Advocate wanted.

[glenb]

One of Pprunes more bizarre requests.

I have a meeting with CASA in Melbourne at 11AM this Thursday. I have sent a fairly substantive (approximately 10,000 word) document with some fairly strong questions. To their credit, they certainly appear to have stepped up to the plate. I will be walking into a meeting with a number of people I assume. Ideally I would have liked a one to one meeting, but unfortunately those days with CASA are long gone.

Therefore I am in the situation of needing some independent perspective of the meeting.

Why don't I take someone from within my own organisation?

Basically I don't want to potentially stain the relationship between the Regulator and my staff. Many of my staff will be in this Industry for some time and I don't want them too jaded, too early. Let em have some fun in the Industry first.

Secondly, I am after someone Independent. I don't need someone with any Pecuniary interest in my Business at all. I would like them to give me wise counsel, and an honest debriefing after the meeting.

Thirdly, I don't want to approach any of my respected peers in the Industry. They may feel awkward saying no to me, out of concern for their own Relationship.

What's in it for you? ill certainly shout you lunch afterwards, and I will donate $200 to the charity of your choice. Feel free to PM me if you think you could be of assistance.

Cheers. Glen.

[josephfeatherweight]

Wish I was around to help, good luck Glen!

[mickjoebill]

Have you considered asking if they would agree to an audio recording of the meeting?

Alternativly or in addition, employ a stenographer?

Will THEY be taking notes?

Mickjoebill

[mickjoebill]

Worth a reminder that their is now a federal commissioner for small business, in addition to state comisioners.
One of the roles of this office is to support small business sectors who are being adversely effected by unreasonable amounts of government red tape.

From the website
"The role of the Australian Small Business Commissioner is to:

provide information and assistance to small businesses, including referral to dispute resolution services;

represent small business interests and concerns to the Australian Government; and

work with industry and government to promote a consistent and coordinated approach to small business matters."



Mickjoebill

[Flying Bear]

Good on you, Glen!

I am aware of your document and am certainly in lockstep with many of your points. As someone looking to start a small training organisation with much the same goals as you state for your own, I share your concerns and respect your approach. Hopefully you get a positive outcome for both yourself, the rest of us and CASA.

Would love to take you up on the request, but as you well know with me, I'm somewhere in the desert and not easily recoverable to Melbourne!

All the best with the meeting, I hope you don't really need the advocate. Let us know how it goes.

[Sunfish]

Just a few points which you probably will know anyway, an independent "friend" is a good idea. CASA will attempt to intimidate you with its array of staff.

First, CASA will be taking notes and any minutes of the meeting, they will have the numbers, so if there is any "he said / she said" aftermath, you will lose because it will be CASA's version of events that prevails.

Asking for an audio record is tantamount to saying you don't trust them.

Do not threaten, swear, or assert any wrongdoing or unfairness, inequity of denial of natural justice or procedural fairness, nor express displeasure under any circumstances, you will just annoy them an d harden attitudes. This is where pilot egos can bring you undone - you could end up worse off - even thrown out of the industry as not being a "fit and proper person".

Do not threaten to go to a higher authority (DAS, local member, Minister, etc.) that is guaranteed to fail to produce useful results when dealing with public servants.

Do not agree to anything except the possibility of further discussion.

Your best approach in my opinion is to "fail to understand" CASAs objections to what you want to do. You wish to understand the objections so that you can together with CASA address them and produce a win/win outcome for all concerned.

There are several neurolinguistic and negotiating techniques for achieving this. Probably the most important is to chunk the problem down into small pieces and them keep asking "what if we could fix this bit?". An honest answerer to this must either address the issues one by one or force CASA into a blanket "NO". In that case, since CASA is an honest body, you must be dealing with a regulatory problem outside CASAs control, so you can then lobby to help CASA by getting the law changed can't you?.

My own view is that unless there is some written indication that a positive outcome is achievable, then you are wasting your time even meeting CASA. You have much more to loose and nothing to gain.

[Squawk7700]

Do some quick research.... I was of the belief that in Victoria you were legally allowed to record a conversation for your own purposes. You just can't use it in court if needed unless you had permission to take it.

