Glen Buckley and Australian small business -V- CASA

[glenb]

Good afternoon, my name is Glen Buckley, the CEO of the Australian Pilot Training Alliance. I live at 36 Essex Road in Mount Waverley (no longer at this address) and absolutely stand 100% behind everything I will shortly be writing on here. My story is long and detailed, but it is the correct forum. What I am writing will be in the public interest. I will return over this weekend, and commence outlining my situation.

I have written to the CASA Board on multiple occasions, and those appeals have been completely ignored, so here I am.

I have written to the CASA Board and advised them of the following

To the Board of Directors of CASA, my name is Glen Buckley, the CEO of the Australian Pilot Training Alliance ARN 759217. I am obliged to formally advise you that as the CASA Approved CEO of APTA I have lost all trust and confidence in CASA. I do not take the decision lightly and it is a well-considered decision. I appreciate that operational matters such as this, are outside your remit, but the reasons for this decision must be bought to the attention of the Board. Could you please advise Mr Shane Carmody, so that he can arrange for guidance on the procedure to be followed in such matters.

I have made repeated attempts to contact the Board and discuss my concerns. Those appeals to the Board have been completely ignored, hence my options for an internal resolution are fading quickly. With the recent Royal Banking Commission inquiry, we know what happens once a Board loses control over the ethics and good governance of an organisation. I will clearly demonstrate how CASA bought harm to me, my Business, my valued and highly professional staff, and Members. CASA actions were never based on safety concerns, and there were no regulatory breaches.

Personnel such as Mr xxx, Mr xxxx, And Mr xxxxx have been complicit in this behaviour, and it extends to

A blatant disregard for CASAs own Regulatory Philosophy
A blatant disregard for the PGPA Act, and gross wasting of taxpayer funds and resources
Breaches of CASA own Enforcement Manual
Technical incompetence on behalf of those personnel mentioned previously
Motivations by certain personnel within CASA that are not based on safety or regulatory compliance
False audit results/blatant untruths etc My assertions are well documented and supported.

The sending of this email coincides with me mounting a significant and very public campaign to highlight the culture that exists within the Organisation. Ultimately it is the responsibility of the Minister, the Honourable Mr McCormack, and it is in fact he, who is ultimately accountable, and will be held accountable publicly.

Multiple attempts to contact him over a protracted period have also been completely ignored. I am advising that I will be forwarding a copy of this document to him, and also to the Honourable Mr Barnaby Joyce who has the confidence and trust of the Aviation sector generally. I am able to meet with any two Members of the Board at the same time at any location in Australia over the next 7 days, if required. At that meeting I would require 90 minutes to present the facts to you. Respectfully

Glen Buckley

[Bend alot]

Wishing you luck Glen.

[thorn bird]

Good luck to you Glen.

But I fear CAsA are unaccountable to you, the public, the industry, the minister or the Parliament.

As has been demonstrated so many times they are capable of anything, legal or illegal, if someone
threatens their rice bowl.

I don't believe anything short of a Judicial inquiry, preferably, or a royal commission with the same powers,
is capable of taking them on with any chance of a positive result. There are quite a few of them that should
be in jail, but as someone once said "the law is for everyone, justice is for them that can afford it" and CAsA
has the public purse to draw on.

[Sunfish]

get on facebook and twitter ASAP. The Minister will refer everything to the Department and they will refer it to CASA and they will refer it to your tormentors who will respond as you would expect.

Your only hope is to go public but with an election in the offing you will get no traction. Best to build your case for a new minister.

[machtuk]

Admirable intentions for sure but don't let this consume you, CASA have a LOT of clout, your health and sanity they can break easily!
Good lick👍

[zanthrus]

A little something I ran across today. Very apt description of CASA.

Oxford University researchers have discovered the densest element yet known to science.
The new element, Governmentium (symbol=Gv), has one neutron, 25 assistant neutrons, 88 deputy neutrons and 198 assistant deputy neutrons, giving it an atomic mass of 312.
These 312 particles are held together by forces called morons, which are surrounded by vast quantities of lepton-like particles called pillocks.
Since Governmentium has no electrons, it is inert. However, it can be detected, because it impedes every reaction with which it comes into contact.
A tiny amount of Governmentium can cause a reaction that would normally take less than a second, to take from 4 days to 4 years to complete.
Governmentium has a normal half-life of 2 to 6 years.
It does not decay, but instead undergoes a reorganisation in which a portion of the assistant neutrons and deputy neutrons exchange places.
In fact, Governmentium's mass will actually increase over time, since each reorganisation will cause more morons to become neutrons, forming isodopes.
This characteristic of moron promotion leads some scientists to believe that Governmentium is formed whenever morons reach a critical concentration.
This hypothetical quantity is referred to as a critical morass.
When catalysed with money, Governmentium becomes Administratium (symbol=Ad), an element that radiates just as much energy as Governmentium, since it has half as many pillocks but twice as many morons.

CASA can suck donkey balls!

[aroa]

I know your pain and can commiserate. Been there, had that. Written to many, Boards , CEOs and etc ...WAWOFTAM.!
Join the call for a Royal Commission or Judicial Inquiry, so we the victims... and there are many, of the obscene bureaucratic buggery by CAsA ....can be heard.
Its long past time that CAsA's ****ty nappies should be hung on the public line for all to see.
UNTIL there is a major trauma for CAsA and the truth is out, we are just pushing it uphill

Perhaps we should have a nation-wide boycott and publicise the fact.
THAT this industry has no trust and respect for CAsA, its managemant and its Ministers..therefore.....
All aviators and businesses IF they unified and just ignored CAsA completely, there would be an effect.
Ignore letters and calls , deny visits, close yr doors to the the venal visitors. Just get on with the normal things yr business does.
Difficult I know but it could be done. Better to do something legit than have to break the law like they do.
AOPA? B Morgan , K Cannane and others?..How about a full page ad in 'The Australian'

" If justice is not given to the citizens by Governments, and swiftly, then anarchy will prevail." B Franklin
I fell extremely anarchic....and so do many others.

[Sandy Reith]

I support Glen and would add my experiences of General Aviation, 53 years, variously as private aircraft and airport owner, and previously as Chief Pilot and Chief Flying Instructor. Still private flying but my life’s career was my own business in charter, flying training and scheduled services.

I testify to the main premise which is that GA is being throttled by an extremely detrimental and unnecessary regulatory and administrative regime. This has cost Australia dearly in aviation jobs, businesses and services over the last thirty years.

Overall safety has suffered greatly through loss of experienced personnel and lack of innovation, innovations in equipment and management due to the most stifling, hidebound, legalistic and fear engendering regime that could be invented. That this could happen in what is supposed to be a free country is shameful.

Every attempt to engage with those who might cause reform is worthwhile, but it is only Parliament that can or will alter the current trajectory, therefore the hard yards will be to convince MPs that they must make changes.

[Kulwin Park]

Hi Glen, I think you have great intentions in what message you want to deliver to CASA. However, after reading your story, and having a few moments to absorb it in, I believe that you have gone on the ATTACK, and not going in as someone WILLING TO LISTEN.
What I mean by that is that every point has been negative about CASA, and you haven't even said something positive about any direction they're going. They must have done something you like, or a training plan that has been implented but not followed through that would've been ideal?
I find the only way to get meetings through letters is present your arguments in a way that they'll consider listening. Also document in your letter that you have proposals that may revolutionize the way they do business within GA, and regulations could be adapted to suit GA owner/operators.
There's so much to say, but I believe that you're going about it the wrong way.......... Am I only the only one to think so too?
Cheers KP

[Sandy Reith]

Quote Glen “I have made repeated attempts to contact the Board and discuss my concerns. Those appeals to the Board have been completely ignored,..”
Many others have tried to engage respectfully with the Board and the (fatuously titled) Director of Air Safety. Hundreds have expended untold hours writing submissions, emails and letters to the powers that be. More thousands of GA professionals have burnt the midnight oil for months and months on end, unpaid, simply to satisfy the never ending CASA regulatory changes. These changes have made more paperwork and do nothing for safety, but do make GA business less profitable.
Numerous government inquiries, such as the much vaunted Forsyth report, have been consigned to the rubbish bin.
KP I fear your idea to listen to CASA’s reasons for their incompetence will be a waste of time. Unfortunately we are way past what one would consider fair, rational and normal discussions or negotiations.

[Sunfish]

KP, when I first visited this website I too counseled principled engagement with CASA as the only way forward. This was based on my own experience in the public service.

However, this only works when both sides are dealing “in good faith” and sadly, as evidenced by the main conclusion of the Forsyth review, this is not the case for according to the review CASA has lost the trust of the industry.

So I now believe Mr. Reith is correct; only the Politicians can fix this mess and you need to grab them by the short and curlies to force reform to happen.

Without reform of The Act and CASA my fears are that we will next see widespread low level corruption, general law breaking as people give up trying to comply, flight of capital, more shonky operators and more and worse accidents. The real damage will be done when Qantas , Virgin and the regionals decide its attractive to start cutting corners to remain competitive.

[Bend alot]

"The real damage will be done when Qantas , Virgin and the regionals decide its attractive to start cutting corners to remain competitive."

Well they are cutting corners now, and have been for a while!

[Sunfish]

Election called, government in caretaker mode. No point asking CASA for anything till new Minister has feet under table. The best you can do is help elect independents because they might just end up holding the balance of power. Libs, Labs and greens will do nothing for you.

[aroa]

KP... have a yarn with CAsA ... and all you get regarding yr issues is lies and BS. They WILL NOT admit their mistakes, and will break the Law to cover their respective arses.
And quite happy to keep criminals on the public payroll
No use approaching the current feather duster, our little 'democratic' flutter looms. Pity we cant vote on CAsA and any Minister
Whoopee a new "minister".shortly He/she will put a stamp on Aviation probably with a silly 'White Paper' as did Albo.mnay moons ago..which didnt even mention GA.
As one response from a minder told me,we have the worlds best safety record, Australia is mainly flat and our weather is good.
How on earth could there be any problem then.
Cantberra sure is Cloud Cuckoo Land.

[Dick Smith]

What is the difference between a Judicial enquiry and a Royal Commission? Which is best?

[Bend alot]

What is the difference between a Judicial enquiry and a Royal Commission? Which is best?

The difference is the ones that will fall.

As we have seen the Royal Commissions cut a few heads off but leave the dirty workers safe to be promoted. The Judicial Enquiry's cut out some of the rot in mid/upper mid high levels but leave the head alone.

So we actually need both.

[Mr Approach]

Excuse my cynicism but I lived through the Bjelke-Peterson dictatorship - one of his famous sayings was "never call for a Commission or Enquiry unless you know what the outcome will be". And before you remind me of the Fitzgerald Enquiry, he did not call that, Bill Gunn did while Jelke was out of the country!

[glenb]

As stated previously I do intend to start outlining my experience with CASA. I am expecting a report from the CASA Industry Complaints Commissioner to be presented today, and the results of that will be informative. I will outline the journey over 20 posts, and label them accordingly, to hopefully make it easier to follow. I appreciate that this will be long and detailed, and perhaps of limited interest. However, if you are an existing business owner,or a prospective business owner in the aviation sector, I feel this is important. I welcome any feedback, and call on anyone to challenge anything I say, and I will provide the required supporting evidence.

A couple of ground rules that I want to lay down before I commence.

CASA operate under the Australian Coat of Arms, and that places the highest obligations on the people that work within that organisation. The Coat Of Arms is the Australian Governments seal of quality. The taxpaying public and industry stakeholders are quite reasonable to have a high expectation of that Organisation. An expectation of good governance, ethics, and fairness is a reasonable expectation.

When I refer to CASA, I am not referring to the 900 personnel that work within CASA. The vast majority of them are exceptional people, and highly professional, and Industry will most likely concur with that assertion. The Organisation has almost no accountability however, and that permits an environment where bad ethics can creep in, and people can act for motivations that are not safety or compliance related. The culture of any Organisation is set from the top, and that is where the accountability must lie.

CASA is required to achieve "clear and concise aviation safety standards". It is a requirement placed on them in the Act, as one of their core functions. It is not a "nice to achieve", its actually a requirement. A recent poll on pprune with over 900 respondents suggested the following. 97% voted that CASA have failed to achieve clear and concise aviation safety standards, 2% voted that CASA have succeeded, and 1% were undecided. That really is a staggering figure. Consider any organisation that had feedback from 97% of its customers or stakeholders, that it had failed against its core function. That alone, should prompt a Royal Commission.

Anyway, that's the end of post 1/20, and I will return with post 2/20. Thanks again for the support, cheers. Glen

By the way KP , my first post contained my correspondence to CASA. If it was the start of the journey, I would concur with your sentiments. It is however the tale end of a 6 month battle which I will outline here. By the time I have finished post 20, and outlined my experience, I would be genuinely appreciative of your opinion.

[Kulwin Park]

https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/779x450/capture_d310ab6548aed047db3f550bad68c237ee3034ef.png
Hi Glen & others
Below is a current job opening released at CASA (and another 2 similar positions that came through on my subscribed CASA emails). It's ironic that about your post, because they must be aware of the change that is required that you speak of. This job is for a Business Transformation Specialist. And other similar jobs on the CASA site too.... IF YOU CAN'T BEAT THEM - JOIN THEM .... Is that how the saying goes?

I do not disagree with anything anyone has written. In fact, I'll be eagerly awaiting your brief overviews of your dealings with them.
Searching through their cumbersome website daily for rules & regulations is a bit frustrating & daunting. Maybe you could get them to sort out that as well with a better search function!
And having been involved with a RAMP check by CASA on the tarmac a while ago, the CASA guys seemed reasonable. Only had a few engineering issues on the maintenance release which was nothing really, just not complied with in part 2 properly.
The real issue is to make GA profitable again, keeping rules simple, whilst maintaining a good safety record which most have done. There's too many road blocks that even students/new pilots coming through the industry deter them away from flying! It's easier to just work as a tradie & fly PPL they think, instead of achieving CPL/ATPL and going on to fill the shortage of pilots.
Cheers KP

[buckshot1777]

I will outline the journey over 20 posts,
Perhaps post them on a website elsewhere, and a link or links to them here maybe with dot point summary?

I suspect few here are going to wade through 20 posts.

Just a thought.

[601]

Why do customers have to have an "exciting digital experience" when dealing with CAsA.
Like navigating your way through an terminal building as SLF is supposed to be an "exciting experience".

If I want an "exciting digital experience" I go to my Urologist .

[Sandy Reith]

The convoluted and verbose CASA personnel advertisement is excruciatingly childlike in it’s misguided attempt to make what should be a serious job of work into some sort of adventure in the CASA playground of thought bubbles and fantastic ‘outcomes.’ With super up to approx $163,000 pa, for a “non-ongoing” position with possible extension. The giveaway to the whole CASA modus operandi is that the program is “long term.”

It seems that CASA has money to burn, are they getting set for an advantageous change of Minister? Knowing unlikely he’ll chop them back because the majority of Canberrans vote Labor, bread and butter. Or perhaps to kid Mr. Albanese along as they successfully did the last time he was Minister with a bunch of safety necessary (exciting?) programs that needed another 200 employees? That necessitated a one off, only for four years, increase in aviation fuel levies that was estimated to yield $89.9 million. Next Minister Nat leader Warren Truss, neatly rolled (more probably didn’t notice) that one on into general revenue and its still there today, sucking life blood away from aviation into the bloated and steadily growing numbers in Can’tberra, population with Queanbeyan as per Gov stats 449,000, up from 380,000 just a handful of years ago.

Isn’t the computer age wonderful? Everything is so accessible, easy to use and we need far less people doing mundane paperwork in taxpayer provided bureaucrat factories.

So bulk exciting!
blob:https://www.pprune.org/b0a13505-4f3a-4302-b513-6dd00f19cada

[Sandy Reith]

https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/920x2000/1287230f_042d_4fe6_8936_3f4c764733a7_b3bdf4c9ddad7fe759bd15e 9ac5a4a0c7df05d74.jpeg
Did the CASA Board decide this was necessary?

[Sunfish]

Parkinson’s Law at work.

[Vref+5]

Looks like they’re getting all the staff to re-apply for their positions. Must be EBA time

[aroa]

Some text was a bit off there in the ad.
..."finding solutions to aviation safety issues.."
Should have said.." finding solutions for "safety" issues that don't exist.." eg CSF

Did the Board decide this was necessary ? WTF would they know.. The Fort calls the shots.
eg COOP adopted by the Minister AND the Board. Wiped out by the Fort.
Historical, I know ..but just shows that SBA has changed for the Fat Cats at the top of the smelly pile.

[Sunfish]

New software and a “lead change manager” on $160k?? Sorry CASA, to handle that job will cost you $350k++. Nobody skilled enough to do that job will get out of bed for $140k.

Sounds to me that CASA woefully underestimates the difficulties of “service delivery transformation” - probably aided and abetted by the software supplier.

[Vref+5]

Looks like they’re getting all the staff to re-apply for their positions. Must be EBA time

[Stickshift3000]

New software and a “lead change manager” on $160k?? Sorry CASA, to handle that job will cost you $350k++. Nobody skilled enough to do that job will get out of bed for $140k.

Sounds to me that CASA woefully underestimates the difficulties of “service delivery transformation” - probably aided and abetted by the software supplier. Salaries are capped at the Australian Public Service rates, hence the poor program delivery...

[Sunfish]

Allegedly using Chandler & Mcload. for recruitment and selection - another dumb mov.

[Asturias56]

"New software and a “lead change manager” on $160k?? Sorry CASA, to handle that job will cost you $350k++. Nobody skilled enough to do that job will get out of bed for $140k.
Sounds to me that CASA woefully underestimates the difficulties of “service delivery transformation” - probably aided and abetted by the software supplier."

Unlikely - more likely is that to fit this manager into their Govt approved pay structure that's all they can pay them . Pay them more (eg a market rate) and the whole pyramid would have to be re-jigged , costs would shoot up and Politicians (and many on here) would bemoan "nest feathering public servants". Same all over the world - public bodies don't pay market rates - and so they tend to be staffed by the less ambitious, the less well trained and the time-servers. The only place I know that even tries to pay market rates for civil service jobs is Singapore.

As for complaining about CASA - don't come on here - you need to bend the ear of politicians and journalists - a bit of TV or newspaper coverage will have far more effect than 20,000 letters from pilots

[glenb]

Letter to Mr Shane Carmody from Glen Buckley

[glenb]

Dear Moderator,
I appreciate that you are currently reviewing the contents of a letter I wish to publish. Let me be very clear. I fully stand behind anything I say, and will be prepared to defend it with evidence. The issue is significant. The fact is that CASA do engage with Industry, and often that manner is inappropriate. My concerns are in the public interest, and in the interests of safety. I prefer this forum as it is appropriately discrete. I am not trying to cause mischief, I would use another social network for that. I am trying to communicate with my industry peers via the only forum available to me. My issue, in my opinion is pertinent to all business operators in the GA industry. My phone number is 0418772013, if you wish to talk to me. I need guidance from my industry peers, and am seeking it through here. Thankyou for your consideration.

[Sunfish]

Do you understand Glen, that your letter to Carmody will filter down through the CASA hierarchy, desk by desk, until it lands on the desk of your alleged tormentor?

Your tormentor will then write an explanation to Carmody, detailing their relationship with you, the substantive issues they found, their responses to you about the issues and your subsequent responses leading up to your letter. All of it slanted their way.

They will then write a section of this brief headed “Comment” in which they explore the policy issues your case raises, they will then go on to explore the options CASA has in resolving your matter, together with the pros and cons of each from CASA’s point of view, not yours.

They finish with a recommendation to Mr. Carmody and an attached letter to you over his signature with the final sentence recommending “that you sign the attached letter”.

This package called a brief, then goes back up the chain (and perhaps down a few times to fix loose ends) and eventually ends up back on Carmody’s desk for his signature along with Thirty other letters.

Your chances of Mr. Carmody taking any interest in your situation are zero...........That is unless the press and Minister get involved in which case you will receive Mr. Carmody’s full and personal attention.

Forget any notion you may have about receiving fairness, equity, due process or natural justice, you have stirred an ants nest. Public servants hate having to justify themselves. You have made enemies for life.

[thorn bird]

Sunfish,
aint that the truth, there is NEVER any redemption, even if you win legally, you lose administratively.
Its very hard to counter the myth CAsA perpetuates that "Safety" is their overriding function,
that Australia is safe because of them, despite all the evidence that contradicts that notion, its all about protecting rice bowls and power.
As long as there is no major RPT accident in Australia, nothing will change.
A whisper in the ministers ear "The blood will be on your hands" is enough to negate any will for change, no matter how corrupt CAsA becomes.
In New Zealand it took a major accident and a royal commission to finally flush out the truth, even then it took several attempts and a mass clean out to finally affect reform.
The RPT industry doesn't give a damn, they pretty much self regulate anyway. Do you imagine the bean counters in Airlines care if they have to put a few more dollars on the price of a ticket to cover red tape, they operate domestically in a vacuum from competition, they can charge what they like. Like lambs to the slaughter the poor punters have no real idea they are being raped by the airlines and all the other parasites that feed off the industry.
Poor old GA is just not big enough for anyone to care until its gone.

I can't help imagining how much safer it would be, how cheap airline tickets could be and how big GA could grow if CAsA was completely disbanded and our regulatory oversight was contracted to the FAA or CAA in New Zealand. We seem incapable of doing anything sensible as long as our regulator is allowed to hide behind a myth.

[josephfeatherweight]

I would really like to see Glen's letter and wish him strength and resilience in the battle ahead!

[Sunfish]

Having read Glens letter, I am concerned for his health.

I’m also afraid his letter will do no good.

[Sandy Reith]

Anyone reading Glen’s letter couldn’t fail to appreciate the depth of feeling and the sense of longing for a resolution from CASA. Having witnessed many careless and punitive actions of CASA throughout GA across the last fifty years I would fully concur with the other experienced voices here. From my very limited knowledge of the subject, I understand that Glen has embarked on a business model that enables flying schools to combine some functions in order to meet new and extraordinarily expensive CASA administrative requirements. My guess is that CASA never considered such a rational move and hence Glen’s model, in the eyes of CASA, is unconventional. Nothing upsets the bureaucratic juggernaut more than being outwitted, it confronts the beast and calls into question its hegemony. It lives on primacy and authority and will have no qualms whatever to remove anything it perceives to threaten it’s position. It can’t do too much to the airlines, they are too big and will have huge clout politically, so GA is the fall guy, a plaything, whipping boy and reason for the ever changing rules and restrictions.
Only political moves can change the behaviour of CASA.
I well remember Brian Reddish coming to me, about thirty years ago, looking for support because, at the end game, they crushed his Hervey Bay fixed and rotary wing flying schools and charter ops by sitting on his applications for new CFI and or CP appointments. Then he couldn’t operate, ran out of money and just folded. By not formerly cancelling or suspending his operating permissions he had no direct means to counter their unjustified actions against him.

[Central Skies]

[QUOTE=Sunfish;10481308]Having read Glens letter, I am concerned for his health.

Having read Glen's letter, I too am concerned for Glen's state of mind and general wellbeing.

Is there anyone here that knows Glen well enough to be checking in on him?

[FPDO]

Hit them up for a Freedom of Information request.
This will show what actions were taken internally upon your correspondence arriving at their office.
You have a right to request and they must supply

[glenb]

Good Morning folks, I have had a quick run through the "death notices" this morning, and can confirm that I am alive and kicking, but I do very much appreciate the concern. I was in a very dark place in the run up to Christmas, but am now invigorated, and fully intend to pursue this through to a determination. Sandy, your words are so accurate, and so insightful, that I drew a lot of strength from them.

I will begin to document this matter, but by way of a brief introduction. The undeniable fact is that I spent many years working closely with CASA in the design of APTA. My business is Melbourne Flight Training, and that is where I have previously derived my income. APTA was designed to facilitate continuing operations of my own business, and others in the new more cumbersome environment that we operate in. I sat down with CASA as we attended to more than 600 CASA requirements. In fact APTA was one of the 5% of Organisations that met the initial deadline of September 1st 2017, and we were significantly impacted by the CASA delay. Irrespective, we continued on. We were CASA approved and had been operating for 15 years, and almost two years as a fully transitioned Part 142 Organisation. I was fully approved, and then in October 2018, I received a notice that CASA intended to bring a cessation to all operations, and that's where the story begins. There was no prior indication at all. That opened up a pandoras box of problems. Soon I will start outlining some of these on here.

I must emphasise that there are no allegations of any safety concerns, in fact CASA have agreed that APTA increases safety, so one would wonder my Mr Graeme Crawford in his role would work so diligently to bring APTA down. This individual may be a ripper bloke outside of the work environment, and probably gets himself involved in the local community, and contributes widely. I can only talk of my own personal experience with him, but in my opinion his manner is bullying and intimidating in nature and only degrades safety outcomes.

Whilst, it is only my perspective, and he is entitled to Procedural Fairness, I have launched a substantive complaint against him I feel that he has compromised safety, acted in breach of his obligations under the PGPA Act, and breached CASAs own Regulatory philosophy.

I have no doubt that at some stage this morning, I will receive a letter from CASA threatening action against me, but frankly, its time for me to protect APTAs reputation, and the many professionals that have workred in so diligently and in such a well intentioned manner. Let me return shortly with only one example of my CASA experience. Everything is fact, and I will provide evidence. As it is related to aviation safety, it is in the public interest.
Once again folk, thankyou for the support.

[Sunfish]

Can you explain, in as few words as possible, what happened? Glad to know you’re OK.

[glenb]

'Dear Mr Buckley,

Thank you for your letter of 28 May 2019.

In the first instance it is important that I publicly confirm for you (and for those addressees you have chosen to include) that:

There is no administrative action currently pending against APTA, and

That no adverse decisions have been taken by CASA in relation to APTA's authorisations to conduct flight training.

I will review the various matters you have raised and will respond in due course.

Regards

Shane

Shane Carmody
CEO and Director of Aviation Safety
Civil Aviation Safety Authority'

[glenb]

https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1440x900/initial_notication_to_apta_from_casa_pg_1_e2182abc769d98471c 47a4c586982ba22aa62914.png
https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1440x900/initial_notication_to_apta_from_casa_pg_2_961035bf79d076ba26 eb23a35e3a39766245b931.png
https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1440x900/initial_notication_to_apta_from_casa_pg_3_f8250ec49c33057708 f29619c547d53ef8730180.png

[glenb]

Dear CASA,

Please find above, the initial correspondence that you sent to me. At 9AM on the morning of 23 rd October 2018, I had no inkling at all that I was to receive that notification. CASA had not previously raised any concerns at all with me, in fact they had been extremely encouraging and supporting of the concept. My reasonable expectation is that the CASA Subject Matter Expert (SME) from my Certificate Management Team, would have raised any concerns with me prior to initiating such a substantive process. As you can see from the correspondence, there are no allegations of safety concerns raised, but rather an accusation related to the Aviation Ruling and our Temporary locations procedure, which I will attend to later.

This document, was effectively a "request for documents" and no determination had been made, and I was not given the opportunity to respond or defend myself.

CASA provided a surety of operations for only 7 days into the future, as you can see from the document. From the period 30th October until 25th January 2019, my business operated literally on a minute by minute approval, On 25th January 2019 you notified me that my business could continue operating for three months until 25th April 2019. On 12th February 2019 you advised me that my business could continue operating until 13th May 2019. On 3rd May 2019 you advised that my business could continue operating until 1st July 2019.

Consider the commercial impact on any business, when you take such action. APTAs "product" was in fact surety of operations into the future, in the more expensive to operate regulatory environment.

Imagine if CASA walked into QANTAS, made allegations, did not give QANTAS the right to respond. Placed a temporary date on their business, prevented them taking on any new customers, and prohibited them from marketing their ability. Quite simply, no business in Australia can have action taken against them by a Government Department of such a nature and be expected to "weather the storm". As Mr Carmody stated he does not believe any administrative action has been taken. This has been CASAs stance, and it is this stance that has prevented me going to the AAT to appeal CASAs decision. Therefore Mr Carmody, if what you say is correct, then it only reaffirms my position that CASA have denied me procedural fairness.

This is in my opinion a variation to my AOC. If as CASA claim, it is not, then I would ask them to provide an example of a variation to an AOC.

How can CASA take such substantive action against a business on a simple "request for documents and not based on safety concerns.

Consider the impact of your action on my business, and the people who depend on me for their livelihood;

No one will approach APTA to join as a Member, because APTA has only a limited period of operation.
I cannot attract new staff to the Organisation, because I don't know if we will be approved.
APTA has been prevented from marketing or adding on any new customers.
Every one of my exceptional staff and the member entities now have only that assured employment.
I cannot enter into contracts of supply due the potential limited date of operations.
The business previously valued at a fair amount has now become worthless.

I have no issue with any CASA action provided the approach complies with CASAs own regulatory philosophy, it is well intentioned, and the decision is made in the interest of aviation safety In this case I am firmly of the opinion that it is not. By CASA choosing to adopt this stance they have in my opinion breached their obligations under Administrative Law, Procedural Fairness, and the concept of natural justice.

With reference to CASAs Regulatory Philosophy. You may recall that this was borne from a the ASSR Review (Forsythe Review). It was a direct result of the manner in which CASA had been engaging with Industry.

I attach the link below, and would particularly like to address the manner CASA engaged me against

Item 1
Item 2
Item 3
Item 5
Item 6
Item 7
Item 8
Item 9
Item 10

Item https://www.casa.gov.au/about-us/standard-page/our-regulatory-philosophy

[glenb]

Following on from my previous thread, and the document I have posted above, you will see how CASA initially pursued a path of using the "Aviation Ruling" and our "Temporary base procedure".

As that line of attack failed, they moved to "audit results from Latrobe Valley" that were proven to be in error. The argument them moved to content of the contracts, then moved to a requirement for signed contracts, and that has now moved on to the content of the contract again, which I am still awaiting CASA direction on.

For this post let me deal with the Temporary locations. The background to this is that for as long as I recall Flying Schools have been able to use a "temporary locations" procedure. I had been in the industry for 25 years.

For those of you in the flight training sector, you will appreciate that this was a standard operating procedure for most flying schools. This facilitated flying schools running operations from a different location than their main base, for short term use. All operations were fully embedded into the Company Exposition (previously referred to as Operations Manual). Some examples would be:

A school usually operates from a busy airport but has a group of foreign pilots coming for training. Those students are not native English speakers. That Temporary location could be at a less congested base, in order to optimize learning outcomes.
A Temporary location could be activated as an additional base during periods when the main base is affected by poor weather i.e. Winter.
Bushfires or other emergency may require a secondary base to be established.
A Temporary location could be established ton access maintenance facilities, and ensure continuity of training etc. etc.


During the APTA design stage I worked with a CASA team referred to as CMT 2. These personnel were well intentioned, and had a good grasp of APTA and CASA material. The conversation at the time went very similar to;

APTA "Once we put in an application for a new base to join us, how long do you anticipate it would take CASA to process the application so that we can activate the base"

CASA "Approximately 6 to 8 weeks, but in the interim you could activate them through a " Temporary locations procedure, while CASA makes their assessment. That will facilitate continuing operations. Besides many of these schools are existing flying schools wanting to operate under APTA, so if they already meet the standard, there is no reason they would not continue to meet the standard, and ideally improve in the future"

APTA; "Can we do that, would you be satisfied with that?

CASA: of course, you already have that procedure in your manuals. The Temporary Locations Procedue!

Note: Our original APTA plan was to have the new member base inactive until fully approved by CASA. In many cases this would have involved fully operating flying schools shutting down for a protracted period, while CASA assessed the application. This option that CASA alerted us to was the ideal solution. It also potentially improved safety as it gave CASA the opportunity to base their ongoing approval on inspecting a fully operational APTA base. My expectation was that this CASA inspection would occur shortly after commencing operations. In fact it took many months for CASA to get around to the inspections and approvals. My expectation was that process would take approximately 6 to 8 weeks. The third base to be approved by CASA actually took CASA almost 12 months to assess and approve. It was fortunate that i had opted for the advice that CASA gave me, in adopting the Temporary Locations procedure, or that business would have been lying idle for 12 months.

So in the design stage we adopted the recommended CASA procedure initially which is extracted from CASAs own guidance material and please make note of that fact, as it will become more pertinent later in this post. We placed that into our manuals and adopted that procedure. Under CASAs very own procedure, that we adopted in our manuals they approved bases under that procedure, so I reasonably felt that CASAs own procedure was acceptable. In November 2017, we underwent a Level 1 CASA audit, being the highest level audit, and that audit included the bases and no concerns were raised at all by CASA at that time.

