allow me to show you the evidence by way of the emails.
It was somewhat to see them all nicely printed off in front of the large team of personnel at the next meeting, I can assure you
Anyway, so now CASA have worked out that they actually did hold the contracts, and in fact had they realised that, they may not have tried using the Aviation Ruling. In fact, all though the Aviation Ruling doesn’t apply to Flying Schools. I did draw on it during the design of APTA and the contracts. But unfortunately, CASA steadfastly refuse to admit they erred, and continue to press on. I have attached the contracts that we use as an attachment. Now I know contracts can be boring things, but I would encourage you to open the attachment and have a look at the contract. It has two parts. The legal stuff followed by section 2 which I refer to as the “spirit of APTA”. That is actually the fundamental part of what we were trying to achieve. As you scroll through the “Spirit” part, look how we hoped to engage with CASA. Thanks so much CASA for really stepping up to the plate and supporting industry.
So basically CASA say that they aren’t happy with the content of the contract that we have, and they cant actually identify what is wrong, and they advise me that its not their job to do it, so I go away and have a crack but its impossible. Where do I start, if I don’t know what is wrong? I explained to CASA that it was incumbent on them to give me guidance. It actually gets a bit amusing shortly, so please bear with me.
So anyway, CASA give me some suggested text, which I embed “word for word” as they suggested and submit that. Not accepted by them. WTF!!
CASA then give me some more suggested text for another crack at it. Once again I embed it word for word. I just want my operational restriction lifted, so will do whatever they want, and I am happy to comply. I submit their own suggested text word for word and submit it. CASA write to me and tell me we are finalised and all good to go. Hours later they write back to me and retract the contract that they said was OK.
To top it all off, I get an email from Mr Graeme Crawford stating the following “The quality of the input Glen provided at that point, reflected the absence of such adsvice, and a clear understanding of some of the issues CASA has identified as critical.
WELL MR CRAWFORD, I FULLY CONCUR BECAUSE ALL SUBMISSIONS HAVE BEEN WORD FOR WORD AS CASA ADVISED ME,
Concerningly that suggested to me that Mr Crawford had little idea of what was really going on. Anyway, here we are more than 7 months later, CASA still didn’t know what they wanted, so they outsourced it to an external legal service.
Ahhhh, I remember how I used to scold my kids. “You cant say something is wrong, if you don’t know what right is”. So CASA, if you don’t like the content of the contract, its incumbent upon you to tell me what you want. It would really help, if you could lift the temporary date on my business while you try and work it out.
For perfect clarity, and as I have told CASA repeatedly. I Glen Buckley as the Authorisation Holder, understand that I have total responsibility for all operations under my approval across all bases while delivering under the APTA approval. That does not mean there will never be an accident or an incident. It means that I must be able to robustly defend my position in court, and if found wanting, I am liable. I will put whatever you want in the contracts. I have attached a copy of the template contract that we use for APTA, and encourage readers to look at point 35 onwards.
And yet again, its CASAs failure to achieve clear and concise aviation safety standards as is required of them as one of their functions. Combine this with a lack of good intention, and it aint ever gonna work.
I think my next post will be about the audits, and that is where it gets really interesting. I think your gonna love the next one.