An Important Letter to the Prime Minister

[glenb]

Dear Mr Turnbull,

I am writing to you in this forum because I hope it will get to you quickly and unfiltered. I don’t have time to waste on bureaucratic processes that have already cost my Business way too much.

As you are hopefully aware there are a number of significant challenges facing the Flight Training Industry that are a result of Government Initiated Regulatory Change, its substandard implementation, its lack of consultation with Industry, its lack of associated demonstrable safety case, its cost to taxpayers to date which now approaches $20 for every single man woman and child in Australia, and importantly for me, its inevitable destruction of the Flight Training Industry and with it many Australian Owned Small Businesses. All under a Liberal Government. The supported advocates of Government pulling back and letting the market forces decide the success or failure of Small Business. In this case we have substandard Government actions being the determinant.

I can only speak for my own Flight Training Organisation but I feel I am not alone, despite what CASA would have me believe.

You are pushing and pushing and pushing. Well, this Small Business Owner is drawing a line in the sand. No more!

You leave me no option.

The Civil Aviation Act states quite clearly that “CASA can sue and CASA can be sued.” I intend to avail myself of that Right. I don’t know if I’m correct, or whether CASA is correct. But I will seek the opportunity to have it independently tested.

The Case. Let me quote only four of ten arguments for the sake of expediency.

Case One

CASAs Regulation Impact Statement on the effects of Business of Part 61/141/142

“Businesses
The existing flight crew training businesses will be required to meet new standards, however, again whilst these represent a deviation from existing standards the changes are relatively minor, which is supported by the feedback that CASA obtained from the consultation process.”

My personal experience is that the RIS was incorrect. CASA may have a different view. I would like to have that tested. I trusted it and based decisions on it. I am confident every Flying School Owner in Australia will confirm that the RIS is negligent in both its lack of accuracy and depth.

Case Two

The Civil Aviation Act, itself requires the following at “1C. “
"CASA has the function of conducting the safety regulation of the following, in accordance with this Act and the regulations:Developing and promulgating appropriate, clear and concise aviation safety standards;

CASA have not achieved that. I challenge you. Ask one of your staff to call one flying school and ask the Chief Flying Instructor if CASA has achieved that. If he answers in the negative, call the next one. Continue with this exercise until you are satisfied with the sample size. Every CFI in Australia, and there’s well over 200 of them will answer in the negative. CASA has failed against the Civil Aviation Act. The effect of that failure on my Business has cost me dearly.

Case Three

The initial implementation is delayed and is followed by the following media release

"The primary reason for the changes is the need to give the aviation industry more time to prepare for the commencement of the new regulations," a CASA media release said.
"Despite CASA’s education and information campaign on the new licensing regulations many pilots and people working in flying training are only starting to understand the new rules.
"While the new regulations do not make major changes to existing practices it is clear more time for education and information communication is required.
"As a result CASA proposed a package of amendments to clarify the intent of the regulations, correct any anomalies and make improvements which will benefit the aviation industry. Due to issues beyond CASA’s control it has not been possible to make these amendments before 4 December 2013."
Parts 141 and 142 for flight training reform have also been put off.”

Quite seriously, I view that statement as deceitful. It is not the truth, and it came straight from the “Regulator”. To date, no public retraction of such misleading information. It bought the Flight Training Industry into disrepute. It was a blatant untruth and someone needs to be held to account.

Case Four

On August 2018 my Business will have the ability to deliver the Integrated Commercial Pilot Licence removed. My Business will lose 80% of its revenue as a result of this legislative change. There is no supporting demonstrable Safety Case for this action.

Against the backdrop of these four arguments alone, and their effect on my Business I feel I need an independent determination. I emphasise that these are only a small sample of the claims that Industry could make against the Australian Government via CASA. The unnecessary cost to my Business has cost me three years of my businesses profit and well over $1,000,000 in lost Business opportunities. These are all claims that I can stand behind and prove.

Any funds that my Business had for reinvestment have been exhausted. I never had any intention of buying myself a Jet Ski. I wanted to upgrade my Flight Simulator, my classrooms, my Safety resources, my training aids and my Staff Development Training. I have no intention of increasing what I charge my students or increasing my profit. Quite simply. I want to train my students better and make them safer.

The list goes on. The cost imposed on my Business has put 10 major projects on to the backburner.

I am, very serious about Safety. That’s why I have to stop this continuous drain of resources and finances from my Business. They do impact on Safety. To maintain Safety levels in the current Government initiated fiasco is very expensive.

