Glen Buckley and Australian small business -V- CASA
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.
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: New Zealand
Age: 71
Posts: 1,475
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.)
I’ve mentioned it several times throughout this thread, but the issue with Glen had nothing to do with his actual business. Glen chucked a hissy fit when CASA was dicking about and he publicly called out CASA as being unsafe. By doing that Glen basically poked the bear in the eye with a bayonet and the end result was a Friday 16:59 pm email from CASA. From that point on it was game over. I like Glen as he is tenacious, logical and is a justice seeker. All respectable qualities in their own right, but those qualities don’t mean a thing to a conscienceless Frankenstein like CASA. Glen has a moral compass, CASA doesn’t .
No he (or she) doesn’t, AOTW, if the HOO is the HOO of an organisation which has no legally binding relationship with (in my example) the instructors delivering flying training at one of APTA’s ‘Alliance’ ‘members. Please read what I’ve posted a few posts ago.
You can give it a go. Explain to me how APTA gets a ‘rogue’ instructor or CFI under control at ‘Alliance’ ‘member’ X, when APTA has no legally binding agreement with either the instructor or CFI. And I reiterate: Baseball bats and cement shoes and holding one’s breath and stamping one’s feet until one’s face turns blue don’t count as legal or effective means of control.
You can give it a go. Explain to me how APTA gets a ‘rogue’ instructor or CFI under control at ‘Alliance’ ‘member’ X, when APTA has no legally binding agreement with either the instructor or CFI. And I reiterate: Baseball bats and cement shoes and holding one’s breath and stamping one’s feet until one’s face turns blue don’t count as legal or effective means of control.
Thread Starter
Lead balloon
I know you are a supporter, and appreciate the sentiment and intent of your comments.
Every instructor at every base had to go through an online process of checks and balances before any flight could depart, and it was all done in real time including face to face briefings with each base on daily basis.
At any stage, any pilot could be immediately locked out of the system and unable to dispatch. They could be very clearly grounded on the spot. If the instructor chose to bypass the system and deliver training independently, he/she would be leaving themself exposed.
Most AOCs have people from different entities operating under their AOC.
Whilst i see your point, i cant see how there would be any difference between my arrangement and any other flying school putting a stop to an instructor.
As you will appreciate the example of the instructor continuing to deliver flying training when advised that he cannot would be highly unlikely, and not easy for anyone to stop without resorting to physical intervention.
Whilst the extreme examples to often demonstarte a point, I would be keen on any other scenarios that you can put forward.
I suggest that if anyone apart from the CASA Key personnel tried to stop someone flying under the AOC, they would be on shaky ground and subject to recourse i.e. a member of the aero club committee most likely isnt in a position to ground someone. The Key personnel are.
Every instructor at every base had to go through an online process of checks and balances before any flight could depart, and it was all done in real time including face to face briefings with each base on daily basis.
At any stage, any pilot could be immediately locked out of the system and unable to dispatch. They could be very clearly grounded on the spot. If the instructor chose to bypass the system and deliver training independently, he/she would be leaving themself exposed.
Most AOCs have people from different entities operating under their AOC.
Whilst i see your point, i cant see how there would be any difference between my arrangement and any other flying school putting a stop to an instructor.
As you will appreciate the example of the instructor continuing to deliver flying training when advised that he cannot would be highly unlikely, and not easy for anyone to stop without resorting to physical intervention.
Whilst the extreme examples to often demonstarte a point, I would be keen on any other scenarios that you can put forward.
I suggest that if anyone apart from the CASA Key personnel tried to stop someone flying under the AOC, they would be on shaky ground and subject to recourse i.e. a member of the aero club committee most likely isnt in a position to ground someone. The Key personnel are.
Lead Balloon, a Part 142 certificate holder only has one Head of Operations. Duties can be devolved, but not responsibilities, so you could have a Senior Base Instructor or similar who might handle the day to day operations at a remote base, but the HOO of the whole structure will certainly have the ability to ground a 'rogue instructor'. There cannot be a rogue CFI, because the HOO is what we used to know as a CFI, and that person sits at the top of the operational structure of the organisation as a whole. This will all be laid down in the exposition in detail.
