Glen Buckley and Australian small business -V- CASA

[McLimit]

and you have a formal invite to GA biggest ever Party when this is over!

Even bigger than the proposed spa parties on the back balcony at Bundoora Pde?

[Pinky the pilot]

To Minister McCormack;
You and your Government have, and are, spending billions of dollars to supposedly save taxpayers ongoing pain during the COVID-19 pandemic. And in normal Government style you and your Government are also pissing away billions of dollars on fighter planes, submarines, international wars and other ****e funded by taxpayers. My challenge to you is for you to prove you are actually a man with a decent set of testicles and the tiniest moral compass and for you to expedite an immediate payment to Mr Buckley and to right the wrongs that this man and his family have been put through at the hands of the Federal Government.

Seconded.

[Sunfish]

If this alleged behavior has occurred remotely like what Glen has stated, then nobody can or will invest in Australian GA Aviation in future because it will be seen to be too risky....except perhaps a few "get rich quick" shonks.

[Paragraph377]

Originally Posted by Sunfish

If this alleged behavior has occurred remotely like what Glen has stated, then nobody can or will invest in Australian GA Aviation in future because it will be seen to be too risky....except perhaps a few "get rich quick" shonks.

Sunfish, ‘remotely’ is an understatement. This behaviour has certainly occurred, and unfortunately for Glen it occurred to him, and many prior to him. This is also one of the reasons that GA has officially died. Just one example is the canary in the coal mine, Bankstown airport. A once bustling airport filled with maintenance, training and recreational activities, abuzz with enthusiastic, passionate and safe operations that is now a ghost town. May as well turn the whole airport into a motor go-kart track. GA is dead.

[glenb]

PART ONE_Final copy of correspondence sent to Ombudsman today

10th February 2021.



APTA Submission to Ombudsman- Correspondence 2 of 4 submissions.



Dear Mark, Complaint Resolution Officer at the Commonwealth Ombudsman Office,

I am writing to clear up some misunderstandings that appear to have developed in the investigation to date, and to accept your offer of a telephone call with your office. I anticipate that could require up to 90 minutes, so respectfully request that you forward me some options that would be most practical for you, and I will make one of those options work. I would like the opportunity to clarify any matters raised in this correspondence.

Until these potential misunderstandings can be clarified, may I call on the Ombudsman’s Office to suspend the investigation, as any immediate determination would be made on information that is not correct. I appreciate that the technical nature of this issue may result in delays as your office seeks the information that it requires and respect that you may need to draw on expert independent opinion.

I am fully satisfied that information has been provided to your office by CASAs Executive Management, with the intention of “engineering” CASAs desired outcome. It is imperative that I put these matters clearly on the record, and let your Office decide on which party is acting with integrity and working with sincerity towards a transparent process, and a fair outcome.



For clarity, I am fully satisfied that CASA has misled the Ombudsman’s Office.

To obtain a fair outcome, I believe it is essential that the Ombudsman’s Office, clarifies quite clearly that CASA had fully sanctioned and approved more than one entity to operate under an AOC in the flight training sector immediately prior to placing restrictions on my business, and that had always been the case.

APTA was in fact the first time that a system had been designed, over a two-year period, with 10 CASA personnel, and approved by CASA and audited by CASA, and in fact recommended to flying schools by CASA, that took a CASA accepted system and invested heavily to significantly improve it. i.e., with higher levels of operational control, a large and well-resourced safety department, high levels of internal auditing, frequent well documented Group meetings, dedicated Head Office, timely communications, standardised procedures, advanced IT systems, increased safety, a large team of highly qualified management drawn from the Airforce, Airlines and ex CASA personnel and compliance etc.



All to a demonstrably higher standard than was accepted practice in the industry, until that time. The intention is to set an industry-leading benchmark standard and pursue business opportunities in regional areas with an industry-leading group capability amongst the Australian owned sector of the industry. It was a big vision, highly dependent on CASA being well-intentioned and professional, and indeed acting lawfully.


All of this was delivered under the single CASA issued Authorisation/Air Operator Certificate, and as the Authorisation Holder, I was fully responsible and accountable for all operations under that AOC including all pilots that delivered flight training under my AOC, irrespective of which base they worked at, or if they were paid by me, or someone else. That factor was irrelevant as far as maintaining operational control.



Even if an instructor wanted to teach on a voluntary basis to teach Scouts or for his own pleasure, If he or she did it under my AOC, I was responsible, and that pilot operated in accordance with our Exposition (operations manuals) Where the income for the pilot is derived from is irrelevant. I am responsible for the operation delivered under my AOC, by every pilot, on every occasion.

For clarity going forward, there are three separate and distinct issues.

1. CASA closing down APTA without any prior notice by placing restrictions on its ability to trade that deprived it of revenue, and that the CASA personnel involved would have been fully aware that those restrictions would lead to the business's closure.

2. The direction that I had to transfer my remaining flying school, Melbourne Flight Training, to the new owners of APTA, in what CASA called “direct operational control”. Something never previously applied to a flying school before, and with no basis in law.

3. The direction that the CASA Region Manager directed my Employer that my continuing employment was “not tenable.”

I have finalised my correspondence with you on the matter of point 3, so this correspondence relates to Point 1 only, and I will write to you on Point 2 within the next 10 days.

There will be a fourth and final submission approximately 10 days after that, and it will outline the impact of the CASA action on my family, suppliers, staff, customers etc. I feel that it is important to have an appreciation of this impact, in determining whether CASA's action was reasonable in the circumstances. As you are aware throughout the 8-month period before I lost my business, I did write to CASA on multiple occasions and clearly identified the commercial impact of their actions. They were known to CASA personnel, and they would have been fully aware of the commercial impact at the time of making their decisions, and in fact, this knowledge would have formed part of their decision making. Therefore, I feel it is pertinent to any allegation of misconduct if I were to make one, that known and foreseeable consequences are considered in determining if CASAs actions and decisions were reasonable in the circumstances.

I would like the opportunity to draw your attention to the following considerations in arriving at your final report:

Prior to presenting the considerations, I do want to clarify the following:.

CASA did make a determination that the CASA business model was illegal. CASA did contact all of my customers, CASA advised we were operating illegally,and CASA did force each of those existing Members to leave APTA. They were given no option. By CASA forcing all customers to leave APTA, that obviously led to the failure of the business



The basis for CASA forcing all members to exit APTA, including my own business, was that the structure was unlawful, and that was the reason for CASAs decision to apply restrictions on the business's ability to trade.



Twelve months after CASA had finalized all customers leaving APTA the Ombudsman report was released and quite clearly found that the structure was not illegal. On this matter, I refer you to Consideration One. Despite all of my other concerns raised by the process, the fundamental point is that CASA did close down the business, and had no lawful basis to do so.



Now that the Ombudsman’s report has been released and found, “no Australian legislation prohibited franchising of an AOC subject only to the exclusivity of the AOC Holders operational control,” CASAs entire basis for their action is unlawful”.



In the second part of his finding he goes on to state; “subject only to the exclusivity of the AOC Holders operational control.



It would be likely that CASA would now retrospectively change their argument to one of “operational control”. I welcome the opportunity to demonstrate how APTA provided industry leading levels of operational control, that was known to CASA.



In rough figures the APTA concept required approximately $1,000,000 to operate per annum, to maintain or exceed the CASA requirements for suitable operational control. The Business model was built on ten members sharing equally in the operating costs of the structure. As CASA forced each customer to depart, that left me subsidising the cost of delivery of APTA, which became unviable with no customers. CASAs restrictions made it impossible to trade, leading to the forced sale of the business at 5% of its agreed value, after I was unable to meet upcoming salaries.

After 8 months and CASA having still not finalised the matter, and with all customers forced to leave APTA and a surety of operations that was soon to expire, the business was in an impossible situation. If the Ombudsman has not seen this documentation, I would call on the Ombudsman’s Office to ask CASA for the initial correspondence that was sent to all customers of APTA. This was sent very early in the process, and prior to me having any opportunity to defend APTAs position.


CONSIDERATION ONE- THE DECISIONS OF CASA PERSONNEL WERE UNLAWFUL AND HAD NO BASIS IN LAW.

Before I proceed I must clarify one point to ensure there is no misunderstanding on my behalf. In Phase One of the investigation, The Assistant Director of Investigations of the Commonwealth Ombudsman Office, found that:

“As of October 2016, no Australian legislation prohibited franchising of an AOC, subject only to the exclusivity of the AOC Holders operational control, and that remained the case as of 25th March 2020.”

This finding clearly supported my position.

CASAs initial position prior to the release of phase one of the investigation, was the opposite of the Ombudsman’s finding and this was in fact, the basis of CASAs action against my business and can clearly be demonstrated to be so.

For clarity, the CASA action was based on CASAs assertion that the structure was illegal and that franchising of an AOC was prohibited. The Ombudsmans Office found that was not the case and that it was not illegal.

I had a telephone call with the Commonwealth Ombudsman Office after the release of Phase one of the investigation, and the Assistant Director of Investigations advised me that his findings are the more substantive findings when compared to CASAs. If I accept that, then CASA has acted unlawfully.

The significant damage to so many businesses, employees, suppliers, customers, and my own family may have been avoided had CASA acted lawfully against me and my business, and most especially so if CASA had followed its own procedures in its Enforcement Procedures Manual.

It would be relevant to read two initial pieces of correspondence that were sent to CASA. Within a few days of CASA initiating their action I had sent a response to both my CASA Region Manager and the CEO of CASA, Mr Shane Carmody. I refer you here to posts #1497 and #1498. Glen Buckley and Australian small business -V- CASA - Page 75 - PPRuNe Forums




CONSIDERATION TWO_ CASA HAD ALWAYS SANCTIONED AND APPROVED MORE THAN ONE FLYING SCHOOL TO OPERATE UNDER A SINGLE AIR OPERATOR CERTIFICATE. REVERSING APTAs APPROVAL OVERNIGHT WAS A COMPLETE CHANGE OF POLICY APPLICATION AND WAS APPLIED TO APTA ONLY. THAT ACTION BY CASA WAS NOT BASED ON ANY SAFETY CONCERNS OR REGULATORY BREACHES. IT WAS A ‘CHANGE OF OPINION”, WITH NO VALID BASIS.

First and foremost, I believe the most critical aspect to identify, is that the practice of more than one flying school operating under a common Air Operator Certificate (AOC) was in fact, standard industry practice, and fully approved by CASA. That had always been the case.

CASA has led the Ombudsman’s Office to be of the view that APTA was something completely new, and that previously CASA had not sanctioned this practice i.e., more than one entity operating under a single AOC. For CASA to present their contention is simply being untruthful and misrepresenting important underpinning facts to your office.

The APTA model operated in exactly the same way as CASA had permitted other operators, with Members maintaining their own business, while handing over safety and compliance. APTA was resourcing an existing CASA sanctioned practice to design a safer and more compliant system. The truth is that the APTA system provided far higher levels of control than previous operations that CASA facilitated.

If CASA continues to represent their case that CASA did not permit more than one flying school to operate under a single AOC, it can easily be disproven.

One only has to question how the Latrobe Valley Aero Club was CASA approved to be operating right up until the minute it applied to join APTA. That application to join APTA was rejected by CASA in the initial notification of October 2018, which can be found at Post#44 Glen Buckley and Australian small business -V- CASA - Page 3 - PPRuNe Forums

The truth is that Latrobe Valley Aero Club was operating under another operator's AOC, yet CASA would not permit them to operate under APTAs AOC. That decision by CASA needs to be justified, and the reasons for the differing approach by CASA needs to be ascertained.

In my local region, whilst Latrobe Valley Aero Club was operating under the AOC of another organisation right up until the day that they elected to transfer to operate under APTA. Similarly, Ballarat Aero Club had been operating under the AOC of another organisation. My own organisation had also provided coverage for a school referred to as TVSA. There were also a number of other flying schools in outer metropolitan Melbourne i.e., Point Cook and Avalon operating under these arrangements with other flying schools. I had also previously used this arrangement to facilitate a program for Air Force cadets. The practice was common throughout Australia, and for CASA to assert that is not the case is a blatant misrepresentation, and easily proven to be so. Interestingly, this exact practice was also common in QLD, the region that Mr Martin came from. He had permitted it in his home state of QLD, but in Victoria, he would not permit it.

In the design of APTA I actually took an existing CASA sanctioned and approved practice and spent two years and hundreds of thousands of dollars designing a system side by side with 10 CASA personnel that was then fully re-approved by CASA in April 2017. I had been providing AOC coverage for other organisations throughout my businesses previous 13 years of operation. I took an existing CASA sanctioned practice and dramatically improved on it, while providing an opportunity for well-intentioned smaller operators, predominantly in rural areas to thrive, through an industry leading system that measurably increased safety and regulatory compliance. CASA approved this system in April 2017, and audited it 6 months later in November 2017, and approved bases under it. No concerns were ever raised by CASA.

