Glen Buckley and Australian small business -V- CASA
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: New Zealand
Age: 71
Posts: 1,475
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I believe that the election result will only lead to even more tautological nonsense for poor Glen. It’s a new elected zoo and new faces for Glen to focus his efforts on. However the downside of this election result is that none of the new mob campaigned on aviation matters. To be more blunt, the newly minted trough swillers are mostly impotent and uneducated on aviation matters. Well, Albo did win some praise for their useless and senseless ‘white paper’ which did nothing for the actual industry, but apart from that, nothing else has been achieved.
The Senate will be filled with a mash up of pot smokers, environmental zealots, and those whose only driver in life is pushing the barrow of transgender people and women. There will be no time for trivial aviation matters brought forth by a member of the community. Hell no, our newly elected ones will be busy consuming tea and scones at old peoples homes, having new business cards printed up, arranging family tours of their new offices and spending time thumbing through their ‘How to rort and reap rich rewards from the taxpayer’ handbook that they will have all received.
Labor will no doubt shaft some Departmental secretaries that were Liberal ‘mates rates’ appointments, however the CASA CEO will stay put. The fear of and mystique of aviation will remain strong through the halls of Parliament House, and our honourable ones will be too scared to even poke the CASA beast with a long handled broom. It will certainly be BAU with our Regulator. Don’t be surprised if you see a return of Mike Mrdak into a more senior and visible role.
As always Glen, best wishes and best of luck with your ongoing endeavours.
The Senate will be filled with a mash up of pot smokers, environmental zealots, and those whose only driver in life is pushing the barrow of transgender people and women. There will be no time for trivial aviation matters brought forth by a member of the community. Hell no, our newly elected ones will be busy consuming tea and scones at old peoples homes, having new business cards printed up, arranging family tours of their new offices and spending time thumbing through their ‘How to rort and reap rich rewards from the taxpayer’ handbook that they will have all received.
Labor will no doubt shaft some Departmental secretaries that were Liberal ‘mates rates’ appointments, however the CASA CEO will stay put. The fear of and mystique of aviation will remain strong through the halls of Parliament House, and our honourable ones will be too scared to even poke the CASA beast with a long handled broom. It will certainly be BAU with our Regulator. Don’t be surprised if you see a return of Mike Mrdak into a more senior and visible role.
As always Glen, best wishes and best of luck with your ongoing endeavours.
Internal review of CASA’s approach to surveillance
3.65 CASA commissioned an internal review of its surveillance approach in March 2020. The objective was:
To conduct a review that will comprehensively examine CASA’s surveillance philosophy, capabilities and practises and prepare recommendations for any reform. The review will consider how CASA uses its current resources and powers to deliver its statutory objectives and assess CASA’s ability to perform as a capable and transparent regulator. The review may examine and provide options on how CASA could evolve its surveillance capabilities to support its strategic objectives and business needs.
3.66 The final draft of the review was reported to the CASA executive in June 2020 and the Executive indicated in September 2021 that the report was ‘…a great piece of work’ that would be ‘taken forward’. In February 2022, CASA advised the ANAO that the draft report had not been ‘validated or endorsed by management’ although CASA’s records did not evidence why an internal review that it had commissioned had not been subject to appropriate management consideration and, as appropriate, action on the recommendations.
3.67 The report was not filed in CASA’s electronic record management system or circulated more widely in CASA and was not considered by the OEG, despite the OEG having responsibility to ‘provide strategic direction for the management of regulatory oversight’ and to manage and administer decision making on regulatory oversight activities.
3.65 CASA commissioned an internal review of its surveillance approach in March 2020. The objective was:
To conduct a review that will comprehensively examine CASA’s surveillance philosophy, capabilities and practises and prepare recommendations for any reform. The review will consider how CASA uses its current resources and powers to deliver its statutory objectives and assess CASA’s ability to perform as a capable and transparent regulator. The review may examine and provide options on how CASA could evolve its surveillance capabilities to support its strategic objectives and business needs.
3.66 The final draft of the review was reported to the CASA executive in June 2020 and the Executive indicated in September 2021 that the report was ‘…a great piece of work’ that would be ‘taken forward’. In February 2022, CASA advised the ANAO that the draft report had not been ‘validated or endorsed by management’ although CASA’s records did not evidence why an internal review that it had commissioned had not been subject to appropriate management consideration and, as appropriate, action on the recommendations.
3.67 The report was not filed in CASA’s electronic record management system or circulated more widely in CASA and was not considered by the OEG, despite the OEG having responsibility to ‘provide strategic direction for the management of regulatory oversight’ and to manage and administer decision making on regulatory oversight activities.
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: New Zealand
Age: 71
Posts: 1,475
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The trouble with CASA
Time for a private member’s Bill to have CASA disbanded and its functions carried out in a Department of Government with a Minister in charge. This is the proven Westminster system which has responsibility for governance firmly with our elected representatives, the foundation of democracy
Until MPs face the facts that the current system, the independent Commonwealth corporate (an entity that can be sued) is a failed experimental form of governance, General Aviation will continue to languish.
Senator McDonald initiated the current drawn out two and a half years (!) ‘inquiry’ into GA, we should ask the Senators would you give over the Department of Defence to an unelected corporation like CASA?
The General Aviation (GA) sector cannot grow and strengthen in the National interest until our representatives in Parliament force change.
The ASRR inquiry (Forsyth) of 2014 produced some 35 government accepted recommendations, the Senate should demand action on those, the current RRAT Senate inquiry is a rehash, 74 submissions only, nearly all from the same cohort that contributed to the 269 ASRR Forsyth submissions.
Eight years after Forsyth all we have is a worsening situation with CASA’s relentless complexities and piling on of unnecessary and expensive procedures. These problems cannot be solved properly within the present structure which is not fit for purpose.
With respect, and acknowledging the efforts of individuals like Senator McDonald, sadly the previous government did not make the necessary decisions that only Parliament can deliver.
Those of us that have lived the great boom of GA, when one was hard pressed to find a parking spot at Moorabbin, and the skies were constantly plied with GA aircraft, know only too well the destruction that’s occurred in GA. For those that don’t have that experience we have the BITRE statistics that clearly show the decline of GA, and if plotted against population growth would look much worse.
We’ve lost hundreds of flying schools and charter operators even as Senator McDonald’s RRAT hearings have stretched out over more than two years.
Some exemplary reforms are desperately needed now, take the rules out of the criminal code, should be misdemeanours, remove the ASIC, reform medical certification, independent instructors outside Part 141/142, reform the aircraft maintenance regime and the alienation of irreplaceable airport land in favour of property developers must be halted.
All of this goes not only to our prosperity but also to our security and strength as a Nation where the mobility of aviation (and airports are crucial infrastructure) is an obvious necessity in a land mass with low population such as ours.
Ring, write contact your MP regularly and press for reform with USA rules for GA.
