Glen Buckley and Australian small business -V- CASA
How do you make all operations cease?
I infer, from you not giving a one word answer to my simple question, that the CFI and instructors at ‘base X’ are not your employees. So, not APTA’s employees (and not APTA’s aircraft).
In response to APTA notifying ‘base’ X that APTA has decided to immediately cease all operations at ‘base’ X, the CFI and instructors there invite APTA to take a long walk off a short plank. Flying training activities continue at ‘base’ X (so far as the world including CASA is concerned, under the authority of APTA’s certificate).
What does APTA do? Clock’s ticking.
Sorry to be blunt, but the point I’m making is what CASA’s going to continue to use to shoot you down.
It’s all well and good APTA saying it has control and is responsible and whatever, but what is the source of APTA’s authority and power of control over people with whom APTA has no relationship as employees or contractors or subcontractors?
In principle, all of this can be dealt with from a regulatory perspective but, so far as I can tell, it wasn’t. The CASA people with whom you were dealing when everything was being set up were probably completely clueless as to the exact nature of the LEGAL relationship - probably more accurately, the absence of any legal relationship - between APTA and many if not all of the ‘base’ personnel.
I infer, from you not giving a one word answer to my simple question, that the CFI and instructors at ‘base X’ are not your employees. So, not APTA’s employees (and not APTA’s aircraft).
In response to APTA notifying ‘base’ X that APTA has decided to immediately cease all operations at ‘base’ X, the CFI and instructors there invite APTA to take a long walk off a short plank. Flying training activities continue at ‘base’ X (so far as the world including CASA is concerned, under the authority of APTA’s certificate).
What does APTA do? Clock’s ticking.
Sorry to be blunt, but the point I’m making is what CASA’s going to continue to use to shoot you down.
It’s all well and good APTA saying it has control and is responsible and whatever, but what is the source of APTA’s authority and power of control over people with whom APTA has no relationship as employees or contractors or subcontractors?
In principle, all of this can be dealt with from a regulatory perspective but, so far as I can tell, it wasn’t. The CASA people with whom you were dealing when everything was being set up were probably completely clueless as to the exact nature of the LEGAL relationship - probably more accurately, the absence of any legal relationship - between APTA and many if not all of the ‘base’ personnel.
Thread Starter
Lead Balloon
Appreciate the point.
The problem would then be the same as for any school, in any format. If the Authorization Holder prohibits a pilot to conduct operations under his/her AOC, and the pilot continues to operate, he is operating unlawfully, and liable to prosecution. I think i see your point but i cant see how there would be any difference in any school. It would be handled exactly the same way.
If the pilot is getting paid my me, someone else, or is flying for free i.e. scouts, airforce cadets it makes no practical difference. If its under my AOC, Im the accountable person. I either choose to let it happen or I put a stop to it..
Will be off air most of the day, as i want to get back to my allegation of misleading information, but will respond tonight to any follow up, cheers. Glen.
I emphasise again that this was the system CASA built with me and approved in April 2017. CASA never expressed any concerns about a lack of opearational control, never requested any changes to any of our approved procedures.
It was simply a determination by CASA that it was unlawful. CASA may try to intrduce new arguments of control, but will find thenselves without any supporting evidence, and my assumption is that is why they have never raised that allegation
The problem would then be the same as for any school, in any format. If the Authorization Holder prohibits a pilot to conduct operations under his/her AOC, and the pilot continues to operate, he is operating unlawfully, and liable to prosecution. I think i see your point but i cant see how there would be any difference in any school. It would be handled exactly the same way.
If the pilot is getting paid my me, someone else, or is flying for free i.e. scouts, airforce cadets it makes no practical difference. If its under my AOC, Im the accountable person. I either choose to let it happen or I put a stop to it..
Will be off air most of the day, as i want to get back to my allegation of misleading information, but will respond tonight to any follow up, cheers. Glen.
I emphasise again that this was the system CASA built with me and approved in April 2017. CASA never expressed any concerns about a lack of opearational control, never requested any changes to any of our approved procedures.
