Glen Buckley and Australian small business -V- CASA
Thread Starter
Ammended Part 8 of Senate submission.
Terms of reference
I have carefully reviewed the terms of reference, and I am fully satisfied that this submission attends to each one of them, and is relevant.
Drawing on my 25 years’ experience in the flight training industry, I can confidently state that:
· The current CASA legislation and regulatory structure is not fit for purpose, and at its worst point in 25 years. It is unnecessary complicated and too burdensome on business. It does nothing to improve the safety of aviation.
· The current CASA Organisational culture is also not fit for purpose, and is at its worst point in 25 years. The current leadership of CASA facilitate an unsafe culture, that impacts on the safety of aviation.
A poll of 1000 General Aviation (GA) participants found that well over 90 % of respondents believed that CASA had failed to provide “clear and concise aviation safety standards”, as is required of it in the Civil Aviation Act 1988.
The Civil Aviation Act 1988 stipulates specifically, that a core purpose of CASA is “developing and promulgating clear and concise aviation safety standards.”
If this were a road safety issue, action would have been taken, yet for some reason despite all the “Inquiries” over the years, no action is taken.
Let’s consider if we were discussing road rules rather than aviation rules. Can you imagine if road user feedback indicated that over 90% of road users, couldn’t understand the road rules? Can you imagine how much less safe the roads would be? It’s a concerning scenario. Action would be taken.
Yet a situation is permitted in the aviation industry where over 90% of pilots and other stakeholders are compelled to operate in that exact environment, an environment where the rules are not understood by over 90% of the intended users of those rules.
There is very clearly a greater safety risk if the intended users of those regulations cannot understand them. It is more likely that an accident or incident will occur.
The risk to road safety could be somewhat mitigated in the short term, while the road rules were made “clear and concise”. if the police force acted with good intent. If they ensured they were technically competent, well intentioned, aimed to build a relationship of confidence then trust, acted with integrity, and were good decision makers.
Imagine if the Deputy Commissioner or some other Key decision maker of Police Force was also the person that wrote and implemented those very same deficient road rules. If that employee also had none of the traits mentioned above and was able to build a small team of senior officers around him. That culture would fester throughout the organisation. The old “fish rots from the head” scenario.
That combination of poorly written rules and unsafe culture exists. Not in the Police, because the high levels of oversight, accountability and responsibility would make that entire scenario unrealistic.
It is this failure to achieve clear and concise aviation safety standards and an unsafe culture that actually facilitated a single employ of CASA having the power and authority to shut down my business with no notification, and without any supporting safety case whatsoever.
In reading this, please understand that my business, my livelihood and my wellbeing were effectively destroyed when someone in the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, a single CASA employee woke up one morning and decided to conjure up some law that does not exist. Up until that point, CASA was fully aware, and had formally approved of the operations of my safe and successful flying training organisation I had built and operated for over a decade and was continuing to build.
I lost everything, and many others including staff, customers and suppliers have been impacted. I was dealing with It was a change of mind, It was a complete reversal of my business by CASA, and the impact was significant.
The decision maker in my matter, being the CASA Executive Manager of Legal, International and Regulatory Affairs, took no external legal advice, and made a decision by applying his change of opinion only. That application of his “opinion” was the opposite of the precedent set by CASA during my 25-year involvement in the industry. He never raised or discussed his intended change of opinion with any Manager above him, or the CASA Board.
The truth is that CASA had always permitted a multi base, multi entity structure, and I had adopted that accepted structure for the last 6 years of my business, with full CASA knowledge and formal approval.
CASA denies this and has misrepresented the truth of the situation to the Commonwealth Ombudsman Office.
To test the validity of my argument, this matter can be resolved promptly. May I resctfully request that the Seantors put these two questions directly to CASA for response.
“CASA claims that they do not permit, and have not ever permitted more than flying school to operate under a single authorisation, as Glen Buckley did. Is that statement the truth?
It requires only a “yes” or “no” response. In fact, the most truthful and accurate response at this stage, will best be achieved by requesting a single word response.
Could I also suggest that the response is signed by any two CASA employees? Obviously, Mr Aleck as the Executive Manager of Legal, International, and Regulatory affairs should be one signatory. I am confident that no other CASA employee from the most junior employee through to the current CASA CEO will be prepared to counter sign that statement. It will not be returned with two signatures.
The second question would be
CASA has led the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s Office to be of the opinion that CASA first became aware of Glen Buckley’s structure just prior to October 2018, when they took action to close it down in October 2018. Mr Buckley claims that the truth is that CASA first became aware 2 ½ years prior and has provided us with emails (refer appendix) that support his contention. Mr Buckley claims that he worked with CASA personnel over many years attending to over CASA stipulated requirements 600 requirements to obtain revalidation in April 2017 in order to continue doing the exact same thing he had been doing for 6 years.
Does CASA still maintain that they first became aware of Mr Buckley’s structure just prior to October 2018?
Similarly, this requires only a yes or no.
If there is any doubt, as to the validity of my statement I direct you to the CASA CEO, Ms Pip Spence, she will be compelled to tell you the truth on this matter, and she will have access to personnel that provide her with that information.
My assumption being that the CASA employee has provided that untruthful information to pervert the findings of the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s Office to cover up both the error, and the misconduct.
I have carefully reviewed the terms of reference, and I am fully satisfied that this submission attends to each one of them, and is relevant.
