Glen Buckley and Australian small business -V- CASA

[glenb]

An appeal to the CASA Board, sent 6/11/19

To each and every Member of the Board:

My suggestion of making an allegation of malfeasance against Mr Carmody is sincere, well considered, properly intentioned, truthful, supported, and primarily intended in the interests of aviation safety.

I am calling on the Board for good governance to prevail, and to intervene if required.

On that “governance” consideration alone, the four personnel cannot continue to operate, in an operational role where they are making decisions that affect safety and businesses. They must be stood aside until my allegations can be refuted, with no suggestion of innocence or guilt attached, and obviously on full pay and conditions. Obviously not my decisions to make, but that would be the fair and reasonable thing to do. That is what I would have done when I was CEO of my own “safety” organisation.

I am formally calling on the Board to intervene, and demonstrate the qualities that the industry, and the Australian public expect of any Board, and most certainly a Board with the Australian Coat of Arms hanging above it, and also as Australia’s safety regulator, CASA. Seriously. It is reasonable.

Those four personnel must have the allegations made against them seriously considered, and especially if they are to continue in an operational role. If you will not act on good governance, I will clearly place the supporting safety case here.

The APTA 142 model provided all 10 members with a safety department with group funding of $250,000 per annum. In the new CASA enforced system, being applied to APTA uniquely, and not other flight training organisations. The Ballarat Aero Club will become a 141 school, and lose any regulatory obligation to run a safety management system, or have a safety manager. I suggest the aero clubs safety budget will reduce to $5000, as it is forced out of APTA.

The new “direct operational” control model that is being forced on member schools against their clear preference is a system that provides significantly lower levels of auditing, mentoring, professional development courses, testing, feedback, safety resourcing etc. The new CASA ‘model” is clearly failing, as I advised.

Accidents and incidents are increasing at a concerning rate CASA have the statistics. This is exactly, as I repeatedly, and in writing advised, it is not the individual operators fault, it is the CASA system being forced on flying school against their clear preference. Any system with less auditing, mentoring, professional development, testing, feedback, safety resourcing, funding etc will most likely result in degraded safety outcomes.

If you have any doubt, simply ask the Ballarat Aero Club, any of the instructors, any of the aircraft owners, committee members, the students, and their families. “Was the previously approved APTA system safer, or do you think the “direct operational control” model is safer.” You will be alarmed, I can assure you. I think you will find an overwhelming response.

This matter can only grow, and gain more attention. It will simultaneously become more “embarrassing’. If it wasn’t such a hazardous behaviour, I could only describe it as child like. It must be stopped at Board level.

At this stage, I have no intention to publish this letter, but will do so on Friday at 5PM, if important safety matters are not addressed. For clarity. In my professional opinion, I believe that CASA actions and decisions being made by those four personnel, unacceptably increase the chance of an aviation incident or accident. There are Board Members of CASA who are, or have been, pilots. On that alone, and with that knowledge, those particular board members will be compelled to act. This is not a matter to be engaging in bullying or intimidation. I simply ask the same questions of you, that you should be asking of Mr Carmody:

1. What is the “safety case” supporting the initial action over 12 months ago, against APTA?
2. If there is no supporting safety case, please open the regulations and show me clearly and concisely the regulation/s that were broken if any.
3. If there is no supporting safety case, and there have been no regulatory breaches identified, we are dealing with opinion. Whose “opinion” is it? We need a name.
4. Are we (Mr Carmody and the Board), prepared to fully stand behind those four personnel that Glen Buckley has named?
5. Are we all (Mr Carmody and the Board) aware of CASAs regulatory philosophy, and other obligations and expectations placed on us.
6. Is it true that a number of businesses have closed down, and people have lost their livelihoods?
7. Please outline what we are now intending to achieve, and any positive safety outcomes achieved.

As I have repeatedly advised. I am fully available to travel anywhere in Australia, to meet with any two members of the Board, at short notice.

The purpose of this correspondence is to provide the Board with time to consider their actions and decisions. In the interests of safety, and to encourage good decision making. I require only an acknowledgement that this correspondence has been received by all members of the Board. If CASA are compelled to provide a written response, I understand. I believe that there will be less pressure, and better decisions will be made if the obligation is a simple acknowledgement of distribution and receipt to all Board Members.

Respectfully, Glen.