Glen Buckley and Australian small business -V- CASA
I’m afraid I still don’t understand. Aren’t CASA aviation regulation and regulatory activities discharged without fear or favour across the entire industry, no matter where the geographic location, nor the size, political and market power of the subjects?
I would have thought an industry participant like Qantas would receive regulatory raps on the knuckles proportionate to its size just like your local flying school. Surely they labour under exactly the same regulatory burden as the rest of the industry?
I would have thought an industry participant like Qantas would receive regulatory raps on the knuckles proportionate to its size just like your local flying school. Surely they labour under exactly the same regulatory burden as the rest of the industry?
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: Australia
Posts: 358
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bureaucracy at its most incompetent. Poorly written, inadequately explained - hardly surprising.
The incompetency of the fools that you’ve been (unfortunately) dealing with should make this a fairly simple case for the Ombudsman to rule on.
The incompetency of the fools that you’ve been (unfortunately) dealing with should make this a fairly simple case for the Ombudsman to rule on.
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: Australia
Posts: 358
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Qantas has better lawyers than CASA and both parties will know this.
Last edited by Stickshift3000; 10th Aug 2019 at 10:09. Reason: context
But I still don’t understand. If Qantas can do something under the regulations, then any other business can do the same thing by definition. Conversely, if something is prohibited to your local flying school it’s prohibited to Qantas. Similarly a regulator should treat each organisation or person exactly the same.... Isn’t that inherent in the definition of the common law and Westminster style government? One law for all?
Furthermore, how can one part of CASA apparently find no fault with GlenB to the extent of investing considerable time and money (as well as Glens) in working with him to structure his aviation operations to meet regulatory requirements then another part of CASA comes along and allegedly throws it all down the toilet and allegedly punishes Glen to boot? How could that happen?
At the very least, CASA has wasted taxpayers money on dealing with Glen in this manner because one group of the two allegedly involved has been operating with flawed understandings of what is legal - unless Glen misled them in some way.
Furthermore, how can one part of CASA apparently find no fault with GlenB to the extent of investing considerable time and money (as well as Glens) in working with him to structure his aviation operations to meet regulatory requirements then another part of CASA comes along and allegedly throws it all down the toilet and allegedly punishes Glen to boot? How could that happen?
At the very least, CASA has wasted taxpayers money on dealing with Glen in this manner because one group of the two allegedly involved has been operating with flawed understandings of what is legal - unless Glen misled them in some way.
Last edited by Sunfish; 10th Aug 2019 at 10:29.
Regulation by opinion
It seem to me, more and more, that the Authority appears to regulate on the basis of opinion, rather than on the basis of law. At least, in the USA, anyone can request a (legally binding) ruling stating the FAA's official position on any subject from the FAA equivalent of the OLC.
As GlenB has shown, getting anything in writing from CASA doesn't really mean a thing as 1) there appears to be no accountability, 2) the regulations only mean what one person thinks the regulations should mean and 3) what one CASA person thinks the regulations should mean will differ from what another CASA person thinks it should mean.
Perhaps the Regulations should be more accurately renamed Suggestions.
As GlenB has shown, getting anything in writing from CASA doesn't really mean a thing as 1) there appears to be no accountability, 2) the regulations only mean what one person thinks the regulations should mean and 3) what one CASA person thinks the regulations should mean will differ from what another CASA person thinks it should mean.
Perhaps the Regulations should be more accurately renamed Suggestions.
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: Australia
Posts: 358
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As GlenB has shown, getting anything in writing from CASA doesn't really mean a thing as 1) there appears to be no accountability, 2) the regulations only mean what one person thinks the regulations should mean and 3) what one CASA person thinks the regulations should mean will differ from what another CASA person thinks it should mean.
That is why the matters must be independently investigated.
Good point. Even the ATO issues binding rulings, lots of them. Why not CASA?
I once had to deal with six R&D investment syndicates - about $60m. Each one was supported by at least one private ATO ruling and then there were the public ATO rulings as well. They all had to be legally consistent too.
Things like what the phrase “for the benefit of the Australian economy” meant in legislation were spelled out in an ATO binding ruling.
I once had to deal with six R&D investment syndicates - about $60m. Each one was supported by at least one private ATO ruling and then there were the public ATO rulings as well. They all had to be legally consistent too.
Things like what the phrase “for the benefit of the Australian economy” meant in legislation were spelled out in an ATO binding ruling.
Thread Starter
Reply to QFF in Post 203
A brief precursor to this post for anyone not familiar with the terminology. I will use the term "GA". That refers to General Aviation. CASA, have a complicated and everchanging definition. The industry in its entirety, considers "GA", to be predominantly the charter industry, aerial work, flight training, and the maintenance and support services behind those operations. .Anyway, to the post....
.