If I am successful in my opportunity to have an independent determination, there will be no punitive component. This is simply about reimbursement of the cost impact on my Business. It would include fair and generous staff provisions as well as costs to date, plus loss of future earnings potential. Even without any punitive component it would be for a number of millions of dollars one would imagine.

It may well be that I am not alone in my experiences and therefore one reason for posting on this forum. It may be that some of the other 200 flying schools share my sentiments. Irrespective, if I can set a precedent, fairness will prevail for the other Small Businesses effected. If anybody feels that they may have a valid claim, I invite you to contact me. I emphasise that my claim will be for costs only and there will be no punitive component.

There are many people of “note” in the community that visit these forums. I invite you to contact me if you feel you can be of assistance.

If there is any person on these forums with legal expertise that is able to provide me with any guidance I would be extremely appreciative. I am ready and prepared to fund this. It will be expensive. I am prepared.

This can be averted but it requires prompt action. CASA obviously needs a rapid injection of funds. This is not an argument about the efficiencies or lack of, within CASA. That debate is for another day. This is not a Government department pleading for more funds. This is Australian Owned Small Business telling you that our Businesses are being severely impacted by the lack of output from that Government Department. I don’t know if Mr Skidmore requires office staff, consultants, or more boots on the ground. He is the best determinant. The personnel in that Department have an impossible workload and this has been continuing for too long. If you are not able to inject funds into “Aviation Safety” and increase the effectiveness of CASA this Small Business Owner will be holding the Government to account.

To the Personnel within CASA. This criticism is not directed at you. It is a resourcing issue. The personnel in CASA are Industry leading and I believe they have Industry’s confidence. There have been a very limited number within CASA that have been making inappropriate comments about me in the Public domain. I ask you to refrain. Do not make this personal. If at some future date after Mr Skidmores tenure you try to seek some type of “revenge”, I will deal with you head on at that time.

I am financially drained, resource drained, and physically drained by this experience. I watch highly experienced people from Industry clambering to exit it, I see small businesses closed down, I see lifelong industry participants with their Businesses and with it their Superannuation being decimated, I see the confusion within Industry, I see Safety eroded, I see the relationship between Industry and the Regulator being irreparably damaged. But I’m certainly not going to stand by and watch one employee within my Company lose their job because of it.

My hope is that the Liberal Government can identify the issues and move promptly toward alleviating the effect on Small Business which may avoid my Business seeking reimbursement of expenses.

Yours Faithfully

Glen Buckley
Flying School Owner.

If any of my comments cause offence to any member of the Public or Private Enterprise please contact me and I will immediately retract those comments.

This will be a “living” post and I reserve the right to amend it

I have received no “advice” from any parties prior to posting and the views are entirely my own.

[The Zenith]

Mr. Turnbull lost his father in an aircraft accident. I wonder, if he could do anything to stop other family's suffering the same or similar grief would he?

[Sunfish]

Water, ducks back.

The PM and the Minister couldn't care less.

Skidmore can't act.

If you actually sent that letter all you would get is an anodyne letter from CASA failing to understand your specific complaints and reminding you that they are committed to "safety" with a capital S and that mere commercial matters like your profitability are not their concern.

Sorry to be so harsh.

[glenb]

This is not me simply writing a letter. This is the first stage in a process that will seek accountability.

[barleyhi]

Glen

Obviously from your letter they have not backed their words below:


The Aviation Safety Regulation
Review Report
Government Response
December 2014


Recommendation 14
The Civil Aviation Safety Authority changes its regulatory philosophy and, together with industry, builds an effective collaborative relationship on a foundation of mutual understanding and respect.
Response
The Government agrees with this recommendation.
The Government believes that CASA and industry must work closely together on regulatory reform priorities. An ongoing and meaningful dialogue between industry and the regulator is vital.
The Government’s new SOE for the CASA Board will require CASA to develop a clear statement of regulatory philosophy which will include meaningful industry involvement, as well as a compliance and enforcement policy informed by those developed by other Commonwealth regulators and other leading aviation regulatory authorities. These policies will be considered by the CASA Board and the CASA Director of Aviation Safety. In addition, these policies will set out principles and practices:
• governing the use of safety cases to support regulatory and procedural changes by CASA that will impact on industry and the community;
• reaffirming the use of risk based criteria for determining appropriate responses to non-compliance, taking into account industry behaviours and motivations;
• establishing clear review mechanisms understood by CASA and industry for promoting national consistency in regulatory and related decision making and interpretation of regulations and standards;
• outlining CASA’s relationship expectations with industry to encourage collaboration and consultation and develop mutual understanding and respect; and
• promoting the use by CASA of targeted safety promotion and educational activities such as safety seminars around Australia to inform and obtain feedback from industry on the impacts of proposed regulatory change.
CASA has confirmed that its regulatory philosophy will be reviewed in the first half of 2015 as part of CASA’s Regulatory Policy and Practice initiative and that the outcomes of the review will be considered by the CASA Board and new Director of Aviation Safety.
As part of its quarterly reporting to the Minister on its performance against its Corporate Plan, CASA will report on its performance against the new SOE and the recommendations agreed to by the Government arising out of this Report, including implementation of its regulatory philosophy, and associated compliance and enforcement policies.
22
The CASA Director of Aviation Safety will be expected to report regularly to the Board on compliance with the new regulatory policy. While putting the policy in place represents an important step, ultimately the policy will require a continuing commitment by CASA and industry to build the mutual understanding and respect so essential for a harmonious aviation industry.

