Ammended Part 8 of Senate submission.
Terms of reference
I have carefully reviewed the terms of reference, and I am fully satisfied that this submission attends to each one of them, and is relevant.
Drawing on my 25 years’ experience in the flight training industry, I can confidently state that:
· The current CASA legislation and regulatory structure is not fit for purpose, and at its worst point in 25 years. It is unnecessary complicated and too burdensome on business. It does nothing to improve the safety of aviation.
· The current CASA Organisational culture is also not fit for purpose, and is at its worst point in 25 years. The current leadership of CASA facilitate an unsafe culture, that impacts on the safety of aviation.
A poll of 1000 General Aviation (GA) participants found that well over 90 % of respondents believed that CASA had failed to provide “clear and concise aviation safety standards”, as is required of it in the Civil Aviation Act 1988.
The Civil Aviation Act 1988 stipulates specifically, that a core purpose of CASA is “developing and promulgating clear and concise aviation safety standards.”
If this were a road safety issue, action would have been taken, yet for some reason despite all the “Inquiries” over the years, no action is taken.
Let’s consider if we were discussing road rules rather than aviation rules. Can you imagine if road user feedback indicated that over 90% of road users, couldn’t understand the road rules? Can you imagine how much less safe the roads would be? It’s a concerning scenario. Action would be taken.
Yet a situation is permitted in the aviation industry where over 90% of pilots and other stakeholders are compelled to operate in that exact environment, an environment where the rules are not understood by over 90% of the intended users of those rules.
There is very clearly a greater safety risk if the intended users of those regulations cannot understand them. It is more likely that an accident or incident will occur.
The risk to road safety could be somewhat mitigated in the short term, while the road rules were made “clear and concise”. if the police force acted with good intent. If they ensured they were technically competent, well intentioned, aimed to build a relationship of confidence then trust, acted with integrity, and were good decision makers.
Imagine if the Deputy Commissioner or some other Key decision maker of Police Force was also the person that wrote and implemented those very same deficient road rules. If that employee also had none of the traits mentioned above and was able to build a small team of senior officers around him. That culture would fester throughout the organisation. The old “fish rots from the head” scenario.
That combination of poorly written rules and unsafe culture exists. Not in the Police, because the high levels of oversight, accountability and responsibility would make that entire scenario unrealistic.
It is this failure to achieve clear and concise aviation safety standards and an unsafe culture that actually facilitated a single employ of CASA having the power and authority to shut down my business with no notification, and without any supporting safety case whatsoever.
In reading this, please understand that my business, my livelihood and my wellbeing were effectively destroyed when someone in the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, a single CASA employee woke up one morning and decided to conjure up some law that does not exist. Up until that point, CASA was fully aware, and had formally approved of the operations of my safe and successful flying training organisation I had built and operated for over a decade and was continuing to build.
I lost everything, and many others including staff, customers and suppliers have been impacted. I was dealing with It was a change of mind, It was a complete reversal of my business by CASA, and the impact was significant.
The decision maker in my matter, being the CASA Executive Manager of Legal, International and Regulatory Affairs, took no external legal advice, and made a decision by applying his change of opinion only. That application of his “opinion” was the opposite of the precedent set by CASA during my 25-year involvement in the industry. He never raised or discussed his intended change of opinion with any Manager above him, or the CASA Board.
The truth is that CASA had always permitted a multi base, multi entity structure, and I had adopted that accepted structure for the last 6 years of my business, with full CASA knowledge and formal approval.
CASA denies this and has misrepresented the truth of the situation to the Commonwealth Ombudsman Office.
To test the validity of my argument, this matter can be resolved promptly. May I resctfully request that the Seantors put these two questions directly to CASA for response.
“CASA claims that they do not permit, and have not ever permitted more than flying school to operate under a single authorisation, as Glen Buckley did. Is that statement the truth?
It requires only a “yes” or “no” response. In fact, the most truthful and accurate response at this stage, will best be achieved by requesting a single word response.
Could I also suggest that the response is signed by any two CASA employees? Obviously, Mr Aleck as the Executive Manager of Legal, International, and Regulatory affairs should be one signatory. I am confident that no other CASA employee from the most junior employee through to the current CASA CEO will be prepared to counter sign that statement. It will not be returned with two signatures.
The second question would be
CASA has led the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s Office to be of the opinion that CASA first became aware of Glen Buckley’s structure just prior to October 2018, when they took action to close it down in October 2018. Mr Buckley claims that the truth is that CASA first became aware 2 ½ years prior and has provided us with emails (refer appendix) that support his contention. Mr Buckley claims that he worked with CASA personnel over many years attending to over CASA stipulated requirements 600 requirements to obtain revalidation in April 2017 in order to continue doing the exact same thing he had been doing for 6 years.
Does CASA still maintain that they first became aware of Mr Buckley’s structure just prior to October 2018?
Similarly, this requires only a yes or no.
If there is any doubt, as to the validity of my statement I direct you to the CASA CEO, Ms Pip Spence, she will be compelled to tell you the truth on this matter, and she will have access to personnel that provide her with that information.
My assumption being that the CASA employee has provided that untruthful information to pervert the findings of the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s Office to cover up both the error, and the misconduct.