Glen Buckley and Australian small business -V- CASA
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.
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.
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.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Perth
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yeah I know....but f me, they really a pack of................
Thread Starter
Australian Flying magazine-APTA
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.
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.
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 !!!!
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 !!!!
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 …
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 …
From the PM’s speech to the Public Service:
Applying that standard, I would think that the Department has a mandate to change CASA.
https://www.pm.gov.au/media/speech-i...administration
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.
“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.
https://www.pm.gov.au/media/speech-i...administration
Last edited by Sunfish; 19th Aug 2019 at 21:09.
Thread Starter
The PMs directive
" 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.
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.
Last edited by glenb; 19th Aug 2019 at 23:00.
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.
CASA management and staff aren’t part of the APS...
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dunno lead, CAsA may not be part of the "Public Service", but lately much of the government bureaucracy has been described as the "Public Sector" guess CAsA would fit into that. Had one FOI tell me they were part of the industry, I asked him which part? the ass end?
" Public service Mandarins have been put on notice that they will have to meet greater community expectations of service delivery, respect the governments policy agenda and remove bureaucracy roadblocks if they want to keep their jobs.
The implicit message to be delivered by Scott Morrison today comes as the Prime Minister warned that his ministers too would be accountable for regulatory reform and policy rigour across their portfolios."
Ahem! PM.... mate. Are you aware of the following in regards to Aviation?
In the general aviation sector of the industry, expectations of service delivery are so far below rock bottom you need two decompression stops to surface.
Have CAsA ever respected Government policy? there's ample evidence they have thumbed their noses at Government Policy. Is it government policy to shut down the GA industry?, they are doing just that by stealth.
How many roadblocks can a bureaucracy put up? In Australia, CAsA have burdened the industry with tens of thousands of pages of very poorly designed, obtuse, indecipherable regulations in the name of 'Safety". In the USA they achieve better safety outcomes than us with less than a thousand pages of plain english rules. Their industry thrives, ours dies.
CAsA's attempts at "Reform", many would say is actually having a detrimental affect on safety. They have been at it for more than thirty years now, and expended hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars to achieve NOTHING, except a dying industry. New Zealand adopted US regulations in less than two years, spent around five million dollars to amend and modify FAA rules, their aviation industry is thriving.
Your Minister, despite the recommendations from many inquiries and industry groups, obfuscates, and ignores the voices of the industry while CAsA runs amok, killing investment, stifling growth, innovation, incomes and in some cases denying natural justice.
So the big question Mr Morrison is are you really serious about the statements in the above press release or is it just Pie in the Sky?
" Public service Mandarins have been put on notice that they will have to meet greater community expectations of service delivery, respect the governments policy agenda and remove bureaucracy roadblocks if they want to keep their jobs.
The implicit message to be delivered by Scott Morrison today comes as the Prime Minister warned that his ministers too would be accountable for regulatory reform and policy rigour across their portfolios."
Ahem! PM.... mate. Are you aware of the following in regards to Aviation?
In the general aviation sector of the industry, expectations of service delivery are so far below rock bottom you need two decompression stops to surface.
Have CAsA ever respected Government policy? there's ample evidence they have thumbed their noses at Government Policy. Is it government policy to shut down the GA industry?, they are doing just that by stealth.
How many roadblocks can a bureaucracy put up? In Australia, CAsA have burdened the industry with tens of thousands of pages of very poorly designed, obtuse, indecipherable regulations in the name of 'Safety". In the USA they achieve better safety outcomes than us with less than a thousand pages of plain english rules. Their industry thrives, ours dies.
CAsA's attempts at "Reform", many would say is actually having a detrimental affect on safety. They have been at it for more than thirty years now, and expended hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars to achieve NOTHING, except a dying industry. New Zealand adopted US regulations in less than two years, spent around five million dollars to amend and modify FAA rules, their aviation industry is thriving.
Your Minister, despite the recommendations from many inquiries and industry groups, obfuscates, and ignores the voices of the industry while CAsA runs amok, killing investment, stifling growth, innovation, incomes and in some cases denying natural justice.
So the big question Mr Morrison is are you really serious about the statements in the above press release or is it just Pie in the Sky?
