CONSIDERATION NINETEEN- CASAs REGULATORY PHILOSOPHY
Consider that CASA has a Regulatory Philosophy, and I have included an excerpt from Australian Flying magazine on the release of CASAs Regulatory Philosophy, that came out in 2015. CASAs Regulatory Philosophy can be accessed here. Our regulatory philosophy | Civil Aviation Safety Authority (casa.gov.au)
“Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) director of aviation safety Mark Skidmore says a set of new key principles will make a “real, positive and lasting difference” to the regulator’s dealings with the aviation community.
As part of its response to the Aviation Safety Regulatory Review (ASRR), Australia’s aviation safety watchdog has published a list of 10 key principles that will guide and direct its approach to regulation.
These included a commitment to maintaining the trust and respect of the aviation community, as well as taking a consultative and collaborative approach to developing policies, having safety as the most important consideration, and a risk-based approach to regulatory action and decision-making, among others.
Skidmore said the new regulatory philosophy was “clear and concise set or principles that would guide all our actions” and sharpen the focus on how and how well CASA did its job.
The director of aviation safety said CASA would, where necessary, develop new policies and procedures to give “meaningful effect to our regulatory philosophy”.
“I am committed to ensuring these principles make a real, positive and lasting difference to the way CASA operates and way we interact with the aviation community,” Skidmore said in a statement on Wednesday.”
Whilst I do appreciate that CASA may not be legally obligated to comply with its Regulatory Philosophy, it does have an ethical and a moral obligation to comply, and when a CASA employee chooses not to act in accordance with that Regulatory Philosophy it does potentially indicate a lack of good intent. With regards to the Regulatory Philosophy, CASA has clearly not complied with it, and most especially points 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8, and 9 of that Philosophy.
I respectfully request that you consider the obligations placed on CASA by each of those points in their philosophy, in arriving at your final determination.
CONCLUSION
I robustly maintain that the levels of control that APTA offered were industry leading. Importantly, APTA underwent a two-year revalidation process with 10 CASA personnel, and many hundreds of thousands of dollars were invested by APTA in that process. The APTA product was designed from its initial conception to provide unparalleled levels of operational control, and it did so very well. Like all organisations it must be subject to a process of continuous improvement and that is something the organisation embraced.
I have a reasonable expectation that CASA will respect the Rule of Law, i.e. that CASA be open to criticism from me without fear of retribution, that CASA will apply the law equally and fairly to all industry participants, to ensure that’s CASAs opinions and laws are known to industry participants, and that they are capable of being known by being clear and concise, as is required of CASA in the Civil Aviation Act. I have an expectation in all my dealings with CASA, that there will be a presumption of innocence, and that my business is not subjected adversely to a retrospective change of opinion. I also believe that all CASA personnel are subject to, and accountable to the law.
There can be no doubt that CASA came into my Organisation and closed it down. There was no safety case and there was no regulatory breach. I was trying to protect my flying school and 9 others initially to survive in an increasingly complex environment. CASA should have been supportive of the concept. It increased safety, increased regulatory compliance, increased organisational skillsets, and provided significant business opportunities, most particularly in regional areas.
This is not a minor administrative compliant. This is a complaint about abuses of position and power. It is a complaint about misconduct by a small number of senior CASA personnel. It is a complaint about the many millions of dollars damaged caused to so many businesses. It is a complaint about the many students, customers, staff and suppliers that have been impacted. It’s a complaint about the loss of such a unique opportunity for regional Australian aviation that could have been realised. It’s a complaint about a small group of personnel within CASA referred to in industry as The Iron Ring” and consists of Mr Crawford, Mr Aleck, and Mr Martin who choose to act unlawfully, and with a flagrant disregard for ethics, morals, professionalism or their obligations in the workplace. It’s a complaint about my family’s life being decimated by the deliberate actions and decisions of these individuals, with no supporting justification for their actions on the basis of safety or any regulatory breaches.
Allegations have been made against the Iron Ring before, on many occasions, and their conduct continues unchecked by a CASA Board that is either impotent or chooses to be complicit in this conduct. You will recall that I wrote to the CASA Board on multiple occasions raising significant allegations. The Board chose to ignore those requests for more than 6 months. You will recall that I asked to meet with any two Members of the Board to raise my allegations. Had the Chair of the Board acted in a timely manner, so much damage could have been avoided.
The Chair of the Board eventually chose to facilitate that meeting over 6 months later, but rather than two Board Members being present as requested, he came with a CASA employee. The very same CASA employee only weeks later directed my Employer that my continuing employment “was not tenable”, and I was left unemployed.
I draw your attention to the ABC investigative piece that was aired on the ABC. A story about a gentleman by the name of Bruce Rhoades. The program was about the breaches of administrative law, being denied natural justice and procedural fairness. I had previously spoken to Mr Rhoades before he passed away from cancer while still trying to clear his name. Like me, he lost everything. I have spoken to his family and I have their consent to mention this matter. I urge you to utilise the resources of the Ombudsman Office and obtain a copy of the ABC 7.30 program that aired regarding the conduct of the “iron ring”. The program cannot be viewed here as it has time expired, although I have attached it for your reference. Dying pilot tries to clear his name after fatal plane crash - ABC News
Please find a link to current Youtube videos that Mr. Rhoades produced prior to his death.
CASA - A LAW UNTO ITSELF - YouTube
These same individuals have caused enormous harm to me, my family and the people around me. They also caused so much harm to Mr Rhoades and his family. Since this matter commenced over two years ago, I have received overwhelming support from industry. Whether it be the 1500 Posts and ¾ million views on Pprune, or the less public support, it has been exceptional.
Several business owners and pilots have approached me with allegations against those same individuals. They will be willing to come forward and present their allegations if given the opportunity.
Several senior CASA personnel that have since left the organisation have come forward. They are not on the side of either CASA or me, but they are prepared to come forward and simply tell the truth. I have their consent and I can put you in contact with them, if you feel this would assist you at arriving at your determination.
The Members of APTA are prepared to come forward and make a written submission outlining how APTA increased safety and compliance, and how unparalleled levels of operational control was maintained, and in fact, several organisations have already made those submissions to CASA.
Personally, I have been devastated by CASAs actions. At 56 years of age I have lost my home, my two businesses, my life savings, my reputation, and my health. My family has been traumatised, and as we are imminently to be declared bankrupt, one must really question whether CASAs actions were reasonable in the circumstances when this all could have been avoided by a well-intentioned discussion that could have had this entire fiasco avoided had CASA acted in a well-intentioned manner, and in accordance with their own procedures
I hope that this additional material is of some benefit in bringing more transparency to the matter. I will forward through two additional submissions, as stated earlier.
Respectfully
Glen Buckley