Until MPs face the facts that the current system, the independent Commonwealth corporate (an entity that can be sued) is a failed experimental form of governance, General Aviation will continue to languish.
Senator McDonald initiated the current drawn out two and a half years (!) ‘inquiry’ into GA, we should ask the Senators would you give over the Department of Defence to an unelected corporation like CASA?
The General Aviation (GA) sector cannot grow and strengthen in the National interest until our representatives in Parliament force change.
The ASRR inquiry (Forsyth) of 2014 produced some 35 government accepted recommendations, the Senate should demand action on those, the current RRAT Senate inquiry is a rehash, 74 submissions only, nearly all from the same cohort that contributed to the 269 ASRR Forsyth submissions.
Eight years after Forsyth all we have is a worsening situation with CASA’s relentless complexities and piling on of unnecessary and expensive procedures. These problems cannot be solved properly within the present structure which is not fit for purpose.
With respect, and acknowledging the efforts of individuals like Senator McDonald, sadly the previous government did not make the necessary decisions that only Parliament can deliver.
Those of us that have lived the great boom of GA, when one was hard pressed to find a parking spot at Moorabbin, and the skies were constantly plied with GA aircraft, know only too well the destruction that’s occurred in GA. For those that don’t have that experience we have the BITRE statistics that clearly show the decline of GA, and if plotted against population growth would look much worse.
We’ve lost hundreds of flying schools and charter operators even as Senator McDonald’s RRAT hearings have stretched out over more than two years.
Some exemplary reforms are desperately needed now, take the rules out of the criminal code, should be misdemeanours, remove the ASIC, reform medical certification, independent instructors outside Part 141/142, reform the aircraft maintenance regime and the alienation of irreplaceable airport land in favour of property developers must be halted.
All of this goes not only to our prosperity but also to our security and strength as a Nation where the mobility of aviation (and airports are crucial infrastructure) is an obvious necessity in a land mass with low population such as ours.
Ring, write contact your MP regularly and press for reform with USA rules for GA.
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: New Zealand
Age: 71
Posts: 1,475
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In reality, the ‘new’ Government has 23 ministers covering what I understand to be 16 departments. The appointment of a junior Minister to an aviation portfolio could be implemented. An aviation portfolio could potentially cover not only GA, but it could also realign CASA and have a measure of closer oversight of the big ‘R’ regulator including implementing either the USA or NZ regulatory suite. The Ministers department could oversee the develop of aviation infrastructure, seek out and bring in aviation business units such as manufacturing and training, cut red tape and actually foster and promote aviation and it could deliver on the recommendations from the 2014 Forsyth review. Australia could potentially tap into billions of international dollars, yet we sit here with our thumbs up our arses due to a lack of credible Government sponsored action.
The legacy of CASA since 1988 is like living through a fatal car crash over and over again. There has been countless shenanigans over the decades and the examples of people like Glen Buckley, and others before him, should be the catalyst to raise the alarm bells. Hell, the way Aleck threw the gullible MsSpence under the bus twice in spectacular fashion in front of a Senate committee highlights the endemic issues in aviation oversight.
The legacy of CASA since 1988 is like living through a fatal car crash over and over again. There has been countless shenanigans over the decades and the examples of people like Glen Buckley, and others before him, should be the catalyst to raise the alarm bells. Hell, the way Aleck threw the gullible MsSpence under the bus twice in spectacular fashion in front of a Senate committee highlights the endemic issues in aviation oversight.
Thread Starter
Complaint of "false and misleading" information
Cheers 1746, you got me motivated.
I have been working away diligently in the background. I am about to submit a complaint to the CASA ICC about a CASA employee providing false and misleading advice to the current Commonwealth Ombudsman's Office investigation and calling on CASA to very clearly state there position on these three key points. The document is long, and has many attachments. It is however close to being finalized. By posting it up here it will keep me focused on finalizing it.
The finalised introduction follows, and i have the next two days off so will have the document in its entirety completed by then. Will kick off on the next post. My intention is to also submit this to the Senate as an accompanying document to my submission. I will also be communicating this to my new local Member etc. More on that later. Cheers. Glen
I have been working away diligently in the background. I am about to submit a complaint to the CASA ICC about a CASA employee providing false and misleading advice to the current Commonwealth Ombudsman's Office investigation and calling on CASA to very clearly state there position on these three key points. The document is long, and has many attachments. It is however close to being finalized. By posting it up here it will keep me focused on finalizing it.
The finalised introduction follows, and i have the next two days off so will have the document in its entirety completed by then. Will kick off on the next post. My intention is to also submit this to the Senate as an accompanying document to my submission. I will also be communicating this to my new local Member etc. More on that later. Cheers. Glen
Thread Starter
ICC Complaint (1 of 12)
This post has been removed.
It contained a draft letter, which has now been finalised, and that final correspondence sent to the CASA Industry Complaints Commissioner can be found at Post # 2235 and onwards.
It contained a draft letter, which has now been finalised, and that final correspondence sent to the CASA Industry Complaints Commissioner can be found at Post # 2235 and onwards.
Last edited by glenb; 28th Jul 2022 at 21:19.
Thread Starter
2 of 12
This post has been removed.
It contained a draft letter, which has now been finalised, and that final correspondence sent to the CASA Industry Complaints Commissioner can be found at Post # 2235 and onwards.
It contained a draft letter, which has now been finalised, and that final correspondence sent to the CASA Industry Complaints Commissioner can be found at Post # 2235 and onwards.
Last edited by glenb; 28th Jul 2022 at 21:20.
Thread Starter
3 of 12
This post has been removed.
It contained a draft letter, which has now been finalised, and that final correspondence sent to the CASA Industry Complaints Commissioner can be found at Post # 2235 and onwards.
It contained a draft letter, which has now been finalised, and that final correspondence sent to the CASA Industry Complaints Commissioner can be found at Post # 2235 and onwards.
Last edited by glenb; 28th Jul 2022 at 21:21.
If Pip Spence and the Board are getting rid of the current ICC as rumoured, if you insist on the ICC charade you could wait until the replacement is in situ and then maybe you’d get a fairer hearing?
I don't like your chances Glen. My guess is that CASA will try and explain you away to the new Minister as a crank.
Nothing will save GA.
Dick Smith was right - 9 Mar 2016:
Nothing will save GA.
Dick Smith was right - 9 Mar 2016:
I’d like to re-emphasise what I’ve told many people and that is there is no light on the horizon and many tens of millions of dollars more is going to be lost in general aviation in this county before anything is done about it.
Last edited by Sunfish; 22nd Jun 2022 at 08:49.
Sorry. No such thing as a "fair hearing" in the CAsA lexicon.
While the ICC guy, in my case, was a good and conscienicous bloke, and came to talk with me due to his concerns of about what was happening..or not. He was over run / over ruled from higher up the food chain. They didnt like his result.
The "investigation" (sic) was then handed off to a women plucked from Human Resources or whatever the wanko name for that division was called then. ...Sheeple and Culture...some 'culture' !!
