I have taken your suggestion on board. I have had a crack at putting together an overview into a single A4 page. A challenge. I try to write to multiple potential audiences with varying degrees of knowledge when i write something. Anyway, i did get it onto A4. The font size was 0.5, and quite impractical. Here it is in a larger font size, but over 5 X A4 pages. I thought this would be easier. Its a starting point, I look forward to feedback from you and others as time permits
Explanation of “structure”.
I need to ensure there is a clear understanding of the “structure” that I used. This was the identical structure that many operators utilised within the industry throughout my 25 years in the flight training industry, with full CASA approval.
It was the exact structure that I redesigned with 10 CASA personnel, over a 2 year period, culminating in CASA revalidating the exact structure in April of 2017. A full 18 months before Mr Aleck would have the Ombudsman believe.
This revalidation was an exhaustive process requiring an investment of several hundred thousand dollars, and required CASA to assess, approve and peer review many thousands of pages of systems and procedures contained within our Exposition, interview and approve Key personnel before they formally approved them.
Eighteen months later, CASA would declare that exact structure that they revalidated 18 months earlier to be suddenly unlawful and shut the business down. That occurred in October 2018.
The business was a Registered Training Organisation RTO #22508 delivering training in the flight training sector, across multiple bases. This arrangement was accepted by the Australian Skills and qualifications Authority (ASQA), the overriding Authority for the RTO.
The structure I had adopted for many years was a one university multi campus approach. This exact structure had always been approved by CASA and was common practice for at least my 25 years in the industry.
CASA have led the Ombudsman to believe this was not the case. CASA has led the Ombudsman to be of the view that CASA had never permitted this structure. That is blatantly false and misleading. This exact model that I outline here, and that I adopted, had ALWAYS been approved by CASA, amongst many operators, and that had been the case for all time.
There is no doubt that I had been operating in this identical model for six years, other Operators for far longer than I.
Mr Aleck claims to the Ombudsman that CASA was not aware of anyone, including me, adopting the structure. In fact, Mr Aleck falsely claims CASA never permitted that exact structure. Concerningly, Mr Aleck has Ied the Ombudsman to be of the view that CASA never permitted it. Not with me and not with any other Operator, at any time. A blatant untruth that he knows to be untrue. CASA formally approved this exact structure for many operators over many years.
The new regulatory structure to be finalised by September 1st, 2017, would lead to the closure of my school and many others, as the new regulations removed access to approximately 90% of revenue. We would lose access to our core qualification being the 150 hour Commercial Pilot Licence, unless we met the CASA required revalidation process.
Many schools were confronted with ceasing operations.
In mid-2016, I had a number of meetings with CASA personnel with the proposal to expand on exactly what I had been doing for many years, and to redesign the entire system from the ground up in conjunction with CASA to meet the new regulatory structure that was being introduced.
The proposal I discussed with CASA in the meetings of mid-2016,was a collaborative approach amongst 10 Australian Owned flying schools. The purpose being to increase safety and compliance while pursuing group opportunities.
The APTA model as put forward by me, to CASA in those meetings of mid-2016, and as recollected to this day by the CASA personnel present at those meetings, was that the structure was as follows.
Let’s consider the Ballarat Aero Club, as they were an affected Member by the closure of APTA by CASA two and a half years after these meetings.
On our website we stated “
you maintain complete control over your business. Your business maintains its identity and individuality. Your administration function and procedures remain completely your own, independent of the Alliance.”
“The Business and administration component”.
Like all regional aero clubs, Ballarat Aero Club are run by a committee of volunteers.
Those volunteers have a recreational interest in aviation. That Committee would be drawn from people in the local community from local farms and businesses and have an enormous depth of experience outside of aviation. Typically, they would have no specialist knowledge at all of flight training, but yet they want to continue deliver flight training to their members and the local regional community from the airport.
