Glen Buckley and Australian small business -V- CASA
Thread Starter
Follow up to meeting with local MP 3 of 3
Request Five- CASA asserts that personnel operating under an AOC must also be employees to ensure operational control. Is this valid?
This entire matter of the closure of my business has the potential to have significant impact on the entire aviation industry because it deals very much with the relationship between the “personnel” operating under an Air Operator Certificate (AOC) as opposed to “employees” operating under an AOC.
This was the basis that CASA used to close my business down.
Recall that my business would never have been approached by CASA and would never have been closed down by CASA if all the “personnel” operating under my AOC were also my “employees.”
Despite all the other narratives running in the background, it really was a single-issue matter.
The business was not closed down by Mr Aleck against any quality outcome. It was closed down because the structure utilised personnel that were not my “employees”, and because I utilised some personnel that were not my employees but the employees of another entity such as Ballarat Aero Club, Mr Aleck from his office in Canberra determined that my business structure was illegal, and that “operational control” was compromised because of that arrangement.
If there is any doubt about CASAs position on this, I would also refer you to the email from Craig Martin the CASA Executive Manager of Regulatory Services and Surveillance, at the time, where he stated, ‘For the avoidance of doubt, this would allow flight training to be conducted by APTA employees only – not employees of affiliates.” This was in late June of 2019, eight months after this matter began.
Mr Alecks position was that all personnel must be employees of the Authorisation Holder because that is the only way to ensure operational control.
In fact CASA used this as the basis to close down my flying school of ten years, Melbourne Flight Training because CASA claimed that not only did they have to be my personnel, they also had to be employees of the AOC Holder only.
For complete clarity. I am fully satisfied that CASA had absolutely no valid lawful basis to do this.
It really was a single-issue matter. The Commonwealth Ombudsman has been led to believe that there were concerns about “operational control”. I believe that the Ombudsman has formed the view that our systems, procedures etc may have been deficient when that is clearly not the case. Mr Alecks entire argument was that if the personnel operating under my AOC were not directly employed by me, then I must not have operational control.
The proposition by Mr Aleck, and its use to close down my business is ludicrous as you can appreciate. I put to you that every Authorisation Holder in the Country utilises personnel that are not employees of the Authorisation Holder, and that is in fact the very purpose of the CASA issued AOC, and as I pointed out earlier, it continues at Moorabbin Airport today.
By its very nature, aviation operations are complicated with many Entities coming together to deliver the service. That will include aircraft providers, maintenance organisations, fuel suppliers, pilots, catering, cabin crew etc. It just wouldn’t be practical that CASA makes each of those entities responsible to CASA, and that is the very reason for the CASA issued single Authorisation or AOC.
Everything comes together in a single point of accountability being the Authorisation Holder/AOC legislation stating the responsibilities of the Authorisation Holder and the CASA approved Key Personnel that are responsible for safe and compliant operations.
The root cause of this entire matter, as far as Mr Aleck was concerned was that not all personnel operating under my Authorisation were employed directly by me. Seriously Ms Spence, consider that. Had all of those personnel been directly employed by me, CASA would never have taken the action it did that has caused so much harm and trauma not only to my family but also to many others. Really Ms Spence. Stop, pause and consider the strength and reality of that statement.
There is no disputing the fact that APTA utilised some personnel at each of those bases that were not my “employees.” It would be fair to go one step further and say that in fact, most of the personnel at each of the respective bases were not directly employed by me. That was the exact business model that was designed in conjunction with CASA and approved by CASA.
That was CASAs single issue and is fact the primary issue that needs to be addressed and bought to a conclusion. Not only for me, but in fact for the entire industry. As you will appreciate almost every AOC/Authorisation Holder in the Country would utilise personnel under its AOC that are not directly employed by the Authorisation Holder, and I include QANTAS, the RAAF, and almost every flying school in the Country.
Mr Aleck has made an issue out of something that is not an issue. He has made something that is completely conventional, appear unconventional.
The decisions made by CASA need to be explained to avoid any other business being put in the same situation as mine i.e., shut down on the basis that utilising personnel that are not directly employed by the Operator is a breach of CASR 141.050 and CAA S29.
For complete clarity, and for the information of the wider industry, I am asking CASA to clarify their position on this matter.