Result. "On the basis of probabilities, wasnt him." ( The CAsA perp)
A teenager, or a proper investigator could have worked it out. The available fact were overwhelming.
CAsA is all about covering its polished arse...and then some.
So they have criminals and perjurers working in the rotten place.....Who cares.?
While the ICC guy, in my case, was a good and conscienicous bloke, and came to talk with me due to his concerns of about what was happening..or not. He was over run / over ruled from higher up the food chain. They didnt like his result.
The "investigation" (sic) was then handed off to a women plucked from Human Resources or whatever the wanko name for that division was called then. ...Sheeple and Culture...some 'culture' !!
Result. "On the basis of probabilities, wasnt him." ( The CAsA perp)
A teenager, or a proper investigator could have worked it out. The available fact were overwhelming.
CAsA is all about covering its polished arse...and then some.
So they have criminals and perjurers working in the rotten place.....Who cares.?
Hi again, Glen
You will recall that CASA’s letter of 23 October 2018 quoted this statement on APTA’s website about ‘Alliance’ ‘members’:
I strongly suggest that you prepare a couple of paragraphs – no more than 1 page – that state, clearly and concisely, what you say APTA meant by that and how it was achieved as a matter of practicality.
If, for example, APTA was merely trying to draw a distinction on its website between e.g. a ‘member’ buying and maintaining and feeding a photocopier and organising the cleaning of toilets and taking bookings for flying training - ‘administration function and procedures’ - on the hand, and aviation-related operational matters on the other, with ‘Alliance’ ‘members’ having complete control and autonomy only over the former and APTA having complete control over and responsibility for the latter, then that in my view wasn’t made very clear on APTA’s website. And if that was what APTA meant, the next step is to write down, clearly and concisely, how APTA had the power to control the aviation-related aspects of a ‘member’s’ operations.
I will bet leftie that CASA will say that it has never authorised entity X to operate under the authority of entity Y’s certificate in circumstances in which entity Y has no power to control what entity X does. CASA will say that all authorisations were only ever on the basis of an assessment of entity Y’s powers and procedures for controlling entity X’s operations and thereby to practically discharge entity Y’s responsibilities arising from entity X’s operations. The 'vibe' of the statement on APTA's website is that 'members' were completely independent and, therefore, APTA had no control over them.
You will recall that CASA’s letter of 23 October 2018 quoted this statement on APTA’s website about ‘Alliance’ ‘members’:
[Y]ou maintain complete control over your business. Your business maintains its identity and individuality. Your administration function and procedures remain completely your own, independent of the Alliance.
If, for example, APTA was merely trying to draw a distinction on its website between e.g. a ‘member’ buying and maintaining and feeding a photocopier and organising the cleaning of toilets and taking bookings for flying training - ‘administration function and procedures’ - on the hand, and aviation-related operational matters on the other, with ‘Alliance’ ‘members’ having complete control and autonomy only over the former and APTA having complete control over and responsibility for the latter, then that in my view wasn’t made very clear on APTA’s website. And if that was what APTA meant, the next step is to write down, clearly and concisely, how APTA had the power to control the aviation-related aspects of a ‘member’s’ operations.
I will bet leftie that CASA will say that it has never authorised entity X to operate under the authority of entity Y’s certificate in circumstances in which entity Y has no power to control what entity X does. CASA will say that all authorisations were only ever on the basis of an assessment of entity Y’s powers and procedures for controlling entity X’s operations and thereby to practically discharge entity Y’s responsibilities arising from entity X’s operations. The 'vibe' of the statement on APTA's website is that 'members' were completely independent and, therefore, APTA had no control over them.
Last edited by Lead Balloon; 29th Jun 2022 at 00:39.
Thread Starter
Lead Balloon response to previous post.
I have taken your suggestion on board. I have had a crack at putting together an overview into a single A4 page. A challenge. I try to write to multiple potential audiences with varying degrees of knowledge when i write something. Anyway, i did get it onto A4. The font size was 0.5, and quite impractical. Here it is in a larger font size, but over 5 X A4 pages. I thought this would be easier. Its a starting point, I look forward to feedback from you and others as time permits
Explanation of “structure”.
I need to ensure there is a clear understanding of the “structure” that I used. This was the identical structure that many operators utilised within the industry throughout my 25 years in the flight training industry, with full CASA approval.
It was the exact structure that I redesigned with 10 CASA personnel, over a 2 year period, culminating in CASA revalidating the exact structure in April of 2017. A full 18 months before Mr Aleck would have the Ombudsman believe.
This revalidation was an exhaustive process requiring an investment of several hundred thousand dollars, and required CASA to assess, approve and peer review many thousands of pages of systems and procedures contained within our Exposition, interview and approve Key personnel before they formally approved them.
Eighteen months later, CASA would declare that exact structure that they revalidated 18 months earlier to be suddenly unlawful and shut the business down. That occurred in October 2018.
The business was a Registered Training Organisation RTO #22508 delivering training in the flight training sector, across multiple bases. This arrangement was accepted by the Australian Skills and qualifications Authority (ASQA), the overriding Authority for the RTO.
The structure I had adopted for many years was a one university multi campus approach. This exact structure had always been approved by CASA and was common practice for at least my 25 years in the industry.
CASA have led the Ombudsman to believe this was not the case. CASA has led the Ombudsman to be of the view that CASA had never permitted this structure. That is blatantly false and misleading. This exact model that I outline here, and that I adopted, had ALWAYS been approved by CASA, amongst many operators, and that had been the case for all time.
There is no doubt that I had been operating in this identical model for six years, other Operators for far longer than I.
Mr Aleck claims to the Ombudsman that CASA was not aware of anyone, including me, adopting the structure. In fact, Mr Aleck falsely claims CASA never permitted that exact structure. Concerningly, Mr Aleck has Ied the Ombudsman to be of the view that CASA never permitted it. Not with me and not with any other Operator, at any time. A blatant untruth that he knows to be untrue. CASA formally approved this exact structure for many operators over many years.
The new regulatory structure to be finalised by September 1st, 2017, would lead to the closure of my school and many others, as the new regulations removed access to approximately 90% of revenue. We would lose access to our core qualification being the 150 hour Commercial Pilot Licence, unless we met the CASA required revalidation process.
Many schools were confronted with ceasing operations.
In mid-2016, I had a number of meetings with CASA personnel with the proposal to expand on exactly what I had been doing for many years, and to redesign the entire system from the ground up in conjunction with CASA to meet the new regulatory structure that was being introduced.
The proposal I discussed with CASA in the meetings of mid-2016,was a collaborative approach amongst 10 Australian Owned flying schools. The purpose being to increase safety and compliance while pursuing group opportunities.
The APTA model as put forward by me, to CASA in those meetings of mid-2016, and as recollected to this day by the CASA personnel present at those meetings, was that the structure was as follows.
