Glen Buckley and Australian small business -V- CASA
Join Date: Mar 2021
Location: Oz
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ABC did an investigative piece
After reading all sides I ask why you use this example to support your quest? The accident report has a seriously high number of issues with the operation. Shockingly many of the findings were repeats of what the fella lost his pilots licence for and even copped a criminal conviction for previously. The report says both his aircraft were overloaded, conducted aerobatics with people (in a 172!!!!), flew dangerously low, skimming maintenance hours and really hadn’t thought through some fundamental airmanship of where to go if the old donk quits. That photo in the report of where this happen is alarming. The pilot had almost no where to go. I even see the operator provided a submission on the accident report prior to its release so the fella had his say.
So why the difference in storys between the ABC piece and the accident report? Then there is the bit on missing passenger cameras and recording cards taken off the crash site and never found. Strange. Is this why QLD police charging the pilot over the crash. Would the fella be up on charges to if still with us. Lots of questions. I even found discussion here on Pprune post C172 down on Middle Island.
After reading all, I ask what you think if an GA operator with these issues approached APTA for inclusion.
I wish you best in your quest for justice.
Don’t answer Glen, instead allow me:
Luce, your question is irrelevant, insulting and misleading.
You might as well ask: “As a Catholic Diocese, what would you reply if a local brothel asked to be included in your congregation?”.
You are implying that APTA is/ was established as a deceitful umbrella organization to give cover to a variety of disreputable operators.
This is consistent with the apparent view of your employer that all pilots are “uncaught criminals”.
Nice try.
Luce, your question is irrelevant, insulting and misleading.
You might as well ask: “As a Catholic Diocese, what would you reply if a local brothel asked to be included in your congregation?”.
You are implying that APTA is/ was established as a deceitful umbrella organization to give cover to a variety of disreputable operators.
This is consistent with the apparent view of your employer that all pilots are “uncaught criminals”.
Nice try.
Thread Starter
Luce and Sunfish
Good morning Sunfish, and I very much appreciate the spirited support, but took absolutely no offense at the question, and in fact, I think it’s a very legitimate question. It is something that my management team considered from very early on.
I'm heading off to "Fat Daddy’s Breakfast Club" shortly. A tradition of 15 years now where a group of elite athletes in their mid-50s gather every fortnight to have breakfast and take the piss out of each other. An important process to maintain ones mental health, and look in awe at the one member who has for his own reasons decided to buck the trend and remain under 100kg, yet still insist on maintaining his membership. His membership is tenuous, and he shows almost no resolve to “let himself ago” but we tolerate him.
The answer to your question is quite easy to be honest. Its all about “intent”. Is this a well-intentioned operator with something to bring to the group?
The Operator would be operating under my AOC to my procedures with me as the authorisation holder, and my CASA approved Key Personnel taking on full responsibility, in law for that operation. Not one of the management team would tolerate a “dodgy” operator, as potentially it was us that may have to stand before a coroners inquiry in the event of a tragedy and we needed to be able to justify every decision made.
I need to clarify that in the case of Bruce Rhoades, it was a charter business whereas we chose to operate in the flight training environment only, and had no short to medium term plan to incorporate charter, although I appreciate the point of your question.
Importantly however, the starting point was "intent". What type of operator are we dealing with. Is it someone with "good intent". Someone trying to do the right thing in the flight training industry, and somebody who “shares the vision”
In the case of Bruce Rhoades, my feeling is that he was well intentioned. It’s a highly complicated legislative environment we operate in, and often operators were somewhat stuck in the past. The good intent was there, although I cant speak to the quality of his product.
Once we ascertained that the Operator was of “good intent”, most likely we would proceed with the application. At this stage I would refer you all the way back to Post 46, and the attachment being the “induction checklist that was designed with CASA personnel, approved by CASA personnel, and utilised by CASA personnel as part of the CASA required approval process.
The process was rigid, and in my opinion the quality of the operation would improve substantially, and the operation was closely monitored and supervised.
From my experience, most people are well intentioned, and given the correct robust systems and procedures and extremely high levels of supervision, they will see the benefits of a well run operation.
In short, it is fair to say that had he have run a flying school, I’m confident that we could have transformed that operation to a demonstrably safer and highly compliant operation.
Regarding the attachment to the Bruce Rhoades matter, that’s a bit more personal and rather close to home. I spoke to Mr Rhoades before his passing. He was a man, in my opinion, who was a victim of a “reverse engineered process”, where CASA determines their desired outcome, and manufactures the process to achieve that desired outcome, exactly as they did with me.