It was simply a determination by CASA that it was unlawful. CASA may try to intrduce new arguments of control, but will find thenselves without any supporting evidence, and my assumption is that is why they have never raised that allegation
Again, Glen, I’m just trying to fore-warn you so that you can be fore-armed.
Yes - The scenario I set out - a ‘rogue’ instructor or CFI - could arise at any ‘school’. But the available solutions differ, depending on structure.
I’d ask you to consider the example of a ‘school’ that comprises an entity that holds a flying training AOC, employs a CFI and instructors, leases its ground training premises and is the registered operator of the aircraft it utilises. An instructor is in the habit of breaching regulations and ignoring the directions of the AOC holder. In this structure the AOC holder’s options include:
When you say “you would put a stop to it”, I ask: How?
Please complete this sentence: “In the ‘base’ X scenario Lead Balloon provided, APTA’s options to put a stop to it included:
(Baseball bats, cement shoes and APTA holding its breath and stamping its feet until its face turns blue do not count as lawful and effective options.)
And if you can’t state, in one sentence, lawful and effective means to “put a stop to it”: Hold that thought! That is the gist of the concern that resulted in the CASA email of 19 March 2019 following the letter highlighting the content of APTA’s website.
So far as I can tell, APTA’s only lawful and effective option in the scenario I provided would have been to contact CASA and request revocation of the approval for APTA to conduct flying training at ‘base’ X, then inform the personnel at ‘base’ X that any further flying training conducted at ‘base’ X would not be conducted under the authority of anyone’s AOC and CASA’s aware of what’s happened. But that would raise questions for CASA as to how and why APTA was approved to conduct flying training at ‘base’ X. CASA’s preference is to work that out before approval.
I think that when you say CASA never expressed any concerns about a lack of operational control nor requested changes to any of APTA’s approved procedures, you mean to say: “Up until date Y CASA never…”. As I said, the central concern of CASA’s email of 19 March 2019 was APTA’s control over the personnel of ‘Alliance’ ‘members’ and other factors like premises and aircraft they utilised.
I anticipate that you will say nothing had changed throughout, but I’ll bet leftie that CASA will say that, as a consequences of stuff like the content of APTA’s website quoted in CASA’s letter, it finally dawned on CASA that APTA had no legally binding relationship with ‘Alliance’ ‘member’ personnel, had no legal control over the training premises used by ‘Alliance’ ‘members’ and no legal control over the aircraft they used. APTA claiming responsibility and visibility does not magically confer power and authority on APTA to control the personnel of ‘Alliance’ ‘members’.
The real tragedy in my mind is that I reckon all of this could have been sorted by a well-drafted deed which APTA could have required all personnel of ‘Alliance’ ‘members’ to execute as part of the induction process.
(And I should reiterate that the overarching issue is the unnecessary complexity of the regulatory regime, but neither of us has any control over that at the moment. Further, I reckon the statements made in CASA’s 19 March 2019 email about Parts 141 and 142 and agency matters are bunkum. However, the overarching point about APTA’s lawful and effective control over ‘Alliance’ ‘member’ personnel and premises and aircraft remains in my view a valid strategic regulatory point, FWIW.)
Yes - The scenario I set out - a ‘rogue’ instructor or CFI - could arise at any ‘school’. But the available solutions differ, depending on structure.
I’d ask you to consider the example of a ‘school’ that comprises an entity that holds a flying training AOC, employs a CFI and instructors, leases its ground training premises and is the registered operator of the aircraft it utilises. An instructor is in the habit of breaching regulations and ignoring the directions of the AOC holder. In this structure the AOC holder’s options include:
- dismissing the instructor (so no more wages and any reference for the instructor won’t be good), given that the AOC holder is the instructor’s employer,
- arranging for the instructor to be escorted off the training premises and be expressly prohibited from returning (so any return would be trespass and a local police matter), given that the AOC holder has a lease of and therefore control over the premises,
- expressly prohibiting the instructor from using any of the aircraft (even assuming the instructor could get access to the keys and MR, with any further use thus becoming a local police matter), given that the AOC holder is the registered operator of the aircraft and controls access to keys and MRs, and
- arranging for the students who would otherwise be trained by that instructor to be instructed by a different instructor (given that the AOC holder directly controls this and receives direct payments from the students).