Thread Starter
My understanding is that the Civil Aviation Safety Authority is a;
“Corporate Commonwealth Entity”, and it does not engage staff under the Public Service Act.
Both bits of information from the following link. https://www.finance.gov.au/resource-...rview/#sectors
The Civil Aviation Act States;
Part II—Establishment, functions etc. of CASA8 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.""
Am I correct to assume “they aren’t bound to act appropriately, only to use public funds appropriately” ?
“Corporate Commonwealth Entity”, and it does not engage staff under the Public Service Act.
Both bits of information from the following link. https://www.finance.gov.au/resource-...rview/#sectors
The Civil Aviation Act States;
Part II—Establishment, functions etc. of CASA8 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.""
Am I correct to assume “they aren’t bound to act appropriately, only to use public funds appropriately” ?
Thread Starter
To anyone affected by the closure of MFT i.e. staff and suppliers
To All Suppliers of MFT.
I am in a very difficult situation.CASA placed several restrictions on my parent company, APTA and its ability to conduct business in October of 2018. This lead to the sale of APTA recently, and it’s now under new ownership.
Importantly, at no stage was the CASA action based on any allegations of safety concerns. Also, at no stage have there been any allegations of regulatory breaches that CASA has been prepared to substantiate.
The fact is, there have been no regulatory or safety breaches. None!
CASA actions,
· Reduced our “surety of operations”, to never more than 90 days into the future.
· Prevented me marketing · Prevented me enrolling new customers
· Prevented me renewing approvals as they expired.
· Prevented me adding new approvals.
In October 2018, I identified to CASA that those restrictions on my business, would cost me at least $10,000 per week, to sustain operations until the CASA imposed restrictions were lifted.
Over the last 9 months, I have had to call on MFT to financially support APTA operations, as I had several other operators also depending on APTA for their own continuing operations. It was anticipated that CASA would resolve their confusion in a matter of weeks. I could not possibly have imagined it would continue for over 9 months, and still be unresolved. Those restrictions on my ability to trade have continued throughout the last 9 months, as has the associated stress on both me and the business. I now find myself in the current situation.
CASA has insisted on something they call “direct operational control” and this has required me to transfer all MFT operations to APTA, with the associated income going to APTA (under new ownership) and not to MFT (which I still own). This makes resolution of my current situation almost impossible, but I have called on CASA to define, “direct operational control”. Once I have that defined, it may be possible that MFT can continue, and I can derive revenue from MFT. At this stage there is much uncertainty.
Moving forward
The reality is that I have exhausted everything in fighting with CASA to maintain APTA. I have been left with nothing. No home, no business, no savings and no job, so I cannot promise an easy resolution.
I can assure you, there is not a higher level of shame, guilt and embarrassment that a human being can have, than to owe money, to friends and people that have supported him. I do not have a solution to put to you at this stage. I have no intention of running away or hiding from my responsibilities. I will be working for as long as it takes in an endeavour to ensure that every one of you is paid 100%. No haggling, and no discounting. It is a big call, and that is why I need your input.
As suppliers you have the right to act against me and have me declared bankrupt. I respect that, and can accept, and understand that stance. To be frank, to be declared bankrupt, and go and start a simpler life and concentrate on looking after my family is the easier path, and in the interests of my health, probably the sensible path.But I will head down the path of resolution, and as the saying goes. A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.
I want to meet face to face wherever possible and call on those engagements to be respectful. I appreciate that several people are seriously affected, and not just myself. With the restructure in APTA, I don’t have the admin support that I had previously, and as you will appreciate, I have a lot going on. If you have an invoice for MFT, or are a staff member with an entitlement, could you please resend it through to a new email that I have created; [email protected] With the significant change of personnel in the office I need to collate this information accurately in the one spot.
Could I also call for a meeting at 4PM on Friday 30th August. I will advise a venue, but it will be at Moorabbin Airport. If someone cannot attend on site, please let me know, and I will arrange video-conference facilities. Please RSVP by text 0418772013, if you can attend. I will provide light refreshments (bread and water is all I can promise at this stage, but will swing past Aldi for any cakes approaching their "best before")
At that meeting I would like to:
· Stand in front of you;
· Introduce you to each other;
· Assess priority suppliers. i.e. I would call on bigger businesses to help me prioritise any individuals or smaller businesses for payment ahead of them wherever practical;
· Place several options to you for consideration;
· Have a robust, truthful and well-intentioned respectful discussion.
