Glen Buckley and Australian small business -V- CASA
Thread Starter
The million views
Thanks everyone. Looks like this thread will hit a million views over the next 24 hours. Your input and comments are all appreciated. Bendalot. You still there?
Cheers all have a great day, travel safe. Cheers. Glen
Cheers all have a great day, travel safe. Cheers. Glen
Lead Balloon, you are over complicating matters.
Q: How does an employer maintain control of an employee?
A: By the simple operation of firing them if they do not comply with the employers instructions.
Q: How does the employer enforce the firing?
A: By physical measures:
-1) All aircraft are secured per CASA/Whatever instructions - throttle lock, wheel clamp, padlock. etc.
-2) The keys to all the aircraft are securely held by the owner/manager and are not released without a valid booking to a valid instructor.
-3) The instructor may have a swipe card that can be deactivated on firing. In addition, company email access is normally terminated within microseconds of firing. The students must also be advised.
….The rogue now has no legal access to the schools aircraft or facilities.
As for the school “going rogue”, I would have thought a simple termination clause in the agreement with APTA to the effect that AOC coverage can be withdrawn and what will happen if it is should be enough.
‘’The power to terminate activities is the ultimate power to enforce compliance.
Q: How does an employer maintain control of an employee?
A: By the simple operation of firing them if they do not comply with the employers instructions.
Q: How does the employer enforce the firing?
A: By physical measures:
-1) All aircraft are secured per CASA/Whatever instructions - throttle lock, wheel clamp, padlock. etc.
-2) The keys to all the aircraft are securely held by the owner/manager and are not released without a valid booking to a valid instructor.
-3) The instructor may have a swipe card that can be deactivated on firing. In addition, company email access is normally terminated within microseconds of firing. The students must also be advised.
….The rogue now has no legal access to the schools aircraft or facilities.
As for the school “going rogue”, I would have thought a simple termination clause in the agreement with APTA to the effect that AOC coverage can be withdrawn and what will happen if it is should be enough.
‘’The power to terminate activities is the ultimate power to enforce compliance.
LB will correct me if I am wrong....but after 2 pages of people trying to answer his question. Nobody has mentioned who it is that is responsible for notifying CASA.
I would argue, that is what CASA want to know. And if they want to take matters into their own hands, whom is it that they contact to achieve the same outcome? Thats why CASA wanted the contract details....
Is that your point LB?
Alpha
I would argue, that is what CASA want to know. And if they want to take matters into their own hands, whom is it that they contact to achieve the same outcome? Thats why CASA wanted the contract details....
Is that your point LB?
Alpha
Lead Balloon, you are over complicating matters.
Q: How does an employer maintain control of an employee?
A: By the simple operation of firing them if they do not comply with the employers instructions.
Q: How does the employer enforce the firing?
A: By physical measures:
-1) All aircraft are secured per CASA/Whatever instructions - throttle lock, wheel clamp, padlock. etc.
-2) The keys to all the aircraft are securely held by the owner/manager and are not released without a valid booking to a valid instructor.
-3) The instructor may have a swipe card that can be deactivated on firing. In addition, company email access is normally terminated within microseconds of firing. The students must also be advised.
….The rogue now has no legal access to the schools aircraft or facilities.
As for the school “going rogue”, I would have thought a simple termination clause in the agreement with APTA to the effect that AOC coverage can be withdrawn and what will happen if it is should be enough.
‘’The power to terminate activities is the ultimate power to enforce compliance.
Q: How does an employer maintain control of an employee?
A: By the simple operation of firing them if they do not comply with the employers instructions.
Q: How does the employer enforce the firing?
A: By physical measures:
-1) All aircraft are secured per CASA/Whatever instructions - throttle lock, wheel clamp, padlock. etc.
-2) The keys to all the aircraft are securely held by the owner/manager and are not released without a valid booking to a valid instructor.
-3) The instructor may have a swipe card that can be deactivated on firing. In addition, company email access is normally terminated within microseconds of firing. The students must also be advised.
….The rogue now has no legal access to the schools aircraft or facilities.
As for the school “going rogue”, I would have thought a simple termination clause in the agreement with APTA to the effect that AOC coverage can be withdrawn and what will happen if it is should be enough.
‘’The power to terminate activities is the ultimate power to enforce compliance.
It seems I continue to be failing to make what seems to me to be (and was clearly for CASA) a fundamentally important structural distinction.