When you say “you would put a stop to it”, I ask: How?
Please complete this sentence: “In the ‘base’ X scenario Lead Balloon provided, APTA’s options to put a stop to it included:
- […INSERT LIST…]
- …, and
- …”.
(Baseball bats, cement shoes and APTA holding its breath and stamping its feet until its face turns blue do not count as lawful and effective options.)
And if you can’t state, in one sentence, lawful and effective means to “put a stop to it”: Hold that thought! That is the gist of the concern that resulted in the CASA email of 19 March 2019 following the letter highlighting the content of APTA’s website.
So far as I can tell, APTA’s only lawful and effective option in the scenario I provided would have been to contact CASA and request revocation of the approval for APTA to conduct flying training at ‘base’ X, then inform the personnel at ‘base’ X that any further flying training conducted at ‘base’ X would not be conducted under the authority of anyone’s AOC and CASA’s aware of what’s happened. But that would raise questions for CASA as to how and why APTA was approved to conduct flying training at ‘base’ X. CASA’s preference is to work that out before approval.
I think that when you say CASA never expressed any concerns about a lack of operational control nor requested changes to any of APTA’s approved procedures, you mean to say: “Up until date Y CASA never…”. As I said, the central concern of CASA’s email of 19 March 2019 was APTA’s control over the personnel of ‘Alliance’ ‘members’ and other factors like premises and aircraft they utilised.
I anticipate that you will say nothing had changed throughout, but I’ll bet leftie that CASA will say that, as a consequences of stuff like the content of APTA’s website quoted in CASA’s letter, it finally dawned on CASA that APTA had no legally binding relationship with ‘Alliance’ ‘member’ personnel, had no legal control over the training premises used by ‘Alliance’ ‘members’ and no legal control over the aircraft they used. APTA claiming responsibility and visibility does not magically confer power and authority on APTA to control the personnel of ‘Alliance’ ‘members’.
The real tragedy in my mind is that I reckon all of this could have been sorted by a well-drafted deed which APTA could have required all personnel of ‘Alliance’ ‘members’ to execute as part of the induction process.
(And I should reiterate that the overarching issue is the unnecessary complexity of the regulatory regime, but neither of us has any control over that at the moment. Further, I reckon the statements made in CASA’s 19 March 2019 email about Parts 141 and 142 and agency matters are bunkum. However, the overarching point about APTA’s lawful and effective control over ‘Alliance’ ‘member’ personnel and premises and aircraft remains in my view a valid strategic regulatory point, FWIW.)
Last edited by Lead Balloon; 2nd Jul 2022 at 23:08.
Thread Starter
4 of 12. Continued from Post 2132- Complaint to ICC, false and misleading information
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 21:22.
Thread Starter
5 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 21:22.
Thread Starter
6 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 21:23.
Typo here:
If Mr Aleck, the claims that he was not fully aware of the structure that CASA had revalidated, and I had adopted for 6 years.
APTA’s short point: CASA was well aware, for years, of APTA’s structure.
That’s undeniable.
CASA’s short point: CASA adults weren’t aware, until around 2018, that APTA’s structure did not include legally binding agreements between APTA and ‘Alliance’ ‘member’ personnel and others, giving APTA effective control over the operational activities of ‘Alliance’ ‘members’.
That claimed ignorance is probably true, because CASA is a governance basket case. But it does not mean CASA had no duty to make clear to APTA, very early in the protracted and detailed interactions between APTA and CASA personnel, the important CASA requirements which were instead sprung upon APTA in 2018 and beyond. CASA should have made those requirements clear to APTA, from the outset.
I’m guessing that the various CASA personnel dealing with ATPA from day to day were blissfully unaware of the nature of the legal relationship - or, more accurately - the absence of any binding legal relationship, between APTA and the personnel of ‘Alliance’ ‘members’. But again, that does not mean CASA had no duty to take reasonable care not to make misleading statements to APTA. And silence can constitute a statement: saying nothing about an important subject can mislead someone into believing the subject is of no importance. Why would APTA have dedicated time and energy and money to formulating effective binding agreements with ‘Alliance’ ‘member’ personnel and others, when the CASA personnel with whom APTA was interacting didn’t say those agreements were among the many requirements against which CASA was already assessing and approving additional ‘bases’?