If I'm telling you how to suck eggs please let me know and I'll stop, but I stress that the operation works by the procedures in the exposition, which must include how flights are authorised, how instructors are checked and supervised, and how that all ultimately flows down from the HOO. If a multi-layer organisation has an exposition accepted by CASA (as it must to operate), then that becomes the legal document with which it and its personnel must comply. If the HOO finds out someone in the operational structure isn't doing the right thing, he or she absolutely can stop that person flying.
I don't know what you're envisioning, but the HOO would be in breach of his or her responsibilities if systems weren't in place to stay informed about what was going on at remote bases and to ensure standards were being met. Of course, systems are only any good if they're used properly, but someone's only going to be able to 'go rogue' if they're left alone without proper supervision. I'd hazard a guess that robust systems would have been specified in the APTA manual suite, and would have been working effectively too. This is where the HOO's operational control lies, not in the financial or other arrangements between the parent and subordinate entities.
If I'm telling you how to suck eggs please let me know and I'll stop, but I stress that the operation works by the procedures in the exposition, which must include how flights are authorised, how instructors are checked and supervised, and how that all ultimately flows down from the HOO. If a multi-layer organisation has an exposition accepted by CASA (as it must to operate), then that becomes the legal document with which it and its personnel must comply. If the HOO finds out someone in the operational structure isn't doing the right thing, he or she absolutely can stop that person flying.
I don't know what you're envisioning, but the HOO would be in breach of his or her responsibilities if systems weren't in place to stay informed about what was going on at remote bases and to ensure standards were being met. Of course, systems are only any good if they're used properly, but someone's only going to be able to 'go rogue' if they're left alone without proper supervision. I'd hazard a guess that robust systems would have been specified in the APTA manual suite, and would have been working effectively too. This is where the HOO's operational control lies, not in the financial or other arrangements between the parent and subordinate entities.
https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications...r/ao-2016-023/
I’m genuinely interested as I was very close to that event, having personally dragged pax from the wreckage with avgas pouring all over me.
CASA prying into financial matters
Quote LB “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 my recollection maybe that was the position for quite a few years but for most of my career in training and charter that interference was resisted and not legal. Whatever that timeline of that particular concept, that government should make judgement about the viability of a business, is of course completely at odds with our freedoms and against free enterprise which confers our high standard of living. It is also unintelligent by virtue of the undeniable fact that a government instrumentality will never be in possession of all of the facts leading to business decisions, nor have the driving incentives to discover those facts.
Ultimately do you want government to have this power to control our lives and if we confer this power who will decide the limits? Who’s to say that give away your rights you will ever get them back again?
And we should never lose sight of the fact that CASA’s extreme regulatory regime is inimical to a healthy GA sector and makes poor contrast to the rational regulations of the USA, where, according to John King of highly respected King’s Schools (also John was brought to Australia by CASA as consultant) some 70% of USA pilots are trained outside the Part 141/142 flying schools and with no formal syllabus. Shock horror! No syllabus! no hundreds of tick off signatures? Correct, the system allows innovation and individual tailored training followed by a rigorous testing regime before licence issue. Their safety record is arguably better than ours.
Lastly, CASA by its very name, and by its legislated obligation, claims that “safety” is its overriding purpose,
but we know that that is a total nonsense because it makes no rational risk assessments for any of its extraordinary rule changes or administrative actions. In judgment against Angel Flight it’s now clear that the Act doesn’t require any such reality to restrain CASA in any way shape or form. No Ministerial or obvious legal restraint as Glen Buckley has learned.
What a disastrous outcome for Australia, having to import airline pilots! Let alone the loss of hundreds of flying schools, charter operators and maintenance businesses. Huge loss of jobs, loss of airports, a continuing disgrace and blot on our democracy where the notion of giving away government responsibility for aviation to an unelected ‘independent’ corporate monopoly has yet to be recognised by government as a monumental failure of policy.
Cleary an example of failure; by not following the principle of responsible government.