CASA will later go on to claim to the Commonwealth Ombudsman Office that they only became aware of APTAs structure in October 2018, shortly before they acted to shut down the entire operation. This is simply a ludicrous assertion that CASA has put forward to the Ombudsman Office. Quite seriously, CASA worked with me to improve the procedure to their full satisfaction, and then they assess that procedure in early 2017. CASA then send that procedure for a Peer Review within CASA. CASA then approve the procedure in April 2017. CASA fully approve bases under it and liaise with those respective business owners and aero clubs as part of that process of approval. CASA recommend the system to aero clubs as they will testify. CASA come back in November 2017 for a Level One Audit with several CASA personnel over a one week period. This includes onsite visits to the bases that CASA have approved. At each of the sites that CASA visit, as part of this audit the same CASA approved Key Personnel i.e. CEO, HOO and Safety Manager turn up at each base. If the CASA Executive Manager is to be believed, CASA is still unaware of APTAs structure and wont be for almost another year. Thats despite meeting CASA personnel at the bases, CASA attending our Head Office and CASA attending our Group Safety and manangement meetings, and CASA coming and delivering group training to our members, and CASA attending our Group training

Then as you are aware and without any prior concern expressed, CASA hit me with that notification suggesting I was in breach by using that procedure, which lead to a meeting in the CASA Office. This issue is fundamental to this entire matter. CASA had advised me to adopt the Temporary Location Procedue. It was not my concept, and i had not considered it. I thought it was a great idea in that it was safe and practicalThis time under a different CMT as CASA had initiated a change of CMT oversighting APTA.

The new Regional Manager made a statement, that he had legal advice that the Temporary locations procedure was not intended for flying schools. That surprised me. We then advised that is the guidance we had received from CASA CMT 2. The FOI demanded "Did you get that in writing'. At this stage it became apparent that the CASA personnel I was dealing with were not familiar with their own guidance material.

I have made multiple requests to CASA over the last 7 months to explain what is the breach, that attracts the restricted date of operations.

How can I possibly have a breach, if CASA offered the procedure, CASA approved it, then approved bases under the procedure, and then audited us on it, and then does not explain the issue to me. I cannot fix something up unless I know what is wrong. The procedure has been around for years

This entire matter appears to me to be somewhat confusing. A couple of interesting side issues. Our first base under the procedure was quoted as a 5 hour task, which we paid CASA the fee for, and in fact it took them almost a year to process. Thankyou CMT for suggesting a well intentioned, compliant, tested procedure, so that particular base didn't have to wait 10 months to be activated.

I have cut and pasted the CASA suggested procedure below, and attached our procedure as it is somewhat larger than, and perhaps more robust than CASAs suggestion.

"Where flying training activities are required to be conducted at an alternate location from the company's main training base, the following matters must be considered:
1. Exposition change management procedures
2. Instructor familiarity with the
a) aerodrome;
b) local operating procedures; and
c) risks associated with operating at that aerodrome.
3. Aerodrome suitability for the task, including:
a) other users of the aerodrome
b) physical dimensions and characteristics, in respect to the types of aircraft proposed to be operated
c) preference for the use of registered or certified aerodromes;
and) if an ALA is to be used, the advice in paragraphs 4B6.7 and 4B6.8 must be considered, in addition to the other considerations listed in this section.
4. The availability of suitable facilities and services such as:
a) flight planning, briefing and crew rest and refreshment areas
b) fuel
c) aircraft parking areas
d) aircraft maintenance services.
e) NOTAM and weather services
f) communication ability with operational headquarters and other relevant agencies such as:- Fire services- Ambulance- Police- Aerodrome owner- Airservices Australia. "

I am confident that the Temporary Locations procedure in the attachment is equal to the best practice in the industry, and anyone considering this matter i.e. The Ombudsmas Office could access the procedure via CASA of any flying school in Australia in order to make a comparative analysis.

But then again, CASA has never put forward any supporting safety case, or indeed any regulation that has been breached. In fact CASA have never had any evidence or attempted to put forward any evidence. to even suggest that they actually had anything to raise any concerns. Embarrassingly for CASA, the truth is that we had industry leading levels of operational control, and they stubbornly refuse to push on and not admit error or embrace opportunity for improvements. As pilots, and those involved in the aviation industry we all know how dangerous those characteristics can be

[LeadSled]

Only political moves can change the behaviour of CASA.
I well remember Brian Reddish coming to me, about thirty years ago, looking for support because, at the end game, they crushed his Hervey Bay fixed and rotary wing flying schools and charter ops by sitting on his applications for new CFI and or CP appointments. Then he couldn’t operate, ran out of money and just folded. By not formerly cancelling or suspending his operating permissions he had no direct means to counter their unjustified actions against him.
Folks,
And, as I remember all too well, trying to help Brian. The CASA complaints were completely without merit- and subsequently disproved, but by then, an honourable man and his family, as well as his business, had been destroyed.
Where have we heard this story before --- time and again!!
Tootle pip!!

[Sandy Reith]

Reading from the CASA website about it’s philosophy we find the following, quote:-

clear and concise, using plain language and concepts wherever possible

One could be forgiven for thinking that this says it all. The Act says “clear and concise.” It does not have a free get out of jail card such as “wherever possible.”

[glenb]

Interesting point Sandy, the obligation to provide "clear and concise aviation safety standards' is actually an obligation that CASA are required to achieve, and in fact I provide the extract from the Civil Aviation Act below.

The failure to achieve that, impacts significantly across industry, and in fact I suggest every business owner in the GA sector has been impacted by this failure. In fact that leads beautifully into my next post, which further and highlights the failure. Now that failure alone wouldn't be as significant, if it was accompanied by a collaborative approach from CASA towards industry. Its not an environment to act in a bullying or intimidating nature. In fact everything in this story comes back to those failures. The failure to achieve clear and concise aviation safety standards and the failure to act in a well intentioned manner.

9 CASA’s functions (1) CASA has the function of conducting the safety regulation of the following, in accordance with this Act and the regulations:
(a) civil air operations in Australian territory;
(b) the operation of Australian aircraft outside Australian territory;
(ba) ANZA activities in New Zealand authorised by Australian AOCs with ANZA privileges;
by means that include the following: (c) developing and promulgating appropriate, clear and concise aviation safety standards;

[Fliegenmong]

What a very sad indictment on the industry.....appreciate you putting your neck on the line Glen B,,,,you've been cornered and have had the b@lls to come out fighting...I only wish you the very best!

(This sort of BS only happens in Countries we ordinarily laugh about....not so hilarious when it happens in our own backyard)

[Sandy Reith]

Having left out so many
obvious necessities for off base training CASA should go back and rethink the disasters that will undoubtedly occur through lack of proper detail. Some comments and suggestions in brackets.

4. The availability of suitable facilities and services such as:
a) flight planning, briefing and crew rest and refreshment.
(There’s a great idea, “suitable facilities”)
b) fuel (aircraft, for the use of)
c) aircraft parking areas
(brilliant CASA, no dummy instructor would have thunk that one, room to park your plane!)
d) aircraft maintenance services.
(there’s an idea! maintain your aircraft! On cross countries take a LAME with a full set of tools and maintenance manuals)
e) NOTAM and weather services
(pay for a Met man to service the weather onsite at all times if flying is to be considered.)

But they left the best for last -
f) communication ability with operational headquarters and other relevant agencies such as:- Fire services- Ambulance- Police- Aerodrome owner- Airservices Australia.
And, in an uncharacteristic display of modesty did not put CASA at the top of list of important agencies. Also left out the Mental Disability Authority.
(In the absence of a handy Morse code telegraph station, advise all personnel about a magic communication device known as a telephone, purchase same and instruct in the use of same. If your instructors don’t catch on after a couple of hours then advise them to look for other work, example, try Aviation House)

[Sandy Reith]

What a very sad indictment on the industry.....appreciate you putting your neck on the line Glen B,,,,you've been cornered and have had the b@lls to come out fighting...I only wish you the very best!

(This sort of BS only happens in Countries we ordinarily laugh about....not so hilarious when it happens in our own backyard)
Fliegenmong, how true, I’ve read several comments from USA aviation blogs about Australian aviation that would make you cringe.
The level of CASA interference in the business of GA is restriction of trade and restriction of the right to work which is against Australia’s pledge to the United Nations Charter of Human Rights.
In the USA any qualified instructor can teach anywhere without an Air Operators Certificate and around 70% of pilots are trained by these independent instructors.
What’s wrong with that? Nothing, it means that hundreds of country towns could get back their flying schools. Thousands of jobs would be created in maintenance and other downstream occupations.
CASA has been toying with allowing the independent instructor for at least thirty years to my certain knowledge. Couldn’t do it and lose control and a myriad of excessive fees for unnecessary permissions. They’ve pushed the rules into the criminal code and proof strict liability, wholly unnecessary and thoroughly counterproductive to safety (hide all mistakes and admit nothing, do not pass on valuable safety lessons).
Hats off to Glen for standing up for his rights, to fly or create business is not a Crown authorised privilege, it is our right, and its right to expect fair treatment. Mention of ‘privileges’ in legislation should be done away with, its a pathetic leftover from the days when monarchs had all the rights and only dished out ‘privileges’ to the compliant, fawning and favoured ‘subjects.’

[thorn bird]

"(In the absence of a handy Morse code telegraph station, advise all personnel about a magic communication device known as a telephone, purchase same and instruct in the use of same. If your instructors don’t catch on after a couple of hours then advise them to look for other work, example, try Aviation House)"

Of course Sandy if "telephone" was mentioned it would require a new section in the "exposition" (Luv that word, what was wrong with Shelfware) along with an approved syllabus of training, 400 page operating manual, a new addition to the MOS, possibly a new examination on telecommunications and a new section on the licence which would have to signed off every year by an ATO after a rigorous oral examination. Fifty penalty points sounds about right for flying while not being current in telecommunication. Also the AIP would need amending to add approved phrases that must be used when telecommunicating.

"Mention of ‘privileges’ in legislation should be done away with, its a pathetic leftover from the days when monarchs had all the rights and only dished out ‘privileges’ to the compliant, fawning and favoured ‘subjects.’"

Now there's an idea. Maybe Glen should apply for a Royal Appointment. "Provider of flying training services to her majesty the Queen", got a nice ring to it, might put Glen in the frame for a knighthood which I reckon he deserves. Sorry to be flippant Glen but when you consider the tragedy unfolding with your situation and how absolutely powerless you must feel, what's left but to make fun of them. Your absolutely right about that Scottish Git, a real piece of work he's virtually in charge anyway, rumour has it that other bloke only turns up to work a couple of times a week. Have you seen what we pay these numpies?

Perhaps the Scottish Git's response to you came from the realisation that your innovative business model could actually succeed, innovation in the lexicon of CAsA's modus operandi is a dirty word.

[Dick Smith]

Thorn bird, what a masterful post #35. I must repeat some of your quotes.

"As long as there is no major RPT accident in Australia, nothing will change."

"A whisper in the ministers ear "The blood will be on your hands" is enough to negate any will for change, no matter how corrupt CASA becomes."

"The RPT industry doesn't give a damn, they pretty much self regulate anyway. Do you imagine the bean counters in Airlines care if they have to put a few more dollars on the price of a ticket to cover red tape, they operate domestically in a vacuum from competition, they can charge what they like."

"Poor old GA is just not big enough for anyone to care until its gone."

A masterpiece!

[glenb]

So anyway, after CASA initiated the initial action on the Temporary locations procedure, and embarrassingly realised it was actually their own procedure that they had, suggested, provided, approved, and audited, the topic moved to the "Aviation Ruling". Once again its the same double edged sword,. The failure of CASA to achieve clear and concise aviation safety standards and the stubborn refusal to act with good intent towards industry.

Now it must have been bring your kid to work day at CASA, because to use that particular document was quite ludicrous. After 9 weeks of robust discussion with CASA, CASA conceded that the Aviation Ruling was not relevant in this case and took it “off the table”. The Aviation Ruling was not the appropriate document to be using to take such substantive action. I recall the introduction of the Aviation Ruling and the circumstances around its introduction. It was a consequence of Charter Operators having their operations shut down by CASA, and they would “pop” up the next day under a different Operators approval. There was a specific occurrence at Essendon Airport that prompted its release. From initial receipt I made it clear that it was not the appropriate document to be using, as it;
Does not have a “head of power”.
Was written in 2006 for an entirely different regulatory environment.·
Was written for the Charter Industry, or what is referred to as Civil Aviation Regulation 206 (CAR206) operation for commercial purposes. CASA themselves determined that flying training was not a CAR 206 operation in September of 2014 and removed it.
The terminology refers to personnel positions that are in CAR 206 operations, and do not exist in flying training organisations.
On its release the flying schools were advised that in fact it did not apply to them, and that is the recollection of peers in the industry.
I lodged correspondence to that effect, and if you are wanting more detail please refer to the attachment.

So after 9 weeks with the Temporary locations identified as CASAs own procedure, and the Aviation Ruling off the table, one would reasonably expect that the temporary date of approval on my business would be lifted and we would be back to Business as Usual. Ahhh, its not to be. The changing goal posts begin, the problem quickly snowballs as CASA now move to the topic of contracts. As the Business Owner it was becoming increasingly apparent their is not a lot of "good intention being displayed"

I remind you that this entire fiasco could have been avoided, had my Flight Operations Inspector (FOI, the subject matter expert from my CMT) come and verbally raised his/her concerns with me. Quite simply, a well intentioned 2 hour discussion would have been a better starting point for the process, although CASA chose the most intrusive action available to it, and that is despite their obligations under their own Regulatory Philosophy and most particularly their own regulatory philosophy point 9, and I remind CASA that there have been no safety concerns raised. https://www.casa.gov.au/about-us/standard-page/our-regulatory-philosophy






https://www.casa.gov.au/sites/default/files/_assets/main/rules/rulings/2006/ar01.pdf
Aviation Ruling https://www.casa.gov.au/rules-and-regulations/standard-page/aviation-rulings (https://www.casa.gov.au/rules-and-regulations/standard-page/aviation-rulings)

[glenb]

Whilst I don't want to interrupt the flow of my argument, it may be worth adding an interesting note at this stage.

For many years I had been working with the CASA team referred to as CMT 2. On 10th May 2018 I was advised that I had a change of CMT to another team. I was concerned on receipt of this information as there was a person on the team, that I felt may act against APTA, and perhaps more personally towards me. This individual had a "reputation" within industry, as not the "ideal" person to be working with

The next day 11/05/18 I sent an email to my Regional Manager requesting a one on one meeting, and I followed up with another email on 16/05/18 requesting a one on one meeting to raise my concerns, and importantly the request was for a one on one meeting, but importantly NOT off the record.

Therefore CASA records should clearly show that concerns were raised by me about this individual and going forward, in an endeavour to maintain some anonymity, I will refer to him as FOI, Mr Smithers going forward

Anyway, I registered my concerns, and I was assured that Mr Smithers would work professionally with APTA.

Interestingly enough, I will assert that Mr Smithers was instrumental in initiating the action against APTA. So one would really have to wonder why my FOI would work so diligently behind APTAs back and try to bring it undone. If these people approached their job with the tenacity that they chased me, CASA might actually get something done!!!!

Irrespective of that Mr Smithers approach was not in accordance with CASAs own regulatory philosophy.

Most safety orientated organisations by now would be looking inwards and trying to review the way they had handled the whole matter, but not CASA. Impossible to admit we erred like an aviation safety professional would, lets try and smoke it all up.

Meanwhile while CASA works away trying to bring APTA undone, I am unable to sign up new customers. Its important to appreciate that APTA was built and running but required 10 customers to join. In fact just today I have had a potential new member establish contact to find about APTA. As soon as I tell them that APTA has only about another month to run, and I am awaiting another CASA extension, I suggest that there interest will wane very quickly, and that highlights my problem. I have to repeatedly turn away customers until my business is given surety of operations. Its been running safely and compliantly for nearly 15 years, why do CASA choose to act this way, its so totally unnecessary.

So Mr Smithers, I intend to hold you fully to account for your performance, and the starting point for that in fairness, is your position description. As in my own organisation, I cannot hold anyone to account for something that is not written in a job description. For clarity I intend to lodge formal complaints about a Senior Executive (done) and an FOI, a Regional Manager, and a Team Leader. Obviously they are only allegations and outside of the workplace they may well head down to Mr Crawford's soccer game and all flip sausages together. Very admirable and indicates you are a decent person outside of the workplace. I can only draw on my own experience, and that experience has been substandard.

So anyway I approach CASA for the respective job descriptions which aren't available anywhere on the website Now if a apply for a job, I can get the job description. But if I want to lodge a complaint it had to go in to CASA and then I had to request it under Freedom Of Information, and now I am waiting up to 30 days for CASA to decide whether they will give it to me. Can a CASA job really be that "top secret"

If someone lodged a complaint about one of my staff, the starting point would be the job description.

Now if the job description reads "go out into industry, wreak havoc and destruction, and don't support industry, I will withdraw my complaint, because you have done your job with a zest that I would love to have in my own workplace.

Now if the job description has words like, respect, foster, build, engage, increase safety etc, then I will most definitely be lodging a complaint.

[LeadSled]

Reading from the CASA website about it’s philosophy we find the following, quote:-

clear and concise, using plain language and concepts wherever possible

One could be forgiven for thinking that this says it all. The Act says “clear and concise.” It does not have a free get out of jail card such as “wherever possible.”

Sandy,
A very recently retired very senior "public servant", whom both you and I know, once said to me, and he was not joking: "When all else fails, read your Act" ---- at the time he was head of hist particular department/authority/bureau.
CASA punctiliously follow their Act and Regulation, and all other relevant legislation, codes, guidelines etc. just when it suits them, and not at any other time.
In Canberra, they are not alone.
Tootle pip!!
PS: Given that the Government did not change, there are some quite embarrassed CASA persons right now, some of whom will have to revise some of their "planned" actions against certain operators. A fly on the wall tells me some shredders were running hot, maybe even a bit of overtime on 19/05.

[glenb]

So, we initially had the Temporary Locations procedure as an issue, and the Aviation Ruling. Unfortunately for CASA, they didn’t stick, so the new topic for the last 6 months has been contracts. This is a complicated one, and I will endeavour to keep it as straight forward as possible.

You will recall that CASA specifically identified to industry in 2006 when the Aviation Ruling was released that it did not apply to flying schools. Evidence of that fact is that CASA for my last 25 years in the industry has accepted two or more schools sharing the one AOC. Latrobe Valley Aero Club operated under the approval of a respected regional Victorian operator right up until the night they joined APTA, and in fact I had TVSA at Bacchus Marsh under our AOC for a period of time, as they were unable to secure the required Key Personnel. I am also aware of QLD operators doing the same thing, and it was accepted by CASA. In our case CASA had been advised and was fully aware.

At the time I had the good fortune to operate under CMT 2 who would always endeavour to find safe and compliant solutions to support industry. To sum it up, I guess you could say they were well intentioned and professional. So, we have ascertained that the practice was accepted by CASA.

"Dear Mr CASA. I don’t believe you have ever required or hold on file at any time in CASAs history, a requirement for the parties involved to have a contract between those Parties. The requirement for a contract was a new requirement, and a requirement placed on APTA specifically. If I am incorrect in those assertions, please feel free to advise me of so.

I am taking a bit of poetic licence with the exact terminology, but the exchange went something like this.

CASA You don’t have contracts

APTA We were never required to have contracts, you had never mentioned them previously, and other operators don’t have them, but due to our foresight we actually do have contracts, cant you recall that we have provided them to you on numerous occasions.

CASA No you haven’t.

APTA Please allow me to show you the evidence by way of the emails.

It was somewhat to see them all nicely printed off in front of the large team of personnel at the next meeting, I can assure you

Anyway, so now CASA have worked out that they actually did hold the contracts, and in fact had they realised that, they may not have tried using the Aviation Ruling. In fact, all though the Aviation Ruling doesn’t apply to Flying Schools. I did draw on it during the design of APTA and the contracts. But unfortunately, CASA steadfastly refuse to admit they erred, and continue to press on. I have attached the contracts that we use as an attachment. Now I know contracts can be boring things, but I would encourage you to open the attachment and have a look at the contract. It has two parts. The legal stuff followed by section 2 which I refer to as the “spirit of APTA”. That is actually the fundamental part of what we were trying to achieve. As you scroll through the “Spirit” part, look how we hoped to engage with CASA. Thanks so much CASA for really stepping up to the plate and supporting industry.

So basically CASA say that they aren’t happy with the content of the contract that we have, and they cant actually identify what is wrong, and they advise me that its not their job to do it, so I go away and have a crack but its impossible. Where do I start, if I don’t know what is wrong? I explained to CASA that it was incumbent on them to give me guidance. It actually gets a bit amusing shortly, so please bear with me.

So anyway, CASA give me some suggested text, which I embed “word for word” as they suggested and submit that. Not accepted by them. WTF!!

CASA then give me some more suggested text for another crack at it. Once again I embed it word for word. I just want my operational restriction lifted, so will do whatever they want, and I am happy to comply. I submit their own suggested text word for word and submit it. CASA write to me and tell me we are finalised and all good to go. Hours later they write back to me and retract the contract that they said was OK.

To top it all off, I get an email from Mr Graeme Crawford stating the following “The quality of the input Glen provided at that point, reflected the absence of such adsvice, and a clear understanding of some of the issues CASA has identified as critical.

WELL MR CRAWFORD, I FULLY CONCUR BECAUSE ALL SUBMISSIONS HAVE BEEN WORD FOR WORD AS CASA ADVISED ME,

Concerningly that suggested to me that Mr Crawford had little idea of what was really going on. Anyway, here we are more than 7 months later, CASA still didn’t know what they wanted, so they outsourced it to an external legal service.

Ahhhh, I remember how I used to scold my kids. “You cant say something is wrong, if you don’t know what right is”. So CASA, if you don’t like the content of the contract, its incumbent upon you to tell me what you want. It would really help, if you could lift the temporary date on my business while you try and work it out.

For perfect clarity, and as I have told CASA repeatedly. I Glen Buckley as the Authorisation Holder, understand that I have total responsibility for all operations under my approval across all bases while delivering under the APTA approval. That does not mean there will never be an accident or an incident. It means that I must be able to robustly defend my position in court, and if found wanting, I am liable. I will put whatever you want in the contracts. I have attached a copy of the template contract that we use for APTA, and encourage readers to look at point 35 onwards.

And yet again, its CASAs failure to achieve clear and concise aviation safety standards as is required of them as one of their functions. Combine this with a lack of good intention, and it aint ever gonna work.

I think my next post will be about the audits, and that is where it gets really interesting. I think your gonna love the next one.

[glenb]

I believe that it became increasingly obvious to CASA that their arguments around the temporary locations and aviation ruling were not valid, and in fact quite embarrassing.

CASA had now realised that in fact the Aviation Ruling did not apply, and in fact the procedure we used for Temporary locations were in fact, their own procedure. Further to that, we had actually substantially documented and submitted procedures to CASA that far exceeded their requirements of us. The direction then moved off in a different direction, and the previous concerns were “parked” by CASA.

20/11/18 - The line of attack moved to a new topic. Now it was the audit results from the Latrobe Valley audit. This was identified by the Regional Manager Mr David Jones as a Level 2 audit. Let me provide a further chronological timeline, lets start at the beginning.

03/09/18 - CASA conduct the level 2 audit at LTV. CASA conducted an Exit Meeting as they are required to in their own procedures. The verbal Exit Meeting should be followed up by a matching written report, and we were advised of such. There were no safety or regulatory concerns expressed. We acted immediately on the minor points raised and awaited the written report from CASA as promised. Those related to contextualising our exams for Latrobe Valley

05/09/18 - CASA conducted the level 2 audit at BLT. CASA conducted an Exit Meeting as they are required to in their own procedures. The verbal Exit Meeting is supposed to be followed up by a matching written report, and we were advised of such. There were no safety or regulatory concerns expressed. We acted immediately on the minor points raised and awaited the written report from CASA as promised.

23/10/18 - In fact the next written notification we received from CASA was notification from CASA of intention to bring a cessation to APTA operations

18/11/18 Meeting at CASA Regional Office highlighted that CASA had not provided written audit report as advised, and importantly required. They failed to meet their obligations under Administrative Law. CASA made commitment to provide those audit results. At that meeting the Regional Manager confirmed that it was in fact a level 2 audit was conducted. The Regional Manager at that meeting, expressed the CASA concern that there were incorrect and outdated Latrobe Valley forms everywhere. Interestingly that was a new topic not raise at the verbal debrief on site at LTV on the day, and that complaint did not resurface in the subsequently produced audit results. It made me feel that he was somewhat clutching at straws, so to speak.

20/11/18 - In the contents of an email, Mr David Jones stated that “the assessment of the Latrobe Valley Aero Club was used as the basis of seeking CASA legal advice…” I question how the audit results can be used by CASA to shut down my operation without me having had the “right of reply”.

24/11/18 - CASA provided the audit results. These results differed entirely from the verbal debrief and contained several new and substantive allegations that had not been raised before. These included breaches of - CASR 141.310, CASR 142.390, and CASR 117. I had not previously been made aware of these and am strongly of the opinion that this was a breach of administrative law/natural justice/procedural fairness. How could these audit results be used as the basis of legal action if I had not had the opportunity to respond. How could completely new allegations occur? I strongly refute those allegations and have made repeated requests to get the supporting evidence.

CASA have consistently and repeatedly ignored all requests for the specifics of the breech. I am strongly of the opinion that they cannot be substantiated, and therefore no matter how many requests I make, they will never be able to address the outstanding allegations.

Also, I point out that I requested the audit results be provided in the standard format that CASA provides to other Operators, as it had been identified as a level 2 audit. In CASAs own procedures they nominate identified issues as either a Safety Alert, Safety Finding, or Safety Observation. On hindsight I appreciate that would not be practical, as I don’t believe any concerns raised by CASA have anything to do with safety, therefore CASA is unable to produce their audit in the standard format.

Now CASA alleged breaches of CASR 141.310 (1),(5) and (6) and CASR 142.390 (1),(5), and (6):http://www5.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_reg/casr1998333/s141.310.html (http://www5.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_reg/casr1998333/s141.310.html)
http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_reg/casr1998333/s142.390.html (http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_reg/casr1998333/s142.390.html) CASA also alleged a breach of CASR 117. That is also a ludicrous statement and frequent requests to have clarification of this have been totally ignored.

Regarding this allegation CASA referred to the Latrobe valley Website. I am unable to identify the breech when I go to the website. I have asked CASA to identify the “offending page”. This simple 30 second task has not been attended to by CASA despite repeated requests over many months. It is impossible for me to reply to the audit and finalise the matter if CASA steadfastly refuse to provide the supporting evidence, and help me resolve their perceived issues.

28/11/18 The Regional Manager now raises completely new allegations and substantial allegations that differ to the original allegations made on site at Ballarat and Latrobe , which differed to the allegations made at our meeting, which differed to the allegations made in writing. The new allegations were about flight and duty times, and in an email he stated;“These anomalies should be known by Ermin (as the APTA HOO) as there were problems identified with the FSM system and Flight and Duty (F&D) management, in particular associated to the F&D exceedances”.

On receipt of that email I immediately knew that it was a false statement and that it should be known to be untruthful at the time of writing. Despite numerous requests to have those allegations substantiated with any evidence, none will be forthcoming as it was a blatant untruth. My concerns being that once again it appeared the Regional Manager was trying to “paint a picture.” He also cast aspersions on my HOO by stating “should be known by Ermin”. CASA had not sent any audit results, so how could he possibly know!

The deficiency was on CASAs behalf, not ours!

05/12/18 I wrote to Regional Manager David Jones requesting substantiation of false allegations

05/12/18 Out of frustration at my inability to get the original audit results provided to me by CASA I made a request under FOI to try and obtain my audit results. CASA determined that I was not entitled to those and I was provided with a completely redacted statement that was of no value to me at all. I subsequently appealed that decision and that appeal was also rejected. Still to date, I have not been able to get access to the audit results and their associated notes from the day of the audit. I have only had access to notes written up after it was identified that notes had not been provided, and these contain completely new allegations of regulatory breaches. I have made at least 5 requests on these to resolve them and CASA have steadfastly refused to respond to my requests for assistance.

So CASA when you try and tell me that you are supporting APTA, please excuse me if I seem somewhat bemused by that assertion.

Quite seriously, an impossible situation to be in, and I have made two further requests over the last week, and like all the other requests, completely ignored. Where to next, thers so much good stuff, but alas I need to head home to the family. Will give me a bit of time to work out which topic next.

[Sandy Reith]

As many of us have been saying for many years, CASA is a dysfunctional organisation. It is riven with hubris and operates in a manner that would be intolerable in any other area of civil society. People outside our small aviation community cannot conceive how bad is the system that’s been allowed to grow in spite of the numerous examples of exceptionally bad behaviour.
Glen’s example flies in the face of Mr. Carmody’s latest missive where he pats himself on the back for getting regulations promulgated, easily the worst and most unworkable rules of any developed GA country, isn’t that terrific. Meanwhile his minions are running amuck, and the destruction of Australian General Aviation continues.
Glen is making his courageous pushback public, countless others have gone quietly in the face of bullying, monstrous fees for unnecessary permissions, mountains of counterproductive paperwork and impossible demands. Demands of the sort so clearly demonstrated by the nightmare visited upon Glen. This is the embedded modus operandi of a regulator that has been out of control for a very long time. It is a disgrace to the Public Service and to all the Ministers who have one after another abrogated their duties to the nation.
LeadSlead has it right, they will comply with the Act only when it suits, unfortunately that’s not very often.

[Sunfish]

The problem in my opinion is political mate; If you succeed, then everyone else is going to do the same thing: - operate under one AOC and share the costs of compliance.

The trouble with that idea from a CASA senior management perspective is one of critical mass - a group of you represent a serious chunk of business and have the financial and legal resources to match CASA. What’s the union chant? “ united (together) we cannot be defeated”. The thought must give senior management nightmares for you can’t push a cooperative around like a bunch of tiny individual operators.

To be fair to CASA, it sounds like your original CASA contacts were helpful, honest and trying to do the best they can for you and the industry.

However, once senior management got wind of your little plan, all hell has broken loose.

It it now sounds to me from what you have written, that you are alleging that CASA is not conducting itself in good faith. This has a legal meaning although i’m not a lawyer but it basically means you both have to be working truthfully. There is also another legal word “estoppel” which means CASA (and you) can’t change your story to suit your current circumstances, but again I am not a lawyer and you need one.

I don’t know but It sounds to me like this matter crept up on CASA senior management. The guys that helped you are in trouble, CASA is now desperately trying to squash you and stick the cork back in the bottle because your idea APTA provides a way for individual businesses to band together and stand up for themselves - which doesn’t sound like it’s what CASA wants.

you might like to think about crowd funding via the internet for some legal, facebook, twitter, etc. couldn’t hurt since you have gone public. Nothing left to loose. What has AOPA said BTW/

[Alpha Whiskey Bravo]

Sunny, you are absolutely correct in your post!

[Sunfish]

I can buy an Australian shelf company for less than a thousand dollars in one day. Stamp, articles minute book, asset register, shareholder register, etc., etc. Why not an AOC?

I fail to understand why a plain vanilla AOC is not similarly available for a flying school, club or charter operation using plain vanilla cessnas and pipers with maybe VFR and IFR options. There would also need to be add on modules for acrobatics and other endorsed activities.

Clearly the cost of an AOC is a barrier to entry which is not in the public interest.

As an AOC is a barrier to entry that does not add value to an operation, I would have thought CASA would be actively in favour of a simple cheap off-the-shelf product which it sounds to me was what APTA was attempting to offer. After all, where is the value for the taxpayer in forcing each fledgling business to reinvent the wheel at great cost before it can get started?

I would have thought a Government interested in jobs, investment and economic growth would reward an institution like CASA for streamlining business approvals processes to make it quicker, cheaper and easier to start an aviation business.

Lets hope the current problems Glen thinks he has are just a minor glitch and that he and CASA can work out a solution that is a win/win for everyone.

[cattletruck]

glenb my heart goes out to you for choosing to live by your convictions, and you have my utmost respect in choosing to stand by them and go down this path, but surely you must be aware that you are dealing with a bureaucracy that at times can be seen to be incredibly naive, bumbling, and inept in the worst kind of light with the way they conduct themselves.

If you were a fly on the wall in these kinds of organisations you would soon see the molasses the staff have to swim through to get the most simplest of things done through no fault of their own. These kinds of government organisations are mostly dysfunctional when it comes to straying from the straight and narrow for reasons too varied to mention, and a small part of that has some minuscule relation to aviation.