I genuinely want to get money where it belongs (the people I owe money to) and not in the hands of lawyers and accountants; I feel we can hopefully resolve this.
Thank you for your consideration, and more importantly, your support to date.For those that have a deeper interest in my issues please follow the following link https://www.pprune.org/pacific-general-aviation-questions/620219-australian-small-business-v-casa.html
Respectfully, Glen.
Glen I don’t know you but have to say reading the above.
Respect. Yep once an administrator gets involved the only people that get money are erm eee the admins.
Hopefully your suppliers will see your having a red hot crack.
Tough industry it is!
Especially when the regulator appears to do whatever they want and know they are unaccountable.
My only other question again - gofundme to take on the empire? Surely there are some very well to do aviation enthusiasts who could start. Even if they are belting around in their own jets, no one is immune to the empire. Just my 3 cents worth. I would flick you a little more than 3 cents if you set up.
Respect. Yep once an administrator gets involved the only people that get money are erm eee the admins.
Hopefully your suppliers will see your having a red hot crack.
Tough industry it is!
Especially when the regulator appears to do whatever they want and know they are unaccountable.
My only other question again - gofundme to take on the empire? Surely there are some very well to do aviation enthusiasts who could start. Even if they are belting around in their own jets, no one is immune to the empire. Just my 3 cents worth. I would flick you a little more than 3 cents if you set up.
This from an ATO whistleblowers gofundme page:
Perhaps a general fighting fund might be a good idea.
https://www.gofundme.com/f/ato-whist...yle-legal-fund
In the US, people use GoFundMe to crowdfund medical bills because they have a health system unfit for democracy; in Australia, we use GoFundMe because we have a system of civil liberties unfit for democracy.
I would be very grateful if you made a contribution within your capacity to help fund my legal battle against the ATO.
I would be very grateful if you made a contribution within your capacity to help fund my legal battle against the ATO.
https://www.gofundme.com/f/ato-whist...yle-legal-fund
Thread Starter
Commercial Impact of CASAs action
I made many requests to CASA to resolve this situation, and they were fully aware of the commercial impact. Here is my first piece of correspondence identifying my concerns regarding the commercial impact;
24/10/18
Dear Mr David Jones,
I am in receipt of your correspondence F14/9540 addressed to the HOO, Mr Ermin Javier. A
s the nature of the correspondence is quite substantive, I have elected to respond in my role as the CEO. As you will appreciate, I was concerned to receive that correspondence. My initial thought is that something may be “lost in translation”, and therefore I request a face to face meeting with you and the appropriate Personnel within CASA to clarify a number of items.
As you will appreciate my timelines are tight, so I will fit in with your availability. The concept of APTA is sound and we felt that we had a good understanding with CMT 2. As you are aware we have had CASA closely involved during the creation of APTA and the writing of the manuals and procedures, we have had previous bases approved by CASA i.e. MFT, TVSA, LTF, and AVIA.
Through the application of our Continuous Improvement processes we continued to apply the same or improved procedures with our newer Members. I note that many of your concerns relate to the “temporary locations” for which we have a CASA approved procedure.
Our previous consultation with CASA suggested we should plan on somewhere between 6 to possibly 8 weeks for activation of a base from a temporary location to a permanent location. Experience has shown that the last approval took 12 months, and that is the sole reason for the protracted periods. It is simply not practical for Flight Training Organisations to be dormant for 12 months while CASA attends to the Sig Change request. The intent is that we operate a temporary location to facilitate continuing operations, while CASA is processing supporting documentation in the timelines that were suggested by CASA.
I have never had any expression of concern at all from CASA, and in fact we had an extensive Level 1 Audit in November 2017, since our CASA approval. The results were all attended to, and we were commended on the manner in which the entire process was handled. As you will appreciate this 180 degree change in direction was not expected, and it has certainly come from “left field”. I would like to discuss the “trigger”, as to this change of direction.