[IFEZ]

Glenb, you are wise to take someone with you. Do NOT go alone. Safety in numbers and all that. Has to be someone experienced in the industry but without fear of future reprisals. Like someone who has recently sold their business and is heading for retirement, and has never been intimidated by CAsA in the past. Ringing any bells..? Not sure if he'd be interested, but no harm in asking. I'm sure he has some spare time on his hands now! Ps chuck in a bottle or two of good quality red into the inducements - may help!

[zanthrus]

Good luck Glen!

[kaz3g]

You can record a conversation to which you are a party in Victoria without the consent of the other. Not necessarily the case in other jurisdictions I understand.

Use a pocket recorder and then make your notes from it as soon after the event as possible to create a contemporaneous record. This is excellent evidence in the event of a dispute.

Kaz

[Squawk7700]

Thanks Kaz for your qualified input. This would possibly be most handy in this case should assistance not be available to Glen on the day.

[aroa]

NEVER, EVER go to a meeting with employees, however "nice" they appear to be, from this "organization" WITHOUT another person to record the event.
You MUST have your OWN witness/s to whatever occurs/is said.

To do it solo could lead to financial and legal suicide.

This is the house of smiling assassins, who are quite capable of destroying an individual, financially and mentally without recourse to the rule of law.
And then just move on the the next debacle with not a care. :mad::mad::mad:

Just ask Quadrio.

BEWARE !!!!

[glenb]

Thanks all for the posts and Private Messages. Very humbling, cheers. Anyway after wasting everyone's time I am going to take one of my Key Personnel (as I drag him out the building wildly clawing with his fingernails, and screaming that he just quit). Actually he is keen to go.

I have sifted through a significant amount of your valuable advice. I did throw in a call to the legal firm, but that particular lawyer worked on employment Law. The suggestion was appreciated however.

Regarding the Small Business Commissioner at the State and Federal level, apparently it was outside of their jurisdiction.

As far as "going it alone" you talked some sense into me there as I was seriously considering but realised I was perhaps being a little too sentimental and nostalgic.

Im actually quite looking forward to seeing just how disconnected from Industry CASA is. On a positive note. My expectations can only be exceeded. Thanks again all. Happy Safe Flying. Cheers. Glen

[aroa]

Pray tell
Useful :ok:or Not.:{ Positive :ok:or Negative.:mad:
Or mixed results/outcomes. :confused:

[Ero-plano]

I've dealt with CASA for about 15 years mainly the Melbourne and Queensland offices. I find it quite odd that the comments posted make them out to be so bad with the requirement to tape meetings, get lawyers involved etc. Of course I'm not sure of others experiences but I have found them to be professional on all levels. The only gripe I have which isn't the fault of the staff at office level is turn around times for approvals etc. I have visited them plenty of times (mainly alone) have never taped, written or recorded any details of the meetings I've had.

[Sunfish]

Ero - Plano, my experience with CASA is limited but the same was yours.

However, I have never had a "confrontation" with CASA. The evidence of the Forsyth review is that this has been a less than stellar experience for many people.

[aroa]

Pilot asked to come to regional office for "counselling" re minor issue
Queried whether he had to go the suggestion was No...right to remain silent.
Or if he did go, do take a solicitor for advice on when to say no comment or whatever.
Alas,he went on his own and was confronted with 3 CAsA "persons" and a multi headed tape recorder.
Many questions fired and honest answers given.. but further alas, they got the answers/evidence they wanted.
The court imposed a fine and a 2 year good behaviour bond.

One severely pissed off aviator...but all his own work !!

Lesson 1 Zip the lip. You are not obliged to incriminate yourself.

Now days they just accuse you of something and just send you an Infringement Notice., fine plus lose of licence points.. without even having the evidence for a court case.!! Or if it does get to the stage where they need some "evidence", they can just make it up. I kid you not.

Anything goes with this mob:mad:, so watch it !

[Sunfish]

Aroa, my son the Policeman says the detectives use much the same tactic. They ring up the target crook and politely invite them down to the station for a cup of coffee and a little chat, works pretty well and removes the need for Five am door break downs, handcuffs and general nastiness.

[IFEZ]

Come on Glen, don't leave us in suspense..! How did it go..?

[glenb]

I had a range of topics that I wanted to provide feedback to CASA on.