Mr Rhoades was somebody dealing with the same three characters as I was. Graeme Crawford, Craig Martin and Jonathan Aleck, so there was a “bond” there if you like.
Mr Rhoades like me, was particularly critical of the conduct of Craig Martin in particular, and in fact made some YouTube videos that you may have seen of Craig Martin.
Sadly, Mr Rhoades died with his reputation in tatters, and I have no doubt that at his funeral, there would have been attendees who in the back of their mind had their own questions about his character, with the knowledge of the CASA attack on him.
In my own case, I am someone who had their business shut down overnight, with an impact on my own reputation. Something that I am fighting to restore while I am still alive. My greatest fear is that something happens to me, before I get to fully clear my name in front of my family, colleagues, past APTA members, employees etc.
I hope that goes someway to explaining in it, and I’m sorry I don’t have more time to address the question, but please feel free to come back to me if you have a follow up question, and with a breakfast in my belly, I will respond.
Cheers. Glen.
I'm heading off to "Fat Daddy’s Breakfast Club" shortly. A tradition of 15 years now where a group of elite athletes in their mid-50s gather every fortnight to have breakfast and take the piss out of each other. An important process to maintain ones mental health, and look in awe at the one member who has for his own reasons decided to buck the trend and remain under 100kg, yet still insist on maintaining his membership. His membership is tenuous, and he shows almost no resolve to “let himself ago” but we tolerate him.
The answer to your question is quite easy to be honest. Its all about “intent”. Is this a well-intentioned operator with something to bring to the group?
The Operator would be operating under my AOC to my procedures with me as the authorisation holder, and my CASA approved Key Personnel taking on full responsibility, in law for that operation. Not one of the management team would tolerate a “dodgy” operator, as potentially it was us that may have to stand before a coroners inquiry in the event of a tragedy and we needed to be able to justify every decision made.
I need to clarify that in the case of Bruce Rhoades, it was a charter business whereas we chose to operate in the flight training environment only, and had no short to medium term plan to incorporate charter, although I appreciate the point of your question.
Importantly however, the starting point was "intent". What type of operator are we dealing with. Is it someone with "good intent". Someone trying to do the right thing in the flight training industry, and somebody who “shares the vision”
In the case of Bruce Rhoades, my feeling is that he was well intentioned. It’s a highly complicated legislative environment we operate in, and often operators were somewhat stuck in the past. The good intent was there, although I cant speak to the quality of his product.
Once we ascertained that the Operator was of “good intent”, most likely we would proceed with the application. At this stage I would refer you all the way back to Post 46, and the attachment being the “induction checklist that was designed with CASA personnel, approved by CASA personnel, and utilised by CASA personnel as part of the CASA required approval process.
The process was rigid, and in my opinion the quality of the operation would improve substantially, and the operation was closely monitored and supervised.
From my experience, most people are well intentioned, and given the correct robust systems and procedures and extremely high levels of supervision, they will see the benefits of a well run operation.
In short, it is fair to say that had he have run a flying school, I’m confident that we could have transformed that operation to a demonstrably safer and highly compliant operation.
Regarding the attachment to the Bruce Rhoades matter, that’s a bit more personal and rather close to home. I spoke to Mr Rhoades before his passing. He was a man, in my opinion, who was a victim of a “reverse engineered process”, where CASA determines their desired outcome, and manufactures the process to achieve that desired outcome, exactly as they did with me.
Mr Rhoades was somebody dealing with the same three characters as I was. Graeme Crawford, Craig Martin and Jonathan Aleck, so there was a “bond” there if you like.
Mr Rhoades like me, was particularly critical of the conduct of Craig Martin in particular, and in fact made some YouTube videos that you may have seen of Craig Martin.
Sadly, Mr Rhoades died with his reputation in tatters, and I have no doubt that at his funeral, there would have been attendees who in the back of their mind had their own questions about his character, with the knowledge of the CASA attack on him.
In my own case, I am someone who had their business shut down overnight, with an impact on my own reputation. Something that I am fighting to restore while I am still alive. My greatest fear is that something happens to me, before I get to fully clear my name in front of my family, colleagues, past APTA members, employees etc.
I hope that goes someway to explaining in it, and I’m sorry I don’t have more time to address the question, but please feel free to come back to me if you have a follow up question, and with a breakfast in my belly, I will respond.