But CASA’s not going to admit negligence misstatement. CASA never makes mistakes.
That’s undeniable.
CASA’s short point: CASA adults weren’t aware, until around 2018, that APTA’s structure did not include legally binding agreements between APTA and ‘Alliance’ ‘member’ personnel and others, giving APTA effective control over the operational activities of ‘Alliance’ ‘members’.
That claimed ignorance is probably true, because CASA is a governance basket case. But it does not mean CASA had no duty to make clear to APTA, very early in the protracted and detailed interactions between APTA and CASA personnel, the important CASA requirements which were instead sprung upon APTA in 2018 and beyond. CASA should have made those requirements clear to APTA, from the outset.
I’m guessing that the various CASA personnel dealing with ATPA from day to day were blissfully unaware of the nature of the legal relationship - or, more accurately - the absence of any binding legal relationship, between APTA and the personnel of ‘Alliance’ ‘members’. But again, that does not mean CASA had no duty to take reasonable care not to make misleading statements to APTA. And silence can constitute a statement: saying nothing about an important subject can mislead someone into believing the subject is of no importance. Why would APTA have dedicated time and energy and money to formulating effective binding agreements with ‘Alliance’ ‘member’ personnel and others, when the CASA personnel with whom APTA was interacting didn’t say those agreements were among the many requirements against which CASA was already assessing and approving additional ‘bases’?
But CASA’s not going to admit negligence misstatement. CASA never makes mistakes.
Thread Starter
Lead balloon and others
A very poorly proof read document, but a response nevertheless. Apologies but about to get a flat battery on the laptop.CASA’s short point: CASA adults weren’t aware, until around 2018, that APTA’s structure did not include legally binding agreements between APTA and ‘Alliance’ ‘member’ personnel and others, giving APTA effective control over the operational activities of ‘Alliance’ ‘members’.
My response needs to be based on a truthful appreciation of the industry, not as misrepresented to the Ombudsman by CASA. The plain and simple truth is that CASA ALWAYS approved more than one flying school to operate under a single CASA approval, with the single Authorisation Holder of the “master” school taking on full responsibility for both operations.
I did it myself at no charge on occasions for flying schools. When a regional flying school was unable to attract the required personnel to continue operations, I assisted with full CASA approval, to take on responsibility for those operations until they could resume operations on their own
Admittedly it used to be a lot easier. The respective school syllabi blended easier with probably only about 10% of the box ticking that is required nowadays, and I mean that. We used to regularly accept students from other schools. A one hour records assessment by me as the CFI would give me a pretty reasonable “handle” on a new student. That was in 2006. Less than 10 years later, that same student record transfer had become at least a 10 hour exercise with approximately 8 hours of that as an admin task at $40 an hour, and two hours at a more Senior level @ $100 an hour, and the same task becomes well in excess of a $500 task. When a flying schools hoping to make about $50 an hour, that’s a lot of flying to pay for that predominantly admin task. Its no wonder no smaller regional flying schools can continue.
The point is that CASA always and frequently approved this single authorisation, multiple base multiple entity approach. At this stage its not a discussion about the merits or not of it. Its just a truthful overview. Did CASA always know that this CASA approved structure was adopted by industry? Yes they did, and that was the case throughout my 25 years in the industry. CASA always knew this structure was adopted and CASA approved it, and
CASA never required contracts of any other Operator despite being fully aware that this structure was adopted throughout the industry. This was the case throughout my 25 years in the industry. This was a unique requirement placed on me. That alone makes me question the motivation.
CASA therefore have no records on file of any contracts required of any other Operator.