Drawing on my 25 years’ experience in the flight training industry, I can confidently state that:
· The current CASA legislation and regulatory structure is not fit for purpose, and at its worst point in 25 years. It is unnecessary complicated and too burdensome on business. It does nothing to improve the safety of aviation.
· The current CASA Organisational culture is also not fit for purpose, and is at its worst point in 25 years. The current leadership of CASA facilitate an unsafe culture, that impacts on the safety of aviation.
A poll of 1000 General Aviation (GA) participants found that well over 90 % of respondents believed that CASA had failed to provide “clear and concise aviation safety standards”, as is required of it in the Civil Aviation Act 1988.
The Civil Aviation Act 1988 stipulates specifically, that a core purpose of CASA is “developing and promulgating clear and concise aviation safety standards.”
If this were a road safety issue, action would have been taken, yet for some reason despite all the “Inquiries” over the years, no action is taken.
Let’s consider if we were discussing road rules rather than aviation rules. Can you imagine if road user feedback indicated that over 90% of road users, couldn’t understand the road rules? Can you imagine how much less safe the roads would be? It’s a concerning scenario. Action would be taken.
Yet a situation is permitted in the aviation industry where over 90% of pilots and other stakeholders are compelled to operate in that exact environment, an environment where the rules are not understood by over 90% of the intended users of those rules.
There is very clearly a greater safety risk if the intended users of those regulations cannot understand them. It is more likely that an accident or incident will occur.
The risk to road safety could be somewhat mitigated in the short term, while the road rules were made “clear and concise”. if the police force acted with good intent. If they ensured they were technically competent, well intentioned, aimed to build a relationship of confidence then trust, acted with integrity, and were good decision makers.
Imagine if the Deputy Commissioner or some other Key decision maker of Police Force was also the person that wrote and implemented those very same deficient road rules. If that employee also had none of the traits mentioned above and was able to build a small team of senior officers around him. That culture would fester throughout the organisation. The old “fish rots from the head” scenario.
That combination of poorly written rules and unsafe culture exists. Not in the Police, because the high levels of oversight, accountability and responsibility would make that entire scenario unrealistic.
It is this failure to achieve clear and concise aviation safety standards and an unsafe culture that actually facilitated a single employ of CASA having the power and authority to shut down my business with no notification, and without any supporting safety case whatsoever.
In reading this, please understand that my business, my livelihood and my wellbeing were effectively destroyed when someone in the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, a single CASA employee woke up one morning and decided to conjure up some law that does not exist. Up until that point, CASA was fully aware, and had formally approved of the operations of my safe and successful flying training organisation I had built and operated for over a decade and was continuing to build.
I lost everything, and many others including staff, customers and suppliers have been impacted. I was dealing with It was a change of mind, It was a complete reversal of my business by CASA, and the impact was significant.
The decision maker in my matter, being the CASA Executive Manager of Legal, International and Regulatory Affairs, took no external legal advice, and made a decision by applying his change of opinion only. That application of his “opinion” was the opposite of the precedent set by CASA during my 25-year involvement in the industry. He never raised or discussed his intended change of opinion with any Manager above him, or the CASA Board.
The truth is that CASA had always permitted a multi base, multi entity structure, and I had adopted that accepted structure for the last 6 years of my business, with full CASA knowledge and formal approval.
CASA denies this and has misrepresented the truth of the situation to the Commonwealth Ombudsman Office.
To test the validity of my argument, this matter can be resolved promptly. May I resctfully request that the Seantors put these two questions directly to CASA for response.
“CASA claims that they do not permit, and have not ever permitted more than flying school to operate under a single authorisation, as Glen Buckley did. Is that statement the truth?
It requires only a “yes” or “no” response. In fact, the most truthful and accurate response at this stage, will best be achieved by requesting a single word response.
Could I also suggest that the response is signed by any two CASA employees? Obviously, Mr Aleck as the Executive Manager of Legal, International, and Regulatory affairs should be one signatory. I am confident that no other CASA employee from the most junior employee through to the current CASA CEO will be prepared to counter sign that statement. It will not be returned with two signatures.
The second question would be
CASA has led the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s Office to be of the opinion that CASA first became aware of Glen Buckley’s structure just prior to October 2018, when they took action to close it down in October 2018. Mr Buckley claims that the truth is that CASA first became aware 2 ½ years prior and has provided us with emails (refer appendix) that support his contention. Mr Buckley claims that he worked with CASA personnel over many years attending to over CASA stipulated requirements 600 requirements to obtain revalidation in April 2017 in order to continue doing the exact same thing he had been doing for 6 years.
Does CASA still maintain that they first became aware of Mr Buckley’s structure just prior to October 2018?
Similarly, this requires only a yes or no.
If there is any doubt, as to the validity of my statement I direct you to the CASA CEO, Ms Pip Spence, she will be compelled to tell you the truth on this matter, and she will have access to personnel that provide her with that information.
My assumption being that the CASA employee has provided that untruthful information to pervert the findings of the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s Office to cover up both the error, and the misconduct.
Be careful. You're up against master sophists, Glen.
There's a difference between one flying school delivering flying training through facilities and personnel at multiple locations, on the one hand, and multiple flying schools delivering flying training at different locations on the other. An analogy: A university with multiple campuses isn't more than one university.
Each of APTA's 'franchisees' (gawd I hate that term and you would have done yourself a big favour if you'd never used it) is either a 'stand alone' flying school requiring its own authorisation, or is just part of 1 flying school operating under 1 authorisation. As I understand it, the APTA model was one authorisation held by APTA under which flying training was being delivered through facilities and personnel at multiple locations. i.e. the 'one university, multiple campuses' model.