Cheers. Glen.
Join Date: Mar 2021
Location: Oz
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Howdy Glen
I am pleased you acknowledged my query as legitimate and of good faith. That’s truely how I intended to come across. No insult, no misleading, just a legitimate and I believe a relevant query. Albeit I do now see my error in lack of clarity about a GA operator and flight training. As I would expect, despite another chipping in, it was gracious of you to accept the premise of my query and pen a considered, unemotional and intelligent response. Fair play indeed.
You are in battle Glen and all great leaders in battle are wise to abide in the art of war. The words of Sun Tzu, “you can be sure of succeeding in your attacks if you only attack places which are undefended. You can ensure the safety of your defense if you only hold positions that cannot be attacked”.
So query, can your position be attacked.
Complete agreeance with your matter about intent and very well raised. A sound trait and a backbone of fine aviators from yesteryear. Though, here still lies my simple query for using this fella as support, an ally as such. I found interest to read your own management team considered possible danger here. There must have been concern similar.
Alas, back to the beginning of your mention to Aunty ABC investigative piece. That was on telly prior to the air crash report. I put it that would Aunty have run the story if that crash report was finished. Its in print, the fella has his say, the poor bloke flying had his say. All involved had there say and it still reads like a tragic novel. These media sods never come back to finish the story. Would their investigative piece stand up now. What would that tale tell to put part 2 on telly but I fear it will never see daylight.
Since my original query to you I’ve almost finished the port bottle taking in the long, long, crash report and it certainly peaked the thinning eyebrow to the utterly alarming number of elementry problems unturned that simply, quite basically boil down to pilot lessons 101. Things that disprove claims made in the Aunty story, overloading, low flying and turn backs after engine failure at low level. It’s all over internet videos too. Beggars belief to put yourself on camera doing this stuff. How the authorities didn’t find this sooner, well I’m stuffed to wonder that.
So at curtain call the show stops with the tragic death of one, the maiming of two, the shattered families, the old Bailey out to lock up the poor old pilot. There are no winners. Preventable just if there was basic sound airmanship and a couple of pondering chats over a cold brew about what ifs.
So, all the way back too intent. I stand with you on how you ascertain the matter but I ask you how is it possible in this case to say intent was good. One issue. Good intent remains. Two,three issues. The eyebrows rise but good intent still hanging on. Countless issues, serious issues that cannot be unseen. History repeats. What do wise men say, those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Surely most men would learn from criminal convictions. Well now is it reasonable to question if good intent is a fair leap of faith in this case. Can reputation be rebuilt from that.
Lets move on a bit. Alas the same CASA characters from your story are in this fellas too. You’ve chatted to the fella, shared a few yarns and there is a bond of sorts to use your words. Like a brotherhood of war. I understand the bond and the building emotion, the common cause, your both passionate about the enemy. But strongly beware the false consensus effect. But your story is the opposite ends of the paddock to the other story. It is here which I am puzzled to see how the two yarns can be used together to fight the battle.
Letting the old ticker settle for a spell, emotions aside, let’s ask a common man on the street, when presented the truth, all the facts as you have genuinely done so on this forum
1. Was it wrong to cut the wings off this fella’s operation.
2. Was it wrong to cut the wings of APTA.
Glen, in that horse race the common man would back you being the victim of injustice every day.
Going all the way back to your post No46 you spell out CASA never put forward a supporting safety case. Because there isn’t one in your case, not so hard to find thou in the other.
The fella’s words of breaches of administrative law, being denied natural justice and procedural fairness. They are on record but as I read were disproven. And don’t forget the old Bailey is taking action too from their own separate copper investigation. Let’s think about that for a minute, a magistrate, a trusted person of legal cloth is hearing charges against the pilot. This is outside of CASA and all other organizations.
Where there is smoke there is fire and here lies a smouldering wreck of lives and legal proceedings. If the fella was still with us would he be standing up next to the pilot. I wonder if Aunty have a ‘correcting the record’ to their halfway piece of work has come adrift and has sunk.
And so we finish at the start, I read from post 1 to here now and what a read. The tale portraits an intelligent man of courage with an untainted reputation in all eyes here. A genuinely wronged man and I applaud your will to fight. You have not lost your reputation Glen, your evidence stands up to question and investigation. But consider your allies wisely. The very people to whom you seek a listening ear and the hand of Justice can also read and I assure you they too have read this fella’s tragic novel.