[The Zenith]

Forget the accountability glenb. It would be just as effective to make donations to the Liberal party in addition to wining and dining the Minister to affect a result. That also could be worth zilch.

[LexAir]

Glen, as a fellow operator, you have my full support. I, like you, have decided to place CASA on notice that it is no longer acceptable to be simply dictated to by an organisation that should work for us as members of a democratic society.

Unfortunately, CASA now has an entrenched ethos of self justification in most of its decision and rule making.

I wholeheartedly agree with you that there is no demonstrable safety case whatsoever for imposing Part 142 requirements on existing flying schools. Leave Part 142 to the Airlines.

I intend to keep the pressure up on CASA by use of logical, meaningful and cogent argument. Included in this approach will be constant request for probative evidence which supports any safety case propounded by CASA as a justification for its decisions.

It is a sad indictment on CASA that it now takes a law degree or the employment of lawyers to have our case heard and acted upon by those individuals in CASA who treat the organisation as their personal fiefdom and us as their serfs.

CASA has brought the industry to the brink or revolution. I encourage all members of the industry to speak out, voice your concerns and ask of CASA; why? Do not necessarily believe CASA if, in attempting to justify their actions, they say it is in the interests of safety; this is merely the employment of obfuscating sophistry designed to divert us from questioning their excessive salaries and lack of actual work in supporting the very industry they purport to dictate to.

Whilst not wishing to incite civil disobedience or unlawfulness (far from it), I would urge all members of the civil aviation community to start a campaign of resistance to dictatorial imposts on us from CASA. Question, question and then question again until such time as even the thickest brain in CASA gets the message that we are not taking things lying down any more and that CASA must treat us as equals and not enemies.

We want respect from our public service.

Lexair

[Lead Balloon]

They don't care, Glen, at least not enough to take back responsibility they abdicated to CASA a long time ago.

They don't have to care. There is no political point in governments doing anything about the circumstances you raise. It wouldn't make any difference to either 'side's' electoral chances.

While ever the majority of the public vote either for the Coalition or Labor, both of them win. They just take turns siphoning off national treasure to their mates.

If you've followed the activities of the Senate Rural Regional Affairs and Transport Committee's inquiries and questions at Estimates hearings, you will have observed that there are numerous government Senators - of both persuasions under different governments - who understand exactly what you're talking about, and who would agree almost entirely, if not entirely, with what you're saying. But they do nothing about it, other than huff and puff. That's because they're part of the stultifying mediocrities that have presumed to call themselves governments over the last couple of decades. Hollowmen and Utopia are documentaries, not fiction.

You would be far better off allocating your finite time and treasure to lobbying cross-bench Senators and getting more of them elected. Many if not all of them have the quaint idea that their first priority is to represent and promote the interests of their constituents and the nation, not to obtain and maintain power for power's sake.

Sooner or later a government will need something that requires the support of the cross-bench Senators. If at that point the cross-bench Senators make their support contingent upon something substantive being done about e.g. the sick, expensive, appalling hoax that the regulatory reform program is, the government of the day will pretend to care enough to do something about it. Until then, so far as governments are concerned, CASA's doing a great job. I can quote you Hansard comments to that effect, in the face of the Aviation Accident Inquiry report and the Forsyth report.

[RatsoreA]

Whilst not wishing to incite civil disobedience

Why not??! :E

I intend to keep the pressure up on CASA by use of logical, meaningful and cogent argument.

I support the outcomes you are trying to achieve. Unfortunately, I don't think much will come of it. They don't have to prove to you why they are doing something, you have to prove to them why not to do it. And even then, who gives a fig, because they are the government and you're not and you have to do what they say or they'll shut you down!