If that's correct, your proposed question: "CASA claims that they do not permit, and have not ever permitted more than [one] flying school to operate under a single authorisation, as Glen Buckley did. Is that statement the truth?", is an irrelevant and therefore pointless question.
Even assuming it could be bothered, CASA's answer would be, I suggest, "NO", and I reckon correctly so. And what will you have achieved?
There's a difference between one flying school delivering flying training through facilities and personnel at multiple locations, on the one hand, and multiple flying schools delivering flying training at different locations on the other. An analogy: A university with multiple campuses isn't more than one university.
Each of APTA's 'franchisees' (gawd I hate that term and you would have done yourself a big favour if you'd never used it) is either a 'stand alone' flying school requiring its own authorisation, or is just part of 1 flying school operating under 1 authorisation. As I understand it, the APTA model was one authorisation held by APTA under which flying training was being delivered through facilities and personnel at multiple locations. i.e. the 'one university, multiple campuses' model.
If that's correct, your proposed question: "CASA claims that they do not permit, and have not ever permitted more than [one] flying school to operate under a single authorisation, as Glen Buckley did. Is that statement the truth?", is an irrelevant and therefore pointless question.
Even assuming it could be bothered, CASA's answer would be, I suggest, "NO", and I reckon correctly so. And what will you have achieved?
Yes I think the basic premise is that you could have one AOC, not multiple AOC's with one HOFO and central administration. In reality what you have done is make one large flying school with multiple bases, as of course all bases follow one AOC administered by APTA. While each may operate independently they must all comply with guidance from 'mother'. You might be able to incorporate individual site variations within the OM package but it would be hard to get away with 'multiple' OMs for each site. Each base then becomes APTA trading as '(insert flying school here)'. There is nothing to say that each base facility can not be financially separate to the main central facility, such as club rooms, facilities and aircraft and even staff.
As an example I can only see it working this way;
'Sunday' flying group wants to start a flying school, they have a small fleet and 100 members with club facilities at X airport. Costs of establishing a working AOC, way too high, however lets contract APTA to run the school with its management staff and we provide the facilities and fleet. APTA charges for use of the AOC and provision of management such as HOFO and safety department, pays an on site CFI and instructors. 'Sunday' takes fees and hourly rates to pay for operations and passes the relevant funds to APTA for it's services.
As an example I can only see it working this way;
'Sunday' flying group wants to start a flying school, they have a small fleet and 100 members with club facilities at X airport. Costs of establishing a working AOC, way too high, however lets contract APTA to run the school with its management staff and we provide the facilities and fleet. APTA charges for use of the AOC and provision of management such as HOFO and safety department, pays an on site CFI and instructors. 'Sunday' takes fees and hourly rates to pay for operations and passes the relevant funds to APTA for it's services.
Last edited by 43Inches; 17th Mar 2022 at 02:23.
...and CASA will want to know how APTA, as the certificate holder, is going to comply with APTA's obligations arising from flying training being conducted under the authority of APTA's AOC at X airport.
I tried to make that example straight forward, as the CFI and instructors are still APTA employees, therefore the operation is technically 100% APTA, just trading as 'Sunday'. Aircraft, facilities and customers/income are provided by the Club. The situation would be no different to flying schools that use private aircraft online. Things like reception, accounting etc, club pokies, gambling den and bar don't have anything to do with the AOC so can be completely separate.
Thread Starter
Lead Balloon and 43 inches
Lead Balloon, and 43 inches.
You are correct, the term franchises is something that I am particularly uncomfortable with. It doesn’t accurately represent what we built, it was so much more. Franchises is a term that CASA chose to use for obvious reasons, and the Ombudsman Office adopted. If you see me use it, then it is an inadvertent slip.
The point of the “did CASA ever permit it”, is important from the perspective of CASAs integrity. CASA maintain that they had never permitted it, and that the concept was something new that CASA not dealt with before, and the Ombudsmans office has accepted that. My point is CASA had always permitted it, and allowed other operators to operate in that manner. i.e. Latrobe valley aero Club operated with full CASA approval under Bairnsdale Air Charter. When they transferred to me, it suddenly became illegal.
43 inches, we operated exactly as you suggested. Rather than an hourly rate it was a quarterly flat fee. A lower rate for flying clubs in regional areas, and a higher rate for more commercially orientated operators.
Lead Balloon, you are correct. CASA will want to know how we managed oversight. That was the process that lead to the revalidation as a Part 141/142 organisation in April 2017. The system required a Head Office of 3 fulltime admin staff, two CASA approved HOOs, two CASA approved CEOs, and two CASA approved Safety managers. Supported by an IT and learning management system that provided 24/7 access to every aspect of the operation.
CASA had accepted the system and approved it in April 2017, audited it in November 2017, and then suddenly it became “unlawful” 18 months later. If CASA were opposed to it, they should have said something back in mid 2016 when I approached them and began developing it with them. i.e. negligent misstatement?
Cheers. Glen
You are correct, the term franchises is something that I am particularly uncomfortable with. It doesn’t accurately represent what we built, it was so much more. Franchises is a term that CASA chose to use for obvious reasons, and the Ombudsman Office adopted. If you see me use it, then it is an inadvertent slip.
The point of the “did CASA ever permit it”, is important from the perspective of CASAs integrity. CASA maintain that they had never permitted it, and that the concept was something new that CASA not dealt with before, and the Ombudsmans office has accepted that. My point is CASA had always permitted it, and allowed other operators to operate in that manner. i.e. Latrobe valley aero Club operated with full CASA approval under Bairnsdale Air Charter. When they transferred to me, it suddenly became illegal.