QFF, you make an interesting point that is perhaps the root cause of my problems, and is in fact the issue that effects the entire sector of the Industry.
Simply ask ANY small business operator operating in the General Aviation (GA) sector, what the biggest challenge to their business is. Im convinced over 90% of GA business owners will tell you its "CASAs failure to achieve clear and concise aviation safety standards."
Its not a "nice to have" or a "try your best" or a "pink elephant stamp for trying." The achievement of clear and concise aviation safety standards is actually the core function of CASA. Its in the Civil Aviation Act and its copied below. I have bolded some of the more interesting parts.
Importantly, and I call on AOPA to conduct a survey to test my assertion. Over 90 % of the intended recipients of that legislation will state that they cannot fully understand the rules because they are not clear and concise. Imagine how quick the Deputy Prime Minister would act if 90% of road users couldn't understand the rules. Somehow, he gets away with inaction on rules regarding aviation safety. Its absurd. If the public knew there would be an outcry.
What better way than to demonstrate CASAs failure than me posing this simple question....
Dear Mr Crawford, could you please show me the legislation that lead you to initiate the action against my business?
The simple fact is that you cant. This all started because CMT 3 had a different opinion, and sadly and unnecessarily, it was not well intentioned. The legislation is more disjointed than "cards against humanity".
There were no regulatory breaches. Its all opinion, and regulations that are not clear or concise. An environment in which CASA should engage professionally with Industry to enhance safety. At least engage in accordance with your own regulatory philosophy that you came up with, because your previous approach to industry was found to be inappropriate. Only in Australia, could this happen, seriously.
Part II—Establishment, functions etc. of CASA8 Establishment of CASA
(1) An authority called the Civil Aviation Safety Authority is established by this subsection.
(2) CASA: (a) is a body corporate with perpetual succession; (b) shall have a seal; and (c) may sue and be sued in its corporate name.Note: The Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013 applies to the CASA. That Act deals with matters relating to corporate Commonwealth entities, including reporting and the use and management of public resources.
(3) All courts, judges and persons acting judicially shall take judicial notice of the imprint of the seal of CASA appearing on a document and shall presume that the document was duly sealed.
9 CASA’s functions
(1) CASA has the function of conducting the safety regulation of the following, in accordance with this Act and the regulations:
(a) civil air operations in Australian territory;
(b) the operation of Australian aircraft outside Australian territory;
(ba) ANZA activities in New Zealand authorised by Australian AOCs with ANZA privileges;
by means that include the following: (c) developing and promulgating appropriate, clear and concise aviation safety standards;
(b) promoting full and effective consultation and communication with all interested parties on aviation safety issues.
.
QFF, you make an interesting point that is perhaps the root cause of my problems, and is in fact the issue that effects the entire sector of the Industry.
Simply ask ANY small business operator operating in the General Aviation (GA) sector, what the biggest challenge to their business is. Im convinced over 90% of GA business owners will tell you its "CASAs failure to achieve clear and concise aviation safety standards."
Its not a "nice to have" or a "try your best" or a "pink elephant stamp for trying." The achievement of clear and concise aviation safety standards is actually the core function of CASA. Its in the Civil Aviation Act and its copied below. I have bolded some of the more interesting parts.
Importantly, and I call on AOPA to conduct a survey to test my assertion. Over 90 % of the intended recipients of that legislation will state that they cannot fully understand the rules because they are not clear and concise. Imagine how quick the Deputy Prime Minister would act if 90% of road users couldn't understand the rules. Somehow, he gets away with inaction on rules regarding aviation safety. Its absurd. If the public knew there would be an outcry.
What better way than to demonstrate CASAs failure than me posing this simple question....
Dear Mr Crawford, could you please show me the legislation that lead you to initiate the action against my business?
The simple fact is that you cant. This all started because CMT 3 had a different opinion, and sadly and unnecessarily, it was not well intentioned. The legislation is more disjointed than "cards against humanity".
There were no regulatory breaches. Its all opinion, and regulations that are not clear or concise. An environment in which CASA should engage professionally with Industry to enhance safety. At least engage in accordance with your own regulatory philosophy that you came up with, because your previous approach to industry was found to be inappropriate. Only in Australia, could this happen, seriously.
Part II—Establishment, functions etc. of CASA8 Establishment of CASA
(1) An authority called the Civil Aviation Safety Authority is established by this subsection.
(2) CASA: (a) is a body corporate with perpetual succession; (b) shall have a seal; and (c) may sue and be sued in its corporate name.Note: The Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013 applies to the CASA. That Act deals with matters relating to corporate Commonwealth entities, including reporting and the use and management of public resources.
(3) All courts, judges and persons acting judicially shall take judicial notice of the imprint of the seal of CASA appearing on a document and shall presume that the document was duly sealed.