Instead it tried on what seemed to be an expedient way of taking aviation off the books and away from Ministerial responsibility, conceived and executed by the Hawke Labor government with Gareth Evans as Minister. 1988, year of shame. To its credit at the time the Liberal Opposition opposed the creation of the statutory body for aviation but seems to have washed its hands ever since.
In my recollection maybe that was the position for quite a few years but for most of my career in training and charter that interference was resisted and not legal. Whatever that timeline of that particular concept, that government should make judgement about the viability of a business, is of course completely at odds with our freedoms and against free enterprise which confers our high standard of living. It is also unintelligent by virtue of the undeniable fact that a government instrumentality will never be in possession of all of the facts leading to business decisions, nor have the driving incentives to discover those facts.
Ultimately do you want government to have this power to control our lives and if we confer this power who will decide the limits? Who’s to say that give away your rights you will ever get them back again?
And we should never lose sight of the fact that CASA’s extreme regulatory regime is inimical to a healthy GA sector and makes poor contrast to the rational regulations of the USA, where, according to John King of highly respected King’s Schools (also John was brought to Australia by CASA as consultant) some 70% of USA pilots are trained outside the Part 141/142 flying schools and with no formal syllabus. Shock horror! No syllabus! no hundreds of tick off signatures? Correct, the system allows innovation and individual tailored training followed by a rigorous testing regime before licence issue. Their safety record is arguably better than ours.
Lastly, CASA by its very name, and by its legislated obligation, claims that “safety” is its overriding purpose,
but we know that that is a total nonsense because it makes no rational risk assessments for any of its extraordinary rule changes or administrative actions. In judgment against Angel Flight it’s now clear that the Act doesn’t require any such reality to restrain CASA in any way shape or form. No Ministerial or obvious legal restraint as Glen Buckley has learned.
What a disastrous outcome for Australia, having to import airline pilots! Let alone the loss of hundreds of flying schools, charter operators and maintenance businesses. Huge loss of jobs, loss of airports, a continuing disgrace and blot on our democracy where the notion of giving away government responsibility for aviation to an unelected ‘independent’ corporate monopoly has yet to be recognised by government as a monumental failure of policy.
Cleary an example of failure; by not following the principle of responsible government.
Instead it tried on what seemed to be an expedient way of taking aviation off the books and away from Ministerial responsibility, conceived and executed by the Hawke Labor government with Gareth Evans as Minister. 1988, year of shame. To its credit at the time the Liberal Opposition opposed the creation of the statutory body for aviation but seems to have washed its hands ever since.
Glen and AOTW: Please read my post at #2144 again, twice.
The fact that you are unable to write a single sentence explaining HOW APTA would bring ‘rogue’ ‘Alliance’ ‘member’ personnel under control, legally and effectively, highlights the core regulatory issue. I explained HOW it works in a ‘standard’ structure where the AOC holder is the employer of the personnel. Can you identify any flaw in my explanation?
Yes Glen: APTA is ‘responsible’. Yes AOTW: The HOO is ‘responsible’. That’s precisely why CASA took action against APTA’s certificate. It finally dawned, on the adults in CASA, that CASA had been authorising flying training activities under the authority of APTA’s AOC when APTA had no legal and effective means of controlling the personnel delivering the training. It’s that simple.
And that’s the last time I’ll say it.
And, again for the last time, CASA could and should have put the issue of legal and effective control of ‘Alliance’ ‘member’ personnel front and centre at the start of APTA’s Part 142/142 regulatory journey. The issue could and should have dealt with years ago. APTA’s demise was another sacrifice to CASA’s incompetence and complex regulatory system.
The fact that you are unable to write a single sentence explaining HOW APTA would bring ‘rogue’ ‘Alliance’ ‘member’ personnel under control, legally and effectively, highlights the core regulatory issue. I explained HOW it works in a ‘standard’ structure where the AOC holder is the employer of the personnel. Can you identify any flaw in my explanation?
Yes Glen: APTA is ‘responsible’. Yes AOTW: The HOO is ‘responsible’. That’s precisely why CASA took action against APTA’s certificate. It finally dawned, on the adults in CASA, that CASA had been authorising flying training activities under the authority of APTA’s AOC when APTA had no legal and effective means of controlling the personnel delivering the training. It’s that simple.