In the APTA model, most if not all of the ‘Alliance’ ‘member’ personnel are NOT APTA’s employees. APTA is NOT the owner or lessee of the premises the ‘Alliance’ ‘member’ utilises for ground training. APTA is NOT the registered operator of the aircraft utilised by ‘Alliance’ ‘member’ to deliver flying training. Absent some form of binding legal agreement that ‘bridges’ these gaps, APTA has no legal and effective control over a bunch of moving parts in flying training being conducted under APTA’s AOC. CASA (eventually) asked for APTA to provide evidence of how those ‘gaps’ would be ‘bridged’.
A clause in a contract giving APTA a right to ‘withdraw’ ‘AOC coverage’ does not make that ‘coverage’ ‘disappear’ just because APTA says so. CASA decides what AOCs ‘cover’ and do not ‘cover’. Unless and until CASA varies the AOC (or suspends or cancels it) flying training at the ‘rogue’ ‘base’ continues to be authorised by APTA’s AOC.
No Alpha: My point is not about who notifies whom of what.
LB:
If that is the case, then how is it APTA’’S responsibility to enforce compliance? It’s CASAs responsibility. You cannot have responsibility for an action without authority to control the action.
An employee is under the control of the employer. That is settled. If an employer stands to lose access to APTA resources if they transgress, surely that is enough?
This argument is tautological BS.
[A clause in a contract giving APTA a right to ‘withdraw’ ‘AOC coverage’ does not make that ‘coverage’ ‘disappear’ just because APTA says so. CASA decides what AOCs ‘cover’ and do not ‘cover’. Unless and until CASA varies the AOC (or suspends or cancels it) flying training at the ‘rogue’ ‘base’ continues to be authorised by APTA’s AOC.
An employee is under the control of the employer. That is settled. If an employer stands to lose access to APTA resources if they transgress, surely that is enough?
This argument is tautological BS.
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: New Zealand
Age: 71
Posts: 1,475
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tautological bull**** is actually CASA’s method of operation.
It is somewhat difficult to apply any sense of logic to most of CASA’s decisions or methods. CASA is a regulatory authority that has morphed into some kind of Frankenstein. Many of the regulations aren’t fit for purpose and the Act is outdated and convoluted. In many ways Glen is the victim of a failed system.
It is somewhat difficult to apply any sense of logic to most of CASA’s decisions or methods. CASA is a regulatory authority that has morphed into some kind of Frankenstein. Many of the regulations aren’t fit for purpose and the Act is outdated and convoluted. In many ways Glen is the victim of a failed system.
CASA decides what AOCs ‘cover’ and do not ‘cover’.
Then it's CASA's problem, and I'm sure they would handle that with alacrity.
But ‘handling it with alacrity’ does not involve CASA taking regulatory action against Joe Bloggs alone. And thanks Sunfish, once again, for making my points for me.
Compliance is, indeed, CASA’s responsibility. And how does CASA secure compliance?
Let’s consider Sunfish Pty Ltd’s application for a flying training AOC…
CASA Question 1. Please set out the legal effective means through which the Applicant will control the activities of personnel engaged to deliver flying training, to ensure their compliance with regulatory requirements.
Sunfish Pty Ltd’s Answer: Compliance is CASA’s responsibility. I’ll leave CASA to secure compliance of those personnel with those requirements.
Does CASA issue Sunfish Pty Ltd a flying training AOC? I think not.
CASA doesn’t issue AOC’s authorising flying training to an entity that does not demonstrate how it will exercise legal and effective control over the activities of the personnel who will be delivering training under the authority of that AOC. At least CASA shouldn’t…
CASA had a bit of a ‘whoops moment’ back in 2018 when the adults realised the worker bees had been busy helping APTA build a structure that turned out to have some flaws: Gaps between the AOC holding entity on the one hand and the people and premises and aircraft of ‘Alliance’ ‘members’ on the other, such that the AOC holding entity could not take the equivalent of the legal and effective steps set out in Sunfish’s post #2202 (and mine of #2143). However, those gaps could be filled. That was the point of CASA’s email of March 2019. (Of course CASA didn’t admit it had f*cked up in not making the necessity to fill that gap clear, much earlier in the process. CASA was always on notice that the APTA model involved the engagement of personnel that weren’t APTA’s employees, the utilisation of premises of which APTA was neither owner nor lessee and the utilisation of aircraft of which APTA was not the registered operator. And that failure to admit the f*ck up is the typically sleazy behaviour that’s earned CASA its reputation.)
