Glen Buckley and Australian small business -V- CASA
Yep I reckon this approach is the only way, yes it appears the legal wheels will turn. What would CASA try to suppress? Probably all of it. If what Glen is writing is 100% factual (and I have no reason to doubt it) then even Joe Public could read this and see he was screwed.
In this new world of social media using it to your advantage is smart.
When the empire touched me up a little it was because I gave up, knew I didn’t have the coin to fight.
This is going to be interesting, my gut feeling is the empire must now realise they have started an Royal Rumble of WWF proportions.
No doubt Glens legal eagles will be taking over shortly.
From reading all, he has appealed to the empire, short of begging for a response and nothing. Now imagine if this was private enterprise!
GOOD LUCK, gloves on!!!
In this new world of social media using it to your advantage is smart.
When the empire touched me up a little it was because I gave up, knew I didn’t have the coin to fight.
This is going to be interesting, my gut feeling is the empire must now realise they have started an Royal Rumble of WWF proportions.
No doubt Glens legal eagles will be taking over shortly.
From reading all, he has appealed to the empire, short of begging for a response and nothing. Now imagine if this was private enterprise!
GOOD LUCK, gloves on!!!
Join Date: Aug 2019
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would certainly be agreeing with Smalahove & urging some caution here
I can't see what benefit posting letters , & words written when you are annoyed brings you - how is this going to move you forward ?
It will only make the Regulator more determined to maintain their position
Litigation's in the mid-level & superior courts go on for years & the costs of getting to trial are immense($100K) , not without considering the costs of running a trial ($10K per day)
Everyday people are destroyed in the civil courts every week in Australia , often by their own lawyers who won't hesitate to bankrupt their own clients who can't pay their fees.
Do you really want to spend the next 3 + years of your life doing "litigation" - you won't have time for anything else , this will consume you
What is your "cause of action" ? , do you have one ?
I wish you well Glen but you have to be careful what you wish for
I can't see what benefit posting letters , & words written when you are annoyed brings you - how is this going to move you forward ?
It will only make the Regulator more determined to maintain their position
Litigation's in the mid-level & superior courts go on for years & the costs of getting to trial are immense($100K) , not without considering the costs of running a trial ($10K per day)
Everyday people are destroyed in the civil courts every week in Australia , often by their own lawyers who won't hesitate to bankrupt their own clients who can't pay their fees.
Do you really want to spend the next 3 + years of your life doing "litigation" - you won't have time for anything else , this will consume you
What is your "cause of action" ? , do you have one ?
I wish you well Glen but you have to be careful what you wish for
smalahove/;
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Canada
Posts: 28
Man, you have to stop this ****.
This tactic of writing letters to people within CASA and simultaneously posting them to PPRuNe HAS NOT WORKED.
And it WILL not work.
You need to understand that you will never, ever, defeat these guys using this tactic. It has cost you everything, and still you continue.
Please, for god's sake man, get a lawyer NOW. I am begging you. If'd you'd done so at the outset, you'd be in an entirely different place right now.
Somebody needed to say this, and nobody has stepped up.
There is no hope of success here without proper legal representation, and the first thing your lawyer will tell you is DO NOT CONTACT CASA AGAIN!
I started out thinking the same as you. It works when you are dealing with government in an environment where both sides adhere to the principles of fairness, equity and natural justice.
However it appears, although we haven’t heard CASAs explanation, that Glen has been denied that - something that CASA appears to get away with, at least in the AAT, by shouting: “but........SAFETY!!!!
While I could be mistaken, the issue at hand is how can Glen one day be told what he is doing is right, yet the next day it’s all wrong and we will shut him down? Nothing about “SAFETY’.
So Glen has taken his case to the court of public opinion, which seems far more powerful than other courts.
P.S I wouldn’t just be writing to politicians. I’d produce a press pack and send it to every paper, magazine, internet blog, current affairs program and radio station in the country. The pack starts with a press release (a specialised document, don’t try and write it without expert media help), an explanatory plain english section with no jargon and contact and website details. That worked for me after fighting with an Insurance company. I went through all the hoops but they still told me to eff off.