Let’s consider the Ballarat Aero Club, as they were an affected Member by the closure of APTA by CASA two and a half years after these meetings.
On our website we stated “you maintain complete control over your business. Your business maintains its identity and individuality. Your administration function and procedures remain completely your own, independent of the Alliance.”
“The Business and administration component”.
Like all regional aero clubs, Ballarat Aero Club are run by a committee of volunteers.
Those volunteers have a recreational interest in aviation. That Committee would be drawn from people in the local community from local farms and businesses and have an enormous depth of experience outside of aviation. Typically, they would have no specialist knowledge at all of flight training, but yet they want to continue deliver flight training to their members and the local regional community from the airport.
The Committee want to focus on growing Membership so that the aeroclub can thrive. They want to organise flying days and competitions, trivia nights, deciding what colour to paint the classroom, which photocopier to purchase, which internet provider to use, collecting revenue, renewing membership, choosing utilities providers, cleaning, choosing which beers to stock in the bar, sharing knowledge and experience, building companionship, bookkeeping, etc etc etc. That is why they volunteer for the role.
It is important to understand that the Ballarat Aero Club cannot deliver flight training on their own. They do not have the CASA Approval, and they do not have the CASA approved Key Personnel.
They are an aero club only; they are not a flying school. It is far more likely that they will have a liquor licence rather than a licence to run a flying school.
The Aero Club could approach CASA and make application to have their own Part 141/142 flying school. That would require a lengthy process costing many hundreds of thousands of dollars, and require employing Key Personnel, writing manuals etc. The committee would not have the expertise, nor the time and resources. Primarily, they want to run an aero club, not a flying school. Running a flying school requires high levels of responsibility and accountability in legislation, all of them with families that could potentially be impacted, if they were to attempt to take on such a project with such responsibility and expertise required.
Without that CASA approval, the Ballarat Aero Club are not handing over anything to me that they would normally have any operational control over, and I think that’s a significant point.
They are as stated, just an aero club, they are not permitted to deliver flight training. They do not have any operational control over a flying school because quite simply, they do not have a flying school. They are not qualified, and they do not have the approval. The Committee of that aero club are residents of the local community, employed fulltime outside of aviation.
The Committee Members want a flying school but realise the impracticality of it.The Committee recognises that the aero club does however, have underutilised facilities and access to aircraft, as well as a local population that wants to fly. There is a significant market available, it is a service that an aeroclub would like to provide.
Operational Control of the flying school.
The Aero Club approaches APTA and asks APTA to run take over full operational control of a flying school at the Ballarat Aerodrome. Not an unusual request because this is something that I have been doing for many years with full and formal CASA approval.
Its important to understand that there was only ever one CASA issued Certificate for flight training referred to as an Authorisation or Air Operator Certificate (AOC). It was issued by CASA to my Company in 2006 with CASA issued Aviation Reference Number 759217. The Company was also a Registered Training Organisation (#22508). All training at all bases was conducted under that single Approval. The respective aero clubs do not have their own approval, nor do they have the CASA required Key Personnel. They provide the facilities, and I run the school. Exactly as proposed to CASA, and recollected by those CASA personnel back in mid 2016.
In addition to the certificate the CASA legislation requires three Key Personnel, all employed by me. Those being the CASA approved CEO, the CASA approved Head of Operations (HOO) and the CASA approved Safety Manager. They are the three accountable Personnel in a Part 141/142 Flight Training Organisation. The aero club committee of volunteers are not in the legislation, they are not recognised, and in fact it is likely that CASA has never met with the Committee. Contrast that to the legislated responsibilities on me and my Key Personnel as the accountable persons. Those significant responsibilities can be found here in the legislation from CASR 142.75 onwards. Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 (legislation.gov.au)
The Committee of the Ballalrat Aero Club, or Latrobe valley Aero Club, or any other entity, approaches me and after a thorough process I am satisfied, and I take over full operational control of a flying school for that aero club.
The Committee does not have, and has never had any legislated responsibilities for a flying school because they do not have one. CASA would have no interaction with the Aeroclub Committee. They are not accountable in legislation. CASA communicates only with me as the Authorisation Holder, and my CASA approved Key Personnel.
As the sole holder of the only CASA issued authorisation, and as the person employing the three Key Personnel my legislated responsibilities are comprehensive.
There can be no confusion. The Committee has no legislated responsibility. All responsibility in the legislation is on me and my Key Personnel.
A small sampling of the legislated responsibilities is below. While not exhaustive it clearly clarifies who is responsible for operational control. There can be no doubt as to who is responsible. It is clearly legislated.
The Committee has no operational control at all over any operational aspects of APTAs flying school operation. The relationship between the Committee and APTA is professional, and constant feedback is sought by APTA, but APTA runs the flying school. The Committee is welcome to provide feedback and suggestions but I maintain full operational control and responsibility. The authority is absolute, and I can cease operations at any base instantly if it were ever required.
The only decision that the committee of that Aero Club has to make is. Do they want APTA to continue operating a flying school at that location?
The Committee has absolutely no operational control over the flying school, and nor do they want it. I cannot think of any situation where any Member of an aero club committee would try to exert any operational control over a flying school operation. I have never experienced that
I have extended this offer to CASA before. Please provide a scenario that concerns CASA, whereby a Committee member could exert any attempt at any operational control over any aspect of the flying school operations, and allow me to address it. There are no realistic scenarios.
If it was something operational, I was fully responsible for it, as legislated. I am the Holder of the CASA Authorisation. Examples of this would be that I am responsible for making bookings,enrolling students, training students, authorising all flights, being responsible for fleet airworthiness, staff selection and induction, maintenance standards, pilot fatigue monitoring, investigations into accidents or incidents, staff training, staff promotion, all group communications, quality outcomes, pass rates, safety standards, training records, theory delivery, audit preparation, all documentation associated with all training, ensuring adequate resources., communicating with CASA etc.
The responsibilities of me and the three Key personnel are very clear and outlined in the legislation. A small sampling of the legislated responsibilities that I accept as the single Authorisation Holder are.
· Ensuring the safe conduct of the operator’s authorised Part 142 activities in accordance with the operator’s Part 142 authorisation, exposition, and civil aviation legislation.
· Has sufficient suitably experienced, qualified, and competent personnel.
· Has a suitable management structure.
· Is adequately financed and resourced.
· Sets and maintains standards for the activities in accordance with the operator’s Exposition.
· Complies with civil aviation legislation.
· Implements and manages the operator’s safety management system.
· Has procedures that ensure that all of the operator’s personnel understand the operator’s safety policy.
· Has an organisational structure that ensures that the safety manager is independent and not subject to undue influence.
· Tells CASA if the operator enters a leasing, financing, or other arrangement for the supply of a turbine‑engine aircraft for use in the activities.
· tells CASA if the operator becomes aware that any arrangement may affect the operator’s safe conduct of the activities.
· Manages the operator’s quality assurance management system.