As best as I can tell from the information you have provided, AFTA is at the end of the day just a document, albeit a practical one thanks to the incredible efforts put into it by yourself and CASA staff. But the truth with these organisations is that every w@nker and their dog with an idea of any kind is producing documents that demand attention from everyone, however nobody actually reads them, they are ultimately filed away in a repository I refer to as a cemetery for documents. Your valuable efforts are then quite easily drowned by those with no practical experience in aviation.

Currently I have a gig with the feds (not CASA) and I see this kind of thing everyday. It was only last month when I was threatened with my job because I didn't support a change, which turns out to be motivated by some overpaid bimbo contractor after his bonus by completing what seems to me to be a very dubious task before EOFY. I am not alone here, and there are other staff in the organisation that can see through the crap but our efforts in swimming through all this molasses turns out to be just another occupational hazard.

My message to you is not to bleed yourself dry, it really aint worth it, the illogical modern corporate practices used by these organisations are stacked up against the people they serve including themselves. I can't see the situation getting any better unless we either a) go to war or b) there is a major recession.

[thorn bird]

Sunfish,

In the USA independent flying instructors train over 70% of all pilots. No AOC required because all the syllabuses and standards are readily available, written in plain english and the ONUS and liability placed on the individual instructor to complete those syllabi and ensure the required standards are reached.
The paradox in all this if American pilots are so poorly trained would it not be beholden for CAsA to prohibit them from operating to Australia, "Safe Skies for all" is their mantra. Or does that only apply when it suits?

Glen himself has stated his AOC cost $700,000 dollars to obtain, I don't know how long that took, but I do know of a company that spent $250,000 for a charter AOC which took two years to obtain. The same AOC in New Zealand could be obtained in a couple of months for less than twenty grand. If it cost Glen that amount for a flying school AOC what would an RPT AOC cost?

It is a fact that Glens business model only works because of CAsA's amateurish, inane regulations and the massive costs it places on industry and good on him for seeing an opportunity and devising a sensible way to share the costs burden. What I find unconscionable is CAsA leading him up the garden path knowing he was expending his capital, then pulling the rug out from under him by devious and underhanded tactics. That is just diabolically unethical.

[josephfeatherweight]

It is a fact that Glens business model only works because of CAsA's amateurish, inane regulations and the massive costs it places on industry and good on him for seeing an opportunity and devising a sensible way to share the costs burden. What I find unconscionable is CAsA leading him up the garden path knowing he was expending his capital, then pulling the rug out from under him by devious and underhanded tactics. That is just diabolically unethical.
Thorn bird, I reckon you have summarised the situation exceptionally well - it is indeed appallingly unethical and a crying shame to see someone who has worked so hard, in good faith, to be destroyed like this. A more professional, committed and caring individual you won’t come across, than Glen. I believe he genuinely started this venture to create a solid business that helped everyone out.

[LeadSled]

Folks,
If rumors about a/the new DAS/CEO have any foundation, it is only about to get worse.
Tootle pip!!

[thorn bird]

Oh god lead,

not the screaming skull clone with a Scottish accent?

[LeadSled]

Oh god lead,
not the screaming skull clone with a Scottish accent?
Thorny,
The Skull was actually quite a knowledgeable chap, aviation wise, just that, in my opinion, he wasn't "foreman material"..
I am of the opinion that such accusations cannot be made in the current climate.
Tootle pip!!

[Sunfish]

Please keep us posted Glen. Have you got legal advice now? Don’t do anything rash.

[glenb]

Hi Sunny,

and thanks for the query about legal advice. To be frank, it is my very last course of action. CASA is aware of that and during this week I will demonstrate on here, and any other forum, that I have gone to great lengths to resolve this, in fact more than could be reasonably expected of any human being. I think it will clearly demonstrate the lack of resolve within the Aviation Group headed up by Mr Crawford, to resolve this. As always, I encourage CASA to become involved. Perhaps a person could be nominated from within CASA to publicly respond to claims that I make on here. That would be fair and transparent. It would also demonstrate that CASA is prepared to publicly defend the way they engage the GA Industry. I have no doubt that CASA will have some defence to stop them coming on here.

Lets get back to basics. The Board could make a direction and nominate someone to represent CASAs perspective. They wont. They will actually DECIDE not to.

Let me be very clear. I worked side by side with CASA personnel ,irrefutably on record. (in fact they wrote to me drawing my attention to how many resources they were directing to the project), and CASA had approved me to do what I do, 18 months earlier. Without an inkling of notice, or any prior concern expressed at all, that initial document they sent me, left me in no doubt of CASAs intention, that in 7 days it was more likely than not, they would bring my entire operation to a halt after 15 years of safe and compliant operations. There were no safety concerns at all expressed by CASA, and there were no regulatory breaches. CASA cannot refute that.

Such action, at least begins with a face to face discussion with me, and if CASA understood APTA, they would appreciate the domino effect of their action, as it effects a number of operators, their continuity of operations, and the people who depend on them for their livelihood.

Anyway, I have been mindful of public funds, as that it one of my major concerns with the way CASA operate, in fact I believe the Aviation Group within CASA has shown a blatant disregard for its obligations under the PGPA Act, and I have continually put forward solutions that would minimise the impact on Public funds. I will demonstrate that later on, as time permits.

For those that have an interest in following this matter on here, you may wish to acquaint yourself with the PGPA Act. No doubt you will roll your eyes thinking "not more rules". Its not bad document. In fact its quite "clear and concise" for a legislative piece. Almost demonstrates that it can be done. https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2013A00123

I will continue to avoid engaging any legal advice for as long as I possibly can. The engagement of legal advice suggests to me that their is no remaining good intention in the process. The ball is in CASAs court.

[glenb]

Hopefully I get a chance to continue unfolding the APTA experience on here over the next 24 hours. But I do want to sincerely thank everyone for their support. It has really been very much appreciated. To date, I had tried everything to resolve this internally and as discretely as possible, but my hand was forced. "Coming out" has been a liberating experience. I am on the phone quite a bit at the moment, and I am having trouble keeping up.

But to every Industry peer, ex school mate (SB), work mate, customer, person I respectfully bang heads with (Gerard), employee, past boss or supervisor, competitor,or Airline Pilot and father of a friend (Gav), thanks for the calls and encouragement. Trust me, its very much appreciated. If I cant take your call, im sorry, but the name popping up as a missed call gives me encouragement. Everything is appreciated and valued, it really is.

Let me assure you, I don't like fighting, and those close to me will testify to that. I can sit at a green arrow behind someone for two sets of green arrows without tooting my horn. I don't get upset at people that make errors. If I toot my horn, the person in front might lurch forward, and have an accident. They may get stressed and make a bad decision, they may actually have inadvertently prevented me being in an accident up the road.

I do also appreciate that two parties can look at exactly the same thing, and have a COMPLETELY different perspective, and I will use the example that I used at my staff meeting last Friday.

Most Sunday mornings, my wife, my 21 year old daughter, and myself sit across the kitchen bench with my daughter in the middle. I munch on my toast looking at my daughter who came home in the wee hours. I think to myself, "wow the father of an angelic 21 year old girl patiently waiting and resisting temptation waiting for Mr Right". As I glance across the table, I catch my wife's steely eyed glare fixated on my daughter, I can see it in her eyes "you dirty filthy wh$%@".

Anyway, as in my issue with CASA, I am strengthened by the fact, despite two sides having a different perspective, one of us is right. I choose that word with consideration. Its a bigger issue than correct or better. It really is a very pure issue, despite any attempt by CASA to smoke it up. It is very simply about right and wrong. Some behaviour, simply cannot be accepted because it is clearly wrong, as I believe it is in this case.

Let me assure you however, I will fight people who head out into the world, and decide to act with bad intent. Im not talking about the person who misses the green light. Im talking about the person that decides to spit on a security guard, the group of young thugs that decide to intimidate a lady at a train station, the group that decide to steal someone's Jet ski ( not mine), the driver that decides to drive on ice and kill an innocent lady, or the jerk that decides to try and steal stuff out my glovebox. I don't like people that actually decide to act inappropriately, and those close to me will confirm that. If you after an interesting story pop down the airport and ask about the Jetski fellas that pulled a gun on me. Its my favourite. But I do back up my words, and the issue is no different with CASA.

Its about decisions, and accepting the responsibility for decisions. As I say to all my learn to fly inquiries. Pilot training is simply a course of "decision making", and the Industry's safety depends on good decision makers. Every employee, and I mean every employee. From the CLARC office (who I find exceptional by the way) right through to the CEO and Board, need to stop before they walk through those doors at CASA, and actually commit themselves to Safety.That needs to drive every decision they make, and I mean every decision they make. If they think their decision potentially compromises safety in any way, or doesn't at least maintain or improve safety, they should stop. That should be the driver behind every decision. That combined with a genuine commitment to CASAs own Regulatory philosophy, and I mean a real commitment.

That alone is all CASA need to do, to improve safety outcomes. Those well intentioned within CASA will concur, because they probably already do it!!!

[glenb]

To those of us operating at the General Aviation (GA level) in Australia, and I include smaller Charter Operators and Flying Schools in that grouping, the manner in which CASA conducts itself with Industry compromises safety and that's why it must be checked.

Whilst I am somewhat time limited, I do intend to demonstrate, from my own personal experience, how the Aviation Group headed up by Mr Graeme Crawford has lead actions, or been responsible for actions that have negatively impacted on safety in my Organisation On all occasions my organisation has taken action, and often at significant expense,to counter the effects of those actions.

I intend in this post, and by updating via the "edit" function, to very clearly demonstrate that. I am sitting here waiting to have a coffee with someone, so will return and update as time permits.

Example One

I have received a very high level of support from many areas of industry including many GA Operators. My advice is do not become involved in my issue if you have a commercial interest in the industry. If you have nothing to lose, or are prepared to lose everything, I welcome your support.

I have been a critic of many of CASAS decisions over the years, and I have put my name to those criticisms. I've been very upfront admittedly. The passage of time has demonstrably proven my criticisms correct. From my own personal experience, CASA as an organisation, is dangerously resistant to Continuous Improvement or substantive feedback. From my personal experience, that creates personnel within CASA that have an "axe to grind", and they will use their position inappropriately, and make decisions that cannot be demonstrated to be in the interests of safety. The result of those decisions, is that they will cause commercial, or other damage to your business. CASA personnel would be aware of those impacts when they make those decisions. I draw on my own personal experience when I make those statements. That commercial impact on your business and its effects on safety must be considered, in deciding your course of action.

CASA have created an environment where many operators feel too are scared to intimidated to speak up. That negatively impacts on safety. That has been my personal experience.

[Okihara]

Glen, thanks for sharing your story and spearheading the effort against this tyranny.

Words of encouragement will only lift your spirits so much and, as you mentioned, some who may not want to become personally involved with your issue may still want to put their money where their mouth is (or would be in this case).

CASA have created an environment where many operators feel too are scared to intimidated to speak up. That negatively impacts on safety. That has been my personal experience.

Hence: why not set up a gofundme.com page and raise some funds for your upcoming legal expenses? As others pointed out, you need to lawyer up lest you get gobbled up by your opponent. Many in the industry stand to benefit from your initiative so let them support you. This way people can support you while remaining anonymous.

What I would also suggest: Think of this as the opportunity to take the APTA philosophy of united we stand to make it the defender of GA rights across the board and not just for your own organisation. Talk to your contacts in flight schools across the country and propose a $10/h (voluntary) increase on instruction rates to finance your legal costs.

Apologies if that has already been mentioned before. I'm still catching up with this thread.

[Stickshift3000]

I'm a student at an APTA-affiliated flying school. Having witnessed the significant benefits of this business arrangement first hand, I - and likely many other students - would be happy to offer any support via means mentioned above.

[glenb]

Dear Mr Carmody,

Thankyou for your email response posted in Post 43 on the Pprune Thread.

In your correspondence you claim that there is no "administrative action" pending against APTA, and that response actually clearly highlights the manner in which CASA choose to engage industry, so I thankyou for providing me the opportunity to highlight it.

Attached to this thread is your response, plus the four pieces of correspondence I have received from CASA regarding my "interim operations"

CASA reference f14/9540 was the initial notification. In the last paragraph it clearly states that "within 7 days, whereupon CASA will make a final determination. As the business owner that leaves me in no doubt that my business only has 7 days surety of operations. Note that there are no safety allegations or any regulatory breaches associated with this document, although CASA elects to give me 7 days notice. That surety of operations expired 7 days later on 30/10/18.

On the expiry of that approval on 23/10/19, my business operated on a minute by minute verbal approval. Still there were no allegations of and safety concerns or regulatory breaches.

On 25/01/19 CASA provided a letter to me dated 25th January and stating "CASA could consider interim arrangements to allow the APTA business model to continue in the short term up to three months (CASA underlining).

On 12/02/19 CASA graciously release further correspondence dated 12/02/19 permitting me to continue operations until 13/05/19. Still there are no safety allegations or Regulatory breaches.

On 03/05/19 I receive correspondence permitting an extension to our operations until 01/07/19, which is the current status i.e. less than 1 month surety of operations.

As the Owner of the business, I can assure you that the consequences of your action are devastating on this business, as in fact they would be on any business. This is very substantive action to take against a business, that is not based on a grave and imminent risk to aviation safety In fact the decisions repeatedly made by CASA have nothing to do with safety or in fact any regulatory breaches.

For you Mr Carmody, to claim that CASA is not taking any administrative action may be correct but it indicates the approach that the Aviation Group headed up by Mr Graeme Crawford chooses to engage industry. Very early on in this process, I became very concerned about decisions being made by CASA and I approached the Administrative Appeals tribunal, and that will be on record. Very cunningly the action taken by CASA cannot be appealed. I wrote multiple emails on this topic, but have included the email exchange for your benefit.

On 01/04/19 I wrote to the Industry Complaints Commissioner

Hi Jonathan,

CASA has applied a “freeze” on all my regulatory tasks, some dating back to August last year. Many of these relate to courses that APTA is authorised to deliver i.e. MCC Course, Low Level. The “Freeze” is what has crippled my business, over the last 5 months. If CASA suspend, vary or cancel an AOC, I believe they are obligated to provide an Administrative Decision. I have made a number of contacts with AAT over the last 5 months, and they advise that they have no jurisdiction unless I have that document.I don’t believe that I have been issued with the appropriate paperwork, although admittedly the misunderstanding could be on my behalf.My request is that CASA issue the required document, to give me access to procedural fairness, so that I can contact the AAT. Hope that clears it up, but happy to take a phone call, you probably have it on speed dial, but just in case 0418772013."

The response I received back later in the day from CASA stated;

Hi Glen, i undertook to get back to you about whether CASA’s correspondence of 12 February varied APTA’s approval, obligating CASA to provide AAT referral rights.I’ve received legal advice to the effect that the letter doesn’t vary the term APTA’s Part 141 certificate remains valid. On that basis, CASA wasn’t obliged to provide AAT referral rights. Regards Jonathan.

So we have this incredible situation where an operator can be operating in a well intentioned, safe, and compliant manner for almost 15 years. Then without no prior indication or notice at all, CASA can place a restricted date on a business, for reasons not related to safety. When the business owner wants to pursue an appeals process, he is denied it, because CASA have set the whole thing up so that I cannot appeal it. I have only used one example in here, but there were multiple requests over the last 7 months.

I will point out that Chapter 6 of CASAs enforcement manual covers Administrative Action. and I include an excerpt here; The Civil Aviation Act 1988 (CAA) gives CASA the statutory power to address safety issues. One of the ways of addressing these issues is by the use of administrative action to suspend, vary or cancel licences, certificates, permissions, approvals, and authorisations that it has issued...….

Therefore Mr Carmody, I am of the strong opinion that CASA has taken action to vary my approval, and therefore I should be able to access procedural fairness as is required. I appreciate the stance has taken on this matter, but it is highly unethical.

If CASA claim that they have not varied my authorisation, I would call on CASA to provide an example of an Administrative Action deidentified, but taken against an Operator. That will clearly demonstrate that the action taken by CASA is akin to Administrative Action, even if CASA elect to try and "smoke it up".

Mr Carmody, this continuing approach by CASA only further highlights the lack of ethics and good governance in the Organisation. As a pilot, and instructor of many years. A lack of ethics and good governance, gets people killed. It really is that simple but significant.

Respectfully. Glen Buckley




Jonathan

[glenb]

I found some correspondence from nearly 4 years ago. I wonder if this was the start of my problems. Refer attachment.

[Sunfish]

What’s the judges maxim? Justice delayed is justice denied? Get a lawyer Glen! Set up a crowd funding page.

[thorn bird]

Sunny, a wise man once said "The law is for everyone, justice is for them that can afford it"

Unfortunately in Australia the public servant mandarins are increasingly manipulating the political class
to enhance their "Powers" to increasingly intrude on our freedoms and make themselves unaccountable to anyone.

The law, the politicians and the parliament and by extension we the people.

When one looks at press reports lately, and indeed when we consider what is happening to Glen Buckley,
could we be forgiven for suspecting that the probity of our public officials is seriously compromised.

CAsA is a case in point, in all aspects of political direction they have failed miserably to complete the tasks they were set.

[Sunfish]

I have to ask the question with respect to both Glen and CASA; What is going on here?

Is this bureaucracy trying to unjustly destroy a man and is business as Glen seems to imply?

On the other hand is CASA trying to do its duty by resolving a situation that might involve a flagrant breach of the law in as sensitive and efficient way as possible?

I do not know.

[Dangly Bits]

a flagrant breach of the law

Sunfish if this was the case, how was the operation allowed to operate for 18 months and get through a CASA audit in that time?

A change in CMT to a hostile one seems more accurate as to what I have seen here.

[glenb]

Dear Mr Anthony Matthews, I am writing to you in my role as the CEO of the Australian Pilot Training Alliance.

As you will be aware, I have made multiple requests to meet with the Board, none have been responded to by the Board .

Mr Graeme Crawford in his role as the Manager of the Aviation Group intervened and wrote to me advising he would not permit the meeting with the Board.

As the complaints were against his Department, I feel that displayed inappropriate conduct on his behalf, and I have been denied procedural fairness, hence I am making one final appeal to the Board of CASA.

As you are aware, I advised the Board of my loss of trust and confidence in CASA, some time ago and I asked for direction. The Board chose not to respond to me. I did point out to the Board that my allegations were of a substantive nature and I drew the Boards attention to my expectation on them to ensure good governance. In my opinion that has not occurred, and hence this correspondence.

I am going public with this correspondence in order to compel you to respond.

For perfect clarity;

CASA has failed to achieve clear and concise aviation safety standards as is required of CASA in the Civil Aviation Act. The General Aviation sector (Charter and Flying Training), will concur wholeheartedly with that statement.

That failure to achieve that negatively impacts on safety and negatively impacts on business, and most particularly in regional areas.

Combine that with an environment where some personnel in CASA decide to act outside the requirements and obligations placed on them byo

The PGPA Act
CASAs own Regulatory Philosophy
The Ministers Statement of Expectations
CASAs enforcement manual
The requirements of Administrative Law

and you have a “perfect storm”. I am on the receiving end of that storm and it compromises flight safety to such an extent that I am compelled to act. Therefore, as I have requested on multiple occasions previously, may I meet with at least any two members of the Board, at any location within Australia within the next 7 days. As this is a matter of Aviation Safety it is essential that timelines are not unnecessarily protracted.

Failing the Boards ability to facilitate that request, I will make an appeal to the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Mc Cormack, although multiple requests to him have previously been completely ignored, I will try again, and give him 7 days to facilitate my request.

Failing the Deputy Prime Ministers’ ability to facilitate a meeting, I will be forced to significantly escalate this matter, and will draw on the wider industry for guidance.

My matters are not only related to me, and the compromise to safety affects the GA industry at both the Charter and Flying training levels. The issues are critical, and they must be addressed. My businesses experience provides a perfect example of how CASA actions can negatively impact safety and I am well prepared to fully prosecute my case. I look forward to receiving a prompt response,



Safe Skies for All, respectfully, Glen Buckley.

[thorn bird]

"Mr Graeme Crawford in his role as the Manager of the Aviation Group intervened and wrote to me advising he would not permit the meeting with the Board."

Wow that's a revelation Glen. Mr Crawford decides who the board may talk to and who they can't, which begs the question what are we paying large sums of money for a board at all if they can only see what the managers of CAsA feeds them? This harks back to allegations a CEO was sharing toothbrushes with the Complaints Commissioner. No wonder he never saw any complaints.

I also have trepidations regarding CAsA's reluctance to produce documents under the FOI act.

I could understand it if it was ASIO or the military, National security and all that. Do CAsA have any role in the spook business other than the current director of safeties involvement in the past. What National Secrets are CAsA hiding? Their attempts to gain access to citizens META Data was I believe knocked back, a bridge too far so to speak, but one has to wonder just what they are hiding, because lack of transparency is a clear sign of corruption I believe?

[glenb]

Dear Mr Tony Mathews and Board Members of CASA

Should you grant me the opportunity to present APTAs case to you, may I respectfully request something of you prior to that meeting.

As you are aware, I believe four personnel within CASA have displayed unconscionable conduct. It is only my opinion , and that has not been tested.

On 29/10/18 I sent a letter to my Regional Manager in preparation for a scheduled meeting with CASA the next day. The meeting had been scheduled for an earlier time, but the Acting Regional Manager postponed the original meeting. He explained he was new to the position, wasn’t all over it, and had to meet with his personnel. As he had signed the letter, that alone raised significant concerns in my mind. I sent an extensive letter, containing the following excerpt to the Acting Regional Manager, ‘

The way this has been handled indicates to me a level of confusion that exists within CASA and not within my own organisation. Therefore, I feel it reasonable that CASA nominate the Subject Matter Expert (SME) from the Team, most likely Mr Smithers (name changes) to commence Tuesdays meeting with a simple overview of “how we operate”. That will assist me to identify where the misunderstandings are and clear up any confusion before we proceed on to the more substantive contents of the meeting. I believe this request to be fair and reasonable. You have all the material, by way of our manuals, and have previously been provided with the contracts, so I will leave you to guide this meeting.”

At that meeting the next day with 5 CASA personnel assembled, not one person was prepared to talk about how we operated. The reason. Quite simply because they had no idea, and had made no attempt to find out. That clearly demonstrates a complete lack of good intention on behalf of CASA, and I will shortly provide supporting evidence. As the matter progressed, and the matter snowballed through CASA, I was facilitated a meeting with Mr Wiggum (name changed). As a precursor to that meeting I sent him an email, and I post it below,

It is absolutely essential however that the meeting, does resolve the issue as to whether we are operating with an “arms length agreement” and whether the Aviation ruling is a valid basis for the CASA action. Can I make a well intentioned suggestion that will demonstrate quite clearly to you, the deficiencies within CASA. Ask either Mr Smithers or Mr Skinner (names changes) to explain how we introduce a new base. A good example would be to ask them to describe how we activated the Ballina base and the procedures we adopted? Who attended on site for training from APTA? How long did we stay? Did APTA personnel meet with the CAGRO for the airport? Did we meet with the fire and emergency services. Were the Prof checks conducted in Melbourne or were they conducted in Ballina and why? How we attend to the FSM training. Was our Group Safety Manager able to attend on site. Seriously Mr Wiggum, please ask them anything. I believe that no-one from my CMT has got absolutely any idea, and quite seriously, I mean nothing. That was done many months ago, so I would expect that they have at least some idea. I have absolutely no intention whatsoever to ask of you what their answers are. But I would ask that you compare answers with mine. You will have a very clear understanding of the deficiency, very quickly. Unfortunately, the misunderstandings and confusion exist within CASA, and not within my own organisation, and that is why we are in this current situation. If you decide to ask either Mr Smithers or Mr Skinner, could I respectfully request that you give them some time to consider their response to you, and I have no concerns with you giving them a heads up today of your requirements. Thank you again for your approach, regards. Glen Buckley.

At that meeting with Mr Wiggum, I was not given the opportunity to present my answers. You will recall, I did not need to know the respondent’s answers, I wanted only the opportunity to give my answers and allow him to compare the answers. The fact that I assume he did not do that, is in fact a critical failure in the process, as that would have highlighted the deficiency. It would have given him the opportunity to resolve the matter then and there, but a decision was made not to pursue that course of action. Therefore, the same opportunity that I presented over 7 months ago, is now presented to the Board. Perhaps the starting point for the Board, is a presentation by the CASA personnel concerned, as once again I feel they will not be able to provide you with substantive answers.

As a further suggestion to reinforce my allegations. The underpinning oversight and compliance tool that we use is a system referred to as “Flight School Manager”. The standard system was not suitable for the high level of oversight required across numerous bases, and that system is in fact the backbone of organisation. Would any of the personnel I have nominated be able to nominate any of the upgrades that were undertaken by the Developer to facilitate our safety and compliance obligations. I suggest not.

There were a number undertaken over an extended period of time, and they are integral to countering CASAs argument. Could they explain any of those. I hope this correspondence is received in the manner it is intended. I am merely trying to expedite processes that have a significant impact. Thanking you in anticipation of an open-minded approach to my concerns,

Respectfully, Glen

[glenb]

To the Deputy Prime Minister of Australia, the Honourable Mr Mc Cormack.

I write to you in your role as the Deputy Prime Minister of Australia, as the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, and Regional Development, and as the person responsible for aviation safety in Australia.

My name is Glen Buckley, the CEO of the Australian Pilot Training Alliance (APTA). I am writing to you on important matters of aviation safety, allegations of misuse of public funds within the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, and allegations of unconscionable conduct displayed by at least 5 individuals within CASA. The conduct of those individuals compromises aviation safety, compromises regulatory compliance, and compromises people’s livelihoods. I have been involved in the flight training sector for 25 years, the last 15 years as the owner of a flight training organisation. CASA records will clearly support my contention that my operations have been well intentioned, safe, and compliant. I consider myself a Subject Matter Expert (SME) in my field, and I am qualified to make the statements that I make.

I stand fully behind everything I say. My assertions can be supported by well documented evidence. I understand that I am fully accountable for the statements that I make, they are being made in the interests of aviation safety, they must be responded to.

Although I am initiating this correspondence as an individual business owner, and drawing only on my own personal experience, I am confident my experiences will be shared by the entire General Aviation (GA) sector of the Industry. For those not familiar with the term “GA”, it includes almost all flying in Australia that is not airline flying, and GA flying is predominantly conducted in propeller driven aircraft. i.e. carrying freight and passengers in smaller aircraft, flying training, community flights, agricultural work, private flying etc. It also includes all the maintenance organisations, spare parts, refuellers and admin personnel that work in that industry sector supporting those safe operations.

My allegations are substantive and not limited to the following.

Breaches of obligations under the PGPA Act to use public resources responsibly

The aviation industry has a legislative program introduced by CASA referred to as Part 61/141/142. It was introduced a decade behind schedule, and is universally acknowledged as an absolute and complete failure. That component alone is estimated to have cost every Australian family $100. It is only one component of a much larger and mismanaged regulatory reform program that has cost both the taxpayer and industry an unacceptable amount, and this matter continues to escalate at an alarming rate. This issue must be addressed.

It can be demonstrated that CASA consistently choose the more costly option, when a more effective solution is available. In my own organisation, CASA have made decisions that have cost me hundreds of thousands of dollars, and taxpayers substantially more, when a simple well-intentioned conversation would have achieved the same outcome. I have many well documented examples. My experiences are not unique.

CASAs failure to achieve “clear and concise aviation safety standards”. This failure impacts on safety.

Critical to my assertions is an understanding that the Civil Aviation Act states the very first function of CASA as: “developing and promulgating appropriate, clear and concise aviation safety standards”.

There is no doubt that CASA have totally and completely failed against this core function, and industry will unilaterally support that statement. I strongly encourage the Government to do a random sample of 50 rural based, and 50 city-based GA businesses. You will find that in excess of 90% of respondents will support my contention that CASA have failed. If 90% of road users felt the road rules were so disjointed that they couldn’t understand them, we would have a major safety issue on our roads.

In the interests of aviation safety, and jobs, CASA must deliver rules and regulations that are clear and concise. For a clear demonstration of this significant issue. Ask someone from CASA to verbally answer this question, what activities can be delivered as an independent instructor? Then ask them to demonstrate how they arrived at that answer as they step you through the associated legislation. It is so complicated that it is truly akin to fraud. It’s simply not fair to deliver rules to a sector if the intended recipients cannot understand the rules because they are not clear and concise. It is actually incumbent on CASA to deliver clear and concise aviation safety standards. That failure directly impacts on safety.

Personnel within CASA displaying” unconscionable conduct”

The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission website states criteria to determine unconscionable conduct. Those criteria include;

The relative bargaining strength of the Parties.
Whether any conditions were imposed on the weaker Party that were not reasonably necessary to protect the legitimate interests of the stronger Party
Whether the weaker party could understand the documentation being used.
The use of undue influence, pressure or unfair tactics by the stronger party.
The requirements of applicable industry codes. (i.e. CASAs Regulatory Philosophy, requirements of the Civil Aviation Act, the Ministers Statement of Expectations, requirements of Administrative Law, CASAs Enforcement Manual and section 2 of the Australian Public Service Commission website.
The willingness of the stronger party to negotiate
The extent to which Parties acted in good faith.
From my own personal experience, I believe I can clearly demonstrate that 5 personnel within the Aviation Group of CASA headed up by Mr Graeme Crawford, have made decisions that demonstrate unconscionable conduct i.e. reasonable people making decisions primarily on aviation safety could not reasonably arrive at the same decisions as these individuals. This conduct has substantially impacted on me and my business. Previous approaches to your office have not been responded to, so I am simultaneously releasing this correspondence to other persons, including but not limited to, the Shadow Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development, the Honourable Catherine King MP. As this is a matter of aviation safety, and includes allegations of misconduct within CASA, I would call on bipartisan political support to work towards a solution that improves aviation safety across the GA industry, improves regulatory compliance, supports business, and encourages jobs in rural areas.

I am also advising that I make myself fully available to any media form, that is prepared to pursue this matter. It is a matter of aviation safety, and breaches of the PGPA Act, and inappropriate conduct in a Government Department, all of which impact on every Australian. My only request is that CASA be given the full right of reply to any allegations I make in the media.

These matters are significant. I have made repeated attempts to meet with the Board of CASA over the last 6 months, and all requests have been completely ignored. I have sent correspondence to your office on two occasions, and that correspondence has also been ignored. I feel I have no other option available to me, other than going public.

The purpose of this letter is to ensure I am given an opportunity to meet with yourself, or a nominee from your Department. I would like to attend that meeting and provide documentary support of all my claims. I respectfully request that the Honourable Catherine King, or her nominee be given the opportunity to attend that meeting. I would also call on two industry body representatives to attend in an observer role only. They would not have input into the meeting. My sincere hope is that you will attend to this matter as it deserves. At this stage I am requesting the opportunity to be heard. Failing that opportunity being provided to me, I will be forced to escalate the matter in the interests of aviation safety within the General Aviation sector.

Respectfully



Glen Buckley, CEO- APTA

[B772]

CASA is a dysfunctional organisation. Michael McCormack is a lame duck. We need a Minister for Civil Aviation whose only role is to sort out the monster and mess created over the past so many years.

[thorn bird]

CASA is an omnipotent diety, unaccountable to anyone. Except the devil maybe.

[B772]

General Aviation has been strangled in this country. We need a Royal Commission of some description before it industry collapses completely. Should we start a petition for a Royal Commission and submit it to the PM.

[AerialPerspective]

I believe 'estoppel' is a legal term for a motion to have declared in law what is actually the case in fact. e.g. a lawyer employs questionable tactics to make money for his law firm where he is not a partner. Law firm takes all the money he generates him and berates him about his behaviour. However, it keeps taking the money up to the point where his contribution outweighs that of the Partners of the Law Firm. They fire him for cause (doing something questionable). He launches an estoppel claim to have himself declared a Partner of the firm so as to obtain his share of the profits which is in fact, all of the profit. He is not a partner in legal terms, he is/was an employee, but the estoppel claim is lodged to have declared in law that he is, in fact, a partner by dint of his financial contribution to the business. That's in the United States of course, it may have a subtlety different meaning here as is the case with many legal terms.

[Sunfish]

Disclaimer: I AM NOT A LAWYER.

”There are many different types of estoppel which can arise, but the common thread between them is that a person is restrained from asserting a particular position in law where it would be inequitable to do so. By way of illustration:

If a landlord promises the tenant that he will not exercise his right to terminate a lease, and relying upon that promise the tenant spends money improving the premises, the doctrine of promissory estoppel (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Promissory_estoppel) may prevent the landlord from exercising a right to terminate, even though his promise might not otherwise have been legally binding as a contract. The landlord is precluded from asserting a specific right.”

If CASA is changing its reasons all the time, then perhaps that is contravening some dictum like the one above, but Glen would need legal advice. I am not a lawyer and don’t know.

[AerialPerspective]

Disclaimer: I AM NOT A LAWYER.