43 inches, we operated exactly as you suggested. Rather than an hourly rate it was a quarterly flat fee. A lower rate for flying clubs in regional areas, and a higher rate for more commercially orientated operators.
Lead Balloon, you are correct. CASA will want to know how we managed oversight. That was the process that lead to the revalidation as a Part 141/142 organisation in April 2017. The system required a Head Office of 3 fulltime admin staff, two CASA approved HOOs, two CASA approved CEOs, and two CASA approved Safety managers. Supported by an IT and learning management system that provided 24/7 access to every aspect of the operation.
CASA had accepted the system and approved it in April 2017, audited it in November 2017, and then suddenly it became “unlawful” 18 months later. If CASA were opposed to it, they should have said something back in mid 2016 when I approached them and began developing it with them. i.e. negligent misstatement?
Cheers. Glen
I'm on your side, Glen, but again I reckon we have to be surgically accurate about what is meant by "it" when we say "CASA had always permitted it".
Let's take this example: "Latrobe valley aero Club operated with full CASA approval under Bairnsdale Air Charter. When they transferred to me, it suddenly became illegal."
I think it would be more accurate to say that CASA approved Bairnsdale Air Charter to conduct flying training, under the authority of its AOC, at the premises of the Latrobe Valley Aero Club. That approval would have entailed an assessment by CASA of the processes and procedures Bairnsdale Air Charter had in place to comply with the rules applicable to flying training based at that location. To put this another way, CASA didn't approve Latrobe Valley Aero Club to do anything.
Do you agree?
And in arrangements like that, if the flying training activities based at Latrobe Valley Aero Club are going to be conducted under the authority of APTA's AOC rather than Bairnsdale Air Charter's AOC, there will have to be an assessment by CASA of the processes and procedures APTA has put in place to comply with the rules applicable to flying training based at Latrobe Valley Aero Club, and an approval of APTA to do so.
In this model, the regulatory issues have nothing to do with what Latrobe Valley Aero Club wants or chooses. The regulatory issues are about the processes and procedures of the person holding the AOC under which the activities are going to occur.
Did CASA say that there was no way that APTA could ever be approved to carry out flying training activities based at the Latrobe Valley Aero Club?
(You were 'led up the garden path' alright. The last minute "in all respects agents of" the authorisation holder was a concoction. And the spreadsheet requirement was practically insurmountable. 43 nailed the question de jour.)
(And my apologies re the 'franchisee' word. I thought you'd used it.)
Let's take this example: "Latrobe valley aero Club operated with full CASA approval under Bairnsdale Air Charter. When they transferred to me, it suddenly became illegal."
I think it would be more accurate to say that CASA approved Bairnsdale Air Charter to conduct flying training, under the authority of its AOC, at the premises of the Latrobe Valley Aero Club. That approval would have entailed an assessment by CASA of the processes and procedures Bairnsdale Air Charter had in place to comply with the rules applicable to flying training based at that location. To put this another way, CASA didn't approve Latrobe Valley Aero Club to do anything.
Do you agree?
And in arrangements like that, if the flying training activities based at Latrobe Valley Aero Club are going to be conducted under the authority of APTA's AOC rather than Bairnsdale Air Charter's AOC, there will have to be an assessment by CASA of the processes and procedures APTA has put in place to comply with the rules applicable to flying training based at Latrobe Valley Aero Club, and an approval of APTA to do so.
In this model, the regulatory issues have nothing to do with what Latrobe Valley Aero Club wants or chooses. The regulatory issues are about the processes and procedures of the person holding the AOC under which the activities are going to occur.
Did CASA say that there was no way that APTA could ever be approved to carry out flying training activities based at the Latrobe Valley Aero Club?
(You were 'led up the garden path' alright. The last minute "in all respects agents of" the authorisation holder was a concoction. And the spreadsheet requirement was practically insurmountable. 43 nailed the question de jour.)
(And my apologies re the 'franchisee' word. I thought you'd used it.)
A coordinated and standardised flying training system with multiple bases, a centralised safety system feeding into those bases, working to a shared exposition is an excellent idea. If supervision, accountability and ongoing improvement are factored in (as I'm sure they were in Glen's model) then it must be a win for Aussie flying training.
CASA were clearly aware of the model for years prior to the change of oversighting team, if Glen's documentation is correct - and I don't suggest it's not - so they were happy with the concept. In a common sense world, why wouldn't you be?
It seems to me the APTA model clearly demonstrated appropriate and sufficient means for the responsible manager/s in CASA's eyes - HOO and Safety Manager - to fulfil their responsibilities. The sticking point might be the CEO role, given that we're talking about a number of legal entities signing up, all with their own CEOs, so who wears the responsibility for ensuring adequate provision of facilities and equipment for each base? Don't get me wrong, I really like the concept, but that's possibly one factor they'll home in on as to why they flip-flopped and said they objected to it after apparently being fully happy for years.
Still, that's hardly a reason to lead someone to believe that all was great, only to pull the rug out without notice. As with so many of the 'explanations' issued by CASA, the legal double-speak is like a Gordian knot, kind of like gaslighting where you find yourself being sucked into trying to refute their legal argument rather than looking at what makes sense in terms of actual instructors and students in aeroplanes doing sensible flight training activities.