And that’s the last time I’ll say it.
And, again for the last time, CASA could and should have put the issue of legal and effective control of ‘Alliance’ ‘member’ personnel front and centre at the start of APTA’s Part 142/142 regulatory journey. The issue could and should have dealt with years ago. APTA’s demise was another sacrifice to CASA’s incompetence and complex regulatory system.
Excellent statement, Sandy., from your long life at the sharp and practical end of GA.
A copy should go to very politician in the country, with a footnote writ large. …
WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO ABOUT IT ?
A copy should go to very politician in the country, with a footnote writ large. …
WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO ABOUT IT ?
Thread Starter
LB and SQUAWK
Regarding the financial viability test by CASA, it was i believe only applicable to Charter Organizations and not applied to flight training. Nevertheless, i never underwent a financial viability assessment.
The business once approved in April 2017 was modelled very roughly on 10 members participating to meet the costs of operating. APTA was not intended to be a profit making Centre, as opposed to my flying school of a decade. APTA was the vehicle to permit my school and others continue in an environment where the legislation would remove access to the 150 hour CPL. The salary structure for APTA cost over $800,000 per annum. Two CASA approved Group CEOs, Two CASA approved Group HOOs ( at third undertaking a one year induction program, ), two CASA approved Group Safety Managers, a Technical Writer and three admin/auditing staff.t
The CASA Transition date was September 1st 2017, you may recall that CASA advised schools that had not completed the process would not be able to continue operations after September 1st 2017.
In February of 2017 (one month before i "flicked the switch on the new procedures), i sought multiple assurances from CASA that the legislation was proceeding. At this time school could operate under CAR 5 regulations until September1st, after which date they had to Transition to the new rules.
CASA assured me that the regulatory change was proceeding as planned on September 1st 2017. Based on those assurances i elected to flick the switch, anticipating strong demand for APTA services. I advised CASA that based on their advice i would activate the new and more expensive procedures, noting that I was already operating in the multi base multi entity formula.
The 141/142 was activated. Weeks later with less than 10% of schools transitioned, CASA delayed the new legislation by 12 months, which gave the wider industry a chance to catch up. My recollection is that the only schools in Victoria and Tasmania that had finalized the process were Oxford and ourselves.
I asked CASA if i could return to the less expensive CAR 5 procedures in the interim, until the delayed legislation was re-introduced but i was not permitted to do so. There was no going back.
That 12 months was tough, as i was funding a business with little demand. As the delayed implementation approached, demand picked up, and we were well on our way to securing the 10 members required. The new regulations came in on September 1st 2018, and CASA declared my operation illegal in October 2018, which effectively halted all new customers and made it impossible to recruit students ethically with only 7 days surety of operations. CASA for the first two months maintained the position that it was illegal and that it was being shut down ( a position they maintained 8 months later when they forced all schools to leave, including my own school.
From September 1st 2018 with the restrictions on trade, and all confidence lost in APTA, my family and my parents funded staff salaries until CASA decalred it illegal and shut it down. After September 1st 2018, financially it was very tough with my parents contributing $10,000 per week to assist with salaries. CASA was advised regularly throughout the process of the commercial harm being caused.
SQUAWK
The accident. I myself got to that scene approximately 1 hour later. Possibly one of the most miraculous survival story with no-one spending the night in hospital. It is a long time ago, it was a private hire. After the accident we did play a role in significant retraining, and I was involved in that, although i dont think the pilot continued flying at the completion of the training.
We had no involvement in the investigation as CASA dealt direct with the pilot. The pilot had his family on board and was a very risk averse fella. I believe it was put down to pilot mishandling although the ATSB report may exist for further details.
This was not the pilots first flight with our Organization.and he did hold a PPL.
Cheers. Glen
The business once approved in April 2017 was modelled very roughly on 10 members participating to meet the costs of operating. APTA was not intended to be a profit making Centre, as opposed to my flying school of a decade. APTA was the vehicle to permit my school and others continue in an environment where the legislation would remove access to the 150 hour CPL. The salary structure for APTA cost over $800,000 per annum. Two CASA approved Group CEOs, Two CASA approved Group HOOs ( at third undertaking a one year induction program, ), two CASA approved Group Safety Managers, a Technical Writer and three admin/auditing staff.t
The CASA Transition date was September 1st 2017, you may recall that CASA advised schools that had not completed the process would not be able to continue operations after September 1st 2017.