”There are many different types of estoppel which can arise, but the common thread between them is that a person is restrained from asserting a particular position in law where it would be inequitable to do so. By way of illustration:

If a landlord promises the tenant that he will not exercise his right to terminate a lease, and relying upon that promise the tenant spends money improving the premises, the doctrine of promissory estoppel (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Promissory_estoppel) may prevent the landlord from exercising a right to terminate, even though his promise might not otherwise have been legally binding as a contract. The landlord is precluded from asserting a specific right.”

If CASA is changing its reasons all the time, then perhaps that is contravening some dictum like the one above, but Glen would need legal advice. I am not a lawyer and don’t know.


Hi Sunfish, I’m not a lawyer either but your post made me curious as I’d only heard the US definition before so with my parents’ words echoing in my head from when I was growing up “Look it up” I did that and the definition fits both our scenarios so I learn something everyday... (from dictionary.com)...

“noun
LAW

the principle which precludes a person from asserting something contrary to what is implied by a previous action or statement of that person or by a previous pertinent judicial determination.
"the case had been one of estoppel"

[Squawk7700]

Disclaimer: I AM NOT A LAWYER.

Cleary so. More-so obvious given that you lifted that definition from Wikipedia, not to mention that the example of tenancy is not relevant in Australia, where a landlord can’t terminate a lease short of malicious damage or criminality.

[glenb]

In post 85 I made allegations against 5 people that were in CASA. I believe one has left. Therefore the allegations are now about 4 CASA employees. One has come back to industry I believe.

[aroa]

Even if employee No 5 ( now dearly departed from CAsA) did wrong., he will vanish from the CAsA paper.work
With my 3 perjuring AWIs, one bolted and forever after he was the 'Invisible Man', and never again featured in any correspondence. How's that for an escape mechanism ?? Bewdy !
Of course he is vulnerable out in public domain without the most splendid CAsA legal umbrella and the (taxpayer) pocketbook.
CAsA's next method of legal avoidance is to call any crime a 'breach of their code of conduct'. ( escape mechanism # 2 )..and that in itself is a constructive fraud. A crime is a crime and cant be called anything else.
Its how CAsA perverts the course of justice. CYA !21
EVERYONE should be beating the drum...Royal Commission or Judicial Inquiry into CAsA.
NOTHING else that a proper colon cleansing with flush out CAsA and its corrupt personnel

[Sunfish]

(sigh) the principle of estoppel is something like that you can’t always keep changing your response to a situation to suit yourself. It may be that If you’re prohibited with the excuse “x” by CASA one day, then the next day it may be that the new excuse cannot be “y”. Ask a lawyer and stop nit picking. It doesn’t help anyone.

[thorn bird]

Bloody interesting some of these legal quirks guys.

CAsA are not supposed to interfere with business doing's either, but they do.

Mr Buckley no doubt got his lawyers to put together agreeable contracts between himself and his
partners.

Contracts are between parties yet CAsA crashed the party and interfered demanding changes
to the contracts Mr Buckley was using based on HIS legal advice.

If the clauses CAsA insisted Mr Buckley put in his contracts resulted in a dispute, would CAsA accept any liability, of course not, they are never liable for anything.

Somehow I can't imagine bureaucrats interfering with contracts, say, BHP makes with its customers.

CAsA is an omnipotent deity, the law doesn't apply to them. If any of us falsified evidence or committed perjury we'd be in clink, they can do it with impunity.

[aroa]

Going to clients and 'bad-mouthing' the intended victim, with made up stories and BS is bad enough as well.
I had occurrences where CAsA rang my clients and told them not to use my photography services because I was operating illegally...2 years before I even saw a courthouse..!!
One case they got local plods to go and speak to the client...WTF would they know about Ops and Regs...and in breach of the Compliance and Enforcement Manual. And lied / denied later to the Minister and Pollie that they ever did such a thing.
Jesus wept..these people know no bounds.
When yr on a mission at the behest of a competitor company, anything goes. And then some!

The later issue with the false sworn statements just proved that CASA/ Legal do NOT believe in th Rule of Law. (AFP finding..Perjury, Conspiracy and collaboration of statements)
Head of CAsA legal sent me a wonderful thesis about how the false sworn statements/ lies are not really proper lies, but just 'discrepancies in the wording'. Hence the nickname Dr Discrepancy.for Smart Aleck..
All this sort of behavior will carry on , same, same...UNLESS the GA industry gets a Royal Commission ora Judicial Inquiry.
Keep banging that drum to yr local pollie, Senator, whoever,

[glenb]

Dear Minister Mc Cormack, or the recipient.

I wrote to the Minister at the start of the week on matters I considered of significance, with regard to aviation safety in Australia. I have not received an acknowledgement, or a response. Can you please confirm that this is the correct email for such matters. Alternatively, if the correct protocols are to formally lodge such matters through the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ASTB) please advise. The issues are significant and effect aviation safety, so at least an acknowledgement that this is the correct email address to reach Minister Mc Cormack would be appreciated.
Respectfully


Glen Buckley

[Sunfish]

the correspondence has probably been forwarded to CASA.

i. should have added- so they will write the Ministers response. They will then forward that back to the Minister for approval through the Department of transport who will do their own assessment of CASAs response.

At at this point the Minister is not really involved - which is as it should be in Westminster style government. The Minister takes “advice” from his Department which is why his letter will say words to the effect: “I am advised that...... “.

To effect any change, assuming CASA will not give you what you believe you are entitled to, you will need to make a case strong enough that the Department of Transport takes action to make CASA do something or failing that, that the Minister is galvanised enough to ask his department to do something which may not be possible under the Aviation Act. Then the Minister needs to go to Parliament.

There is a settled hierarchy of actions - the minister can’t just pull a decision out of thin air. Good luck, get legal advice and don’t do anything rash.

[thunderbird five]

Delete the "probably".

[Seabreeze]

Delete the "probably".
For what it is worth my 2c

It is common in various sorts of administration, including government, to not respond to "difficult" questions in the hope that they will go away, and in any case, a non response by a bureacrat is not career threatening. Politicians are even worse, with not answering the question, or answering a different question being common ploys.

As a lawyer once advised me, the only way to get attention is to take someone to court. Justice should prevail in your case, but logic and fairness don't count.

Even the honkys are going to struggle, and that's with 1/3 of their population prepared to demonstrate.

Perhaps focus on individuals in the public service by persisting with legally appropriate "harassment", and keep your energy high without doing in your own head.

Good luck.
SB

[Fantome]

HE WHO CALLS THE SHOTS. In the '60s I had occasion to launch an appeal against refusal by DCA (the Department of Civil Aviation) to issue a medical certificate. (I was seeking an exemption to the uncorrected visual acuity standard.) Seeing DCA had knocked me back, I put my detailed arguments to a succession of Ministers for Civil Aviation. (From Paltridge to Swartz to Cotton).. All of these appeals were summarily rejected. After two years of frustration I made an appointment to see the Director-General of Civil Aviation. Ushered into the office of Donald Anderson, he offered me a seat, saying "So you're man who has been bothering the minister. Well firstly, it is I who decides who can or cannot do anything to do with civil aviation in this country. Not the Minister. Now I'll just call Jim Harper in, who oversees operations." Duly, Jim Harper advised a flight test without visual correction. (To simulate loss of both pairs of specs.) After which DCA granted me an exemption . Two years later the standard changed, so that a number of exemptions were no longer in force. ("The answer my friend is pissing in the wind . . .the answer is pissing in the wind . .')

[harrryw]

comment inappropriate, reported. I’m concerned about stress levels here....
Refered to CASA for a check of affects of said Stress Levels.

[glenb]

Dear Mr Shane Carmody,

There are no regulatory breaches. There are no safety concerns expressed by CASA.

CASAs actions have placed significant restrictions on my ability to trade and that has been repeatedly identified to CASA, as has the associated commercial impact. Craig Martin will be the Subject Matter Expert (SME) within CASA.

Within a week, CASA will make yet another decision to allow continuing operations through another temporary approval, or in fact, close the operation down. I don’t need to outline the enormous organisational instability that brings to the staff, and my ability to retain them, to customers, students, members and suppliers. These “temporary approvals” have now continued for 8 months and understandably bought the business to its knees. The staff and I are exhausted and drained, so is the business.

My Key Personnel must now make decisions about their own employment options, and that impacts on continuing operations amongst the group, with the associated consequences on businesses, staff, and suppliers.

To bring this absurd matter to a close it simply needs one decent human being, acting in a well-intentioned manner, to make a good decision. It is that simple.

It needs one person to give me 3 hours of their time to tell my side of the story.

It then needs that same person to spend a further 3 hours revising the Regulatory Philosophy, the functions of CASA, the enforcement manual, the Public Service Commission website, the definition of unconscionable conduct, the PGPA Act, the Ministers Statement of Expectations on CASA, and a familiarity with Administrative Law.

It needs that same well-intentioned person, to then seriously contemplate what it means to operate under the Australian Coat of Arms that will be proudly displayed throughout every CASA office. Reflect on the substance of it, the history behind it, the standards, ethics, governance and integrity that is conveyed by having the privilege to operate under it.

Then simply arrive at a decision.

As you are aware my preference is to resolve these matters through well intentioned face to face discussion. That is the most effective way to resolve any dispute. However, I have had the opportunity to receive some industry funded and substantive legal guidance on my matter. This meeting was initiated by someone in Industry, and I did not pay for the consultation. This firm does not provide litigation funding, and that necessitates me seeking support from wider industry, should I elect to continue.

At this stage there is no obligation on my behalf to proceed.

If I do: The first stage is a relatively straightforward process costing approximately $50,000. This would provide a robust and detailed overview of the validity of the claim, for both Industry and CASA to consider and would provide full transparency to both parties. On production of the report perhaps I could have the opportunity to meet with CASA again. The case would be based around CASAs failure to deliver clear and concise aviation safety standards, and the effects of that failure on safety and industry, as evidenced by my experience, and no doubt many others. I am fully satisfied that in fact, CASA have failed to achieve “clear and concise aviation safety standards”. That is the root cause of every one of my current issues, and in fact the wider industry’s.

I am fully satisfied that 5 personnel within CASA have acted inappropriately, and in my opinion unlawfully, although I respect that that needs to be determined. My hope is that you could respond indicating if there is a potential change of stance within CASA and a willingness to genuinely resolve the matter via a well-intentioned decision maker that you nominate.

Respectfully,



Glen Buckley.

[Sunfish]

Time is on CASAs side.

[zanthrus]

Good on yer Sunny, Harry and Michigan J for taking my tongue in cheek posts so seriously. Get a grip guys. :ugh:
But seriously, who hasn’t been frustrated to the nth degree by fort fumble in the past and the corruption and incompetence within? I support Glen 100% :ok: and I wish him a speedy and just resolution to APTA’s problems with the “regulator” and the despicable officers therein. :yuk:

[glenb]

Dear Mr Carmody,

Prior to proceeding with the contents of this letter, it is important that I clarify some important matters.

The business has been operating for 15 years delivering well intentioned, safe and highly compliant flight training. CASA records will support that contention.

Flying schools conducting a practice referred to as ‘sharing an Air Operators Certificate” is a practice that has been going on for many decades within the flight training industry. The practice has been conducted with the full knowledge, consent, and support of CASA. This cannot be refuted.

There were deficiencies in those arrangements, as often the organisations operated independently and in their own interests.

APTA was the first time in Australia that the deficiencies in the existing practice were addressed. This cannot be refuted, as CASA personnel worked side by side with APTA personnel in designing the purpose built system that we now have. We attended to over 600 CASA requirements, and in fact we were one of the few schools that met the CASA stipulated deadline of September 1 2017. APTA was approved by CASA in April 2017 and has been operating in that format for more than two years. In November 2017, 6 months after we Transitioned, CASA conducted a level one audit (the highest available), and no concerns were raised.

At no stage during the process did CASA ever require contracts of us, or in fact any other flying training organisation in Australia. The requirements regarding contracts, is a requirement specifically being placed on APTA. Other operators continue to be exempted from this requirement. I assert that in the last 25 years of the practice of schools sharing AOCs, CASA does not hold any contracts on any other operators. They have chosen not to refute my allegation, because the fact is the CASA requirement is unique to APTA. It is unfair and unjust that you elect to single my Organisation out, and apply conditions to me that you choose not to apply to other operators.

Importantly, the use of a contract was an APTA initiative, and at no stage had CASA ever required a contract The contracts were drawn up by lawyers, and have been reviewed on at least 5 occasions since that time by lawyers. APTA and APTA members are satisfied with the contracts that we use. It is only CASA that is not satisfied. It is incumbent on CASA to tell me what you want in the contracts.

In October 2018, without any prior warning at all, CASA did a complete reversal of policy and initiated the action that has been continuing for more than 8 months now. The impact of that action on the business, my family, my members and staff has been traumatic. It is a clear breach of many aspects of your own regulatory philosophy.

Initially CASA action was not based on contracts, but the action was taken on the basis of

Aviation Ruling and
Temporary locations procedure.

After approximately two months, CASA admitted that the Aviation Ruling was the incorrect basis to be taking the action and “took the Aviation Ruling off the table”.

CASA also realised that the Temporary locations procedure was in fact their own procedure that they had suggested, helped us design, approved, and in fact they approved bases under the system. It is ludicrous that you now penalise me and my organisation for the very procedure that CASA in fact suggested.

After the CASA confusion was sorted out, they moved to the Latrobe Valley audit results. CASA has ignored 10 requests from me to finalise the allegations made, and they have tried to avoid addressing my concerns. The audit results and the associated process could not be justified, with new allegations arriving many months after you conducted an audit.

With the aviation ruling off the table, the temp locations embarrassingly identified as CASAs own procedure, and an inability to back up the allegations of regulatory breaches, CASA moved to the topic of contracts.

CASA initially accused us of not having contracts in place. CASA had forgotten they had been provided with contracts on multiple occasions. The topic them changed yet again but this time to a requirement to see signed copies of the contracts which we had, and they were provided to CASA.

As nothing appeared to be “sticking” he topic then moved yet again, but now back to the content of the contracts. CASA then provided guidance material on the first occasion that I fully adopted and submitted to CASA. For reasons that I cannot understand, they then rejected the contracts with their own material included.

CASA provided a second lot of guidance material, which I fully adopted. CASA then accepted the second version of the contracts. CASA advised “I have reviewed the draft contract provided this date. I can confirm the content is acceptable to CASA. My appreciation to you and your staff for provision of same”, but hours later reversed their position and withdrew the approved contracts. It appeared that nothing could satisfy CASA and I have no doubt that there was a “hidden agenda” and that was driven by Mr Crawford.

After approximately 6 months, and a high level of confusion within CASA, they were forced into outsourcing the contract requirement to an outside lawyer. That begs the question. Why would CASA initiate the action back in October 2018? In order to know that something is wrong, you do need to know what is right. CASA obviously didn’t!!! It took over 6 months before CASA had the third lot of guidance material.

Eventually a third set of guidance was supplied. CASA advised that it was guidance only and I should use my own terminology, rather than take theirs verbatim. I reviewed that against our contracts and exposition and am satisfied that our current contracts and exposition meet all requirements from their “guidance” material. I have asked CASA to identify any deficiencies and I will attend to them if they provide that information. There is no resistance from me, but I do require clear and concise guidance.

Unfortunately another point of confusion exists, as CASA have provided information on our Part 141 operations only, and have not provided any guidance on the Part 142 component, which is the majority of what we do, so until they clarify that, I am unable to move forward. I have made two requests, but they have not been answered.

CASA have also stipulated that all personnel must be APTA “employees”. The existing definitions of employees support the APTA model, so I have asked CASA to provide a definition of an employee that meets their requirements for this situation, which I am waiting on.

The third lot of guidance material suggests that we need to be assessed on the following. I point out that these are the exact items I attended to with CASA years earlier.

Suitability of the organisation.
Chain of Command in the organisation.
The number, qualifications, and competency of personnel.
Sufficiency of the facilities.
Suitability of the procedures and practices.
Suitability of Key Personnel.
Full operational control.
Compliance with procedures.
Capability to comply with legislation.
Compliance with directions.
Understanding of commitments
Access to reference library
Standardisation and proficiency checks
Ability to remove unsuitable personnel
Notification of change of Key Personnel.
Maintain a register of instructors.
Notification of
Provide a copy to all parties of the Operations manual
Supervision to ensure compliance with the manual.
Audits.
Compliance with audit findings.
Access to records.
Log of all simulator training.
List of simulators
Information pertinent to aircraft
Log of medicals of all personnel
Ability of APTA to cancel or suspend the agreement.


As all members will be aware we do have all of these systems in place because we actually did exactly this more than two years ago, working with CASA personnel and that is what lead to our approval in April 2017. These were the exact items that I worked on with CASA over a two year period as we designed APTA, and they are the procedures we have been following for over two years.

It is obvious that the CASA personnel that I deal with really have no idea about APTA. I have asked CASA to describe to me their understanding of APTA, but they steadfastly refuse to do so. APTA is not confused. The members are not confused, and the personnel are not confused. It is in fact only CASA that is confused. It is CASA that is breaching its obligations placed on it by the Regulatory Philosophy. It is CASA that chose to initiate a complete reversal of policy with no warning, and it is CASA that has bought substantial damage to the business, the members, the staff and to me personally. There are no safety concerns, there are no regulatory breaches, and you cannot direct me to any legislative breaches. I am dealing with the “opinions” of CASA personnel who have displayed unconscionable conduct.

The current situation is that CASA will soon decide on continuing operations. I have engaged substantive legal advice, and a failure by CASA to act appropriately, will be met with a class action, and this will be immediately initiated if required. I will be calling on the wider industry and professional organisations to join me in that class action, as my concerns are shared by the wider GA community.

The failure of CASA to achieve clear and concise aviation safety standards, the failure of CASA to comply with its own regulatory philosophy, the malpractice of certain CASA individuals, and a flagrant disregard for the PGPA Act, the total disregard for the Ministers Statement of Expectation, and a complete failure to act in a well-intentioned manner, and a preference to act in a bullying and intimidating manner are in fact the causes of the problems.

Quite simply, the confusion exists within CASA. APTA was designed to increase safety, increase regulatory compliance, protect our respective business, and to create jobs. The concept is fully approved by CASA and the complete reversal of policy is not acceptable.

CASA has placed a number of restrictions on my ability to trade that have had enormous consequences, and I emphasise that there are no allegations of safety concerns or regulatory breaches. This entire issue and all of the associated damage to so many businesses and people is truly disgusting and could have been avoided had .......................................... acted in a well intentioned manner, and adhered to the obligations placed on them, in their roles.

Glen Buckley

Will Nuttall, Brad Lacy, David Jones, and Craig Martin

[aroa]

Onya Glen. !!
Easy to see why a Royal Commission or Judicial Inquiry is needed.
CAsA's ****ty nappies need to be hung out on the line for all to see. Fort Fumble is a corrupt and unethical farce of the first magnitude.
What a waste of time and money for all concerned, and so destructive to the GA industry, so vital to this wide brown land..
One does have to wonder at the mind-set of some CAsA persons, bullies and BS artists, it borders on the insane.
Its a bit of a joke with all the requirements they place on people and businesses.. and DONT do the same themselves.
Different strokes for different folks, depending where you're standing, or who you know, or dont..
CAsA does no wrong. CasA will never admit the truth. CAsA will obfusticate and play pseudo-legal buggery to their hearts content to arrive at any result they want.
Even the Head? of Legal, Dr Discrepancy doesnt believe in the Rule of Law, so what hope have we got
CEO and Boards come and go like smelly sox, and over the last 2 or 3 decades it has just got WORSE.
WTF is going on, apart from absolute bureaucratic lunacy..?
We, the people should have a right to put all this to an END.
AND VERY SOON.

ps Class Action?. I'm in. Vicarious Liability and lots, lots more. And 20 years of paperwork and FOIs to back it up. This disgusting "Authority" has GOT TO GO

[bankrunner]

Hit them up for a Freedom of Information request.
This will show what actions were taken internally upon your correspondence arriving at their office.
You have a right to request and they must supply

Doesn't mean they will release anything.

They can stonewall you endlessly and invent BS reasons to not release the information.

They might also claim that it'll take 500 hours to search for and assess the material you've requested, and that you'll need to pay an exorbitant fee for them to do so. You'll pay the fee, and be handed a stack of documents where the interesting details are blacked out.

You could then take the matter to the OAIC. The Information Commissioner may well find in your favour, but they're so under resourced that it'll take two years to reach a decision.

The original FOI decision will be referred back to CASA, who will then choose a whole suite of new reasons to refuse access to the information you've requested. You then make another application to the OAIC, wait another two years, and the cycle repeats.

[aroa]

If yr FOI from CAsA is blacked out somewhat ...or all. With BS excuses like 'not in the public interest' and others. The classic was ..If you know from the (req'd)docs what CAsA people had to say, we wont be able to manage our staff, because they wont talk in any 'investigation'
THEY get to read the investigation transcript in full. And in my case used something in there against me , when I had told the truth to the investigator. Honest these bastards are NOT..
Dont ask THEM for a review. Go straight to the Office of the Information Commissioner OAIC. They will review CAsA's dirty work.. two NON FOIs for reports , and OAIC got me enough to work with.
Like I said before this disgusting outfit HAS to GO

[Murray Cod]

Hi Sunfish
I operated a VFR Cessna for aerial photography (airwork) , we were tempted to do some work in the Solomon Islands under PVT but gave it away as too hard, need a international AoC.
CASA got a whiff, and a please explain why your AoC is not available on your website , as it's a requirement. etc, I was ignorant of this rule but it appeared more like intimidation and bullying tactics than helpful advice.
I did point out that Qantas doesn't have their AoC details on their website either. Didn't hear a peep after that.
Why did I require to operate under an AoC ($30/Hr) , the pilot is qualified under CASA and the maintenance is conducted by CASA recognised people, I'm not Qantas.

[aroa]

I always thort that to operate in another country like PNG, one has to get permission from the country concerned...as we did. While CAsA may have some interest in an Oz registered a/c, once you are out of Oz ..what then.
On one trip to PNG many moons ago I got a lovely document from the " International Division" (sic..very sick) from a lady who shall remain nameless, PNG hadnt even been contacted and this doc stated Here is your permission to operate in PNG !!. It was all bumpf. Actually it was the PNG entry permit for the aircraft and the job that "allowed it", organised by myself.
All that "fake job" rubbish has since been changed, or modified as CAsA does continuously to keep you even more confused . Last trip, PNG clearance from CAA POM and off we went.
Nauru.. we just went there, by permission of Nauru Government./Lands Dept who wanted the place mapped. It must be about the only Republic that you can fit in a single shot from FL170 NIce place to visit for just 2 weeks, and the Surveyors opening remark was 'Welcome to the Alcatraz of the Pacific !' Which now it is.
Certain HF frequency was required tho, ditto for PNG. Isnt there a lot of water out there tho.?

[glenb]

Well today is the day that CASA is scheduled to release the Report from the Industry Complaints Commissioner into my matter.

On receipt of the report, I will either be satisfied or unsatisfied, so I thought it might be timely to provide some feedback to Industry. My suggestion would be that AOPA and other organisations consider this feedback in their future dealings with CASA in trying to bring about Organisational Improvement.

I lodged a number of complaints through the ICC during December and January, and the report should be released today ( 6 months later)

Feedback.

The ICC is exceptional. I appreciate that previous incumbents have not been well accepted by Industry, the current position holder is exceptional. He travelled from Canberra to meet with me, and spent considerable time discussing my concerns. I have no doubt that he has the highest levels of honesty and integrity, and I stand by that comment, prior to the release of his report, which may not be to my satisfaction.

However, the Department is grossly under resourced. It was clearly identified to CASA that their actions would cost me $10,000 per week. It should not take 6 months to finalise a report, when the commercial impact is substantial. This department must have further resourcing.

The ICC should have specified criteria published with regards to turn around times. This will provide clarity to industry, and accountability.

The ICC cannot draw their salary from CASA. It is disrespectful to the process, and takes away the credibility. My own report is due today, and its quite likely that CASA will have a different perspective to me. If I know that the person writing and releasing the report draws their salary from CASA its simple human nature that I will feel aggrieved. There are three important words. All significant, but all with different meanings i.e. unfair, unjust, and unlawful. In the eyes of the law they are very different words, with different ramifications. Does the truly independent person hover over the same letters on the keyboard as the CASA employee. I don't know, and I cant cast aspersions, but I am human.

In the interests of improving safety, transparency, effectiveness and credibility.

The office needs more resources allocated to it, and it must be truly independent from CASA. It should also have performance criteria with regard to response times.

Cheers. GB.

[aroa]

I can concur with yr comments re the current ICC. JH.

ANY investigation into CAsA should be done by an independent body, with truly adequate funding not just a niggardly pittance as allocated by CAsA now.
Amazing how CAsA can spend so little, and yet when it comes to arse covering, so much to spend and waste.

Will be interesting to see how you make out.
Dont forget the OAIC for any review of denied documents.
A must since CAsA has turned NON FOI into an art form.

[zanthrus]

Any further updates Glen? I am sure many of us are hoping for a good result for you and APTA.

[Kagamuga]

Any updates, big audience for this one!

[Kagamuga]

I received a PM from a Pprune member (thank you!)
It would appear Glenn's business has folded? At least at Moorabbin and that MAC (Moorabbin Airport Corp.) has taken the building.

If this is indeed true; I hope CASA are proud of themselves !

[Okihara]

Very sad. I wish him and his team well. Why his school in particular and not other APTA members?

[glenb]

Good afternoon all,

I have a lot of people after me for a lot of information, and will try and dump it all down here in the one spot. I anticipate being back here frequently over coming days.

It is heartbreaking to advise that MFT is no more. Whilst the business does operate, I have lost my premises.

The facts are;

MFT was clearly in arrears on the land lease, and had been for some time.
The Airport personnel I deal with have been exceptional i.e. Mark, Paul, John and Diem, and I mean exceptional.
Under Marc's stewardship, many months ago, Marc constructed a plan that I thought I could achieve, but alas I could not.
Fully in accordance with a lease that I have signed and understood, the owners of Moorabbin Airport, are exercising their right and their obligations to take control of the building.

Of course it is heartbreaking, but the responsibility is mine. This has had an enormous effect on the staff and students, and for that I apologise.

All students and staff are "APTA", so their training can continue uninterrupted, or at least with minimal interruption. Operations have moved immediately to the Vortex building which is an APTA member. All staff will continue to get paid, and all staff will continue to deliver the same training from another building in the same aircraft. It is effectively only a building change.

My hope is that the new owners of the MFT building will lease the premises back to MFT. That is a project for the future when I am well underway cleaning up the fallout from this fiasco.

As most readers will be aware, CASA took action against APTA from October 2018. CASA actions placed a number of restrictions on my ability to trade. i.e. I could not market, advertise, take on customers, add capabilities, or renew existing capabilities. From the onset it was identified to CASA on numerous occasions in writing, that their actions would cost me at least $10,000 per week, as it has. In October 2018, I anticipated this matter would continue on for 6 weeks at most, with a total cost of $60,000. Unfortunately it has now dragged on unnecessarily for approximately 40 weeks.

If I had known it would drag on for this long, I may have taken a different course of action. In my worst nightmare I could not have imagined 40 weeks with no end in sight. Nevertheless, I was compelled to continue as I had a large number of operators depending on me for their own continuity. As time has dragged on and the financial impact worsened I called on MFT and my parents to support continuing operations.

It got to the stage where I could ask my family for no more, and the burden fell on MFT alone to sustain APTA operations. Quite simply the numbers didn't stack up, and there was no resolution in sight. I was not going to be able to meet staff salaries, and APTA was sold for the value of the debt only.

I must use this opportunity to thank the team at MFT for their unwavering professionalism. To Sreya Brown, Will Long, Tim Verhoef, Tarik Hartley, Shingote Shubham, Rory O' Heir, Pete Schultz, Cameron Meyer, Coby Ramos, Jake Lummis, Jo Ikin, Lawrie Byrnes, Pete bishop, and James Skinner. They have worked under extremely challenging conditions over the last 6 months in particular. They have demonstrated uncompromising standards of safety and compliance. The organisation has been under enormous duress, with all of the associated challenges and they have conducted themselves admirably.

They are all names worth noting because they are a truly exceptional team, and will be an enormous attribute to the new owners of APTA. I am confident the new owners have a vision, and will execute a vision, that will bring stability and opportunities for all.

Please feel free to fire away with any questions, cheers. Glen.

[The name is Porter]

The heady days of MFT's commencement 15 years ago was of excitement. Mixed in with exceptional flight training who could forget the the spa on the balcony, the 'recycling' shoot from the balcony to the garbage bin. Glen thoughtfully distributing the 'recycling' amongst other tenants bins! A fair whack of Glen's instructors and students are now Airline Pilots, RFDS Pilots, Flight Attendants etc.

I look forward to MFT's phoenix like rise from the ashes!

[Clare Prop]

Very sad news.

Their latest here, following an incident on a private flight that was not a maintenance issue, is to tell me as registered operator that I am responsible for every single thing a private pilot does when hiring an aircraft I operate.

They have invented an AOC that I don't have, line pilots I don't have, fuel policy that is not the policy in my manuals, correspondence that was never received and reinvented the difference in responsibilities between an Operator and a Pilot in Command. For good measure they have added some subjective comments about my personality. (Yes I stand up for myself when faced with false accusations).

So not content with driving flying schools to the brink, they now want to shut down all private hire as well by making the operator liable for every action and decision made by the PIC as well as airworthiness. The result will be that the only way a pilot will be able to build Pilot In Command time will be to buy and operate their own aircraft.

I suppose I should be grateful, I know how hard it is to get an AOC, I had one for 20 odd years... and this CASA guy has just created one from thin air! You couldn't make it up!










.

[Sunfish]

Clare can you post the letter here?

It sounds like someone in CASA has not got the message about engagement, respect, etc. etc.

[Clare Prop]

Luckily we have a couple of good guys here in CASA who are guiding me through due process to lodge a formal complaint.

I won't post it here as it's now under investigation. I think being - quote- "uncooperative, hostile and argumentative" is justified when you are having false accusations thrown at you by someone and trying to tell the person that what they are saying is false, eg a person on their day off is not actually 100% responsible for a the safe conduct of a private flight taking place several hundred nautical miles away. The call was on speaker and one staff member commented afterwards "That was CASA?! I thought it was a journo fishing for a story!" and you know what, it could have been Geoffrey Thomas for all I know which is why I was telling them to read the ASIR in front of them which had all the details. The level of complete ignorance of this person made it very difficult to believe that they were who they said they were.

[Lead Balloon]

As Humpty Dumpty said to Alice: The safety of air navigation means just what someone in CASA chooses it to mean—neither more nor less.

Welcome to CASA Wonderland, Clare.

[Clare Prop]

LB I've been in this wonderland for a long time! Longer than some of the CASA people I have to deal with. This one tried to trigger a level 2 surveillance which he has no power to do.

Luckily, there are ones there who I have known for donkeys years since they were in industry and this one has been put back in his box. The others are very happy to guide me through the complaints process.

[Lead Balloon]

But you shouldn’t have had to deal with the bull**** in the first place. Imagine if Hertz or Avis or another car-hire firm were told they were responsible for a licensed driver in a roadworthy hire car who happened to break the road rules or have an accident.

Other people may not have the benefit of contacts on the ‘inside’ of CASA. The fact that you have to resort to calling on their assistance, and they are prepared to provide it, is very telling of CASA’s corporate integrity.

Loose cannons rolling around on CASA’s deck are the responsibility of the captain.

[Okihara]

Such an appalling state of things. I would be surprised if the national broadcaster didn't want to take a closer look into this with a 30 min or so investigation into this. I'm convinced that most people are completely oblivious to the damage done to the aviation community. As a foreigner here, I also view GA as an integral component of Australian history that's being slowly erased.

[bankrunner]

Loose cannons rolling around on CASA’s deck are the responsibility of the captain.

Previous captains and their senior mates (many of whom are still around) have often exemplified that sort of behaviour themselves.

[Clare Prop]

I'd just like to emphasise that no favours have been done, all but the loose cannon doing the job they are paid to do. Having worked with these people in industry since long before they went to the "dark side" just makes communication easier. It didn't make any difference to the way they handled the situation or the outcome. Any other person in my position would be able to contact these same people for the same reason.

The loose cannon was very rapidly secured once he had said he was going to arrange a level two surveillance - something he had no absolutely power to do. How strongly secured remains to be seen but he would be a brave man to take me on again. He has put enough things in writing to make the job of the Industry Complaints Commisioner pretty straightforward.