Best of luck, Glen - I hope Pip Spence and Mark Binskin take strong action to ensure that it's Australian aviation, not organisational face saving, that wins out. They are in a position to do it, if integrity means anything, and this case will I hope be a watershed in prying open the sorry managerial state of our regulator.
CASA were clearly aware of the model for years prior to the change of oversighting team, if Glen's documentation is correct - and I don't suggest it's not - so they were happy with the concept. In a common sense world, why wouldn't you be?
It seems to me the APTA model clearly demonstrated appropriate and sufficient means for the responsible manager/s in CASA's eyes - HOO and Safety Manager - to fulfil their responsibilities. The sticking point might be the CEO role, given that we're talking about a number of legal entities signing up, all with their own CEOs, so who wears the responsibility for ensuring adequate provision of facilities and equipment for each base? Don't get me wrong, I really like the concept, but that's possibly one factor they'll home in on as to why they flip-flopped and said they objected to it after apparently being fully happy for years.
Still, that's hardly a reason to lead someone to believe that all was great, only to pull the rug out without notice. As with so many of the 'explanations' issued by CASA, the legal double-speak is like a Gordian knot, kind of like gaslighting where you find yourself being sucked into trying to refute their legal argument rather than looking at what makes sense in terms of actual instructors and students in aeroplanes doing sensible flight training activities.
Best of luck, Glen - I hope Pip Spence and Mark Binskin take strong action to ensure that it's Australian aviation, not organisational face saving, that wins out. They are in a position to do it, if integrity means anything, and this case will I hope be a watershed in prying open the sorry managerial state of our regulator.
The sticking point might be the CEO role, given that we're talking about a number of legal entities signing up, all with their own CEOs, so who wears the responsibility for ensuring adequate provision of facilities and equipment for each base? Don't get me wrong, I really like the concept, but that's possibly one factor they'll home in on as to why they flip-flopped and said they objected to it after apparently being fully happy for years.
Fair enough, and regular visits and standardisation checks would ensure that the HOO and SM were aware of the running status of the various bases and in a position to require improvements to be made where needed. If a base was clearly not providing the means to keep their part of the operation running properly, then the HOO would (I assume) have the power to require them to smarten up or lose accreditation within the organisational structure, and therefore the right to operate under it.
My take on what Glen has said is that all the compliance related activities such as documentation and flying staff is run by APTA, the club would just provide the 'facade' around the flying side that looks like and independent club. However the Flying is purely done by APTA under their AOC. The club would have a location, building, aircraft and support staff such as reception and accounts. APTA would be responsible to ensure those parts met the requirements prior to operating, ie appropriate maintenance categories and condition, runways adequate for purpose, libraries... etc. The club would pay to ensure that standard was met.
A coordinated and standardised flying training system with multiple bases, a centralised safety system feeding into those bases, working to a shared exposition is an excellent idea. If supervision, accountability and ongoing improvement are factored in (as I'm sure they were in Glen's model) then it must be a win for Aussie flying training.
CASA were clearly aware of the model for years prior to the change of oversighting team, if Glen's documentation is correct - and I don't suggest it's not - so they were happy with the concept. In a common sense world, why wouldn't you be?
It seems to me the APTA model clearly demonstrated appropriate and sufficient means for the responsible manager/s in CASA's eyes - HOO and Safety Manager - to fulfil their responsibilities. The sticking point might be the CEO role, given that we're talking about a number of legal entities signing up, all with their own CEOs, so who wears the responsibility for ensuring adequate provision of facilities and equipment for each base? Don't get me wrong, I really like the concept, but that's possibly one factor they'll home in on as to why they flip-flopped and said they objected to it after apparently being fully happy for years.
Still, that's hardly a reason to lead someone to believe that all was great, only to pull the rug out without notice. As with so many of the 'explanations' issued by CASA, the legal double-speak is like a Gordian knot, kind of like gaslighting where you find yourself being sucked into trying to refute their legal argument rather than looking at what makes sense in terms of actual instructors and students in aeroplanes doing sensible flight training activities.
Best of luck, Glen - I hope Pip Spence and Mark Binskin take strong action to ensure that it's Australian aviation, not organisational face saving, that wins out. They are in a position to do it, if integrity means anything, and this case will I hope be a watershed in prying open the sorry managerial state of our regulator.
CASA were clearly aware of the model for years prior to the change of oversighting team, if Glen's documentation is correct - and I don't suggest it's not - so they were happy with the concept. In a common sense world, why wouldn't you be?
It seems to me the APTA model clearly demonstrated appropriate and sufficient means for the responsible manager/s in CASA's eyes - HOO and Safety Manager - to fulfil their responsibilities. The sticking point might be the CEO role, given that we're talking about a number of legal entities signing up, all with their own CEOs, so who wears the responsibility for ensuring adequate provision of facilities and equipment for each base? Don't get me wrong, I really like the concept, but that's possibly one factor they'll home in on as to why they flip-flopped and said they objected to it after apparently being fully happy for years.
Still, that's hardly a reason to lead someone to believe that all was great, only to pull the rug out without notice. As with so many of the 'explanations' issued by CASA, the legal double-speak is like a Gordian knot, kind of like gaslighting where you find yourself being sucked into trying to refute their legal argument rather than looking at what makes sense in terms of actual instructors and students in aeroplanes doing sensible flight training activities.
Best of luck, Glen - I hope Pip Spence and Mark Binskin take strong action to ensure that it's Australian aviation, not organisational face saving, that wins out. They are in a position to do it, if integrity means anything, and this case will I hope be a watershed in prying open the sorry managerial state of our regulator.