Ponder the art of war, regroup, rethink and ask yourself honestly, are you ensuring your defense is safe and can your position be attacked.
Keep up the fight Glen. I wish you all the best in your quest for justice.
I am pleased you acknowledged my query as legitimate and of good faith. That’s truely how I intended to come across. No insult, no misleading, just a legitimate and I believe a relevant query. Albeit I do now see my error in lack of clarity about a GA operator and flight training. As I would expect, despite another chipping in, it was gracious of you to accept the premise of my query and pen a considered, unemotional and intelligent response. Fair play indeed.
You are in battle Glen and all great leaders in battle are wise to abide in the art of war. The words of Sun Tzu, “you can be sure of succeeding in your attacks if you only attack places which are undefended. You can ensure the safety of your defense if you only hold positions that cannot be attacked”.
So query, can your position be attacked.
Complete agreeance with your matter about intent and very well raised. A sound trait and a backbone of fine aviators from yesteryear. Though, here still lies my simple query for using this fella as support, an ally as such. I found interest to read your own management team considered possible danger here. There must have been concern similar.
Alas, back to the beginning of your mention to Aunty ABC investigative piece. That was on telly prior to the air crash report. I put it that would Aunty have run the story if that crash report was finished. Its in print, the fella has his say, the poor bloke flying had his say. All involved had there say and it still reads like a tragic novel. These media sods never come back to finish the story. Would their investigative piece stand up now. What would that tale tell to put part 2 on telly but I fear it will never see daylight.
Since my original query to you I’ve almost finished the port bottle taking in the long, long, crash report and it certainly peaked the thinning eyebrow to the utterly alarming number of elementry problems unturned that simply, quite basically boil down to pilot lessons 101. Things that disprove claims made in the Aunty story, overloading, low flying and turn backs after engine failure at low level. It’s all over internet videos too. Beggars belief to put yourself on camera doing this stuff. How the authorities didn’t find this sooner, well I’m stuffed to wonder that.
So at curtain call the show stops with the tragic death of one, the maiming of two, the shattered families, the old Bailey out to lock up the poor old pilot. There are no winners. Preventable just if there was basic sound airmanship and a couple of pondering chats over a cold brew about what ifs.
So, all the way back too intent. I stand with you on how you ascertain the matter but I ask you how is it possible in this case to say intent was good. One issue. Good intent remains. Two,three issues. The eyebrows rise but good intent still hanging on. Countless issues, serious issues that cannot be unseen. History repeats. What do wise men say, those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Surely most men would learn from criminal convictions. Well now is it reasonable to question if good intent is a fair leap of faith in this case. Can reputation be rebuilt from that.
Lets move on a bit. Alas the same CASA characters from your story are in this fellas too. You’ve chatted to the fella, shared a few yarns and there is a bond of sorts to use your words. Like a brotherhood of war. I understand the bond and the building emotion, the common cause, your both passionate about the enemy. But strongly beware the false consensus effect. But your story is the opposite ends of the paddock to the other story. It is here which I am puzzled to see how the two yarns can be used together to fight the battle.
Letting the old ticker settle for a spell, emotions aside, let’s ask a common man on the street, when presented the truth, all the facts as you have genuinely done so on this forum
1. Was it wrong to cut the wings off this fella’s operation.
2. Was it wrong to cut the wings of APTA.
Glen, in that horse race the common man would back you being the victim of injustice every day.
Going all the way back to your post No46 you spell out CASA never put forward a supporting safety case. Because there isn’t one in your case, not so hard to find thou in the other.
The fella’s words of breaches of administrative law, being denied natural justice and procedural fairness. They are on record but as I read were disproven. And don’t forget the old Bailey is taking action too from their own separate copper investigation. Let’s think about that for a minute, a magistrate, a trusted person of legal cloth is hearing charges against the pilot. This is outside of CASA and all other organizations.
Where there is smoke there is fire and here lies a smouldering wreck of lives and legal proceedings. If the fella was still with us would he be standing up next to the pilot. I wonder if Aunty have a ‘correcting the record’ to their halfway piece of work has come adrift and has sunk.
And so we finish at the start, I read from post 1 to here now and what a read. The tale portraits an intelligent man of courage with an untainted reputation in all eyes here. A genuinely wronged man and I applaud your will to fight. You have not lost your reputation Glen, your evidence stands up to question and investigation. But consider your allies wisely. The very people to whom you seek a listening ear and the hand of Justice can also read and I assure you they too have read this fella’s tragic novel.