[Clare Prop]

LB your analogy of the hire car is absolutely correct, in days gone by I worked as a hire car chick to help pay for my flying lessons and run the hire side of my business in exactly the same way.
You bend it, you mend it!
In this case however it was actually the C of R holder flying it, so even further removed from my responsibility!

[thorn bird]

Oh dear,
I wonder if the CAsA brain fart of a 'Private' AOC is back on the table?

[DrongoDriver]

Oh dear,
I wonder if the CAsA brain fart of a 'Private' AOC is back on the table?

If it does eventuate, I think there will be a lot more N-reg GA aircraft around Aus.

[glenb]

Clare Prop, your challenges are the exact same situation I faced. In my case, it bought my whole business to its knees. It really does need a Royal Commission. Most operators in the industry would most likely concur that in Australia we have a unique, but absurd situation where one of the greatest threats to aviation safety in this country is actually the Regulator.

It operates in an environment where it has failed in its stated function to "achieve clear and concise aviation safety standards. In fact well over 80% of industry participants will agree with that statement. That increase in risk in our operating environment needs to be addressed.

It requires a Regulator that is engaging with industry and well intentioned. I point out that the majority of CASA personnel are. However a small few within the organisation choose not to act in accordance with their obligations.

They choose not to be well intentioned.
They choose not to operate in accordance with CASAs own Regulatory Philosophy
They choose not to act in accordance with CASA clearly stipulated procedures.
They choose to use public funds and resources inappropriately and in clear breach of their obligations under the PGPA Act.
They choose to totally disregard the Ministers Statement of Expectations.
They choose to make decisions on subjects that they do not have the technical competence to support.
They choose to bring the role of their fellow employees and public servants into disrepute.
They choose no make decisions that cannot be substantiated in law.
They choose not to respect the processes of Administrative Law.
They choose to bring harm to people for reasons other than safety or regulatory compliance.

I could go on and on and on. It is truly a disgrace. It does measurably and significantly impact on aviation safety in this Country, and it needs a Royal Commission in the interests of aviation safety. It is incumbent upon our aviation representative bodies to bring this to a head.!

[Lead Balloon]

LB your analogy of the hire car is absolutely correct, in days gone by I worked as a hire car chick to help pay for my flying lessons and run the hire side of my business in exactly the same way.
You bend it, you mend it!
In this case however it was actually the C of R holder flying it, so even further removed from my responsibility!Gawd.

And did the CASA loose cannon cite any regulation or section of the Act to support his/her theories, or was it just his/her superior judgment? I’m guessing it was a recent recruit who’s labouring under the misconception that they’ve been employed to impose their superior judgment on the industry.

[glenb]

Clare Prop. Please tread very carefully. I am talking from personal experience. This is a classic example of CASAs failure to achieve clear and concise aviation safety standards, I can see it unfolding already. You are dealing with one of the exact type of personnel I mentioned in my post above; i.e. technically not competent. will not be able to support their decision by pointing to supporting regulations, bringing their own personality and attitudes into decision making, poor awareness of their own procedures, highly inconsistent with the decision that would be made by another CASA person in the same role, stubbornly refuses to admit error, has no accountability for decision making etc etc

Clare, if you are a pilot, or in the field of pilot training, you will recognise those characteristics I listed above as being the characteristics of a very dangerous pilot. Unfortunately, they are the characteristics of a pilot that gets people killed, tragically they are the characteristics of some within the Aviation Group of CASA.

It is these CASA personnel that make the inappropriate first move, as they did in my case. They choose to set the environment, and you are therefore forced to operate in the environment that they chose. They seem oblivious to the fact that a relationship of confidence and trust with industry enhances safety outcomes, and you don't need a Degree in Safety to work that out.

Firstly, CASA have tried this on me previously. Its truly ludicrous. Quite simply they don't understand their own rules I suggest. Why don't you stop it in its tracks!!!

Dear Mr XXXXXXX,

I am very much of the opinion that I have no legislative obligations related to the conduct of this flight.

If your view differs, can I respectfully request that you support your decision by directing me to the appropriate legislation. My expectation is that the legislation will be "clear and concise" as that is the requirement placed on CASA, as its core function in the Civil Aviation Act.

Respectfully, Clare Prop

Some tips. Don't get unnecessarily involved. Diarise every comment (things drag on, and its good to be able to draw back on), follow up any verbal discussion with an emailed summary.

If it blows up, get in contact with me. To be honest, I think it will be a bit of an embarrassment for CASA, and they will realise they have more important matters to be dealing with.

[LeadSled]

If it does eventuate, I think there will be a lot more N-reg GA aircraft around Aus.

Folks,
NZ rego. is the way to go, many things (thanks to the Trans Tasman Mutual Recognition Treaty --- have I got the name correct?) are much more straightforward than an N registered aircraft -- particularly airworthiness certification.
And the natives are friendly --- at NZ CAA.
Tootle pip!!
PS: Don't forget, you can use a "foreign" registered aircraft on an Australian AOC (remember '89) and a ZK- is even more straightforward, thanks to above said treaty.

[Okihara]

Apologies for the rookie question, but does a pilot need a CASA or an FAA licence in order to operate an N-reg aircraft in Aus?

[DrongoDriver]

I do suppose ZK would be another alternative. If you want super-easy and you have the cash, Caymans or Aruba.

CASA licence is valid for any aircraft registration if flown within Australia. The rule is 2 out of 3 of the following.

1. CASA FCL
2. VH reg
3. Flown within Australia

[Cloudee]

I do suppose ZK would be another alternative. If you want super-easy and you have the cash, Caymans or Aruba.

CASA licence is valid for any aircraft registration if flown within Australia. The rule is 2 out of 3 of the following.

1. CASA FCL
2. VH reg
3. Flown within Australia
That’s interesting, I didn’t know that. Do you know where I could find that in the regs?

[DrongoDriver]

That’s interesting, I didn’t know that. Do you know where I could find that in the regs?

Depend’s on the country of registration regulation’s. For the N-reg example, FAR 61.3 is where you find permission for operation of a N-reg plane in overseas territories but only if you have a licence from that airspace’s authorities. I.e. An Aussie FCL to fly in Aussie airspace.

Countries such as Caymans, Isle of Man, Aruba etc. work on a validation principle. You don’t get a Caymans FCL the same way you would get a CASA one (flight tests, exams etc.) but you get it on the basis of having an ICAO FCL. So if your CASA PPL gets cancelled, so does your validation one.

[harrryw]

Depend’s on the country of registration regulation’s. For the N-reg example, FAR 61.3 is where you find permission for operation of a N-reg plane in overseas territories but only if you have a licence from that airspace’s authorities. I.e. An Aussie FCL to fly in Aussie airspace.

Countries such as Caymans, Isle of Man, Aruba etc. work on a validation principle. You don’t get a Caymans FCL the same way you would get a CASA one (flight tests, exams etc.) but you get it on the basis of having an ICAO FCL. So if your CASA PPL gets cancelled, so does your validation one.
That is not how I see § 61.3 Requirement for certificates, ratings, and authorizations.(a)Required pilot certificate for operating a civil aircraft of the United States. No person (https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/61.3) may serve as a required pilot flight crewmember (https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/61.3)of a civil aircraft (https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/61.3) of the United States (https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/61.3), unless that person:

(1) Has in the person (https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/61.3)'s physical possession or readily accessible in the aircraft (https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/61.3) when exercising the privileges of that pilot certificate or authorization -

(i) A pilot certificate issued under this part and in accordance with § 61.19 (https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/61.19);

(ii) A special purpose pilot authorization issued under § 61.77 (https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/61.77);

(iii) A temporary certificate issued under § 61.17 (https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/61.17);

(iv) A document conveying temporary authority to exercise certificate privileges issued by the Airmen Certification Branch under § 61.29(e) (https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/61.29#e);

(v) When engaged in a flight operation within the United States (https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/61.3) for a part 119 certificate holder authorized to conduct operations under part 121 or 135 of this chapter, a temporary document provided by that certificate holder under an approved certificate verification plan;

(vi) When engaged in a flight operation within the United States (https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/61.3) for a fractional ownership program manager authorized to conduct operations under part 91, subpart K, of this chapter, a temporary document provided by that program manager under an approved certificate verification plan; or

(vii) When operating an aircraft (https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/61.3) within a foreign country, a pilot license issued by that country may be used.

Part .1 says a US cert
Part vii says a local cert MAY be used

ie either a US or an Australian certificate.

[DrongoDriver]

That is not how I see § 61.3 Requirement for certificates, ratings, and authorizations.(a)Required pilot certificate for operating a civil aircraft of the United States. No person (https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/61.3) may serve as a required pilot flight crewmember (https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/61.3)of a civil aircraft (https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/61.3) of the United States (https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/61.3), unless that person:

(1) Has in the person (https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/61.3)'s physical possession or readily accessible in the aircraft (https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/61.3) when exercising the privileges of that pilot certificate or authorization -

(i) A pilot certificate issued under this part and in accordance with § 61.19 (https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/61.19);

(ii) A special purpose pilot authorization issued under § 61.77 (https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/61.77);

(iii) A temporary certificate issued under § 61.17 (https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/61.17);

(iv) A document conveying temporary authority to exercise certificate privileges issued by the Airmen Certification Branch under § 61.29(e) (https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/61.29#e);

(v) When engaged in a flight operation within the United States (https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/61.3) for a part 119 certificate holder authorized to conduct operations under part 121 or 135 of this chapter, a temporary document provided by that certificate holder under an approved certificate verification plan;

(vi) When engaged in a flight operation within the United States (https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/61.3) for a fractional ownership program manager authorized to conduct operations under part 91, subpart K, of this chapter, a temporary document provided by that program manager under an approved certificate verification plan; or

(vii) When operating an aircraft (https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/61.3) within a foreign country, a pilot license issued by that country may be used.

Part .1 says a US cert
Part vii says a local cert MAY be used

ie either a US or an Australian certificate.

Well yes I thought it was obvious that you could fly a N-reg aircraft anywhere in the world if you had a FAA FCL. ;)

Otherwise every United/Delta pilot would have a myriad of licences from every corner of the Earth.

[BigPapi]

Thread creep...?

[Okihara]

Does CASA actually have a say in which foreign registered aircraft fly into and within Australian airspace? For instance, would it be fine with CASA if I operate a Norwegian registered aircraft in Australia with my Aussie FCL (assuming that's compliant with Norwegian regulations)? I would expect that some form must be submitted beforehand (+ a fee duly paid) as with most matters related to aviation here. Crossing borders as a pilot in an aircraft is an area of surprising opacity in my opinion. I might be overthinking this but comparing flying with driving often proves too simplistic to point of being wrong. I would expect that the scenario is less of an issue when you are an Australian GA pilot (cuz, jaayzus, you ain't leaving 'Straya in a bug smasher, heey?) but when you're from Europe with a view to return in medium term, you start asking yourself how you may legally fly when overseas. N-reg aircraft are scattered around the world but VH ones less so. I'd find it amusing to fly my own VH aeroplane back in Oslo but I'm guessing that if you aren't seeing VH tails elsewhere, there's got to be some good reason behind it.

[Office Update]

Okihara,
There are dozens of VH- registered Bizjets flying all over the globe. So what's the issue? There are VH- registered bug smashers in PNG, Philippines, Indonesia, Singapore.
Two considerations worth considering are; sheer cost when an airline ticker is cheaper, lack of Avgas, cost of handling agents, landing fees, navigation charges. I have been flying a N-reg in Australia for 20+ years under FAA 61.3...… Foreign registered aircraft operating in Australia will eventually require maintenance, there is a few shops with FAA approval of sorts, as well as PNG, Indonesian and New Zealand.
Not quite sure where the thread is leading ….

[Office Update]

I say chap's get this thread back on track, it has been hijacked.. This is about Glenn and his right to operate a business....

[glenb]

I have made at least 6 requests to meet with the CASA Board since my dramas started unfolding over 9 months. Those requests were all ignored except for when Mr Crawford the Manager of the Aviation Group wrote to me explaining he would not permit it. Not having a lot of respect of the mans ethics I persevered and was successful. I met with Mr Tony Mathews at Melbourne Airport. I requested a response by 2nd August ( two weeks after our meeting). Typically, nothing came. For reference I have posted a copy of the leeter that summarises the meeting. Due to length, I have had to post it over two consecutive posts. Cheers. Glen.

Dear Mr Anthony Mathews

Thank you for providing the opportunity to meet with you, in your role as the Chair of the CASA Board, and for facilitating the attendance of the Regional Manager, Mr Jason McHeyzer, in his role as the Regional Manager for the Southern Region, at Melbourne Airport from approximately 4PM to 6PM on Friday 19/07/19.

I attended with my father Derek Buckley, in his role, purely as my father, someone who has supported me throughout this experience, and is after all. My father.

As you are aware, I have made numerous requests over the last 8 months to meet with the Board of CASA. Those repeated requests were not responded to, or acknowledged, and this is a contributing factor to the delays in our meeting. I note that you are relatively new in the role, irrespective the delays in facilitating the meeting have had a significant impact, and due to the passage of time, unavoidably, the nature of the meeting has changed.I asked you if you had the opportunity to view the final report from the Industry Complaints Commissioner, and you responded that you had viewed that, approximately one month prior to our meeting, which was approximately one month prior to its release to me. My opinion of the ICC report is that it has been carefully written and it avoids most of the complaints. I will attend to that in separate correspondence.

During the meeting,I had the opportunity to very clearly identify to you that CASA has not at any time made any allegations of anything related to safety. In fact, CASA actions can be demonstrated to have negatively impacted on safety. I also had the opportunity to clearly identify to you that CASA has not at any time made any allegations of any regulatory breach.Very early in the meeting I asked if you aware of the commercial impact of the actions that CASA had taken, and I appreciate that in your role, you could not be expected to have a detailed knowledge of my issue.

I then asked the Regional Manager, Mr Mc Heyzer if he could perhaps outline the impact. As he has had been closely involved in this process since it began, he was better able to encapsulate the situation, as would be my expectation.

To recap,

CASA;· Placed a limited date of approval on my business that has been as short as, a minute by minute approval, but no longer than three months. That action alone would have an enormous and destabilising effect on any organisation, and the staff and suppliers associated with that organisation. That action has continued for a staggering 9 months and is still not resolved.·

CASA actions prevented me from marketing my product·

CASA actions prevented me from taking on customers.·

CASA actions prevented me from adding courses and capabilities that I am fully entitled to.·

CASA actions prevented me from renewing capabilities as they came up for renewal.

When CASA initiated that action in October 2018, I clearly identified to CASA that the impact on my business would be significant, and conservatively it would cause my business to lose $10,000 per week. This matter has now dragged on for over 9 months, and lead to a situation where the business was no longer able to sustain itself. In fact, no business in Australia could sustain those restrictions to its trade

.I outlined to you that the APTA model required 10 members contributing $80,000 each, as the cost of operating APTA was $800,000 per annum. By preventing me signing up new members, you will appreciate my problem. I outlined that APTA was purpose built over many years, and is a significant investment.

With CASA actions placing such insecurity on the business, it had no value and was sold for a price of 5% its actual value.

The business was sold under duress for no other reason than to protect the members and staff who depend on it for their livelihood.

Quite truthfully, I explained how I could no longer sustain the business and pay the staff salaries. If APTA were to discontinue operations at any time on CASA actions, it would directly impact on other operators depending on our continuing approval. I was carrying a significant burden as you will appreciate.

The associated impact on my own business, Melbourne Flight Training has been catastrophic, as it has been supporting the ongoing costs of running APTA. Its own certainty, now hangs in the balance.My own flying school, Melbourne Flight Training is currently in a state of financial duress that is quite likely to be irreparable. The Company has incurred unacceptable debt levels as it has attempted to ensure continuity of operations for APTA and the members that have depended on it.

I identified two other business that have ceased operations as result of the CASA decisions made in relation to APTA. By restricting my revenue streams for 9 months, I could not be expected to survive. No business in any industry, could sustain that.

Personally, the process since CASA implemented Part 61/141 and 142, has also been catastrophic. I clearly identified that in fact I couldn’t even muster up the money for the car park fees if the meeting extended for one more than one hour. That is the truth. I have been left destitute and that includes the loss of my family home. That is the fact. There are no hidden accounts or trust funds. I have exhausted every fund I have available to me to defend the APTA model.

I resolutely stand by the fact that it

Was well intentioned.
mproved safety.
Improved regulatory compliance.
Created jobs.
Protected regional aviation and most particularly regional aero clubs.
Protected the fast dwindling Australian Owned sector of the industry.

Importantly, it was a multi million dollar investment. It was designed with CASA. It was approved by CASA. It was audited by CASA. The fact is that Mr Crawford and four other CASA personnel operating under his direct operational control, and I include;· Mr Jones.· Mr Martin, · Mr Nuttall, and · Mr Lacy initiated a process in October 2018. That process was a complete reversal of previous CASA policy. It came instantly, and with absolutely no warning.

The entire process could have been avoided had CASA decided to inform me or meet with me. The associated impact on my business and the gross waste of taxpayer funds achieving that objective, has been truly disgraceful and unacceptable. My experiences may be shared by others in Industry, and if so, it requires a Royal Commission, it really does.

Those actions and decisions·
Were in clear breach of almost every element of CASAs own Regulatory Philosophy.·
In breach of the PGPA Act which requires these personnel to use public funds and resources responsibly.·
Breach the requirements of Administrative Law, Procedural Fairness, and Natural Justice.·
Were quite simply. Not well intentioned, and certainly not based on safety considerations.·
Bullying and Intimidating in their nature.·
Cannot be supported by any clear or concise legislation, and that is a requirement placed on CASA.

[glenb]

I offered up to 20 examples of the negligent conduct of those personnel, and their associated decisions.The examples I used were;

Example One
The inappropriateness of the use of the Aviation Ruling as the basis of the initial action in October 2018. As; · On its release in 2006, CASA advised flying schools that it did not apply to them, it was intended for charter operators, and CASA has in fact facilitated “shared AOCs” in flying schools since my initial involvement in the industry in the early 1980s.· It applies to “commercial purposes”. CASA removed flying training from “commercial purposes” in September 2014. How can it apply. Flying Training is not a “Commercial purpose.”· It has no Head of Power.· It refers to Key Personnel i.e. Chief Pilot that do not exist in flying training.· CASA themselves acknowledged it was the incorrect document after 2 months.· It is 13 years old, and written for an entirely different regulatory environment.

Example Two

CASA also initiated the action in October 2018 based on our Temporary locations’ procedure. Embarrassingly it was only later realised by CASA that it was in fact their own procedure, and that they had recommended it to us, approved it for our use, approved bases under that exact procedure, audited it, and even recommended it to flying schools. How can this happen? I simply cannot understand it, I really cant!

Example Three

The “contract issue”CASA never required contracts of us. I had a contract with my members. I had provided copies of the contract to CASA on multiple occasions. CASA seemed disinterested. October 2018 was a complete change of policy application and CASA insisted on provision of contracts within 7 days. CASA was embarrassed when I demonstrated that contracts had previously been provided, including a copy to Mr Graeme Crawford more than 12 months prior. In fact, had CASA realised they already held the contract, they may not have made the decision to take action on a perceived “lack of contracts”.CASA provided guidance material on the contracts which I fully adopted. CASA rejected that. CASA provided a second lot of guidance material. Again, I fully adopted the guidance material. CASA provided written notification the new version was acceptable, and I could proceed. Hours later, CASA reversed that decision and advised it was no longer acceptable. After many months. CASA engaged legal advice external to CASA and came back with a third set of guidance material. CASA advised that I should not use it “word for word”. So, I didn’t. I am satisfied that my contracts and associated Exposition are industry leading and meet all CASA requirements. I have not heard the outcome.I pointed out to you, that this requirement being placed on APTA is unique to APTA, and CASA is not applying it to other operators. I cannot understand how this issue can still be continuing on after 9 months.

Example Four

The impact of the CASA delay. I pointed out that the new CASA regulations i.e. Part 61/141 and 142 were implemented over a decade behind schedule, and they were underpinned by a grossly negligent Regulation Impact Statement (RIS). I advised I would provide a copy of that document and it is attached. I draw your attention to the effect on Businesses, identified on page 15 of the RIS. I discussed how CASA placed a Transition Date of September 1st of 2018 for all of Australia’s 350 flying training organisations. After that date, if they had not completed the re-approval process under the new rules, they would not be permitted to continue operating. My Company made an enormous investment in time and money over a two-year period to achieve the deadline referred to as the Transition Date i.e. September 1st, 2017.As the date approached it appeared to me that CASA was not ready for the Transition date. CASA assure me they were. I “flicked the switch” and Transitioned. That process resulted in a very substantial increase in operating costs.Weeks later, as only a staggeringly low 5% of Industry had achieved Part 142 status, CASA was forced into reversing its decision, and postponed the Transition date by 12 months. CASA forced me to operate under the new regulatory structure while other operators remained in the far more cost effective “Civil Aviation Regulation 5” (CAR 5) for a further 12 months. That delay alone, cost me many hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Example Five

I talked to you about the commercially unviable turnaround times of CASA processing tasks, which are essential to running the business. I used the example of the addition of one of our “Temporary locations”. It was quoted by CASA as a five-hour task and took 10 months to complete. In fact, those timelines are indicative of my businesses experience. i.e. CASA process tasks at the rate of 30 minutes per month i.e. a 2-hour task will take 4 hours, a 5 hour task will take 10 months. In fact, this was the subject of a formal complaint to the Industry Complaints Commissioner, but was not attended to in his final report, only just released 7 months later.My point being, that these unacceptable timelines impact significantly on Industry and particularly so when industry is paying commercial rates for CASA services. The effects have been substantial on my business, and the members.

Example Six

The blatant and total disregard for CASAs own Regulatory Philosophy in its dealings with me since the change to CMT 3 headed up by ............... which coincided with the commencement of the action initiated by CASA without any prior indication in October 2018.

Example Seven

I clearly outlined my frustration that as a Part 141 and 142 Organisation I have authorisation to conduct a number of courses including low level, Multi Crew courses, Type ratings etc. CASA applied an “Administrative Freeze” on those tasks, and that had a significant implication on one of my members, leading to the closure of his business. CASA should have substantial grounds for refusing to process those tasks, as they were within my Authorisation and not related to any other issue, including bases.


Due to time constraints I did not get to touch on the other feedback that I can offer, including; the root cause of this entire issue being CASAs failure to achieve clear and concise aviation safety standards as is required of it in the Civil Aviation Act, technical incompetence on behalf of some personnel i.e. the Regional Manager stating “Im new to the role, and not all over it. I will need to organise a meeting with my staff, yet his signature sits on the initial correspondence that he sent a day earlier. Why sign it, if you’re not “all over it”!

I did briefly touch on CASA consistently ignoring my requests for assistance in resolving CASA allegations of regulatory breaches, and how well over 30 emails have been completely ignored, clear breaches of CASAs Enforcement Manual, breaches etc.

We closed the meeting with me asking that I be provided with a final CASA position on this matter by 5PM on Friday August 2nd. I appreciate you currently have obligations that require you to be outside of Australia, and I respect that. I did reply to you that it only needed one well intentioned person, to make well considered and well-intentioned decision. That person did not have to be you, but I needed to know by August 2nd.

The impact of CASAs actions has been significant, they really have. That impact has extended to me, my wife, and my children, it will impact on their education, I have lost my home, other businesses have closed as a result of this, safety has been compromised, staff will lose employment, and the APTA model has been completely decimated by CASA.

Businesses will be affected, and the entire process was so completely and totally unnecessary. It really could have been entirely avoided had CASA acted in a well-intentioned manner, in the interests of safety, and in accordance with the regulatory philosophy.

Those personnel I have named decided that APTA would not be permitted to operate, and they worked diligently to achiever that outcome.As a pilot with 25 years training experience, I cannot see how a less than ideal relationship between industry and CASA can possibly optimise safety outcomes. A relationship of confidence and trust is essential to achieve those optimal safety outcomes. In my opinion and drawing on my experience dealing with those five named individuals I sincerely believe they have demonstrated unconscionable conduct in their respective roles within CASA, and that is my only experience with those people. I can make no comment outside of my own perceived experience. Their actions and decisions have compromised safety. I can demonstrate that and am prepared to.

You are a Pilot, as I am. Our job is about nothing else than “good and sound decision making”. I call on CASA to deal with me in a fair and reasonable manner promptly. I do not want to involve lawyers. Two Parties acting in a well-intentioned and respectful manner and dealing only in the complete truth, can resolve anything. That has been my experience over the last 54 years, and I am hoping that common sense can prevail in this situation. By meeting with you, I have truly exhausted EVERY option for an internal resolution with CASA, and I will need to seek legal support and guidance if we cannot resolve this matter. I am mentally, emotionally, and financially drained and exhausted after this 9 month and more, I am only wanting to get some closure on this unnecessarily traumatic period.

I really am at the cusp. Please!Irrespective of the outcome, I sincerely thank you for your time. I felt you genuinely did provide “a good ear”, and I respect that. Yours respectfully



Glen Buckley

Mr Will Nuttall

[glenb]

I intend to file formal complaints against 5 X personnel within CASA including the Head of the Aviation Group, Mr Crawford. in order to lodge a legitimate complaints, the starting point for that must be the incumbents Position Description. Something that should be freely available, but it wasn't. It necessitated a Freedom of Information request, which arrived some time later.

[Sunfish]

Nothing less than a QC and the High Court is going to change this Glen, and CASA is gambling on the assumption you don’t have the money to fund that.

The other alternative is a crusading journalist and news organisation prepared to run with your story, and they don’t exist any more.

Sorry to be so rough.

[Clare Prop]

Thanks to people who have PM'd me advice.

[aroa]

..."Since nothing less than a QC and the High Court" required and CAsA know full well 99.99% of aviatiors and Av businesses cant afford the challenges to the bureaucratic buggery. So, what to do ?
Keep beating the RC or Judicial Inquiry drum and if enough noise about that is eventually heard in the right circles, something might get done.
Despite all the pap, crap and motherhood statements about change from CAsA ..its all bull****.
The culture within the Fort and out in the region orifices is way too toxic. CAsA WILL NOT rock their endless trough.

[1a sound asleep]

When CASA is wrong they will firstly never admit anything. Secondly they will close all ranks. Thirdly they will engage the target and commence attack mode.
If you wish to engage in any defence the only avenue is the court system.

From experience unless you have several $x,000,000 to waste / fight CASA it is not worth your health. You are fighting a bureaucracy that is largely self serving and corrupt.

This is why GA is almost dead. The only way to live with CASA is to pay them off (not literally of course) but those that play know how it works.

Your $2M house, your privacy, your friends/family your physical and mental health is not worth the fight

[Clare Prop]

I'd suggest approaching Senators.

[aroa]

Dont let the state yre in or the State you live in, stop you from sending your material to yr Senator of choice.
Just do it. Ask him to pass copies on to other Senators...there are a few pro -Aviation ones.
Or better still, a round robin email from yrself to as many as you can think of.
Clear prop !! And away you go,

[Clare Prop]

Does anybody here have any experience of dealing with the Industry Complaints Commission? Is it just another layer of CASA that will close ranks and be able to get away with telling a pack of lies despite loads of evidence? I see they share the same PO box.

Would I need to have the resources to take it to the High Court before embarking on the process? Should I get legal advice first?

[Sunfish]

So much for the Forsyth Review. I fail to understand what progress, if any, has been made in implementing any of the recommendations. Perhaps a letter to the good Senator might be in order.

From the executive summary (My bolding):

Despite Australia’s good standing, the aviation industry is highly self-critical and regularly has a ‘take no prisoners’ approach to public discourse. While this critical introspection may contribute to its good record, it can at times be counter-productive to promoting rational public debate on aviation safety and to building a positive and collaborative national aviation safety culture.

The current relationship between industry and the regulator is cause for concern. In recent years, the regulator has adopted an across the board hard-line philosophy, which in the Panel’s view, is not appropriate for an advanced aviation nation such as Australia. As a result, relationships between industry and the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) have, in many cases, become adversarial.

Leading regulators across the world are moving to performance-based regulation, using a ‘trust and verify’ approach, collaborating with industry to produce better safety outcomes and ensuring the regulator stays in touch with rapidly advancing technology and safety practices. On occasions, individual operators may push the boundaries and require close regulatory oversight and a firm regulatory response. An effective risk-based regulator will judge when a hard line is necessary.

A number of countries with advanced aviation regulatory systems have developed collaborative relationships between their regulators and industry, leading to open sharing of safety data. Due to the present adversarial relationship between industry and CASA, Australia lacks the degree of trust required to achieve this important aim. Sharing safety data is a fundamental principle of good safety management.

The Panel concludes that CASA and industry need to build an effective collaborative relationship on a foundation of mutual trust and respect. Therefore, CASA needs to set a new strategic direction.

The selection of a new Director of Aviation Safety should concentrate on finding an individual with leadership and change management abilities, rather than primarily aviation expertise. Other jurisdictions have appointed leaders without an aviation background, who have been successful in changing the strategic direction of the safety regulator.


https://www.infrastructure.gov.au/aviation/asrr/files/ASRR_Report_May_2014.pdf

[Horatio Leafblower]

Does anybody here have any experience of dealing with the Commonwealth Complaints Commission?

Hi Clare,
I have not heard of anyone having any material success with the Industry Complaints Commissioner. In WA, I suggest you contact Sen. Glenn Sterle (ALP) who used to be a truckie and understands the overall industry, and can see the effect of an over-reaching regulator.
He was also on the RRAT (Regional Rural affairs and Transport) Senate Committee and has demonstrated that he is no real fan of CASA.

I also ask that you and other operators think about joining AOPA and helping us to support the wider GA industry, not just the private owners.
Cheers

[Clinton McKenzie]

Does anybody here have any experience of dealing with the Industry Complaints Commission? Is it just another layer of CASA that will close ranks and be able to get away with telling a pack of lies despite loads of evidence? I see they share the same PO box.

Would I need to have the resources to take it to the High Court before embarking on the process? Should I get legal advice first?
I have had only one interaction with the CASA ‘Industry Complaints Commissioner’, and I was underwhelmed with the experience.

My complaint arose out of a purported restriction that AVMED put on my medical certificate. After some correspondence and an AAT application, CASA OLC conceded that the purported restriction could not lawfully be imposed. The purported restriction was removed from my certificate. I took the - perhaps quaintly naive - view that CASA should take action to remove the same purported restriction from every other certificate on which it had been unlawfully imposed. I communicated this to the CASA Industry Complaints Commissioner’s office. Alas - the concept of voluntarily undoing the effects of an acknowledged unlawful practise seemed to strike them with the force of novelty.

This interaction occurred a few years ago and things might have changed, but I doubt it. For example, the CAD Test does not simulate an operational situation, as required by law, but that hasn’t stopped AVMED from persisting with its use as the ‘third tier’ test. It seems to me, from my first-hand experience, that AVMED has difficulty these days in accepting the concept that they are supposed to comply with the law without having to be forced to comply. CASA doesn’t seem to have the necessary governance arrangements in place to overcome that difficulty.

The fact that the zealot with whom you (Clare) are dealing was let loose on the industry is, in my view, also a manifestation of poor governance.

I’m the last person to discourage you (or Glen Buckley) from fighting CASA decisions and actions with which you disagree. However, don’t hold your breath expecting CASA or its employed ‘Complaints Commissioner’ to change anything without the threat of real external scrutiny and embarrassment. And there is, sadly, much truth in what 1a posted at #153.

Again using the CAD Test to make my point, it will eventually be dropped as the ‘third tier’ test. But it will not be dropped because CASA has had an epiphany and realised it’s a good idea to comply with the law and accept the objective evidence about CVD - CASA could have done that over a decade ago and put erstwhile PMO Navathe in his box. It will instead be dropped because the Kiwi aviation regulator has embarrassed CASA by exposing the egregious damage that the Kiwi regulator and CASA have allowed CVD zealots to inflict on competent pilots and would-be pilots. Kids who commit suicide because they’ve been told their CVD precludes them from being pilots will suddenly become important alive rather than necessary sacrifices to ‘the safety of air navigation’. (Let’s hear it for CASA. Yay!)

Sorry to be a voice of gloom and doom, but you need to understand what you’re up against.

[Clare Prop]

Thanks Clinton, that's very helpful.

I remember a DAME friend telling them that CVD was an actually acronym for carsiovascular disease, and myself receiving a letter along the lines that I should ground any pilots who had it. Well, they wouldn't have a medical if they had CVD!

Are you aware of the issue with medicals where there is evidence of the applicant having ADHD or ASD? I have a student who could run rings around Mr Spock and was never formally diagnosed or medicated with either, yet CASA won't give him a medical without gaining access to his medical records and me having to fill in Form 420, that asks questions that seem to be written for primary school children, referring to play behaviour, toys and schoolwork.