The Committee want to focus on growing Membership so that the aeroclub can thrive. They want to organise flying days and competitions, trivia nights, deciding what colour to paint the classroom, which photocopier to purchase, which internet provider to use, collecting revenue, renewing membership, choosing utilities providers, cleaning, choosing which beers to stock in the bar, sharing knowledge and experience, building companionship, bookkeeping, etc etc etc. That is why they volunteer for the role.
It is important to understand that the Ballarat Aero Club cannot deliver flight training on their own. They do not have the CASA Approval, and they do not have the CASA approved Key Personnel.
They are an aero club only; they are not a flying school. It is far more likely that they will have a liquor licence rather than a licence to run a flying school.
The Aero Club could approach CASA and make application to have their own Part 141/142 flying school. That would require a lengthy process costing many hundreds of thousands of dollars, and require employing Key Personnel, writing manuals etc. The committee would not have the expertise, nor the time and resources. Primarily, they want to run an aero club, not a flying school. Running a flying school requires high levels of responsibility and accountability in legislation, all of them with families that could potentially be impacted, if they were to attempt to take on such a project with such responsibility and expertise required.
Without that CASA approval, the Ballarat Aero Club are not handing over anything to me that they would normally have any operational control over, and I think that’s a significant point.
They are as stated, just an aero club, they are not permitted to deliver flight training. They do not have any operational control over a flying school because quite simply, they do not have a flying school. They are not qualified, and they do not have the approval. The Committee of that aero club are residents of the local community, employed fulltime outside of aviation.
The Committee Members want a flying school but realise the impracticality of it.The Committee recognises that the aero club does however, have underutilised facilities and access to aircraft, as well as a local population that wants to fly. There is a significant market available, it is a service that an aeroclub would like to provide.
Operational Control of the flying school.
The Aero Club approaches APTA and asks APTA to run take over full operational control of a flying school at the Ballarat Aerodrome. Not an unusual request because this is something that I have been doing for many years with full and formal CASA approval.
Its important to understand that there was only ever one CASA issued Certificate for flight training referred to as an Authorisation or Air Operator Certificate (AOC). It was issued by CASA to my Company in 2006 with CASA issued Aviation Reference Number 759217. The Company was also a Registered Training Organisation (#22508). All training at all bases was conducted under that single Approval. The respective aero clubs do not have their own approval, nor do they have the CASA required Key Personnel. They provide the facilities, and I run the school. Exactly as proposed to CASA, and recollected by those CASA personnel back in mid 2016.
In addition to the certificate the CASA legislation requires three Key Personnel, all employed by me. Those being the CASA approved CEO, the CASA approved Head of Operations (HOO) and the CASA approved Safety Manager. They are the three accountable Personnel in a Part 141/142 Flight Training Organisation. The aero club committee of volunteers are not in the legislation, they are not recognised, and in fact it is likely that CASA has never met with the Committee. Contrast that to the legislated responsibilities on me and my Key Personnel as the accountable persons. Those significant responsibilities can be found here in the legislation from CASR 142.75 onwards.
Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 (legislation.gov.au)
The Committee of the Ballalrat Aero Club, or Latrobe valley Aero Club, or any other entity, approaches me and after a thorough process I am satisfied, and I take over full operational control of a flying school for that aero club.
The Committee does not have, and has never had any legislated responsibilities for a flying school because they do not have one. CASA would have no interaction with the Aeroclub Committee. They are not accountable in legislation. CASA communicates only with me as the Authorisation Holder, and my CASA approved Key Personnel.
As the sole holder of the only CASA issued authorisation, and as the person employing the three Key Personnel my legislated responsibilities are comprehensive.
There can be no confusion. The Committee has no legislated responsibility. All responsibility in the legislation is on me and my Key Personnel.
A small sampling of the legislated responsibilities is below. While not exhaustive it clearly clarifies who is responsible for operational control. There can be no doubt as to who is responsible. It is clearly legislated.