Do the personnel operating under an AOC also have to be employees? If somebody is not an employee i.e. a contractor or a person flying for a charity event and not drawing an income, are they exempt from the obligations to operate in accordance with the AOC? Are the Key Personnel responsible for all personnel, or only employees? Does CASA expect an operator to have a higher level of operational control over an employee compared to a contractor, or are they in fact all “personnel”
As you will appreciate this is a significant departure from the current legislative environment and in fact the legislation deals only with the “personnel” rather than the “employee” for the reasons that I have mentioned. The legislation refers to “personnel” not employees because of the wider accountability that extends far beyond employees only.
Its important here to refer to CASAs own definition of personnel.
personnel, for a Part 142 operator, includes any of the following persons who have duties or responsibilities that relate to the safe conduct of the operator’s authorised Part 142 activities:
(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).
According to CASAs own definition, the personnel operating under my AOC very clearly do not have to also be “employees”.
My question would be. If all personnel had of been employed by me, would CASA still have closed my business?
I think it entirely reasonable that CASA comprehensively address this matter because of the industry wide ramifications for almost all operators across Australia, and because this appears to be a significant diversion from previous CASA set industry precedent.
I understand that because if the wider industry ramifications this query will require a more comprehensive response.
Request Six
As the person impacted it was obvious to me that once Mr Aleck realised that he had acted unlawfully in early 2019, he should have lifted the trading restrictions, and allowed me to return to business as usual.
Instead, Mr Aleck chose to leave the trading restrictions in place until he could be satisfied with our “commercial agreements” that we had in place.
CASA was was made fully aware on multiple occasions in writing, that these trading restrictions were depriving me of revenue and causing significant reputational damage. I advised CASA that I was personally having to subsidise operations to the value of at least $10,000 per week, and that once my own funds were exhausted my parents stepped in and subsidised operations for several months to the value of $300,000.
Mr Aleck advised that he would lift the trading restrictions on the business, only when he was fully satisfied with the wording in our commercial agreements with Members.
This is quite significant. There was no change to any systems or procedures requested by CASA. There was not a single change requested to our operations manual/Exposition. There was absolutely no requirement in any way regarding “how” we did things. There was no change in responsibilities or accountabilities.
We simply needed to describe what we were already doing into our “commercial agreements”.
Whilst I queston the validity of CASAs actions, I was completely willing to comply, in fact much more than that, I was desperately trying to comply. My business was being decimated every week that this matter carried on, costing me hundreds of thousands of dollars. I was under enormous duress, of course I would be desperately trying to meet Mr Alecks requirements. I was prepared to sign anything that CASA wanted so I could have the trading restrictions lifted.
I have maintained that this entire matter could have been completely resolved in under four hours, and in fact placing the trading restrictions on the business, and I refer to the most damaging restriction. That restriction being given only short-term interim approvals to cointinueoperatinf of as little as 7 days
CASA never required any changes to anything at all that we did. There were no changes to any of our systems or procedures. Not a single word had to be changed in our operations manual/Exposition. There were no changes to accountabilities or responsibilities. There were no changes at all requested. It would not have cost me one single cent to implement that changes that Mr Aleck required, it did however require his guidance, as it was his personal requirements that needed to be met.
This is an important point to understand. If in fact there were any concerns at all about any of our systems, procedures, compliance, supervision, mentoring, training standards, safety etc, CASA would have required us to implement some sort of change. Some deficiency would have been identified.
It was a simple matter of adding an additional paragraph or two into our Commercial agreements, that would personally satisfy Mr Aleck. That paragraph was intended to describe what we were already doing and would continue to do. It did not require any change, and would cost me nothing to embed it into the contract.
Mr Aleck simply had to give me sufficient guidance to write the paragraph or two that were required, and he could have lifted the trading restrictions immediately. The trading restrictions remained in place for eight months with the matter unresolved, although CASA managed to resolve it in a matter of hours with the current arrangement at Moorabbin Airport, with a different Operator.
This was an entirely new industry requirement that CASA stipulate matters of safety and operational control outside of the Exposition/Operations manual, and within commercial agreements. To be honest I thought it had no valid legal basis. Matters of safety, operational control etc are all embedded in the Operations Manual/exposition.
It was bizarre that CASA would not want to put this into the Exposition but instead wanted to put it into a commercial agreement that CASA was not prepared to be a signatory to.
Consider that CASA had placed trading restrictions on the business that were costing my family in excess of $10,000 a week to maintain operations. CASA had placed me under significant pressure to do whatever they wanted. Importantly there was no resistance from me at all.
I maintain that this entire matter could have been fully resolved in a matter of hours. Can CASA explain why this matter could not have been immediately resolved considering the simplicity of it, and that every single legislative requirement had already been met in our CASA approved Exposition/ Operations manual.