In February of 2017 (one month before i "flicked the switch on the new procedures), i sought multiple assurances from CASA that the legislation was proceeding. At this time school could operate under CAR 5 regulations until September1st, after which date they had to Transition to the new rules.
CASA assured me that the regulatory change was proceeding as planned on September 1st 2017. Based on those assurances i elected to flick the switch, anticipating strong demand for APTA services. I advised CASA that based on their advice i would activate the new and more expensive procedures, noting that I was already operating in the multi base multi entity formula.
The 141/142 was activated. Weeks later with less than 10% of schools transitioned, CASA delayed the new legislation by 12 months, which gave the wider industry a chance to catch up. My recollection is that the only schools in Victoria and Tasmania that had finalized the process were Oxford and ourselves.
I asked CASA if i could return to the less expensive CAR 5 procedures in the interim, until the delayed legislation was re-introduced but i was not permitted to do so. There was no going back.
That 12 months was tough, as i was funding a business with little demand. As the delayed implementation approached, demand picked up, and we were well on our way to securing the 10 members required. The new regulations came in on September 1st 2018, and CASA declared my operation illegal in October 2018, which effectively halted all new customers and made it impossible to recruit students ethically with only 7 days surety of operations. CASA for the first two months maintained the position that it was illegal and that it was being shut down ( a position they maintained 8 months later when they forced all schools to leave, including my own school.
From September 1st 2018 with the restrictions on trade, and all confidence lost in APTA, my family and my parents funded staff salaries until CASA decalred it illegal and shut it down. After September 1st 2018, financially it was very tough with my parents contributing $10,000 per week to assist with salaries. CASA was advised regularly throughout the process of the commercial harm being caused.
SQUAWK
The accident. I myself got to that scene approximately 1 hour later. Possibly one of the most miraculous survival story with no-one spending the night in hospital. It is a long time ago, it was a private hire. After the accident we did play a role in significant retraining, and I was involved in that, although i dont think the pilot continued flying at the completion of the training.
We had no involvement in the investigation as CASA dealt direct with the pilot. The pilot had his family on board and was a very risk averse fella. I believe it was put down to pilot mishandling although the ATSB report may exist for further details.
This was not the pilots first flight with our Organization.and he did hold a PPL.
Cheers. Glen
Lead Balloon, the legal means of control is the exposition. Regulations require organisations and personnel to comply with expositions, which provides the head of power.
- following the procedures in the exposition covering unauthorised activities, or activities that do not meet organisational standards.
Happy days.
Please complete this sentence: “In the ‘base’ X scenario Lead Balloon provided, APTA’s options to put a stop to it included:
Happy days.
The fact that you are unable to write a single sentence explaining HOW APTA would bring ‘rogue’ ‘Alliance’ ‘member’ personnel under control, legally and effectively, highlights the core regulatory issue. I explained HOW it works in a ‘standard’ structure where the AOC holder is the employer of the personnel. Can you identify any flaw in my explanation?
If the answer is "Yes" then provided you have taken steps to ensure that the instructor is aware of their responsibilities and has been given legal instructions, which they choose to ignore, isn't it up to reporting to CASA and let them investigate and prosecute?
WTF are the regulations for if not to compel compliance by individuals? It isn't up to you to discipline staff if they break the regs. Furthermore, if an employee breaks your administrative regs that have nothing to do with flying, then its not CASAs business.
I do apologise for not making my points clearly.
Yes: Breaches of regs are just that. And that’s naughty and it’s an offence. In both of the scenarios I provided earlier - APTA ‘Alliance’ ‘member’ instructor going ‘rogue’ and a ‘standard structure’ AOC holder’s instructor employee going ‘rogue’ - the instructors are breaching regulations. Yes: Both instructors are naughty and committing offences. I get it. But…
Both instructors are committing offences in the course of delivering flying training under APTA’s AOC and the ‘standard structure’ AOC holder’s AOC, respectively. The AOC holders are also being naughty in allowing that to happen.