Also recall that as a courtesy, and as part of the process of I did provide multiple copies of our contact back in 2016. CASA initially denied this, but after I showed them the emails they concurred, and looked rather “awkward”. Had they have realised they had held the contracts for over two years, they may well have not sent that that ‘initial notification” of October 2018. A copy of the contract provided in 2016 is attached. Although it is fairly dry but the last few pages are the :”spirit of APTA”. This document was provided to the second in charge of CASA years earlier, as well as my CASA CMT. At any time I would have welcomed any changes CASA required. There was no resistance at all from me, in fact if it was really only about the wording in the contract the entire matter could have been fully resolved in a day. Regarding that contract provided to multiple CASA personnel in 2016, those last pages alone would have made CASA fully aware that they were dealing with a multi entity multi base single approval operation.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/tdhss2mpf9...tract.pdf?dl=0
Just to clarify, this entire matter is about his is the “commercial contracts”. Operational Matters are all contained within the CASA approved Exposition. CASA never suggested any changes at all to the way we operated, as there were no concerns against any quality outcomes, and no changes required of our Exposition.
CASA only wanted terminology in the commercial contracts, although they did not want to be a signatory to those commercial contracts. Rather bizarre, but nevertheless, CASA met no resistance from me. Why would they?
Understand that CASAs initial position was. “We are shutting you down, and placing immediate restrictions on your business. Your structure is illegal.”
My argument was “Ummm, no its not, could you lift the restrictions on my business.”
CASA refused to lift the restrictions for 8 months, until they decided. Yep, we still think its illegal.
CASA used the 8 months to play a game of “ping pong” over the contracts while keeping the trading restrictions in place, to achieve their original purpose.
Im very interested in others take on my perspective. No-one ever handed over any operational control, because they didn’t have it to hand over and they were fully aware of that. That is in fact the reason an aero club or similar would approach me. Without me, they have nothing. Wow, that sounds a bit self opinionated. Hopefully you get he gist of what I am saying. The aero club pulls beers, because that’s all they can do. They have Members with predominantly a recreational interest.
My response needs to be based on a truthful appreciation of the industry, not as misrepresented to the Ombudsman by CASA. The plain and simple truth is that CASA ALWAYS approved more than one flying school to operate under a single CASA approval, with the single Authorisation Holder of the “master” school taking on full responsibility for both operations.
I did it myself at no charge on occasions for flying schools. When a regional flying school was unable to attract the required personnel to continue operations, I assisted with full CASA approval, to take on responsibility for those operations until they could resume operations on their own
Admittedly it used to be a lot easier. The respective school syllabi blended easier with probably only about 10% of the box ticking that is required nowadays, and I mean that. We used to regularly accept students from other schools. A one hour records assessment by me as the CFI would give me a pretty reasonable “handle” on a new student. That was in 2006. Less than 10 years later, that same student record transfer had become at least a 10 hour exercise with approximately 8 hours of that as an admin task at $40 an hour, and two hours at a more Senior level @ $100 an hour, and the same task becomes well in excess of a $500 task. When a flying schools hoping to make about $50 an hour, that’s a lot of flying to pay for that predominantly admin task. Its no wonder no smaller regional flying schools can continue.
The point is that CASA always and frequently approved this single authorisation, multiple base multiple entity approach. At this stage its not a discussion about the merits or not of it. Its just a truthful overview. Did CASA always know that this CASA approved structure was adopted by industry? Yes they did, and that was the case throughout my 25 years in the industry. CASA always knew this structure was adopted and CASA approved it, and
CASA never required contracts of any other Operator despite being fully aware that this structure was adopted throughout the industry. This was the case throughout my 25 years in the industry. This was a unique requirement placed on me. That alone makes me question the motivation.
CASA therefore have no records on file of any contracts required of any other Operator.