It was entirely unnecessary to place trading restrictions on the business that caused so much harm. They served no other purpose than to cause harm. They cannot be justified o n the basis of safety, and not for such a protracted period of eight months.
The question is; Can CASA explain why this matter could not have been fully resolved on the spot in less than four hours as I assert. Why did it still remain unresolved after eight months.
Request Seven- Why did CASA approve the first base eight years prior?
There is no disputing that CASA formally approved me to conduct operations at a Darwin base over 8 years prior. That base was our Darwin AV8 base.
Over the following eight years, CASA formally approved me to conduct operations at other bases, including the ARC base at Moorabbin, the LTF base at Moorabbin, the TVSA base at Bacchus Marsh etc.
In October 2018, CASA rejected applications for the additional bases of the Ballarat Aero Club and the Latrobe Valley Aero Club.
CASA then went one step further and determined the entire structure illegal and closed down the business.
CASA should be able to clearly and concisely explain why the first base and subsequent bases were formally approved by CASA, but in October 2018, the entire operation was determined to be unlawful.
CASA did formally approve us to conduct operations at Darwin over 8 years prior adopting this same structure. In October 2018, CASA rejected the applications for the new bases. CASA should be able to clearly identify what it was that changed.
Conclusion.Conclusion.
Had all of those personnel operating under my AOC/Authorisation also been my employees, my business would never have been closed down.
This was not a quality control issue, and CASA never suggested any changes at all to any of my procedures, systems, responsibilities, lines of reporting etc contained within our Exposition. If it was a quality control issue, CASA would have suggested some changes or sent some notification of a deficiency via formal processes, none were ever raised.
It was a determination by CASA that the structure that I had adopted for over 8 years was suddenly declared unlawful in October 2018, when CASA placed restrictions on the businesses ability to trade, that prevented the business taking on any new customers.
In mid 2019 with the crippling trading restrictions in place CASA made a determination that the structure was unlawful and forced all customers to leave, including my own flying school of ten years.
This entire process from notifying me that my business of ten years was now unlawful in October 2018 all the way through until CASA forced all customers to leave in mid-2019, and totally destroying my business, my livelihood, my future security, my well-being and that of my family, by causing businesses dependant on me to close down, to having staff losing entitlements and jobs, and for all the harm and additional expense incurred to my many students.
All of that done using methods that completely deny me any right of appeal or review.
To seriously lead the Ombudsman to be of the view that CASA wasn’t fully aware of my structure until you notified me that I was operating unlawfully in October 2018, is clearly false and misleading, and completely ignores my frequent meetings with CASA in 2015 about expanding on the structure that I was already operating to prepare it for the entirely new regulatory structure. It disregards the hundreds of thousands of dollars that I invested in systems and procedures as me and my management team worked side by side and often across the table in the same room with 10 CASA personnel designing every system and procedure to do exactly what we were already doing, but to significantly improve on it.
At the end of that Project the result was an Exposition that outlined thousands of pages of procedures to ensure the highest levels of operational control over this exact structure that CASA was fully aware of because CASA assessed over 600 procedures and policies as part of the process. The CASA team that I had worked with then sent those policies and procedures further up CASA for a “peer review” before final approval.
Throughout this process I was already operating in that multi entity, multi base, single Authorisation model for many years. So all of these new procedures had to be designed for exactly that, or I would not have been able to continue in that operating structure, as I had for many years previously.
CASA formally revalidated this in April of 2017, being 18 months before CASA claim they first became aware. I could go on and on with so many other examples or alternatively seek Statutory Declarations from the ex CASA employees that have offered to come forward and tell the truth.
The entire matter is ludicrous, APTA was designed to bring Australian Owned flying schools together to work collaboratively, professionally, in a safe and compliant manner. It demonstrably improved safety by allowing lateral sharing of safety information between 10 schools that previously would not have done so. It bought expertise to flying schools that a single school alone would not have been able to access. It made CASAs job easier because instead of auditing 10 schools with 10 different systems it delivered 1 school with 1 system across ten bases. It bought capability and opportunity to regional schools that previously they would not have had. It provided opportunities to access large international contracts because of the ability to manage large groups of international students across multiple bases. All of this was delivered with industry leading systems of operational control, a large and highly experienced management team drawn from CASA, Airlines and the Military, and I’m proud to say we had the largest safety department of any flight training organisation in the Country made possible by the structure that we adopted. We had an impeccable audit record with ASQA because we had been a Registered Training Organisation, and as a CRICOS approved school delivering training to International Students, we were one of only handful of schools never to have had any complint lodged by an International Student.