I set out, above, some of the legal and effective steps that a ‘standard structure’ AOC holder can take to stop the rogue employee instructor continuing to offend in the course of flying training under the AOC, hopefully before CASA takes action against both the AOC holder and the instructor. Absent a legally binding agreement between APTA and the personnel of its ‘Alliance’ ‘members’, those steps are not available to APTA. If I haven’t made this fundamental distinction clear, I again apologise.
Yes: Breaches of regs are just that. And that’s naughty and it’s an offence. In both of the scenarios I provided earlier - APTA ‘Alliance’ ‘member’ instructor going ‘rogue’ and a ‘standard structure’ AOC holder’s instructor employee going ‘rogue’ - the instructors are breaching regulations. Yes: Both instructors are naughty and committing offences. I get it. But…
Both instructors are committing offences in the course of delivering flying training under APTA’s AOC and the ‘standard structure’ AOC holder’s AOC, respectively. The AOC holders are also being naughty in allowing that to happen.
I set out, above, some of the legal and effective steps that a ‘standard structure’ AOC holder can take to stop the rogue employee instructor continuing to offend in the course of flying training under the AOC, hopefully before CASA takes action against both the AOC holder and the instructor. Absent a legally binding agreement between APTA and the personnel of its ‘Alliance’ ‘members’, those steps are not available to APTA. If I haven’t made this fundamental distinction clear, I again apologise.
Lead Balloon, the legal means of control is the exposition. Regulations require organisations and personnel to comply with expositions, which provides the head of power.
- following the procedures in the exposition covering unauthorised activities, or activities that do not meet organisational standards.
Happy days.
- following the procedures in the exposition covering unauthorised activities, or activities that do not meet organisational standards.
Happy days.
What does APTA do next?
Tell me who, precisely, does what, precisely.
I’ve explained what an AOC holder does in the ‘standard structure’ in which the CFI and instructors are the AOC holder’s employees, the training premises are owned or leased by the AOC holder and the AOC holder is the registered operator of the aircraft used for flying training under the authority of the AOC.
Paragraph never lets details like it being sent on a Tuesday impede on an otherwise ripping narrative.
Rather than searching for the non-existent collateral weaknesses in the cogent, well reasoned questions C-Mac is helpfully posing that get to the very heart of this saga, does anyone have anything that would assist Glen other than 'the exposition' takes?
Rather than searching for the non-existent collateral weaknesses in the cogent, well reasoned questions C-Mac is helpfully posing that get to the very heart of this saga, does anyone have anything that would assist Glen other than 'the exposition' takes?
Thread Starter
Lead balloon and others
Lead Balloon, '
your input, although on rare occasion not so encouraging, is valuable. I dont need to know what im going to say. I already know that. The suggestions regarding Mr Alecks "take" are important, because i need to know how to counter them, so please keep firing away as time and motivation permit you to.
I understand your argument, although i am probably too close to the argument to understand the counter argument.
Where a pilot draws his income is in my opinion, (with absolutely no legal background.) not relevant.
Over the years i permitted a number of Organizations to operate under my AOC after a robust induction. These included Airforce cadets out of Darwin and Scouts down here in Melbourne. My own pilots would often volunteer for charity events that we provided. We had a Company Policy of assisting every Organization that contacted us for a "donation" provided they weren't a commission based contact.
I considered my responsibility and accountability exactly the same. It made no difference if they were volunteers, paid by me, or in fact paid by someone else. There is no distinction in the law that I am aware of. Many thousands of pages of CASA rules and regulations state very clearly the responsibility and accountability of the Authorization Holder and the Key personnel. In fact no-one else is mentioned in the legislation.
Every professional, qualified Commercial Pilot is fully aware that they are obligated and in fact electronically sign to say such, that they will operate in accordance with the Exposition. They do , on every single flight that they depart on under my AOC..