I wrote to the CEO and told him I had sent my paperwork to the ACCC, The Insurance complaints review tribunal and that the press pack was going out tomorrow with the heading ‘on the release: “xxxx your a sucker not a number”. He rang me two hours later saying “how much?”. He then explained the effect negative publicity would have on his business.
Your press release suggested heading? “So you want to reduce red tape Prime Minister?.
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Canada
Posts: 28
Man, you have to stop this ****.
This tactic of writing letters to people within CASA and simultaneously posting them to PPRuNe HAS NOT WORKED.
And it WILL not work.
You need to understand that you will never, ever, defeat these guys using this tactic. It has cost you everything, and still you continue.
Please, for god's sake man, get a lawyer NOW. I am begging you. If'd you'd done so at the outset, you'd be in an entirely different place right now.
Somebody needed to say this, and nobody has stepped up.
There is no hope of success here without proper legal representation, and the first thing your lawyer will tell you is DO NOT CONTACT CASA AGAIN!
However it appears, although we haven’t heard CASAs explanation, that Glen has been denied that - something that CASA appears to get away with, at least in the AAT, by shouting: “but........SAFETY!!!!
While I could be mistaken, the issue at hand is how can Glen one day be told what he is doing is right, yet the next day it’s all wrong and we will shut him down? Nothing about “SAFETY’.
So Glen has taken his case to the court of public opinion, which seems far more powerful than other courts.
P.S I wouldn’t just be writing to politicians. I’d produce a press pack and send it to every paper, magazine, internet blog, current affairs program and radio station in the country. The pack starts with a press release (a specialised document, don’t try and write it without expert media help), an explanatory plain english section with no jargon and contact and website details. That worked for me after fighting with an Insurance company. I went through all the hoops but they still told me to eff off.
I wrote to the CEO and told him I had sent my paperwork to the ACCC, The Insurance complaints review tribunal and that the press pack was going out tomorrow with the heading ‘on the release: “xxxx your a sucker not a number”. He rang me two hours later saying “how much?”. He then explained the effect negative publicity would have on his business.
Your press release suggested heading? “So you want to reduce red tape Prime Minister?.
Sunny, in cases against CASA the AAT have sided, so no amount of lobbing Senators will count.
There is a parallel with Immigration playing out now over deportation - backed by many, to their Senators to stand up but nothing. (But au pairs are fine to intervene on a Sunday.)
The press pack is required and a well produced one at that.
There is a parallel with Immigration playing out now over deportation - backed by many, to their Senators to stand up but nothing. (But au pairs are fine to intervene on a Sunday.)
The press pack is required and a well produced one at that.
Jason McHeyzer was a RAAF Navigator in a previous life. It appears he was responsible for the regulatory mess CASA are in. The following link makes interesting reading.
https://www.afap.org.au/LinkClick.as...%3D&portalid=0
Looking at the CASA board I am less than impressed. Even the Minister the Board report to is a lame duck. I am of the opinion there is a conflict of interest having the CEO and Director of Aviation Safety as a CASA Board Member.
https://www.afap.org.au/LinkClick.as...%3D&portalid=0
Looking at the CASA board I am less than impressed. Even the Minister the Board report to is a lame duck. I am of the opinion there is a conflict of interest having the CEO and Director of Aviation Safety as a CASA Board Member.
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Santa Barbara
Posts: 912
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The press has started, Australian Flying, a very well respected part of Australian Aviation had the courage to publish on this. Steve Hitchen must be commended for this. If he has a licence he is putting it at risk in the fight against this mob. Most of us have something to lose here, when any of us speak out, CASA will target us. It's a pretty poor state of affairs when you have to donate anonymously, you can't put your name to it because CASA, monitoring this thread, will get you. I have first hand proof of this, it WILL come out when this goes further as the person with the proof has stated they will testify if required.
Glen, I speak to people who've never met you, they are donating, they are making appointments with their local members.
Keep it up, you will have many ups and downs through this. But the most uplifting part of your story is when you have nothing left to lose it's a massive weight off your shoulders.