I think there is something here that has been overlooked. I speak from the perspective of person involved in corporate start ups and venture capital...... people who don't play by Marquis of Queensberry rules.
What has been overlooked is that in the Australian context, APTAS business model, as made concrete in its exposition and other manuals and documents as well as its software is a unique creation embodying very valuable know - how that has cost a great deal of time and money to create and is a comprehensive solution to the requirements of flight training in Australia.
As such APTA's intellectual property is worth a very, very great deal of money in Australia because it is/was capable of dominating the flight training market. I suggest that the I.P. is still worth a great deal of money.
That raises a number of possibilities when one considers human nature. Those possibilities include fear among APTA's competitors as well as envy and greed in others. Who knows? Perhaps APTA by another name was going to be resurrected by others once it had been "abandoned" by Glen?
...You know, a new name and a few cosmetic changes to satisfy CASA and voila! A money printing machine.
To put that another way, is Australia to be denied access to APTAs comprehensive and valuable flight training solution? Might someone be waiting to resurrect the idea? Who owns the I.P.? Who has the manuals?
What has been overlooked is that in the Australian context, APTAS business model, as made concrete in its exposition and other manuals and documents as well as its software is a unique creation embodying very valuable know - how that has cost a great deal of time and money to create and is a comprehensive solution to the requirements of flight training in Australia.
As such APTA's intellectual property is worth a very, very great deal of money in Australia because it is/was capable of dominating the flight training market. I suggest that the I.P. is still worth a great deal of money.
That raises a number of possibilities when one considers human nature. Those possibilities include fear among APTA's competitors as well as envy and greed in others. Who knows? Perhaps APTA by another name was going to be resurrected by others once it had been "abandoned" by Glen?
...You know, a new name and a few cosmetic changes to satisfy CASA and voila! A money printing machine.
To put that another way, is Australia to be denied access to APTAs comprehensive and valuable flight training solution? Might someone be waiting to resurrect the idea? Who owns the I.P.? Who has the manuals?
Are you suggesting Sunfish, that maybe a threatened competitor got into someone's ear?
Squawk, I'm merely suggesting that APTA's I. P. represents a very significant and valuable body of work. Glen has been deprived of the value of that work, by whom and to what purpose I know not.
Thats why I said earlier this is either the work of someone grossly incompetant or an intentional corrupt action to what end we don't understand yet. There is no sound legal reasoning for what happened especially the time frame and accusations brought on.
I think there is something here that has been overlooked. I speak from the perspective of person involved in corporate start ups and venture capital...... people who don't play by Marquis of Queensberry rules.
What has been overlooked is that in the Australian context, APTAS business model, as made concrete in its exposition and other manuals and documents as well as its software is a unique creation embodying very valuable know - how that has cost a great deal of time and money to create and is a comprehensive solution to the requirements of flight training in Australia.
As such APTA's intellectual property is worth a very, very great deal of money in Australia because it is/was capable of dominating the flight training market. I suggest that the I.P. is still worth a great deal of money.
That raises a number of possibilities when one considers human nature. Those possibilities include fear among APTA's competitors as well as envy and greed in others. Who knows? Perhaps APTA by another name was going to be resurrected by others once it had been "abandoned" by Glen?
...You know, a new name and a few cosmetic changes to satisfy CASA and voila! A money printing machine.
To put that another way, is Australia to be denied access to APTAs comprehensive and valuable flight training solution? Might someone be waiting to resurrect the idea? Who owns the I.P.? Who has the manuals?
What has been overlooked is that in the Australian context, APTAS business model, as made concrete in its exposition and other manuals and documents as well as its software is a unique creation embodying very valuable know - how that has cost a great deal of time and money to create and is a comprehensive solution to the requirements of flight training in Australia.
As such APTA's intellectual property is worth a very, very great deal of money in Australia because it is/was capable of dominating the flight training market. I suggest that the I.P. is still worth a great deal of money.
That raises a number of possibilities when one considers human nature. Those possibilities include fear among APTA's competitors as well as envy and greed in others. Who knows? Perhaps APTA by another name was going to be resurrected by others once it had been "abandoned" by Glen?
...You know, a new name and a few cosmetic changes to satisfy CASA and voila! A money printing machine.
To put that another way, is Australia to be denied access to APTAs comprehensive and valuable flight training solution? Might someone be waiting to resurrect the idea? Who owns the I.P.? Who has the manuals?
Thread Starter
An informative read at this stage.
I am digressing from my submission momentarily, as i wanted to post this drop box link. This is an article from Australian Flying. I call it "APTA before CASA action"
I hope the link works, I'm no IT guru. For those joining this saga late, it does provide a very good snapshot.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/1akmm9gxra...CTION.pdf?dl=0
And this link should take you to the appendix I call "APTA after CASA action.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/70whbpuyta...CTION.PDF?dl=0
I hope the link works, I'm no IT guru. For those joining this saga late, it does provide a very good snapshot.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/1akmm9gxra...CTION.pdf?dl=0
And this link should take you to the appendix I call "APTA after CASA action.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/70whbpuyta...CTION.PDF?dl=0
Thread Starter
Responses to Lead Balloon. and 43 inches, AOT
Lead Balloon, as always, your advice is highly respected.
Regarding Post #2014 regarding the concepts of legal personality. Informative and understood. Cheers.
Regarding Post # 2016, regarding the legality of it. Your assessment is spot on. There is no impediment, never was, and still isnt. I think CASA are the only ones that still refuse to accept that. I understand why CASA would choose to publicly think that way if they are not acting with good intent.