Firstly, I would like to confirm that the Aviation Ruling in fact applies to this situation. I appreciate that the Aviation Ruling is not a restatement of the law. I believe it was intended for the Charter Industry and CAR 206 operations, rather than flight training, which as you will appreciate is not a CAR 206 activity. It was drafted primarily many years ago for Charter operations in the old regulatory environment.
· 3.2 APTA uses a APTA employees on site as required at the locations. We currently have Company employees based at both LTV and Ballarat delivering the majority of the operations at those locations, and drawing a salary from us. At Moorabbin locations that engagement is achieved by the close geographical location and constant engagement. This face to face engagement on a consistent and regular basis is also supported by our well documented, approved and operating procedures. We regularly accommodate and base our personnel at these bases, conduct regular meeting and rove amongst the bases consistently.
· 3.3 All operations are highly supervised by the Chief Pilot. The Chief Pilot is role in a charter organisation. In the Flight Training sector we operate with a HOO and a strong supporting management team. All systems have been designed from the onset with high levels of supervision and integration. All Personnel at all bases are fully inducted into APTA.
· 3.5 There are no other operating systems other than the APTA systems and all Personnel are fully integrated.
· 6.1 I am very much of the view that the activities authorised by an AOC are carried out “within the organisation of the AOC holder” and that all operations are conducted in accordance with the systems of the AOC holder.
· 6.2 All operations are “under the oversight and management of the key personnel of the AOC holder”
· 6.3 All members utilise the facilities and documentation of the AOC holder.
· 7. As the CEO of APTA I am fully mindful of my obligations and accept total and absolute responsibility for all actions conducted under the AOC at all locations. There is only the one approval for all our bases and we are fully aware that all Flying training operations are APTA operations.
· 9. CAR 206 defines commercial purposes. APTA delivers only flying training and not Commercial purposes as defined in CAR 206.
· 10. I am of the opinion that all activities are done with significantly more than a “reasonable degree of care and diligence” I note your referral to CAA Section 27(8) referring to AOC. I concur, an AOC cannot be transferred. To be honest I feel drawing the Part 141 Flying Training Certificate to the AOC is a long bow to draw, and particularly as CASA explained that one of the intentions of the new regulations was to actually move that training away from an AOC requirement, and CASA has previously addressed this “the training businesses will not be required to hold an AOC”
I note that you requested a copy of the contract. At this stage could I ask that you draw on the contracts previously provided to CASA, for no other reason than commercial sensitivity. A number of contracts have been given to CASA previously and most recently to Dave Edwards and Harold Bankkien via email on 06/12/17.
If you would like me to resend that email, please advise. If you still require the individual contracts please let me know and I will attend to it. As this has come from “left field”, can I ask what the trigger is that has lead to the reversal of policy application. I would have expected that there would have been at least some engagement or consultation from CMT 3 prior to this correspondence. We have been working on this project for many years in close consultation with CASA, and in fact to date have felt that they are supportive of the concept
I am of the opinion that the activation of Temporary locations is a robust and Industry leading procedure, and far in excess of anything that was done previously in the industry. It incorporates, site visits, consulting with other operator, conducting a risk assessment, inducting and training all Personnel, and placing experienced APTA personnel on site for as long as is required. For clarity and planning purposes, can I clarify that CASA intends to do the following:
APTA Ballarat Base will be directed to cease operations.
APTA Latrobe Valley Base will be directed to cease operations.
APTA Moorabbin Base (LTF) is an APTA/CASA approved base, and that CASA is not retracting their approval to operate but not permitting operations at the new facility only.
There is no mention of LTF in the correspondence other than the sig change request for a change of location. My understanding from the correspondence is that they are not affected, or it may be an omission from the correspondence.
APTA Moorabbin Base (AVIA) is operating as an APTA/CASA approved base, and that CASA is reversing that approval APTA Moorabbin Base (Arc Aviation) will be directed to cease operations as temporary location.
APTA Moorabbin Base ( MFT) my own business established for 12 years will be directed to cease operations.
APTA Brisbane (Sim Jet) request will not be processed.
APTA Moorabbin (Vortex) has applied to join APTA, but that request will not be processed. APTA Ballina (Whitestar) will be directed to cease operations as a temporary location. As you will appreciate this will have significant impact on me, my family, my Business, my employees and a number of operators.