I don't think people know just how much Glen has lost here. EVERYTHING materially and more. Glen could have easily moved out of GA, but he didn't. GA was his passion, he bought a SIM that was the best on the field at the time. MFT pumped because of his customer focus. I'd never seen anything like it at the time. None of the schools I attended previously came close. MFT CPL graduates pulled jobs on Glen's reputation.
As far as I'm concerned, if this fight is lost, it's all over.
Glen, I speak to people who've never met you, they are donating, they are making appointments with their local members.
Keep it up, you will have many ups and downs through this. But the most uplifting part of your story is when you have nothing left to lose it's a massive weight off your shoulders.
I don't think people know just how much Glen has lost here. EVERYTHING materially and more. Glen could have easily moved out of GA, but he didn't. GA was his passion, he bought a SIM that was the best on the field at the time. MFT pumped because of his customer focus. I'd never seen anything like it at the time. None of the schools I attended previously came close. MFT CPL graduates pulled jobs on Glen's reputation.
As far as I'm concerned, if this fight is lost, it's all over.
If he has a licence he is putting it at risk in the fight against this mob.
Most of us have something to lose here, when any of us speak out, CASA will target us.
It's a pretty poor state of affairs when you have to donate anonymously, you can't put your name to it because CASA, monitoring this thread, will get you.
I have first hand proof of this, it WILL come out when this goes further as the person with the proof has stated they will testify if required.
Most of us have something to lose here, when any of us speak out, CASA will target us.
It's a pretty poor state of affairs when you have to donate anonymously, you can't put your name to it because CASA, monitoring this thread, will get you.
I have first hand proof of this, it WILL come out when this goes further as the person with the proof has stated they will testify if required.
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Canada
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If the empire did that it would be akin to bullying in the workplace...
Public perception will play a huge media roll as this progresses. It truly is becoming the Aussie battler story.
I certainly ain’t no lawyer but isn’t 99.99% of what’s been written direct copies of one side of the correspondence?
Hats off to all and sundry who have donated, my name adding to the list.
I just can’t see this going away now or being swept under the rug.....
Public perception will play a huge media roll as this progresses. It truly is becoming the Aussie battler story.
I certainly ain’t no lawyer but isn’t 99.99% of what’s been written direct copies of one side of the correspondence?
Hats off to all and sundry who have donated, my name adding to the list.
I just can’t see this going away now or being swept under the rug.....
Thread Starter
Smalahove
Hi Smalahove.
First and formost, thankyou for supporting me. I will be honest, a small business owners battle half away around the world, probably wouldn't stir me enough to pull out my credit card, and that's the honest truth. You gesture is sincerely and humbly appreciated.
You mentioned that we may never meet. I hope that isn't so. I hope in fact, that everybody on here has the opportunity to meet me face to face and identify themselves. I would appreciate the opportunity to give you a good long handshake, look you straight in the eye, and thankyou.
I do have one particular request for you however Smalahove, after googling your "handle". Can we please go out for dinner, rather than you go to the trouble of cooking, and ahhh, I might choose the restaurant if that's ok.
Someone suggested recently that I should perhaps wind back the clock a bit and provide a background to the current situation, which will be my next post.
Smalahove, may I ask your drink of choice?What would go down well with that?
First and formost, thankyou for supporting me. I will be honest, a small business owners battle half away around the world, probably wouldn't stir me enough to pull out my credit card, and that's the honest truth. You gesture is sincerely and humbly appreciated.
You mentioned that we may never meet. I hope that isn't so. I hope in fact, that everybody on here has the opportunity to meet me face to face and identify themselves. I would appreciate the opportunity to give you a good long handshake, look you straight in the eye, and thankyou.
I do have one particular request for you however Smalahove, after googling your "handle". Can we please go out for dinner, rather than you go to the trouble of cooking, and ahhh, I might choose the restaurant if that's ok.
Someone suggested recently that I should perhaps wind back the clock a bit and provide a background to the current situation, which will be my next post.
Smalahove, may I ask your drink of choice?What would go down well with that?
Thread Starter
Legislative background
Following is a historical overview to the current situation. Cheers. Glen.
March 2002 In March 2002 CASA commenced the“Part 142 Project”. It was scheduled for completion of implementation in 2005.There was no mention that schools such as mine would lose access to the Integrated 150 hour CPL which my Business derived 90% of its income from.
