A copy of the initial notification that CASA sent me, can be accessed here:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/k3qn3qdgoa...ation.pdf?dl=0
In that initial notification used as the basis to close my business down, CASA made an interesting statement at the top of page two, in the paragraph that starts with "Paragraph 7..." That one paragraph should best be separated into two paragraphs. The first part of the paragraph deals with written words from the Aviation ruling, and the latter part is application of Mr Alecks opinion.
For clarity. The paragraph reads. "Paragraph 7 of the CASA Aviation states, "The AOC Holder at all times remains responsible for the actions of another person conducting operations under the AOC"
There is absolutely no disagreement between CASA and I on that matter,. As the AOC Holder i do remain responsible of any person operating under my AOC. Its a significant responsibility. That's "every person" irrespective of whether they are an employee or not. Irrespective of the nature of their employment whether they be fulltime, part time, casual or even if they are flying voluntarily. I am responsible for those persons. Even if the employees are employed by another Entity but operating under my AOC, I am responsible for them. Its a very wide net of responsibility. Consider the significance of that. I am responsible for EVERY person that operates under my AOC.
My concern arises where Mr Aleck takes a very clear and concise sentence in the Aviation Ruling that states The AOC Holder at all times remains responsible for the actions of another person conducting operations under the AOC"
and then applies his opinion and that sentence now means. "The Ruling does not permit an AOC Holder to authorize a third party body cooperate to operate under its AOC.
That is not what it says. In fact i interpret the Avuiation Ruling tpo say the opposite of Mr alecks assertion. The Aviation Ruling is effectively saying. You can let any person operate under your AOC if you want to, but be aware. If something goes wrong, you are not getting off the hook. You are responsible. for every single person, and will be held accountable for them. It doesnt matter if they are emplyed by you or someone else. That will not be a defence. I cannot ever try and say. "Hey, I wasnt paying him, so Im not responsible for
A copy of the Aviation Ruling and relevant information can be found here. The Aviation Ruling being the document that Mr Aleck used as the basis for his decision to close my business down.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/a6rzw55yad...uling.pdf?dl=0
This link provides additional relevant information on the Aviation Ruling including correspondence to Mr Aleck.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/lewmcp0nas...uling.pdf?dl=0
Dear Craig Martin,
I have a number of issues that I had submitted through to the Commonwealth Ombudsman, some being actioned, and some pending me approaching CASA to obtain a response. Therefore on the Ombudsman’s advice I will be writing to you on a number of matters that require clarification. As I am after a strictly legal response rather than an “operational one”, or opinion, I will be directing the inquiry to Dr Aleck in his role as the CASA Executive Manager of Legal and Regulatory Affairs. I will direct this email through you, and include Dr Aleck in on all emails as I have with this one.
I have also included Mr Anthony Mathews as the Chair of the CASA Board, and the person ultimately responsible for the governance obligations. I had previously raised these issues with him verbally at our meeting, but thought it best to put it in writing to ensure there was no confusion.
This query relates to the applicability of the Aviation Ruling. I point out that the previous Executive Manager Regulatory Services and Surveillance prior to Mr Craig Martin was Mr Peter White, and after 2 months of CASA initiating the action Mr Peter White advised that it was an error on CASAs behalf, and in fact it was the inappropriate document to be using. Noting that often policy application changes depending on the personnel involved I was seeking clarification on the use of the aviation ruling as the document used as the basis of the CASA action.
In seeking clarification on the use of the aviation ruling, I note;
On its release, Flying schools were advised that it did not apply to them, and that it applied to charter operators only. By applying it to APTA it was being applied to a flying school, in fact it was only being applied to my flying school, and not others. Are you able to explain why this would be the case.
The aviation ruling has no “head of power”. Can you confirm why that would be used.
The Aviation ruling was written for a completely different regulatory environment, i.e. CAR 5 legislation, which was replaced by the Part 61/141/142 legislation. Can you confirm that it does apply.
Refers to commercial operations, and in fact flying training is not classified as a commercial operation and has not been since 2014. I have attached the definition of “commercial purposes” although assume you would be fully aware of this in your role. Can you advise if my understanding is correct.
In 3.1 of the Aviation Ruling, at no stage did any entity advertise it could conduct commercial aviation operations, in fact we did not have any approvals for commercial operations.
In 3.2, only
A, engaged the staff, looked after maintenance etc.
In 3.3, although flying schools do not have a Chief Pilot, they have a HOO. In the case of APTA we had two CASA approved HOOs, with a third in training, and the operations were more highly supervised than was the industry norm.
In 3.5, there was only one set of systems and they were the systems that CASA helped us write, approved, and audited, so I contend that they were reviewed by CASA
In 6.1, there was in fact only one set of systems and they were the CASA approved APTA systems. There were no other systems
In 6.2 all systems were clearly under the oversight of the Key Personnel of the AOC Holder, and in fact no other entities had any Key Personnel.
In 6.3, there was only one set of documentation and that was the APTA documentation that CASA helped us write, approved and audited.
In 7, as the Authorisation Holder, and AOC Holder, and with 15 years experience as a CASA approved HOO at all times I accepted full responsibility for the actions of all personnel and equipment being used under my AOC. This was never in any doubt, and I accepted that responsibility.
In 10, everything was done with far more than a reasonable degree of care and diligence, and all operations were conducted in accordance with the procedures that CASA developed with us, were approved by CASA, and had been audited by CASA.
For clarity, there was only one authorisation holder, the personnel were employed by APTA, the only systems used were the APTA systems.
To be frank, I think CASA erred, and CASA refused to admit their error.
I hope you can provide an extensive response to bring some clarity to the use of the aviation ruling.
Thanking you in anticipation of your co-operation and truthful responses, respectfully Glen Buckley