You will understand how offensive it is that CASA worked so diligently to crush my operation but permitted other Operators i.e. SOAR aviation to continue for years with a demonstrably poor safety record. Despite all the protestations to CASA from so many industry stakeholders, CASA did nothing and that Operator was finally shut down not by CASA but by the students approaching ASQA out of frustration.
There were never any safety concerns raised by CASA, there were never any breaches of any of our procedures outlined in our Exposition/Operations Manuals, CASA never asked or suggested any changes at all to the way we did anything. There were no incidents or accidents to raise concerns within CASA, and in fact there was never any change requested to anything at all that we did. It was not a quality issue. Throughout this entire matter, CASA has never put forward a single piece of evidence to suggest that my operation was deficient in any way at all. None. If there was a deficiency against anything at all, CASA would be able to identify it, or have at least one single piece of evidence to support that claim.
Until recently, I thought that this entire matter was a fairly black and white issue about the legality or not of the operation. My engagement with the Ombudsman leads me to believe that Mr Aleck may have led the Ombudsman to be of the view that in fact it was a quality control issue i.e. that procedures were deficient or in need of change, when that very clearly wasn’t the case, or at least that is not how it was ever presented to me. If the narrative has in fact changed then I hope you would clearly identify that to me.
The entire issue was because I utilised personnel that were not also my employees.
Flight Training Organisations utilising buildings that are not their own is entirely standard practice in the industry, it always has been.
Flight Training Organisations utilising aircraft that they are not the owner or Registered Operator of is entirely standard practice in the industry, it always has been
and if CASA were to be truthful on this entire matter, you would be fully aware that in fact every Authorisation Holder in the Country most likely utilises personnel under its Authorisation that are not employees of the Authorisation Holder.
The point being that really Mr Aleck has made an issue of something that need not be an issue.
CASA closed my business.
CASA has stated that they have to be satisfied that an operation is safe and compliant, and of course I fully agree with that. CASA does have to be satisfied that an operation is safe and compliant. Of course, they do.
My matter is an entirely different matter. I was an operating business that had delivered industry leading levels of safety and compliance for over a decade. I was close down by CASA.
CASA had been satisfied for may years but for some reason CASA became unsatisfied. CASA should be able to clearly identify what changed them from being satisfied with my operation to becoming unsatisfied with my operation, and so unsatisfied that they had no option other than to close my business.
This was much more than a rejection of a new application. It was a reversal of a previously given CASA approval. CASA closed down an entire business. Something caused CASA to reverse its previously given approval and close the business down.
Because I utilised personnel that were not directly employed by me, and had done since the Company commenced operations in 2006, with full CASA knowledge, formal approval, I truly felt that I was operating lawfully, and particularly so as the structure had been approved, audited and revalidated by CASA on multiple occasions during the decade prior to CASA determining it unlawful.
I really don’t believe that I did anything wrong. I am only seeking an honest, well-intentioned explanation to my queries.
Over the last four years, CASA has used the ongoing Ombudsman investigation as an excuse to avoid responding to me. This correspondence is unrelated to the Ombudsman investigation.
I am asking for CASA responses, not the Ombudsman’s. There is no reason that you would not respond. You have previously advised that you don’t want to respond because you don’t want to interfere with the Ombudsman’s Office investigation. I don’t accept that. The truth is the truth. Whatever CASA is saying to any other Party about me, is something that I am entitled to know and be able to defend myself against.
A failure to respond clearly and concisely to my requests is not something I anticipate, and my hope is that Ms Garland can assist me in achieving that.
Thanking you in anticipation of a truthful and well-intentioned response,
Respectfully
Glen Buckley
This entire matter of the closure of my business has the potential to have significant impact on the entire aviation industry because it deals very much with the relationship between the “personnel” operating under an Air Operator Certificate (AOC) as opposed to “employees” operating under an AOC.
This was the basis that CASA used to close my business down.
Recall that my business would never have been approached by CASA and would never have been closed down by CASA if all the “personnel” operating under my AOC were also my “employees.”
Despite all the other narratives running in the background, it really was a single-issue matter.
The business was not closed down by Mr Aleck against any quality outcome. It was closed down because the structure utilised personnel that were not my “employees”, and because I utilised some personnel that were not my employees but the employees of another entity such as Ballarat Aero Club, Mr Aleck from his office in Canberra determined that my business structure was illegal, and that “operational control” was compromised because of that arrangement.