July 2003 CASA released Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM312FS). It made no mention that schools such as mine would lose access to the Integrtaed 150 hour CPL
2006 I opened my Business, and in accordance with my Business Plan derived 90% of my revenue by delivering the 150 hour CPL. There had been no suggestion that schools such as mine were to lose access to the 150-hour CPL.
December 2011 CASA produced a consultation draft of the upcoming legislation. It made no mention of the loss of the 150-hour CPL to my Business. It dealt entirely with other non-related matters.
December 2012 CASA released the Regulation Impact Statement
February 2013 Part 61/141/142 became law and was scheduled to commence on 4th December 2013. This was a complete overhaul of the entire legislative framework.
Early November 2013 Repeated CASA assurances that new legislation was commencing on 4th December 2013, despite the fact that it appeared to Industry CASA would not be ready.
Mid November 2013 CASA reversed decision and announced delay to Part 61/141/142 until 1st September 2014. This had a cost impact on the business as significant resources had been diverted to the project.
September 2014 New legislation commenced and schools had until September 1st 2017 to Transition to what was classified as a Part 141 (lower category) or Part 142 (higher category school)
April 2017 APTA completed Transition approximately 4 months ahead of schedule.
In December 2012, CASA released the Regulation Impact Statement (RIS) on the impact of the new regulations (Part 61/141/142) on Industry. This Regulation Impact Statement covered in detail the proposed CASA changes and their impact on Industry. Significant decisions were made by CASA based on this document, and my own Business depended on its contents. I trusted it, and it was grossly inaccurate. With the passage of time that statement is easily supported and 100% of Industry will concur.
I will draw your attention to the section that addressed the impact on business.g with the impact of the proposed regulations on Businesses
“Businesses- The existing flight crew training businesses will be required to meet new standards, however, again, whilst these represent a deviation from existing standards the changes are relatively minor, which is supported by the feedback that CASA obtained from the consultation process”
There can be no doubt that statement was grossly incorrect. In fact the changes were the biggest changes ever to the flight training industry in Australia, and that has been the experience of the entire industry.
Importantly, the RIS still did not mention any suggestion that my Business was to lose access to the 150-hour CPL. We now know that the RIS was substandard at least.
Under FOI I obtained documentation and I wholeheartedly disagree with the statement, “which is supported by the feedback that CASA obtained from the consultation process”. The information released to me by CASA under FOI does not support that contention and in fact I claim that to be an untruth.
In fact the proposed changes were not supported by feedback from Industry.
The new legislation was scheduled to commence on December 4th 2013.I prepared as best as I could. This included contractual obligations with staff and significant diverting of resources. This process was made substantially more difficult as CASA obviously had not finalised most of the supporting material, and particularly did not have a finalised Manual of Standards which was the underpinning document for flight schools to prepare. I asked CASA if there was any guidance material to prepare. I was told that “the expectation was that a Part 142 School would have the capability to do it without guidance material.
I had invested significant time and resources into developing my own material, when CASA reversed its decision and in fact released guidance material. My investment in time and resources had been wasted, and the process re-commenced drawing on aspects of the guidance material.
In early November 2013, I received repeated assurances from CASA that the legislation was proceeding in approximately 5 weeks’ time on December 4th 2013. This seemed absurd to me as CASA had not finalised the Manual of Standards (MOS) which was the underpinning and essential document for Flying Schools. CASA repeatedly assured me the legislation was proceeding. Nevertheless, the investment was made, and I was prepared.
Two weeks later CASA reversed their decision, and delayed the commencement until September 1st 2014, with a requirement for Businesses to have completed the Transition to a Part 142 Organisation by September 1st 2017.
My Organisation was one of less than 10% of Australia’s schools that met the CASA deadline of September 1st 2017, as I was required to, and in accordance with CASAs desire for Organisations to Transition as soon as possible. I achieved a date of May 2017, approximately 4 months early. The number of hours devoted to this project was significantly in excess of 2000 hours , and that is in line with other operators experiences.