· establishing and regularly reviewing the operator’s safety performance indicators and targets.
· Ensuring that the operator’s exposition is monitored and managed for continuous improvement.
· Ensuring that key personnel satisfactorily carry out the responsibilities of their positions in accordance with the operator’s exposition, and civil aviation legislation.
· Safely manage the authorised Part 142 activities of the operator.
· Monitoring and maintaining, and reporting to the chief executive officer on, the operator’s compliance with the provisions of civil aviation legislation and the operator’s exposition that apply to the activities.
· Setting and maintaining the operator’s standards for the activities in accordance with the operator’s exposition
· Ensuring that the training is conducted in accordance with the operator’s training management system.
· Ensuring that the activities are monitored effectively.
· Managing the maintenance and continuous improvement of the operator’s fatigue risk management system
· Ensuring the proper allocation and deployment of aircraft, flight simulation training devices and personnel for use in the activities.
· Ensuring that the operator’s personnel are provided with the information and documentation necessary to properly carry out their responsibilities.
· Ensuring that each examiner who conducts an activity for the operator has access to the parts of the operator’s exposition that relate to the examiner’s duties.
· Reporting to the chief executive officer on the operator’s compliance with the matters mentioned.
· Ensuring that each instructor or examiner who conducts contracted recurrent training or contracted checking for the operator has access to the contracting operator’s training and checking manual;
· Ensuring that the operator complies with section 28BH of the Act in relation to flight crew.
· Managing the operation of the safety management system including managing corrective, remedial and preventative action in relation to the system
· Regularly reporting to the chief executive officer on the effectiveness of the safety management system
· Managing the maintenance and continuous improvement of the safety management system and the fatigue risk management system.
I hope that this overview provides some clarity.
Explanation of “structure”.
I need to ensure there is a clear understanding of the “structure” that I used. This was the identical structure that many operators utilised within the industry throughout my 25 years in the flight training industry, with full CASA approval.
It was the exact structure that I redesigned with 10 CASA personnel, over a 2 year period, culminating in CASA revalidating the exact structure in April of 2017. A full 18 months before Mr Aleck would have the Ombudsman believe.
This revalidation was an exhaustive process requiring an investment of several hundred thousand dollars, and required CASA to assess, approve and peer review many thousands of pages of systems and procedures contained within our Exposition, interview and approve Key personnel before they formally approved them.
Eighteen months later, CASA would declare that exact structure that they revalidated 18 months earlier to be suddenly unlawful and shut the business down. That occurred in October 2018.
The business was a Registered Training Organisation RTO #22508 delivering training in the flight training sector, across multiple bases. This arrangement was accepted by the Australian Skills and qualifications Authority (ASQA), the overriding Authority for the RTO.
The structure I had adopted for many years was a one university multi campus approach. This exact structure had always been approved by CASA and was common practice for at least my 25 years in the industry.
CASA have led the Ombudsman to believe this was not the case. CASA has led the Ombudsman to be of the view that CASA had never permitted this structure. That is blatantly false and misleading. This exact model that I outline here, and that I adopted, had ALWAYS been approved by CASA, amongst many operators, and that had been the case for all time.
There is no doubt that I had been operating in this identical model for six years, other Operators for far longer than I.
Mr Aleck claims to the Ombudsman that CASA was not aware of anyone, including me, adopting the structure. In fact, Mr Aleck falsely claims CASA never permitted that exact structure. Concerningly, Mr Aleck has Ied the Ombudsman to be of the view that CASA never permitted it. Not with me and not with any other Operator, at any time. A blatant untruth that he knows to be untrue. CASA formally approved this exact structure for many operators over many years.
The new regulatory structure to be finalised by September 1st, 2017, would lead to the closure of my school and many others, as the new regulations removed access to approximately 90% of revenue. We would lose access to our core qualification being the 150 hour Commercial Pilot Licence, unless we met the CASA required revalidation process.
Many schools were confronted with ceasing operations.
In mid-2016, I had a number of meetings with CASA personnel with the proposal to expand on exactly what I had been doing for many years, and to redesign the entire system from the ground up in conjunction with CASA to meet the new regulatory structure that was being introduced.
The proposal I discussed with CASA in the meetings of mid-2016,was a collaborative approach amongst 10 Australian Owned flying schools. The purpose being to increase safety and compliance while pursuing group opportunities.
The APTA model as put forward by me, to CASA in those meetings of mid-2016, and as recollected to this day by the CASA personnel present at those meetings, was that the structure was as follows.
Let’s consider the Ballarat Aero Club, as they were an affected Member by the closure of APTA by CASA two and a half years after these meetings.
On our website we stated “you maintain complete control over your business. Your business maintains its identity and individuality. Your administration function and procedures remain completely your own, independent of the Alliance.”
“The Business and administration component”.
Like all regional aero clubs, Ballarat Aero Club are run by a committee of volunteers.
Those volunteers have a recreational interest in aviation. That Committee would be drawn from people in the local community from local farms and businesses and have an enormous depth of experience outside of aviation. Typically, they would have no specialist knowledge at all of flight training, but yet they want to continue deliver flight training to their members and the local regional community from the airport.
The Committee want to focus on growing Membership so that the aeroclub can thrive. They want to organise flying days and competitions, trivia nights, deciding what colour to paint the classroom, which photocopier to purchase, which internet provider to use, collecting revenue, renewing membership, choosing utilities providers, cleaning, choosing which beers to stock in the bar, sharing knowledge and experience, building companionship, bookkeeping, etc etc etc. That is why they volunteer for the role.
It is important to understand that the Ballarat Aero Club cannot deliver flight training on their own. They do not have the CASA Approval, and they do not have the CASA approved Key Personnel.
They are an aero club only; they are not a flying school. It is far more likely that they will have a liquor licence rather than a licence to run a flying school.
The Aero Club could approach CASA and make application to have their own Part 141/142 flying school. That would require a lengthy process costing many hundreds of thousands of dollars, and require employing Key Personnel, writing manuals etc. The committee would not have the expertise, nor the time and resources. Primarily, they want to run an aero club, not a flying school. Running a flying school requires high levels of responsibility and accountability in legislation, all of them with families that could potentially be impacted, if they were to attempt to take on such a project with such responsibility and expertise required.
Without that CASA approval, the Ballarat Aero Club are not handing over anything to me that they would normally have any operational control over, and I think that’s a significant point.
They are as stated, just an aero club, they are not permitted to deliver flight training. They do not have any operational control over a flying school because quite simply, they do not have a flying school. They are not qualified, and they do not have the approval. The Committee of that aero club are residents of the local community, employed fulltime outside of aviation.
The Committee Members want a flying school but realise the impracticality of it.The Committee recognises that the aero club does however, have underutilised facilities and access to aircraft, as well as a local population that wants to fly. There is a significant market available, it is a service that an aeroclub would like to provide.
Operational Control of the flying school.