9 CASA’s functions
(1) CASA has the function of conducting the safety regulation of the following, in accordance with this Act and the regulations:
(a) civil air operations in Australian territory;
(b) the operation of Australian aircraft outside Australian territory;
(ba) ANZA activities in New Zealand authorised by Australian AOCs with ANZA privileges;
by means that include the following: (c) developing and promulgating appropriate, clear and concise aviation safety standards;
(b) promoting full and effective consultation and communication with all interested parties on aviation safety issues.
Just to get everyone out of the weeds, here's what a clear and concise aviation standard looks like:
Note that the above does not depend on the opinion of someone in CASA. The criteria are binary: a factual yes or no. The satisfaction of each of those criteria might depend indirectly on the opinion of someone in CASA - some zealot in AVMED or aircrew licensing - but it shouldn't.
Here's how to turn the above hypothetical into the kind of mess CASA is continuing to build:
The second example, though hypothetical, is in substance typical of the current and developing rules. As a matter of practicality, those rules set the standard here: Whatever someone in CASA decides the standard should be each day.
CASA doesn't know how to develop and promulgate appropriate, clear and concise aviation safety standards. And governments no longer know how to make CASA do it.
An individual is qualified to be a chief pilot if the individual:
- meets the competency standards for licence X
- meets the class x medical standard
- has at least Y hours in command of aircraft of type Q and at least C hours in command of aircraft of type R, and
- has passed course L.
- meets the competency standards for licence X
- meets the class x medical standard
- has at least Y hours in command of aircraft of type Q and at least C hours in command of aircraft of type R, and
- has passed course L.
Here's how to turn the above hypothetical into the kind of mess CASA is continuing to build:
An individual is qualified to be a chief pilot if:
(a) the individual:
- holds licence X,
- holds a current medical certificate
- has at least Y hours in command of aircraft of type Q and at least C hours in command of aircraft of type R
- has passed course L
- is in CASA's opinion qualified to be a chief pilot,
- is in CASA's opinion a fit and proper person to be a chief pilot, and
(b) it is in the interests of the saftey of air navigation to permit the individual to discharge the duties of chief pilot.
(a) the individual:
- holds licence X,
- holds a current medical certificate
- has at least Y hours in command of aircraft of type Q and at least C hours in command of aircraft of type R
- has passed course L
- is in CASA's opinion qualified to be a chief pilot,
- is in CASA's opinion a fit and proper person to be a chief pilot, and
(b) it is in the interests of the saftey of air navigation to permit the individual to discharge the duties of chief pilot.
CASA doesn't know how to develop and promulgate appropriate, clear and concise aviation safety standards. And governments no longer know how to make CASA do it.
What could possibly be wrong with developing a standard set of manuals and procedures that satisfy CASA regulations and then allowing a group of flying clubs or schools to use them and contribute to the cost of maintaining them?
Even if such schools required a seperate certificate to operate, surely that would be a simple case of rubber stamping the documents if they were all using the same previously accepted paperwork?
I mean if I want to start a company, I can go and buy one tomorrow for less than a Thousand dollars, complete right down to asset registers and a company stamp, right off the shelf.
Surely as well, wouldn’t it save CASA time and money if everyone was using the same paperwork? No need for extensive reviews and meetings since everything would be common. CASA could then spend the freed up time on safety related activities.
To put that another way, a Cessna 172 is at least as common and well understood as a Holden Commodore. Surely the operations manuals for everyone operating one can be exactly the same? Why would anyone waste time developing and approving a “new” safety system manual for such an aircraft?
Even if such schools required a seperate certificate to operate, surely that would be a simple case of rubber stamping the documents if they were all using the same previously accepted paperwork?
I mean if I want to start a company, I can go and buy one tomorrow for less than a Thousand dollars, complete right down to asset registers and a company stamp, right off the shelf.
Surely as well, wouldn’t it save CASA time and money if everyone was using the same paperwork? No need for extensive reviews and meetings since everything would be common. CASA could then spend the freed up time on safety related activities.
To put that another way, a Cessna 172 is at least as common and well understood as a Holden Commodore. Surely the operations manuals for everyone operating one can be exactly the same? Why would anyone waste time developing and approving a “new” safety system manual for such an aircraft?
It's not about the content of manuals (or at least it shouldn't be). If we took copies of all of the manuals of a successful airline and gave them to your shelf company, the outcome would not be the creation of another successful airline.
The substantive issue is (or at least it should be) whether an organisation has the critical mass of expertise, resources and competence to do the stuff, and then actually does the stuff, to produce the required outcome. And that's where the chronic problem comes in.
The chronic problem is that the assessment of those things is left to the subjective opinion of individuals in CASA, which opinions can and do differ on the same set of facts. And, more importantly, those individuals are unable to put a price on risk and decide when the entire costs of the mitigation of a risk outweighs the benefits. Any risk can be conjured into an aviation disaster, the mitigation of which is therefore simple in the case of 'little people': say no; stop it; ground it; send it broke; destroy it. That approach and outcome is zero cost for CASA.