One month after I completed the Transition, CASA announced yet a further extension to the deadline of September 1st, 2018. I estimate the cost of that delay to my Business to be conservatively a further $600,000 in direct costs. I was effectively left with a “white elephant” but stuck with the additional costings associated with the 142 Approval.
In September of 2018, CASA introduced the delayed legislation.
March 2002 In March 2002 CASA commenced the“Part 142 Project”. It was scheduled for completion of implementation in 2005.There was no mention that schools such as mine would lose access to the Integrated 150 hour CPL which my Business derived 90% of its income from.
July 2003 CASA released Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM312FS). It made no mention that schools such as mine would lose access to the Integrtaed 150 hour CPL
2006 I opened my Business, and in accordance with my Business Plan derived 90% of my revenue by delivering the 150 hour CPL. There had been no suggestion that schools such as mine were to lose access to the 150-hour CPL.
December 2011 CASA produced a consultation draft of the upcoming legislation. It made no mention of the loss of the 150-hour CPL to my Business. It dealt entirely with other non-related matters.
December 2012 CASA released the Regulation Impact Statement
February 2013 Part 61/141/142 became law and was scheduled to commence on 4th December 2013. This was a complete overhaul of the entire legislative framework.
Early November 2013 Repeated CASA assurances that new legislation was commencing on 4th December 2013, despite the fact that it appeared to Industry CASA would not be ready.
Mid November 2013 CASA reversed decision and announced delay to Part 61/141/142 until 1st September 2014. This had a cost impact on the business as significant resources had been diverted to the project.
September 2014 New legislation commenced and schools had until September 1st 2017 to Transition to what was classified as a Part 141 (lower category) or Part 142 (higher category school)
April 2017 APTA completed Transition approximately 4 months ahead of schedule.
In December 2012, CASA released the Regulation Impact Statement (RIS) on the impact of the new regulations (Part 61/141/142) on Industry. This Regulation Impact Statement covered in detail the proposed CASA changes and their impact on Industry. Significant decisions were made by CASA based on this document, and my own Business depended on its contents. I trusted it, and it was grossly inaccurate. With the passage of time that statement is easily supported and 100% of Industry will concur.
I will draw your attention to the section that addressed the impact on business.g with the impact of the proposed regulations on Businesses
“Businesses- The existing flight crew training businesses will be required to meet new standards, however, again, whilst these represent a deviation from existing standards the changes are relatively minor, which is supported by the feedback that CASA obtained from the consultation process”
There can be no doubt that statement was grossly incorrect. In fact the changes were the biggest changes ever to the flight training industry in Australia, and that has been the experience of the entire industry.
Importantly, the RIS still did not mention any suggestion that my Business was to lose access to the 150-hour CPL. We now know that the RIS was substandard at least.
Under FOI I obtained documentation and I wholeheartedly disagree with the statement, “which is supported by the feedback that CASA obtained from the consultation process”. The information released to me by CASA under FOI does not support that contention and in fact I claim that to be an untruth.
In fact the proposed changes were not supported by feedback from Industry.
The new legislation was scheduled to commence on December 4th 2013.I prepared as best as I could. This included contractual obligations with staff and significant diverting of resources. This process was made substantially more difficult as CASA obviously had not finalised most of the supporting material, and particularly did not have a finalised Manual of Standards which was the underpinning document for flight schools to prepare. I asked CASA if there was any guidance material to prepare. I was told that “the expectation was that a Part 142 School would have the capability to do it without guidance material.
I had invested significant time and resources into developing my own material, when CASA reversed its decision and in fact released guidance material. My investment in time and resources had been wasted, and the process re-commenced drawing on aspects of the guidance material.
In early November 2013, I received repeated assurances from CASA that the legislation was proceeding in approximately 5 weeks’ time on December 4th 2013. This seemed absurd to me as CASA had not finalised the Manual of Standards (MOS) which was the underpinning and essential document for Flying Schools. CASA repeatedly assured me the legislation was proceeding. Nevertheless, the investment was made, and I was prepared.
Two weeks later CASA reversed their decision, and delayed the commencement until September 1st 2014, with a requirement for Businesses to have completed the Transition to a Part 142 Organisation by September 1st 2017.