The Aero Club approaches APTA and asks APTA to run take over full operational control of a flying school at the Ballarat Aerodrome. Not an unusual request because this is something that I have been doing for many years with full and formal CASA approval.
Its important to understand that there was only ever one CASA issued Certificate for flight training referred to as an Authorisation or Air Operator Certificate (AOC). It was issued by CASA to my Company in 2006 with CASA issued Aviation Reference Number 759217. The Company was also a Registered Training Organisation (#22508). All training at all bases was conducted under that single Approval. The respective aero clubs do not have their own approval, nor do they have the CASA required Key Personnel. They provide the facilities, and I run the school. Exactly as proposed to CASA, and recollected by those CASA personnel back in mid 2016.
In addition to the certificate the CASA legislation requires three Key Personnel, all employed by me. Those being the CASA approved CEO, the CASA approved Head of Operations (HOO) and the CASA approved Safety Manager. They are the three accountable Personnel in a Part 141/142 Flight Training Organisation. The aero club committee of volunteers are not in the legislation, they are not recognised, and in fact it is likely that CASA has never met with the Committee. Contrast that to the legislated responsibilities on me and my Key Personnel as the accountable persons. Those significant responsibilities can be found here in the legislation from CASR 142.75 onwards. Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 (legislation.gov.au)
The Committee of the Ballalrat Aero Club, or Latrobe valley Aero Club, or any other entity, approaches me and after a thorough process I am satisfied, and I take over full operational control of a flying school for that aero club.
The Committee does not have, and has never had any legislated responsibilities for a flying school because they do not have one. CASA would have no interaction with the Aeroclub Committee. They are not accountable in legislation. CASA communicates only with me as the Authorisation Holder, and my CASA approved Key Personnel.
As the sole holder of the only CASA issued authorisation, and as the person employing the three Key Personnel my legislated responsibilities are comprehensive.
There can be no confusion. The Committee has no legislated responsibility. All responsibility in the legislation is on me and my Key Personnel.
A small sampling of the legislated responsibilities is below. While not exhaustive it clearly clarifies who is responsible for operational control. There can be no doubt as to who is responsible. It is clearly legislated.
The Committee has no operational control at all over any operational aspects of APTAs flying school operation. The relationship between the Committee and APTA is professional, and constant feedback is sought by APTA, but APTA runs the flying school. The Committee is welcome to provide feedback and suggestions but I maintain full operational control and responsibility. The authority is absolute, and I can cease operations at any base instantly if it were ever required.
The only decision that the committee of that Aero Club has to make is. Do they want APTA to continue operating a flying school at that location?
The Committee has absolutely no operational control over the flying school, and nor do they want it. I cannot think of any situation where any Member of an aero club committee would try to exert any operational control over a flying school operation. I have never experienced that
I have extended this offer to CASA before. Please provide a scenario that concerns CASA, whereby a Committee member could exert any attempt at any operational control over any aspect of the flying school operations, and allow me to address it. There are no realistic scenarios.
If it was something operational, I was fully responsible for it, as legislated. I am the Holder of the CASA Authorisation. Examples of this would be that I am responsible for making bookings,enrolling students, training students, authorising all flights, being responsible for fleet airworthiness, staff selection and induction, maintenance standards, pilot fatigue monitoring, investigations into accidents or incidents, staff training, staff promotion, all group communications, quality outcomes, pass rates, safety standards, training records, theory delivery, audit preparation, all documentation associated with all training, ensuring adequate resources., communicating with CASA etc.
The responsibilities of me and the three Key personnel are very clear and outlined in the legislation. A small sampling of the legislated responsibilities that I accept as the single Authorisation Holder are.
· Ensuring the safe conduct of the operator’s authorised Part 142 activities in accordance with the operator’s Part 142 authorisation, exposition, and civil aviation legislation.
· Has sufficient suitably experienced, qualified, and competent personnel.
· Has a suitable management structure.
· Is adequately financed and resourced.
· Sets and maintains standards for the activities in accordance with the operator’s Exposition.
· Complies with civil aviation legislation.
· Implements and manages the operator’s safety management system.
· Has procedures that ensure that all of the operator’s personnel understand the operator’s safety policy.
· Has an organisational structure that ensures that the safety manager is independent and not subject to undue influence.
· Tells CASA if the operator enters a leasing, financing, or other arrangement for the supply of a turbine‑engine aircraft for use in the activities.
· tells CASA if the operator becomes aware that any arrangement may affect the operator’s safe conduct of the activities.
· Manages the operator’s quality assurance management system.
· establishing and regularly reviewing the operator’s safety performance indicators and targets.
· Ensuring that the operator’s exposition is monitored and managed for continuous improvement.
· Ensuring that key personnel satisfactorily carry out the responsibilities of their positions in accordance with the operator’s exposition, and civil aviation legislation.
· Safely manage the authorised Part 142 activities of the operator.
· Monitoring and maintaining, and reporting to the chief executive officer on, the operator’s compliance with the provisions of civil aviation legislation and the operator’s exposition that apply to the activities.
· Setting and maintaining the operator’s standards for the activities in accordance with the operator’s exposition
· Ensuring that the training is conducted in accordance with the operator’s training management system.
· Ensuring that the activities are monitored effectively.
· Managing the maintenance and continuous improvement of the operator’s fatigue risk management system
· Ensuring the proper allocation and deployment of aircraft, flight simulation training devices and personnel for use in the activities.
· Ensuring that the operator’s personnel are provided with the information and documentation necessary to properly carry out their responsibilities.
· Ensuring that each examiner who conducts an activity for the operator has access to the parts of the operator’s exposition that relate to the examiner’s duties.
· Reporting to the chief executive officer on the operator’s compliance with the matters mentioned.
· Ensuring that each instructor or examiner who conducts contracted recurrent training or contracted checking for the operator has access to the contracting operator’s training and checking manual;
· Ensuring that the operator complies with section 28BH of the Act in relation to flight crew.
· Managing the operation of the safety management system including managing corrective, remedial and preventative action in relation to the system
· Regularly reporting to the chief executive officer on the effectiveness of the safety management system
· Managing the maintenance and continuous improvement of the safety management system and the fatigue risk management system.
I hope that this overview provides some clarity.
I take over full operational control of a flying school for that aero club.
Thread Starter
Reply to Lead Balloon
The structure incorporated a Head office located at Moorabbin Airport. . Within that Head office was the CASA Approval by way of the one CASA issued certificate. Within that Head office were two CASA approved Group CEOs, two CASA approved Group HOOS (with a third completing a twelve month induction and awaiting CASA approval), and two CASA approved Group Safety Manangers. it apperas an unusually heavy Management structure, but it was essential that i naintained high levels of redundancy as I had many operators depending on me.
Additional Personnel within the Head office included the Internal Co-Ordinator (IC) responsible for liaison between the bases, Head office and CASA. There were also two fulltime admin staff, and a Technical writer. This is the exact structure that was designed into our Exposition with CASA.