If there were proper standards set, the pricing of risks and mitigations wouldn't be left to individuals in CASA. A proper standard is itself the decision as to the balance.
The substantive issue is (or at least it should be) whether an organisation has the critical mass of expertise, resources and competence to do the stuff, and then actually does the stuff, to produce the required outcome. And that's where the chronic problem comes in.
The chronic problem is that the assessment of those things is left to the subjective opinion of individuals in CASA, which opinions can and do differ on the same set of facts. And, more importantly, those individuals are unable to put a price on risk and decide when the entire costs of the mitigation of a risk outweighs the benefits. Any risk can be conjured into an aviation disaster, the mitigation of which is therefore simple in the case of 'little people': say no; stop it; ground it; send it broke; destroy it. That approach and outcome is zero cost for CASA.
If there were proper standards set, the pricing of risks and mitigations wouldn't be left to individuals in CASA. A proper standard is itself the decision as to the balance.
Exactly, the expertise and competence are embodied in the manuals as are the resource requirements. It’s not rocket science. The whole aviation world revolves around documentation, not voodoo crap about who is a charismatic leader and who isn’t. There are no “fine judgements” to be made.
I remember a time when CASA required each type and model to be approved. That is C210 did not cover C210, needed to have L,M,N, etc listed and approved separately and so on and so forth...
Folks,
Following Lead Balloon's recent point: In the "reformed" certification regulations in 1998, great care was taken to exclude CASA "decision making".
The "rules" were written in "black and white", ie: Do A, B,C & D and you will get Certificate E, NOT the previous form of: Do A, B, C, and D, and CASA IS SATISFIED, , only then do you get the certificate E being applied for. Of course, there was no enforceable standard of "CASA is satisfied".
The reason for the "black and white" rules for design, certification and manufacturing was to eliminate CASA liability, or the perceived liability of CASA individual employees, a major factor in CASA (none or negative) decision making. Needless to say, we were much criticised at the time, and not just by CASA persons. And, needless to say, it has crept back in, and in recent " regulation development" the policy has been ignored.
As to why we do not have "binding aviation rulings" ------ because there is no legal capacity to make one.
Should CASA have such delegated law making power, without the scrutiny of parliament ( that is, CASA making legal instruments that are not disallowable) ---- my view is absolutely and definitely not ----- and there is a history, CAA tried this on years ago, having received legal advice that "Orders" could be legally enforceable, but be isolated from parliamentary scrutiny.
I even still have my "free" A4 binder that CAA gave to all license holders to file the forecast avalanche of "new" Orders, in lieu of "regulations".
Some smart footwork by several, again opposed by many in industry, not just CAA, challenged to legal advice as being unconstitutional, and the brave new world of rule by CAO without parliamentary disallowance fell over .
Aviation rules can be understandable, there are plenty of examples. However, when the criteria is: "Aviation law if for lawyers and judges, for the safe conviction of pilots and engineers", and not the operating and airworthiness of aircraft, it ain't going to happen.
In one exercise in CASA, years ago during the currency of the PAP/CASA Review, a Canadian lawyer presented a paper on how rules could be written if the design prosecution conviction rate of 99% was reduced to "just" 95%.
All of a sudden, "plain English" regulations.
Another exercise, at the same time, was to remove from the regulations as criminal law all matters that were just administrative/procedural ---- in a section of maintenance ------ the result was to reduce the relevant MRO rules with criminal penalties by about 70+%.
Almost everything the bulk of industry wants is not just possible, but required in this day and age, and has been tried and proven before ----- but the bureaucracy (aka. CASA the iron ring) doesn't want it, so reforms forever slip backwards.
For a full non-aviation exposition of the "how and why", known as Hewart's Law, I can recommend reading "The New Despotism", by Lord Hewart of Bury, Lord Chief Justice of the UK during a period in the 1920's.
Tootle pip!!
PS: I always have a bit of a giggle when anyone comes up with the hoary old nonsense that we can't emulate US, because we have "The Westminster System" ---- izzatso ??
Folks, have a close look, the Australian Commonwealth (unlike CA or NZ) is closely modeled on the US, with a House of Representatives (not "Commons") and a state based Senate, and all our legal systems (AU, USA,CA, NZ etc) all drive from the Blackstone Commentaries, as opposed to Europeans (and Scottish) Roman law.
Indeed, on of the first things the brand new Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia did was legislate by reference --- by importing as Australian law large slabs of US Federal Law ---- the US Sherman Anti-Trust Act 1890, only a couple of words were changed. But that is another story.