Thread Starter
Its all about intent.
As I alluded to in an earlier post, its all about intent. At work on occasions I get abused in one day, more than most people would get in a lifetime. Often those comments are threatening and personal, and on occasion very "close to home."
Its water off a ducks back because i think about the intent. The comment is usually motivated by something totally unrelated. Drilling down to the root cause and addressing it is what makes the job so challenging, and satisfying.
This matter is really all about "intent". What was trying to be achieved and by whom. There is no doubt that Mr. Aleck decided prior to October 2018 that he was closing down my operation, hence the formal allegations of misfeasance in public office that i have raised with the previous Deputy PM, The CASA Board, as well as before the Senate.
I somewhat agree with Lead Balloons point. It was in fact quite easy to fix, and should not have remained unresolved after a staggering 8 months, with those trading restrictions in place. Quite simply, Mr Aleck knew that the restrictions on trade were damaging the Business. That was made very clear on multiple occasions in writing, with the first being sent within 24 hours of CASAs notification that i was suddenly operating unlawfully.
Please be assured that the early efforts resisting the closure of the business were very strong. I believe my first post was approximately 6 months after this entire matter started. It was only CASA realized they were on shaky ground about it being unalwful that the topic changed to contracts as being a possible "lifeline". for the business.
I have a recording from my Accountants Office assuring me that after more than 6 months if I put the suggested CASA wording into the Contracts that CASA only provided 24 hours earlier that the restrictions would be lifted.
CASA had those contracts within 48 hours. CASA advised that they were acceptable and we could return to business as usual. Hours later they reversed that opinion, stuck by the original determination, and forced all customers to leave including my own flying school of more than a decade.
I desperately wanted to resolve it. By now I had lost my home, and my parents who were funding staff salaries had put in $300,000. They also had run out of money. I would have had this entire matter finalized within 24 hours if that is what Mr Aleck wanted. I, like many others who have had their lives impacted by this man, were a victim of a reverse engineered process, by which Mr. Aleck achieves his desired outcome. I have been contacted by many of those victims..
I have two documents underway at the moment. The complaint regarding the false and misleading information provided to the Ombudsman's Office. That will be submitted on Monday.
Shortly after will be an allegation of misfeasnace depending on the response to my complaint. The recipients of that are yet to be confirmed. I have put a fair bit of work into that already so hope to have that the week after. I think that will bring some further clarity to this matter
Once those two documents are complete, I intend to correspond with every Government politician, and most particularly to our new Labor Member, Ms Carina Garland.
As the Owner of the Business and the person most impacted, please be assured that Mr aleck was never going to let this matter be resolved. Never
Cheers. Glen
Its water off a ducks back because i think about the intent. The comment is usually motivated by something totally unrelated. Drilling down to the root cause and addressing it is what makes the job so challenging, and satisfying.
This matter is really all about "intent". What was trying to be achieved and by whom. There is no doubt that Mr. Aleck decided prior to October 2018 that he was closing down my operation, hence the formal allegations of misfeasance in public office that i have raised with the previous Deputy PM, The CASA Board, as well as before the Senate.
I somewhat agree with Lead Balloons point. It was in fact quite easy to fix, and should not have remained unresolved after a staggering 8 months, with those trading restrictions in place. Quite simply, Mr Aleck knew that the restrictions on trade were damaging the Business. That was made very clear on multiple occasions in writing, with the first being sent within 24 hours of CASAs notification that i was suddenly operating unlawfully.
Please be assured that the early efforts resisting the closure of the business were very strong. I believe my first post was approximately 6 months after this entire matter started. It was only CASA realized they were on shaky ground about it being unalwful that the topic changed to contracts as being a possible "lifeline". for the business.
I have a recording from my Accountants Office assuring me that after more than 6 months if I put the suggested CASA wording into the Contracts that CASA only provided 24 hours earlier that the restrictions would be lifted.
CASA had those contracts within 48 hours. CASA advised that they were acceptable and we could return to business as usual. Hours later they reversed that opinion, stuck by the original determination, and forced all customers to leave including my own flying school of more than a decade.