Unless CASA deems that APTA operations are deemed an imminent and grave risk to Aviation Safety can I respectfully request a 14 day extension to facilitate my employees into new positions with other organisations and shut down the Organisation in the most controlled manner possible.
I reject CASAs assumptions. I have invested very heavily to ensure I have a safe and compliant organisation delivering unparalled levels of oversight and supervision. There is only one Approval and all of us operate under that approval. APTA and myself in the role of CEO accept complete and total responsibility for all operations. These are not the traditional “arms length” agreements that were perhaps prevalent in the industry many years ago.
This is a highly supervised and integrated system that is CASA approved and intended to deliver safe and compliant operations. It has been operating for some time now, has previously been well supported by CASA. I find the initial approach extremely disappointing but hope that you will afford me the opportunity of a meeting to see if the matter can be resolved.
Yours sincerely, Glen Buckley
24/10/18
Dear Mr David Jones,
I am in receipt of your correspondence F14/9540 addressed to the HOO, Mr Ermin Javier. A
s the nature of the correspondence is quite substantive, I have elected to respond in my role as the CEO. As you will appreciate, I was concerned to receive that correspondence. My initial thought is that something may be “lost in translation”, and therefore I request a face to face meeting with you and the appropriate Personnel within CASA to clarify a number of items.
As you will appreciate my timelines are tight, so I will fit in with your availability. The concept of APTA is sound and we felt that we had a good understanding with CMT 2. As you are aware we have had CASA closely involved during the creation of APTA and the writing of the manuals and procedures, we have had previous bases approved by CASA i.e. MFT, TVSA, LTF, and AVIA.
Through the application of our Continuous Improvement processes we continued to apply the same or improved procedures with our newer Members. I note that many of your concerns relate to the “temporary locations” for which we have a CASA approved procedure.
Our previous consultation with CASA suggested we should plan on somewhere between 6 to possibly 8 weeks for activation of a base from a temporary location to a permanent location. Experience has shown that the last approval took 12 months, and that is the sole reason for the protracted periods. It is simply not practical for Flight Training Organisations to be dormant for 12 months while CASA attends to the Sig Change request. The intent is that we operate a temporary location to facilitate continuing operations, while CASA is processing supporting documentation in the timelines that were suggested by CASA.
I have never had any expression of concern at all from CASA, and in fact we had an extensive Level 1 Audit in November 2017, since our CASA approval. The results were all attended to, and we were commended on the manner in which the entire process was handled. As you will appreciate this 180 degree change in direction was not expected, and it has certainly come from “left field”. I would like to discuss the “trigger”, as to this change of direction.
Firstly, I would like to confirm that the Aviation Ruling in fact applies to this situation. I appreciate that the Aviation Ruling is not a restatement of the law. I believe it was intended for the Charter Industry and CAR 206 operations, rather than flight training, which as you will appreciate is not a CAR 206 activity. It was drafted primarily many years ago for Charter operations in the old regulatory environment.
· 3.2 APTA uses a APTA employees on site as required at the locations. We currently have Company employees based at both LTV and Ballarat delivering the majority of the operations at those locations, and drawing a salary from us. At Moorabbin locations that engagement is achieved by the close geographical location and constant engagement. This face to face engagement on a consistent and regular basis is also supported by our well documented, approved and operating procedures. We regularly accommodate and base our personnel at these bases, conduct regular meeting and rove amongst the bases consistently.
· 3.3 All operations are highly supervised by the Chief Pilot. The Chief Pilot is role in a charter organisation. In the Flight Training sector we operate with a HOO and a strong supporting management team. All systems have been designed from the onset with high levels of supervision and integration. All Personnel at all bases are fully inducted into APTA.
· 3.5 There are no other operating systems other than the APTA systems and all Personnel are fully integrated.
· 6.1 I am very much of the view that the activities authorised by an AOC are carried out “within the organisation of the AOC holder” and that all operations are conducted in accordance with the systems of the AOC holder.
· 6.2 All operations are “under the oversight and management of the key personnel of the AOC holder”
· 6.3 All members utilise the facilities and documentation of the AOC holder.