I've said it before, the only way anyone will take notice is by inconveniencing and embarrassing politicians and public servants. have a mass fly in at Canberra that disrupts the schedules of any government aircraft or politician transport. It's how the truckies get what they want. I have seen them protesting by driving their rigs around parliament house when it's in session and stopping traffic for miles. They get good media coverage too...

Viva la revolution!

[Ovation]

Blockade Sydney airport to gain attention?

Do we need to behave like Trade Unions (a minority) who have no hesitation in disrupting travel plans others. What about setting tyres on fire on the M4 like the French do all the time?

It's time for GA to make a stand because CASA is killing us with death by a thousand cuts.

[Horatio Leafblower]

This is the letter I sent to my local member today, as well as a couple of other MPs and senators based in the area:

Dear [Local Member],

We have previously spoken about the CASA legislative changes which are creating large and burdensome administrative requirements for small business. I have previously stated to you that this will slowly kill small aviation businesses.

It gives me no pleasure now to tell you the Civil Aviation Safety Authority is rapidly killing the General Aviation industry through inaction and their OWN internal administrative burden.

Our businesses are grinding to a halt because:

- Our CEOs (who are also usually the Chief Pilot, Chief Flying Instructor, Chief Engineer and all the other roles) are tied up trying to learn the new regulatory requirements and the raft of new acronyms;
- Our CEOs must spend countless hours re-writing our (previously, perfectly useable) company manuals to satisfy CASA edict, instead of developing our business or training our staff;
- Our staff are paralysed by indecision because the new rules are unclear and in many cases self-contradicting;
- Our testing officers have been granted new priveleges they never previously held, or denied long-standing priveleges that they previously lived by;
- Our businesses are forced to wait THREE MONTHS before CASA staff can even LOOK at an application to allocate resources, denying us the ability to respond with agility to market opportunities;
- Our flying students are forced to wait for MONTHS for basic administrative regulatory functions, such as the issue of an Aviation Reference Number, which allows them to start their training. THEY ARE LOSING INTEREST AND WE ARE LOSING OUR BUSINESSES.

This is beyond a joke, this is beyond a tragedy, this is the government killing small business through indifference.

As you know, Leafblower Aviation is one of the most highly safety- accredited Air Charter organisations of its kind in the world yet we are STILL being held up by petty beauracracy.

We have been forced to wait for over 5 months for permission to do in [Location C] and [Location D] something we are ALREADY permitted to do in [Location A] and [location B].

For our Airline application we are forced by CASA to employ key staff on retainers and lease aeroplanes before they will issue a certificate - then while they prevaricate for months on minor issues the approved staff member finds alternate employment and the carousel goes around again.

Although I must now expect the spiteful vengance of CASA management, I beg you, please make this an issue in Parliament.

Feel free to ring me for more information

Yours in desperation

[The name is Porter]

Buckers, when we get through our own 'challenges' you'll have our full (er) support. I'm willing to back up what I told you in any forum you need.

Unlike Sunfish whose given up I reckon you'll be the straw that break these bastards back! :D

[jas24zzk]

Quote:
Whilst not wishing to incite civil disobedience
Why not??!


Civil disobedience implies acting illegally.

I've said it before, and some others have hinted at it above.

There is only 1 way to get action, and that is an industry strike.
You HAVE to hurt the public to get the politicians interested.
The problem with aviation is that is similar to my own industry, in that there are too many self interested people, and little cohesian against regulatory crap.

The aviation industry has the benefit that, the crap affects everyone so badly equally, that its not so hard to unite them.

A snap strike of 24 hours by all elements of thte industry would bring the country to its knee's.
You would need 'marketing people' to explain the the strike to the general public.

I'm pretty sure the likes of QANTAS are suffering under the new regulations. maybe instead of just increasing prices, they could add a new line to the ticket.....Regulatory Compliance Cost. might be worth more than than the seat!

it'll take more than 1 strike tho. and it has to involve pretty much everyone

[Sunfish]

Jaz and Porter. I haven't given up, it's just that there is only one way forward as I have patiently stated and explained.

Strikes won't work. All that does is give the Government the opportunity to paint GA operators as greedy silver tails. The GA industry lacks ANY ability to produce the required public relations spin necessary to give a strike some hope of success.

To put that another way, a strike has a 99% chance of backfiring.

To put that yet another way, you want to see Alan Jones destroy your industry on talk back radio?

Writing letters to your local member or the PM won't work. You will receive responses of support but nothing else. That is because the Politicians get their advice from CASA and no one else. I cannot stress this too much. The Politician CANNOT do anything for you without CASAs written advice. Nothing, Zilch, NADA!