I desperately wanted to resolve it. By now I had lost my home, and my parents who were funding staff salaries had put in $300,000. They also had run out of money. I would have had this entire matter finalized within 24 hours if that is what Mr Aleck wanted. I, like many others who have had their lives impacted by this man, were a victim of a reverse engineered process, by which Mr. Aleck achieves his desired outcome. I have been contacted by many of those victims..
I have two documents underway at the moment. The complaint regarding the false and misleading information provided to the Ombudsman's Office. That will be submitted on Monday.
Shortly after will be an allegation of misfeasnace depending on the response to my complaint. The recipients of that are yet to be confirmed. I have put a fair bit of work into that already so hope to have that the week after. I think that will bring some further clarity to this matter
Once those two documents are complete, I intend to correspond with every Government politician, and most particularly to our new Labor Member, Ms Carina Garland.
As the Owner of the Business and the person most impacted, please be assured that Mr aleck was never going to let this matter be resolved. Never
Cheers. Glen
Lead Balloon,
I didnt mean to avoid your question regarding who paid salaries, and will address it here more clearly to ensure i get the best feedback.
The MFT Base, the Senior Base Pilot was paid directly by me.
The AVIA base, a 10 year employee of mine took up that position with his salary paid for by the Owner of that business..
The White Star Base, an EX CASA Flight Operations Inspector was the Senior Base Pilot. He was the designer of our Flight School Management and Learning Management System. Salary paid by his business.
The Vortex Base, a 5 year employee of mine took up that position with his salary paid by the Owner of that Business.
The TVSA base, a 10 year employee of mine took up that position, with her salary paid by the Owner of that business.
LTF Base the SBP was a past student of our school, with salary paid by that business.
The Ballarat Aero Club had ceased operations as it did not have the required Key Personnel. As it was an aero club rather than a more commercial venture, I paid the salary for the Base Pilot.
The Latrobe Valley Aero Club was treated as per the Ballarat Aero Club.
Simjet being the 737 Sim Centre in Brisbane, the Senior Base Pilot was an ex-Airforce/Airline Pilot with a background in training. Salary paid by that business. Noting that being a Sim only facility it needed a Quality assurance Manager rather than a SBP. There is no SBP in the legislation, that was an internally specified position in our Ops manual/Exposition to increase supervision levels. The Legislated position at this facility was a Quality Assurance Manager
What was known as the CFI or Head of Operations was a roaming position. There were two CASA approved HOOs (CFI), with a third that had completed her twelve month induction and was ready for the CASA interview. This administrative task was placed on hold by CASA throughout the 8 months as part of the "administrative freeze" CASA placed on all operations i.e. no regulatory tasks were processed, this included approving personnel, simulators, and new courses. All legislated Key Personnel 2x Group HOO, 2 X Group CEO, and 2 X Group Safety Manager were paid by me.
I hope that clears it up. Cheers. Glen
I didnt mean to avoid your question regarding who paid salaries, and will address it here more clearly to ensure i get the best feedback.
The MFT Base, the Senior Base Pilot was paid directly by me.
The AVIA base, a 10 year employee of mine took up that position with his salary paid for by the Owner of that business..
The White Star Base, an EX CASA Flight Operations Inspector was the Senior Base Pilot. He was the designer of our Flight School Management and Learning Management System. Salary paid by his business.
The Vortex Base, a 5 year employee of mine took up that position with his salary paid by the Owner of that Business.
The TVSA base, a 10 year employee of mine took up that position, with her salary paid by the Owner of that business.
LTF Base the SBP was a past student of our school, with salary paid by that business.
The Ballarat Aero Club had ceased operations as it did not have the required Key Personnel. As it was an aero club rather than a more commercial venture, I paid the salary for the Base Pilot.
The Latrobe Valley Aero Club was treated as per the Ballarat Aero Club.
Simjet being the 737 Sim Centre in Brisbane, the Senior Base Pilot was an ex-Airforce/Airline Pilot with a background in training. Salary paid by that business. Noting that being a Sim only facility it needed a Quality assurance Manager rather than a SBP. There is no SBP in the legislation, that was an internally specified position in our Ops manual/Exposition to increase supervision levels. The Legislated position at this facility was a Quality Assurance Manager
What was known as the CFI or Head of Operations was a roaming position. There were two CASA approved HOOs (CFI), with a third that had completed her twelve month induction and was ready for the CASA interview. This administrative task was placed on hold by CASA throughout the 8 months as part of the "administrative freeze" CASA placed on all operations i.e. no regulatory tasks were processed, this included approving personnel, simulators, and new courses. All legislated Key Personnel 2x Group HOO, 2 X Group CEO, and 2 X Group Safety Manager were paid by me.