To date, he has not been able to get a medical and the training of this exceptional student has ground to a halt as he can't solo. I also had to fill in this questionnaire for a gentleman in his 60s, a former Flight Service Officer, who has also had them demanding his medical records. So when there was talk of opting out of the My Health Record in case CASA used it against us, CASA are now refusing to give medicals to some applicants without gaining access to Medicare records. I find this very concerning and it seems the ICC won't be of much use.

Another student with the same problem is a rigger on construction sites, but he was told that his "disorder" was due to the fact he was likely to make impulsive and dangerous decisions. He has to stop his medication for six months and then be re-assessed. Another very good student unable to solo.

Using this logic, Neil Armstrong, who had many ASD traits, wouldn't be fit to hold a CASA medical.

Apologies to Glen for thread drift.

[Clinton McKenzie]

Hi again, Clare

As I’ve said in another thread, AVMED is now in my opinion a force inimical to the interests of aviation safety. They seem to me to be on an inferiority complex-driven crusade to prove their expertise, but achieve the opposite. The widespread practise is now to tell them nothing. That’s what 1a meant by playing the game. In order to survive in the real world of GA, people just nod and smile and pretend to take CASA seriously so as to avoid the consequences of attempting to engage them with reality. Unfortunately, as you and Glen and many others have found out, the damage is sometimes unavoidable.

[Global Aviator]

Good luck with your fight against CASA, however as stated you will need deeper pockets than anything.

If this is turning into an industry best for you to win then why not look at a go fund me page?

Many many many moons ago I started a fight against the evil empire only to realise I was on a hiding to nothing, even though clearly in the right. Ahhh if knew what I knew now.....

[thorn bird]

Global,
as a famous person once said,

"There are no "knowns." There are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say there are things that we now know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we do not know we don't know."

Pretty much describes CAsA, its attitude and the industries perception of how it all works, I think.

[glenb]

In Posts 147 and 148, I published the letter that I sent as a follow up to my meeting with the Chairman of the CASA Board held at Melbourne Airport on 19/07/19

In that letter, I asked for a response by Friday August 2nd.

That date has past, and I have heard nothing.

Sadly, I cant say im truly surprised.

[glenb]

Sadly I read that RNAC has shut down temporarily. Taking the politics out of it, as both the CFI/HOO and Aero Club have a good reputation. This only highlights CASAs outrageous stance towards APTA. In fact, when I owned APTA I had discussions with RNAC, but CASA would not permit me to proceed with them joining.

The fact is that all regional locations will have difficulty attracting and retaining suitably qualified senior and experienced personnel, and this will impact on continuity of operations.

Had CASA permitted me to proceed, this may well have been a viable option, and operations could have continued. After all, that is the EXACT model that I built with CASA until some personnel within CASA decided to manage a complete change of direction.

Lets hope that it end well, but I fear a challenge ahead.

[Stickshift3000]

Crowd funding for a legal case & approaching the media with these regulatory failures should be high on anyone's agenda if unfairly treated by any government agency.

Industry needs to rally behind cases like Glen's, all influence counts towards mounting pressure for a commission to investigate the regulator thoroughly. It can't keep going on.

[glenb]

I will let you be the judge on this one, although I will reverse engineer it. After 7 months I received the final report (attached).

As time permits over coming days, I will post my complaints. You can read the complaint and see if the attached report attended to my complaints, as I post them.

[glenb]

By the way, here is the Preliminary report. This obviously came out before the final report. Interestingly many of the commitments made by the ICC were not met in the final report, but I will provide more on that later.

[Office Update]

Glenn,

Can't seem to open the attachments, they are locked pending "approval" ???

[Manwell]

Crowd funding for a legal case & approaching the media with these regulatory failures should be high on anyone's agenda if unfairly treated by any government agency.

Industry needs to rally behind cases like Glen's, all influence counts towards mounting pressure for a commission to investigate the regulator thoroughly. It can't keep going on.

Legal appeals and approaching the media aren't what they used to be, but you're right - the aviation community has to band together otherwise we'll all end up in the same situation. Divide and conquer is the game, so unity is the logical defence.

[Manwell]

By the way, here is the Preliminary report. This obviously came out before the final report. Interestingly many of the commitments made by the ICC were not met in the final report, but I will provide more on that later.

glenb, I empathise with you, but as a local federal member told me, "The problem's too big for anyone to solve." He's right. The system designed to protect us has been turned against us, and it is much bigger than one case. Therefore, while I know you won't like to hear this, the only viable solution is in calming down and working smarter, rather than harder. In other words, by fighting against the system we unwittingly strengthen it because that's how it's been engineered. They have unlimited resources extorted from taxpayers to use against taxpayers. How can they possibly lose if we play their game?

Confucius gave some good advice, "He conquers, who conquers himself." And so did Sun Tzu in "The Art of War", a war tactics manual written a few hundred years before Christ landed that's still studied by most ranking military officers in the world today. He advised, "The art of war is deception", and the supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting. In simple terms, we don't know the enemy or ourselves fully, and that's why we keep losing.

[Manwell]

Global,
as a famous person once said,

"There are no "knowns." There are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say there are things that we now know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we do not know we don't know."

Pretty much describes CAsA, its attitude and the industries perception of how it all works, I think.

That was Donald Rumsfeld, but he didn't say there are no "knowns". He actually said, "There are known knowns;there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns — the ones we don't know we don't know."

The unknown unknowns about CASA, indeed Govt, is inferred by the literal meaning of Government Department. Govern = Control, ment = mind, and Depart = leave, ment = mind. There it is, hidden in plain sight. Government Department is Mind Control designed to make us take leave of our senses, but since it's hidden in plain sight, no-one really paid any attention to it, looking instead for rhyme and reason in their words and actions.

The question then, is why? Why is Government so intent on controlling our minds and making us take leave of our rational senses? That's an interesting one, and not so easy to comprehend. The question then is, do you really want to know?

[Lead Balloon]

This seems to me to be sophistry:... One reason for the broad conclusion is your specific request that I not review the actions or decisions of the CMT APTA was previously oversighted by, who you commended for their professionalism. Respecting that request means it’s impossible for me to draw any conclusions about which approach to the APTA business model is more likely to be legally correct.If the ICC has ‘jurisdiction’ to draw conclusions about the comparative legality of two different CASA approaches, the ICC has ‘jurisdiction’ to draw a conclusion about the legality of the current approach in isolation. It’s patently clear that the substance of Mr Buckley’s complaint is that he should be able to continue to do what he was encouraged by CASA to believe was a lawful activity. And in true CASA tradition, who’s blamed for the outcome? The complainant.

The ICC is just a hurdle to getting immediate access to the Ombudsman. Not surprisingly, the Ombudsman describes CASA as being amongst the Ombudsman’s ‘frequent flyers’ i.e. the agencies against whom many complaints are made.

[flyingmac49]

Absolutely agree with Stickshift 3000, on following this detailed tread it reminded me of the much quoted saying “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men should do nothing.” Guess the concept of "evil" can also apply to a Government Department acting unconscionably, unethically and perhaps illegally; so Glen, get a good Aviation Specialist QC and put CASA's actions under the microscope. Most likely there will be hundreds, if not thousands, of disgruntled CASA constituents in aviation circles for you to be very successful in raising a large sum of money for a legal war-chest harnessing Crowd Funding!!

[aroa]

The burden " to have CAsA under a microscope " should NOT be GB's alone.
And it should be with a JI or RC and CAsA examined, chewed over and spat out ...and then some
With CAsA like the "Naked City" there are a million stories out there of bureaucratic buggery, dishonest, overzealous and illegal employees , all protected and enjoying the taxpayer trough....while the fcuk an industry.
And until that happens, we are stuck with it. A VERY sorry state of affairs, to our detriment and to that of the 'common wealth'

[Flaming galah]

This seems to me to be sophistry:If the ICC has ‘jurisdiction’ to draw conclusions about the comparative legality of two different CASA approaches, the ICC has ‘jurisdiction’ to draw a conclusion about the legality of the current approach in isolation. It’s patently clear that the substance of Mr Buckley’s complaint is that he should be able to continue to do what he was encouraged by CASA to believe was a lawful activity. And in true CASA tradition, who’s blamed for the outcome? The complainant.

The ICC is just a hurdle to getting immediate access to the Ombudsman. Not surprisingly, the Ombudsman describes CASA as being amongst the Ombudsman’s ‘frequent flyers’ i.e. the agencies against whom many complaints are made.

Speaking of sophistry, in 2015/16 of the 31,191 within jurisdiction approaches the Ombudsman received, It initiated no investigations into CASA. In 2016/17, 3 investigations of CASA were initiated from the 34,606 within jurisdiction approaches. In 2017/18 it was 1 in 38,206. Annual reports for the 2018/19 aren’t out yet.

Never let easily verifiable facts get in the way of a good argument.

[Lead Balloon]

It’s always good when the newbies turn up to run interference. Number of posts: 1. Welcome aboard, ‘Flaming galah’.

More sophistry.

First: Why don’t you educate us all and define the phrase “within jurisdiction” and the bases upon which the Ombudsman decides to investigate or not to investigate. Even a first time interference poster wouldn’t be stupid enough to suggest that each year there are only single digit figures of people - or even zero - who have complaints about CASA.

One of the marvellous consequences of the creation of the ICC is that poor bastards who used to be able to reach out to the Ombudsman directly can no longer do so. They have to go through the ICC process first. That’s why the ICC was created. Lots of people are ground into despair by dealing with CASA and then the ICC. The prospect of dealing with yet another government bureaucracy that could be as awful as CASA is often enough to deter complainants.

Secondly: The 2015/16 numbers you quoted are bull****. I know it, first hand. Let me stress that I’m not suggesting that you’re making it up. After all, a first time poster would only post material in good faith. I’m asserting that the Ombudsman received at least one “within jurisdiction” approach about CASA during 2015/16, and investigated. It may well be that the Ombudsman didn’t report it as such. That outcome would, sadly, be yet another manifestation of the general degradation of government integrity.

And... what are the figures for 2014, and 2013, and 2012....

I could be wrong. It could be that everyone is a now very happy with CASA’s behaviour and the number of legitimate complaints about CASA each year these days can be counted on the fingers of one hand. And pigs might fly.

Enjoy the pieces of silver.

[harrryw]

A minor point but I would expect a senior Government Official to ensure that at least a communication of this importance was in correct English rather than this sample.
Having reviewed APTA’s submissions in response, I believe I have insufficient information to change my provisional view. I therefore conclude didn’t act CASA unlawfully, or unreasonably fail to provide information.

[Sunfish]

I’m afraid I don’t understand what Glen B actually DID to get his business closed down. Clearly he must have done something highly illegal. What was it?

[Melbjorn]

I’m afraid I don’t understand what Glen B actually DID to get his business closed down. Clearly he must have done something highly illegal. What was it?
I might be wrong, but my understanding is that his school was no longer allowed to take on new customers (amongst other things) due to restrictions imposed on by CASA.

What is less clear to me, though, is what happens to the other APTA schools? Others still seem to be going about their daily business without restrictions which begs the question (and perhaps yours too): why action taken against MFT specifically? One would expect that by bringing APTA down, all the schools would be somewhat affected to a similar extent.

[Stickshift3000]

I’m afraid I don’t understand what Glen B actually DID to get his business closed down. Clearly he must have done something highly illegal. What was it?

CASA screwed up: various (newer?) staff had different regulatory interpretations to those already agreed to in-principle by CASA.

[glenb]

CASAs mandate is aviation safety. Let me be very clear and CASA will not refute this statement. There have not been any allegations of any safety breaches, safety concerns, safety compromises at all, at any time. This is not a safety matter, and I urge CASA to refute that statement.

There have been no allegations of regulatory breaches., No rules have been breached or compromised.

A quick recap for those that are having trouble following.

CASA introduced a regulatory change called Part 61/141/142. It was finally introduced over 10 years behind schedule.
CASA set a date for all schools to "Transition" to the new regulatory environment of September 1st 2017.
Of Australia's 350 schools, only 5% had achieved Part 142 status by the deadline. Importantly, APTA was amongst the 5%. CASA delayed the date 12 months.
That delay cost me many hundreds of thousands of dollars.

If I rewind the clock

As the new legislation was presented to Industry, it became obvious that I was going to lose access to 90% of my revenue, as I would not be permitted to continue delivering the 150 hour CPL. The lead up to the introduction will clearly show that this significant "twist" was inserted by CASA right at the end of the program. It effectively made my business unsaleable, as it was to lose 90 % of its revenue unless I became what was known as a Part 142 school.

I studied the project and it was enormous. I discussed a concept similar to the medical industry or even in retail i.e. IGA where members come together and share a strong pool of resources in a central office. I spent two years working side by side with CASA developing APTA. The concept was multi bases under a central head office. We attended to over 600 CASA requirements with each of those requirements assessed by a person from CASA. We were already operating in this format with both MFT and TVSA under APTA when we Transitioned by the original CASA date of September 2017. Later to be postponed due to the fact that CASA did not have the resources to complete the task by the nominated date.

CASA then added more bases under our system, including AVIA and Learn to Fly. Then in November 2017. CASA audited us and our bases, and raised no concerns about the structure that they had helped me design, and they had approved. I made further significant investment in our IT oversight systems. The model worked well. It provided direct operational control, clearly removed the commercial pressure from the safety and compliance pressures. It improved safety through the provision of a highly resourced central safety department. It created jobs, protected my business and others. CASA personnel actually recommended the product to struggling aero clubs. I provided highly subsidised rates to aero clubs as an altruistic gesture to ensure their continued survival. Ballarat Aero Club is an example of the spectacular success that could be achieved under APTA.

Then CASA notified me of a change of CMT. (A CASA oversighting team). I went from CMT 2 to a team referred to as CMT 3 and headed up by a gentleman by the name of Will Nutatll.

The new team contained a CASA staff member who I feared may try to bring harm to me and my business. Importantly, I immediately made two written and documented requests for a one on one ON THE RECORD meeting which was facilitated. My concerns were raised, and professionally brushed off.

My management and staff will concur that CMT 3 adopted a very combative stance in all dealings, and shortly after and without any warning at all, in any shape or form, Brad Lacy the Subject Matter Expert from within my CMT initiated he issuance of paperwork attached in post 44.

I called up the signatory, Mr David Jones, (Regional Manager). He explained that he wasn't all over it and would have to meet with his team.

I expressed alarm that he would sign such a substantive document if he wasn't all over it.

Then the CASA culture kicked in, and my woes began.

Please note that when I refer to someone by name, I make no insinuations about them as a person outside of their work role. I have no knowledge of those matters. I also cannot make comments on them with their dealings with other operators because I also have no knowledge of those matters. I genuinely believe that my concerns are significant, they do impact on aviation safety, they are the truth, I encourage any opportunity presented by CASA to defend my assertions, and they are very much in the public interest.

[Lead Balloon]

I’m afraid I don’t understand what Glen B actually DID to get his business closed down. Clearly he must have done something highly illegal. What was it?


Mr Buckley appears to me to have committed two crimes so far:

First, he presumed that CASA would have a ‘whole of agency’ view as to the compliance of his business structure with the aviation law. It was naive not to realise that everyone in CASA has an opinion and those opinions can be diametrically different, with potentially devastating commercial and other consequences. (You will recall that CASA’s FOIs were split 50/50 on the question whether the rules required the PIC of VH-NGA to divert. In that case the CEO of CASA stepped in to assert the differences of opinion were irrelevant and that his opinion was the ‘whole of agency’ opinion. It was politically expedient - sorry, in the interests of the safety of air safety - for that to happen in the case of the PIC of VH-NGA, but not in Mr Buckley’s.)

Secondly, Mr Buckley gave the ICC an excuse not to deal with the substance of his complaint. It was naive not to force the ICC to deal with the question whether Mr Buckley’s current activities are or are not lawful. (It may be that the ICC does not have ‘jurisdiction’ to answer that question, in which case it was naive to complain to the ICC in the first place. The fact that the ICC suggested that he could have made a comparative judgment of the lawfulness of the position that CASA’s Popular Front of Judea encouraged Mr Buckley to rely upon, versus those of CASA’s People’s Popular Front of Judea that Mr Buckley is not complying with the law, suggest to me that the ICC considers the ICC to have ‘jurisdiction’ to make absolute judgments of lawfulness - how else could the comparative judgment be made? But - alas - according to the ICC it was “impossible” for the ICC to make the comparative judgment because Mr Buckley didn’t allow it.)

[Okihara]

Just trying to get these two facts straight (please correct where necessary):
1. Action was taken by CASA against APTA after they realised that the APTA model, although initially encouraged by CASA, was contravening to the general idea that an AOC cannot be franchised.
2. Under the APTA model, member schools would benefit from Part 142 operator privileges

Why then is it MFT, one of the member schools, that went down alone?

[glenb]

Melbourne Flight Training was the school that I opened 15 years ago, and the first APTA Member.

When CASA commenced the action in October 2018 (and still continuing), they prevented me taking on new customers, marketing, adding capability, or renewing capabilities as part of this process, I clearly identified in writing on multiple occasions that the consequences of the . CASA action would cost me at least $10,000 per week as they did.

I thought that CASA would resolve their confusion in a matter of weeks. As it dragged on, I had to call on my Business MFT to avoid making redundancies. Quite simply MFT could not sustain APTAs costs of $10,000 per week, and hence MFT has closed.

[glenb]

Dear Mr Hanton, Please allow me to comment on my view of the ICC process, now that I am in receipt of the final report.

After waiting 8 months to receive the report, I am truly concerned at the avoidance of the key issues, and the apparent lack of intent to provide an honest, open and transparent assessment. Can I specially identify some critical shortcomings.

In matter A, I made allegations of shortcomings regarding the processes associated with the Latrobe Valley audit/visit by CASA. This had been identified as a Level Two audit by the Regional Manger in my presence, and in the presence of CASAs Head of Regulatory Services.

CASA was later to reverse their stance and state it was not an audit.

At the exit interview at Latrobe Valley on the day, only a minor anomaly was identified.

CASA advised a written report would follow, as is the procedure. That report never arrived.

At a later CASA meeting, the audit was raised, and this time the topics had changed entirely in nature.

It was identified that the audit results had not been provided to me, although they had been provided to CASA legal, and CASA confirmed that fact.

CASA then denied an audit was done which surprised me. CASA then claimed there were no audit results.

I then tried to get them under Freedom of information, and there was simply page after page after page of completely redacted material, so you will appreciate my confusion. CASA prepared audit results months later that were not dated and differed completely from what we had previously been advised. Completely new allegations of regulatory breaches that I steadfastly refute arose. Over a 6-month period I have 30 emails that were not answered as I tried to attend to the fabricated breaches. Quite simply, CASA could not respond because they could not substantiate them.

I asked you to investigate why audit results would be sent to CASA legal before I am afforded the right to reply. You did not respond.

I asked you specifically to identify if breaches of Administrative law had occurred, and you chose to ignore this request.

I asked you to specifically investigate how an onsite audit debrief could differ from the Head Office debrief which differed entirely from the undated audit results written months later. You completely ignored this.

In Matter B, you specifically undertook to address” whether CASAs requirements of APTA were more onerous than those imposed on (XXXXXXXXXXX)”. You have chosen to completely avoid this most critical complaint about the different manner with which CASA engages different operators in your final report, despite undertaking to do so. This is fundamental to my complaint and by avoiding it you have denied me fairness. A determination here was one of my critical complaints.

You will recall that it was CASAs inappropriate use of the Aviation Ruling that has lead to this process that has resulted in business closures, loss of jobs, and associated damage. It was the wrong document to be using. In Matter F, you specifically undertook to make a determination on “the Aviation Rulings applicability”. Instead, because CASA chose to take it off the table, after two months, you have cleverly avoided the issue.

How can CASA use the wrong document, cause enormous damage, and then decide to “take it off the table”. That is in fact the very thing the ICC should be investigating, rather than be complicit in avoiding addressing the complaint. A thorough determination of this complaint was fundamental to an open and transparent investigation on your behalf.


In matter Q, I made complaints against item 9 of CASAs regulatory philosophy. https://www.casa.gov.au/about-us/who-we-are/our-regulatory-philosophy It cannot be denied that this entire situation could have been avoided had Mr Brad Lacy my first contact person within CASA decided to raise any concerns he had. Instead he initiated a course of action that bought significant damage. At the start of the process in October 2018, I made CASA very aware of the consequences of their actions, and tragically it has unfolded as I suggested. Closed businesses and lost jobs. CASA placed a number of restrictions on my ability to trade that ultimately lead to its failure. My expectation is that you would have comprehensively addressed CASAs stated criteria in Item 9 against my businesses experience, as I requested and you undertook.

In matter L, you undertook to address whether CMT 3 had acted in accordance with CASA regulatory philosophy although you chose to avoid this in your final report.

In Matter T, I specially mentioned that CASA processing times averaged 30 minutes per month. i.e. if APTA paid for a CASA task taking 5 hours, that would take 10 months to process. I alleged that my processing times were well outside industry norms. You undertook to address this, and in fact you chose to avoid addressing it.

Matter A1 and B1 were complaints about CASA continually refusing to respond to requests for assistance. CASA clearly made allegations of regulatory breaches of which I am required to resolve. I made over 30 requests to help me resolve those. That alone is outrageous, and you undertook to address this matter, which you did not.

My overall opinion of my ICC experience It can never have the credibility it deserves as long as the ICC is on the payroll of CASA. It is natural, that on receipt of such a substandard report, I would feel that I may not have been afforded fairness.

The Department is critically under resourced. It was clearly identified that the CASA action was costing my business $10,000 per week. Eight months is an unacceptably long-time frame for any business to wait.

Mr Crawford in his role as the head of the Aviation Group appeared to have more detailed knowledge of the process, and I will attend to that in separate correspondence.

Industry make claims that the ICC process is used as a CASA process to delay access to the Ombudsman, and sadly that is my feeling.
Having met you, I had a high expectation, to say that I am extremely disappointed in the depth and integrity of the work would be a significant understatement. Not only for my own interest, but for the benefit of those that follow me later, I am compelled to accelerate my complaint.


Respectfully, Glen Buckley

[glenb]

In posts 147 and 148 I posted the letter that I sent to the Chair of the CASA Board. I asked for a response within two weeks.

The response arrived three weeks later, and is attached.

[Office Update]

Glenn,

You have posted a number of PDF's over the past week. I cannot open any of them as they are tagged "pending approval" which by the way 'Moderators' approval never seems to come …….

[Bend alot]

Interesting pending approval is required!

Can someone start a crowd funding campaign? I will chip in and maybe PPRuNE could assist, thus confirm Glen's claims are or are not rumours - in the interests of aviation.

[Flaming galah]

Interesting pending approval is required!

Can someone start a crowd funding campaign? I will chip in and maybe PPRuNE could assist, thus confirm Glen's claims are or are not rumours - in the interests of aviation.

I’d contribute too.

[glenb]

After numerous letters sent to the Deputy PM over more than 6 months, all of which were ignored, I called on Mr Barnaby Joyce to assist and he did, which I thank him for. My concerns were forwarded to the Deputy PM, and the attached correspondence came. A total and complete waste of time. I have aired my grievances within CASA and to the highest levels with Graeme Crawford who is the Head of the Aviation Group. I have wasted 8 months on a fluffy little report from the ICC that has the investigative depth of something not becoming of an 8 month investigation, and the Deputy PM sends me straight back to the ICC process that is fundamentally flawed.

I really am running out of options. As this matter unfolds and is fully exposed, you will see many documented attempts by me to de-escalate the matter and seek the most efficient use of public resources. At every opportunity CASA has chosen the more costly and more combative approach. I have steadfastly avoided engaging legal counsel. I am a true believer that any conflict can be resolved with two simple ingredients.

The Truth, and
Good Intentions.

My options have been exhausted, and this matter will have to be tested via our legal system. I will be calling on Industry support because the matters are substantive, and they include corruption within the Aviation Group headed up by Mr Graeme Crawford.

It is CASA that has chosen to utilise bullying and intimidation throughout this process. As it unfolds, I am confident that the Australian Public will see why there needs to be a Judicial Inquiry into CASA. It is fast becoming critical to the future of aviation safety in this country.

Many good people in CASA have there reputations tarnished by a corrupt few.

[glenb]

It has been pointed out that the attachments take some time to open. Is there any advice you can provide me to assist in expediting the process. Cheers. Glen.

[Stickshift3000]

Glen, you must feel very frustrated. However, I would simply be viewing the ICC process as a hurdle prior to seeking an independent Ombudsman review of these matters - that is hopefully where the truth can be dealt with.

I am certain that many are watching this issue carefully, applauding your will to fight for what's right.

[Bend alot]

"I will be calling on Industry support because the matters are substantive, and they include corruption within the Aviation Group headed up by Mr Graeme Crawford. "

No problem, happy to help - name the method.

[Sunfish]

But Qantas operates with numerous bases. Why aren’t it’s operation similarly affected?

[Stickshift3000]

But Qantas operates with numerous bases. Why aren’t it’s operation similarly affected?


That’s funny! CASA would not dare aggravate Qantas, nor do they likely have the means to.

The top top end of town will run rings around any regulator. Thus the lower end of the regulatory spectrum attracts greater than its share of the regulator’s attention...

[glenb]

Funny you mention it Sunny, because that is EXACTLY what the CASA personnel said when I first mooted the idea, many years ago.

But to answer your question, QANTAS probably operate under CMT 2. I was moved to a different CASA oversighting team referred to as CMT 3 and headed up a Mr Will Nuttall. So any stakeholder should reasonably expect different CASA policy application.

Having been into the Melbourne Office, the desks for CMT 2 could be up to 10 feet away from CMT 3. My assumption is that the geographical distance between the two teams, could be a major contributing factor as to why an insufficient handover was done between CMT 2 and 3, and that is why Will Nuttall team were so much out of their depth and didn't really understand what was going on.

CASA has a reputation for different policy application between the West and the East of Australia. Maybe that has extended to East facing desks v West facing desks. Kind of like cruising levels I guess. Everyone misses each other.

The fact of the matter is there are no breaches, no safety compromises, just a highly incompetent CMT acting for purposes other than safety or regulatory compliance.

[glenb]

On 30/04/19, I sent the following email to Mr Crawford. After more than 6 months of CASA not being able to justify their action.

"Dear Mr Crawford, Aviation Group Executive Manager CASA,

As you are aware, and without any prior notice, CASA took action to vary my AOC on 23/10/18.

I have made 5 requests to CASA for appropriate supporting documentation to approach the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. CASA has chosen not to provide that, and denied me my rights under Administrative Law.

That initial action was on the basis of the Aviation Ruling which we have ascertained is not the correct document to have used. A very significant error on CASAs behalf.

That initial action was also taken on the basis of our Temporary locations procedure. We have now ascertained it was actually CASAs suggestion to adopt the procedure which we accepted. We have also demonstrated that it was in fact CASAs own procedure from CASAs own guidance material, was previously approved by CASA, and audited by CASA. So quite simply, there is no breach. In fact it is quite ludicrous to even suggest so. It was entirely a misunderstanding of CASA personnel.

We have the ongoing confusion with the contracts which is entirely CASAs own confusion. It clearly demonstrates CASAs failure to achieve clear and concise aviation safety standards. After more than 6 months, CASA are still unable to work out what they want in the contracts. Throughout the last 6 months I have been completely willing to do whatever CASA wants, but still they have no idea. In fact I don’t believe there is any legislative requirement for a contract, CASA never required one, and made no mention of one prior to the attached documentation.

I am happy to embed any CASA suggestions, but after 6 months I am still waiting for CASA to tell me what they want.Now all of the confusion in CASA would be of no concern to me, except for the fact that by CASA reducing my businesses “expiry” date to 7 days in the future, that is a significant action to take. Consider what CASA have done to my business, and consider the impact on any Company, be it a major bank or retailer, or my small business. There is no doubt that the CASA action has now cost me millions of dollars, and sent two businesses into closure and most likely a third business over coming days. With that “expiry date” on my business,



I cannot market my product
I cannot get new customers
Consider the enormous instability for the organisation and the many people who depend on me for their livelihood.

No business in Australia could survive a Government Administrative decision that limited their certainty of operations, prevented them marketing, prevented them attracting new customers, and maintaining existing customers.

As CASAs action is not taken on safety concerns, and there are no regulatory breaches, can I request that CASA put in writing why CASA deems the action appropriate, and the reasons for the action. I really don’t understand what it is CASA want, and feel it fair and reasonable that you clearly and concisely outline why my business is still enduring this CASA action after 6 months, because to be honest it appears to me as the business owner that CASA is displaying “unconscionable conduct” and as the recipient of it, I can assure you it is bullying and intimidating in its nature.Your written explanation may help to bring clarity to the process. My assumption is that this information would be readily available to you, in your role.

Glen Buckley"



Mr CRAWFORDS RESPONSE

Glen,I understand that you have arranged an extension to 26 Apr 2019 deadline for you to provide your feedback to the ICC response to your previous complaints against CASA. With that in mind, please be advised that I intend to respond to your email dated 24 Apr 2019 below, post ICC receipt of your feedback.

MY QUESTION

Why would Mr Crawford place a condition of explaining CASAs actions to me, only after I have submitted my complaint to the ICC. How does he know what is going on over in the ICC office. Its independent isn't it?. Is that reasonable that CASA take action against my business, but will only justify it after I have finished my ICC submission. Mr Crawford are you interfering with the processes?

[glenb]

I wrote to the Board in January 2019, in the hope that a meeting would bring some ethics to the decision making. Guess who pops up again? Mr Crawford!

Dear Mr Buckley,I understand that you have made numerous complaints into the ICC over the last week and that Jonathan Hanton has been in contact with you on these. I also understand that a number of those submissions are requests on clarity regarding what CASA is asking for, these are clearly a task to be worked between the Regulatory Service team and APTA and as previously stated you should work with Peter White and the Southern Region team on this. Where you have concerns about the behaviour or interactions of CASA staff with APTA staff, I encourage you to provide the facts you believe support those concerns to the ICC so that they can be properly investigated. For clarity, we will not be arranging a meeting with APTA and the CASA Board and whilst I appreciate you may not like that outcome, I kindly request you accept that is CASA’s position.

Kind regards,

Graeme

Graeme M. CrawfordActing DAS & CEOCivil Aviation Safety Authority

[Bend alot]

"I kindly request you accept that is CASA’s position."

The current one(s) depending on the day and the person - be it correct or not.

[Sunfish]

I’m afraid I still don’t understand. Aren’t CASA aviation regulation and regulatory activities discharged without fear or favour across the entire industry, no matter where the geographic location, nor the size, political and market power of the subjects?

I would have thought an industry participant like Qantas would receive regulatory raps on the knuckles proportionate to its size just like your local flying school. Surely they labour under exactly the same regulatory burden as the rest of the industry?

[Stickshift3000]

Bureaucracy at its most incompetent. Poorly written, inadequately explained - hardly surprising.

The incompetency of the fools that you’ve been (unfortunately) dealing with should make this a fairly simple case for the Ombudsman to rule on.

[Stickshift3000]

I would have thought an industry participant like Qantas would receive regulatory raps on the knuckles proportionate to its size just like your local flying school. Surely they labour under exactly the same regulatory burden as the rest of the industry?



I hope you’re joking.

Qantas has better lawyers than CASA and both parties will know this.

[Sunfish]

But I still don’t understand. If Qantas can do something under the regulations, then any other business can do the same thing by definition. Conversely, if something is prohibited to your local flying school it’s prohibited to Qantas. Similarly a regulator should treat each organisation or person exactly the same.... Isn’t that inherent in the definition of the common law and Westminster style government? One law for all?

Furthermore, how can one part of CASA apparently find no fault with GlenB to the extent of investing considerable time and money (as well as Glens) in working with him to structure his aviation operations to meet regulatory requirements then another part of CASA comes along and allegedly throws it all down the toilet and allegedly punishes Glen to boot? How could that happen?

At the very least, CASA has wasted taxpayers money on dealing with Glen in this manner because one group of the two allegedly involved has been operating with flawed understandings of what is legal - unless Glen misled them in some way.

[QFF]

It seem to me, more and more, that the Authority appears to regulate on the basis of opinion, rather than on the basis of law. At least, in the USA, anyone can request a (legally binding) ruling stating the FAA's official position on any subject from the FAA equivalent of the OLC.

As GlenB has shown, getting anything in writing from CASA doesn't really mean a thing as 1) there appears to be no accountability, 2) the regulations only mean what one person thinks the regulations should mean and 3) what one CASA person thinks the regulations should mean will differ from what another CASA person thinks it should mean.

Perhaps the Regulations should be more accurately renamed Suggestions.