I must emphasise that the 10 CASA personnel were heavily involved in every aspect of the design of APTA and assessed over 600 procedures and approved them.

I have written to CASA on multiple occasions to obtain a response and bring clarity to the matter i.e., did CASA previously approve multiple entities to operate under one AOC? All those written requests that I have on file have been ignored. CASA is very reluctant to respond to this query. I can understand that they would be.

Once it can be demonstrated that CASA did in fact sanction multiple flying schools under an AOC, it will allow a comparative assessment. If CASA had not previously permitted and approved such operations, then none will exist, so a comparative assessment of the alleged deficiencies in APTA systems and procedures compared to other operators cannot be made.

If, however, it is ascertained that CASA did permit multiple flying schools to operate under a single AOC, then the APTA model can be compared to other existing models. i.e., a comparison of oversight, operational control, safety, compliance, manuals and procedures, safety and incident reports, risk assessments, accident investigations etc etc can be made. For CASA to act against my business and not others, the reasonable assumption would be that there is a grave and imminent risk to aviation safety, when clearly that is not the case. Why was APTA selected?

This may assist to clarify the reasons why APTA was not permitted to operate, yet other organisations were, and if there was a valid basis for CASAs actions and were CASAs actions proportionate and reasonable in the circumstances. Was APTA deficient or was it in fact offering industry-leading levels of control? A comparative analysis will quickly provide the answers required.

At this stage I would refer you to Post #55 in PPRuNe Glen Buckley and Australian small business -V- CASA - Page 3 - PPRuNe Forums If you are a Pprune Member you will be able to open up attachments, and the Aviation Ruling is an attachment at the bottom of the post. This refers to the Aviation Ruling that was released by CASA in 2006 and was the basis of CASAs action for the first two months of restrictions placed on my business. After 2 months CASA realised that they had erred in using it, and CASAs alternating narrative commenced, as they moved on to different topics.

Ironically, the very fact that CASA produced the Aviation Ruling in 2006, suggests that at the time of its release, CASA did carefully consider the matter of more than one entity operating under an AOC. The matter arose because of a well-known incident in the Charter sector (passenger and freight carrying). CASA determined that the Aviation Ruling would apply to the Charter sector and not the Flight Training sector. CASA advised the flying schools of their decision and fully sanctioned the flight training sector sharing an AOC, right up until they reversed APTAs approval, 15 years later.

In your correspondence you were of the understanding that “in creating APTA you were seeking to create an entirely new business structure, with Members control over their business”.

That understanding is not correct. I took an existing CASA accepted practice, replicated the existing CASA accepted standard and significantly improved it. Exactly as with previous operators doing the same thing. Businesses maintained control over their own business i.e. what electricity provider they used, what colour they painted the walls, etc. as they always had.

APTA was fully responsible for all areas that CASA had an interest in i.e. safety, and regulatory compliance. Business matters are not generally under the remit of CASA, whereas safety and regulatory compliance, clearly are.

To completely resolve this matter one simple question, needs to be put to CASA, and a truthful answer obtained.

Immediately prior to reversing the CASA approval of APTA on 23rd October 2018, was CASA permitting APTA and many other AOC Holders around Australia to have more than one flying school operating under a single AOC?


CONSIDERATION THREE- THE REQUIREMENT FOR CONTRACTS WAS A UNIQUE REQUIREMENT PLACED ON APTA ONLY AND NOT OTHER OPERATORS

The issue of the contracts can now be addressed. I refer here to the initial notification that came from CASA and can be accessed via the PPRuNe thread at Post #44 Glen Buckley and Australian small business -V- CASA - Page 3 - PPRuNe Forums

Once the Ombudsman’s Office can establish the truth that CASA did sanction the practice of more than one flying school operating under a single AOC and had done so for at least the entire 25 years of my involvement in the industry, and probably longer it will allow a comparative assessment, and that opportunity is essential. For example, why did CASA place restrictions on APTAs ability to trade when other Operators did not have that requirement to produce a contract, or restrictions placed on their businesses. It doesn’t seem reasonable in the circumstances. CASA is clearly placing a higher requirement on me than other operators. My intent is to fully comply with any CASA requirement placed on me and have demonstrated over the previous decade with my school, Melbourne Flight Training (MFT). But if CASA is able to identify that something is “wrong”, then it is incumbent upon CASA to identify the legislative deficiency and advise me what “right” looks like, so that I can address it.

The requirement placed on me by that initial notification to produce contracts within 7 days, or potentially have all operations ceased, was a new and unique requirement that had not been placed on other Operators. I have no issue with CASA making that request. That request, however, should not be accompanied by a letter from CASA advising only 7 days surety of operations, especially if it CASA has identified that there is not a safety risk, and there are no risks to anyone’s safety at all. It just does not seem reasonable in the circumstances, surely a less combative approach would be used for the initial notification such as a face-to-face meeting seeking a mutually agreeable solution which I would have been very receptive towards.

The fundamental question can now be asked. Why did CASA place restrictions on APTA's ability to trade based on a lack of contracts, when the truth is, CASA had never required contracts of any other Organisation conducting operations in the same way, and there was no pre-existing or legislative requirement to have a contract. It was a unique requirement placed on my business only.

Once CASA placed restrictions on APTAs ability to trade, it was incumbent on CASA to identify the legislative deficiencies in the existing legislation, clearly and concisely identify what CASA require, and do so in a timely manner.

These administrative delays as well as being unacceptable cause negative commercial impact, which in itself may compromise aviation safety.

Mr Alecks view was a retrospectively applied requirement based on his particular requirement, and was not CASA practice, and had no basis in law. My obligations as the Authorisation Holder/AOC Holder were fully contained within the many thousands of pages of existing CASA legislation, and in the extensive manuuals and procedures that CASA had helped me write, what else was I required to attend to?

I had absolutely no concerns about complying with any reasonable CASA direction or request.

To completely resolve this matter one simple question needs to be put to CASA, and a truthful response obtained:

If we now accept that CASA had for at least the last 25 years, and potentially longer, approved other operators to share an AOC, then does CASA have on file ANY contracts from any other operator in Australia and if so, could they provide them to the Ombudsman’s office as an example of what is “acceptable” to CASA?, If CASA identify that they have never made that requirement and do not have any other contracts on file, could they explain why APTA had unique requirements on its business?

[glenb]

PART TWO

CONSIDERATION FOUR- EMBARRASINGLY FOR CASA THEY REALISED THAT THEY ALREADY HELD THE CONTRACTS, DESPITE CASAs INITIAL DENIAL AND THE FACT THAT THEY HAD ALREADY IMPOSED RESTRICTIONS ON APTAs ABILITY TO TRADE

On the matter of the contracts. At the time of CASA sending that initial notification on October 23rd, 2018, calling on me to supply contracts, embarrassingly for CASA, they already held the contracts, and they had been supplied to CASA by me, on multiple occasions. This was well before the date of October 23rd, 2018. CASA had “overlooked” that very important fact.

Had CASA considered the contracts that they held,it is likely that CASA would not have asked me to produce contracts that they already held. It could also be assumed that the CASA personnel involved should have made different decisions.

At that stage, I reasonably expected that CASA would have repealed the trading restrictions and proceeded with the process in a well-intentioned manner.

CASA demonstrated a determination now to pursue their alternating narrative, rather than admit error i.e. moved back to the Aviation Ruling, but after a couple of months, after they realised that was tenuous, it then moved back to contracts and then the “new” audit results appeared.

The existing contracts were entirely my own initiative and had been supplied to CASA on numerous occasions. CASA had shown little or no interest on the multiple occasions that I previously provided copies of the contract. My reasonable assumption was that CASA had no interest in the contracts because we had just been through a 2-year process with CASA to design APTA, and that process was all about ensuring that APTA provided industry-leading levels of operational control, by the way of the 600 procedures that we submitted to CASA to have assessed and peer-reviewed prior to CASA awarding us the Part 142 Approval 18 months earlier, and 6 months after that conducting a CASA Level 1 audit.

These 600 procedures were embedded into our operating manuals or Exposition which measures over 1 meter in width when printed out. These operating procedures required significant IT systems and infrastructure behind them, which we invested in. In that manner, we could be fully satisfied that when our pilots operated in accordance with our Exposition, they fully met the thousands of pages of CASA legislative requirements. By having a dedicated Head Office with a highly qualified Executive Management team, supported by admin staff, and providing CASA 24/7 internet access to every aspect of our operation, we could ensure industry-leading levels of operational control could be maintained.

CASA has made no allegation that any of our procedures to have not been fully complied with i.e. none of CASAs actions are supported by any allegation of any regulatory breach, or breach of our manuals, or in fact ever raised any safety concerns,

To put it quite simply, I had exhausted “things” to put into manuals and procedures. I did not know what CASA was trying to achieve, I simply could not comprehend it. I was highly dependent on CASA to provide guidance to me

CASA was not prepared to become a signatory to the contract yet were stipulating requirements. I clearly and concisely needed to know those requirements.

Initially, CASA denied that I had provided contracts. I directed them to the multiple emails that supported my contention. CASA then concurred that they did in fact hold the contracts. In post #1448 there is evidence that a copy of our contract was provided to Mr. Graeme Crawford, the second most senior person within CASA, over 1 year earlier. At the time of writing, Mr. Crawford is the Acting CASA CEO. The contracts were also supplied to multiple other CASA personnel on multiple occasions within CASA and I can supply evidence of that at Post #1447 at Glen Buckley and Australian small business -V- CASA - Page 73 - PPRuNe Forums

The issue of the contracts can now be addressed. I refer here to the initial notification demanding the production of contracts in 7 days that came from CASA on October 23rd, 2018.that came from CASA and can be accessed via the Pprune thread at Post #44 Glen Buckley and Australian small business -V- CASA - Page 3 - PPRuNe Forums

I would direct you to a number of posts on Prune that deal more with this matter and specifically to the following two posts on Pprune, Post #58 and post #107. Glen Buckley and Australian small business -V- CASA - Page 3 - PPRuNe Forums

Consider this. CASA has many thousands of pages of legislative requirements placed on a flying school. I met every single one of those legislative requirements. I also had a contract with my members. There was no requirement for me to have one, it was something that I initiated, and not a legislative requirement placed on any other Operator

If CASA were not satisfied with the contents of my existing contract, it was incumbent on CASA to direct to me to what they need in those contracts. CASA was seeking something that I could not solve, without their input. I met all legislative requirements, and I had a contract that had been subject to multiple legal reviews and all members were fully satisfied with. Quite simply, it was impossible for me to determine what CASA wanted. When I asked for guidance, I was advised by CASA that it’s not their job to provide guidance. I have that in writing and can provide the correspondence if required. I disagree, it was very much CASAs responsibility to clearly and concisely direct me to their requirements.

Initially, CASAs' position was that they would not provide guidance. I was in an impossible situation. Consider this. I have met every legislative CASA requirement. I have demonstrated an exceptional safety record, and there are no safety allegations raised. I have a contract that can be found at Post 58, Glen Buckley and Australian small business -V- CASA - Page 3 - PPRuNe Forums, and CASA advise that they are not satisfied with the contract. CASAs concern is so significant, that they have placed restrictions on the business's ability to trade, yet there is absolutely no supporting safety case or a risk assessment conducted by CASA. It just is not a reasonable course of action for CASA to be pursuing.

Without CASA guidance it is impossible to solve as I don’t know what is missing, that is not covered in existing legislation. My contract fully satisfied APTA and all Members as they each had a legal review done. The only party not satisfied was CASA, and they refused to become a signatory to the contract, despite my requests that they should become a signatory.

If there was a CASA identified deficiency in their own existing legislation, it was incumbent on CASA to highlight that perceived deficiency and provide direction to me on what they require in the contracts. I cannot possibly know what CASA wants in contracts if it is something not covered by the many thousands of pages of existing legislation that my Organisation meets. If CASA were after “something else” I needed to know what that “something else” was if I was to resolve the matter.

Importantly this entire matter could have been resolved within 24 hours, anytime after I received the notification in October 2018, if CASA knew what they wanted.

· A meeting could have been scheduled with my Head of Operations, my PA, and our Technical Writer.

· CASA could have dictated what they required. I would have willingly embedded it word for word.

· CASA could have approved it, and the contract distributed for signing. The members were willing and anxious.

· This entire matter could have been fully resolved within 24 hours.

· Any delay between those timeframes is entirely CASAs responsibility.

The question to CASA is:

When you placed the restrictions on APTA by way of the initial notification calling on APTA to supply contracts is it true that CASA already held the contracts and that they had been provided to CASA on multiple occasions, although for some reason CASA “overlooked” this fact.