If there is any doubt about CASAs position on this, I would also refer you to the email from Craig Martin the CASA Executive Manager of Regulatory Services and Surveillance, at the time, where he stated, ‘For the avoidance of doubt, this would allow flight training to be conducted by APTA employees only – not employees of affiliates.” This was in late June of 2019, eight months after this matter began.
Mr Alecks position was that all personnel must be employees of the Authorisation Holder because that is the only way to ensure operational control.
In fact CASA used this as the basis to close down my flying school of ten years, Melbourne Flight Training because CASA claimed that not only did they have to be my personnel, they also had to be employees of the AOC Holder only.
For complete clarity. I am fully satisfied that CASA had absolutely no valid lawful basis to do this.
It really was a single-issue matter. The Commonwealth Ombudsman has been led to believe that there were concerns about “operational control”. I believe that the Ombudsman has formed the view that our systems, procedures etc may have been deficient when that is clearly not the case. Mr Alecks entire argument was that if the personnel operating under my AOC were not directly employed by me, then I must not have operational control.
The proposition by Mr Aleck, and its use to close down my business is ludicrous as you can appreciate. I put to you that every Authorisation Holder in the Country utilises personnel that are not employees of the Authorisation Holder, and that is in fact the very purpose of the CASA issued AOC, and as I pointed out earlier, it continues at Moorabbin Airport today.
By its very nature, aviation operations are complicated with many Entities coming together to deliver the service. That will include aircraft providers, maintenance organisations, fuel suppliers, pilots, catering, cabin crew etc. It just wouldn’t be practical that CASA makes each of those entities responsible to CASA, and that is the very reason for the CASA issued single Authorisation or AOC.
Everything comes together in a single point of accountability being the Authorisation Holder/AOC legislation stating the responsibilities of the Authorisation Holder and the CASA approved Key Personnel that are responsible for safe and compliant operations.
The root cause of this entire matter, as far as Mr Aleck was concerned was that not all personnel operating under my Authorisation were employed directly by me. Seriously Ms Spence, consider that. Had all of those personnel been directly employed by me, CASA would never have taken the action it did that has caused so much harm and trauma not only to my family but also to many others. Really Ms Spence. Stop, pause and consider the strength and reality of that statement.
There is no disputing the fact that APTA utilised some personnel at each of those bases that were not my “employees.” It would be fair to go one step further and say that in fact, most of the personnel at each of the respective bases were not directly employed by me. That was the exact business model that was designed in conjunction with CASA and approved by CASA.
That was CASAs single issue and is fact the primary issue that needs to be addressed and bought to a conclusion. Not only for me, but in fact for the entire industry. As you will appreciate almost every AOC/Authorisation Holder in the Country would utilise personnel under its AOC that are not directly employed by the Authorisation Holder, and I include QANTAS, the RAAF, and almost every flying school in the Country.
Mr Aleck has made an issue out of something that is not an issue. He has made something that is completely conventional, appear unconventional.
The decisions made by CASA need to be explained to avoid any other business being put in the same situation as mine i.e., shut down on the basis that utilising personnel that are not directly employed by the Operator is a breach of CASR 141.050 and CAA S29.
For complete clarity, and for the information of the wider industry, I am asking CASA to clarify their position on this matter.
Do the personnel operating under an AOC also have to be employees? If somebody is not an employee i.e. a contractor or a person flying for a charity event and not drawing an income, are they exempt from the obligations to operate in accordance with the AOC? Are the Key Personnel responsible for all personnel, or only employees? Does CASA expect an operator to have a higher level of operational control over an employee compared to a contractor, or are they in fact all “personnel”
As you will appreciate this is a significant departure from the current legislative environment and in fact the legislation deals only with the “personnel” rather than the “employee” for the reasons that I have mentioned. The legislation refers to “personnel” not employees because of the wider accountability that extends far beyond employees only.
Its important here to refer to CASAs own definition of personnel.
personnel, for a Part 142 operator, includes any of the following persons who have duties or responsibilities that relate to the safe conduct of the operator’s authorised Part 142 activities:
(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).
According to CASAs own definition, the personnel operating under my AOC very clearly do not have to also be “employees”.
My question would be. If all personnel had of been employed by me, would CASA still have closed my business?
I think it entirely reasonable that CASA comprehensively address this matter because of the industry wide ramifications for almost all operators across Australia, and because this appears to be a significant diversion from previous CASA set industry precedent.
I understand that because if the wider industry ramifications this query will require a more comprehensive response.
Request Six
As the person impacted it was obvious to me that once Mr Aleck realised that he had acted unlawfully in early 2019, he should have lifted the trading restrictions, and allowed me to return to business as usual.