[Stickshift3000]

As GlenB has shown, getting anything in writing from CASA doesn't really mean a thing as 1) there appears to be no accountability, 2) the regulations only mean what one person thinks the regulations should mean and 3) what one CASA person thinks the regulations should mean will differ from what another CASA person thinks it should mean.

This.

That is why the matters must be independently investigated.

[Sunfish]

Good point. Even the ATO issues binding rulings, lots of them. Why not CASA?

I once had to deal with six R&D investment syndicates - about $60m. Each one was supported by at least one private ATO ruling and then there were the public ATO rulings as well. They all had to be legally consistent too.

Things like what the phrase “for the benefit of the Australian economy” meant in legislation were spelled out in an ATO binding ruling.

[glenb]

A brief precursor to this post for anyone not familiar with the terminology. I will use the term "GA". That refers to General Aviation. CASA, have a complicated and everchanging definition. The industry in its entirety, considers "GA", to be predominantly the charter industry, aerial work, flight training, and the maintenance and support services behind those operations. .Anyway, to the post....
.
QFF, you make an interesting point that is perhaps the root cause of my problems, and is in fact the issue that effects the entire sector of the Industry.

Simply ask ANY small business operator operating in the General Aviation (GA) sector, what the biggest challenge to their business is. Im convinced over 90% of GA business owners will tell you its "CASAs failure to achieve clear and concise aviation safety standards."

Its not a "nice to have" or a "try your best" or a "pink elephant stamp for trying." The achievement of clear and concise aviation safety standards is actually the core function of CASA. Its in the Civil Aviation Act and its copied below. I have bolded some of the more interesting parts.

Importantly, and I call on AOPA to conduct a survey to test my assertion. Over 90 % of the intended recipients of that legislation will state that they cannot fully understand the rules because they are not clear and concise. Imagine how quick the Deputy Prime Minister would act if 90% of road users couldn't understand the rules. Somehow, he gets away with inaction on rules regarding aviation safety. Its absurd. If the public knew there would be an outcry.

What better way than to demonstrate CASAs failure than me posing this simple question....

Dear Mr Crawford, could you please show me the legislation that lead you to initiate the action against my business?

The simple fact is that you cant. This all started because CMT 3 had a different opinion, and sadly and unnecessarily, it was not well intentioned. The legislation is more disjointed than "cards against humanity".

There were no regulatory breaches. Its all opinion, and regulations that are not clear or concise. An environment in which CASA should engage professionally with Industry to enhance safety. At least engage in accordance with your own regulatory philosophy that you came up with, because your previous approach to industry was found to be inappropriate. Only in Australia, could this happen, seriously.

Part II—Establishment, functions etc. of CASA 8 Establishment of CASA

(1) An authority called the Civil Aviation Safety Authority is established by this subsection.

(2) CASA: (a) is a body corporate with perpetual succession; (b) shall have a seal; and (c) may sue and be sued in its corporate name.Note: The Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013 applies to the CASA. That Act deals with matters relating to corporate Commonwealth entities, including reporting and the use and management of public resources.

(3) All courts, judges and persons acting judicially shall take judicial notice of the imprint of the seal of CASA appearing on a document and shall presume that the document was duly sealed.

9 CASA’s functions

(1) CASA has the function of conducting the safety regulation of the following, in accordance with this Act and the regulations:

(a) civil air operations in Australian territory;
(b) the operation of Australian aircraft outside Australian territory;
(ba) ANZA activities in New Zealand authorised by Australian AOCs with ANZA privileges;

by means that include the following: (c) developing and promulgating appropriate, clear and concise aviation safety standards;

(b) promoting full and effective consultation and communication with all interested parties on aviation safety issues.

[Lead Balloon]

Just to get everyone out of the weeds, here's what a clear and concise aviation standard looks like:
An individual is qualified to be a chief pilot if the individual:
- meets the competency standards for licence X
- meets the class x medical standard
- has at least Y hours in command of aircraft of type Q and at least C hours in command of aircraft of type R, and
- has passed course L.

Note that the above does not depend on the opinion of someone in CASA. The criteria are binary: a factual yes or no. The satisfaction of each of those criteria might depend indirectly on the opinion of someone in CASA - some zealot in AVMED or aircrew licensing - but it shouldn't.

Here's how to turn the above hypothetical into the kind of mess CASA is continuing to build:
An individual is qualified to be a chief pilot if:
(a) the individual:
- holds licence X,
- holds a current medical certificate
- has at least Y hours in command of aircraft of type Q and at least C hours in command of aircraft of type R
- has passed course L
- is in CASA's opinion qualified to be a chief pilot,
- is in CASA's opinion a fit and proper person to be a chief pilot, and
(b) it is in the interests of the saftey of air navigation to permit the individual to discharge the duties of chief pilot.The second example, though hypothetical, is in substance typical of the current and developing rules. As a matter of practicality, those rules set the standard here: Whatever someone in CASA decides the standard should be each day.

CASA doesn't know how to develop and promulgate appropriate, clear and concise aviation safety standards. And governments no longer know how to make CASA do it.

[Sunfish]

What could possibly be wrong with developing a standard set of manuals and procedures that satisfy CASA regulations and then allowing a group of flying clubs or schools to use them and contribute to the cost of maintaining them?

Even if such schools required a seperate certificate to operate, surely that would be a simple case of rubber stamping the documents if they were all using the same previously accepted paperwork?

I mean if I want to start a company, I can go and buy one tomorrow for less than a Thousand dollars, complete right down to asset registers and a company stamp, right off the shelf.

Surely as well, wouldn’t it save CASA time and money if everyone was using the same paperwork? No need for extensive reviews and meetings since everything would be common. CASA could then spend the freed up time on safety related activities.

To put that another way, a Cessna 172 is at least as common and well understood as a Holden Commodore. Surely the operations manuals for everyone operating one can be exactly the same? Why would anyone waste time developing and approving a “new” safety system manual for such an aircraft?

[Lead Balloon]

It's not about the content of manuals (or at least it shouldn't be). If we took copies of all of the manuals of a successful airline and gave them to your shelf company, the outcome would not be the creation of another successful airline.

The substantive issue is (or at least it should be) whether an organisation has the critical mass of expertise, resources and competence to do the stuff, and then actually does the stuff, to produce the required outcome. And that's where the chronic problem comes in.

The chronic problem is that the assessment of those things is left to the subjective opinion of individuals in CASA, which opinions can and do differ on the same set of facts. And, more importantly, those individuals are unable to put a price on risk and decide when the entire costs of the mitigation of a risk outweighs the benefits. Any risk can be conjured into an aviation disaster, the mitigation of which is therefore simple in the case of 'little people': say no; stop it; ground it; send it broke; destroy it. That approach and outcome is zero cost for CASA.

If there were proper standards set, the pricing of risks and mitigations wouldn't be left to individuals in CASA. A proper standard is itself the decision as to the balance.

[Sunfish]

Exactly, the expertise and competence are embodied in the manuals as are the resource requirements. It’s not rocket science. The whole aviation world revolves around documentation, not voodoo crap about who is a charismatic leader and who isn’t. There are no “fine judgements” to be made.

[Global Aviator]

I remember a time when CASA required each type and model to be approved. That is C210 did not cover C210, needed to have L,M,N, etc listed and approved separately and so on and so forth...

[LeadSled]

Folks,
Following Lead Balloon's recent point: In the "reformed" certification regulations in 1998, great care was taken to exclude CASA "decision making".

The "rules" were written in "black and white", ie: Do A, B,C & D and you will get Certificate E, NOT the previous form of: Do A, B, C, and D, and CASA IS SATISFIED, , only then do you get the certificate E being applied for. Of course, there was no enforceable standard of "CASA is satisfied".

The reason for the "black and white" rules for design, certification and manufacturing was to eliminate CASA liability, or the perceived liability of CASA individual employees, a major factor in CASA (none or negative) decision making. Needless to say, we were much criticised at the time, and not just by CASA persons. And, needless to say, it has crept back in, and in recent " regulation development" the policy has been ignored.

As to why we do not have "binding aviation rulings" ------ because there is no legal capacity to make one.

Should CASA have such delegated law making power, without the scrutiny of parliament ( that is, CASA making legal instruments that are not disallowable) ---- my view is absolutely and definitely not ----- and there is a history, CAA tried this on years ago, having received legal advice that "Orders" could be legally enforceable, but be isolated from parliamentary scrutiny.

I even still have my "free" A4 binder that CAA gave to all license holders to file the forecast avalanche of "new" Orders, in lieu of "regulations".

Some smart footwork by several, again opposed by many in industry, not just CAA, challenged to legal advice as being unconstitutional, and the brave new world of rule by CAO without parliamentary disallowance fell over .

Aviation rules can be understandable, there are plenty of examples. However, when the criteria is: "Aviation law if for lawyers and judges, for the safe conviction of pilots and engineers", and not the operating and airworthiness of aircraft, it ain't going to happen.

In one exercise in CASA, years ago during the currency of the PAP/CASA Review, a Canadian lawyer presented a paper on how rules could be written if the design prosecution conviction rate of 99% was reduced to "just" 95%.

All of a sudden, "plain English" regulations.

Another exercise, at the same time, was to remove from the regulations as criminal law all matters that were just administrative/procedural ---- in a section of maintenance ------ the result was to reduce the relevant MRO rules with criminal penalties by about 70+%.

Almost everything the bulk of industry wants is not just possible, but required in this day and age, and has been tried and proven before ----- but the bureaucracy (aka. CASA the iron ring) doesn't want it, so reforms forever slip backwards.

For a full non-aviation exposition of the "how and why", known as Hewart's Law, I can recommend reading "The New Despotism", by Lord Hewart of Bury, Lord Chief Justice of the UK during a period in the 1920's.

Tootle pip!!

PS: I always have a bit of a giggle when anyone comes up with the hoary old nonsense that we can't emulate US, because we have "The Westminster System" ---- izzatso ??
Folks, have a close look, the Australian Commonwealth (unlike CA or NZ) is closely modeled on the US, with a House of Representatives (not "Commons") and a state based Senate, and all our legal systems (AU, USA,CA, NZ etc) all drive from the Blackstone Commentaries, as opposed to Europeans (and Scottish) Roman law.

Indeed, on of the first things the brand new Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia did was legislate by reference --- by importing as Australian law large slabs of US Federal Law ---- the US Sherman Anti-Trust Act 1890, only a couple of words were changed. But that is another story.

[glenb]

If anyone intends to avail themselves of the ICC process

POINT ONE
If you have, multiple complaints. Do not submit them as "grouped complaint".

Submit them individually, and insist on them being attended to individually.

As you will see from my corrrspondence below, I had concerns about the grouped approach. Initially the ICC and I both agreed, as per his preference the individual approach be adopted. For some reason not known to me, that position was reversed by CASA and days later the ICC had a preference for a grouped approach.

Copy of my email sent to the ICC on 05/02/19 below. Please note that I did finally consent to the grouped approach. Looking back on it now that I have the final report I am convinced this was one of my fundamental errors for the exact reasons I noted and feared.



Dear Mr Hanton,

Thankyou for the opportunity to chat on the phone today. I acknowledge your suggestion that the responses be “grouped”.For perfect clarity, that would not be acceptable to me. The complaints do not relate to CASAs “oversight”. They are more specific in nature, and I need them to be responded to in that manner.

A “grouped” response will result in delayed response compared to attending to the matters individually, and as you are aware my business has been placed under significant duress by this process to date. My timelines are critical. My strong preference is to begin receiving “drip fed” responses rather than playing a waiting game over many more months.

A “grouped” response will result in more likelihood that individual items are “diluted” or not attended to in the detail that they should be. The result of this would be follow up questions with associated prolonged response times.

I feel that attending to items individually will reduce the burden on the ICCs office as it would give the opportunity to attend to matters individually.

Individual responses will bring more clarity to the process.

My experience to date is that outstanding matters with the ICC are already experiencing protracted timelines, and particularly for matters that were not really complicated. I am reluctant to allow this process to drag on any further.

Finally as per our previous phone conversation, the preference expressed by both you and I, and agreed on by both parties was an individual approach, so the changing of goal posts makes me feel that the office could potentially be acting in CASAs interests which would degrade the integrity of the office.

Please appreciate that from my perspective, I have been treated unfairly by CASA and I am trying to resolve the matter and “get to the bottom of it”. To date, I feel I have been treated unfairly. and understandably I have little trust and confidence.

If CASA insist on using their preferred approach rather than mine, it will only further degrade any remaining trust and confidence, and that feeling would extend to the office of the ICC.

Can you please advise if CASA insist on using their “grouped” approach, or in fact will CASA act in accordance with the individual approach that both you and I expressed as our preference, on our recent telephone call, and remains my preference.

Yours respectfully


Glen Buckley

[glenb]

The following correspondence came from the Regional Manager in November 2018 “These anomalies should be known by XXXX (as the APTA HOO) as there were problems identified with the FSM system and Flight and Duty (F&D) management, in particular associated to the F&D exceedances.”

My response;

David, I am completely fed up with your constant attempts to bring harm to me and my Business.

I truly have absolutely no idea what drives this obsession, but as evidenced, it has absolutely nothing to do with safety or compliance.

Quite simply that statement you made above is bull****, and unfortunately, there is not a more appropriate word to use.

Had you identified flight and duty exceedances, they would be documented. I look forward to you supplying supporting evidence by 4PM today.

That gives you and XXXXX the whole day to see what you can come up with. Good luck.

I must have that by 4PM today. I have absolutely zero trust or confidence in you, XXXXXX, and XXXXXX. If you fail to provide that evidence by 4PM today, all bets are off. I asked you to escalate my matter external to CASA by last Friday and you chose to ignore me.

At 9AM on Monday I met with Barnaby Joyce and a number of other politicians. David. I do what I say. If this matter is not finalised today, I will ensure a 30 minute investigative journalism piece goes to air in the new year. It will happen. Track XXXX down and see what you fellas can “come up with”

This clearly identifies the lack of technical competence of the CASA person I was dealing with. There were no breaches and the system worked flawlessly. Despite documented and repeated requests, CASA refused to respond to me. I simply asked repeatedly who the pilot was, but they weren't able to identify the pilot. Some time later the Regioanl Manager sent through the alleged breach. It was clearly not a breach, was not anywhere near a breach, and could not even be misunderstood to be a breach. It was a CASA person unfamiliar with their own legislation.

This is only a small smapling of the continual harassment as CASA threw everything they had at APTA to bring it down. Lots more to come.



Glen.

[Sunfish]

keep it coming glen. This is going to go international.

[Flaming galah]

It’s always good when the newbies turn up to run interference. Number of posts: 1. Welcome aboard, ‘Flaming galah’.

More sophistry.

First: Why don’t you educate us all and define the phrase “within jurisdiction” and the bases upon which the Ombudsman decides to investigate or not to investigate. Even a first time interference poster wouldn’t be stupid enough to suggest that each year there are only single digit figures of people - or even zero - who have complaints about CASA.

One of the marvellous consequences of the creation of the ICC is that poor bastards who used to be able to reach out to the Ombudsman directly can no longer do so. They have to go through the ICC process first. That’s why the ICC was created. Lots of people are ground into despair by dealing with CASA and then the ICC. The prospect of dealing with yet another government bureaucracy that could be as awful as CASA is often enough to deter complainants.

Secondly: The 2015/16 numbers you quoted are bull****. I know it, first hand. Let me stress that I’m not suggesting that you’re making it up. After all, a first time poster would only post material in good faith. I’m asserting that the Ombudsman received at least one “within jurisdiction” approach about CASA during 2015/16, and investigated. It may well be that the Ombudsman didn’t report it as such. That outcome would, sadly, be yet another manifestation of the general degradation of government integrity.

And... what are the figures for 2014, and 2013, and 2012....

I could be wrong. It could be that everyone is a now very happy with CASA’s behaviour and the number of legitimate complaints about CASA each year these days can be counted on the fingers of one hand. And pigs might fly.

Enjoy the pieces of silver.

Thanks for asking! CAsA’s frequent flyer status is confirmed:

2011/12 7 of 22,991
2012/13 2 of 18,097
2013/14 3 of 17,577

The assertion you need to go to the ICC first is wrong. Don’t waste your time with the ICC Clareprop and others, you can go straight to the Ombudsman.

[Office Update]

My question I guess would be:- Is this matter all about a single AOC being used to support numerous other operators? Makes good sense to me!

The reason I ask is that I trawled through the aircraft register this afternoon and I notice a trend where a lot of biz-jets appear to be operating under one or more AOC's or aligned with an 'operator' possibly as a matter of convenience. I'm not suggesting any wrong doing. Common operators that appear to either manage or operate numerous biz jets include;- Execujet, Business Aviation Solutions, Australian Corporate Jet Centre.
I'm thinking along the lines that instead of all biz jet operators applying for their own AOC and having CASA delays in processing same hinder their business, that by aligning with an operator with mechanisms already in place that would save heaps of money. I am assuming that all the flash aircraft are operated the same way in accordance with the manufacturers specs... There would only be a need for one CP and one or two T&C people to cover a multitude of airframes. perhaps a contract arrangement?

So how does this differ from Glen Buckley's APTA? Seems rather odd to me.

[Lead Balloon]

Hi again, Flaming galah.

You didn’t educate us on the definition of the phrase “within jurisdiction” and the bases upon which the Ombudsman decides to investigate or not to investigate.

And of course someone “can” go straight to the Ombudsman. But that doesn’t mean the Ombudsman will investigate.

Once more to expose the sophistry: If Glen had gone straight to the Ombudsman, would the Ombudsman have considered Glen’s complaint to have been within jurisdiction and would the Ombudsman have conducted its own investigation of Glen’s complaint if the CASA ICC process had not been exhausted first? Yes or no?

I say again: I sat in a meeting convened by the Commonwealth Ombudsman in which the distinction was drawn between what the Ombudsman’s office described as the ‘frequent flyers’ and the non ‘frequent flyers’ - the agencies against which lots of complaints were made versus those against which few complaints were made. The funny thing is that you appear not to comprehend, or you think that some people are too dumb to notice, the patently obvious evidence of the distinction. Ironically, that evidence includes the fact that the CASA ICC was created in the first place!

Why would the CASA ICC have been created in the first place? Why don’t other Commonwealth transport regulators have their own ICCs? What’s the equivalent of the Aviation Safety Regulatory Review carried out in relation to other Commonwealth transport regulators? Why is the industry’s level of distrust of CASA as high as it is compared with the level of distrust of other industries of their Commonwealth regulators?

One of the reasons for the level of distrust of CASA is the frequency with which spin doctors try to do what you’re doing, Flaming galah.

[glenb]

On November 20th, 2018, CASA provide me with the “inspection” notes from the audit done at Latrobe Valley on September 3rd 2018.

Please note that these audit results came in 2 ½ months after the audit.

That timeline will become integral, and in my opinion clearly demonstrate clear breaches of Administrative Law, Natural Justice, and Procedural Fairness.

This post will also highlight significant deficiencies in the ICC process.

03/09/18. CASA visit Latrobe Valley (one of our bases). CASA identify minor anomalies only with the exam. We are told a written report will follow. CASA procedures require this. Those procedures all identify that “no new items” should be raised in the written report that follows, if they were not identified on the day i.e. no unexpected surprises.

16/11/18. I attended the CASA office. The Regional Manager began giving me a verbal debrief summary of Latrobe Valley Aerodrome audit results. This time he raised completely new concerns. These were inaccurate claims and different to what I had previously been informed. It was then identified by the Regional Manager that in fact an audit report had not been completed, and he would get it to me by the following Tuesday, which he did.

For clarity. We had an audit conducted on 03/09/18, then on 16/11/18 it is identified by CASA that an audit report was not done, and that it would be.

A few days later on the 20/11/18 the newly “minted” audit results have been prepared over the weekend and now arrive.

Recall, that these are now being written more than two months after the audit. Surprisingly the Regional Manager advises me in the accompanying email, that the Latrobe Valley audit results were “used as the basis of seeking CASA legal advice”. Well that leads me to some obvious questions.

If the Regional Manager admits that audit results were not produced until after our meeting on 16/11/18 (Friday), he writes to me on the following Tuesday stating they were “used as the basis of seeking CASA legal advice”. The legal department couldn’t possibly have used the audit results because they had not been created yet!!!!!!

That statement cannot possibly be truthful!

Interestingly, these newly minted audit results have allegations of breaches of
· CASR 141.310 (1),(5), and (6)
· CASR 142.390 (1),(5), and (6)
· CASR 117· CASR 141.260 (g)
· CASR 142.340 (g)

The ICC seemed to brush these matters aside. I specifically identified to the ICC that CASA made allegations of regulatory breaches and the Regional Manager required me to respond. I will contain excerpts of associated emails. The point of these emails is that they clearly demonstrate I was required to respond to an allegation of a regulatory breach as I am.

“Good afternoon Glen,

Please excuse me for any confusion that you may have, but CASA is waiting for you to reply to those matters that were provided in my email to you dated 20th Nov 18 (copy attached again for your reference)

At the meeting with Mr Peter White - CASA Executive Manager Regulatory Services and Surveillance on Friday 16th November 18, it was established that I would provide you the feedback from the CASA assessment of the Latrobe Valley training base, and it was further agreed that this assessment information would be reviewed by yourself, and that you would provide your response to all of the issues identified. Once we received your response, we would resubmit the information to our CASA legal team for a second review ………….



Then again from the Regional Manager a few days later;

“Hi Glen,

This is just a follow-up email requesting your assistance to provide CASA a reply to the information I supplied you last Tuesday 20th November 18 (please see attached).

May I please seek some assurance that you will be able to provide CASA your feedback against the Latrobe Valley Aero Club training base inspection results, in a timely manner. It is respectfully requested that you provide this feedback to CASA by close-of-business on Tuesday 4th December 18, as this equates to a period of 14-days since the information was sent to you.

As you will recall, it was agreed at the 4th December 18 meeting between APTA and CASA that following the receipt of your reply to the Latrobe Valley Aero Club inspection information, we would request another review of the relevant information by the CASA legal team to ascertain if there is any change against the original determination that APTA is a franchised arrangement. I look forward to your reply.

Kind regards,

Those above emails clearly indicate that I am clearly required to respond to the allegations of regulatory breaches.

I will clearly indicate in following posts how the Regional Manager ignored and frustrated my attempts to resolve these issues over many months,

The reason. The allegations were not correct, and to this day after more than 9 months despite over 30 requests for assistance which I will document, CASA cannot support or justify any of the new allegations that arose. Furthermore and interestingly the notes provided on the audit were not dated. It was almost as though CASA was trying to hide this clear breach of administrative law.

28/11/18 the Regional Manager writes “ a level 2 surveillance event was created in our system”, yet the ICC says in his Preliminary report dated 12/04/19 “theres no record of the documents I would expect to see if a Level 2 had been commenced in CASAs Sky Sentinel surveillance databaseLater, CASA tried to reverse the position and called it a surveillance event rather than an audt. The ICC claims that it was a surveillance event, and that’s why he chose to avoid addressing my complaint in my final ICC report.

My point, the changing terminology for the event is irrelevant. My complaint was not about the terminology used, it was clearly about CASA frustrating my attempts at a resolution, and prolonging the impact of the damage caused by CASA actions.Overall, an audit or “event” that is surrounded by significant, repeated, and sustained breaches of procedures. Why? Because the named personnel in CASA made a decision to act this way. Its not an error or an omission. It is a deliberate attempt to frustrate fair processes.

[glenb]

Importantly CASA made a number of allegations of breaches.

The accusation of CASR 117 was particularly concerning, as it relates to misrepresenting your organisations capabilities.

A serious breach. CASA raised this allegation against me. The CASA allegation placed a serious restriction on my trade, and prevented me from marketing my product.

I was in a situation where I believed CASA was wrong. I made many attempts to resolve this issue over manty many months as you will see. This was typical of my dealings, and my requests were completely ignored. There can be no doubt that CASA raised the allegations, CASA clearly required me to respond. It was the CASA personnel that DECIDED not to respond and allow me to become compliant again.

This is an important piece of information that the ICC decided not to address. t was listed as one of my complaints, but masterfully avoided. Whilst I have not included all of the emails, it does clearly demonstrate unacceptable behaver by those CASA personnel.


28/11/18

CASR 117. I have visited the Latrobe Valley Website and cannot identify the breach. Could you please provide information on specifically which part of the website is causing the regulatory breach, perhaps a link to the relevant page.

05/12/18

In regards to our alleged breach of CASR 117, I have visited the Latrobe Valley website and cannot identify the breach. As per my request submitted to you on 28/11/18 can I make a second request to have the offending link sent through to me, so I can satisfactorily address the breach.

10/12/18

Similarly with CASR 117. I have reviewed CASR 117, and I do understand the regulation but I am having difficulty in responding, as I cant see the “offending:” page on the LTV website. Perhaps a link could be sent through to me and I will attend to that immediately.


07/01/19

Dear Mr Jones, I thought I would take the opportunity to remind you to attend to this. One month ago, you advised that you would respond. My experience dealing with you is that you consistently deflect or do not respond. My request is fair and reasonable and your consistent failure to respond and assist me to finalise this matter is unethical and brings unnecessary continuing harm to my business. Repeated and consistent requests have been made. I am very strongly of the opinion that you are deliberately frustrating my efforts. There can be no other explanation as my request is entirely reasonable. Can you please clearly address my queries, by the end of the day. You have obligations placed on you by the PGPA Act, and I call on you to act professionally and act in accordance with those obligations. Failing an answer to my questions, I will have no option but to initiate a further ICC complaint about the approach that you have chosen to adopt with my business.

Glen



04/04/19


The purpose of this letter is to ascertain the status of the alleged breach of CASR 117 made by CASA against APTA. I am hoping that the variations to our operating conditions will be soon lifted. I want to ensure there are no outstanding concerns that could delay this.

17/05/19

Dear Owen/Jason,

On 3rd September 2018, CASA conducted an audit at Latrobe Valley. The verbal debrief on site on the day identified some suggestions regarding our exams, and those suggestions were immediately embedded. No other concerns were raised.

Then at a subsequent meeting with CASA new allegations regarding Latrobe Valley “forms” was raised by the Regional Manager. This differed to the verbal debrief on the day of the audit. CASA further identified that unfortunately the audit results had not been provided to APTA. Months after the audit, notes were finally presented. They were not dated and obviously written up months after the audit was conducted. The new allegations of breaches appeared for the first time. These results differed entirely to the exit interview, and the meeting in the CASA office with the executive manager and Regional Manager then emerged for the first time, and no mention had been made prior. These “newly written” audit results now claimed breaches of CASR 141.310 (1)

CASR 141.310 (5)

CASR 141.310 (6)

CASR 142.390 (1)

CASR 142.390 (5)

CASR 142.390 (6)

CASR 117

CASR 141.260 (g)

142.340 (g)

Flight and Duty exceedances.

I have made repeated and well documented attempts to resolve these allegations, and CASA has chosen not to respond. As you are aware CASA have varied by AOC and reduced the date of approval. It is critical that I resolve this matter, as the commercial impact is significant, as I have outlined previously. CASA is working on its requirements in the contracts for more than 7 months now, and there is nothing that I can do from that side. My concern is that once CASA finalise the contractual requirements, these allegations will reappear and further impact on my business, by delaying our start.Could you please clarify which of the allegations I need to attend to, and which ones can be withdrawn. You will appreciate that I am obligated to resolve these matters, and that is my only intention. I encourage CASA to assist me by providing guidance. Thanking you in anticipation of your assistance, Respectfully, Glen Buckley


21/05/19


Dear Mr McHeyzer,

Could I respectfully request clarification of the status of the allegations of regulatory breaches made by CASA.

Respectfully, Glen







21/05/19 Email to Mr Crawford

I have made repeated and well documented attempts to resolve these allegations, and CASA has chosen not to respond.

As you are aware CASA have varied by AOC and reduced the date of approval. It is critical that I resolve this matter, as the commercial impact is significant, as I have outlined previously.

CASA is working on its requirements in the contracts for more than 7 months now, and there is nothing that I can do from that side. My concern is that once CASA finalise the contractual requirements, these allegations will reappear and further impact on my business, by delaying our start. Could you please clarify which of the allegations I need to attend to, and which ones can be withdrawn. You will appreciate that I am obligated to resolve these matters, and that is my only intention. I encourage CASA to assist me by providing guidance. Thanking you in anticipation of your assistance, Respectfully, Glen Buckley

11/06/19

Dear Mr Martin,

As you are aware CASA conducted an audit of Latrobe valley. I wish to clarify an incorrect statement in the “structure review” of APTA.

CASA records will clearly indicate that in fact APTA has two CASA approved CEOs, two CASA approved HOOs (with a third on hold due to the current CASA action, and two CASA approved Safety Managers.

This is a misunderstanding on behalf of my CMT, and I would like the opportunity to clarify that. As you are aware we submitted an application on 22/06/18 for the addition of Latrobe Valley as an APTA base.

On 03/09/18 CASA attended and conducted an audit. It was identified that CASA had not provided the audit results and they were provided to us on 20/11/18, months after the audit. On provision of those audit results there were allegations that we were misrepresenting APTA.

Specifically I was concerned about the CASA allegation of breach CASR 117. These were entirely new allegations that we had not seen before. As a precaution, I called a halt to our extensive advertising of APTA and that has continued on for many months.

As you will appreciate that is effectively placing a restriction on my trade. I have made multiple requests to have this resolved and none have been responded to.

I have not done an exhaustive check due time constraints although I did make the following requests in an attempt to resolve the allegation of a breach by CASA
28/11/18 Email to David Jones asking for information to attend to the CASA allegation of a regulatory breach. There was no response to my request

05/12/18 Email to David Jones. Second request. No response to my request.

10/12/18 Email to David jones. Third request. No response to my request.

11/12/18 Email to Will Nuttall requesting meeting to sort out Latrobe Valley audit results. There was no response to my request.

28/11/18 Email to David Jones. No response to my request.

07/01/19 Email to David Jones urging him to respond to my emails regarding audit findings. No response to my request.1

6/05/19 Email to Graeme Crawford.
21/05/19 Emailed to Jason McHeyzer and he advised me to contact Craig Martin.
21/05/19 Emailed Graeme Crawford.
22/05/19 Emailed to Craig Martin. No response to my request.
27/05/19 Emailed to Craig Martin. No response to my request. Craig, please, if CASA make allegations of regulatory breaches, they do impact on my business. After nearly 8 months, can you please respond to my request, to assist me to resolve the allegations made by CASA.

One finalised, that will allow me to recommence marketing. As you can see there have been at least 12 requests. They are reasonable requests. The impact of CASAs allegations is significant, please meet your obligations and assist me to resolve this matter.

Respectfully, Glen Buckley.



13/06/19

Dear Mr Martin,

As you are aware CASA raised a number of allegations of regulatory breaches, and there have been multiple recorded attempts by me, to resolve those issues which have been completely ignored by CASA. These requests have been frequent and been made over many months. You are obligated in your role to assist me. Mr Martin, I must insist that you immediately stop frustrating my attempts to resolve these matters.The approach by CASA is totally unacceptable, and by doing so, you are preventing me access to fair processes. As I have maintained since October 2018, there are no regulatory breaches, and no safety concerns. Not one of my requests has been responded to. By refusing to assist me in resolving these matters I am of the opinion that you are deliberately frustrating my attempts to resolve these matters, and are deliberately protracting time lines. You are not acting in accordance with your obligations.The failure by you to respond, restricts me from conducting my business, which is my common law right. My strong preference is to avoid lodging a formal complaint to the ICC about your conduct, hence I will make one further attempt to receive a response in 24 hours to my fair and reasonable request Mr Martin, I call on you in your role to meet your obligations and assist me to resolve the matter. I call on you to minimise the commercial impact on me and my business to respond. I look forward to your response,


Glen

[glenb]

The Ballina base saga.

The APTA team travelled to Ballina for the establishment as a temporary location.

We used the exact procedures that CASA suggested to us, provided to us, CASA approved for use by us, audited by CASA, and in fact CASA had previously used this procedures on previous bases.

In October 2018, when CMT 3 headed by Will Nuttall elected to apply a complete change of policy based on opinion only, the pilots at that base became concerned about continuing operations. I assured them our procedures were approved, but they elected not to fly, as is any pilots option if they are not comfortable.

I was concerned as the owners had made a significant investment of the belief that CASA had approved APTA (as they had), and future options would be secure, provided levels of safety and compliance remained high.

Unfortunately, once again despite my attempts to get resolution on this, CASA steadfastly refused to reply. Eventually as in my own case with MFT, the business could not sustain continuing operations and the Ballina base stopped delivering GA flight training.

The financial impact on persons who had invested in the base was significant and totally unnecessary. Whilst I don’t intend to include all the emails, I have included a sampling that clearly show CASA frustrating processes. I never received an answer, and 9 months later, still haven’t.