CONSIDERATION FIVE_ CASA LEGAL CLAIMS THEY WERE NOT AWARE OF APTA

In the preliminary assessment, the Ombudsman’s office stated; “However, it does not appear on the evidence available to us that the legal area of CASA had been made aware of the way APTA and its members were operating, and therefore we cannot conclude CASA had properly considered if the operations posed any regulatory issues, until October 2018.”

I find it impossible that the legal area of CASA had not been made fully aware of the way APTA and its Members were operating. If CASA maintains that position, I allege that CASA is misleading the Commonwealth Ombudsman s Office. Whilst I appreciate that would be a very “convenient” position for CASA to adopt it is clearly deceitful.

Many flying schools had operated in exactly that manner throughout my 25 years in the industry, and long before.

Over the previous 13 years of my business’s operations, it had been doing exactly that, as had many other flight training organizations i.e. more than one flying school under an AOC. It was effectively impossible that CASA legal did not know. It was exactly the same business that had been operating since 2006, undergoing a change of name to “APTA” only. The name change was undertaken to better represent the capability i.e. from Melbourne Flight Training to Australian Pilot Training Alliance. There were no other changes.

The fact that CASA issued the Aviation Ruling in 2006 for the Charter industry (passenger and freight carrying), and specifically permitted flying schools to continue operating under the one AOC indicates the timelines that we are considering. The matter of multiple entities under an AOC, had obviously been considered by CASA legal department in 2006, and CASA at the time had specifically briefed the flight training industry that the Aviation Ruling did not apply to them. After placing the restriction on the Charter sector of the industry they permitted the practice in the Flight Training sector to continue, exactly as they advised flying schools that they would. CASA would have had ample opportunity to become “aware” of the way the business, as many others had operated over the previous decades. Surely there is some duty of care on CASAs behalf when a business depends entirely on CASA for its very existence. Considering that CASA hold on file every single APTA procedure, that is contained within APTAs Operations Manuals referred to as the “exposition”. At what stage is CASA legal reasonably expected to become aware.

I had worked side by side with ten CASA personnel on a new and substantially improved system for over two years. CASA assessed every one of their more than 600 requirements and granted me a Part 141 and 142 Approval in April of 2017. The Company had effectively been completely revalidated over a two-year period as I worked side by side with that team of 10 CASA personnel. CASA committed many hundreds of hours to the process, and they will have that on file.

At the time of CASA revalidating the business in April 2017, APTA was operating with the multi-base structure. The CASA procedure was extremely robust and thorough, with many hundreds of thousands of dollars invested into the two-year project to ensure I met or exceeded all CASA requirements. On completion of the approval process, the entire approval was passed on within CASA for a peer review and approval. It would be almost impossible that CASAs Legal Department would not have been fully aware, and especially so considering that was the actual Department that issued the Part 141 and 142 Approval in April 2017, eighteen months before CASA changed their mind, and reversed the businesses approval. Mr. Aleck had been the Executive Manager of Legal, International, and Regulatory Affairs over an extended period, and would have been fully aware.

Furthermore, CASA indicated to me that they spent more hours working with my organization than any other organization. CASA would track the hours that they allocate to each operator, and a request for that information by the Ombudsman will indicate that CASA directed significantly more resources to APTA than to other operators. CASA has previously advised me of that fact. There is no doubt that CASA was very involved with APTA. In fact every single one of the many thousands of CASA procedures was written to meet the requirements of CASA legal.

We were also one of the first of Australias 350 flying schools to meet the new regulatory requirements ahead of the deadline. As one of the first operators with the 141/142 approval, it is likely that CASA legal would have been heavily involved, and certainly aware.

You will recall that CASA had also previously fully approved APTA MFT Base, APTA TVSA Base, APTA LTF and APTA AVIA to operate. Surely by now, one would expect CASA legal to be aware.

Throughout the design and reapproval stage, APTA already had TVSA and MFT operating under the AOC, i.e. the entire design with CASA was built around the existing multi-base structure, and all APTAs procedures and systems were designed from the ground up, with CASA, to accommodate that arrangement.

Furthermore, a study of the emails between CASA and APTA/MFT over the two years leading up to APTAs revalidation in April 2017, will demonstrate literally hundreds of pieces of correspondence, many requiring input from the CASA legal department, as we submitted, and CASA assessed over 600 procedures during the design of APTAs manual suite.

Recall, I had worked side by side with ten CASA personnel over more than two years, as I attended to over 600 CASA stipulated requirements that needed to be embedded into our manuals. CASA assessed every one of those 600 criteria, as being acceptable. I requested the checklist that CASA used to revalidate my business under Freedom of Information (FOI)and that can be found at Post# 441. Via this link Glen Buckley and Australian small business -V- CASA - Page 23 - PPRuNe Forums Note that you will need to be a member to access that document. Membership is quick, easy, and anonymous.

There will be literally hundreds of emails between APTA and CASA throughout the two year design period of APTA leading to its revalidation in April 2017 as every one of those procedures had to be sent to CASA for review and approval. The final manual suite was approved and extends to many thousands of pages when printed out.

Furthermore, in November 2017, several CASA personnel visited APTA and spent one week conducting a Level 1 audit (the highest category). This audit involved visiting the bases and auditing those procedures. No concerns were raised, and CASA legal would have been aware of that audit and the associated results.

Furthermore, one of our first bases was Learn to Fly. Its approval was quoted by CASA as a 5-hour task, and we paid the associated fee for a 5-hour regulatory task. That took a staggering 10 months for CASA to process, so I suggest that CASA put significantly more hours than quoted into the regulatory task, or alternatively worked very slowly. Over that 10 months, it is likely that CASA legal would have reviewed that application. It was finally approved by CASA almost one year after the initial application was submitted.

I can also provide you with a copy of emails that support my contention that CASA legal would have been fully aware, for example, the email to. Mr. Crawford the CASA Executive Manager of the Aviation Group dated 7th October 2017 accessed via Post #1448 Glen Buckley and Australian small business -V- CASA - Page 73 - PPRuNe Forums. This correspondence demonstrates that 12 months before CASA took action, they were aware of the concept at the most senior level and had been provided contracts..

I appreciate that it would suit CASAs story to claim that the legal department was not aware, but on the balance of probabilities, it is quite likely that this assertion by CASA is misleading, to say the least. It is highly likely that CASA had numerous opportunities over the 13 years to properly consider the operation. It is not feasible that CASAs legal department was not aware. I depended almost entirely on advice from CASAs legal department throughout the 2-year project with the 10 CASA personnel, and they revalidated my Organisation with multiple bases operating under it.

The important point here is that even if CASA had not become aware of my operational structure over the last decade of training, and if during the two years that CASA worked side by side with me on APTA, and approved APTA, and audited APTA, and approved bases under APTA, if we assume that Mr Alecks legal department was not aware, it really doesn’t matter.

Also consider that in fact APTA wasn’t initiated by me. When the new Part141/142 legislation came in, I was required to comply if I was to continue operating after 3 years when the cutoff arrived. All I did, was comply with every legislative requirement using CASAs own guidance material and have over 600 CASA requirements assessed.

The Ombudsman found that there is no legislation in Australia that prohibits the structure, so how can it possibly be illegal?

It’s only a question of whether Mr. Aleck's interpretation is correct or the Ombudsman’s Office

Another pertinent post that could now be reviewed is Post#182 accessed via the following link Glen Buckley and Australian small business -V- CASA - Page 10 - PPRuNe Forums

The question to put to CASA on this matter would be.

Does Dr Aleck, the CASA Executive Manager of Legal, International and Regulatory Affairs seriously contend that his department was not aware of the APTA structure, and could he advise when he first became aware of the structure.?


CONSIDERATION SIX- THE RIGHTS OF ME AND MY BUSINESS TO PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS AND NATURAL JUSTICE, OR CASAs OBLIGATIONS TO OPERATE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE INTENT AND PROCEDURES OF CASAs ENFORCEMENT MANUAL.

I note in your correspondence you acknowledge that “following up the issuing of the notice with a phone call may have also assisted”.

There appears to be a misunderstanding that I was seeking a follow-up telephone call, and that is not the case.

A follow-up phone call would not have changed anything. My point was simply was that when I immediately called the signatory to the letter of October 23rd the CASA Regional Manager, he apologized and said that he, “wasn’t all over it” and would have to speak to his CASA team. I simply felt that the signatory of such significant correspondence from CASA should have been fully aware and conversant with what he was signing prior to sending me that correspondence, although as stated, that was not the crux of my complaint.

At that time we did schedule a meeting, but CASA was later to postpone that meeting to have an internal CASA meeting with the team involved. I suspected at this stage, that CASA was using the delay to “get their ducks in a row”, and make sure that the Melbourne office was “singing the same tune”. I was becoming increasingly anxious and concerned, as I had many people depending on me.

I ask that you consider what appear to be the breaches of administrative law, procedural fairness, and natural justice, and CASAs own Enforcement Policy in Chapter 2 and the Legal Basis of Regulatory Enforcement located in the same publication at Appendix 2. Enforcement manual | Civil Aviation Safety Authority (casa.gov.au)

When CASA choose to cancel, vary or suspend an AOC, there are strict procedures that apply to ensure procedural fairness, and these were completely bypassed, and these can be found in CASAs own Enforcement manual. My complaint was based on CASAs failure to follow their own procedures when they decide to cancel, vary or suspend an AOC, as outlined in their manuals. It does not seem reasonable in the circumstances to bypass these procedures, and most particularly when the action is not supported by any safety case, and there are no identified regulatory breaches. It is a change of opinion by both Mr Aleck and Mr Crawford.

I anticipate CASA may well try and put forward some weak argument on semantics to try and justify their position. Considering the actions that CASA took against my business, and the commercial impact of the path that they chose, the impact of their actions was certainly a cancellation or suspension of an AOC. There can be no doubt that it is at least a variation of that AOC. Those CASA procedures should not have been bypassed, and most certainly if it was not a safety matter, nor were there any identified regulatory breaches.


For clarity the correspondence delivered on October 23rd, 2018 immediately had a catastrophic effect on revenue for the business, immediately halting the business's access to revenue. CASA also wrote to all of my customers advising them of such, prior to giving me an opportunity to satisfy CASA and resolve CASAs confusion. The Members of APTA were each advised that APTA was not permitted and that they would have to leave APTA. That is what CASA then did. This effectively destroyed the business, and resulted in so much personal and financial loss to my family, as my customers were forced to leave, and I was left with the fixed operating expenses. CASA did all of this while “considering” whether APTA would be permitted to continue and was operating under an interim approval. The unnecessary delays that CASA applied at every stage throughout the 8 months that I was able to financially prop up the businesses, caused detriment.

You will recall that absolutely no concerns had been raised in any way about the operating model of APTA, and when I walked into work early on October 23rd, 2018 I had no idea of what was to unfold later in that same day. Absolutely no concerns had been raised by any CASA employee, at any time. Surely, if CASA intends to issue a notice that effectively closes down a business, and brings enormous reputational harm, that I am entitled to some notice that is coming, or an opportunity to clarify any misunderstandings.

The CASA restrictions applied were substantial, and CASA immediately began dismantling the business before I was given an opportunity to defend myself, or the businesses and staff that depended on me for their livelihood.

Had CASA followed their own procedures it is highly likely that this entire matter and the associated loss of businesses, loss of jobs, and millions of dollars would not have been lost.

Consider that to the best of my knowledge, CASA has never taken such significant and prompt action against a business, even when CASA has identified a safety concern or a regulatory breach. The CASA action was not reasonable in the circumstances.

As well as obligations on CASA to adhere to their own Enforcement Manual they are required to comply with their own Regulatory Philosophy, and at this stage, a relevant post and link to CASAs Regulatory Philosophy could be found at Post# 769 and #943,945 accessed via here Glen Buckley and Australian small business -V- CASA - Page 39 - PPRuNe Forums

Regarding the Regulatory Philosophy, whilst I appreciate that CASA is not legally bound to adhere to the Regulatory Philosophy, it does provide criteria, which “intent” can be assessed against.

There can be no doubt, and that is clearly supported by CASAs correspondence in the first two months. CASA maintained its position that the operation was illegal when in my opinion it clearly was not.

CASA's actions were taken on the basis that CASA had reversed their previously held position and made a determination that APTA was in fact illegal. CASAs position was later to have been found incorrect by the Ombudsman and is referred to in a later Consideration.


Considering that many millions of dollars investment have been lost, businesses closed, people losing their jobs, and the opportunities lost to the Australian owned sector of the industry, etc, it is possible that perhaps CASA has handled this matter in what could be politely described as sub-optimal. It is possible that for so much damage to have been caused, it may be that something went wrong. An open and thorough investigation may prevent this from happening to another business.