Instead, Mr Aleck chose to leave the trading restrictions in place until he could be satisfied with our “commercial agreements” that we had in place.
CASA was was made fully aware on multiple occasions in writing, that these trading restrictions were depriving me of revenue and causing significant reputational damage. I advised CASA that I was personally having to subsidise operations to the value of at least $10,000 per week, and that once my own funds were exhausted my parents stepped in and subsidised operations for several months to the value of $300,000.
Mr Aleck advised that he would lift the trading restrictions on the business, only when he was fully satisfied with the wording in our commercial agreements with Members.
This is quite significant. There was no change to any systems or procedures requested by CASA. There was not a single change requested to our operations manual/Exposition. There was absolutely no requirement in any way regarding “how” we did things. There was no change in responsibilities or accountabilities.
We simply needed to describe what we were already doing into our “commercial agreements”.
Whilst I queston the validity of CASAs actions, I was completely willing to comply, in fact much more than that, I was desperately trying to comply. My business was being decimated every week that this matter carried on, costing me hundreds of thousands of dollars. I was under enormous duress, of course I would be desperately trying to meet Mr Alecks requirements. I was prepared to sign anything that CASA wanted so I could have the trading restrictions lifted.
I have maintained that this entire matter could have been completely resolved in under four hours, and in fact placing the trading restrictions on the business, and I refer to the most damaging restriction. That restriction being given only short-term interim approvals to cointinueoperatinf of as little as 7 days
CASA never required any changes to anything at all that we did. There were no changes to any of our systems or procedures. Not a single word had to be changed in our operations manual/Exposition. There were no changes to accountabilities or responsibilities. There were no changes at all requested. It would not have cost me one single cent to implement that changes that Mr Aleck required, it did however require his guidance, as it was his personal requirements that needed to be met.
This is an important point to understand. If in fact there were any concerns at all about any of our systems, procedures, compliance, supervision, mentoring, training standards, safety etc, CASA would have required us to implement some sort of change. Some deficiency would have been identified.
It was a simple matter of adding an additional paragraph or two into our Commercial agreements, that would personally satisfy Mr Aleck. That paragraph was intended to describe what we were already doing and would continue to do. It did not require any change, and would cost me nothing to embed it into the contract.
Mr Aleck simply had to give me sufficient guidance to write the paragraph or two that were required, and he could have lifted the trading restrictions immediately. The trading restrictions remained in place for eight months with the matter unresolved, although CASA managed to resolve it in a matter of hours with the current arrangement at Moorabbin Airport, with a different Operator.
This was an entirely new industry requirement that CASA stipulate matters of safety and operational control outside of the Exposition/Operations manual, and within commercial agreements. To be honest I thought it had no valid legal basis. Matters of safety, operational control etc are all embedded in the Operations Manual/exposition.
It was bizarre that CASA would not want to put this into the Exposition but instead wanted to put it into a commercial agreement that CASA was not prepared to be a signatory to.
Consider that CASA had placed trading restrictions on the business that were costing my family in excess of $10,000 a week to maintain operations. CASA had placed me under significant pressure to do whatever they wanted. Importantly there was no resistance from me at all.
I maintain that this entire matter could have been fully resolved in a matter of hours. Can CASA explain why this matter could not have been immediately resolved considering the simplicity of it, and that every single legislative requirement had already been met in our CASA approved Exposition/ Operations manual.
It was entirely unnecessary to place trading restrictions on the business that caused so much harm. They served no other purpose than to cause harm. They cannot be justified o n the basis of safety, and not for such a protracted period of eight months.
The question is; Can CASA explain why this matter could not have been fully resolved on the spot in less than four hours as I assert. Why did it still remain unresolved after eight months.
Request Seven- Why did CASA approve the first base eight years prior?
There is no disputing that CASA formally approved me to conduct operations at a Darwin base over 8 years prior. That base was our Darwin AV8 base.
Over the following eight years, CASA formally approved me to conduct operations at other bases, including the ARC base at Moorabbin, the LTF base at Moorabbin, the TVSA base at Bacchus Marsh etc.
In October 2018, CASA rejected applications for the additional bases of the Ballarat Aero Club and the Latrobe Valley Aero Club.
CASA then went one step further and determined the entire structure illegal and closed down the business.
CASA should be able to clearly and concisely explain why the first base and subsequent bases were formally approved by CASA, but in October 2018, the entire operation was determined to be unlawful.
CASA did formally approve us to conduct operations at Darwin over 8 years prior adopting this same structure. In October 2018, CASA rejected the applications for the new bases. CASA should be able to clearly identify what it was that changed.