Regarding paragraph two; I just want to clarify something. APTA was approved. My initial flying school APTA did this multi base, multi entity structure under my single approval, and had done for 6 years. In 2015, i took the imitative and began a very significant investment of many hundreds of thousands of dollars, to significantly improve what i was already doing with full CASA Approval. In preparation for the introduction of Part 141/142, I worked with CASA to improve on what i was already doing, and named it APTA. CASA worked with me, and added Members before Part 141/142. They fully revalidated my significantly improved operation in April 2017, and then approved further bases to be added. To demonstrate the ludicrous nature of it. One member had already been approved formally by CASA through a significant change process. A very thorough APTA and CASA procedure. This occurred prior to October 2018. They operated for approximately 1 year. They were moving into a significantly improved facility, and CASA rejected that application because it was now illegal. The identical operation they had approved 1 year earlier, although now, the concept became illegal and the application for the new base was rejected. Stranglely CASA permitted opetrations at the old base to continue.
This was a fully approved and well resourced and importantly well intentioned operation that was fully operating prior to an overnight reversal.
Post #2019. You are correct. I am fully satisfied that we achieved industry leading levels of oversight and operational control. I will be brief here. It will sound like chest beating but here i go. Please understand i was very proud of it.
We utilized and had our Flight school Management System completely tailored to a multi entity, multi base CASA approved concept. It can be found at Smartaviation.net. For example bases would not share "business" information i.e. customer personal details. training records etc. Bases would share Flight and Duty times, Safety matters etc. The system had scalable access i.e. senior management would require access to this information.
I provided CASA access to this system, so for the first time in Australian aviation, could CASA log into an operator and get a snapshot of pilot training records, safety matters, upcoming meetings, flight and duty times etc. CASA had never had such access with any other operator.
I supported this with what i believe to be the largest safety department of any flight training organizations. It had two CASA approved Group Safety Managers, and a budget of approximately $400,000 per annum.
I also had a team of CASA Approved Key Personnel 2x CEO, 2 X GHOO (Group Head of Operations) and 2 X GSM (group Safety Manager). A third HOO had been recruited from the Airlines and was coming toward of her formal (in our Exposition) induction process.
All new Members underwent a stringent induction process, which involved are staff being on site fulltime for as long as required. Typically approximately two months. Staff that had been with me for many years, and knew my operation well took on the Role of onsite Senior Base Pilot.
I appreciate that you were not suggesting that I did not have full operational control, but I am fully satisfied that I did. The assumption of many is that CASA had raised concerns of operational control. CASA never has and still hasnt identified any lack of operational control. CASA simply deemed it now illegal.
Post 2023 taken on board, and your post #2028 articulates it beautifully and i will adopt.
Regarding your query "Did CASA say that there was no way that APTA could ever be approved to carry out flying training activities based at the Latrobe Valley Aero Club?". Answer Yes. All schools were forced to leave APTA by CASA. The Meeting was held in our Head Office. CASA advised them that they had to leave.
43 inches. I do not know who you are, but you are obviously involved in or have been involved at a senior level within flight training. Your assessment in Post 2021 is absolutely 'on the money"
AOT Post 2029. The only thing I would like to point out which is significant. There is only one CEO. CASA now legislate the CEO as one of the three CASA required CEO. I was approved via a formal process as the CASA Approved CEO. I did also have a alternate CEO Approved, for additional redundancy. The responsibilities are significant, and can be found here. Its a sound concept. Years ago the many business owners put young guys up as the Chief Pilot, and dumped all the legal liability on them. in Subpart 142D Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 (legislation.gov.au)
Not much of an opportunity to proof read this, Cheers. Glen
Regarding Post #2014 regarding the concepts of legal personality. Informative and understood. Cheers.
Regarding Post # 2016, regarding the legality of it. Your assessment is spot on. There is no impediment, never was, and still isnt. I think CASA are the only ones that still refuse to accept that. I understand why CASA would choose to publicly think that way if they are not acting with good intent.
Regarding paragraph two; I just want to clarify something. APTA was approved. My initial flying school APTA did this multi base, multi entity structure under my single approval, and had done for 6 years. In 2015, i took the imitative and began a very significant investment of many hundreds of thousands of dollars, to significantly improve what i was already doing with full CASA Approval. In preparation for the introduction of Part 141/142, I worked with CASA to improve on what i was already doing, and named it APTA. CASA worked with me, and added Members before Part 141/142. They fully revalidated my significantly improved operation in April 2017, and then approved further bases to be added. To demonstrate the ludicrous nature of it. One member had already been approved formally by CASA through a significant change process. A very thorough APTA and CASA procedure. This occurred prior to October 2018. They operated for approximately 1 year. They were moving into a significantly improved facility, and CASA rejected that application because it was now illegal. The identical operation they had approved 1 year earlier, although now, the concept became illegal and the application for the new base was rejected. Stranglely CASA permitted opetrations at the old base to continue.
This was a fully approved and well resourced and importantly well intentioned operation that was fully operating prior to an overnight reversal.
Post #2019. You are correct. I am fully satisfied that we achieved industry leading levels of oversight and operational control. I will be brief here. It will sound like chest beating but here i go. Please understand i was very proud of it.
We utilized and had our Flight school Management System completely tailored to a multi entity, multi base CASA approved concept. It can be found at Smartaviation.net. For example bases would not share "business" information i.e. customer personal details. training records etc. Bases would share Flight and Duty times, Safety matters etc. The system had scalable access i.e. senior management would require access to this information.