I hope that clears it up. Cheers. Glen
So am I correct in saying that none of the Senior Base Pilots or instructors at any of the 'Bases' were APTA employees when they were working in that capacity at the 'Bases', except for the Senior Base Pilot at the MFT Base (and the Ballarat Base when it was operating)? (I'm not sure what 'treated as per the Ballarat Aero Club' means with respect to LTV - does that mean the Senior Base Pilot at LTV was an APTA employee until LTV stopped operating?)
Thread Starter
"So am I correct in saying that none of the Senior Base Pilots or instructors at any of the 'Bases' were APTA employees, except for the Senior Base Pilot at the MFT Base (and the Ballarat Base when it was operating)? (I'm not sure what 'treated as per the Ballarat Aero Club' means with respect to LTV - does that mean the Senior Base Pilot at LTV was an APTA employee until LTV stopped operating?"
Correct. Ballarat was operating fulltime and growing very quickly. Delivered its first ever Instrument Rating, purchased a sim etc. The Latrobe Valley Senior Base Pilot was also paid by me. All other Senior Base Pilots were paid by their business.
All instructors were inducted to the one system and could operate from any base as they frequently did. The base that the service was delivered from would pay the salary. Example, and aerobatic specialist from the Latrobe valley base would also deliver training at Moorabbin and get paid by the Moorabbin base, similarly an IFR specialist would be deployed to Ballarat to develop Instrument rating training. etc
Heading into work now, and off air until tomorrow. Cheers. Glen
Correct. Ballarat was operating fulltime and growing very quickly. Delivered its first ever Instrument Rating, purchased a sim etc. The Latrobe Valley Senior Base Pilot was also paid by me. All other Senior Base Pilots were paid by their business.
All instructors were inducted to the one system and could operate from any base as they frequently did. The base that the service was delivered from would pay the salary. Example, and aerobatic specialist from the Latrobe valley base would also deliver training at Moorabbin and get paid by the Moorabbin base, similarly an IFR specialist would be deployed to Ballarat to develop Instrument rating training. etc
Heading into work now, and off air until tomorrow. Cheers. Glen
Thread Starter
Aleck- departing CASA
I have just taken a telephone call informing me that Aleck is departing CASA. Apparently good source but caller was reluctant to reveal much more than that. Anybody got any info? I mean he is well into his late 70s, presumably well off, and its probably about time.
Gosh. He's probably the only person on the planet that understands Australia's aviation 'safety' regulatory system. Who's going to run CASA if he leaves?
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: New Zealand
Age: 71
Posts: 1,475
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But don’t pop the celebration corks too soon,
his padwan ANUStasi has been groomed by Aleck for over 20 years so you can expect more of the same foolishness from the CASA legal department. He is another sheltered workshop bureaucrap who wouldn’t be able work in the real world, a world far different than the retarded fantasy land of CASA.
Thread Starter
Which got me wondering to where Mr Crawford is now
Apparently here, and it certainly seems that he has some good attributes. About (luamair.com)
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: New Zealand
Age: 71
Posts: 1,475
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Apparently here, and it certainly seems that he has some good attributes. About (luamair.com)
Thread Starter
Lead balloon and others
With regard to the applications for bases. These applications were substantial. They included,
A cover letter that very clearly identified the exact nature of the structure.
A Significant Change application. A very comprehensive CASA form requiring high levels of detailed information.
The BPM or Base Procedures Manual. These manuals did not control Company Procedures. That information was in the Group Exposition. The BPM was a “differences manual”. These included such “unique” information geographical dependent information including;
· The ERP. Emergency Response Plan tailored for that location.
· Drug and Alcohol testing procedures after an accident or incident, with local testing centres and contacts.
· Aerodrome procedures for that aerodrome.
· Fuelling procedures tailored to the nature of fuel delivery at the base.
· Any pertinent safety information to that base.
· Etc
Importantly, and perhaps relevant. A comprehensive risk assessment and supporting safety case. These were comprehensive submissions, and to a very high quality. I make that Statement because that was the exact wording that CASA used. They were very impressed. These risk assessments included attending to scenarios that Lead Balloon has put forward and also the more mundane risks.