· 7. As the CEO of APTA I am fully mindful of my obligations and accept total and absolute responsibility for all actions conducted under the AOC at all locations. There is only the one approval for all our bases and we are fully aware that all Flying training operations are APTA operations.
· 9. CAR 206 defines commercial purposes. APTA delivers only flying training and not Commercial purposes as defined in CAR 206.
· 10. I am of the opinion that all activities are done with significantly more than a “reasonable degree of care and diligence” I note your referral to CAA Section 27(8) referring to AOC. I concur, an AOC cannot be transferred. To be honest I feel drawing the Part 141 Flying Training Certificate to the AOC is a long bow to draw, and particularly as CASA explained that one of the intentions of the new regulations was to actually move that training away from an AOC requirement, and CASA has previously addressed this “the training businesses will not be required to hold an AOC”
I note that you requested a copy of the contract. At this stage could I ask that you draw on the contracts previously provided to CASA, for no other reason than commercial sensitivity. A number of contracts have been given to CASA previously and most recently to Dave Edwards and Harold Bankkien via email on 06/12/17.
If you would like me to resend that email, please advise. If you still require the individual contracts please let me know and I will attend to it. As this has come from “left field”, can I ask what the trigger is that has lead to the reversal of policy application. I would have expected that there would have been at least some engagement or consultation from CMT 3 prior to this correspondence. We have been working on this project for many years in close consultation with CASA, and in fact to date have felt that they are supportive of the concept
I am of the opinion that the activation of Temporary locations is a robust and Industry leading procedure, and far in excess of anything that was done previously in the industry. It incorporates, site visits, consulting with other operator, conducting a risk assessment, inducting and training all Personnel, and placing experienced APTA personnel on site for as long as is required. For clarity and planning purposes, can I clarify that CASA intends to do the following:
APTA Ballarat Base will be directed to cease operations.
APTA Latrobe Valley Base will be directed to cease operations.
APTA Moorabbin Base (LTF) is an APTA/CASA approved base, and that CASA is not retracting their approval to operate but not permitting operations at the new facility only.
There is no mention of LTF in the correspondence other than the sig change request for a change of location. My understanding from the correspondence is that they are not affected, or it may be an omission from the correspondence.
APTA Moorabbin Base (AVIA) is operating as an APTA/CASA approved base, and that CASA is reversing that approval APTA Moorabbin Base (Arc Aviation) will be directed to cease operations as temporary location.
APTA Moorabbin Base ( MFT) my own business established for 12 years will be directed to cease operations.
APTA Brisbane (Sim Jet) request will not be processed.
APTA Moorabbin (Vortex) has applied to join APTA, but that request will not be processed. APTA Ballina (Whitestar) will be directed to cease operations as a temporary location. As you will appreciate this will have significant impact on me, my family, my Business, my employees and a number of operators.
Unless CASA deems that APTA operations are deemed an imminent and grave risk to Aviation Safety can I respectfully request a 14 day extension to facilitate my employees into new positions with other organisations and shut down the Organisation in the most controlled manner possible.
I reject CASAs assumptions. I have invested very heavily to ensure I have a safe and compliant organisation delivering unparalled levels of oversight and supervision. There is only one Approval and all of us operate under that approval. APTA and myself in the role of CEO accept complete and total responsibility for all operations. These are not the traditional “arms length” agreements that were perhaps prevalent in the industry many years ago.
This is a highly supervised and integrated system that is CASA approved and intended to deliver safe and compliant operations. It has been operating for some time now, has previously been well supported by CASA. I find the initial approach extremely disappointing but hope that you will afford me the opportunity of a meeting to see if the matter can be resolved.
Yours sincerely, Glen Buckley
Thread Starter
Commercial impact
And again on the 25th October25/10/18 Email to David Jones“As you will appreciate this will have significant impact on me, my family, my Business, my employees and a number of operators…….”
Thread Starter
Commercial Impact of CASAs action, yet again
I write to CASA again on 09/11/18
Dear XXXXXXX,
Thankyou for your letter. I appreciate the effort that is being put into the clarification around the aviation safety standards. That’s probably more of an issue to be resolved within CASA and I need to focus on minimising the impact on me. Its already dragged on way too long.