Also recall that as a courtesy, and as part of the process of I did provide multiple copies of our contact back in 2016. CASA initially denied this, but after I showed them the emails they concurred, and looked rather “awkward”. Had they have realised they had held the contracts for over two years, they may well have not sent that that ‘initial notification” of October 2018. A copy of the contract provided in 2016 is attached. Although it is fairly dry but the last few pages are the :”spirit of APTA”. This document was provided to the second in charge of CASA years earlier, as well as my CASA CMT. At any time I would have welcomed any changes CASA required. There was no resistance at all from me, in fact if it was really only about the wording in the contract the entire matter could have been fully resolved in a day. Regarding that contract provided to multiple CASA personnel in 2016, those last pages alone would have made CASA fully aware that they were dealing with a multi entity multi base single approval operation.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/tdhss2mpf9...tract.pdf?dl=0
Just to clarify, this entire matter is about his is the “commercial contracts”. Operational Matters are all contained within the CASA approved Exposition. CASA never suggested any changes at all to the way we operated, as there were no concerns against any quality outcomes, and no changes required of our Exposition.
CASA only wanted terminology in the commercial contracts, although they did not want to be a signatory to those commercial contracts. Rather bizarre, but nevertheless, CASA met no resistance from me. Why would they?
Understand that CASAs initial position was. “We are shutting you down, and placing immediate restrictions on your business. Your structure is illegal.”
My argument was “Ummm, no its not, could you lift the restrictions on my business.”
CASA refused to lift the restrictions for 8 months, until they decided. Yep, we still think its illegal.
CASA used the 8 months to play a game of “ping pong” over the contracts while keeping the trading restrictions in place, to achieve their original purpose.
Im very interested in others take on my perspective. No-one ever handed over any operational control, because they didn’t have it to hand over and they were fully aware of that. That is in fact the reason an aero club or similar would approach me. Without me, they have nothing. Wow, that sounds a bit self opinionated. Hopefully you get he gist of what I am saying. The aero club pulls beers, because that’s all they can do. They have Members with predominantly a recreational interest.
The contract at the link in your post does not give APTA any power of control over the operational activities of 'member' personnel.
If CASA has been 'approving' flying training (or any other operation) by a 'school' under an AOC held by someone who does not have legal power to control the activities of the personnel engaged in the flying training or other operations at the 'school', CASA is incompetent.
Once approval is granted for flying training to be conducted at 'club' X or 'base' X under APTA's AOC, 'club' X / 'base' X has everything. APTA is 'responsible' for flying training activities at 'club' X / 'base' X but has no control over them. If something goes wrong, CASA goes APTA, not the 'club' or 'base.
If CASA has been 'approving' flying training (or any other operation) by a 'school' under an AOC held by someone who does not have legal power to control the activities of the personnel engaged in the flying training or other operations at the 'school', CASA is incompetent.
Once approval is granted for flying training to be conducted at 'club' X or 'base' X under APTA's AOC, 'club' X / 'base' X has everything. APTA is 'responsible' for flying training activities at 'club' X / 'base' X but has no control over them. If something goes wrong, CASA goes APTA, not the 'club' or 'base.
Thread Starter
Lead balloon
As it should be.
The legislation stipulate the Authorisation Holder and the Key Personnel. Every responsibility is already in the legislation for the Key personnel. There was never any intention by me to deflect any responsibility from where it rightfully belongs. With me and the Key Personnel.
The legislation stipulate the Authorisation Holder and the Key Personnel. Every responsibility is already in the legislation for the Key personnel. There was never any intention by me to deflect any responsibility from where it rightfully belongs. With me and the Key Personnel.
Were there any crashes or incidents around or before the time of the issues coming to light?
CASA should not interfere in the legal, financial or commercial arrangements of an aviation business. It doesn't have the legal right to do so, and in Glen's case or any other, it has no business asking for copies of contracts and the like. If they are unsatisfied that adequate resources, key personnel or supervision are in place, they have the ability to require those aspects to be addressed appropriately, and to take action if they're not, but it's gross overreach for them to be perusing anything else except for manuals required under the regulations, and conducting proper audits by visits, interviews and so on.
With the ombudsman's finding that there was no legal grounds for preventing the 'franchising' of flying school operations, we should welcome multi-layer organisations that can provide good standardised flying training, not put ever-increasing hurdles up in front of them. That's a telling point by Glen about the massive job just to transfer a student between schools - that's all been CASA's doing since 2014, and it sucks. Aeroplanes fly much the same and students learn in similar ways to how they always have (or better, with modern training aids), so why is it ten times harder to complete the paperwork? Those in CASA responsible for pushing us to this point should be ashamed.