My Key Personnel and i could lock any pilot fully out of the system, from anywhere in the world at any time. From start to finish probably a 3 minute exercise. I doubt any Aeroclub Committeee Member could achieve that. If the pilot departs on a flight he has clearly demonstrated bad intent. He knows that his flight is unauthorized, and that he is committing an offence. Imagine the poor car rental Company when someone steals the keys to a car and crashes it. How much liability does the rental company owner have, assuming the keys were secured and not in the vehicle.
I know its intended as the extreme example, but in my 25 years in the industry its a scenario, i.e. refusing to stop flying, that i haven't encountered.
If the pilot is fully and properly inducted into the one Authorization, with the one Exposition, he is my responsibility, and its a serious one.
If something goes wrong, the simple fact is that the CASA Employees keep working 9 to 5.
Its me as the Authorization Holder that has to be prepared to appear before a Coroners Court, and justify the robustness and quality of my Systems and Procedures. I know that in such an environment my systems have to be watertight and substantially ahead of the industry standard. I have to be honest and act with integrity, and seek ways to prevent it ever happening again. But i really have to be able to get up on that stand and know that me and my Organization had done more than could be reasonably expected . I had to walk out of there affected but not feeling guilty. Thats the way i would hang on to my business.
Of course, i never factored in the Aleck factor
your input, although on rare occasion not so encouraging, is valuable. I dont need to know what im going to say. I already know that. The suggestions regarding Mr Alecks "take" are important, because i need to know how to counter them, so please keep firing away as time and motivation permit you to.
I understand your argument, although i am probably too close to the argument to understand the counter argument.
Where a pilot draws his income is in my opinion, (with absolutely no legal background.) not relevant.
Over the years i permitted a number of Organizations to operate under my AOC after a robust induction. These included Airforce cadets out of Darwin and Scouts down here in Melbourne. My own pilots would often volunteer for charity events that we provided. We had a Company Policy of assisting every Organization that contacted us for a "donation" provided they weren't a commission based contact.
I considered my responsibility and accountability exactly the same. It made no difference if they were volunteers, paid by me, or in fact paid by someone else. There is no distinction in the law that I am aware of. Many thousands of pages of CASA rules and regulations state very clearly the responsibility and accountability of the Authorization Holder and the Key personnel. In fact no-one else is mentioned in the legislation.
Every professional, qualified Commercial Pilot is fully aware that they are obligated and in fact electronically sign to say such, that they will operate in accordance with the Exposition. They do , on every single flight that they depart on under my AOC..
My Key Personnel and i could lock any pilot fully out of the system, from anywhere in the world at any time. From start to finish probably a 3 minute exercise. I doubt any Aeroclub Committeee Member could achieve that. If the pilot departs on a flight he has clearly demonstrated bad intent. He knows that his flight is unauthorized, and that he is committing an offence. Imagine the poor car rental Company when someone steals the keys to a car and crashes it. How much liability does the rental company owner have, assuming the keys were secured and not in the vehicle.
I know its intended as the extreme example, but in my 25 years in the industry its a scenario, i.e. refusing to stop flying, that i haven't encountered.
If the pilot is fully and properly inducted into the one Authorization, with the one Exposition, he is my responsibility, and its a serious one.
If something goes wrong, the simple fact is that the CASA Employees keep working 9 to 5.
Its me as the Authorization Holder that has to be prepared to appear before a Coroners Court, and justify the robustness and quality of my Systems and Procedures. I know that in such an environment my systems have to be watertight and substantially ahead of the industry standard. I have to be honest and act with integrity, and seek ways to prevent it ever happening again. But i really have to be able to get up on that stand and know that me and my Organization had done more than could be reasonably expected . I had to walk out of there affected but not feeling guilty. Thats the way i would hang on to my business.
Of course, i never factored in the Aleck factor
Flaming Galah, good comment and question
LB has dissected carefully, in detail, the CASA’s grinding of Glen Buckley in its perverted course of imperial perfection in all things aviation. All of which does not go to the safety of flight. The reverse being true.
No obvious answer for Glen, but individually we can try for political awareness. Keep on keeping on. Ring write contact your local federal MPs and State Senators.
No obvious answer for Glen, but individually we can try for political awareness. Keep on keeping on. Ring write contact your local federal MPs and State Senators.