05/12/18

“Dear David, We had Ballina operating as a temporary location, after the entire APTA team travelled to Ballina to execute our procedures, strictly in accordance with our approved procedures.

The nature of the location is temporary as it will be awaiting CASA acceptance or rejection, and the Ballina base understands that is the procedure.

No surety of operations can be guaranteed until CASA processes are finalised.This base elected to cease operations shortly after the initial CASA action 6 weeks ago.

There hope was that this matter would be finalised by now, although as you will appreciate it is taking somewhat of a long time to resolve. My preference is to reactivate the base.

We followed all CASA approved procedures and I am fully satisfied that it should run as a temporary location until CASA makes a determination as to whether it will become a permanent training base.Therefore, in order to minimise the impact on APTA can we reactivate the Ballina base with me accepting full responsibility under APTA for that operation?Cheers. Glen.”


05/12/18

“Hi Dave, Just for further clarity regarding the previous email, can you confirm that Ballina is legal to operate? Yes or no,?Cheers. Glen”



12/12/18

Dear Mr David Jones, Please distribute within CASA as required. You are the only CASA recipient.

The Ballina operation is requiring a response as to their ability to reactivate operations. I emphasise again that we strictly followed all CASA approved procedures in activating this as a temporary location. It can only be a Temporary location as CASA may veto it as they did with Ballarat and Latrobe valley. We followed all procedures, and invested heavily in the induction process. This included onsite visits to Ballina over consecutive days with attendance by CEO, HOO, GSM, Internal Co-ordinator, two supporting administrative support workers and our HOO in Training.

There has been no breach. As an APTA base, I am very strongly of the opinion that the base should be operational. I must also respect the pilots rights to only fly on operations that they are 100% comfortable with. I need to be able to assure the pilots that they are not acting in breach of any CASA legislative requirements.Ballina has advised that if this matter is not fully resolved by Friday the base will be permanently closed. Three onsite staff are affected, and the costs associated with running a base that has ceased operations is obviously not economically viable.

Your assistance in providing guidance would be greatly appreciated. I am available at any time for a face to face catch up at the CASA office if my onsite presence will assist in a mutually acceptable outcome.Cheers. Glen.


07/01/19

“Dear Mr Jones, This email query was sent through a month ago, and you have chosen not to respond. Can you please provide an estimated timeline”

20/02/19

Sadly, I received this email below from the investors in the Ballina base.

Good evening Glen, I am writing to advise that White Star Aviation, having now grounded GA Operations since November last year and having now lost all of the students we had enrolled, have made the decision to focus on RAAus operations and as such cancel our membership with APTA.
We appreciate how incredibly disruptive and damaging the action taken by CASA has been on your organisation, as it has on ours and others. I truly hope APTA and CASA find a solution to allow your other not-yet approved bases to commence/re-commence operations as soon as possible.

08/04/19

After discussions with the Ballina investors I sent the following email to CASA.

Dear Jason and Regservices, I am writing to you regarding this Regservices task. I received the email from White Star on 20/02/18. I have established contact with the Director of White Star today, as a further 6 weeks has passed, and as could be reasonably expected, the additional delay has only made their situation worse. They will not be continuing with their APTA membership, and we will remove all reference from the APTA website within 24 hours.

Could you please cancel the task. I must point out that multiple requests were made by APTA to clarify the status of this base, and Mr Will Nuttall undertook to write to us.

Numerous written requests were sent to CASA and they were repeatedly ignored over almost 6 months, and it is important that is noted. Respectfully, Glen.

[glenb]

Regarding the Ballina base.

CASA had an issue with the procedure that we adopted in activating Ballina.

The truth of the matter is that CASA personnel had absolutely no idea because they elected to shoot first, and ask questions later.

My matter was slowly being accelerated up the chain and I had the opportunity to meet with Mr Craig Martin.

As a precursor to that meeting I made a suggestion to him, which I have included below.

Had Mr Craig Martin availed himself of that opportunity I presented to him, he would have realised CASAs deficiencies back in December 2018, and I may not be dealing with this, 9 moths later. His decision not to interview the named personnel, and bring his own independent determination to the matter demonstrates to me that there was no intent to resolve this matter. Mr Martin made a decision not to avail himself of the opportunity.

Email I sent to Craig Martin below
"...…….Can I make a well intentioned suggestion that will demonstrate quite clearly to you, the deficiencies within CASA.


Ask either Mr Brad Lacey or David Jones to explain how we introduce a new base.


A good example would be to ask them to describe how we activated the Ballina base and the procedures we adopted? Who attended on site for training from APTA? How long did we stay? Did APTA personnel meet with the CAGRO for the airport? Did we meet with the fire and emergency services. Were the Prof checks conducted in Melbourne or were they conducted in Ballina and why? How we attend to the FSM training. Was our Group Safety Manager able to attend on site. Seriously Mr Martin, please ask them anything, i believe that no-one from my CMT has got absolutely any idea, and quite seriously, I mean nothing. That was done many months ago, so I would expect that they have at least some idea. I have absolutely no intention whatsoever to ask of you what their answers are. But I would ask that you compare answers with mine.

You will have a very clear understanding of the deficiency, very quickly.

Unfortunately the misunderstandings and confusion exist within CASA, and not within my own organisation, and that is why we are in this current situation.

If you decide to ask either Brad Lacey or David Jones could I respectfully request that you give them some time to consider their response to you, and I have no concerns with you giving them a heads up today of your requirements.
Thankyou again for your approach, regards. Glen Buckley.

[The name is Porter]

Ho-lleeee ****!

[thorn bird]

Of all the CAsA embuggerances we've heard about over the years this one is just diabolical.
Based on Glen's experience I cannot see any doubt that CAsA is corrupt and rotten to the core.
A judicial enquiry at the very least is required, but I'm not holding my breath.
Where the hell is the media??????

[glenb]

..........

[aroa]

How casa contributed to the demise of my operation...XXXXX..poisoned it with the connivance of a competitor company, and heaps of casa bs and lies to clients..
Corrupt and rotten to the core is right. Criminals too, some of them, just not in jail yet.
Keep beating that drum JI, JI and save GA ! Maybe

[Global Aviator]

Truck me!!! Did they make you provide the rub and tug as well. As you have written it this is simply amazing. How can they get away with it?

Did you consider the go fund me option?

For years I’ve thought about getting my old file from them for a laugh, I gave up in the end and walked away. Think I’d enjoy a read of it some 15 years later over many beers.....

Good luck champ.

Erm don’t let them beat you down..........

[IFEZ]

Hi Glen,
I'm struggling to think of words that adequately describe what has been done to you and your business. Outrageous, disgraceful, shameful, disgusting, reprehensible, appalling....none of them seem strong enough, even with the word f**king in front of them..! If you still have the will to keep fighting (and I wouldn't blame you if you don't), then please don't give up. They can't be allowed to get away with this. There are many in the industry who will support you via a fighting fund like go fund me.

Time to take a stand everyone. You could be next.

[Flaming galah]

Why haven’t we heard from AOPA? Surely Ben has something to say on this sorry saga!

[LeadSled]

Hi Glen,
I'm struggling to think of words that adequately describe what has been done to you and your business. Outrageous, disgraceful, shameful, disgusting, reprehensible, appalling....none of them seem strong enough, even with the word f**king in front of them..! If you still have the will to keep fighting (and I wouldn't blame you if you don't), then please don't give up. They can't be allowed to get away with this. There are many in the industry who will support you via a fighting fund like go fund me.

Time to take a stand everyone. You could be next.
IFEZ,
How about "normal".
Tootle pip!!

[thorn bird]

Folks, it appears Glen has written to the PM's department regarding his predicament.
If this was the USA, a few hundred thousand letters would be flying about the place to various congressmen
and senators.
This is corruption Glen is talking about and experiencing the consequences of, we Tut Tut, wring
our hands, a few good men, doing nothing. The grubs in the upper echelons of CAsA are getting paid upwards
of half a million dollars a year each to destroy our industry, we do nothing they get away with it.
I just sent my letter to the PM's office in support of Glen, we may be goats bleating in the wilderness, but the old Sinatra song
about the ram and the dam might just ring true if everyone does the same.

[Torres]

What is new?

CASA has used "administrative decisions" to eliminate large numbers of GA operators over the past 30 years. CASA makes an administrative decision to suspend an AOC, claims the Act Sect 9 as a defense in the AAC, then repetitiously ignores the many Show Cause Notice responses, procrastinates and obfuscates until the target operator goes broke and out of business.

Here is an actual text book case written by retired aviation journalist Paul Phelan and published in Australian Flying magazine, although in this instance the operator, whilst mortally wounded, won their AOC back and something of an apology:Case to Answer?By Paul Phelan“CASA will do all it can to ensure that a person whose licence, certificate or authority is suspended or cancelled has ready access to full external merits review in the AAT. Once before the AA T, CASA will conduct itself as a model litigant" CASA, in a document entitled: "A new approach to enforcement".

March, 1989."Anyone other than Dick Smith who joins CASA, becomes “infallible." DICK SMITH.

August 1998. "That's the way the system works. They think: "We are powerful and we are totally unaccountable." DICK SMITH.

When he made those comments, Dick Smith had already found the battle against authoritarian, intransigent and what he has sometimes called `incompetent' bureaucracy, tougher going than he had expected. Recent events in the Torres Strait show how much further there is to go. This incident is not the first in which CASA has used its administrative procedures to create a situation in which an operator has faced impossible financial burdens, while totally sidestepping the accountability Smith has fought for.The fatal crash of another Britten-Norman Islander in April 1996 resulted in the immediate suspension of another AOC and forced that operator out of business. The final BASI finding was not one which supported that outcome. Anyone contemplating investment or a career in aviation, should read this and study its implications. There's still hope for the industry, but a lot of things have to be fixed first, and the industry is wondering whether the right people and motivations are in place to fix them.Many of these documents would never have surfaced, had an operator not dug its heels in and fought for their release. Uzu's friends, as well as many of its commercial rivals, are united in the belief that these events represent an ongoing threat to the orderly conduct of aviation, and ultimately a negative impact on air safety. They also believe that CASA has developed a tactic to subvert the Administrative Appeals Tribunal process, by cynically sheltering behind Section 9 of the Civil Aviation Act.A CASA public relations officer recently told Australian Flying, when we queried the fairness of the procedure which an administrative decision of one individual can put a company out of business: "Well, that's the decision we have made. If (the victim) doesn't like it, he can appeal to the AAT, can't he?” When this went to press, another victim of this affair, the L.A.M.E licence of the chief engineer of Uzu's engineering company, had been cancelled. That engineer, one of the best-respected in the industry, simply cannot afford the process, especially if the AAT is likely to accept a bald CASA statement it is acting within its `safety responsibility.’Jul 96 to Dec 98: Uzu Air's general manager wrote 13 letters to CASA and its predecessors, seeking clarification of the anomalies surrounding the carriage of individual paying passengers at fixed fares on subsidised remote area mail service flights. None were answered, and a CASA officer later told Uzu: "Officially they don't exist."14 Aug 96: A CASA safety systems assessment profile report on the company then employing Uzu's general manager noted: "The company management has spent a considerable time trying to clarify the status of its Australia Post mail services, which appear to have been in non-compliance since the repeal of CAR 203. ... CASA must address the operation of vital rural mail services to remote communities and draft appropriate legislation to allow their continued operation. ... [the company] endeavour to conduct their operation in accordance with regulatory requirements. However they feel frustrated by the lack of appropriate legislation and CASA's reluctance or inability to allow regular passenger/mail services into non-surveyed landing strips or operation of single-engine IFR aircraft on such services."4-6 Nov 97: A periodic inspection is conducted by an FOI from Cairns District. The officer's report, subsequently obtained only at the direction of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, says: "20 NCNs in total!" (exclamation mark as in the report.) The report added that: "This is no longer a compliant operator."17-20 Nov 97: Uzu is visited by an unannounced team headed by the Manager, Safety Audits, Southeast Region. The four-man team conduct a four-day audit over 52 man-hours, which results in the issue of four NCNs. Three of these detailed minor errors in maintenance documentation, and one questioned dangerous goods acceptance procedures. The report concluded: "Uzu Air are considered not to be an unsafe operator."1-4 Dec 97: At the direction of CASA's Canberra office, two investigators and one Cairns FOI conduct an investigation with the following terms of reference: "Determine the extent of operations in the Torres Strait region which are being conducted for fare paying passengers that fall into the definition of RPT and which are currently being conducted as charter." The TOR directed that: "The differentiation between RPT and charter that is to be used for this investigation shall be drawn from the "draft" paper prepared by (a CASA lawyer) as attached." The draft opinion, later obtained by Uzu, attempted to define the five elements which must exist to constitute RPT. However it provided no definitions of two of the critical elements: "Specific route" and "fixed terminal". The investigators had thus been instructed to investigate whether operators were in breach not of a regulation or rule, but of a draft opinion, which failed to provide critical definitions.7 Jan 99: CASA issues a notification of proposed action to suspend or cancel the AOCs of four operators including Uzu. The notification summarised the reasons CASA believed the companies were undertaking unauthorised RPT flights, contrary to the Civil Aviation Act. Uzu's notification also resurrected a number of NCNs issued over the previous two years, all of which had previously been acquitted.16 Jan 99: Uzu Air's Britten Norman Islander is involved in a fatal accident at Coconut Island. (refer http://www.atsb.gov.au/aviation/occurs/occurs_detail.cfm?ID=171 (http://www.atsb.gov.au/aviation/occurs/occurs_detail.cfm?ID=171) )17 Jan 99: An "Immediate Safety Report", outlines the few known circumstances of the accident, and states under recommended action: "DFOM (District Flying Operations Manager) to now recommend 28 day suspension of AOC." The report, faxed to Canberra at 10.55 am, on that day (a Sunday), does not state any reason for the recommendation. (CASA now claims: "This recommendation was made on the advice of BASI who clearly indicated that the left hand engine was not developing significant power at the time of impact, a view they still hold." BASI says this is untrue.)19 Jan 99: BASI, insurer and operator representatives fly to accident site. In a faxed message, CASA suspends Uzu Air's AOC for 28 days, with effect from 2359 that night.20 Jan 99: Uzu files a notice of application for review of the CASA decision to suspend its AOC, claiming that the Authority had acted ultra vires (outside its legislated authority); breached rules of procedural fairness and natural justice; failed to provide adequate reasons for the decision; misapplied administrative principles, and "failed to correctly interpret and apply the law".22 Jan 99: Uzu lodges a detailed 127-page response to CASA's notice of the show cause. The response was never acknowledged. At the same time, the operator attends the first hearing on the matter in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, (AAT) seeking a stay of its AOC suspension. CASA is successful in having the stay denied. CASA's use in such stay proceedings of Section 9A of the Civil Aviation Act, appears to question the ability of any operator to gain a stay. (Look it up!). The operator believes the AAT's effectiveness in reviewing administrative processes may be neutered by this tactic. Uzu would have to wait for the 28 day suspension to expire, before being able to proceed to a substantive hearing. Uzu seeks an order from the AAT to require CASA to produce specified documents such as CASA Audit Reports, related to its decision. The AAT refuses to issue a stay order, instructs that the hearing is to be expedited, and orders CASA to provide the documents within one week or as soon thereafter as is possible. A telephone conference is then to be held to arrange the hearing. (The documents were made available about 10 days later. The 13 letters seeking clarification of RPT/charter status were not included in the documents.)22 Jan 99: BASI investigators recover engines from the Islander and return to Cairns. BASI holds meeting at CASA Cairns with CASA AWI. BASI advises CASA the left engine did not appear to be developing power at impact and the fuel mixture control rod was found to be broken at the accident site, but advises the component will require metallurgical examination to determine cause and time of breakage.26 Jan 99: Uzu Air lodges a 40-page response to CASA's AOC suspension.27 Jan 99: BASI advises Uzu and CASA that laboratory analysis verifies the fuel mixture control rod failed "... due to overload as a result on impact forces".2 Feb 99: BASI strips down left engine at Archerfield. Following day, BASI advises all interested parties of the outcome of the engine strip down.4 Feb 99: CASA serves a Notice to Show Cause on Uzu Air's associated company, Tamco Engineering, and asserts that BASI investigations "resulted in a finding of a disconnected mixture control rod on the left engine, which was not delivering power prior to time of aircraft impact, and was considered by these BASI Investigators to be a contributing factor to the loss of control of the aircraft prior to that impact. The subject mixture control was found to have suffered failure which exhibited severe corrosion of the mixture control ball end connection." BASI Investigator verbally denies the assertions were ever made and advises BASI was lodging a protest with CASA regarding the allegations.

[Torres]

8 Feb 99:
Uzu Air holds an informal conference in Cairns with the CASA regional manager, the acting DFOM, and the assigned FOI. Uzu made a proposal that it implement check and training and Class A aircraft maintenance, immediately upon reinstatement of the AOC. The company believed this met with CASA approval. (CASA now says: "CASA's requirement is that UZU has a class A maintenance system and appropriate training and checking in place prior to the reissue of the AOC." That is not the recollection of, the Uzu representatives.

(Torres note: It is not possible to have a CASA approved Training & Checking system and approved System of Maintenance in a suspended AOC, which CASA was aware of!)

12 Feb 99:
Deputy Director, BASI, faxes BASI Preliminary Report to Uzu Air. Also faxes Preliminary Report to General Manager, Aviation Safety Branch, CASA, Canberra. Also telephoned CASA Canberra to confirm CASA's receipt of the Report. The report stated inter alia: "Examination of the left engine, while still in the wreckage at the accident site, revealed the linkage between the mixture control cable on the carburettor had failed. Subsequent metallurgical examination of these components confirmed that failure was due to overload as a result of impact forces, and that it had not contributed to the accident."

15 Feb 99:
CASA suspends Uzu Air's AOC for a further 28 days and asserts inter alia: "The Bureau of Air Safety Investigation (BASI) has been investigating the crash but has not published a preliminary or final report on its causes."

17 Feb 99:
The Cairns Post newspaper publishes an article headed "Crash report rocks CASA," (by this writer) detailing the conflict between CASA's allegations and those of the preliminary BASI report. A fax letter is received on the same morning from Assistant Director, CASA, Canberra, saying: "I have now been made aware of the content of a preliminary report of the accident by BASI. Please note that neither the crash itself, nor the possible causes of the crash, were the, or a decisive consideration in my decision to suspend your AOC. I would have suspended your AOC even if I had been aware of the content of the BASI preliminary report." The Assistant Director did not reveal his reasons for this assertion at that time.

18 Feb 99:
An AAT-directed teleconference is scheduled for 1700, between Uzu counsel, the AAT registrar, and CASA's office of legal counsel, to determine the process of an AAT hearing on the second suspension, and to enable Uzu's counsel to advise CASA of the witnesses Uzu required to examine. Uzu counsel and the AAT were connected. CASA's phone rings out without answering.

19 Feb 99:
CASA office of legal counsel telephones Uzu to advise they had confused the day, thinking the teleconference was set for the following day. Uzu's lawyers indicate that there was no utility in having a telephone conference for a hearing in relation to the first suspension (which is what the telephone conference on 18 February was intended to do) because a second suspension had been issued. Uzu's lawyers indicated that Uzu would now be applying to the AAT for a stay of the second suspension for hearing in the following week. On the same day Uzu Air provides CASA with a detailed 50-page response to the further 28 day suspension of its AOC, detailing the foregoing events and again raising the question of RPT versus charter.

24 Feb 99:
Uzu's lawyers request the AAT issue three subpoenas to involved CASA staff members to attend the hearing the following day. AAT declines due to inadequate time.25

Feb 99:
At a cost of about $10,000, Uzu attend AAT Sydney at 0915. At 0930, AAT Vice President's associates advise that CASA will not be attending, due to commitments in Brisbane, but CASA will not object to a telephone hearing. (CASA claims it had earlier advised Uzu and the AAT it would be unable to attend but would not object to a telephone hearing.) However CASA's counsel objects to any evidence being tendered or any witnesses being called, "on the basis that it is inappropriate for oral evidence to be given at a stay hearing.” Deputy President Chappell rules that oral evidence was not appropriate for that reason. Uzu, which has now not earned any revenue for 36 days, is therefore again denied an opportunity to confront its accusers, some of whom are on "stress leave", a luxury unavailable to Uzu's general manager or his staff, some of whom have been stood down. CASA however successfully objects to the lifting of the suspension on the grounds of "Air Safety," relying on Section 9 of the Civil Aviation Act.

2 Mar 99:
Meeting in Canberra attended by Uzu's chief pilot, an Uzu consultant, CASA's General Manager, Aviation Operations and CASA's public affairs manager. Uzu was told that CASA wouldn't extend the suspension, but would either lift it, or let it run its course until 16 Mar. The company was also told that CASA would not renew the suspension or cancel the AOC. No explanation was offered as to why, having made that decision, CASA would not lift the suspension immediately. It was agreed that draft checking and training and maintenance procedures were required and had been submitted, and that checking and training and progressive maintenance would be progressively incorporated.

5 Mar 99:
AAT teleconference between CASA office of legal counsel, Uzu is advised that the relevant DFOM was reviewing the material on Uzu and had indicated that he would not recommend a cancellation. He indicated that he would consider a recommendation to lift the suspension, but only after reviewing the remainder of the material and speaking with airworthiness officers with respect to manuals. He advised that he would attempt to do so by 10 March at the earliest and 12 March at the latest. He also advised even if such a recommendation was made, it was just that. It would be ultimately a matter for the decision maker in Canberra to accept any recommendation.

8 Mar 99:
CASA acting DFOM Cairns advises he is satisfied with the draft manuals and will be making "unspecified recommendations" to CASA Canberra. Uzu's optimism is heightened.

9 Mar 99:
CASA publishes an amended CAO 82.3 and three blanket exemptions, authorising air charter operators in the Torres Straits to operate RPT without meeting the aerodrome, maintenance, or training and checking requirements for RPT until June 9. CASA's comment: "While the check and training system might have been satisfactory in draft form, the district AW manager was not satisfied with the AW control mechanisms." Uzu is thus denied access to the March 9 amendments to CAO 82.3, and to the exemptions granted to Torres Strait operators.

10 Mar 99:
AM - CASA shifts the goalposts again. While its competitors, who have been operating for the two months Uzu has been grounded, are still in the air and have 90 days to comply with RPT rules, Uzu is told it must comply BEFORE its AOC is restored.
PM - Uzu's solicitor contacts CASA office of legal counsel and is told the manuals the company has submitted are only DRAFT and that Uzu has not nominated a maintenance controller or check and training captain. Australian Flying faxes a draft of this chronology to CASA with an invitation to review it for accuracy.

11 Mar 99:
CASA phones and indicates that a response, detailing some "errors and omissions" will be faxed "tomorrow." Australian Flying admits that because of space limitations it has omitted considerable material, much of it damaging to CASA. (Information provided in CASA's response is incorporated in this narrative.)

12 Mar 99:
The CASA response does not arrive. Or maybe, obliquely, it does. A faxed message from CASA to Uzu suspends the AOC for a third period, "pending an investigation by CASA into your company's operations, and the risk to the safety of air navigation in allowing the AOC to continue in force... The reasons for this decision and the facts and circumstances on which I rely are set out below." The letter details thirty-eight points as "facts and circumstances.”

15 Mar 99:
A fax to the Hon. Warren Entsch, Member for Leichhardt, in response to a phone call to CASA from Mr. Entsch, says that for UZU to have its AOC reinstated, it must comply with three requirements - training and checking, Class A maintenance, and an approved maintenance controller, which UZU has already addressed.

24 Mar 99:
In a pre-hearing teleconference between Uzu, CASA and the AAT, the Tribunal indicates that it expects CASA to restore the AOC by close of business on Mar 26, provided the three CASA conditions are met (which UZU insists they already are). In anticipation of a full AAT hearing the following week, UZU has already applied for summonses requiring CASA personnel to be present at the hearing. This means they will almost certainly be called upon to give evidence and to face cross-examination.

26 Mar 99:
The AAT official indicates that she will be in her office for a further half hour after close of business, and that if the AOC is not restored by that time she will arrange a "substantive" hearing on Monday 29. Late on Friday afternoon, CASA blinks. In a faxed message UZU is advised its charter AOC is restored "subject to the company implementing Class A maintenance” and check and training - a unique requirement, but at least the company is back in business.

General aviation is not one big happy family; but other operators watched the process with keen interest, and even UZU's commercial rivals were horrified at its implications for the rest of the industry. CASA sources now acknowledge: "the matter could have been better handled".

Torres note: Within days of the lifting of the AOC suspension, Uzu Air submitted all documentation for the issue of a Remote Area RPT AOC. The issue of the AOC was stalled some weeks by CASA, Canberra (whilst they reviewed an application for a similar AOC by one of Uzu Air’s competitors), however Uzu Air still received the second such AOC in Australia.

Some years later a retired CASA FOI advised Torres there was an "element of revenge" involved for a totally different and unrelated matter in July 1987 involving CASA.

[VH-MLE]

Hi Torres. Who was the General Manager of General Aviation Operations at the time?

[Bend alot]

Hi Torres. Who was the General Manager of General Aviation Operations at the time?
JF?

Does that position even exist anymore?

[thorn bird]

The only good light Paul's report shines on is the integrity of BASI.

I imagine if the crash had been investigated by CAsA's bastard child
in todays world the ATSB no doubt would have come to totally different
conclusions to suit CAsA's narrative rather than the truth.
What an unconscionable state we have allowed our bureaucrats to descend into.

[Clinton McKenzie]

Hi Torres. Who was the General Manager of General Aviation Operations at the time?

Me.

I always despair that legitimate grievances are not distilled into the real issues.

UZU and others were conducting RPT without RPT AOCs. That was against the law. The AAT agreed with CASA’s interpretation and its application to the facts.

In my view the legitimate grievance was, and continues to be, that the classification of operations rules have been diarrhoea for decades. UZU and others were the victim of the muddy messes that are the definitions of RPT and Charter - precisely the issue that Commissioner Staunton identified in 1996 as requiring “urgent” review. (That’s not a typo. That’s nineteen ninety six.)

I know it will be cold comfort for you, Torres, but I was the subject of more internal criticism than external about the regulatory action that was taken. The basis of the internal criticism was that the classification of operations rules were “just about to change”. CAR 206 was going to “reformed” “soon”. But that was bull****, as has been demonstrated by the ensuing 20 plus years. The remote island AOC concept just put another hump on the classification of operations camel - yet more complexity in an already-complex and confusing classifications system.

By 1999 the regulatory ‘reform’ program had become, in my view, an ongoing expensive hoax on the industry and the taxpayer. The 20 years of ‘reform’ following my departure from CASA have not altered my view. (That’s not a typo. That’s twenty years.)

I’m sure CASA will get around to ‘reforming’ classification of operations ‘soon’. However, I doubt whether the product will be clear or concise or welcomed by industry.

But I could be making it all up and it could all be my fault. Feel free to blame me if it makes you feel better.

[Sunfish]

Spoke to a former very senior ministerial advisor (not transport minister) last night and explained, as best I could, my opinion of what “the problem” is. In essence, the CASA game is to talk legislation and regulation BS to the aviation community but when talking to their bosses, they switch and talk technical aviation BS. They calculate, correctly, that neither group has the ability to see through the particular fog that CASA is emitting at them. They threaten us both with different things and it works.

Unfortunately the advisors opinion is that CASA can successfully do this almost indefinitely. A fatal regional jet accident isn’t big enough to stop them either. Only a catastrophic accident or the potential for electoral disaster will get the politicians talking to the aviation community and galvanised enough to make the effort to understand and force radical reform.

To be fair to CASA, I would have employed the same strategy if I were in the chair and convinced myself it was best for Australia that way.

Pilots and Engineers haven’t helped themselves over the years either. Too many egos get in the way and divide and rule is a very effective tactic.

As for Qantas and the RAAF, they couldn’t care less. CASA can’t touch them.

[zanthrus]

Or simply ignore CASA and keep flying. They ignore us or our efforts to communicate with them. **** em.

[Flaming galah]

I always despair that legitimate grievances are not distilled into the real issues.

13 words of searing accuracy.

[LeadSled]

I’m sure CASA will get around to ‘reforming’ classification of operations ‘soon’. However, I doubt whether the product will be clear or concise or welcomed by industry.

But I could be making it all up and it could all be my fault. Feel free to blame me if it makes you feel better.



Folks,
I am going to weigh in to this one, and say that the "legal" basis for this interlude was incomplete "consequential" amendments from a period of regulatory "reform", by about fifteen years old previous reform that created this situation.
The "mail runs" and similar had existed "since forever", and on Cape York were a considerable tourist attraction, as well as their day to day reason.
The regulatory shortcoming, planned but uncompleted consequential amendments, had long been known (the said 15 years) but effectively ignored, until the right combination of circumstances occurred, including a Director who announced "We are policemen -----etc".
There was more than one case of long existing mail run operations selectively put out of business during this period, on the accusation of conducting illegal RPT, but the real reason being some kind of "get even" situation.
That Uzu had an aircraft accident only compounded the issue.
Tootle pip!!
PS: So, the question is: Has CASA got (a) better (b) worse (c) hasn't changed ----- over the years.

[chute packer]

Or simply ignore CASA and keep flying. They ignore us or our efforts to communicate with them. **** em.

While not quite the same would a letter from the lawyers outlining all the attempts and timeline to seek clarifications and meetings, and tell CAsA that if they don't respond in X days you'll take that as approval to continue as before?
Yeah I know....but f me, they really a pack of................

[glenb]

The new edition of Australian Flying should be hitting the shelves now.

Whilst I have only read the draft, I must congratulate Steve Hitchen on his ability to deconstruct a very complicated matter so effectively. The magazine has long been a great supporter of Industry, and they have risen to the challenge again.

If you are at the airport or passing a newsagent, can I suggest you avail yourself of a copy. Despite my best efforts I feel this matter is only going to escalate, and perhaps significantly.

This may become an important issue for the wider GA industry, and the magazine article is a great starting point.

Thanks again all for your support, cheers. Glen.

[aroa]

Lets hope it escalates into a Judicial Inquiry or Royal Commission.
The total embuggerance of GA in this country is too vital to be left in the hands of the liars, cheats, discrepant legal acrobats (sic..very sick) and incompetents in NON aviation house.
For Christs sake you Politicians and Senators DO SOMETHING !!!!

[Petropavlovsk]

Glenn,

Not sure if it's worth the hassle but; front page of today's (Mon 19th) Australian; BUSINESS section refers to a byline about Morrison holding all government minister to account for actions, the complete article is on page 4 of the business section. It is worth a read …

[Sunfish]

From the PM’s speech to the Public Service:

The Australian people need to be at the centre of APS service delivery. That is the thinking behind Services Australia. This isn’t some fancy re-branding exercise.

“It’s a message to the whole of the APS – top-to-bottom – about what matters to people.

“It’s about ‘doing the little things well’ – everything from reducing call waiting times and turnaround on correspondence right through to improving the experience people have walking into a Centrelink office.

“I want to send a message to every single member of the APS, in whatever role you have: ‘You can make a difference to the lives of the Australian people.’

“We all have a job to do and that is to serve the Australian people.

“I’ve talked about the need for a culture of regulatory congestion busting in our bureaucracy.

“That doesn’t mean cutting corners or not meeting regulatory obligations.

“But it does mean being relentless in finding ways to help Australians make things happen and reach their goals. Not sitting passively while families and businesses struggle to navigate rules and regulations.

“We need interactions with government to be simpler and less bureaucratic.

“It’s why I have tasked my Assistant Minister Ben Morton with revitalising our regulatory reform and deregulation agenda, with a new Deregulation Taskforce in the Treasury.

“A key focus is on working with business to identify and remove unnecessary barriers to investment, with a focus on sectors and activities which have the most to gain.

“At the departmental level, Secretaries will need to be proactive in identifying ways to bust congestion in the Commonwealth bureaucracy. And all Ministers will continue to remain responsible for ensuring that regulations in their portfolios are fit-for-purpose.

Applying that standard, I would think that the Department has a mandate to change CASA.

https://www.pm.gov.au/media/speech-institute-public-administration

[glenb]

" I want to send a message to every single member of the APS, in whatever role you have: ‘You can make a difference to the lives of the Australian people.’

Dear PM,
I can assure you that there are personnel within CASA that have certainly made a "difference" to the lives of this Australian person and his family.

Could you maybe remind CASA that its supposed to be a "positive" difference. Sometimes it just needs to spelt out "clearly and concisely"

Thankyou from Glen and his family.

Was it Mr Abbott that was "cutting the red tape". CASA wasn't renown for stepping up to the plate on that one either.

[Torres]

CASA management believes the Civil Aviation Act 1988, Section 9, condones their depravity to the aviation industry and exempts them from any need to serve the people of Australia.