With regard to responsibilities under Parts 141 and 142, CASA needs to be satisfied there is proper oversight by key personnel - fair enough. The flip side is that to restrict or stop anyone's operations, they need to be able to clearly demonstrate that that oversight is ineffective. I see no evidence in any of this lengthy saga that there was any suggestion of a lack of proper authority and oversight, so their flimsy case rests on the 'no franchising' argument, which as we know has already been debunked. If Glen has proven CASA knew about the structure and approved it way back, and then there's been no safety-based reason to interfere, then surely Blind Freddy could see who was in the wrong.
Good luck Glen, hope the process is wending its way to some positive conclusion for you.
With the ombudsman's finding that there was no legal grounds for preventing the 'franchising' of flying school operations, we should welcome multi-layer organisations that can provide good standardised flying training, not put ever-increasing hurdles up in front of them. That's a telling point by Glen about the massive job just to transfer a student between schools - that's all been CASA's doing since 2014, and it sucks. Aeroplanes fly much the same and students learn in similar ways to how they always have (or better, with modern training aids), so why is it ten times harder to complete the paperwork? Those in CASA responsible for pushing us to this point should be ashamed.
With regard to responsibilities under Parts 141 and 142, CASA needs to be satisfied there is proper oversight by key personnel - fair enough. The flip side is that to restrict or stop anyone's operations, they need to be able to clearly demonstrate that that oversight is ineffective. I see no evidence in any of this lengthy saga that there was any suggestion of a lack of proper authority and oversight, so their flimsy case rests on the 'no franchising' argument, which as we know has already been debunked. If Glen has proven CASA knew about the structure and approved it way back, and then there's been no safety-based reason to interfere, then surely Blind Freddy could see who was in the wrong.
Good luck Glen, hope the process is wending its way to some positive conclusion for you.
CASA doesn’t have the right to ‘interfere’ in the ‘legal, financial and commercial arrangements of an aviation business’, but it certainly has the right to ‘know’ how those arrangements may affect the business’s capacity to discharge its regulatory obligations and, if the business is not inclined to provide information relevant to that assessment, CASA has a right to refuse to issue a certificate etc. (The CA Act provisions relating to financial viability of AOC applicants have been in there for decades, and CASA has been prying into the financial arrangements of AOC holders - to the extent those arrangements are relevant to financial viability - for that long.)
In order to discharge regulatory obligations, a certificate holder must have control over the moving parts that determine compliance. If the holder of e.g. a flying training AOC has no legally binding relationship with e.g. the flying instructors proposed to be utilised to deliver flying training, the AOC holder does not have control over a moving part that is essential to regulatory compliance. Doesn’t matter how many high sounding positions there are and how good the ops manual and procedures are in the organisation, if the AOC holder has no legal way of effectively controlling the (in this example) instructors.
I suspect that’s why Glen hasn’t finished the sentence I invited him to complete in the context of the scenario I gave a few posts ago,
(Don’t get me wrong: I’m on Glen’s side as I believe he was ‘led up the garden path’ by CASA and deserves to be compensated. But I can see a mile away what he’s up against.)
In order to discharge regulatory obligations, a certificate holder must have control over the moving parts that determine compliance. If the holder of e.g. a flying training AOC has no legally binding relationship with e.g. the flying instructors proposed to be utilised to deliver flying training, the AOC holder does not have control over a moving part that is essential to regulatory compliance. Doesn’t matter how many high sounding positions there are and how good the ops manual and procedures are in the organisation, if the AOC holder has no legal way of effectively controlling the (in this example) instructors.
I suspect that’s why Glen hasn’t finished the sentence I invited him to complete in the context of the scenario I gave a few posts ago,
(Don’t get me wrong: I’m on Glen’s side as I believe he was ‘led up the garden path’ by CASA and deserves to be compensated. But I can see a mile away what he’s up against.)
Thread Starter
squawk
No, no incidents and no accidents. Absolutely no allegations at any stage against any quality outcomes.
It was simply a decision that the structure was “unlawful”.
It was simply a decision that the structure was “unlawful”.