Ponder the art of war, regroup, rethink and ask yourself honestly, are you ensuring your defense is safe and can your position be attacked.
Keep up the fight Glen. I wish you all the best in your quest for justice.
Last edited by Luce; 4th Mar 2022 at 03:04.
So you say it’s a foregone conclusion that Rhoades ran a dodgy operation?
I believe there might be some dissent on that.
https://amp.smh.com.au/business/cons...23-p50bc3.html
I believe there might be some dissent on that.
https://amp.smh.com.au/business/cons...23-p50bc3.html
The rules and prosecutions
Reminds me of the late Billy Vincent of Smithton Tassie who had in excess of 20,000 hrs as a private pilot, flying mostly single engine Cessnas.
His charter business included fish spotting, flying between the nearby islands and mostly around Tassie. He was always available to help those in need, landing on a west coast beach on one occasion to rescue a half drowned fisherman. Being so highly regarded by his community he was awarded an AO.
He used to say to me he must come to my school on Phillip Island and get his commercial licence but it was always put off, he was pretty busy. And of course from a practical standpoint it would have been a complete waste of time and money.
CASA caught up with him and made him employ a CPL who soon crashed Billy’s plane on one of the Bass Strait islands.
CASA eventually went for him again in court with a long list of illegal charter flights, the list was shortened to a minimum when the Judge was appraised of certain facts. Namely CASA had employed Billy to fly their investigators to a couple of other plane crash sites and were happy with his service.
He was fined the absolute minimum but I think the experience soured Billy’s interest in flying for a living.
Billy Vincent was a shining example of commonsense and skilful flying that was appreciated by his community. The people of North West Tassie didn’t need him to have licences of any sort, and his life and work in flying demonstrate that bits of paper and miles of complex regulations don’t make the public safe.
CASA should have invented a method of making him legal but of course that might have brought down the house of cards.
I am privileged to have known him as a friend.
His charter business included fish spotting, flying between the nearby islands and mostly around Tassie. He was always available to help those in need, landing on a west coast beach on one occasion to rescue a half drowned fisherman. Being so highly regarded by his community he was awarded an AO.
He used to say to me he must come to my school on Phillip Island and get his commercial licence but it was always put off, he was pretty busy. And of course from a practical standpoint it would have been a complete waste of time and money.
CASA caught up with him and made him employ a CPL who soon crashed Billy’s plane on one of the Bass Strait islands.
CASA eventually went for him again in court with a long list of illegal charter flights, the list was shortened to a minimum when the Judge was appraised of certain facts. Namely CASA had employed Billy to fly their investigators to a couple of other plane crash sites and were happy with his service.
He was fined the absolute minimum but I think the experience soured Billy’s interest in flying for a living.
Billy Vincent was a shining example of commonsense and skilful flying that was appreciated by his community. The people of North West Tassie didn’t need him to have licences of any sort, and his life and work in flying demonstrate that bits of paper and miles of complex regulations don’t make the public safe.
CASA should have invented a method of making him legal but of course that might have brought down the house of cards.
I am privileged to have known him as a friend.
Join Date: Dec 2021
Location: Sydney
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Luce harps on a single case, go read 10x more here...
http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/sit...4_redacted.pdf
http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/sit...4_redacted.pdf
Is that heavily edited video on the smh site supposed to show a properly conducted commercial operation? What's going on between about 0.37 to 0,45 (when '... something goes wrong' flashes up)? Doesn't exactly look like a reasonable thing to be doing with paying pax on board now, does it?
Funny how nothing between rotate and that point is shown, either ... if we're going to be honest about what should and shouldn't be done with unsuspecting passengers on board, let's be honest, shall we?
Funny how nothing between rotate and that point is shown, either ... if we're going to be honest about what should and shouldn't be done with unsuspecting passengers on board, let's be honest, shall we?