Tomorrow morning, I intend to make a Freedom of Information Request for those submissions. Noting that CASA has 30 days to respond, I suggest CASA will make me wait 30 days. Once I receive that application and the risk assessment, I will post it up here. The scenario that Lead Balloon put forward was discussed as part of our risk assessment, and discussed at length with CASA.
We had applied for bases earlier and they had been approved by CASA. In August and October of 2017, I submitted two further applications. These applications were far more comprehensive applications that the earlier ones. These two applications are slightly over one year before CASA “first became aware” of my structure, but they are our first applications as a Part 141 and 142 Organisation. The legislation required far more comprehensive applications than in the CAR 5 regulations.
I appreciate that it will have no legal point to posting that document. What it will do is demonstrate that due consideration was put into these risks and they were considered and addressed.
A cover letter that very clearly identified the exact nature of the structure.
A Significant Change application. A very comprehensive CASA form requiring high levels of detailed information.
The BPM or Base Procedures Manual. These manuals did not control Company Procedures. That information was in the Group Exposition. The BPM was a “differences manual”. These included such “unique” information geographical dependent information including;
· The ERP. Emergency Response Plan tailored for that location.
· Drug and Alcohol testing procedures after an accident or incident, with local testing centres and contacts.
· Aerodrome procedures for that aerodrome.
· Fuelling procedures tailored to the nature of fuel delivery at the base.
· Any pertinent safety information to that base.
· Etc
Importantly, and perhaps relevant. A comprehensive risk assessment and supporting safety case. These were comprehensive submissions, and to a very high quality. I make that Statement because that was the exact wording that CASA used. They were very impressed. These risk assessments included attending to scenarios that Lead Balloon has put forward and also the more mundane risks.
Tomorrow morning, I intend to make a Freedom of Information Request for those submissions. Noting that CASA has 30 days to respond, I suggest CASA will make me wait 30 days. Once I receive that application and the risk assessment, I will post it up here. The scenario that Lead Balloon put forward was discussed as part of our risk assessment, and discussed at length with CASA.
We had applied for bases earlier and they had been approved by CASA. In August and October of 2017, I submitted two further applications. These applications were far more comprehensive applications that the earlier ones. These two applications are slightly over one year before CASA “first became aware” of my structure, but they are our first applications as a Part 141 and 142 Organisation. The legislation required far more comprehensive applications than in the CAR 5 regulations.
I appreciate that it will have no legal point to posting that document. What it will do is demonstrate that due consideration was put into these risks and they were considered and addressed.
Thread Starter
The Base Induction
I had posted this in a much ealier thread but here is the form and procedure that CASA approved 18 months before they first became aware of APTAs structure. This was the procedure for all bases after we were approved To part 141 and 142 in April 2017. I include it because it demonstrates somewhat the "effort" that was being put into doing something actually pretty good. Not perfect and subject to continuous improvement but a good starting point nevertheless. I include it also because it refers to the contents of the BPM or "differences" manual.https://www.dropbox.com/t/Urpcsm3SB9BKJx8Y
The APTA structure was fine in principle from a regulatory perspective, because Parts 141 and 142 make express provision for personnel who are not the employees of the certificate holder to nonetheless be utilised in the conduct of activities under the authority of the certificate. Here is the definition from Part 141 and there’s an equivalent one in Part 142:
There it is in ‘black and white’: Paras (b) and (c) cover people who are not the certificate holder’s employees. (Which is also why the stuff about the Parts being constructed on the basis that certificate holder personnel are assumed to be ‘in all respects agents of’ the certificate holder in CASA’s March 19 email is bull****.)
Unsurprisingly, one of the conditions of a Part 141 and Part 142 certificate is that: “each of the operator’s personnel must comply with each provision of civil aviation legislation that applies to the operator’s authorised Part 141 flight training”. But don’t make the ‘rooky error’ of thinking that that confers some power on the certificate holder or imposes some obligation on the personnel. It is neither. It is just a condition on the certificate. But…
A contravention of that (or any other) condition of the certificate is an offence by certificate holder giving CASA grounds to take action in relation to the certificate. To make this clear, if one of APTA’s ‘Alliance’ ‘member’ instructors ‘goes rogue’ at a ‘base’ 100nm away from APTA HQ and key personnel by, for example, being in the habit of letting students buzz their Mum’s house at 500’ AGL, APTA commits an offence (as does the instructor against CAR 157). So for all those folk who reckon the ‘Alliance’ ‘member’ rogue is a compliance issue for CASA: You’re right. But CASA takes the compliance action against the certificate holder as well as the rogue.