The ONLY thing a Politician understands is their own prospect of re-election! The ONLY thing a Minister cares about is remaining a Minister! Unless you credibly threaten those personal interests you will get nothing! If you succeed in threatening those interests you will get everything faster than you could possibly believe! Look at what happened to Tony Abbott!!!!!

Get a group together and prepare to run negative campaigns against sitting members in marginal seats at the next election. Negative campaigns* are easier to run. What you are saying to the Government of the day is effectively: "we don't care who will run the country after the next elections, but we will do our damnedest to make sure it isn't YOU unless you support our industry!".

Simple really and it would result in CASA being cut up tomorrow.

* Negative campaigns don't need to be about aviation. GA doesn't need to craft a political platform either. It doesn't need candidates. It needs a simple formula: cut up CASA into regulator and enforcer, adopt NZ/FAA rules and rewrite the Act to make the fostering of the industry requirement and preclude CASA from achieving its objectives by preventing aviation!!! It needs a charter as simple as that - don't subscribe to it Mr. Politician and we will do our best to ensure you aren't re-elected.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_campaigning!

[Avgas172]

What sunfish said .....:ok:

[glenb]

Sorry Everyone,

Unfortunately I don't have time or resources to organise Blockades, or wait until the next election to run against a politician. Quite simply, I need to focus every available moment at trying to keep my Business ticking over, and I really don't want this to be a debate about alternative courses of action. A blockade wont put $250,000 back into my Superannuation. I have made up my mind. The damage is already done to many Small Businesses, irrespective of what the future holds (not much better I suspect).

CASA needs an immediate injection of increased resources. My own Business has too many projects awaiting CASA approval. If I push and push for my own Commercial requirements, some other Small Business gets resources directed away from its projects.

CASA would never accept "lack of resources" as a response from Industry. Similarly Industry has the right to set that same benchmark on the Regulator.

My action will be successful. Because it will be factually based and well supported. For major Companies and pilots the issues may be different. For Small Business the issues are the unacceptable cost imposts associated with the process.

If you choose to post on here could you also indicate if I am able to use your post, in my case. Cheers.

Of course you are welcome to PM me as well. Cheers.

[Horatio Leafblower]

CASA would never accept "lack of resources" as a response from Industry. Similarly Industry has the right to set that same benchmark on the Regulator.

Thank you - you have encapsulated it perfectly. :ok:

[LexAir]

Glen, are you able to say what specific area or areas of law you will be relying on to take action against CASA? Are you intending to pursue orders under one of the prerogative writs such as Mandamus or seek a Declaration or injunctive relief? Or are you alleging miss or malfeasance in office? Or could your action be based on the common law of Tort? Are you looking at a Constitutional law issue here?

Please PM me if you would like to discuss this.

[Sub Orbital]

Just a thought. Have you thought of approaching some of the specialist legal firms with a view to a class action? It could potentially prevent CASA from using "deep financial pockets" to kill off any legal action.I suspect some of them may be very interested and as a bonus, it would garner media coverage.

[glenb]

Well, some very interesting questions there. Should have concentrated on Legal Studies a bit more back in 1982.

I will need to take advice on these matters. But a plain English summary would be along the lines of.

Government initiated Regulatory change launched on the back of a Substandard Regulation Impact Statement. I would like to have that tested. I trusted its contents and planned on the changes being relatively minor in nature. I now know that the Regulation Impact Statement is wildly inaccurate.

They arrived at this deduction in the RIS from Industry feedback. I would like to see the Industry feedback displayed for the Public.

The ACT itself requires Clear and concise Aviation standards. Surely if that has not been achieved, then the law has been broken, just as if we did something against the Act.

It could be defamation on the back of the Media Release by CASA at the time of the delay. CASA laid the blame on us and when they were unable to answer our questions that reinforced view that we weren't ready with our customers.

It could be a claim that the lack of resources by the Regulator impinged on our Businesses and livelihood. I am all ears. I will seek advice on the best path forward. I appreciate your offer of assistance and I will take you up on it. I am going to be out of town till the middle of next week, but I will be in contact.

The effect on Business has been very real and accountability is required.

regarding a Class Action. My intention was to go it alone to reduce the financial burden on already stretched Operators. If I can be successful and set a precedent then it will make the process substantially more cost effective for those that follow.

Once again, I will take legal advice on this matter, as to the best path forward.

Ideally, I need as many Businesses as practical to PM me your experiences or better still post them in this thread. I need well constructed arguments. All help is appreciated. My intention is for the Legal Firm to view this thread to assist them in "building a picture"

Keep the encouraging messages and posts coming. Cheers. Glen

[Lead Balloon]

CASA needs an immediate injection of increased resources.Noooooooooooooo.