Sandy, I'm afraid the regulators view of holding the proper license goes back a long way, Len Diprose was the chief pilot of Australian National Airways during the '30's and the first pilot to get a rating on the DC-3 in Australia, prior to the war he became chief pilot of Associated Airlines which was BHP's executive transport flying the Lockheed 12, when they moved up to a Heron they had to get ATPL's, which some of the company pilots found a tough gig. Similarly a chap by the name of Johnny Robbins, he flew New Guinea for Guinea Airways during the '30's, during the war he captained the airlines DC-3's on routes around Australia, post war the department introduced the requirement for an ATPL, not having the education, having left school at about 12 years of age, he didn't have the necessary education and was relegated to the right hand seat until retirement flying the airlines South Australia routes, as a teenager he invited me up front on the CV440 and offered a piece of advice, make damn sure you get an education.
What's going on between about 0.37 to 0,45 (when '... something goes wrong' flashes up)? Doesn't exactly look like a reasonable thing to be doing with paying pax on board now, does it?
The prec search and landing is part of the PPL syllabus (or was when I was teaching 30 years ago), so every pilot should be aware of it.
Flying standards
Thank you Megan, probably somewhat off thread but with or without our highly stratified and ever more complex system of pilot qualifications one factor does play an important part.
Namely the insurance industry, who in effect regulate with their risk assessments. Pilot experience is a major consideration and insurance risk is based on finely tuned realities within changing circumstances through time. At complete contrast to CASA’s whatever it feels like in accordance with Sec 9a. of the Act.
Namely the insurance industry, who in effect regulate with their risk assessments. Pilot experience is a major consideration and insurance risk is based on finely tuned realities within changing circumstances through time. At complete contrast to CASA’s whatever it feels like in accordance with Sec 9a. of the Act.
Hi Checkboard, fair enough to do a precautionary search, but why would you do it downwind at low level offset from the beach with very limited options in a power loss (as per what ended up happening?)
High recce followed by a pass along the strip into wind, offset enough to see but also able to get to it, would be how you would have taught it, or something along the lines of that, wouldn't it? It doesn't make any sense to be blasting along at low level with nowhere to go, which is why I don't think a strip assessment was the primary reason for having the aircraft in that position, although that's of course only my opinion.
The thing is, as Luce is I think getting at, Glen's arguments seem compelling and legitimate, and muddying the waters by drawing supposed parallels with others just because they too are in a stoush with CASA isn't likely to be particularly helpful to his cause. Everything I've seen of Glen's situation from what he's put up here and said on the record sounds fair dinkum. Some others making a lot of noise about being victimised do not appear to have the same credibility. Again, opinion only of course.
High recce followed by a pass along the strip into wind, offset enough to see but also able to get to it, would be how you would have taught it, or something along the lines of that, wouldn't it? It doesn't make any sense to be blasting along at low level with nowhere to go, which is why I don't think a strip assessment was the primary reason for having the aircraft in that position, although that's of course only my opinion.
The thing is, as Luce is I think getting at, Glen's arguments seem compelling and legitimate, and muddying the waters by drawing supposed parallels with others just because they too are in a stoush with CASA isn't likely to be particularly helpful to his cause. Everything I've seen of Glen's situation from what he's put up here and said on the record sounds fair dinkum. Some others making a lot of noise about being victimised do not appear to have the same credibility. Again, opinion only of course.
Much quicker to do a downwind prec search, a quick u-bolt at the end to turn around, then land. Something you’d expect more from a crop duster.
Thread Starter
Luce
Dear Luce and others,
Please be assured that I value your comments.
I understand your sentiment. My matter is unique, in that it has no safety element to it all. There has neve been any allegation of any safety concern with my operation at all. It was simply an allegation of a breach of the Civil Aviation Act that states “An Air Operator Certificate cannot be transferred. It is that fact that makes my matter unique, and I do run the risk of “muddying “my own case.
I have taken your advice on board, and it will be in my “considerations” going forward. Cheers.
As a final thought about the Bruce Rhoades matter. Drawing on 25 years’ experience in the flight training industry, I am fully satisfied that the young back packer in that incident would still be alive if:
The CASA Flight Operations Inspector (FOI) adopted this approach.
He/she was allocated 20 businesses by CASA, and committed to popping into each of those businesses once a month, for morning or afternoon tea, on a mutually convenient date.
They sat together for an hour and discussed matters with good intent. They built a relationship of confidence and then trust. A natural part of that conversation could have been as simple as “Run me through how you conduct adventure flights Bruce?” or “can I come along on one of your adventure flights Bruce”, or "how would you handle XXXXX Bruce?"
Any CASA concerns or questions could be resolved right back at that stage. The accident and fatality would most likely never have occurred.
Its hard to digest, but it really is that simple.