Back to basics: When someone applies for an AOC, or an extension to the scope of an AOC, CASA requires the applicant to demonstrate how he, she or it will legally and effectively comply with the rules applicable to the scope of the activities that will be authorised by the new/expanded AOC. Those rules include the condition on the AOC that “each of the operator’s personnel must comply with each provision of civil aviation legislation that applies to the operator’s authorised Part 141 flight training”.
I have little doubt that APTA carried out comprehensive risk assessments and produced corresponding manuals and expositions comprising a rain forest or two. Given that the greatest aviation nation in the world permits the training of pilots by instructors without the rigmarole of an operator certification system, all of the extra stuff required of a Part 141 or 142 certificate holder ‘must’ make their operations ‘safer’.
But as is so often the case when regulatory requirements are so voluminous and complex, people lost sight of the bigger picture which required better initial attention. (Cue story of CFIT while the pilots were focussing on a blown instrument light bulb.) How does the certificate holder exercise legal and effective control over the operational activities of personnel that are not employees of the certificate holder, utilising premises of which the certificate holder is neither owner nor lessee and utilising aircraft of which the certificate holder is not the registered operator, at locations many nautical miles distant from the certificate holder’s ‘head office’ and organisational key personnel?
I’m confident that the worker bees in CASA with whom APTA was initially dealing were mightily impressed with the rain forests of manuals and expositions and risk assessments. But they are not the answer to the question. They merely expose why the answer to the question is important. It’s all well and good to point out that some manual requires someone do something, but unless you can identify, with precision, the basis upon which the person is obliged to comply with that manual and, more importantly, what you can practicably do if the person fails to comply, the manual is no answer. The person sitting in a room and being ‘inducted’ is no answer. The person crossing their heart and hoping to die if they fail to comply with the manual is no answer.
The answer is, first, the creation of a direct legal relationship between APTA on the one hand and ‘Alliance’ ‘member’ personnel and anyone who had legal control over premises and aircraft utilised by those personnel for activities under APTA’s certificate on the other, giving APTA and its employed key personnel legal control and, secondly, the demonstration of practical means of exercising that control. That was what CASA was trying to say in so many (unnecessary) words in its email of March 19 and which should have been said in words of one syllable by the CASA worker bees when APTA’s ‘membership’ was expanding.
personnel, for a Part 141 operator, includes any of the following persons who have duties or responsibilities that relate to the safe conduct of the operator’s authorised Part 141 flight training:
(a) an employee of the operator;
(b) a person engaged by the operator (whether by contract or other arrangement) to provide services to the operator;
(c) an employee of a person mentioned in paragraph (b).
(a) an employee of the operator;
(b) a person engaged by the operator (whether by contract or other arrangement) to provide services to the operator;
(c) an employee of a person mentioned in paragraph (b).
Unsurprisingly, one of the conditions of a Part 141 and Part 142 certificate is that: “each of the operator’s personnel must comply with each provision of civil aviation legislation that applies to the operator’s authorised Part 141 flight training”. But don’t make the ‘rooky error’ of thinking that that confers some power on the certificate holder or imposes some obligation on the personnel. It is neither. It is just a condition on the certificate. But…
A contravention of that (or any other) condition of the certificate is an offence by certificate holder giving CASA grounds to take action in relation to the certificate. To make this clear, if one of APTA’s ‘Alliance’ ‘member’ instructors ‘goes rogue’ at a ‘base’ 100nm away from APTA HQ and key personnel by, for example, being in the habit of letting students buzz their Mum’s house at 500’ AGL, APTA commits an offence (as does the instructor against CAR 157). So for all those folk who reckon the ‘Alliance’ ‘member’ rogue is a compliance issue for CASA: You’re right. But CASA takes the compliance action against the certificate holder as well as the rogue.
Back to basics: When someone applies for an AOC, or an extension to the scope of an AOC, CASA requires the applicant to demonstrate how he, she or it will legally and effectively comply with the rules applicable to the scope of the activities that will be authorised by the new/expanded AOC. Those rules include the condition on the AOC that “each of the operator’s personnel must comply with each provision of civil aviation legislation that applies to the operator’s authorised Part 141 flight training”.