This has gone more than two weeks, and quite frankly I am at the “end of my tether”. I am exhausted, stressed, anxious and need this to come to an end. I cannot be affected by CASA trying to “get its house in order”.
Most importantly, the impact on me. I will be short and blunt. Seriously, just stop for one minute and imagine how I feel. I have an enormous burden on me. Far too much, and to be frank, I just want this over. I am extremely worried about my health and welfare. Your action against me has caused harm to me.
Your action was highly inappropriate, and it has affected me. It is unfair and bullying and intimidating in its nature.My complaint is against you and my CMT. I want this complaint accelerated to the highest appropriate person within CASA.
For perfect clarity. I wish to lodge a formal complaint at the highest levels available to me. I am of the opinion that you are “stalling” me and “buying time”. My complaint is against my Regional Manager and my CMT.
I feel that CASA actions compromise and degrade safety. Please clearly outline the procedure to ensure my complaint is being registered at the highest levels available to me.
My allegations will be highly substantive in nature. It is not appropriate that I am dealing with you, any more.I am going to be very direct and itemise my concerns and clarify the situation.
I require specific responses to my questions listed below.
1. At this stage I am extremely anxious to put any more money into APTA until CASA has this fully resolved. There will be no payments made for jobs until this is fully clarified and I have “clear and concise aviation safety standards. Please acknowledge this specific statement. As the Business Owner that is a reasonable request. I am a Business Owner given 7 days’ notice of a cessation of activities, and that is not based on a safety claim. This is absurd.
2. I am of the opinion that this action against me was triggered from within my own CMT. I have repeatedly tried to clarify this, and you continue to ignore my query. Can you allay my concerns? Can you confirm that the “trigger” was generated by my own CMT or was it initiated elsewhere? An answer to that question ill assist me to ascertain if my own CMT is acting to bring harm to me and my Business. You have chosen to repeatedly ignore this request and quite simply that is not fair. The request is reasonable and must be attended to.
3. In the interests of safety, I have made repeated requests to have a change of CMT. The request is reasonable. Can you specifically address this request? It has been made repeatedly of you. The request is based on safety concerns. It is unreasonable that you continue to ignore this request.
4. I am formally requesting that this matter be passed on to someone other than yourself. As you were the signatory to the letter that initiated the cation, it is reasonable that I think you could be complicit in bringing harm to me and my Business. My claims are valid. They are against you and the CMT. Therefore, I formally request that you hand this matter over to someone within CASA that has my confidence and trust. Understandably for me, you are not the person that I should be dealing with.
5. APTA has repeatedly advised that the contracts are available for viewing on site. The contents of the contracts are identical to the ones that have been provided to you numerous occasions, many months ago. You already have all of the information in order to make a determination. The only difference being that the filed contracts are “signed” and “dated”. The signature and date are not important to you being able to decide. Therefore, I do not feel it relevant. Can you specifically identify if it is the signature that is critical to your determination? As I stated before, you have had all required information, prior to initiating this action, so I do not feel that they are relevant. Your request must be valid and have a justifiable reason.
Your action is currently and continuing to bring harm to me and my Business. I wish to discuss with the relevant person within CASA reimbursement and potentially compensation. Can you please clearly outline the procedure. In summary. I wish my complaint to be accelerated. I require a response by 5PM today. I need to try and go into this weekend carrying reduced stress levels. It is imperative. Glen Buckley
Dear XXXXXXX,
Thankyou for your letter. I appreciate the effort that is being put into the clarification around the aviation safety standards. That’s probably more of an issue to be resolved within CASA and I need to focus on minimising the impact on me. Its already dragged on way too long.
This has gone more than two weeks, and quite frankly I am at the “end of my tether”. I am exhausted, stressed, anxious and need this to come to an end. I cannot be affected by CASA trying to “get its house in order”.
Most importantly, the impact on me. I will be short and blunt. Seriously, just stop for one minute and imagine how I feel. I have an enormous burden on me. Far too much, and to be frank, I just want this over. I am extremely worried about my health and welfare. Your action against me has caused harm to me.
Your action was highly inappropriate, and it has affected me. It is unfair and bullying and intimidating in its nature.My complaint is against you and my CMT. I want this complaint accelerated to the highest appropriate person within CASA.