The typical role of the CFI on the base became the role of Senior Base Pilot. Underneath them lay the instructors, or in the large schools a team of instructors under a Supervisor.
We had a system designed here in Australia and tailored specifically to control all aspects of a flying school. It was called Flight School Manager. This controlled every aspect of the flying school. This included all the sylllabi and training records. it contained all customer details, tracked instructor qualifications, proficiency checks, flight and duty times, predictive maintenance, ensured students were appropaitely qualified, etc etc.
Every flight was obviously required to be signed out by an instructor. We were a flying school only, and did not do private hires, charter etc. we foccussed only on flight training. An instructor or student could not be relaesed on a flight unless they met all the 'hurdles'.
The Senior base Pilots were all personnel who had spent many years with me, and were fully aware of all systems and procedures.. All abses and personnel completed a thourough induction in order to be able to comply with our exposition.
The system that we used that gave us full visibility over all bases was also shared with CASA and they had full access. In stead of getting in a car and driving to Ballarat, they could oversee every aspect of the Company.
We conducted a full audit of the system weekly.
We would have weekly group meetings to a CASA approved agenda that included all bases and covered a number of topics including safety, resources etc.
The truth is that it basically ran as any other school, to the CASA approved procedures.
I should point out here, that there were never any allegations by CASA that we did not have full operational control.. There were never any deficiencies highlighted nor any safety concerns. it was only an allegation that we were operating unlawfully. absolutely no allegations against any quality outcomes. CASA never requested or suggested any changes at all to any of our procedures.
CASA was making no requests regarding the CASA approved Exposition. CASA wanted to become involved in the commercial contracts but was not prepared to become a signatory to . those contacts. There was no resistance at all from me to incorporate anything that CASA wanted in the commercial contracts. After 8 months of being unable to resolve this issue, CASA determined it was unlawful. No allegation at all against any quality outcome.
Apologies for any typos. i have a dog jumping all over me and whining wanting to go for a walk. Cheers. Glen
i have included OM 1 being the manual that outlined the structure
https://www.dropbox.com/s/gmexjehesb...81%29.pdf?dl=0
Additional Personnel within the Head office included the Internal Co-Ordinator (IC) responsible for liaison between the bases, Head office and CASA. There were also two fulltime admin staff, and a Technical writer. This is the exact structure that was designed into our Exposition with CASA.
The typical role of the CFI on the base became the role of Senior Base Pilot. Underneath them lay the instructors, or in the large schools a team of instructors under a Supervisor.
We had a system designed here in Australia and tailored specifically to control all aspects of a flying school. It was called Flight School Manager. This controlled every aspect of the flying school. This included all the sylllabi and training records. it contained all customer details, tracked instructor qualifications, proficiency checks, flight and duty times, predictive maintenance, ensured students were appropaitely qualified, etc etc.
Every flight was obviously required to be signed out by an instructor. We were a flying school only, and did not do private hires, charter etc. we foccussed only on flight training. An instructor or student could not be relaesed on a flight unless they met all the 'hurdles'.
The Senior base Pilots were all personnel who had spent many years with me, and were fully aware of all systems and procedures.. All abses and personnel completed a thourough induction in order to be able to comply with our exposition.
The system that we used that gave us full visibility over all bases was also shared with CASA and they had full access. In stead of getting in a car and driving to Ballarat, they could oversee every aspect of the Company.
We conducted a full audit of the system weekly.
We would have weekly group meetings to a CASA approved agenda that included all bases and covered a number of topics including safety, resources etc.
The truth is that it basically ran as any other school, to the CASA approved procedures.
I should point out here, that there were never any allegations by CASA that we did not have full operational control.. There were never any deficiencies highlighted nor any safety concerns. it was only an allegation that we were operating unlawfully. absolutely no allegations against any quality outcomes. CASA never requested or suggested any changes at all to any of our procedures.
CASA was making no requests regarding the CASA approved Exposition. CASA wanted to become involved in the commercial contracts but was not prepared to become a signatory to . those contacts. There was no resistance at all from me to incorporate anything that CASA wanted in the commercial contracts. After 8 months of being unable to resolve this issue, CASA determined it was unlawful. No allegation at all against any quality outcome.
Apologies for any typos. i have a dog jumping all over me and whining wanting to go for a walk. Cheers. Glen
i have included OM 1 being the manual that outlined the structure
https://www.dropbox.com/s/gmexjehesb...81%29.pdf?dl=0
Last edited by glenb; 1st Jul 2022 at 11:00.
With respect, Glen, you didn’t answer the gist of my questions
And who was the employer of the CFI and the instructors (and their Supervisor, when utilised) at each ‘base’?
To make the question clearer, did APTA write wage cheques to and make superannuation contributions for all those people each fortnight? If not, what was the source of APTA’s authority and power to control those people’s operational activities? Were they individually the subject of contracts with ‘someone’ which bound them to comply with APTA’s directions?
APTA may well have had visibility as to what was going on, but what could APTA do about detected problems? Let’s take hypothetical ‘Alliance’ base X that’s been approved and operating under APTA’s certificate for a while. APTA then finds out the instructors are in the habit of allowing students to ‘buzz’ their mother’s homes at 500’ AGL during dual training flights. APTA contacts the CFI / Senior Base Pilot at ‘Alliance’ base X and he says: “Get stuffed”. What does APTA do? Remember: APTA claims to bear responsibility for the operational activities at base X and now knows they are being conducted in breach of the regulations and APTA’s ops manual/exposition.
I’m not suggesting that ever happened in fact. But the important question is what could APTA do about it if it did. That was the gist of the White email regurgitating the LARP stuff.
The typical role of the CFI on the base became the role of Senior Base Pilot. Underneath them lay the instructors, or in the large schools a team of instructors under a Supervisor.
To make the question clearer, did APTA write wage cheques to and make superannuation contributions for all those people each fortnight? If not, what was the source of APTA’s authority and power to control those people’s operational activities? Were they individually the subject of contracts with ‘someone’ which bound them to comply with APTA’s directions?
APTA may well have had visibility as to what was going on, but what could APTA do about detected problems? Let’s take hypothetical ‘Alliance’ base X that’s been approved and operating under APTA’s certificate for a while. APTA then finds out the instructors are in the habit of allowing students to ‘buzz’ their mother’s homes at 500’ AGL during dual training flights. APTA contacts the CFI / Senior Base Pilot at ‘Alliance’ base X and he says: “Get stuffed”. What does APTA do? Remember: APTA claims to bear responsibility for the operational activities at base X and now knows they are being conducted in breach of the regulations and APTA’s ops manual/exposition.
I’m not suggesting that ever happened in fact. But the important question is what could APTA do about it if it did. That was the gist of the White email regurgitating the LARP stuff.