I provided CASA access to this system, so for the first time in Australian aviation, could CASA log into an operator and get a snapshot of pilot training records, safety matters, upcoming meetings, flight and duty times etc. CASA had never had such access with any other operator.
I supported this with what i believe to be the largest safety department of any flight training organizations. It had two CASA approved Group Safety Managers, and a budget of approximately $400,000 per annum.
I also had a team of CASA Approved Key Personnel 2x CEO, 2 X GHOO (Group Head of Operations) and 2 X GSM (group Safety Manager). A third HOO had been recruited from the Airlines and was coming toward of her formal (in our Exposition) induction process.
All new Members underwent a stringent induction process, which involved are staff being on site fulltime for as long as required. Typically approximately two months. Staff that had been with me for many years, and knew my operation well took on the Role of onsite Senior Base Pilot.
I appreciate that you were not suggesting that I did not have full operational control, but I am fully satisfied that I did. The assumption of many is that CASA had raised concerns of operational control. CASA never has and still hasnt identified any lack of operational control. CASA simply deemed it now illegal.
Post 2023 taken on board, and your post #2028 articulates it beautifully and i will adopt.
Regarding your query "Did CASA say that there was no way that APTA could ever be approved to carry out flying training activities based at the Latrobe Valley Aero Club?". Answer Yes. All schools were forced to leave APTA by CASA. The Meeting was held in our Head Office. CASA advised them that they had to leave.
43 inches. I do not know who you are, but you are obviously involved in or have been involved at a senior level within flight training. Your assessment in Post 2021 is absolutely 'on the money"
AOT Post 2029. The only thing I would like to point out which is significant. There is only one CEO. CASA now legislate the CEO as one of the three CASA required CEO. I was approved via a formal process as the CASA Approved CEO. I did also have a alternate CEO Approved, for additional redundancy. The responsibilities are significant, and can be found here. Its a sound concept. Years ago the many business owners put young guys up as the Chief Pilot, and dumped all the legal liability on them. in Subpart 142D Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 (legislation.gov.au)
Not much of an opportunity to proof read this, Cheers. Glen
All makes sense, Glen.
I seek just 1 clarification. You said in your most recent post:
"One member had already been approved formally by CASA through a significant change process."
This is very important. Did CASA write a piece of paper that said "Member X is approved to conduct flying training" or something like that?
Or did CASA write a piece of paper that said APTA is approved to conduct flying training using Member X's resources at Member X's location" or something like that?
It is very important to understand who was "approved".
The way in which Member X is "approved" to conduct flying training is that it is issued an AOC/Part 12X certificate.
The way in which APTA is "approved" to conduct flying training using Member X's resources at Member X's location is that APTA gets the approval (maybe a variation to its certificate?).
There can't be a half pregnant world in which an entity has an "approval" to conduct flying training but not an AOC/Part 12X certificate authorising it.
(PS: You might be able to quickly clarify another issue, Glen.
ASIC shows the current entity with the name “Australian Pilot Training Alliance Pty Ltd” is ACN 119 046 285. ASIC says that that entity’s former names include “Melbourne Flight Training Pty Ltd”.
ASIC also shows ACN 612 834 152 as named “Melbourne Flight Training Pty Ltd” with the former name “Australian Pilot Training Alliance Pty Ltd”. However, that entity is shown as having been deregistered on 23 January 2021.
Looks like two different corporate entities swapping identical names. Nothing too unusual about that, but I want to make sure I understand who’s who in this zoo.
What was the ACN of the entity of which you were CEO called “Australian Pilot Training Alliance Pty Ltd” while you were dealing with CASA? I’m guessing it was ACN 612 834 152 – the one that’s now been deregistered – and ACN 119 046 285 then grabbed the name. But I’d rather not guess.)
I seek just 1 clarification. You said in your most recent post:
"One member had already been approved formally by CASA through a significant change process."
This is very important. Did CASA write a piece of paper that said "Member X is approved to conduct flying training" or something like that?
Or did CASA write a piece of paper that said APTA is approved to conduct flying training using Member X's resources at Member X's location" or something like that?
It is very important to understand who was "approved".
The way in which Member X is "approved" to conduct flying training is that it is issued an AOC/Part 12X certificate.
The way in which APTA is "approved" to conduct flying training using Member X's resources at Member X's location is that APTA gets the approval (maybe a variation to its certificate?).
There can't be a half pregnant world in which an entity has an "approval" to conduct flying training but not an AOC/Part 12X certificate authorising it.
(PS: You might be able to quickly clarify another issue, Glen.
ASIC shows the current entity with the name “Australian Pilot Training Alliance Pty Ltd” is ACN 119 046 285. ASIC says that that entity’s former names include “Melbourne Flight Training Pty Ltd”.
ASIC also shows ACN 612 834 152 as named “Melbourne Flight Training Pty Ltd” with the former name “Australian Pilot Training Alliance Pty Ltd”. However, that entity is shown as having been deregistered on 23 January 2021.
Looks like two different corporate entities swapping identical names. Nothing too unusual about that, but I want to make sure I understand who’s who in this zoo.
What was the ACN of the entity of which you were CEO called “Australian Pilot Training Alliance Pty Ltd” while you were dealing with CASA? I’m guessing it was ACN 612 834 152 – the one that’s now been deregistered – and ACN 119 046 285 then grabbed the name. But I’d rather not guess.)
Last edited by Lead Balloon; 19th Mar 2022 at 04:32. Reason: To add PS.