What the industry needs is an immediate repeal of the regulations that require, without safety and risk justification, interactions with the regulator, so that you don't have to wait around for the regulator to make time to charge you to consider and grant approvals, permissions, exemptions blah blah blah to scratch your nose.

What Australia has is a typical paternalistic, symbiotic relationship between the regulator and industry. That means more and more regulations requiring more and more interactions between the regulator and the industry, for which the regulator charges to pay for its existence. It's a self-licking ice cream.

I know this may be inconceivable, but it is possible to have rules that do not require as many interactions with the regulator.

For example, the rules could say that an AOC holder can appoint anyone as Chief Pilot provided the candidate satisfies a list of objective licence, ratings an aeronautical experience criteria. Make sure you're seated: It is possible to have a system in which the appointment of a Chief Pilot does not have to be approved by the regulator. It might actually turn out that the regulatory approval process for Chief Pilots is little more than a regulatory ego trip.

I reckon you have more chance of getting the government to repeal a bunch of regulations that require, without safety and risk justification, interactions with the regulator, than getting the government to fork out more money so that more people can be paid circa $100k to process ARN applications.

Just give the government a list of provisions to repeal. CASA will, of course, foreshadow anarchy and aluminium confetti. Mature adults in the aviation industry know better.

[Sub Orbital]

GlenB

Reference my comment re class action, I believe these companies will take it on on a "no win no fee" basis. For the sake of a couple of phone calls, why wouldn't you ring them and see if they are interested? Rather than take it on yourself, it has the potential to include ALL affected parties without being necessarily identified individually.(ie subject to retribution) Gee, a couple of phone calls. Just do it.

[glenb]

Lead Sled, your points may be valid, but you are coming from a different perspective. I am coming from the perspective of a Business Owner. The problem is that the unnecessary cost in my own Organisation now approaches $250,000. Yes there are many other issues. I am also a CFI and fully aware of all of the issues from that perspective as well,but that's a whole different thread. This thread is specifically targeted at the 300 Flying School Owners across Australia that have had their Businesses severely affected by this process. Repealing the Rules now would do nothing to reimburse me. Cheers.

[glenb]

Cheers. I did approach some legal firms. There was certainly a level of interest. That was some time ago before I regained a false hope. First I am hoping for some legal guidance from someone in this forum. Already Lexair has offered some considerations.

When I approach the Legal Firm, I want to have an understanding of my options and potential pathways. I want to be able to hold my own in a conversation. It may be, that if I hold off a week, someone will be able to offer me some recommendations on the best firms to approach based on personal experience. Cheers.

[Sunfish]

Glen, I don't think you have a hope in hell of mounting a successful court case because in my opinion a Court will only act if it can be demonstrated that the regulator has broken the law, not that it is taking too long, etc. etc.

Even if it did find that there was an equity (fairness) issue in play in the processing of regulations, which I doubt, all CASA will do is address the courts findings in the most minimal way possible.

A negative political campaign is the cheapest and quickest way forward.

You do not have to run for Parliament. No one has to run for Parliament. You do not have to wait for the next Federal election. The mere threat of a new player in the election space - a credible aviation lobby group is enough to get the Governments attention right NOW. Fear is what drives them. They will then TELL CASA what is going to happen to it, rather than seeks its always self serving "advice".

All you need to do is open a trust account, put together a list of wants (break up the regulator, NZ/FAA regs, rewrite of the Act. etc) and write one press release stating that the group is going to try to unseat every sitting government member in a marginal seat at the next election unless our wants are addressed.

Then tell us on Pprune where we need to send our donations.

If we can't get that fighting fund up to a million in short order then we deserve the reaming we get from CASA.

[glenb]

I take it all on board, however.

The Civil Aviation Act at 1c requires of CASA that they provide clear and concise aviation Safety standards.

CASA has not achieved that, so surely that alone, with 100% of Industry concurring, would be a strong case that the Act itself has been breached.

Especially when compared with other ICAO organisations that managed to meet the requirements with clear and concise aviation standards.

Surely a Government initiated legislative change that removes 90% of a Businesses income (integrated syllabus) with no demonstrable Safety Case is basis for recompense.

[Stationair8]

Better way would be to build a solid brick wall, and bang your head against it.
When head hurts continue on!
For all your efforts you not going to achieve anything except fund some lawyers next BMW or Mercedes, give you self a nervous breakdown or drive yourself into an early grave!

[glenb]

I reviewed your post and the only difference between my present experience and the one you suggest is, do I pay CASA or a Lawyer?
At least with the latter I can "go down swinging"

[Lead Balloon]

Don't waste your money on a lawyer.