Conclusion.Conclusion.
Had all of those personnel operating under my AOC/Authorisation also been my employees, my business would never have been closed down.
This was not a quality control issue, and CASA never suggested any changes at all to any of my procedures, systems, responsibilities, lines of reporting etc contained within our Exposition. If it was a quality control issue, CASA would have suggested some changes or sent some notification of a deficiency via formal processes, none were ever raised.
It was a determination by CASA that the structure that I had adopted for over 8 years was suddenly declared unlawful in October 2018, when CASA placed restrictions on the businesses ability to trade, that prevented the business taking on any new customers.
In mid 2019 with the crippling trading restrictions in place CASA made a determination that the structure was unlawful and forced all customers to leave, including my own flying school of ten years.
This entire process from notifying me that my business of ten years was now unlawful in October 2018 all the way through until CASA forced all customers to leave in mid-2019, and totally destroying my business, my livelihood, my future security, my well-being and that of my family, by causing businesses dependant on me to close down, to having staff losing entitlements and jobs, and for all the harm and additional expense incurred to my many students.
All of that done using methods that completely deny me any right of appeal or review.
To seriously lead the Ombudsman to be of the view that CASA wasn’t fully aware of my structure until you notified me that I was operating unlawfully in October 2018, is clearly false and misleading, and completely ignores my frequent meetings with CASA in 2015 about expanding on the structure that I was already operating to prepare it for the entirely new regulatory structure. It disregards the hundreds of thousands of dollars that I invested in systems and procedures as me and my management team worked side by side and often across the table in the same room with 10 CASA personnel designing every system and procedure to do exactly what we were already doing, but to significantly improve on it.
At the end of that Project the result was an Exposition that outlined thousands of pages of procedures to ensure the highest levels of operational control over this exact structure that CASA was fully aware of because CASA assessed over 600 procedures and policies as part of the process. The CASA team that I had worked with then sent those policies and procedures further up CASA for a “peer review” before final approval.
Throughout this process I was already operating in that multi entity, multi base, single Authorisation model for many years. So all of these new procedures had to be designed for exactly that, or I would not have been able to continue in that operating structure, as I had for many years previously.
CASA formally revalidated this in April of 2017, being 18 months before CASA claim they first became aware. I could go on and on with so many other examples or alternatively seek Statutory Declarations from the ex CASA employees that have offered to come forward and tell the truth.
The entire matter is ludicrous, APTA was designed to bring Australian Owned flying schools together to work collaboratively, professionally, in a safe and compliant manner. It demonstrably improved safety by allowing lateral sharing of safety information between 10 schools that previously would not have done so. It bought expertise to flying schools that a single school alone would not have been able to access. It made CASAs job easier because instead of auditing 10 schools with 10 different systems it delivered 1 school with 1 system across ten bases. It bought capability and opportunity to regional schools that previously they would not have had. It provided opportunities to access large international contracts because of the ability to manage large groups of international students across multiple bases. All of this was delivered with industry leading systems of operational control, a large and highly experienced management team drawn from CASA, Airlines and the Military, and I’m proud to say we had the largest safety department of any flight training organisation in the Country made possible by the structure that we adopted. We had an impeccable audit record with ASQA because we had been a Registered Training Organisation, and as a CRICOS approved school delivering training to International Students, we were one of only handful of schools never to have had any complint lodged by an International Student.
You will understand how offensive it is that CASA worked so diligently to crush my operation but permitted other Operators i.e. SOAR aviation to continue for years with a demonstrably poor safety record. Despite all the protestations to CASA from so many industry stakeholders, CASA did nothing and that Operator was finally shut down not by CASA but by the students approaching ASQA out of frustration.
There were never any safety concerns raised by CASA, there were never any breaches of any of our procedures outlined in our Exposition/Operations Manuals, CASA never asked or suggested any changes at all to the way we did anything. There were no incidents or accidents to raise concerns within CASA, and in fact there was never any change requested to anything at all that we did. It was not a quality issue. Throughout this entire matter, CASA has never put forward a single piece of evidence to suggest that my operation was deficient in any way at all. None. If there was a deficiency against anything at all, CASA would be able to identify it, or have at least one single piece of evidence to support that claim.
Until recently, I thought that this entire matter was a fairly black and white issue about the legality or not of the operation. My engagement with the Ombudsman leads me to believe that Mr Aleck may have led the Ombudsman to be of the view that in fact it was a quality control issue i.e. that procedures were deficient or in need of change, when that very clearly wasn’t the case, or at least that is not how it was ever presented to me. If the narrative has in fact changed then I hope you would clearly identify that to me.