Following Lead Balloon's recent point: In the "reformed" certification regulations in 1998, great care was taken to exclude CASA "decision making".
The "rules" were written in "black and white", ie: Do A, B,C & D and you will get Certificate E, NOT the previous form of: Do A, B, C, and D, and CASA IS SATISFIED, , only then do you get the certificate E being applied for. Of course, there was no enforceable standard of "CASA is satisfied".
The reason for the "black and white" rules for design, certification and manufacturing was to eliminate CASA liability, or the perceived liability of CASA individual employees, a major factor in CASA (none or negative) decision making. Needless to say, we were much criticised at the time, and not just by CASA persons. And, needless to say, it has crept back in, and in recent " regulation development" the policy has been ignored.
As to why we do not have "binding aviation rulings" ------ because there is no legal capacity to make one.
Should CASA have such delegated law making power, without the scrutiny of parliament ( that is, CASA making legal instruments that are not disallowable) ---- my view is absolutely and definitely not ----- and there is a history, CAA tried this on years ago, having received legal advice that "Orders" could be legally enforceable, but be isolated from parliamentary scrutiny.
I even still have my "free" A4 binder that CAA gave to all license holders to file the forecast avalanche of "new" Orders, in lieu of "regulations".
Some smart footwork by several, again opposed by many in industry, not just CAA, challenged to legal advice as being unconstitutional, and the brave new world of rule by CAO without parliamentary disallowance fell over .
Aviation rules can be understandable, there are plenty of examples. However, when the criteria is: "Aviation law if for lawyers and judges, for the safe conviction of pilots and engineers", and not the operating and airworthiness of aircraft, it ain't going to happen.
In one exercise in CASA, years ago during the currency of the PAP/CASA Review, a Canadian lawyer presented a paper on how rules could be written if the design prosecution conviction rate of 99% was reduced to "just" 95%.
All of a sudden, "plain English" regulations.
Another exercise, at the same time, was to remove from the regulations as criminal law all matters that were just administrative/procedural ---- in a section of maintenance ------ the result was to reduce the relevant MRO rules with criminal penalties by about 70+%.
Almost everything the bulk of industry wants is not just possible, but required in this day and age, and has been tried and proven before ----- but the bureaucracy (aka. CASA the iron ring) doesn't want it, so reforms forever slip backwards.
For a full non-aviation exposition of the "how and why", known as Hewart's Law, I can recommend reading "The New Despotism", by Lord Hewart of Bury, Lord Chief Justice of the UK during a period in the 1920's.
Tootle pip!!
PS: I always have a bit of a giggle when anyone comes up with the hoary old nonsense that we can't emulate US, because we have "The Westminster System" ---- izzatso ??
Folks, have a close look, the Australian Commonwealth (unlike CA or NZ) is closely modeled on the US, with a House of Representatives (not "Commons") and a state based Senate, and all our legal systems (AU, USA,CA, NZ etc) all drive from the Blackstone Commentaries, as opposed to Europeans (and Scottish) Roman law.
Indeed, on of the first things the brand new Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia did was legislate by reference --- by importing as Australian law large slabs of US Federal Law ---- the US Sherman Anti-Trust Act 1890, only a couple of words were changed. But that is another story.
Last edited by LeadSled; 11th Aug 2019 at 08:31.
Thread Starter
Suggestions for using the ICC process
If anyone intends to avail themselves of the ICC process
POINT ONE
If you have, multiple complaints. Do not submit them as "grouped complaint".
Submit them individually, and insist on them being attended to individually.
As you will see from my corrrspondence below, I had concerns about the grouped approach. Initially the ICC and I both agreed, as per his preference the individual approach be adopted. For some reason not known to me, that position was reversed by CASA and days later the ICC had a preference for a grouped approach.
Copy of my email sent to the ICC on 05/02/19 below. Please note that I did finally consent to the grouped approach. Looking back on it now that I have the final report I am convinced this was one of my fundamental errors for the exact reasons I noted and feared.
Dear Mr Hanton,
Thankyou for the opportunity to chat on the phone today. I acknowledge your suggestion that the responses be “grouped”.For perfect clarity, that would not be acceptable to me. The complaints do not relate to CASAs “oversight”. They are more specific in nature, and I need them to be responded to in that manner.
A “grouped” response will result in delayed response compared to attending to the matters individually, and as you are aware my business has been placed under significant duress by this process to date. My timelines are critical. My strong preference is to begin receiving “drip fed” responses rather than playing a waiting game over many more months.
A “grouped” response will result in more likelihood that individual items are “diluted” or not attended to in the detail that they should be. The result of this would be follow up questions with associated prolonged response times.
I feel that attending to items individually will reduce the burden on the ICCs office as it would give the opportunity to attend to matters individually.
Individual responses will bring more clarity to the process.