If the FOI turned up for morning or afternoon tea, and was told to bugger off, that would be a justifiable CASA concern.
The Operator that invites them in, as almost all would, with welcome arms is the Operator that will work collaboratively with CASA to improve safety and quality outcomes.
Its all well and good to have thousands of pages of documentation, laws, rules, advisories, regulatory philosophies, statements of expectation, exemptions, etc etc, but if the good intent and professional approach isn’t there, then it just won’t work. It really all starts with intent. Intent from the operator and intent from CASA.
The intent exists with the vast majority of operators, and CASA will know, because they will be invited in.
Sadly, and tragically, and most especially at the GA level, there would be less accidents if CASA choose to act with good intent. No amount of legislation can solve this very real problem that is so critical to flight safety in GA
That is what will improve safety outcomes. Good intent. CASA just doesn’t have the intent. Its not in the Organizational culture, and that stems from leadership..
In my own matter, and far closer to home. I operated only a few hundred meters from SOAR aviation. The truth is that industry, including other Government Departments raised safety concerns about that organization on multiple occasions, and repeatedly so over a protracted period. The Company had more accidents, incidents, than most, and even a fatality. That business went on right under CASAs nose and they knew about it. They ignored it. It wasn’t CASA that shut SOAR down. It was the students going to the Australian Skills and Qualifications Authority (ASQA), Its mind boggling.
ASQA was taking action against SOAR, while CASA was shutting me down. Its simply inexplicable at least.
By the way Luce, an industry colleague gave me a copy of “the art of war”, when this matter started. A very informative read, and after your post, I have located it for a re-read.
Cheers. Glen.
Please be assured that I value your comments.
I understand your sentiment. My matter is unique, in that it has no safety element to it all. There has neve been any allegation of any safety concern with my operation at all. It was simply an allegation of a breach of the Civil Aviation Act that states “An Air Operator Certificate cannot be transferred. It is that fact that makes my matter unique, and I do run the risk of “muddying “my own case.
I have taken your advice on board, and it will be in my “considerations” going forward. Cheers.
As a final thought about the Bruce Rhoades matter. Drawing on 25 years’ experience in the flight training industry, I am fully satisfied that the young back packer in that incident would still be alive if:
The CASA Flight Operations Inspector (FOI) adopted this approach.
He/she was allocated 20 businesses by CASA, and committed to popping into each of those businesses once a month, for morning or afternoon tea, on a mutually convenient date.
They sat together for an hour and discussed matters with good intent. They built a relationship of confidence and then trust. A natural part of that conversation could have been as simple as “Run me through how you conduct adventure flights Bruce?” or “can I come along on one of your adventure flights Bruce”, or "how would you handle XXXXX Bruce?"
Any CASA concerns or questions could be resolved right back at that stage. The accident and fatality would most likely never have occurred.
Its hard to digest, but it really is that simple.
If the FOI turned up for morning or afternoon tea, and was told to bugger off, that would be a justifiable CASA concern.
The Operator that invites them in, as almost all would, with welcome arms is the Operator that will work collaboratively with CASA to improve safety and quality outcomes.
Its all well and good to have thousands of pages of documentation, laws, rules, advisories, regulatory philosophies, statements of expectation, exemptions, etc etc, but if the good intent and professional approach isn’t there, then it just won’t work. It really all starts with intent. Intent from the operator and intent from CASA.
The intent exists with the vast majority of operators, and CASA will know, because they will be invited in.
Sadly, and tragically, and most especially at the GA level, there would be less accidents if CASA choose to act with good intent. No amount of legislation can solve this very real problem that is so critical to flight safety in GA
That is what will improve safety outcomes. Good intent. CASA just doesn’t have the intent. Its not in the Organizational culture, and that stems from leadership..
In my own matter, and far closer to home. I operated only a few hundred meters from SOAR aviation. The truth is that industry, including other Government Departments raised safety concerns about that organization on multiple occasions, and repeatedly so over a protracted period. The Company had more accidents, incidents, than most, and even a fatality. That business went on right under CASAs nose and they knew about it. They ignored it. It wasn’t CASA that shut SOAR down. It was the students going to the Australian Skills and Qualifications Authority (ASQA), Its mind boggling.
ASQA was taking action against SOAR, while CASA was shutting me down. Its simply inexplicable at least.
By the way Luce, an industry colleague gave me a copy of “the art of war”, when this matter started. A very informative read, and after your post, I have located it for a re-read.