The Committee has no operational control at all over any operational aspects of APTAs flying school operation. The relationship between the Committee and APTA is professional, and constant feedback is sought by APTA, but APTA runs the flying school. The Committee is welcome to provide feedback and suggestions but I maintain full operational control and responsibility. The authority is absolute, and I can cease operations at any base instantly if it were ever required.
The only decision that the committee of that Aero Club has to make is. Do they want APTA to continue operating a flying school at that location?
The Committee has absolutely no operational control over the flying school, and nor do they want it. I cannot think of any situation where any Member of an aero club committee would try to exert any operational control over a flying school operation. I have never experienced that
I have extended this offer to CASA before. Please provide a scenario that concerns CASA, whereby a Committee member could exert any attempt at any operational control over any aspect of the flying school operations, and allow me to address it. There are no realistic scenarios.
If it was something operational, I was fully responsible for it, as legislated. I am the Holder of the CASA Authorisation. Examples of this would be that I am responsible for making bookings,enrolling students, training students, authorising all flights, being responsible for fleet airworthiness, staff selection and induction, maintenance standards, pilot fatigue monitoring, investigations into accidents or incidents, staff training, staff promotion, all group communications, quality outcomes, pass rates, safety standards, training records, theory delivery, audit preparation, all documentation associated with all training, ensuring adequate resources., communicating with CASA etc.
The responsibilities of me and the three Key personnel are very clear and outlined in the legislation. A small sampling of the legislated responsibilities that I accept as the single Authorisation Holder are.
· Ensuring the safe conduct of the operator’s authorised Part 142 activities in accordance with the operator’s Part 142 authorisation, exposition, and civil aviation legislation.
· Has sufficient suitably experienced, qualified, and competent personnel.
· Has a suitable management structure.
· Is adequately financed and resourced.
· Sets and maintains standards for the activities in accordance with the operator’s Exposition.
· Complies with civil aviation legislation.
· Implements and manages the operator’s safety management system.
· Has procedures that ensure that all of the operator’s personnel understand the operator’s safety policy.
· Has an organisational structure that ensures that the safety manager is independent and not subject to undue influence.
· Tells CASA if the operator enters a leasing, financing, or other arrangement for the supply of a turbine‑engine aircraft for use in the activities.
· tells CASA if the operator becomes aware that any arrangement may affect the operator’s safe conduct of the activities.
· Manages the operator’s quality assurance management system.
· establishing and regularly reviewing the operator’s safety performance indicators and targets.
· Ensuring that the operator’s exposition is monitored and managed for continuous improvement.
· Ensuring that key personnel satisfactorily carry out the responsibilities of their positions in accordance with the operator’s exposition, and civil aviation legislation.
· Safely manage the authorised Part 142 activities of the operator.
· Monitoring and maintaining, and reporting to the chief executive officer on, the operator’s compliance with the provisions of civil aviation legislation and the operator’s exposition that apply to the activities.
· Setting and maintaining the operator’s standards for the activities in accordance with the operator’s exposition
· Ensuring that the training is conducted in accordance with the operator’s training management system.
· Ensuring that the activities are monitored effectively.
· Managing the maintenance and continuous improvement of the operator’s fatigue risk management system
· Ensuring the proper allocation and deployment of aircraft, flight simulation training devices and personnel for use in the activities.
· Ensuring that the operator’s personnel are provided with the information and documentation necessary to properly carry out their responsibilities.
· Ensuring that each examiner who conducts an activity for the operator has access to the parts of the operator’s exposition that relate to the examiner’s duties.
· Reporting to the chief executive officer on the operator’s compliance with the matters mentioned.
· Ensuring that each instructor or examiner who conducts contracted recurrent training or contracted checking for the operator has access to the contracting operator’s training and checking manual;
· Ensuring that the operator complies with section 28BH of the Act in relation to flight crew.
· Managing the operation of the safety management system including managing corrective, remedial and preventative action in relation to the system
· Regularly reporting to the chief executive officer on the effectiveness of the safety management system
· Managing the maintenance and continuous improvement of the safety management system and the fatigue risk management system.
I hope that this overview provides some clarity.