My experience to date is that outstanding matters with the ICC are already experiencing protracted timelines, and particularly for matters that were not really complicated. I am reluctant to allow this process to drag on any further.
Finally as per our previous phone conversation, the preference expressed by both you and I, and agreed on by both parties was an individual approach, so the changing of goal posts makes me feel that the office could potentially be acting in CASAs interests which would degrade the integrity of the office.
Please appreciate that from my perspective, I have been treated unfairly by CASA and I am trying to resolve the matter and “get to the bottom of it”. To date, I feel I have been treated unfairly. and understandably I have little trust and confidence.
If CASA insist on using their preferred approach rather than mine, it will only further degrade any remaining trust and confidence, and that feeling would extend to the office of the ICC.
Can you please advise if CASA insist on using their “grouped” approach, or in fact will CASA act in accordance with the individual approach that both you and I expressed as our preference, on our recent telephone call, and remains my preference.
Yours respectfully
Glen Buckley
POINT ONE
If you have, multiple complaints. Do not submit them as "grouped complaint".
Submit them individually, and insist on them being attended to individually.
As you will see from my corrrspondence below, I had concerns about the grouped approach. Initially the ICC and I both agreed, as per his preference the individual approach be adopted. For some reason not known to me, that position was reversed by CASA and days later the ICC had a preference for a grouped approach.
Copy of my email sent to the ICC on 05/02/19 below. Please note that I did finally consent to the grouped approach. Looking back on it now that I have the final report I am convinced this was one of my fundamental errors for the exact reasons I noted and feared.
Dear Mr Hanton,
Thankyou for the opportunity to chat on the phone today. I acknowledge your suggestion that the responses be “grouped”.For perfect clarity, that would not be acceptable to me. The complaints do not relate to CASAs “oversight”. They are more specific in nature, and I need them to be responded to in that manner.
A “grouped” response will result in delayed response compared to attending to the matters individually, and as you are aware my business has been placed under significant duress by this process to date. My timelines are critical. My strong preference is to begin receiving “drip fed” responses rather than playing a waiting game over many more months.
A “grouped” response will result in more likelihood that individual items are “diluted” or not attended to in the detail that they should be. The result of this would be follow up questions with associated prolonged response times.
I feel that attending to items individually will reduce the burden on the ICCs office as it would give the opportunity to attend to matters individually.
Individual responses will bring more clarity to the process.
My experience to date is that outstanding matters with the ICC are already experiencing protracted timelines, and particularly for matters that were not really complicated. I am reluctant to allow this process to drag on any further.
Finally as per our previous phone conversation, the preference expressed by both you and I, and agreed on by both parties was an individual approach, so the changing of goal posts makes me feel that the office could potentially be acting in CASAs interests which would degrade the integrity of the office.
Please appreciate that from my perspective, I have been treated unfairly by CASA and I am trying to resolve the matter and “get to the bottom of it”. To date, I feel I have been treated unfairly. and understandably I have little trust and confidence.
If CASA insist on using their preferred approach rather than mine, it will only further degrade any remaining trust and confidence, and that feeling would extend to the office of the ICC.
Can you please advise if CASA insist on using their “grouped” approach, or in fact will CASA act in accordance with the individual approach that both you and I expressed as our preference, on our recent telephone call, and remains my preference.
Yours respectfully
Glen Buckley
Thread Starter
False allegations of Flight and Duty breaches
The following correspondence came from the Regional Manager in November 2018 “These anomalies should be known by XXXX (as the APTA HOO) as there were problems identified with the FSM system and Flight and Duty (F&D) management, in particular associated to the F&D exceedances.”
My response;
David, I am completely fed up with your constant attempts to bring harm to me and my Business.
I truly have absolutely no idea what drives this obsession, but as evidenced, it has absolutely nothing to do with safety or compliance.
Quite simply that statement you made above is bull****, and unfortunately, there is not a more appropriate word to use.
Had you identified flight and duty exceedances, they would be documented. I look forward to you supplying supporting evidence by 4PM today.
That gives you and XXXXX the whole day to see what you can come up with. Good luck.
I must have that by 4PM today. I have absolutely zero trust or confidence in you, XXXXXX, and XXXXXX. If you fail to provide that evidence by 4PM today, all bets are off. I asked you to escalate my matter external to CASA by last Friday and you chose to ignore me.
At 9AM on Monday I met with Barnaby Joyce and a number of other politicians. David. I do what I say. If this matter is not finalised today, I will ensure a 30 minute investigative journalism piece goes to air in the new year. It will happen. Track XXXX down and see what you fellas can “come up with”
This clearly identifies the lack of technical competence of the CASA person I was dealing with. There were no breaches and the system worked flawlessly. Despite documented and repeated requests, CASA refused to respond to me. I simply asked repeatedly who the pilot was, but they weren't able to identify the pilot. Some time later the Regioanl Manager sent through the alleged breach. It was clearly not a breach, was not anywhere near a breach, and could not even be misunderstood to be a breach. It was a CASA person unfamiliar with their own legislation.