Being regulated to death by government is not a basis for a cause of action recognised in Anglo-Australian law.

Government agencies making statements about simplicity and red tape reduction and harmonisation and consultations and reform that turn out to be vacuous misrepresentations is not a basis for a cause of action recognised in Anglo-Australian law. Everyone knows they're vacuous misrepresentations, so no reasonable person would rely on them.

A government agency not having the competence and capacity to administer a regulatory system in sufficient time to enable the regulated industry to make confident and timely investment and other decisions is not a basis for a cause of action recognised in Anglo-Australian law.

As you keep getting told - for free - the only remotely possible solution to your problem is political action, not legal action. But given that the majority of participants in the aviation industry will vote for either the Coalition or Labor, notwithstanding what governments of both persuasions have let happen to the industry, you can just BO-HICA.

[LeadSled]

GlenB,
I have not previously posted on this thread, please do not confuse me with 'm learned friend, Lead Balloon, who has forgotten more about the law than I will ever know, and who is well acquainted with the behavioral pathologies of CASA, both in corporate sense and also the behavior of individuals.

The skyrocketing costs being imposed by CASA are as horrendous as are they unjustified regulations that create the costs, and "you ain't seen nuttin" yet!!

Skidmore simply refuses to acknowledge publicly that cost of regulation is even an issue.

Tootle pip!!

[Stan van de Wiel]

Glen,
Yours and the industry’s specific problems are nothing new. Ever since the incorporation of CASA as a government business unit (GBE) (for whatever devious reason) it has taken on a life of its own. This enables CASA (among other things) to impose costly requirements arbitrarily on an individual operator without due process as to cost/safety benefit analysis, then to charge the operator for the “service” and also for ongoing compliance audits at rates that can be varied simply by altering the published charges.
A succession of incompetents, with the exception of Bruce Byron, CASA has dictated to both government and industry. My loss of TRUST started with Toller and his handling of the AvGas contamination cover-up. Instead of admitting complicity or at least incompetency, he went on to blame industry. Once the digging started the hole got bigger and bigger, maybe it’s time we filled it in. CASA getting away with such misconduct only encouraged further outrages.

The ASR Review commenced some 24 months ago, received great support from industry and its findings were conclusive; yet a few weeks ago CEO Skidmore in his “Ten Commandments” started off by stating “maintaining trust!” Strange, is it not, how the ASRR had come up with 35 out of 37 comments about “distrust”? He is either oblivious to its meaning or in denial like the rest of the organisation, instead of offering to identify where and why trust was lost. These are the “creatures” who look after the ultimate safety of the flying public? It’s true that Mark only joined the organisation recently, but the review has been around since May 2014 for all to read.

In terms of “CASA can sue and be sued,” that’s true in both cases but no one has yet been able to “plumb” the depths of their bottomless legal money pit. Politicians are just told it is all to do with “safety”.

Considering the Regulatory Impact Statement (RIS) re Part 61, in regard to a change from circa 100 to 2,929 pages, the reading alone without the necessary time for comprehension would take several weeks; but then CASA has now promised to supply more explanatory paperwork. No need even to start on Parts 141 and 142. The costs of application of new requirements, manuals and staffing although dealt with in the RIS, appear to be regarded as “insignificant” yet will easily run into the tens of thousands for each G.A. business. Why were the changes necessary in the first place? Certainly not “safety” as the leading global “safety” authority!

As far as I am aware one of the prime goals of the regulatory rewrite was to comply more closely with ICAO, reducing the “differences” to appear more compliant. The adaptation of ICAO Annex 1 would have saved a lot of anguish and cost. 130 pages vs 2,929. CASA claims “the changes are relatively minor.” Had they been major, how many pages/volumes would they have produced? This has become a debate of quantity over quality.

Civil Aviation Act 1988 - Sect 9 (1)(c) “developing and promulgating appropriate, clear and concise aviation safety standards:
CASA, by its extension of the compliance time-frame, has now admitted there is nothing “clear” about the regulations. So that leaves the matter of “concise”. A simple comparison with those of other countries will show the meaning of “concise” for legal purposes.

A telephone call to industry leaders will not gain a true picture as many will feel obliged to answer positively for fear of the all too common reprisal action from the regulator. Only a survey in writing from the PM’s office allowing for strict anonymity may elicit an answer.

With its prime focus being on “Parkinson’s law” CASA no longer needs a safety case, its own definition of “safety” being more along the lines of “job security”. There is no actual ministerial oversight of CASA, its immediate superior being the secretary of the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development (DIRD) He who is doing such an appalling job in monitoring the “sale” of our G.A. Airports – just look at the YSBK mess and similar situations at other secondary airports.