The question to put to CASA would be:

Are you fully satisfied that you have afforded Mr. Buckley procedural fairness, natural justice, and adhered with all requirements in your Enforcement manual when you elect to “cancel vary or suspend an AOC” and has the conduct of the personnel involved been in accordance with CASAs own Regulatory Philosophy and the requirements placed on them by Administrative Law?

[glenb]

PART THREE

CONSIDERATION SEVEN-OPERATIONAL CONTROL

In your correspondence, you stated: “This is because CASA appears to have had a reasonable basis for being concerned that APTA lacked sufficient operational control over the other entities that were reportedly operating under APTA’s approvals and authorizations”, and “it had good reason to be concerned about the operations of APTA and its members”.

I absolutely refute CASAs assertions to you on this matter, and ask why would CASA have a “reasonable basis for any concerns?”, or “good reason”. That statement cannot be permitted to go unchallenged.

CASA can provide no supporting evidence, to support “reasonable basis” or “good reason”. Surely if CASA is to close down a business, there must be some burden of proof on CASA to demonstrate that APTA was unsafe or breached regulations. Some evidence, anything at all must be put forward.

Consider the CASA terminology, “satisfied”. As you will appreciate it’s a very broad statement, and particularly so in an environment where CASA is obligated in the Civil Aviation Act to provide “clear and concise aviation safety standards”. There can be no doubt that CASA placed far far higher standards of “satisfaction” on APTA than it did to other operators. Was that well intentioned, and lawful? Very clearly, I feel not.

The very first inclination that I had that CASA had any concerns at all was the notification that CASA was to shut down my business in October 2018. That initial notification claimed that the structure of APTA was unlawful, 18 months later the Ombudsman found that it was not. CASAs hand has been forced, and they must now pursue a “lack of operational control” as their basis. It is predictable.

If CASA had a reasonable basis for being concerned that APTA lacked sufficient operational control, it is reasonable that CASA should have bought those concerns to my attention, and provided me the opportunity to rectify any deficiencies. That would in fact be my rights under procedural fairness.

No concerns at all were ever raised by CASA, with me in any way whatsoever about operational control. Surely there would be some correspondence raising concerns at some stage and most particularly at the audit stage. Surely there would be a safety concern, an email, something, anything at all.

How was there a “reasonable basis”. I fact I would strongly contend that in fact, CASA had absolutely no reason at all to have concerns about operational control, and perhaps should have been directing their limited resources elsewhere, to other organisations that perhaps had widely known safety concerns, rather than APTA, which I will address later.

If CASA want to support their actions based on satisfying themselves about operational control. Only 18 months earlier, I completed a two year Project with 10 CASA personnel, who were allocated by CASA as CASA Subject Matter Experts to design APTA, leading to its Approval to continue doing what it was already doing for the previous decade, only much better. CASA came back 6 months later after fully approving the APTA structure and conducted a Level 1 audit of APTA. If they were satisfied with operational control, less than 12 months earlier, at the audit, what was it that gave CASA concerns about operational control, in the next 12 months. Why didn’t my CASA Certificate management Team (CMT 3) being my CASA oversighting team that I am in daily contact with, alert me to any concerns.

The truth is that APTA offered unparalleled levels of operational control, and any comparative analysis will demonstrate that. We have by now firmly ascertained that in fact CASA did permit operations that were identical to mine to operate. The only difference between my structure and others is that my system was designed with CASA for that specific purpose. CASAs actions simply cannot be supported.

Once it is has been ascertained that in fact, CASA had always approved multiple flying schools to operate under a single AOC, it allows a comparative assessment. If the Ombudsman's Office was to ask CASA to produce the operations manuals for the Organisation that provided AOC coverage for Latrobe Valley Aero Club prior to APTA and compared them with APTAs procedures you will find a significant difference. I would strongly assert that the difference will be measurable. That is not a direct indictment on the AOC provider that provided the service previously. That was a Charter Company based in Regional Victoria, operating the flying school at a remote base away from their Head Office. This is a challenging position for an operator due to the difficulties of oversighting a remote base using systems that were not specifically designed to do that, yet were fully CASA approved and audited so obviously exceeded CASAs minimum standards. For clarity, that Operator does however have an impeccable industry reputation.

I am reluctant to draw other Organisations into this matter. Although, I feel it is somewhat essential at this point in time. One of the Companies has now ceased operations so feel I can make comment on it. Previously I have refrained to ensure fair processes prevailed for that organisation.

In CASAs Southern Region let's consider three organisations that were aiming to deliver significantly larger volumes of flight training and came under the control of CASAs Southern Region. The point of this is CASAs' real intent when they call on “operational control”. Two of these Organisations B and C were delivering approximately 150,000 hours flight training per annum, as opposed to APTA (Organisation A) which was delivering less than 15,000 hours across all bases. APTA had a Key Personnel structure as required by CASA that was larger than either Company B or C. This was done to ensure high levels of redundancy and operational control could be maintained.

· Organisation A is APTA, an organisation built and designed with CASA to deliver up to 150,000 hours of flight training per annum. At the time of CASA taking its action, the systems and procedures designed to accommodate 150,000 were delivering less than 10% of that volume. It is unlikely that high levels of operational control were not occurring. All resourcing was in place to cater for significant growth. All APTA procedures were designed drawing on military structures of accountability and reporting. The entire system was designed to be scalable. In fact the system that the Australian Defence Force (ADF)has now adopted, is the most similar analogy that I can make. Im also advised that APTA structures were a consideration in the design of that ADF system.



· Organisation B is a large foreign-owned organisation. At the time it was delivering somewhere in the vicinity of 150,000 hours of flight training per annum, predominantly to a number of International Airlines via cadetships. The Company is regarded in the industry as well intentioned, professionally managed, and provides an industry benchmark standard in almost everything it does.



· Organisation C was a relatively new Organisation with a big vision. Similarly, to Organisation B, they were delivering volumes of flight training of approximately 150,000 hours per annum, or more than ten times the volumes APTA was delivering at the time. There can be no dispute that many within the industry had raised concerns with CASA about this operator over many years. This organisation appeared to have a disproportionate amount of aircraft accidents, which potentially supported the allegations being made against them by many within the industry. CASA audits clearly indicate that CASA had concerns about this organisation and specifically relating to operational control. Importantly no independent findings have been made, so these are assertions only. This organisation has a class action against it, by the students and has recently ceased operations. The case will be very much about the levels of operational control. Importantly, with this matter, it was not CASA that initiated the action but a group of students coming together because they felt CASA had failed them.



Of the 350 flight training organisations in Australia, I really must question why APTA was identified for special treatment, yet Company C continues to be permitted to operate by CASA.

Consider Organisation B above, who also operate multiple bases. Call on CASA to provide manuals for that organisation. Compare their systems and procures to mine. Were my CASA approved procedures so deficient to Operator Bs? So much so, that CASA shut the business down. Consider also that Operator delivers 10 times the volume of flight training that APTA does yet had a smaller management team of CASA Key Personnel.

Alternatively the Ombudsman’s office could now compare incident reports, accident reports, continuous improvement submissions, systems, procedures etc. An enormous number of resources now become available to ascertain whether CASAs concern about operational control had a valid basis.

Recall that CASA has not alleged that we breached any procedures in our CASA approved procedures, so the reasonable assumption is that we fully adhered to all CASA approved procedures, as we did. If that is not the case, I would call on CASA to clarify that. These were the very procedures that CASA fully approved 18 months earlier, to do exactly what we were already doing, and adhering to. The only thing that changed was CASAs requirements and opinion.

Previously when flying schools operated under a shared AOC, there may have been a lack of standardization between the two organizations. APTA was the first time in Australia that CASA had worked with a Company to attend to the deficiencies in the previously accepted CASA practice, and fully designed a system based on CASAs own requirements, approved it and audited it. This was a very significant investment for an Australian flight training business, and I am fully satisfied that it provided industry-leading levels of operational control, and safety. I relish the opportunity to have that tested.

APTA's systems and procedures were designed side by side with 10 CASA personnel as I attended to over 600 of their requirements, over a two year period. APTA was engineered from the onset to provide far higher levels of operational control than was the CASA accepted standard. The Approval process had been completed over two years previously with the revalidation of Part 141/142 being approved in early 2018. We had fully satisfied CASA with all of our procedures at that stage. We were doing exactly as we were approved to do, and following all CASA approved procedures. It is incumbent on CASA to identify what aspects of our approved procedures raised concerns for CASA and why weren’t they raised at any time prior, and most especially if the concerns were so significant that CASA had to bypass any sort of consultative approaches such as a telephone call or a meeting.

There are many arguments to counter CASAs assertion, but the fundamental point must be that CASA identifies any regulatory breaches, or any safety concerns any evidence of a lack of operational control, and that should have been provided at the time, or indeed even now.

Evidence will clearly support that APTA in fact offered unparalleled levels of operational control. The APTA members that had previously operated under someone else's AOC will testify that in their experience this is the case. Please advise if you would like me to supply correspondence from those Members.

I have been contacted by an ex-CASA employee and a senior member of the defence force and advised that my system is remarkably similar to the system that the Australian defence force has adopted and that APTA procedures were considered and many adopted in the system that the Airforce now uses. I am able to obtain correspondence from those personnel supporting that contention.

Similarly, I have been contacted by 2 ex-CASA personnel two that had involvement in the design and approval of APTA. They have offered to provide correspondence offering their perspective if required, and CASA legal maintains that they were not aware.

Surely CASA has some level of a duty of care. If I have been operating with multiple bases over the previous decade, and then undergo a revalidation process with 10 CASA personnel, to obtain a revalidation and then CASA add bases using our procedures, it is highly unlikely that CASA legal was not aware.

CASA cannot possibly be permitted to close down multiple businesses on concerns of the level of operational control if they cannot provide any supporting evidence. It is a significant allegation to make and should be able to be supported with some evidence.


If CASA requires testimony from a flying school owner, I can provide it. You will recall that I owned Melbourne Flight Training, one of the members of APTA. I had operated my school both outside of APTA and within APTA. In the new system where my flying school operated under APTA, there were far higher levels of operational control. If the Ombudsman requires, I will obtain testimony to that effect from the schools that operated under APTA. Most have already extended the offer to me, and I have no doubt that all will be more than willing to provide a reference or testimony to that effect if asked. In fact, at Post #75 you will find a post by a customer that operated at an organization both before and after APTA, that post suggests a high level of operational control and intent. Other pertinent posts are Post #66 and Post #424. The venture was well resourced and well-intentioned, and the truth is that any comparative analysis of APTAs procedures against other operators will support that fact.

Post #66 Glen Buckley and Australian small business -V- CASA - Page 4 - PPRuNe Forums

Post #75 Glen Buckley and Australian small business -V- CASA - Page 4 - PPRuNe Forums


The very concept of APTA actually increases operational control. Consider when I operated my flying school outside of APTA. I constantly had to juggle the priorities of safety V compliance V commercial return. For example, an operator could be tempted to let an aircraft fly with a minor instrument unserviceable. The balance between safety and commercial return, Do I send the plane out on a local flight in good weather with the minor unserviceability to get the $400 for the 1-hour flight. Or do I ground the aircraft for two days, depriving it of 10 hours of revenue, disrupt my customers' bookings, and have staff idle. When I had MFT, it was a tough decision.

Under APTA, I had no option, quite simply the systems and procedures would not permit that flight to proceed. It worked well from a safety and compliance perspective because APTA looked after the CASA considerations i.e. safety and compliance. That flight would not proceed. APTA was under no commercial pressure in its decision making.

One final point that I would like to add. Consider that for a decade the Company had been a Registered Training Organisation under the oversight of the Australian Skills Qualification Authority (ASQA). This organisation conducted audits of our business. They were fully satisfied with our levels of operational control, and we held an audit history with ASQA that could only be described as exceptional. I am able to provide those audit results if required.

Similarly, the Company had delivered training to many International Students over the previous decade. As a CRICOS approved provider able to deliver training to International Students, we were subject to additional auditing. All training for all international students was conducted under our full operational control and delivered to the highest standards. No complaints by any international student was ever raised against my business, which is something I am particularly proud of and is unusual in this industry. It is unlikely that my business did not maintain the very highest levels of operational control.

I would call on CASA to support their allegations by providing three scenarios. If CASA could present three scenarios that they had concerns about, and I would welcome the opportunity to explain how APTA had CASA approved procedures in place to consistently demonstrate the highest levels of operational control.