This is only a small smapling of the continual harassment as CASA threw everything they had at APTA to bring it down. Lots more to come.
Glen.
My response;
David, I am completely fed up with your constant attempts to bring harm to me and my Business.
I truly have absolutely no idea what drives this obsession, but as evidenced, it has absolutely nothing to do with safety or compliance.
Quite simply that statement you made above is bull****, and unfortunately, there is not a more appropriate word to use.
Had you identified flight and duty exceedances, they would be documented. I look forward to you supplying supporting evidence by 4PM today.
That gives you and XXXXX the whole day to see what you can come up with. Good luck.
I must have that by 4PM today. I have absolutely zero trust or confidence in you, XXXXXX, and XXXXXX. If you fail to provide that evidence by 4PM today, all bets are off. I asked you to escalate my matter external to CASA by last Friday and you chose to ignore me.
At 9AM on Monday I met with Barnaby Joyce and a number of other politicians. David. I do what I say. If this matter is not finalised today, I will ensure a 30 minute investigative journalism piece goes to air in the new year. It will happen. Track XXXX down and see what you fellas can “come up with”
This clearly identifies the lack of technical competence of the CASA person I was dealing with. There were no breaches and the system worked flawlessly. Despite documented and repeated requests, CASA refused to respond to me. I simply asked repeatedly who the pilot was, but they weren't able to identify the pilot. Some time later the Regioanl Manager sent through the alleged breach. It was clearly not a breach, was not anywhere near a breach, and could not even be misunderstood to be a breach. It was a CASA person unfamiliar with their own legislation.
This is only a small smapling of the continual harassment as CASA threw everything they had at APTA to bring it down. Lots more to come.
Glen.
It’s always good when the newbies turn up to run interference. Number of posts: 1. Welcome aboard, ‘Flaming galah’.
More sophistry.
First: Why don’t you educate us all and define the phrase “within jurisdiction” and the bases upon which the Ombudsman decides to investigate or not to investigate. Even a first time interference poster wouldn’t be stupid enough to suggest that each year there are only single digit figures of people - or even zero - who have complaints about CASA.
One of the marvellous consequences of the creation of the ICC is that poor bastards who used to be able to reach out to the Ombudsman directly can no longer do so. They have to go through the ICC process first. That’s why the ICC was created. Lots of people are ground into despair by dealing with CASA and then the ICC. The prospect of dealing with yet another government bureaucracy that could be as awful as CASA is often enough to deter complainants.
Secondly: The 2015/16 numbers you quoted are bull****. I know it, first hand. Let me stress that I’m not suggesting that you’re making it up. After all, a first time poster would only post material in good faith. I’m asserting that the Ombudsman received at least one “within jurisdiction” approach about CASA during 2015/16, and investigated. It may well be that the Ombudsman didn’t report it as such. That outcome would, sadly, be yet another manifestation of the general degradation of government integrity.
And... what are the figures for 2014, and 2013, and 2012....
I could be wrong. It could be that everyone is a now very happy with CASA’s behaviour and the number of legitimate complaints about CASA each year these days can be counted on the fingers of one hand. And pigs might fly.
Enjoy the pieces of silver.
More sophistry.
First: Why don’t you educate us all and define the phrase “within jurisdiction” and the bases upon which the Ombudsman decides to investigate or not to investigate. Even a first time interference poster wouldn’t be stupid enough to suggest that each year there are only single digit figures of people - or even zero - who have complaints about CASA.
One of the marvellous consequences of the creation of the ICC is that poor bastards who used to be able to reach out to the Ombudsman directly can no longer do so. They have to go through the ICC process first. That’s why the ICC was created. Lots of people are ground into despair by dealing with CASA and then the ICC. The prospect of dealing with yet another government bureaucracy that could be as awful as CASA is often enough to deter complainants.
Secondly: The 2015/16 numbers you quoted are bull****. I know it, first hand. Let me stress that I’m not suggesting that you’re making it up. After all, a first time poster would only post material in good faith. I’m asserting that the Ombudsman received at least one “within jurisdiction” approach about CASA during 2015/16, and investigated. It may well be that the Ombudsman didn’t report it as such. That outcome would, sadly, be yet another manifestation of the general degradation of government integrity.
And... what are the figures for 2014, and 2013, and 2012....
I could be wrong. It could be that everyone is a now very happy with CASA’s behaviour and the number of legitimate complaints about CASA each year these days can be counted on the fingers of one hand. And pigs might fly.
Enjoy the pieces of silver.