I have little doubt that APTA carried out comprehensive risk assessments and produced corresponding manuals and expositions comprising a rain forest or two. Given that the greatest aviation nation in the world permits the training of pilots by instructors without the rigmarole of an operator certification system, all of the extra stuff required of a Part 141 or 142 certificate holder ‘must’ make their operations ‘safer’.
But as is so often the case when regulatory requirements are so voluminous and complex, people lost sight of the bigger picture which required better initial attention. (Cue story of CFIT while the pilots were focussing on a blown instrument light bulb.) How does the certificate holder exercise legal and effective control over the operational activities of personnel that are not employees of the certificate holder, utilising premises of which the certificate holder is neither owner nor lessee and utilising aircraft of which the certificate holder is not the registered operator, at locations many nautical miles distant from the certificate holder’s ‘head office’ and organisational key personnel?
I’m confident that the worker bees in CASA with whom APTA was initially dealing were mightily impressed with the rain forests of manuals and expositions and risk assessments. But they are not the answer to the question. They merely expose why the answer to the question is important. It’s all well and good to point out that some manual requires someone do something, but unless you can identify, with precision, the basis upon which the person is obliged to comply with that manual and, more importantly, what you can practicably do if the person fails to comply, the manual is no answer. The person sitting in a room and being ‘inducted’ is no answer. The person crossing their heart and hoping to die if they fail to comply with the manual is no answer.
The answer is, first, the creation of a direct legal relationship between APTA on the one hand and ‘Alliance’ ‘member’ personnel and anyone who had legal control over premises and aircraft utilised by those personnel for activities under APTA’s certificate on the other, giving APTA and its employed key personnel legal control and, secondly, the demonstration of practical means of exercising that control. That was what CASA was trying to say in so many (unnecessary) words in its email of March 19 and which should have been said in words of one syllable by the CASA worker bees when APTA’s ‘membership’ was expanding.
LB:
If that is the case, then how is it APTA’’S responsibility to enforce compliance? It’s CASAs responsibility. You cannot have responsibility for an action without authority to control the action.
An employee is under the control of the employer. That is settled. If an employer stands to lose access to APTA resources if they transgress, surely that is enough?
This argument is tautological BS.
If that is the case, then how is it APTA’’S responsibility to enforce compliance? It’s CASAs responsibility. You cannot have responsibility for an action without authority to control the action.
An employee is under the control of the employer. That is settled. If an employer stands to lose access to APTA resources if they transgress, surely that is enough?
This argument is tautological BS.
What does it say about the integrity of CASA surveillance and assessment processes that this was not addressed in the initial approval - in fact, I believe this thread explains several times at the beginning that not only did CASA endorse the APTA model but actively encouraged it and provided input into the contracts that were in place, only later to say they were inadequate and not realise the previous CASA personnel had suggested them.
This rests at CASA's feet. An organisation responsible for regulation and oversight of aviation safety that either; a) did a u-turn on it's own decision v.v. APTA for reasons unknown; or b) has such poor assessment and surveillance procedures that what they basically were saying was a 'huge' problem sailed past the keeper at the initial approval stage.
It's either one or the other and I believe this thread contains multiple examples of CASA throwing up reasons for their actions and each one was effectively refuted by Glen using CASA's own instruments and determinations, of which the surveillance team were not aware or did not understand - but Glen did. Again, what does that say about CASA??
It is difficult to read the above mentioned and not conclude that each time Glen neutralised one argument, CASA just moved on to another argument until they found one that they thought might 'fly' so to speak. How is that not a determined effort to shut someone down for any reason they can find, followed by apparently utilising the overwhelming bureaucratic heft of the Commonwealth to effectively squash any complaint or call for recompense.
In a country that has in the last ten years; raided journalists and news organisations for evidence of whistleblower sources when a reporter wrote a story accusing instruments of the government of alleged murder (the alleged Afghanistan incidents), exposing allegedly corrupt practices in the ATO, someone in Defence whistleblowing details about Afghanistan and of course, the most prominent case; Witness K and his lawyer Bernard Collaery being subject to a 'secret trial' - the sort that belongs in Soviet era spy novels, not modern Australia - I have no direct information about CASA's intentions but in this country right now, although logic and decency has prevailed and the Collaery trial has been abandoned, I would not put it past government to be vindictive and merciless in destroying someones life and career - if the foregoing doesn't convince people, look at what the High Court said about Robodebt.