I believe that CASA had unparalleled opportunities to satisfy themselves about operational control. In fact, I would suggest that APTA was the most transparent aviation business operating in Australia. For the first time, we had given CASA 24/7 internet access from any location to access our entire system including, all training records, aircraft unservicaebilities, predictive maintenance, Safety Meeting minutes, Management Meeting minutes, risk assessments, syllabi, flight and duty records etc. This was an Australian first, and that alone should have satisfied CASA that we had the very highest levels of operational control. Quite simply, I would not have given CASA full access if I wasn’t fully confident in the systems.

By having 24/7 access, it provided CASA with the opportunity to instantly identify any deficiencies and approach me in a timely manner, rather than waiting two years for a CASA audit.

In contrast to CASAs assertion, I do not believe that CASA had any valid basis to have “good reason to be concerned about the operations of APTA and its members”.

If CASA contends that APTA did not provide sufficient operational control, are they able to specifically identify what led them to that assumption i.e. any specifics to support their contention, and especially considering that the Level 1 audit lasting over one week with a team of CASA personnel identified no deficiencies that were bought to the Organisations attention?

For clarity, can CASA provide any examples or scenarios where operational control could be “compromised”, and may I be provided with the opportunity to respond?



CONSIDERATION EIGHT- CASA ONTEND THAT THEY OBTAINED INDEPENDENT LEGAL ADVICE

CASA contend that they “obtained independent legal advice that suggested CASA had good reason to be concerned about the operations of APTA and its Members.”

That statement conflicts with statements made to me by the previous CASA Executive Manager of Regulatory Services and Surveillance (Mr. Craig Martins predecessor). He advised that CASA was yet to receive legal advice and that they would share that legal advice with me once CASA received it.

On the day it was scheduled to arrive, I was advised that the lawyer's wife had a baby and that there would be a delay. I am not fully satisfied that CASA did in fact receive external and independent legal advice until much later, and if CASA received such independent legal advice that indicated, “CASA had good reason to be concerned about the operations of APTA and its Members,” I should be entitled to see that legal advice and be able to defend my position against that legal advice.

For clarity, if the independent legal advice advised that there was “good reason to be concerned about the operations of APTA”, then I ask. What information was provided to the legal firm to arrive at that deduction if there were no safety concerns or identified regulatory breaches? How could an external legal firm possibly identify that there were good reasons to be concerned about APTA, if no concerns had been raised, and there were no regulatory breaches. It is simply absurd. I have to question the legitimacy of any independent legal advice that was obtained.

If CASA did obtain that independent legal advice, what was the date that the advice was sought and received? i.e. was it advice received prior to CASA initiating their action or was it advice received much later, and potentially as part of damage control, or repositioning by CASA?

I am confident that if CASA were asked to provide a copy of that legal advice it would prove very revealing. My feeling is that the legal advice was either never received, or obtained very late in the process, or in fact, did not support CASAs case, and therefore was never produced to me, despite the undertaken given to me by CASA, hence the lawyers' wife having a baby.

Irrespective, the question remains, on what information did the independent legal firm depend on to arrive at its advice? Am I entitled to ask CASA to produce or at least summarise the advice that they presented, so that I can challenge it if required? Surely, I must have that right. How can I ascertain if the information CASA provided was accurate, truthful, and well-intentioned?

I am concerned that I am dealing with the opinion of only CASA employees, Mr. Aleck and Mr Crawford, therefore I would ask that CASA share the legal advice that they received. That way the Ombudsman can be satisfied as to the content of external legal advice as opposed to Mr. Aleck's and Crawford’s opinion and ascertain the basis for the independent legal advice that indicated CASA had good reason to be concerned about the operation of APTA and its members. It may be that the CASA Executive Manager of Legal, International and Regulatory Services is not motivated by aviation safety in his decision making, or applying significantly higher standards on me, and my organisation that are not valid.


At this stage I would like to draw your attention to Pprune posts #1497 and 1498, accessed via here. They contain two of my very first pieces of correspondence to CASA and included Mr Shane Carmody. They provide a good insight into the situation I was confronted with. Glen Buckley and Australian small business -V- CASA - Page 75 - PPRuNe Forums

CONSIDERATION NINE- THE COMMERCIAL DETRIMENT AND CASAs ENFORCEMENT MANUAL PROCEDURES.

Had CASA followed the stipulated procedures in CASAs own Enforcement Manual which can be accessed here Enforcement manual | Civil Aviation Safety Authority (casa.gov.au), there would in fact potentially have been a completely different outcome. If CASA is to Cancel, Suspend or Vary an AOC they have obligations under administrative law/natural justice and procedural fairness to comply with their own procedures. It is essential to understand that immediately on receipt of that notification on its impact on me and my business was catastrophic. Those actions and decisions by a small and select group of Senior CASA Executive did result in significant damage to a number of people.

It is imperative to understand that CASA proceeded on the basis that after more than a decade, it had overnight, determined that my structure was illegal. CASA did contact all my customers, including my own flying school, and force them to leave APTA. That obviously led to the failure of the business. That was not the customers' preference, and they will attest to that. They were forced to leave the business by CASA. A significant investment in safety and compliance had now been lost.

Phase One of the Ombudsman’s Findings now indicate that CASAs actions were not lawful.

With absolutely no prior warning at all, not even the opportunity of a telephone call or a meeting to raise any concerns or try and resolve the issue prior, CASA send that notice on October 23rd, 2018.

Consider also that APTA is a Registered Training Organisation delivering an Advanced Diploma in Aviation over an 18-month period. It needs more than “interim” CASA approvals of only days or weeks. APTA and its members need to have surety of operations, in order to enrol students. The minute that notice was issued by CASA, it became unethical and most likely illegal as an RTO to enrol students in a course that you may foreseeably not be able to deliver. Very few businesses in Australia dependent on an ongoing relationship with their customer could survive with interim approvals and most especially an education provider.
Importantly CASA did write to all my customers advising that the operation was not lawful and they were then forced by CASA to leave APTA. The customers were given no option. The leadup to that action by CASA is important and I will outline it here.

Immediately on the issue of that notice of October 2018, CASA effectively shut down my business, and the truth is that they did shut down my business.

CASA directed the Members that they were not permitted to join APTA. Some businesses were forced into closure, while others exited APTA and continued on their own as a Part 141 school, and accepted the reduced capability, smaller safety department, etc

Consider the many employees that I have depending on me for their livelihood. They are now employed by an Organisation that CASA is seeking to close. The security of their livelihoods is now very much in question. CASA has strongly suggested that all currently operating bases will be closed in as little as 7 days. These personnel understandably begin seeking alternative Employers. The impact of that alone on an Organisational culture is devastating and cannot possibly enhance safer outcomes, irrespective of the accompanying commercial impact.

Consider the hundreds of students that are halfway through an 18-month course of flight training. There Registered Training Organisation (RTO) appears likely to close at short notice, and most definitely before completion of their course. The perception amongst clients is that the Organisation must have grossly breached regulations or CASA must have grave safety concerns if it is likely CASA will shut down the entire operation in as little as 7 days. Customers understandably seek to transfer to other organizations. The reputational damage to the business is devastating, as word spreads quickly in the industry.

Consider the instability caused to the Bases that CASA has already approved and are most likely about to have their approvals reversed. As there is only one approval, their continuity of operations is uncertain past 7 days. Some of these aeroclubs have been operating for 100 years, and are irreplaceable in rural areas, as they face closure.

Consider the immediate effect that this notification has on the flying school's ability to recruit students. It now becomes impossible to recruit students to an 18-month training course, when the organization has only 7 days surety of operations, and the word is now on the street that CASA is seeking to shut down the Organisation. Obtaining new revenue becomes impossible.

Consider the impact that this has on APTA. I had fixed operating costs in excess of $1,000,000 per annum or $20,000 per week. No flying school is going to consider joining APTA when CASA has reversed its approval on the business overnight. Existing customers understandably will exit the Organisation and accept the lower category Part 141 approval, and just have to accept the reduced capability that comes with that lower approval.

The APTA product was a method to increase safety, and regulatory compliance, and provide security into the future. By CASA notifying my customers almost immediately that they are operating illegally, it destroys any confidence in the APTA product, and as customers are forced to leave by CASA impacts on revenue and cash flow

It damages my reputation because, with the best of intent, I have been representing APTA as designed in conjunction with CASA and fully approved by CASA. It was, but that changed overnight on October 23rd October 2018.

Consider that this went on for an unacceptable 8 months. My access to revenue was completely denied, yet I had fixed costs of approximately $20,000 per week with approximately half of that being salaries if I were to avoid redundancies. The CASA action doomed the business to failure.

Quite simply a more reasonable course of action in the circumstances would have been to arrange a meeting prior to imposing restrictions on the business and give me the opportunity to meet any stipulated CASA requirements and avoid a less desirable outcome, such as has occurred. If CASA followed their own Regulatory Philosophy this would not have happened.

[glenb]

PART FOUR

CONSIDERATION TEN-WHAT HAPPENED TO THE EXISTING MEMBERS

You will recall that CASA directed that all customers had to leave APTA, despite their clear preference to remain with APTA

APTA Simjet in Brisbane never commenced operations despite their significant investment in the Boeing 737 simulator, facility, and staff. In order for CASA to conduct their inspection and approval, everything had to be in place. Simjet achieved this, but CASA changed its mind on APTA during the induction process. An unnecessary loss of so much investment. This particular member bought so much capability to the group, particularly for the future growth of APTA and its Members attracting both International and Domestic students.

APTA Whitestar Aviation in Ballina had commenced operations under the CASA approved Temporary locations procedure that APTA utilized, but halted operations when CASA advised that the CASA approved Temporary locations procedure was now unlawful as per CASAs initial notification. I made multiple written requests to CASA to ascertain if we could reactivate this base, but CASA never answered. After waiting months for an answer from CASA, the base closed down, with the associated loss of investment. More on this particular matter can be found at Post #223 and Post #224 accessed here Glen Buckley and Australian small business -V- CASA - Page 12 - PPRuNe Forums

APTA Ballarat Aero Club resumed operations as a Part 141 Organisation, a significantly lower category of flying school than they previously had i.e. Part 142. They also lost their ability to operate as a Registered Training Organisation, and their approval to enroll international students. They departed APTA because CASA insisted that be so. CASA had determined that the operation was illegal, despite the Ombudsman’s findings twelve months later that the CASA position was not lawful. They have also lost significant business opportunities that would have been afforded to them under the APTA model. Like the other schools that continued on as a lower Part 141 Organisation, they now have access to a far smaller safety department, which is in fact an important consideration.

Similarly, the Latrobe Valley aero club ceased operations in its own right with another flying school now contracting flight training to the school. Similarly, they now operate on a reduced capacity without the higher Part 142 approval, inability to deliver the 150 hours integrated CPL course, deliver training to international students, or to operate as a Registered Training Organisation.

The APTA AVIA base and APTA ARC bases both expedited an application for a lower category Part 141 approval with the associated loss of capability that comes with being a Part 141 Organisation, and not having CRICOS, RTO, or 142 status.

I was directed by CASA to transfer my own flying school, Melbourne Flight Training to the new owners of APTA on the basis that sharing an AOC was not lawful. I was forced to transfer my staff and customers effectively closing down my flying school of 13 years. I was forced to transfer, my revenue but was left with all ongoing contractual obligations by way of leases etc, with no capacity to pay. Later the Ombudsman finds that in fact the practice was lawful, and therefore CASA actions were not lawful but by then my business was gone,

Learn to Fly was able to purchase a business that had a Part 142 approval, and that ensured that they could continue, and were probably the least affected.

The Owners of our APTA Vortex base purchased APTA at 5% of its agreed value, in order to ensure that they themselves did not cease operations, as they would have, and the business continues in a smaller scale model, operating as a single flying school, with the size of the structure and safety department significantly scaled-down.

The applications for new members that expressed interest in joining APTA were advised that CASA was still considering the matter. Understandably they lost confidence in the product, and my understanding is that both organizations also ceased operations.

In my fourth and final piece of correspondence to you on this matter, I will outline in significantly more detail the impact on a number of entities of CASAs action.


CONSIDERATION ELEVEN- THE OMBUDSMAN, APTA AND CASA DO NOT DISAGREE.

In CASAs initial notification dated 23rd October 2018, located at Post #44

CASA claims that “Paragraph 7 of the CASA Aviation Ruling Franchise AOC arrangement states; The AOC Holder at all times remains responsible for the actions of another person conducting operations under the AOC”.

A careful review of that sentence alone will lead the reader to believe other pilots operating under an AOC is permitted, but that the AOC Holder remains responsible for the actions of another person conducting operations under the AOC.

Let me put that in perspective. Irrespective of who operates under my AOC, I am responsible for that operation. If that pilot was paid by me, paid by someone else, or indeed even if he or she was a volunteer delivering flight training to the Scouts, I am fully responsible and accountable for that operation irrespective of who pays the pilot, and even if the pilot isn’t getting paid and isn’t an employee.

I have absolutely no disagreement and after 25 years in the Industry, fully appreciate the responsibility that comes with that statement. On this matter, there is no dispute. In fact, that was the underpinning guiding principle in the design of APTA. I fully understand and concur with that statement. CASA is reaffirming a statement that I would be fully aware and was aware of.

In that initial notification, however, two employees of CASA, most probably Mr. Aleck, CASAs Executive Manager of Legal, International, and Regulatory Services, and Mr Crawford, CASAs Executive Manager have applied their opinion, and importantly it is only their opinion, as the letter goes on to state; “The Ruling does not permit an AOC Holder to authorize a third party body corporate to operate under its AOC”. That is a vastly different statement to what the Aviation Ruling actually says i.e. “The AOC Holder at all times remains responsible for the actions of another person conducting operations under the AOC”.

Whilst I respect these two mens interpretation, I feel it is a “long bow to draw” to arrive at that interpretation from the previous statement extracted from the Aviation Ruling. This is not an insignificant point. More so considering that was CASAs entire basis for closing down my business. Any business is entitled to operate in an environment that is more secure than

This point becomes especially critical when it is considered that CASAs core function in the Civil Aviation Act is to provide “clear and concise aviation safety standards”. The reference to this obligation can be found in the Civil Aviation Act at 9. CASA functions”. As a business owner, I have a fair and reasonable expectation that CASA should be able to direct me to clear and concise aviation safety standards that support CASAs position. I refer you to the Civil Aviation Act.

“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;

(d) developing effective enforcement strategies to secure compliance with aviation safety standards;

(da) administering Part IV (about drug and alcohol management plans and testing);

(e) issuing certificates, licences, registrations and permits;

(f) conducting comprehensive aviation industry surveillance, including assessment of safety‑related decisions taken by industry management at all levels for their impact on aviation safety;

(g) conducting regular reviews of the system of civil aviation safety in order to monitor the safety performance of the aviation industry, to identify safety‑related trends and risk factors and to promote the development and improvement of the system;

(h) conducting regular and timely assessment of international safety developments.”



CONSIDERATION TWELVE-THERE WAS ONLY ONE AOC/AUTHORISATION

Now consider what the Ombudsman found in Phase one of his investigation, which was a stark contrast to CASAs position initially. The Ombudsman finds; “As of October 2016, no Australian legislation prohibited franchising of an AOC..”. This is perhaps one of the most significant points. CASA maintained that it was prohibited.

In CASAs original notification dated 23rd October 2018, also stated; “Section 27(8) of the Civil Aviation Act 1988 states that an AOC is not transferrable.” On that point I also fully agree with CASA, an AOC cannot be transferred.

There was no attempt to transfer the AOC by APTA at any stage. There was only one AOC and I was the Authorisation Holder. I held accountability and responsibility for ALL operations conducted by all pilots under my AOC. It was essential that I had high levels of control to secure my “peace of mind” that I had full operational control over all operations conducted under my AOC. I had been in the flight training industry as an Instructor, Head of operations, and a business owner operating a flying school for 25 years. It would be reasonable to expect me to have an expert knowledge on my obligations, and perhaps more than many of the CASA personnel with who I was dealing with. None of them with any experience in flight training at all.

All pilots and all operations actually came “inwards towards the authorization holder and were required to operate in accordance with our procedures. There could be no confusion as there was only one AOC, and that was APTAs. The Members of APTA did not hold an AOC and were obviously fully aware that they did not have an AOC, so they could not operate their own flying school.

It was not feasible that a pilot could operate to any other procedures than APTAs CASA approved because there was no other AOC approved, or any other procedures. i.e. all pilots operated under APTAs AOC, or they simply could not operate, as there was no other option.

The Members did not hold their own AOC, or CASA required Key Personnel i.e. CEO, Head of Operations, and Safety Manager. Therefore, they could not deliver flight training in their own right. They effectively had nothing to hand over, as they were not a CASA-approved flight training organization, and that is in fact the reason for joining APTA.

To significantly simplify it, it is just one big flying school in all areas that CASA has control over. i.e. safety and compliance. The business matters of the entities i.e. what electrictity provider to select, to paint the walls in white or blue etc remained with the Member, or indeed who paid the pilot, but traditionally these were not matters that CASA involved itself in.

If it was a matter that was accountable to CASA, it was the Authorisation Holders responsibility.i.e, APTA



CONSIDERATION THIRTEEN-HOW COULD THE TEMPORARY PROCEDURES PROCEDURE THAT CASA SUGGESTED AND PROVIDED TO ME, NOW BE CLAASSIFIED AS ILLEGAL.

I refer again to the initial notification dated October 23rd, 2018, and specifically the last paragraph of that correspondence where it deals with “Temporary Locations”

That is in fact the exact procedure that CASA suggested I utilize, and the basic procedure comes from CASAs own guidance material for flying schools. I incorporated CASAs' suggestion into my manuals. The procedure was approved by the CASAs legal department. We had used the procedure over the previous twelve months and CASA had approved bases under it. CASA had also conducted a Level One audit of the organization and that specific procedure and raised no concerns whatsoever. Irrespective of all that it, is the procedure that CASA suggested we use for the exact purpose that they approved it to be used for. How could CASA possibly apply a complete reversal of their own approval that they recommend, approved, utilized, and audited?
CASA actually reference that very procedure in their own guidance material specifically for flying schools, which refutes CASAs assertion that Temporary locations are not intended for flying schools, which was a line of argument used by CASA at one stage. They are actually ONLY intended for flying schools. Once I directed CASA to their own guidance material, they appeared somewhat awkward, but by then the correspondence of October 2018 had already been sent by CASA.

This is ludicrous, I use the CASA procedure as suggested by CASA personnel, from their own guidance material land 18 months later, CASA applies a complete reversal, and refuse proposed applications, and reverse previously approved bases that utilised that very same procedure. Surely CASA must have some duty of care. Its akin to a police officer telling you the speed limit is 110Kph, and then booking you for speeding at the end of the road. It simply cannot be justified.

Then this became an unauthorized activity where I am potentially liable for litigation from CASA and/or the businesses that have depended on me to deliver on my commitments to them under APTA which is fully approved by CASA.

This is a significant point, and I would direct you to the following posts on Prune that provide more information. Post #46 and Post #223 Glen Buckley and Australian small business -V- CASA - Page 3 - PPRuNe Forums

[glenb]

PART FIVE

CONSIDERATION FOURTEEN-APTA MADE A NUMBER OF ATTEMPTS TO SUBMIT ACCEPTABLE CONTRACTS, BUT CASA REJECTED ALL ATTEMPTS

You will recall that when CASA placed restrictions on the business's ability to trade by way of a 7-day surety of operations, they placed a requirement for contracts.

Embarrassingly for CASA, they realized only after sending that notification that, APTA had already provided copies of our contract on multiple occasions, and in fact, we had emailed a copy to Mr. Crawford, now the Acting CASA CEO approximately 12 months earlier. I also had a meeting with CASA personnel in the CASA Offices where I provided copies of contracts. These facts are now not in dispute with CASA.

CASA will contend that they made a number of “good faith attempts” to help me resolve the contracts issue. As the person directly involved, that is very much NOT the case and would urge you to consider the following. The relevant attachments to this post can be found at Post #1464 at PPRuNe Glen Buckley and Australian small business -V- CASA - Page 74 - PPRuNe Forums

CASA sent the notification placing restrictions on the business's ability to trade by way of a 7-day surety of operations and demanding that I provide contracts.

I pointed out to CASA that previously APTA had initiated contracts of its own prerogative, and that they had been provided to CASA on multiple occasions, and I provided my evidence of that assertion.

CASA then reluctantly agreed that they did in fact have the contracts, yet CASA did not lift the restrictions on the business's ability to trade, and they remained in place over the 8 months, until I could no longer meet my obligations for wages and salaries.

I asked CASA to make a decision against my existing contracts they would not. I wanted CASA to make a decision because then I would have something I could attend to, or alternatively something that I could challenge in the AAT.

CASA simply advised that my contracts were not acceptable. Consider the following timeline. The correspondence relating to this topic can be found as an attachment at Post #1464 on PPRuNe Glen Buckley and Australian small business -V- CASA - Page 74 - PPRuNe Forums

January 25th, 2019, 3 months after CASA place restrictions on the business's ability to trade, CASA write to me asking for information in my contracts. By now, my entire customer base has lost confidence as they have been operating for 3 months with no future certainty about the organization. No student enrolments have been taken, and staff is concerned about their jobs. Existing APTA Members are by now making plans outside of APTA as it appears the issues are significant if they have not been resolved after 3 months.

February 18th, 2019, I write to CASA advising that their suggested changes to the contract have been fully embedded, and this correspondence also notifies CASA that one of our Members, at the Ballina base was ceasing operations due to the ongoing delay in getting approved. This correspondence also answers questions that CASA put to me. Most of those answers were already known to CASA as for the first time in Australia we provided full access to APTAs entire system. CASA was able to log into any aspect of our operation at any time from anywhere in Australia. This was an Australian first and ensured the very highest levels of operational control and oversight could be maintained. This correspondence also calls on CASA to act expeditiously because of the commercial impact.

February 19th, 2019, APTA responds to CASA requests and provides signed copies of contracts. These are the same contracts that have previously been supplied to CASA.

February 21st, 2019, I write to CASA and all APTA Members updating them that all CASA requirements have been embedded into a new contract and make plans to move forward, with that new contract.

March 4th, 2019, - Advised by CASA that in fact the embedded changes that CASA had recommended and provided were now not OK and that we now needed to have yet another meeting. That meeting is now scheduled almost 3 weeks later, on March 20th, 2019.

The entire matter should never have commenced but APTA has now had restrictions on its ability to trade for over 4 months. The negative commercial impact and reputational damage is significant.

March 13th, 2019 CASA now places some additional requirements to be embedded into the contracts.

March 15th, 2019 I confirm my availability for a meeting, reaffirm that I am willing to put anything into the contracts that CASA require, ask if CASA are becoming a signatory, and call on them to clearly and concisely stipulate what they require, as they have rejected my most recent attempt which fully embedded all the CASA requirements exactly as CASA advised. I simply am at a complete loss as to what CASA requires. In this correspondence, I am imploring CASA to provide direction as to what they want so that I can promptly attend to it.

By now APTA as a business is decimated, deprived of revenue, staff losing confidence, suppliers losing confidence, and the businesses revenue severely curtailed by CASA actions. My parents have intervened to cover salaries and avoid redundancies, customers are leaving APTA and the business continues to operate under an interim approval that expires on May 13th 2019.

March 26th,2019 I write to Mr. Aleck with yet another attempt at a contract, reiterate that I will put anything into the contracts that CASA directs me to, call again on CASA to clearly identify the changes that they require. This correspondence also once again clarifies the commercial impact and the fact that CASA appears to be targeting APTA. Importantly, in this correspondence, I call again on CASA to make a “decision” so that I have something to appeal. The failure by CASA to make a decision over such a prolonged period is having a devastating impact on the business.

April 9th, 2019 I make a further submission with all new CASA requirements embedded and imploring CASA to resolve this matter.

April 9th, 2019, CASA advises me that the matter is finalized and that we will be returning to Business as Usual, then the email is retracted by CASA and another email sent advising to hold off until CASA legal can approve it.

April 17th, 2019 I am advised that CASA still doesn’t have what they require.

By this stage, my parents have funded $300,000 towards staff salaries, as the business had been starved of revenue for almost 6 months. With no end in sight, and cashflow becoming increasingly difficult I refocused my energies into minimizing the impact of the imminent loss of the business. I simply cannot ask my parents to keep funding well more than $10,000 per week to meet my obligations for wages and salaries.

CASA had still failed to identify what they needed in the contracts. I had made multiple submissions, and the last two submissions embedded CASA suggested text word for word. Still CASA was not satisfied. I am in an impossible situation after 6 months with customers now being forced to leave APTA by CASA, and I am no closer to achieving a contract that satisfies CASA. By now, I was very much of the opinion that CASA had no intention to resolve the issue of the contract.

Consider also that at any time CASA could have fully resolved this issue within 24 hours. From the onset, I made it perfectly clear that I would place absolutely anything in the contracts that CASA requires. They simply needed to provide me their required text. I would have sat with CASA across a table, with my Head of Operations, Personal Assistant and our Technical Writer. We would have raised any concerns with that CASA text, noting it is extremely unlikely that we would have any objections. We would have then embedded the text into the contracts and distributed the new contracts to our Members for return by close of business the next day. All Members were willing to meet those turnaround times. It truly was that simple. It only depended on CASA knowing what it was that they required, and providing that direction to me. The delays that extended for 8 months in resolving this issue were entirely as a result of CASA changing the goalposts, and not knowing what they required. A relatively straightforward matter became extremely difficult to resolve.


CONSIDERATION FIFTEEN- ADMINISTRATIVE HALT PLACED ON ALL APTA APPLICATIONS FOR REGULATORY TASKS.

CASA applied an Administrative Freeze and refused to process APTA applications and regulatory requests throughout the 8-month period. Once CASA initiated that action against APTA they also initiated an “administrative freeze” on all administrative tasks, and the impact of this was significant upon APTA, as no capabilities could be added or renewed. i.e. as a simulator's approval would expire, CASA would not renew it, leaving the asset idle. A new simulator was acquired, and similarly, CASA would not validate it. We applied to add new Key Personnel to the Management team. i.e., a third CASA approved Head of Operations to provide high levels of redundancy, and further the already high levels of operational control, that was put on hold. CASA tried to add new courses that we were fully entitled to deliver, and CASA refused to process these applications. CASA had no basis in law to refuse those applications. The commercial impact of this action on the business and customers was substantial.

APTA as a Part 141/142 Organisation submitted applications to add on new courses, such as low level, multi-crew, etc. CASA would not process those applications. These were courses and capabilities that APTA was fully entitled to deliver. This administrative freeze placed on APTA by CASA was harmful to the business and had no validity because it was a completely separate issue to the reason CASA placed restrictions on the business's ability to trade.

Refer Pprune Post #267,268,271,272,273,274, for further pertinent information.


CONSIDERATION SIXTEEN- APTA ONLY DID WHAT CASA ASKED OF APTA.

If there is any doubt that I was effectively “led up the garden path” by CASA, then I refer you specifically to POST #1395 on PPRuNe which can be accessed here. Glen Buckley and Australian small business -V- CASA - Page 70 - PPRuNe Forums

If you refer to the “underpinning knowledge” component of that post, it will outline the background to the revalidation of APTA as a Part 142 Organisation. We were already operating with the APTA structure i.e. providing AOC coverage for multiple bases and had been for more than a decade.

Part 141/142 was a separate process that CASA required of all flying schools in Australia to undertake, or otherwise, they would have to cease operations in three years.

During that two-year project and revalidation by CASA, every single one of our procedures was overhauled as we drew on our previous experience providing coverage for multiple bases. We attended to over 600 CASA requirements, each of which was CASA assessed and approved. We were attending to CASA requirements in their own checklist with 10 CASA personnel. We embraced all opportunities for improvement in conjunction with those CASA personnel.

The point being is that I had no other option but to undergo the Part 141/142 process. It was something forced upon APTA if it intended to continue trading. We attended to every CASA requirement in the design of APTA and were fully approved by CASA as part of our revalidation 18 months earlier. Surely if CASA was to question our operation, concerns should have been raised then, rather than CASA encouraging and facilitating me to do something that they would later claim was illegal.

I had no option in the design of APTA from day one with CASA to respond directly to CASAs more than 600 stipulated requirements and found in Post # 441. This was a two-year project. I did invest hundreds of thousands of dollars into exceeding every one of the 600 requirements.

To get an indication of the enormity of the task, simply approach Oxford CAE, they completed the process at a similar time to my Organisation. In fact, at the CASA Head of operations conference organized by CASA in Canberra, they put forward a presentation to CASA and attendees on just how enormous, expensive, flawed, and time consuming the process was. It required many thousands of hours dedicated to it. CASA worked side by side with me assessing every one of those 600 requirements that CASA stipulated.



CONSIDERATION SEVENTEEN- THERE ARE NO ALLEGATIONS BY CASA OF ANY REGULTORY BREACHES

For complete clarity, at no stage did CASA ever allege any regulatory breaches until much later in the process. When CASA did much later raise allegations of regulatory breaches which I was compelled to respond to, and resolve to CASAs’ satisfaction, CASA was unable to support any of the allegations, and they were later withdrawn by CASA many months later.

CASA has withdrawn every single allegation as there was no supporting information or evidence for any of them. If my understanding is incorrect, and CASA have any outstanding allegations of any regulatory breaches at all, I call on CASA to bring those to my attention and the attention of your office, and to me. CASA raised no allegations of any regulatory breaches initially when they sent the correspondence in October 2018. The allegations only came much later when CASA identified that they had not written up the audit results. The rewrite of the audit results raised completely new allegations.

You may recall that CASA identified to me that they had erred, and not written up the audit notes months after the audit. CASA committed to having those audit results written up over the weekend and given to me by the following Tuesday at the latest. When the “new” audit now raised allegations of regulatory breaches that were not raised at the CASA Onsite Exit Meeting. More on this topic can be found at Posts # 59, 216, 222, 942, 983, and 1226.

Initially, CASA raised an allegation of a regulatory breach that our signage did not meet the Regulatory size requirements. At this meeting, there were several CASA personnel from my new CMT (CASA oversighting team) present. The truth is that there are no regulatory requirements. At that meeting at the CASA Head Office, I asked if they could direct me to the legislation. CASA advised that they did not have access to the legislation, which seemed unusual in CASAs Head Office. This led me to believe that these people may not have been acting with good intent. CASA advised that they would write to me on this matter. When the correspondence arrived, CASA conceded that there was no regulations but they did offer their opinion on what they required. This was immediately implemented by APTA. This allegation of a regulatory breach was in fact not a regulatory breach but merely an opinion, which I respected and complied with.

There was the written allegation that our Flight School Management System wasn’t working properly. The system was highly advanced, and it did require training. I had extended multiple offers to CASA to provide training for their staff at no charge. CASA never accepted the offer. This was a problem with the CASA Employees capability on the system. There were no “problems” with the system. I do not believe that CASA will dispute that statement.

CASA did make an allegation of multiple breaches of flight and duty times, which is a significant allegation. This occurs when an operator allows a situation to develop where a pilot may fly in an unsafe condition due to overwork and fatigue. Immediately that CASA raised that allegation I wrote back to CASA because I had confidence in the APTA systems that woud not and could not have happened. I simply asked that CASA provide the name of the offending pilots so that I could investigate. CASA could not state the name of the pilot. This was simply ludicrous because the pilots' file is the starting process for the audit. i.e. a flight and duty breach must by its very nature be attached to a pilot.

CASA did later supply a copy of the offending flight and duty times by way of an attachment. It became immediately obvious that CASA had made an error. The system provided contained a predictive capability, so it could look ahead, and effectively say “on your current booking schedule you will exceed your flight and duty in five days’ time, please reschedule your bookings to ensure this doesn’t happen, or you will be unable to despatch your flight in five days’ time. The CASA employee was looking at the red warning flag for a future date, warning of what could happen, if the pilot didn’t reschedule his roster. I think that this CASA employee was caught out by the advanced IT systems that we incorporated and may not have been familiar with the high levels of operational control, that he may not have encountered before. For clarity, there was no breach of flight and duty times based on the information that CASA provided to me.



CONSIDERATION EIGHTEEN- THE LACK OF GOOD INTENT



I wrote to the CASA Board, Executive Management of CASA on multiple occasions raising substantial allegations of misconduct. Despite repeated requests, I was ignored or a period of 6 months. Correspondence to the CASA Board can be found at

· Posts # 1, 41, 44, 76, 82, 85, 98, 107, 147, 148,164,187, 191, 198,199, 260, 287,639, 686, 687, 688, 690, 787,809,920,934,935.936,940,941,946,955,958,976,1080,1088,10 89, 1094,1100,1102,1109,1110, 1115,1140, 1151, 1205,1274,1282,1297,1310, and 1326,



I raised concerns about a new CASA person that was oversight my organisation. My concerns were raised with CASA and that individual initiated the action against APTA and information on this matter can be found at

· Posts # 56, 290, 305, 924



Notifying CASA of the commercial impact refer;

· Posts # 45, 185, 223, 257, 258, 259, 261, 262 , 263, 264, 265, 275, 285, 315, 749, 820, 821, 852, 862, 1001,1141,1178,1191,1192,1193,1194,1196,1197



On matters regarding Craig Martin. The point of these posts is that CASA injected Mr. Craig Martin into the matter to support the CASA Region Manager at the time, Mr. Jones. I provided Mr. Martin with the perfect opportunity to gather my responses and the responses of the CASA employees that I had allegations against. I suggested that he obtain their answers to the same questions. I didn’t need to know the CASA employees’ answers. I only needed to know that he had asked the question of both Parties, as that would have alerted him to the fact that APTA did provide high levels of operational control. Mr. Martin chose not to ask the questions and advised me of such. This was extremely disappointing as it made me concerned that there may be a lack of intent.

· Posts # 84,224



Proposed resolution that I have put forward to CASA.

· Post #1167

[glenb]

PART SIX

CONSIDERATION NINETEEN- CASAs REGULATORY PHILOSOPHY

Consider that CASA has a Regulatory Philosophy, and I have included an excerpt from Australian Flying magazine on the release of CASAs Regulatory Philosophy, that came out in 2015. CASAs Regulatory Philosophy can be accessed here. Our regulatory philosophy | Civil Aviation Safety Authority (casa.gov.au)

“Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) director of aviation safety Mark Skidmore says a set of new key principles will make a “real, positive and lasting difference” to the regulator’s dealings with the aviation community.

As part of its response to the Aviation Safety Regulatory Review (ASRR), Australia’s aviation safety watchdog has published a list of 10 key principles that will guide and direct its approach to regulation.

These included a commitment to maintaining the trust and respect of the aviation community, as well as taking a consultative and collaborative approach to developing policies, having safety as the most important consideration, and a risk-based approach to regulatory action and decision-making, among others.

Skidmore said the new regulatory philosophy was “clear and concise set or principles that would guide all our actions” and sharpen the focus on how and how well CASA did its job.

The director of aviation safety said CASA would, where necessary, develop new policies and procedures to give “meaningful effect to our regulatory philosophy”.

“I am committed to ensuring these principles make a real, positive and lasting difference to the way CASA operates and way we interact with the aviation community,” Skidmore said in a statement on Wednesday.”

Whilst I do appreciate that CASA may not be legally obligated to comply with its Regulatory Philosophy, it does have an ethical and a moral obligation to comply, and when a CASA employee chooses not to act in accordance with that Regulatory Philosophy it does potentially indicate a lack of good intent. With regards to the Regulatory Philosophy, CASA has clearly not complied with it, and most especially points 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8, and 9 of that Philosophy.

I respectfully request that you consider the obligations placed on CASA by each of those points in their philosophy, in arriving at your final determination.



CONCLUSION

I robustly maintain that the levels of control that APTA offered were industry leading. Importantly, APTA underwent a two-year revalidation process with 10 CASA personnel, and many hundreds of thousands of dollars were invested by APTA in that process. The APTA product was designed from its initial conception to provide unparalleled levels of operational control, and it did so very well. Like all organisations it must be subject to a process of continuous improvement and that is something the organisation embraced.

I have a reasonable expectation that CASA will respect the Rule of Law, i.e. that CASA be open to criticism from me without fear of retribution, that CASA will apply the law equally and fairly to all industry participants, to ensure that’s CASAs opinions and laws are known to industry participants, and that they are capable of being known by being clear and concise, as is required of CASA in the Civil Aviation Act. I have an expectation in all my dealings with CASA, that there will be a presumption of innocence, and that my business is not subjected adversely to a retrospective change of opinion. I also believe that all CASA personnel are subject to, and accountable to the law.

There can be no doubt that CASA came into my Organisation and closed it down. There was no safety case and there was no regulatory breach. I was trying to protect my flying school and 9 others initially to survive in an increasingly complex environment. CASA should have been supportive of the concept. It increased safety, increased regulatory compliance, increased organisational skillsets, and provided significant business opportunities, most particularly in regional areas.

This is not a minor administrative compliant. This is a complaint about abuses of position and power. It is a complaint about misconduct by a small number of senior CASA personnel. It is a complaint about the many millions of dollars damaged caused to so many businesses. It is a complaint about the many students, customers, staff and suppliers that have been impacted. It’s a complaint about the loss of such a unique opportunity for regional Australian aviation that could have been realised. It’s a complaint about a small group of personnel within CASA referred to in industry as The Iron Ring” and consists of Mr Crawford, Mr Aleck, and Mr Martin who choose to act unlawfully, and with a flagrant disregard for ethics, morals, professionalism or their obligations in the workplace. It’s a complaint about my family’s life being decimated by the deliberate actions and decisions of these individuals, with no supporting justification for their actions on the basis of safety or any regulatory breaches.

Allegations have been made against the Iron Ring before, on many occasions, and their conduct continues unchecked by a CASA Board that is either impotent or chooses to be complicit in this conduct. You will recall that I wrote to the CASA Board on multiple occasions raising significant allegations. The Board chose to ignore those requests for more than 6 months. You will recall that I asked to meet with any two Members of the Board to raise my allegations. Had the Chair of the Board acted in a timely manner, so much damage could have been avoided.