My Organisation was one of less than 10% of Australia’s schools that met the CASA deadline of September 1st 2017, as I was required to, and in accordance with CASAs desire for Organisations to Transition as soon as possible. I achieved a date of May 2017, approximately 4 months early. The number of hours devoted to this project was significantly in excess of 2000 hours , and that is in line with other operators experiences.
One month after I completed the Transition, CASA announced yet a further extension to the deadline of September 1st, 2018. I estimate the cost of that delay to my Business to be conservatively a further $600,000 in direct costs. I was effectively left with a “white elephant” but stuck with the additional costings associated with the 142 Approval.
In September of 2018, CASA introduced the delayed legislation.
"...in cases against CASA the AAT have sided..."
From an article by Paul Phelan in Australian Flying:
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.
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.
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.
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.
"....so no amount of lobbing Senators will count."
CASA hates being questioned by politicians. Warren Entsch MP has been known to bring pressure on CASA.It appears Glen Buckley has been stone walled, hung out to dry, denied natural justice and review in an appropriate Court. He has nothing more to give or lose. This forum and selected media is now his only recourse, as all other avenues have been denied by CASA.
I'm impressed with how his plight has motived a very wide cross section of the Australian aviation industry. Even this PPRuNe thread now has 432 posts, 168,298 views and assisted in raising $20,808 from 111 concerned people. The funds raised may not reach the $50,000 for a lawyer review, but they certainly give Glen funds to keep fighting.
I suspect a few in CASA may be concerned with how and when this will all end.
From an article by Paul Phelan in Australian Flying:
Quote:
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.
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.
https://www.ch-aviation.com/portal/airline/7UZ
Interesting as are the related topics below.
A skilfully mismanaged stuffup | Pro Aviation
Quote:
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.
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.
https://www.ch-aviation.com/portal/airline/7UZ
Interesting as are the related topics below.
A skilfully mismanaged stuffup | Pro Aviation
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.
To clarify, whilst Uzu Air's AOC was restored and they were awarded one of the first "low capacity RPT" AOC's by the Director of CASA personally at Horn Island, 66 days grounding and the loss of over $300,000 took their toll and the company was eventually voluntarily wound up for financial reasons. (Even then, vindictive forces within CASA tried to embarrass the Director for "taking control of an aircraft", a totally fallacious accusation).
Exactly what it appears a totally unaccountable CASA are now trying to do to Glen Buckley.
As a CASA FOI (one of the honest guys!) mentioned to me at the time "If CASA was required to hold an AOC it would have been cancelled years ago!"
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: Currently: A landlocked country with high terrain, otherwise Melbourne, Australia + Washington D.C.
Posts: 396
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To clarify, whilst Uzu Air's AOC was restored and they were awarded one of the first "low capacity RPT" AOC's by the Director of CASA personally at Horn Island, 66 days grounding and the loss of over $300,000 took their toll and the company was eventually voluntarily wound up for financial reasons. (Even then, vindictive forces within CASA tried to embarrass the Director for "taking control of an aircraft", a totally fallacious accusation).
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Canada
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What would go down well with that?
Okihara, sue CASA for compensation - with what? The cash tin was empty.
Do you have any idea what it costs to sue the Commonwealth, or any entity with 24 million shareholders able to hide behind an Act of Parliament?
CASA knows it can operate totally unaccountable, denying natural justice and in a rogue manner outside the bounds of common decency.
It harbours a select group, devoid of morals, unable to get real jobs. The sad part is that the honest, competent professionals within CASA - and there have been many over the years - ultimately get frustrated and leave.
Do you have any idea what it costs to sue the Commonwealth, or any entity with 24 million shareholders able to hide behind an Act of Parliament?
CASA knows it can operate totally unaccountable, denying natural justice and in a rogue manner outside the bounds of common decency.
It harbours a select group, devoid of morals, unable to get real jobs. The sad part is that the honest, competent professionals within CASA - and there have been many over the years - ultimately get frustrated and leave.
Thread Starter
I call it the "alternating CASA narrative"
The Executive Manager of Regulatory Services and Surveillance travels from Canberra to Melbourne to overview APTA on Friday 11th January 2019.