A punitive component should not be dismissed, but should take the form of restitution of previous regulations or an immediate adaptation of FARs or ICAO annexes in an exercise to which the industry would no doubt be prepared to contribute.

Compensation should be to industry in general and this could take the form of funding on an ongoing basis of an industry representative body along the lines of GAAA established in the 70’s or AusAC 2004; a body to be consulted by CASA on an ongoing basis (not behind closed doors) It would be funded to represent “members” in contentious legal actions taken by CASA contrary to principles proposed by the Director’s “ten commandments.”

I cannot agree with the need to inject further funds. The crisis is of the government’s own making. This whole exercise of change has exposed CASA’s incompetence as an institution and although there have to be some capable people, they are stymied by the “iron ring” which has prevailed over the past decades. That ANZAC spirit apparently only applies “offshore”. Currently the only person with proven industry credentials is the Chairman of the Board, but apparently the Board is deemed to have insufficient authority, so let’s wait and see when the writs start flying.
There’s probably some regulation against that too.

[The name is Porter]

westboundflyer

^^ I call dead**** ^^

[gchriste]

westboundflyer

^^ I call dead**** ^^

^^ What he said ^^

Isn't it amazing how everyone loves to whinge about the state of affairs, but the moment someone steps up, they get shot down. There have been some helpful posts on here, but some absolute w@nkers too.

[glenb]

No idea who you are Westbound Flyer, quite likely a half decent person. Anyway. If you call "Bull****" you have to be prepared to "step up to the plate"

Here's an offer. PM me your details. I will fly you to my Business, from anywhere in Australia. Spend a day in my Company. Engage my staff and my students. I will have all 10 years of Profit and Loss Statements for you to view. Ill show what we have achieved in 10 years, and what projects are on the backburner. I will endeavour to have my accountant there and he will explain our "approach" to running a Flying School in Australia.Then jump back on here and either confirm or retract your previous statement.

Its a very genuine offer. I genuinely hope you can step up to the plate.

[Sunfish]

GlenB, if you attempt to sue CASA, all you will do is trigger a CASA audit a few months after your lawsuit is dismissed.

That audit, will find numerous non compliances, after which CASA will deem you not to be a "fit and proper person" to be associated with Aviation in any form*. Your business will then bleed to death while you try to legally challenge CASAs ruling as has happened to many others.

Either start a political campaign as I have suggested or follow Dick Smiths suggestion and get out while you can.

Everything else, from tinkering around the edges, to negotiation and sweet reason, to the Administrative appeals tribunal, to the courts, to a full blown Senate review has been tried and has failed.

CASA is a parasite on the Aviation body. Your business or CASA - only one of you can survive.

* CASA willl deliver its verdict to you on Christmas Eve or the Thursday before Good Friday to maximise your pain by preventing an immediate injunctive response.

[Andy_RR]

How many GA businesses charter to politicians, government and government-funded enterprises?

If you want legal civil disobedience, you could all get together and refuse to do business with the above and explain why you refuse.

If such a proposal destroys your collective business model, then perhaps you should re-read that pact with the devil...

[Lookleft]

Good on you glen for giving it a go. There is plenty of negativity being thrown your way but I can only encourage you to have a crack at trying to change things.

Its interesting that those advocating civil disobedience and the establishment of negative political campaigns are not actually putting their hands up to say they will organise and do those things. :confused:

[Nulli Secundus]

GlenB

Terrific to read you're prepared to stand up for common sense regulation.

How can I be of assistance?

PM me.

Anyone else?

[Allan L]

Reference my comment re class action, I believe these companies will take it on on a "no win no fee" basis.

I could be wrong but don't think so, if you lose and costs are awarded against you - guess who gets to pay? Not your lawyers, but you! Sure you don't have to pay your solicitors, but you pay the other side.

I seem to recollect something like that happening in Aust. in just the past few months?

[Sunfish]

What are you going to argue in court? It's the vibe? CASA hasn't broken any laws.

[Band a Lot]

Sunfish - Many of CASA staff have and are breaking MANY laws.


"What are you going to argue in court? It's the vibe? CASA hasn't broken any laws."


The competence level of many of its staff prior to a CASA life, simply will be fact that they don't even know the law in many cases. I even have CASA staff telling me other CASA staff don't know what the other is on about so they can be correct (Even if every MR signed since 1998 is incorrect!).

Simply make them all put ALL in writing and NEVER have a general chat - Only then you can take the individuals house, but you will never beat the DEEP pockets for CASA lawyers allowances (think defence against Ashby v Slipper).

I am happy to help if I can.