Thread Starter
Good Morning Lead Balloon,
I fully appreciate that you have intentionally provided a fairly extreme example, but I appreciate the opportunity, and i apologise for what may seem a rather lengthy answer to your question. For a more direct response i would refer you direct to OM5 of our Exposition being the Safety Management System, which deals with this, and can be accessed via the following link.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/tnxuwzu4il...V%200.pdf?dl=0
I want to go right back to the first lines of defense against that situation ever arising.
First, I had run a flying school for over a decade. That flying school had delivered an industry leading record of safety and compliance, and it had a large well funded safety department a decade before it had any legislative requirement to do so. The business never advertised, and grew quickly to become the second busiest school in the southern Region. All of that on word of mouth. From day one, I had the most exceptional, well intentioned, professional team of instructors that any flying school could hope for. The organizational culture was exceptional. The team all shared my vision, and they more than delivered. That is the same company and culture that morphed from MFT to APTA. Quite simply, the Fwit that you describe in your scenario would not have existed within the organization, because it would never have got through the front door..
Second, the management team that i surrounded myself with. Quite simply, i went out and got the best. They came from miltary backgrounds, airlines, and CASA. They were well intentioned, risk averse and all complete personality testing to confirm that as part of the employment process. I knew them well, had worked with most of them previously. The management team was the same size as the big international flying schools delivering 10 times the amount of hours that our Group was. The levels of supervision were high and that team roamed constantly between the bases, sometimes for consecutive days. They had built strong relationships of trust and confidence with the team at all bases, and would have identified such personalities and addressed that attitude, and to be perfectly frank, on some occasions they did.
Third. our induction process. We had a very thorough induction process, and i addressed that i a very early post with an attachment. Not in a position to track it down now sorry. (typing in car waiting or sons footy to start). All staff were thoroughly inducted into our systems and procedures as for any pilot commencing operations under an AOC. Human Factors training and safety training formed a large part of this process, and all staff underwent thorough, and i mean thorough proficiency checks. It sounds flippant but such a culture of flagrant disregard for rules would not exist amongst our pilot group.
Fourth- The Senior Base Pilots were all people who had worked with me for between 5 to 10 years, before taking on the role of SBP.. In the case of aero clubs, i paid the SBP salary, and in the case of commercial business i.e. MFT, LTF the SBP was paid by that entity. A bit more to it than that, but that pretty much summarizes it. APTA provided additional services to aero clubs without the expertise, and delivered at cost price via substantially subsidized rates.
Fifth- The fellow instructors. The instructors were all highly professional, and if such a person existed within the organisation, it would have been addressed way before the flights you mention.
The siren has gone, and i do want to sit in the car and watch my son, but i will finish with this.
I now work outside of aviation, I work with Victoria's most challenging men aged 18 to 21, and i work side by side with them, In Victoria's most dangerous workplace according to Worksafe. Everything in life is about intent. Its not what people say its what is the intent of what they say. Its all about intent.
Truth be told, despite all the procedures above, and the protections in place.
If I "found out" that instructors were low flying, and buzzing their families. The first principle i would go back to is "intent". If a team of instructors were deliberately disregarding the rules i know I am not dealing with good intent. I would place a cessation of all opaertions immediately, and i mean within 5 minutes of finding out. It is likely that such information would have gone to the Group Safety Mananger, or Group Head of Operations, and they would have acted the same before it got to me.
The due processes would follow, and i would leave that to the Safety Department, and Group HOO initially. CASA would be communicated with, and we would fully assist CASA.
Sorry folks, not prrofread at all, will do so at half time
I fully appreciate that you have intentionally provided a fairly extreme example, but I appreciate the opportunity, and i apologise for what may seem a rather lengthy answer to your question. For a more direct response i would refer you direct to OM5 of our Exposition being the Safety Management System, which deals with this, and can be accessed via the following link.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/tnxuwzu4il...V%200.pdf?dl=0
I want to go right back to the first lines of defense against that situation ever arising.
First, I had run a flying school for over a decade. That flying school had delivered an industry leading record of safety and compliance, and it had a large well funded safety department a decade before it had any legislative requirement to do so. The business never advertised, and grew quickly to become the second busiest school in the southern Region. All of that on word of mouth. From day one, I had the most exceptional, well intentioned, professional team of instructors that any flying school could hope for. The organizational culture was exceptional. The team all shared my vision, and they more than delivered. That is the same company and culture that morphed from MFT to APTA. Quite simply, the Fwit that you describe in your scenario would not have existed within the organization, because it would never have got through the front door..
Second, the management team that i surrounded myself with. Quite simply, i went out and got the best. They came from miltary backgrounds, airlines, and CASA. They were well intentioned, risk averse and all complete personality testing to confirm that as part of the employment process. I knew them well, had worked with most of them previously. The management team was the same size as the big international flying schools delivering 10 times the amount of hours that our Group was. The levels of supervision were high and that team roamed constantly between the bases, sometimes for consecutive days. They had built strong relationships of trust and confidence with the team at all bases, and would have identified such personalities and addressed that attitude, and to be perfectly frank, on some occasions they did.
Third. our induction process. We had a very thorough induction process, and i addressed that i a very early post with an attachment. Not in a position to track it down now sorry. (typing in car waiting or sons footy to start). All staff were thoroughly inducted into our systems and procedures as for any pilot commencing operations under an AOC. Human Factors training and safety training formed a large part of this process, and all staff underwent thorough, and i mean thorough proficiency checks. It sounds flippant but such a culture of flagrant disregard for rules would not exist amongst our pilot group.
Fourth- The Senior Base Pilots were all people who had worked with me for between 5 to 10 years, before taking on the role of SBP.. In the case of aero clubs, i paid the SBP salary, and in the case of commercial business i.e. MFT, LTF the SBP was paid by that entity. A bit more to it than that, but that pretty much summarizes it. APTA provided additional services to aero clubs without the expertise, and delivered at cost price via substantially subsidized rates.
Fifth- The fellow instructors. The instructors were all highly professional, and if such a person existed within the organisation, it would have been addressed way before the flights you mention.
The siren has gone, and i do want to sit in the car and watch my son, but i will finish with this.
I now work outside of aviation, I work with Victoria's most challenging men aged 18 to 21, and i work side by side with them, In Victoria's most dangerous workplace according to Worksafe. Everything in life is about intent. Its not what people say its what is the intent of what they say. Its all about intent.
Truth be told, despite all the procedures above, and the protections in place.
If I "found out" that instructors were low flying, and buzzing their families. The first principle i would go back to is "intent". If a team of instructors were deliberately disregarding the rules i know I am not dealing with good intent. I would place a cessation of all opaertions immediately, and i mean within 5 minutes of finding out. It is likely that such information would have gone to the Group Safety Mananger, or Group Head of Operations, and they would have acted the same before it got to me.
The due processes would follow, and i would leave that to the Safety Department, and Group HOO initially. CASA would be communicated with, and we would fully assist CASA.
Sorry folks, not prrofread at all, will do so at half time