For perfect clarity. I wish to lodge a formal complaint at the highest levels available to me. I am of the opinion that you are “stalling” me and “buying time”. My complaint is against my Regional Manager and my CMT.
I feel that CASA actions compromise and degrade safety. Please clearly outline the procedure to ensure my complaint is being registered at the highest levels available to me.
My allegations will be highly substantive in nature. It is not appropriate that I am dealing with you, any more.I am going to be very direct and itemise my concerns and clarify the situation.
I require specific responses to my questions listed below.
1. At this stage I am extremely anxious to put any more money into APTA until CASA has this fully resolved. There will be no payments made for jobs until this is fully clarified and I have “clear and concise aviation safety standards. Please acknowledge this specific statement. As the Business Owner that is a reasonable request. I am a Business Owner given 7 days’ notice of a cessation of activities, and that is not based on a safety claim. This is absurd.
2. I am of the opinion that this action against me was triggered from within my own CMT. I have repeatedly tried to clarify this, and you continue to ignore my query. Can you allay my concerns? Can you confirm that the “trigger” was generated by my own CMT or was it initiated elsewhere? An answer to that question ill assist me to ascertain if my own CMT is acting to bring harm to me and my Business. You have chosen to repeatedly ignore this request and quite simply that is not fair. The request is reasonable and must be attended to.
3. In the interests of safety, I have made repeated requests to have a change of CMT. The request is reasonable. Can you specifically address this request? It has been made repeatedly of you. The request is based on safety concerns. It is unreasonable that you continue to ignore this request.
4. I am formally requesting that this matter be passed on to someone other than yourself. As you were the signatory to the letter that initiated the cation, it is reasonable that I think you could be complicit in bringing harm to me and my Business. My claims are valid. They are against you and the CMT. Therefore, I formally request that you hand this matter over to someone within CASA that has my confidence and trust. Understandably for me, you are not the person that I should be dealing with.
5. APTA has repeatedly advised that the contracts are available for viewing on site. The contents of the contracts are identical to the ones that have been provided to you numerous occasions, many months ago. You already have all of the information in order to make a determination. The only difference being that the filed contracts are “signed” and “dated”. The signature and date are not important to you being able to decide. Therefore, I do not feel it relevant. Can you specifically identify if it is the signature that is critical to your determination? As I stated before, you have had all required information, prior to initiating this action, so I do not feel that they are relevant. Your request must be valid and have a justifiable reason.
Your action is currently and continuing to bring harm to me and my Business. I wish to discuss with the relevant person within CASA reimbursement and potentially compensation. Can you please clearly outline the procedure. In summary. I wish my complaint to be accelerated. I require a response by 5PM today. I need to try and go into this weekend carrying reduced stress levels. It is imperative. Glen Buckley
Thread Starter
14/11/18 Write to the Minister only to be completely ignored
Dear Steve (apologies I was unable to obtain your surname, so apologise for the familiairity)
I am the CEO of the Australian Pilot Training Alliance and I am having some significant difficulties with CASA.
I have also some substantive complaints about the nature in which they have acted.
This will lead to a full cessation of all our operations by weeks end, and I will be notifying all parties of that today.
I have attempted to resolve this within CASA, but the timelines are not acceptable for resolution. I do not want to appear comabative, although shortly I will be forced to engage the media. Prior to that my very strong preference is to have one last opportunity for a face to face meeting. Can I respectfully request that you establish contact with me on my mobile 0418772013, at you very earliest opportunity.
Thanking you in anticipation of your consideration.
Cheers. Glen Buckley
I am the CEO of the Australian Pilot Training Alliance and I am having some significant difficulties with CASA.
I have also some substantive complaints about the nature in which they have acted.
This will lead to a full cessation of all our operations by weeks end, and I will be notifying all parties of that today.
I have attempted to resolve this within CASA, but the timelines are not acceptable for resolution. I do not want to appear comabative, although shortly I will be forced to engage the media. Prior to that my very strong preference is to have one last opportunity for a face to face meeting. Can I respectfully request that you establish contact with me on my mobile 0418772013, at you very earliest opportunity.
Thanking you in anticipation of your consideration.
Cheers. Glen Buckley