The Requirement of the Act for CASA to provide "clear and concise aviation Safety Standards.

The cost of the Part 61/141/142 implementation to the Taxpayer.

A very substandard ONE SENTENCE Regulation Impact Statement suggesting the changes are relatively minor and insinuating the increased cost to Business would be minimal.

The actual "Safety Case" for the changes.

A number of cases of incorrect interpretations of legislation by CASA, costing Business significant sums of money.

The unacceptably poor consultation process that lead to the current situation, and in fact created it.

The defamatory nature of the media release put out by CASA at the time of the delayed implementation.

The rationale behind most Australian owned Flying Schools losing the ability to deliver the 150 hour CPL over coming years, and with that a significant part of their revenue.

The apparent shift from Safety engagement with Industry to often trivial statistics gathering by way of issuing NCNs

Some issues with the nature of CASAs engagement with my organisation.

The costs to Business against a purported Liberal Government philosophy of "reducing Red Tape"

The high calibre nature of the Personnel within CASA but the apparent inability to convert that into a working relationship with Industry.

Overall, it was a productive meeting. Understandably, many of my concerns are 'Business" concerns not "Operational" concerns and were outside of the CASA personnel's "area"

It felt "genuine" and obviously im not the first one to convey those concerns. I left feeling that I had been listened to and admirably CASA stepped up to the plate more than I expected. The proof of the pudding will be in the eating, but I did have that bounce in my step afterwards because I really do feel, we may be on the cusp of a major shift in the "culture" at CASA.

However, many of my concerns were not addressed and I feel as a Business Owner I am entitled to responses, particularly as there was substandard consultation, a questionable safety case, and there are significant costs to Business. I will continue to seek answers to those questions.

Cheers to all for the involvement.

[THREEGREENS]

Case: Guy observed doing the wrong thing in an aircraft. CASA invited him in for an interview which he attended on his own.
Result: Show cause; licence suspended by CASA with written notification that a resit of the appropriate examination and a flight test will see it reinstated.

6 months later: 2 x Charges (1 criminal) by the CDPP and the ensuing court case.

That to me is a pretty good example of Double Jeopardy.:mad:

[Sunfish]

Glen, CASA has nothing in its charter, nor the act, that requires it to take costs, economics or commercial matters into account. It is purely a safety regulator.

If pushed, they will simply stand on that omission and stonewall. Anything you get by way of accommodation from CASA you should consider to be a product of grace and favour. They owe you nothing and if provoked will insist on their right to give you nothing.

Read the AAT cases regarding "regular charter" CASA's QC specifically states in one of them that CASA is not required to take economics into account.

[IFEZ]

Thanks Glen, and good on you for having the courage of your convictions to take them on head-on. I guess time will tell whether it was worth the effort. For you and your business's sake I sincerely hope you get some positive outcomes from it. We live in hope!:ok:


Unfortunately I fear Sunfish et al are probably right about the costs side of things. That is going to require the govt to do something to initiate change. Heard enough platitudes, rhetoric, and assorted bulls***t from them. What is needed is ACTION. And soon. Again, we live in hope, but even for the most optimistic among us, that hope is fading fast.:(

[aroa]

for gleb for putting his head above the parapet. Trust nothing gets shot off and some positive outcomes.

Sunny,,,unfortunately CAsA is not just a "safety" regulator altho it continually claims it is.

eg Reg? 27 d Allowing an aeroplane to be used for a commercial purpose.
Strict liability, a criminal offence and all that

If it was a safety reg it would be a criminal offence to use the aircraft recklessly or dangerously...but no...for commerce that harms no one.

Reg 206 is its corrollary.. photography, using an aircraft is "commercial" and therefore a criminal offence.
Never mind that the commerce of photography has got SFA to do with the safe operation of the aircraft.

CAsA has never done a safety case (sic) to show that getting paid for a photograph makes the operation less safe. If I give you the pic its legal.. if you pay me for it its illegal because I have engaged in commerce.!!!
Que ??? Is CAsA a regulatory flustercluck or what?:mad:

Its bull****.,, it denies you the right to free trade and earn a living...AND to make matters worse CAsA has NO head of power under the CAA Act 1988/98
to regulate commerce....which it does.:mad::mad: