Glen Buckley and Australian small business -V- CASA
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: Australia
Posts: 358
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CASA screwed up: various (newer?) staff had different regulatory interpretations to those already agreed to in-principle by CASA.
Thread Starter
I still dont understand what i did either!
CASAs mandate is aviation safety. Let me be very clear and CASA will not refute this statement. There have not been any allegations of any safety breaches, safety concerns, safety compromises at all, at any time. This is not a safety matter, and I urge CASA to refute that statement.
There have been no allegations of regulatory breaches., No rules have been breached or compromised.
A quick recap for those that are having trouble following.
CASA introduced a regulatory change called Part 61/141/142. It was finally introduced over 10 years behind schedule.
CASA set a date for all schools to "Transition" to the new regulatory environment of September 1st 2017.
Of Australia's 350 schools, only 5% had achieved Part 142 status by the deadline. Importantly, APTA was amongst the 5%. CASA delayed the date 12 months.
That delay cost me many hundreds of thousands of dollars.
If I rewind the clock
As the new legislation was presented to Industry, it became obvious that I was going to lose access to 90% of my revenue, as I would not be permitted to continue delivering the 150 hour CPL. The lead up to the introduction will clearly show that this significant "twist" was inserted by CASA right at the end of the program. It effectively made my business unsaleable, as it was to lose 90 % of its revenue unless I became what was known as a Part 142 school.
I studied the project and it was enormous. I discussed a concept similar to the medical industry or even in retail i.e. IGA where members come together and share a strong pool of resources in a central office. I spent two years working side by side with CASA developing APTA. The concept was multi bases under a central head office. We attended to over 600 CASA requirements with each of those requirements assessed by a person from CASA. We were already operating in this format with both MFT and TVSA under APTA when we Transitioned by the original CASA date of September 2017. Later to be postponed due to the fact that CASA did not have the resources to complete the task by the nominated date.
CASA then added more bases under our system, including AVIA and Learn to Fly. Then in November 2017. CASA audited us and our bases, and raised no concerns about the structure that they had helped me design, and they had approved. I made further significant investment in our IT oversight systems. The model worked well. It provided direct operational control, clearly removed the commercial pressure from the safety and compliance pressures. It improved safety through the provision of a highly resourced central safety department. It created jobs, protected my business and others. CASA personnel actually recommended the product to struggling aero clubs. I provided highly subsidised rates to aero clubs as an altruistic gesture to ensure their continued survival. Ballarat Aero Club is an example of the spectacular success that could be achieved under APTA.
Then CASA notified me of a change of CMT. (A CASA oversighting team). I went from CMT 2 to a team referred to as CMT 3 and headed up by a gentleman by the name of Will Nutatll.
The new team contained a CASA staff member who I feared may try to bring harm to me and my business. Importantly, I immediately made two written and documented requests for a one on one ON THE RECORD meeting which was facilitated. My concerns were raised, and professionally brushed off.
My management and staff will concur that CMT 3 adopted a very combative stance in all dealings, and shortly after and without any warning at all, in any shape or form, Brad Lacy the Subject Matter Expert from within my CMT initiated he issuance of paperwork attached in post 44.
I called up the signatory, Mr David Jones, (Regional Manager). He explained that he wasn't all over it and would have to meet with his team.
I expressed alarm that he would sign such a substantive document if he wasn't all over it.
Then the CASA culture kicked in, and my woes began.
Please note that when I refer to someone by name, I make no insinuations about them as a person outside of their work role. I have no knowledge of those matters. I also cannot make comments on them with their dealings with other operators because I also have no knowledge of those matters. I genuinely believe that my concerns are significant, they do impact on aviation safety, they are the truth, I encourage any opportunity presented by CASA to defend my assertions, and they are very much in the public interest.
There have been no allegations of regulatory breaches., No rules have been breached or compromised.
A quick recap for those that are having trouble following.
CASA introduced a regulatory change called Part 61/141/142. It was finally introduced over 10 years behind schedule.
CASA set a date for all schools to "Transition" to the new regulatory environment of September 1st 2017.
Of Australia's 350 schools, only 5% had achieved Part 142 status by the deadline. Importantly, APTA was amongst the 5%. CASA delayed the date 12 months.
That delay cost me many hundreds of thousands of dollars.
If I rewind the clock
As the new legislation was presented to Industry, it became obvious that I was going to lose access to 90% of my revenue, as I would not be permitted to continue delivering the 150 hour CPL. The lead up to the introduction will clearly show that this significant "twist" was inserted by CASA right at the end of the program. It effectively made my business unsaleable, as it was to lose 90 % of its revenue unless I became what was known as a Part 142 school.
I studied the project and it was enormous. I discussed a concept similar to the medical industry or even in retail i.e. IGA where members come together and share a strong pool of resources in a central office. I spent two years working side by side with CASA developing APTA. The concept was multi bases under a central head office. We attended to over 600 CASA requirements with each of those requirements assessed by a person from CASA. We were already operating in this format with both MFT and TVSA under APTA when we Transitioned by the original CASA date of September 2017. Later to be postponed due to the fact that CASA did not have the resources to complete the task by the nominated date.
CASA then added more bases under our system, including AVIA and Learn to Fly. Then in November 2017. CASA audited us and our bases, and raised no concerns about the structure that they had helped me design, and they had approved. I made further significant investment in our IT oversight systems. The model worked well. It provided direct operational control, clearly removed the commercial pressure from the safety and compliance pressures. It improved safety through the provision of a highly resourced central safety department. It created jobs, protected my business and others. CASA personnel actually recommended the product to struggling aero clubs. I provided highly subsidised rates to aero clubs as an altruistic gesture to ensure their continued survival. Ballarat Aero Club is an example of the spectacular success that could be achieved under APTA.
Then CASA notified me of a change of CMT. (A CASA oversighting team). I went from CMT 2 to a team referred to as CMT 3 and headed up by a gentleman by the name of Will Nutatll.
The new team contained a CASA staff member who I feared may try to bring harm to me and my business. Importantly, I immediately made two written and documented requests for a one on one ON THE RECORD meeting which was facilitated. My concerns were raised, and professionally brushed off.
My management and staff will concur that CMT 3 adopted a very combative stance in all dealings, and shortly after and without any warning at all, in any shape or form, Brad Lacy the Subject Matter Expert from within my CMT initiated he issuance of paperwork attached in post 44.
I called up the signatory, Mr David Jones, (Regional Manager). He explained that he wasn't all over it and would have to meet with his team.
I expressed alarm that he would sign such a substantive document if he wasn't all over it.
Then the CASA culture kicked in, and my woes began.
Please note that when I refer to someone by name, I make no insinuations about them as a person outside of their work role. I have no knowledge of those matters. I also cannot make comments on them with their dealings with other operators because I also have no knowledge of those matters. I genuinely believe that my concerns are significant, they do impact on aviation safety, they are the truth, I encourage any opportunity presented by CASA to defend my assertions, and they are very much in the public interest.
First, he presumed that CASA would have a ‘whole of agency’ view as to the compliance of his business structure with the aviation law. It was naive not to realise that everyone in CASA has an opinion and those opinions can be diametrically different, with potentially devastating commercial and other consequences. (You will recall that CASA’s FOIs were split 50/50 on the question whether the rules required the PIC of VH-NGA to divert. In that case the CEO of CASA stepped in to assert the differences of opinion were irrelevant and that his opinion was the ‘whole of agency’ opinion. It was politically expedient - sorry, in the interests of the safety of air safety - for that to happen in the case of the PIC of VH-NGA, but not in Mr Buckley’s.)
Secondly, Mr Buckley gave the ICC an excuse not to deal with the substance of his complaint. It was naive not to force the ICC to deal with the question whether Mr Buckley’s current activities are or are not lawful. (It may be that the ICC does not have ‘jurisdiction’ to answer that question, in which case it was naive to complain to the ICC in the first place. The fact that the ICC suggested that he could have made a comparative judgment of the lawfulness of the position that CASA’s Popular Front of Judea encouraged Mr Buckley to rely upon, versus those of CASA’s People’s Popular Front of Judea that Mr Buckley is not complying with the law, suggest to me that the ICC considers the ICC to have ‘jurisdiction’ to make absolute judgments of lawfulness - how else could the comparative judgment be made? But - alas - according to the ICC it was “impossible” for the ICC to make the comparative judgment because Mr Buckley didn’t allow it.)
Last edited by Lead Balloon; 10th Aug 2019 at 01:36.
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: Currently: A landlocked country with high terrain, otherwise Melbourne, Australia + Washington D.C.
Posts: 396
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just trying to get these two facts straight (please correct where necessary):
1. Action was taken by CASA against APTA after they realised that the APTA model, although initially encouraged by CASA, was contravening to the general idea that an AOC cannot be franchised.
2. Under the APTA model, member schools would benefit from Part 142 operator privileges
Why then is it MFT, one of the member schools, that went down alone?
1. Action was taken by CASA against APTA after they realised that the APTA model, although initially encouraged by CASA, was contravening to the general idea that an AOC cannot be franchised.
2. Under the APTA model, member schools would benefit from Part 142 operator privileges
Why then is it MFT, one of the member schools, that went down alone?
Thread Starter
Okihara. Why MFT?
Melbourne Flight Training was the school that I opened 15 years ago, and the first APTA Member.
When CASA commenced the action in October 2018 (and still continuing), they prevented me taking on new customers, marketing, adding capability, or renewing capabilities as part of this process, I clearly identified in writing on multiple occasions that the consequences of the . CASA action would cost me at least $10,000 per week as they did.
I thought that CASA would resolve their confusion in a matter of weeks. As it dragged on, I had to call on my Business MFT to avoid making redundancies. Quite simply MFT could not sustain APTAs costs of $10,000 per week, and hence MFT has closed.
When CASA commenced the action in October 2018 (and still continuing), they prevented me taking on new customers, marketing, adding capability, or renewing capabilities as part of this process, I clearly identified in writing on multiple occasions that the consequences of the . CASA action would cost me at least $10,000 per week as they did.
I thought that CASA would resolve their confusion in a matter of weeks. As it dragged on, I had to call on my Business MFT to avoid making redundancies. Quite simply MFT could not sustain APTAs costs of $10,000 per week, and hence MFT has closed.
Thread Starter
CASA slam another door. The ICC process
Dear Mr Hanton, Please allow me to comment on my view of the ICC process, now that I am in receipt of the final report.
After waiting 8 months to receive the report, I am truly concerned at the avoidance of the key issues, and the apparent lack of intent to provide an honest, open and transparent assessment. Can I specially identify some critical shortcomings.
In matter A, I made allegations of shortcomings regarding the processes associated with the Latrobe Valley audit/visit by CASA. This had been identified as a Level Two audit by the Regional Manger in my presence, and in the presence of CASAs Head of Regulatory Services.
CASA was later to reverse their stance and state it was not an audit.
At the exit interview at Latrobe Valley on the day, only a minor anomaly was identified.
CASA advised a written report would follow, as is the procedure. That report never arrived.
At a later CASA meeting, the audit was raised, and this time the topics had changed entirely in nature.
It was identified that the audit results had not been provided to me, although they had been provided to CASA legal, and CASA confirmed that fact.
CASA then denied an audit was done which surprised me. CASA then claimed there were no audit results.
I then tried to get them under Freedom of information, and there was simply page after page after page of completely redacted material, so you will appreciate my confusion. CASA prepared audit results months later that were not dated and differed completely from what we had previously been advised. Completely new allegations of regulatory breaches that I steadfastly refute arose. Over a 6-month period I have 30 emails that were not answered as I tried to attend to the fabricated breaches. Quite simply, CASA could not respond because they could not substantiate them.
I asked you to investigate why audit results would be sent to CASA legal before I am afforded the right to reply. You did not respond.
I asked you specifically to identify if breaches of Administrative law had occurred, and you chose to ignore this request.
I asked you to specifically investigate how an onsite audit debrief could differ from the Head Office debrief which differed entirely from the undated audit results written months later. You completely ignored this.
In Matter B, you specifically undertook to address” whether CASAs requirements of APTA were more onerous than those imposed on (XXXXXXXXXXX)”. You have chosen to completely avoid this most critical complaint about the different manner with which CASA engages different operators in your final report, despite undertaking to do so. This is fundamental to my complaint and by avoiding it you have denied me fairness. A determination here was one of my critical complaints.
You will recall that it was CASAs inappropriate use of the Aviation Ruling that has lead to this process that has resulted in business closures, loss of jobs, and associated damage. It was the wrong document to be using. In Matter F, you specifically undertook to make a determination on “the Aviation Rulings applicability”. Instead, because CASA chose to take it off the table, after two months, you have cleverly avoided the issue.
How can CASA use the wrong document, cause enormous damage, and then decide to “take it off the table”. That is in fact the very thing the ICC should be investigating, rather than be complicit in avoiding addressing the complaint. A thorough determination of this complaint was fundamental to an open and transparent investigation on your behalf.
In matter Q, I made complaints against item 9 of CASAs regulatory philosophy. https://www.casa.gov.au/about-us/who...ory-philosophy It cannot be denied that this entire situation could have been avoided had Mr Brad Lacy my first contact person within CASA decided to raise any concerns he had. Instead he initiated a course of action that bought significant damage. At the start of the process in October 2018, I made CASA very aware of the consequences of their actions, and tragically it has unfolded as I suggested. Closed businesses and lost jobs. CASA placed a number of restrictions on my ability to trade that ultimately lead to its failure. My expectation is that you would have comprehensively addressed CASAs stated criteria in Item 9 against my businesses experience, as I requested and you undertook.
In matter L, you undertook to address whether CMT 3 had acted in accordance with CASA regulatory philosophy although you chose to avoid this in your final report.
In Matter T, I specially mentioned that CASA processing times averaged 30 minutes per month. i.e. if APTA paid for a CASA task taking 5 hours, that would take 10 months to process. I alleged that my processing times were well outside industry norms. You undertook to address this, and in fact you chose to avoid addressing it.
Matter A1 and B1 were complaints about CASA continually refusing to respond to requests for assistance. CASA clearly made allegations of regulatory breaches of which I am required to resolve. I made over 30 requests to help me resolve those. That alone is outrageous, and you undertook to address this matter, which you did not.
My overall opinion of my ICC experience It can never have the credibility it deserves as long as the ICC is on the payroll of CASA. It is natural, that on receipt of such a substandard report, I would feel that I may not have been afforded fairness.
The Department is critically under resourced. It was clearly identified that the CASA action was costing my business $10,000 per week. Eight months is an unacceptably long-time frame for any business to wait.
Mr Crawford in his role as the head of the Aviation Group appeared to have more detailed knowledge of the process, and I will attend to that in separate correspondence.
Industry make claims that the ICC process is used as a CASA process to delay access to the Ombudsman, and sadly that is my feeling.
Having met you, I had a high expectation, to say that I am extremely disappointed in the depth and integrity of the work would be a significant understatement. Not only for my own interest, but for the benefit of those that follow me later, I am compelled to accelerate my complaint.
Respectfully, Glen Buckley
After waiting 8 months to receive the report, I am truly concerned at the avoidance of the key issues, and the apparent lack of intent to provide an honest, open and transparent assessment. Can I specially identify some critical shortcomings.
In matter A, I made allegations of shortcomings regarding the processes associated with the Latrobe Valley audit/visit by CASA. This had been identified as a Level Two audit by the Regional Manger in my presence, and in the presence of CASAs Head of Regulatory Services.
CASA was later to reverse their stance and state it was not an audit.
At the exit interview at Latrobe Valley on the day, only a minor anomaly was identified.
CASA advised a written report would follow, as is the procedure. That report never arrived.
At a later CASA meeting, the audit was raised, and this time the topics had changed entirely in nature.
It was identified that the audit results had not been provided to me, although they had been provided to CASA legal, and CASA confirmed that fact.
CASA then denied an audit was done which surprised me. CASA then claimed there were no audit results.
I then tried to get them under Freedom of information, and there was simply page after page after page of completely redacted material, so you will appreciate my confusion. CASA prepared audit results months later that were not dated and differed completely from what we had previously been advised. Completely new allegations of regulatory breaches that I steadfastly refute arose. Over a 6-month period I have 30 emails that were not answered as I tried to attend to the fabricated breaches. Quite simply, CASA could not respond because they could not substantiate them.
I asked you to investigate why audit results would be sent to CASA legal before I am afforded the right to reply. You did not respond.
I asked you specifically to identify if breaches of Administrative law had occurred, and you chose to ignore this request.
I asked you to specifically investigate how an onsite audit debrief could differ from the Head Office debrief which differed entirely from the undated audit results written months later. You completely ignored this.
In Matter B, you specifically undertook to address” whether CASAs requirements of APTA were more onerous than those imposed on (XXXXXXXXXXX)”. You have chosen to completely avoid this most critical complaint about the different manner with which CASA engages different operators in your final report, despite undertaking to do so. This is fundamental to my complaint and by avoiding it you have denied me fairness. A determination here was one of my critical complaints.
You will recall that it was CASAs inappropriate use of the Aviation Ruling that has lead to this process that has resulted in business closures, loss of jobs, and associated damage. It was the wrong document to be using. In Matter F, you specifically undertook to make a determination on “the Aviation Rulings applicability”. Instead, because CASA chose to take it off the table, after two months, you have cleverly avoided the issue.
How can CASA use the wrong document, cause enormous damage, and then decide to “take it off the table”. That is in fact the very thing the ICC should be investigating, rather than be complicit in avoiding addressing the complaint. A thorough determination of this complaint was fundamental to an open and transparent investigation on your behalf.
In matter Q, I made complaints against item 9 of CASAs regulatory philosophy. https://www.casa.gov.au/about-us/who...ory-philosophy It cannot be denied that this entire situation could have been avoided had Mr Brad Lacy my first contact person within CASA decided to raise any concerns he had. Instead he initiated a course of action that bought significant damage. At the start of the process in October 2018, I made CASA very aware of the consequences of their actions, and tragically it has unfolded as I suggested. Closed businesses and lost jobs. CASA placed a number of restrictions on my ability to trade that ultimately lead to its failure. My expectation is that you would have comprehensively addressed CASAs stated criteria in Item 9 against my businesses experience, as I requested and you undertook.
In matter L, you undertook to address whether CMT 3 had acted in accordance with CASA regulatory philosophy although you chose to avoid this in your final report.
In Matter T, I specially mentioned that CASA processing times averaged 30 minutes per month. i.e. if APTA paid for a CASA task taking 5 hours, that would take 10 months to process. I alleged that my processing times were well outside industry norms. You undertook to address this, and in fact you chose to avoid addressing it.
Matter A1 and B1 were complaints about CASA continually refusing to respond to requests for assistance. CASA clearly made allegations of regulatory breaches of which I am required to resolve. I made over 30 requests to help me resolve those. That alone is outrageous, and you undertook to address this matter, which you did not.
My overall opinion of my ICC experience It can never have the credibility it deserves as long as the ICC is on the payroll of CASA. It is natural, that on receipt of such a substandard report, I would feel that I may not have been afforded fairness.
The Department is critically under resourced. It was clearly identified that the CASA action was costing my business $10,000 per week. Eight months is an unacceptably long-time frame for any business to wait.
Mr Crawford in his role as the head of the Aviation Group appeared to have more detailed knowledge of the process, and I will attend to that in separate correspondence.
Industry make claims that the ICC process is used as a CASA process to delay access to the Ombudsman, and sadly that is my feeling.
Having met you, I had a high expectation, to say that I am extremely disappointed in the depth and integrity of the work would be a significant understatement. Not only for my own interest, but for the benefit of those that follow me later, I am compelled to accelerate my complaint.
Respectfully, Glen Buckley
Thread Starter
Slam!!! There goes another door.
In posts 147 and 148 I posted the letter that I sent to the Chair of the CASA Board. I asked for a response within two weeks.
The response arrived three weeks later, and is attached.
The response arrived three weeks later, and is attached.
Glenn,
You have posted a number of PDF's over the past week.I cannot open any of them as they are tagged "pending approval" which by the way 'Moderators' approval never seems to come …….
You have posted a number of PDF's over the past week.I cannot open any of them as they are tagged "pending approval" which by the way 'Moderators' approval never seems to come …….
Interesting pending approval is required!
Can someone start a crowd funding campaign? I will chip in and maybe PPRuNE could assist, thus confirm Glen's claims are or are not rumours - in the interests of aviation.
Can someone start a crowd funding campaign? I will chip in and maybe PPRuNE could assist, thus confirm Glen's claims are or are not rumours - in the interests of aviation.
Thread Starter
slam!!! Yet another door slammed.
After numerous letters sent to the Deputy PM over more than 6 months, all of which were ignored, I called on Mr Barnaby Joyce to assist and he did, which I thank him for. My concerns were forwarded to the Deputy PM, and the attached correspondence came. A total and complete waste of time. I have aired my grievances within CASA and to the highest levels with Graeme Crawford who is the Head of the Aviation Group. I have wasted 8 months on a fluffy little report from the ICC that has the investigative depth of something not becoming of an 8 month investigation, and the Deputy PM sends me straight back to the ICC process that is fundamentally flawed.
I really am running out of options. As this matter unfolds and is fully exposed, you will see many documented attempts by me to de-escalate the matter and seek the most efficient use of public resources. At every opportunity CASA has chosen the more costly and more combative approach. I have steadfastly avoided engaging legal counsel. I am a true believer that any conflict can be resolved with two simple ingredients.
The Truth, and
Good Intentions.
My options have been exhausted, and this matter will have to be tested via our legal system. I will be calling on Industry support because the matters are substantive, and they include corruption within the Aviation Group headed up by Mr Graeme Crawford.
It is CASA that has chosen to utilise bullying and intimidation throughout this process. As it unfolds, I am confident that the Australian Public will see why there needs to be a Judicial Inquiry into CASA. It is fast becoming critical to the future of aviation safety in this country.
Many good people in CASA have there reputations tarnished by a corrupt few.
I really am running out of options. As this matter unfolds and is fully exposed, you will see many documented attempts by me to de-escalate the matter and seek the most efficient use of public resources. At every opportunity CASA has chosen the more costly and more combative approach. I have steadfastly avoided engaging legal counsel. I am a true believer that any conflict can be resolved with two simple ingredients.
The Truth, and
Good Intentions.
My options have been exhausted, and this matter will have to be tested via our legal system. I will be calling on Industry support because the matters are substantive, and they include corruption within the Aviation Group headed up by Mr Graeme Crawford.
It is CASA that has chosen to utilise bullying and intimidation throughout this process. As it unfolds, I am confident that the Australian Public will see why there needs to be a Judicial Inquiry into CASA. It is fast becoming critical to the future of aviation safety in this country.
Many good people in CASA have there reputations tarnished by a corrupt few.
Thread Starter
Hey Mods, are you watching. Of course you are, and closely i suggest
It has been pointed out that the attachments take some time to open. Is there any advice you can provide me to assist in expediting the process. Cheers. Glen.
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: Australia
Posts: 358
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Glen, you must feel very frustrated. However, I would simply be viewing the ICC process as a hurdle prior to seeking an independent Ombudsman review of these matters - that is hopefully where the truth can be dealt with.
I am certain that many are watching this issue carefully, applauding your will to fight for what's right.
I am certain that many are watching this issue carefully, applauding your will to fight for what's right.
"I will be calling on Industry support because the matters are substantive, and they include corruption within the Aviation Group headed up by Mr Graeme Crawford. "
No problem, happy to help - name the method.
No problem, happy to help - name the method.
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: Australia
Posts: 358
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The top top end of town will run rings around any regulator. Thus the lower end of the regulatory spectrum attracts greater than its share of the regulator’s attention...
Thread Starter
So how come QANTAS can operate
Funny you mention it Sunny, because that is EXACTLY what the CASA personnel said when I first mooted the idea, many years ago.
But to answer your question, QANTAS probably operate under CMT 2. I was moved to a different CASA oversighting team referred to as CMT 3 and headed up a Mr Will Nuttall. So any stakeholder should reasonably expect different CASA policy application.
Having been into the Melbourne Office, the desks for CMT 2 could be up to 10 feet away from CMT 3. My assumption is that the geographical distance between the two teams, could be a major contributing factor as to why an insufficient handover was done between CMT 2 and 3, and that is why Will Nuttall team were so much out of their depth and didn't really understand what was going on.
CASA has a reputation for different policy application between the West and the East of Australia. Maybe that has extended to East facing desks v West facing desks. Kind of like cruising levels I guess. Everyone misses each other.
The fact of the matter is there are no breaches, no safety compromises, just a highly incompetent CMT acting for purposes other than safety or regulatory compliance.
But to answer your question, QANTAS probably operate under CMT 2. I was moved to a different CASA oversighting team referred to as CMT 3 and headed up a Mr Will Nuttall. So any stakeholder should reasonably expect different CASA policy application.
Having been into the Melbourne Office, the desks for CMT 2 could be up to 10 feet away from CMT 3. My assumption is that the geographical distance between the two teams, could be a major contributing factor as to why an insufficient handover was done between CMT 2 and 3, and that is why Will Nuttall team were so much out of their depth and didn't really understand what was going on.
CASA has a reputation for different policy application between the West and the East of Australia. Maybe that has extended to East facing desks v West facing desks. Kind of like cruising levels I guess. Everyone misses each other.
The fact of the matter is there are no breaches, no safety compromises, just a highly incompetent CMT acting for purposes other than safety or regulatory compliance.
Thread Starter
The Head of the Aviation group interfering with processes?
On 30/04/19, I sent the following email to Mr Crawford. After more than 6 months of CASA not being able to justify their action.
"Dear Mr Crawford, Aviation Group Executive Manager CASA,
As you are aware, and without any prior notice, CASA took action to vary my AOC on 23/10/18.
I have made 5 requests to CASA for appropriate supporting documentation to approach the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. CASA has chosen not to provide that, and denied me my rights under Administrative Law.
That initial action was on the basis of the Aviation Ruling which we have ascertained is not the correct document to have used. A very significant error on CASAs behalf.
That initial action was also taken on the basis of our Temporary locations procedure. We have now ascertained it was actually CASAs suggestion to adopt the procedure which we accepted. We have also demonstrated that it was in fact CASAs own procedure from CASAs own guidance material, was previously approved by CASA, and audited by CASA. So quite simply, there is no breach. In fact it is quite ludicrous to even suggest so. It was entirely a misunderstanding of CASA personnel.
We have the ongoing confusion with the contracts which is entirely CASAs own confusion. It clearly demonstrates CASAs failure to achieve clear and concise aviation safety standards. After more than 6 months, CASA are still unable to work out what they want in the contracts. Throughout the last 6 months I have been completely willing to do whatever CASA wants, but still they have no idea. In fact I don’t believe there is any legislative requirement for a contract, CASA never required one, and made no mention of one prior to the attached documentation.
I am happy to embed any CASA suggestions, but after 6 months I am still waiting for CASA to tell me what they want.Now all of the confusion in CASA would be of no concern to me, except for the fact that by CASA reducing my businesses “expiry” date to 7 days in the future, that is a significant action to take. Consider what CASA have done to my business, and consider the impact on any Company, be it a major bank or retailer, or my small business. There is no doubt that the CASA action has now cost me millions of dollars, and sent two businesses into closure and most likely a third business over coming days. With that “expiry date” on my business,
As CASAs action is not taken on safety concerns, and there are no regulatory breaches, can I request that CASA put in writing why CASA deems the action appropriate, and the reasons for the action. I really don’t understand what it is CASA want, and feel it fair and reasonable that you clearly and concisely outline why my business is still enduring this CASA action after 6 months, because to be honest it appears to me as the business owner that CASA is displaying “unconscionable conduct” and as the recipient of it, I can assure you it is bullying and intimidating in its nature.Your written explanation may help to bring clarity to the process. My assumption is that this information would be readily available to you, in your role.
Glen Buckley"
Mr CRAWFORDS RESPONSE
Glen,I understand that you have arranged an extension to 26 Apr 2019 deadline for you to provide your feedback to the ICC response to your previous complaints against CASA. With that in mind, please be advised that I intend to respond to your email dated 24 Apr 2019 below, post ICC receipt of your feedback.
MY QUESTION
Why would Mr Crawford place a condition of explaining CASAs actions to me, only after I have submitted my complaint to the ICC. How does he know what is going on over in the ICC office. Its independent isn't it?. Is that reasonable that CASA take action against my business, but will only justify it after I have finished my ICC submission. Mr Crawford are you interfering with the processes?
"Dear Mr Crawford, Aviation Group Executive Manager CASA,
As you are aware, and without any prior notice, CASA took action to vary my AOC on 23/10/18.
I have made 5 requests to CASA for appropriate supporting documentation to approach the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. CASA has chosen not to provide that, and denied me my rights under Administrative Law.
That initial action was on the basis of the Aviation Ruling which we have ascertained is not the correct document to have used. A very significant error on CASAs behalf.
That initial action was also taken on the basis of our Temporary locations procedure. We have now ascertained it was actually CASAs suggestion to adopt the procedure which we accepted. We have also demonstrated that it was in fact CASAs own procedure from CASAs own guidance material, was previously approved by CASA, and audited by CASA. So quite simply, there is no breach. In fact it is quite ludicrous to even suggest so. It was entirely a misunderstanding of CASA personnel.
We have the ongoing confusion with the contracts which is entirely CASAs own confusion. It clearly demonstrates CASAs failure to achieve clear and concise aviation safety standards. After more than 6 months, CASA are still unable to work out what they want in the contracts. Throughout the last 6 months I have been completely willing to do whatever CASA wants, but still they have no idea. In fact I don’t believe there is any legislative requirement for a contract, CASA never required one, and made no mention of one prior to the attached documentation.
I am happy to embed any CASA suggestions, but after 6 months I am still waiting for CASA to tell me what they want.Now all of the confusion in CASA would be of no concern to me, except for the fact that by CASA reducing my businesses “expiry” date to 7 days in the future, that is a significant action to take. Consider what CASA have done to my business, and consider the impact on any Company, be it a major bank or retailer, or my small business. There is no doubt that the CASA action has now cost me millions of dollars, and sent two businesses into closure and most likely a third business over coming days. With that “expiry date” on my business,
-
- I cannot market my product
- I cannot get new customers
- Consider the enormous instability for the organisation and the many people who depend on me for their livelihood.
As CASAs action is not taken on safety concerns, and there are no regulatory breaches, can I request that CASA put in writing why CASA deems the action appropriate, and the reasons for the action. I really don’t understand what it is CASA want, and feel it fair and reasonable that you clearly and concisely outline why my business is still enduring this CASA action after 6 months, because to be honest it appears to me as the business owner that CASA is displaying “unconscionable conduct” and as the recipient of it, I can assure you it is bullying and intimidating in its nature.Your written explanation may help to bring clarity to the process. My assumption is that this information would be readily available to you, in your role.
Glen Buckley"
Mr CRAWFORDS RESPONSE
Glen,I understand that you have arranged an extension to 26 Apr 2019 deadline for you to provide your feedback to the ICC response to your previous complaints against CASA. With that in mind, please be advised that I intend to respond to your email dated 24 Apr 2019 below, post ICC receipt of your feedback.
MY QUESTION
Why would Mr Crawford place a condition of explaining CASAs actions to me, only after I have submitted my complaint to the ICC. How does he know what is going on over in the ICC office. Its independent isn't it?. Is that reasonable that CASA take action against my business, but will only justify it after I have finished my ICC submission. Mr Crawford are you interfering with the processes?
Thread Starter
Mr Crawford again!
I wrote to the Board in January 2019, in the hope that a meeting would bring some ethics to the decision making. Guess who pops up again? Mr Crawford!
Dear Mr Buckley,I understand that you have made numerous complaints into the ICC over the last week and that Jonathan Hanton has been in contact with you on these. I also understand that a number of those submissions are requests on clarity regarding what CASA is asking for, these are clearly a task to be worked between the Regulatory Service team and APTA and as previously stated you should work with Peter White and the Southern Region team on this. Where you have concerns about the behaviour or interactions of CASA staff with APTA staff, I encourage you to provide the facts you believe support those concerns to the ICC so that they can be properly investigated. For clarity, we will not be arranging a meeting with APTA and the CASA Board and whilst I appreciate you may not like that outcome, I kindly request you accept that is CASA’s position.
Kind regards,
Graeme
Graeme M. CrawfordActing DAS & CEOCivil Aviation Safety Authority
Dear Mr Buckley,I understand that you have made numerous complaints into the ICC over the last week and that Jonathan Hanton has been in contact with you on these. I also understand that a number of those submissions are requests on clarity regarding what CASA is asking for, these are clearly a task to be worked between the Regulatory Service team and APTA and as previously stated you should work with Peter White and the Southern Region team on this. Where you have concerns about the behaviour or interactions of CASA staff with APTA staff, I encourage you to provide the facts you believe support those concerns to the ICC so that they can be properly investigated. For clarity, we will not be arranging a meeting with APTA and the CASA Board and whilst I appreciate you may not like that outcome, I kindly request you accept that is CASA’s position.
Kind regards,
Graeme
Graeme M. CrawfordActing DAS & CEOCivil Aviation Safety Authority