He elects to extend his visit an additional day, so that he can conduct an onsite visit to the Ballarat operation on Saturday 12th January 2019.
That visit proceeded, and in fact the aero club received an email from the Executive Manager of Regulatory Services CASA.
That email stated
“ I thank you, fellow Board Members and staff from the BAC for your briefings on Saturday 12 January. My observations and the feedback provided provides strong support for the APTA model, and more importantly, evidence for a model that can assist ongoing flight training by regional and/or smaller aviation providers in a contemporary regulatory environment. My appreciation to you all – safe flying”
I was very much under the impression that the “revised CASA view” was very supportive, based on the above email.
In more recent correspondence released by CASA they have tried to paint a picture that there were concerns about the Ballarat operation. This “backflip” by CASA concerned me so I sent the following request under Freedom Of Information request on 20/08/19
Dear Mr Gobbitt, On Saturday 12th January 2019 , Mr XXXXXXXX, attended the Ballarat Aero Club to make his own assessment of APTA. He did this in his senior position as the Executive Manager Regulatory Service and Surveillance. Under FOI, may I request the notes that were made by him related to that site visit. Thanking you in anticipation of your co-operation, respectfully, Glen.
The response from CASA to the Freedom of Information request;
“I am the decision maker for your request. In accordance with subparagraph 24A(1)(b)(ii) of the ACT, I refuse your request for access as I am satisfied the documents you are seeking do not exist
Really?, One of CASA most senior executives travels from Canberra to Melbourne to look first hand at APTA. He then elects to gret a hotel and a rental vehicle and stay an extra day, and travels down to Ballarat Aero Club (1 ˝ hour drive), spends a significant amount of time talking to everyone, gains a positive overview, and heads back to Canberra. Surely there would be something. Some kind of a report. Anything.
Of course it could be that the report was so supportive, that it had to “disappear”. It was clearly stated to me and my father that report would be prepared. I would reasonably expect that to happen. I cannot accept that “the document does not exist”
Side note. The Executive Manager Regulatory Services and Surveillance reports directly to the Head of the Aviation Group, Mr Graeme Crawford.
He elects to extend his visit an additional day, so that he can conduct an onsite visit to the Ballarat operation on Saturday 12th January 2019.
That visit proceeded, and in fact the aero club received an email from the Executive Manager of Regulatory Services CASA.
That email stated
“ I thank you, fellow Board Members and staff from the BAC for your briefings on Saturday 12 January. My observations and the feedback provided provides strong support for the APTA model, and more importantly, evidence for a model that can assist ongoing flight training by regional and/or smaller aviation providers in a contemporary regulatory environment. My appreciation to you all – safe flying”
I was very much under the impression that the “revised CASA view” was very supportive, based on the above email.
In more recent correspondence released by CASA they have tried to paint a picture that there were concerns about the Ballarat operation. This “backflip” by CASA concerned me so I sent the following request under Freedom Of Information request on 20/08/19
Dear Mr Gobbitt, On Saturday 12th January 2019 , Mr XXXXXXXX, attended the Ballarat Aero Club to make his own assessment of APTA. He did this in his senior position as the Executive Manager Regulatory Service and Surveillance. Under FOI, may I request the notes that were made by him related to that site visit. Thanking you in anticipation of your co-operation, respectfully, Glen.
The response from CASA to the Freedom of Information request;
“I am the decision maker for your request. In accordance with subparagraph 24A(1)(b)(ii) of the ACT, I refuse your request for access as I am satisfied the documents you are seeking do not exist
Really?, One of CASA most senior executives travels from Canberra to Melbourne to look first hand at APTA. He then elects to gret a hotel and a rental vehicle and stay an extra day, and travels down to Ballarat Aero Club (1 ˝ hour drive), spends a significant amount of time talking to everyone, gains a positive overview, and heads back to Canberra. Surely there would be something. Some kind of a report. Anything.
Of course it could be that the report was so supportive, that it had to “disappear”. It was clearly stated to me and my father that report would be prepared. I would reasonably expect that to happen. I cannot accept that “the document does not exist”
Side note. The Executive Manager Regulatory Services and Surveillance reports directly to the Head of the Aviation Group, Mr Graeme Crawford.