The Chair of the Board eventually chose to facilitate that meeting over 6 months later, but rather than two Board Members being present as requested, he came with a CASA employee. The very same CASA employee only weeks later directed my Employer that my continuing employment “was not tenable”, and I was left unemployed.

I draw your attention to the ABC investigative piece that was aired on the ABC. A story about a gentleman by the name of Bruce Rhoades. The program was about the breaches of administrative law, being denied natural justice and procedural fairness. I had previously spoken to Mr Rhoades before he passed away from cancer while still trying to clear his name. Like me, he lost everything. I have spoken to his family and I have their consent to mention this matter. I urge you to utilise the resources of the Ombudsman Office and obtain a copy of the ABC 7.30 program that aired regarding the conduct of the “iron ring”. The program cannot be viewed here as it has time expired, although I have attached it for your reference. Dying pilot tries to clear his name after fatal plane crash - ABC News

Please find a link to current Youtube videos that Mr. Rhoades produced prior to his death.

Callous CASA - Bruce Rhoades. - YouTube

EXPOSING CASA 2 - YouTube

CASA - A LAW UNTO ITSELF - YouTube

CASA CONDEMNED 2 - YouTube

Senate Inquiry 19/11/18 - CASA DISGRACE - YouTube

Senate Inquiry 19/11/18 - CASA DISGRACE - YouTube

These same individuals have caused enormous harm to me, my family and the people around me. They also caused so much harm to Mr Rhoades and his family. Since this matter commenced over two years ago, I have received overwhelming support from industry. Whether it be the 1500 Posts and ¾ million views on Pprune, or the less public support, it has been exceptional.

Several business owners and pilots have approached me with allegations against those same individuals. They will be willing to come forward and present their allegations if given the opportunity.

Several senior CASA personnel that have since left the organisation have come forward. They are not on the side of either CASA or me, but they are prepared to come forward and simply tell the truth. I have their consent and I can put you in contact with them, if you feel this would assist you at arriving at your determination.

The Members of APTA are prepared to come forward and make a written submission outlining how APTA increased safety and compliance, and how unparalleled levels of operational control was maintained, and in fact, several organisations have already made those submissions to CASA.

Personally, I have been devastated by CASAs actions. At 56 years of age I have lost my home, my two businesses, my life savings, my reputation, and my health. My family has been traumatised, and as we are imminently to be declared bankrupt, one must really question whether CASAs actions were reasonable in the circumstances when this all could have been avoided by a well-intentioned discussion that could have had this entire fiasco avoided had CASA acted in a well-intentioned manner, and in accordance with their own procedures

I hope that this additional material is of some benefit in bringing more transparency to the matter. I will forward through two additional submissions, as stated earlier.

Respectfully



Glen Buckley

[Sunfish]

This document needs an executive summary. Less is more. While I know not the truth of your allegations, you need a one pager (no more) that looks something like the following. A journalist can then pick up your case quite easily and perhaps write about it.:


Glen Buckley built an aviation training business (APTA) on a franchise model that enabled widely dispersed small flying schools to meet new and expensive administrative and safety requirements of CASA. The APTA franchise business model allowed small schools to comply with the new standards in a cost effective manner, by adopting the APTA systems and methods.

CASA worked with APTA in developing and establishing its suite of systems and procedures with the intention of ensuring that they exactly met CASA requirements. CASA professed itself more than satisfied with both the development process and the product which APTA. At all times CASA knew that APTA was employing a franchise business model and that the systems and processes CASA approved would be "rolled out" to participating flight schools. The use of such a franchising business model in flight training was not a new development and CASA has and still does permit such arrangements prior to APTAs initiative.

APTA subsequently enrolled XX schools in the program, employing yy staff and students and training ZZ pilots.

On (date) without warning, CASA suddenly reversed its attitude to APTA, declaring its business model illegal, destroyed the business and those of its customers, abusing it's owner and proceeded to drive him out of the Aviation industry. There is no lawful basis to justify any of these actions, let alone the tactics used to achieve this result.

Mr. Buckley now seeks redress.

[glenb]

Sunfish

i couldn’t agree with you more.

I have engaged the services of a journalist who is working on exactly that, and it should be finalised shortly. i.e next 14 days.

i will direct them to your post.

Appreciate the enduring support over the last couple of years, cheers. Glen

[McLimit]

This document needs an executive summary. Less is more. While I know not the truth of your allegations, you need a one pager (no more) that looks something like the following. A journalist can then pick up your case quite easily and perhaps write about it.:

Rubbish,

Journalists have had the opportunity to do this for some time and haven't. I know of one aviation journalist that is well aware of the situation. It's just too hard for that person.

It needs a journalist with the intestinal fortitude to follow it through to its conclusion rather than a fluff piece that hits a paper then disappears into the ether.

[glenb]

Dick Smith

I am ready to go public with this.

I am satisfied that the Deputy Prime Minister has enough knowledge of this matter to have acted by now, if he intended to do so.

Mr Dick Smith.

If you have access to any media contacts that would be prepared to work with me in bringing my substantive allegations to media attention, i would be very appreciative.

Cheers. Glen

[Sunfish]

McLimit:

Rubbish,

Journalists have had the opportunity to do this for some time and haven't. I know of one aviation journalist that is well aware of the situation. It's just too hard for that person.

It needs a journalist with the intestinal fortitude to follow it through to its conclusion rather than a fluff piece that hits a paper then disappears into the ether.

You have just conclusively demonstrated why CASA can get away with this and other abuses. Journalists with the intestinal fortitude you refer to only exist in Hollywood movies and even if they did exist, the chances of one of them firstly making sense of what CASA will claim is a "highly technical safety issue" and translate it into a story that won't make the publics eyes glaze over in a microsecond, is zero. Journos write stories to sell advertising; "Man beats puppy" sells more than "CASA rejected my thronomister modification!".

What I can safely say is if Glen can mobilize public opinion via a puff piece or anything else then CASA will be directed to settle this in a heartbeat. The converse is also true.

...And I have direct personal experience of doing exactly that myself, though not with CASA.

....And I've written press releases for Government.

[Global Aviator]

I disagree, if you get a journo who understands and sees the injustice they will run it.

Getting that journo is the hard part.

Want to get the public onside, media is the only way, preferably mainstream.

You can write as many press releases as you like. They can have all the bells and whistles, unless it’s a journo with a name or a terrier they go nowhere (unless it’s a topic they want to cover).

Capt B has certainly done the work on this from reading these pages. Surely someone on here must have some great media contacts!

[Paragraph377]

Originally Posted by Global Aviator

I disagree, if you get a journo who understands and sees the injustice they will run it.

Getting that journo is the hard part.

Want to get the public onside, media is the only way, preferably mainstream.

You can write as many press releases as you like. They can have all the bells and whistles, unless it’s a journo with a name or a terrier they go nowhere (unless it’s a topic they want to cover).

Capt B has certainly done the work on this from reading these pages. Surely someone on here must have some great media contacts!

Try journalist Anthony Klan. His details are available on Google.

[JakeFlyz]

This has to be said.

Moderators, please do not remove this observation of mine as I am speaking on a number of my peers in the GA space.

A bit about myself, I have just turned 30 and hold an instructor rating and have flown non-stop for the last 10 years. Like many of you, I live for the sky. I am a strong advocate for safety for all of us that share the sky.

There are a number of different forms of GA as well as civil aviation that all have to share the same airspace and admittedly, we do have to priorities civil over the hobbyists whilst also empowering flying schools to produce safety minded pilots. Recreational flight is a luxury just like if you where to go yachting, and I would rather that than cowboys flying around in dodgy aircraft playing dodgems up there! Flying schools have a HUGE responsibility to engrain safety and best practice in their teachings and I've been witness to many clubs just copy and paste regulation, well after they have began operating and have never aligned their operations with P&Ps they have copied and pasted. Many GA operators think that much of the regulation is a money grab but you would be deluded to think GA contributes more than 1% of what the civil aviation sector contributes.
GA is financially insignificant, much of the cost is directly linked to making sure you all aren't filling your papers with BS as way too many of them do. I know, I have worked for a number of flying schools and found that many find it easier to act like there is some sort of tyranny going on in CASA then to implement a legitimate operational framework. Hell, some of them you didn't even need CASA for a non-conformance , SafeWork would have been enough!

I've followed this thread for a long time now just out of curiosity/entertainment and it reminds me of some of the 'flying schools' that are really just over 50's flying club where you sit around sipping coffee crying about rules you cant keep up with. Being able to read all this has been incredibly entertaining but It has gotten to the stage that I cannot watch a group of old men hating life and spreading hate just because they struggle to interpret regulation. Read any of Glens emails to officials and they are embarrassingly obvious to be a manifestation of tension and anger. Look at the times they've been sent too! People notice that mate.

All this energy acting hard done too when you could have maybe just rectified your non-conformances. Many of us know you where 'shut down overnight' because your model was immoral. You cannot sell plug and play policy just so schools don't have to care about it! There is a responsibility each school has to embrace and teach and swear by! Sick of hearing pilots telling young aspiring pilots all these preconceived ideas of regulation when you are the problem.

I think for the reputation of the majority of us GA pilots, you chill out on trying to represent us. It is no longer entertaining but I am genuinely concerned for the level of emotion and hate that I have read here. 99% of what is written in this thread is an emotional opinion with 0 supporting evidence. All of the "proof" Glen has provided isn't proof at all? It is so odd how you all interoperate it and the personal attacks at some individuals are incredibly misleading and I pray someone files a defamation of character case against Glen just to reset his perspective.

I don't mean to sound harsh, but this whole thread is a deluded manifestation of harshness.

Rgds,
Jake (ARN 799286)

[McLimit]

..And I have direct personal experience of doing exactly that myself, though not with CASA.

Is there anything? Anything...................anything at all you haven't had direct personal experience of? Anything?

Why aren't you getting out there with the article for Glen then?

[Paragraph377]

Originally Posted by JakeFlyz

Moderators, please do not remove this observation of mine as I am speaking on a number of my peers in the GA space.

A bit about myself, I have just turned 30 and hold an instructor rating and have flown non-stop for the last 10 years. Like many of you, I live for the sky. I am a strong advocate for safety for all of us that share the sky.

There are a number of different forms of GA as well as civil aviation that all have to share the same airspace and admittedly, we do have to priorities civil over the hobbyists whilst also empowering flying schools to produce safety minded pilots. Recreational flight is a luxury just like if you where to go yachting, and I would rather that than cowboys flying around in dodgy aircraft playing dodgems up there! Flying schools have a HUGE responsibility to engrain safety and best practice in their teachings and I've been witness to many clubs just copy and paste regulation, well after they have began operating and have never aligned their operations with P&Ps they have copied and pasted. Many GA operators think that much of the regulation is a money grab but you would be deluded to think GA contributes more than 1% of what the civil aviation sector contributes.
GA is financially insignificant, much of the cost is directly linked to making sure you all aren't filling your papers with BS as way too many of them do. I know, I have worked for a number of flying schools and found that many find it easier to act like there is some sort of tyranny going on in CASA then to implement a legitimate operational framework. Hell, some of them you didn't even need CASA for a non-conformance , SafeWork would have been enough!

I've followed this thread for a long time now just out of curiosity/entertainment and it reminds me of some of the 'flying schools' that are really just over 50's flying club where you sit around sipping coffee crying about rules you cant keep up with. Being able to read all this has been incredibly entertaining but It has gotten to the stage that I cannot watch a group of old men hating life and spreading hate just because they struggle to interpret regulation. Read any of Glens emails to officials and they are embarrassingly obvious to be a manifestation of tension and anger. Look at the times they've been sent too! People notice that mate.

All this energy acting hard done too when you could have maybe just rectified your non-conformances. Many of us know you where 'shut down overnight' because your model was immoral. You cannot sell plug and play policy just so schools don't have to care about it! There is a responsibility each school has to embrace and teach and swear by! Sick of hearing pilots telling young aspiring pilots all these preconceived ideas of regulation when you are the problem.

I think for the reputation of the majority of us GA pilots, you chill out on trying to represent us. It is no longer entertaining but I am genuinely concerned for the level of emotion and hate that I have read here. 99% of what is written in this thread is an emotional opinion with 0 supporting evidence. All of the "proof" Glen has provided isn't proof at all? It is so odd how you all interoperate it and the personal attacks at some individuals are incredibly misleading and I pray someone files a defamation of character case against Glen just to reset his perspective.

I don't mean to sound harsh, but this whole thread is a deluded manifestation of harshness.

Rgds,
Jake (ARN 799286)

Tautological nonsense from a child with little life experience.