2011/12 7 of 22,991
2012/13 2 of 18,097
2013/14 3 of 17,577
The assertion you need to go to the ICC first is wrong. Don’t waste your time with the ICC Clareprop and others, you can go straight to the Ombudsman.
My question I guess would be:- Is this matter all about a single AOC being used to support numerous other operators? Makes good sense to me!
The reason I ask is that I trawled through the aircraft register this afternoon and I notice a trend where a lot of biz-jets appear to be operating under one or more AOC's or aligned with an 'operator' possibly as a matter of convenience. I'm not suggesting any wrong doing. Common operators that appear to either manage or operate numerous biz jets include;- Execujet, Business Aviation Solutions, Australian Corporate Jet Centre.
I'm thinking along the lines that instead of all biz jet operators applying for their own AOC and having CASA delays in processing same hinder their business, that by aligning with an operator with mechanisms already in place that would save heaps of money. I am assuming that all the flash aircraft are operated the same way in accordance with the manufacturers specs... There would only be a need for one CP and one or two T&C people to cover a multitude of airframes. perhaps a contract arrangement?
So how does this differ from Glen Buckley's APTA? Seems rather odd to me.
The reason I ask is that I trawled through the aircraft register this afternoon and I notice a trend where a lot of biz-jets appear to be operating under one or more AOC's or aligned with an 'operator' possibly as a matter of convenience. I'm not suggesting any wrong doing. Common operators that appear to either manage or operate numerous biz jets include;- Execujet, Business Aviation Solutions, Australian Corporate Jet Centre.
I'm thinking along the lines that instead of all biz jet operators applying for their own AOC and having CASA delays in processing same hinder their business, that by aligning with an operator with mechanisms already in place that would save heaps of money. I am assuming that all the flash aircraft are operated the same way in accordance with the manufacturers specs... There would only be a need for one CP and one or two T&C people to cover a multitude of airframes. perhaps a contract arrangement?
So how does this differ from Glen Buckley's APTA? Seems rather odd to me.
Hi again, Flaming galah.
You didn’t educate us on the definition of the phrase “within jurisdiction” and the bases upon which the Ombudsman decides to investigate or not to investigate.
And of course someone “can” go straight to the Ombudsman. But that doesn’t mean the Ombudsman will investigate.
Once more to expose the sophistry: If Glen had gone straight to the Ombudsman, would the Ombudsman have considered Glen’s complaint to have been within jurisdiction and would the Ombudsman have conducted its own investigation of Glen’s complaint if the CASA ICC process had not been exhausted first? Yes or no?
I say again: I sat in a meeting convened by the Commonwealth Ombudsman in which the distinction was drawn between what the Ombudsman’s office described as the ‘frequent flyers’ and the non ‘frequent flyers’ - the agencies against which lots of complaints were made versus those against which few complaints were made. The funny thing is that you appear not to comprehend, or you think that some people are too dumb to notice, the patently obvious evidence of the distinction. Ironically, that evidence includes the fact that the CASA ICC was created in the first place!
Why would the CASA ICC have been created in the first place? Why don’t other Commonwealth transport regulators have their own ICCs? What’s the equivalent of the Aviation Safety Regulatory Review carried out in relation to other Commonwealth transport regulators? Why is the industry’s level of distrust of CASA as high as it is compared with the level of distrust of other industries of their Commonwealth regulators?
One of the reasons for the level of distrust of CASA is the frequency with which spin doctors try to do what you’re doing, Flaming galah.
You didn’t educate us on the definition of the phrase “within jurisdiction” and the bases upon which the Ombudsman decides to investigate or not to investigate.
And of course someone “can” go straight to the Ombudsman. But that doesn’t mean the Ombudsman will investigate.
Once more to expose the sophistry: If Glen had gone straight to the Ombudsman, would the Ombudsman have considered Glen’s complaint to have been within jurisdiction and would the Ombudsman have conducted its own investigation of Glen’s complaint if the CASA ICC process had not been exhausted first? Yes or no?
I say again: I sat in a meeting convened by the Commonwealth Ombudsman in which the distinction was drawn between what the Ombudsman’s office described as the ‘frequent flyers’ and the non ‘frequent flyers’ - the agencies against which lots of complaints were made versus those against which few complaints were made. The funny thing is that you appear not to comprehend, or you think that some people are too dumb to notice, the patently obvious evidence of the distinction. Ironically, that evidence includes the fact that the CASA ICC was created in the first place!
Why would the CASA ICC have been created in the first place? Why don’t other Commonwealth transport regulators have their own ICCs? What’s the equivalent of the Aviation Safety Regulatory Review carried out in relation to other Commonwealth transport regulators? Why is the industry’s level of distrust of CASA as high as it is compared with the level of distrust of other industries of their Commonwealth regulators?
One of the reasons for the level of distrust of CASA is the frequency with which spin doctors try to do what you’re doing, Flaming galah.