Cheers. Glen.
Thread Starter
Barnaby Joyce response to post #1912
Dear Mr Buckley Thank you for your email of 1 February 2022 regarding an allegation of misfeasance against an official of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA). I understand the matter you raise has a long history, and as you suggest the matter had been raised with the Hon Michael McCormack MP as the then Deputy Prime Minister. Furthermore, I understand this matter is well known to CASA, and as you advise aspects of your complaint are subject to a current review by the Commonwealth Ombudsman. As a result, I do not intend to comment on the specific details of this matter. In general terms, I expect all officers of CASA to fully cooperate with official Australian Government processes and act with honesty and integrity. Under the provisions of the Civil Aviation Act 1988 (the Act), CASA is an independent authority. However, as provided for under the Act and as you identify in your email, I have recently issued a Statement of Expectations to the Board of CASA, setting out my views on how CASA should carry out its functions. It is my expectation that this statement will be adhered to. Thank you again for taking the time to write and inform me of your concerns on this matter. Yours sincerely Barnaby Joyce
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: New Zealand
Age: 71
Posts: 1,475
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dear Mr Buckley Thank you for your email of 1 February 2022 regarding an allegation of misfeasance against an official of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA). I understand the matter you raise has a long history, and as you suggest the matter had been raised with the Hon Michael McCormack MP as the then Deputy Prime Minister. Furthermore, I understand this matter is well known to CASA, and as you advise aspects of your complaint are subject to a current review by the Commonwealth Ombudsman. As a result, I do not intend to comment on the specific details of this matter. In general terms, I expect all officers of CASA to fully cooperate with official Australian Government processes and act with honesty and integrity. Under the provisions of the Civil Aviation Act 1988 (the Act), CASA is an independent authority. However, as provided for under the Act and as you identify in your email, I have recently issued a Statement of Expectations to the Board of CASA, setting out my views on how CASA should carry out its functions. It is my expectation that this statement will be adhered to. Thank you again for taking the time to write and inform me of your concerns on this matter. Yours sincerely Barnaby Joyce
I thInk it appropriate he responded. So many don’t. Nothing earth shattering in his response, but would you expect there to be? I wouldn’t. Awaiting the Ombudsman’s response.
Para337, the Minister and the public service are consrained to act within the law and also to operate with fairness, Equity, Natural Justice and all that other good stuff. That means they have to follow procedure and assume everyone is acting in good faith.
In mu opinion Minister Joyce's letter is as good as it gets.
1. He has acknowledged the existence of Glens matter.
2. He explained that he has to follow procedure.
3. He has stated that he expects CASA to apply the terms of his SoE.
What more could you ask for?
If Joyce were to say "Too right Glenny! Those CASA B%^$$%^ have stitched you up!". Then its now Joyces problem, not CASA's, to negotiate a settlement and come up with a few million to make you whole.
In mu opinion Minister Joyce's letter is as good as it gets.
1. He has acknowledged the existence of Glens matter.
2. He explained that he has to follow procedure.
3. He has stated that he expects CASA to apply the terms of his SoE.
What more could you ask for?
If Joyce were to say "Too right Glenny! Those CASA B%^$$%^ have stitched you up!". Then its now Joyces problem, not CASA's, to negotiate a settlement and come up with a few million to make you whole.
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: New Zealand
Age: 71
Posts: 1,475
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Para337, the Minister and the public service are consrained to act within the law and also to operate with fairness, Equity, Natural Justice and all that other good stuff. That means they have to follow procedure and assume everyone is acting in good faith.
In mu opinion Minister Joyce's letter is as good as it gets.
1. He has acknowledged the existence of Glens matter.
2. He explained that he has to follow procedure.
3. He has stated that he expects CASA to apply the terms of his SoE.
What more could you ask for?
If Joyce were to say "Too right Glenny! Those CASA B%^$$%^ have stitched you up!". Then its now Joyces problem, not CASA's, to negotiate a settlement and come up with a few million to make you whole.
In mu opinion Minister Joyce's letter is as good as it gets.
1. He has acknowledged the existence of Glens matter.
2. He explained that he has to follow procedure.
3. He has stated that he expects CASA to apply the terms of his SoE.
What more could you ask for?
If Joyce were to say "Too right Glenny! Those CASA B%^$$%^ have stitched you up!". Then its now Joyces problem, not CASA's, to negotiate a settlement and come up with a few million to make you whole.