The entire issue was because I utilised personnel that were not also my employees.
Flight Training Organisations utilising buildings that are not their own is entirely standard practice in the industry, it always has been.
Flight Training Organisations utilising aircraft that they are not the owner or Registered Operator of is entirely standard practice in the industry, it always has been
and if CASA were to be truthful on this entire matter, you would be fully aware that in fact every Authorisation Holder in the Country most likely utilises personnel under its Authorisation that are not employees of the Authorisation Holder.
The point being that really Mr Aleck has made an issue of something that need not be an issue.
CASA closed my business.
CASA has stated that they have to be satisfied that an operation is safe and compliant, and of course I fully agree with that. CASA does have to be satisfied that an operation is safe and compliant. Of course, they do.
My matter is an entirely different matter. I was an operating business that had delivered industry leading levels of safety and compliance for over a decade. I was close down by CASA.
CASA had been satisfied for may years but for some reason CASA became unsatisfied. CASA should be able to clearly identify what changed them from being satisfied with my operation to becoming unsatisfied with my operation, and so unsatisfied that they had no option other than to close my business.
This was much more than a rejection of a new application. It was a reversal of a previously given CASA approval. CASA closed down an entire business. Something caused CASA to reverse its previously given approval and close the business down.
Because I utilised personnel that were not directly employed by me, and had done since the Company commenced operations in 2006, with full CASA knowledge, formal approval, I truly felt that I was operating lawfully, and particularly so as the structure had been approved, audited and revalidated by CASA on multiple occasions during the decade prior to CASA determining it unlawful.
I really don’t believe that I did anything wrong. I am only seeking an honest, well-intentioned explanation to my queries.
Over the last four years, CASA has used the ongoing Ombudsman investigation as an excuse to avoid responding to me. This correspondence is unrelated to the Ombudsman investigation.
I am asking for CASA responses, not the Ombudsman’s. There is no reason that you would not respond. You have previously advised that you don’t want to respond because you don’t want to interfere with the Ombudsman’s Office investigation. I don’t accept that. The truth is the truth. Whatever CASA is saying to any other Party about me, is something that I am entitled to know and be able to defend myself against.
A failure to respond clearly and concisely to my requests is not something I anticipate, and my hope is that Ms Garland can assist me in achieving that.
Thanking you in anticipation of a truthful and well-intentioned response,
Respectfully
Glen Buckley
Last edited by glenb; 21st Nov 2022 at 19:36. Reason: Conclusion redrafted
Thread Starter
Edited "conclusion in Part 3"
I have edited and slightly altered the conclusion in the previous post. The correspondence has been sent to
Carina Garland MP for Chisholm
Ms Pip Spence
CASA Board
Senator Sterle
the Minister Catherine King
Cheers. Glen
Carina Garland MP for Chisholm
Ms Pip Spence
CASA Board
Senator Sterle
the Minister Catherine King
Cheers. Glen
APTA was unique in that it was I believe, the first operator awarded a CASR Part 142 AOC. This occurred before CASA had detailed guidance material, etc. so it was very much created by a thorough and months (years!!) long review of the Regulations and discussion with CASA about what they meant and how they were to be implemented. Later operators benefitted from more guidance material, etc. although I believe CASA state something along the lines of, or at least allude to, the notion that if you follow their guidance they are 'obliged' to accept your procedures, etc. This is not always the case though as they always reserve the right to ask for additional procedures, etc. if they deem it necessary in relation to the nature of the actual business.
I only mention this because it indicates the extensive level of detail that was entered into in getting APTA's Part 142 approval. It was no 'cookie cutter' template but arrived at after thousands of person-hours of discussion, negotiation and deliberation on both sides.
Apart from anything else in Glen's case, it astounds me that someone could just walk in and decide they don't like the way it was set up. From a regulatory perspective it stinks like a whore-house at low tide to borrow a phrase from the late, great Sean Connery in the movie 'The Untouchables' (and yes, 'Untouchables' is pun intended).
I only mention this because it indicates the extensive level of detail that was entered into in getting APTA's Part 142 approval. It was no 'cookie cutter' template but arrived at after thousands of person-hours of discussion, negotiation and deliberation on both sides.
Apart from anything else in Glen's case, it astounds me that someone could just walk in and decide they don't like the way it was set up. From a regulatory perspective it stinks like a whore-house at low tide to borrow a phrase from the late, great Sean Connery in the movie 'The Untouchables' (and yes, 'Untouchables' is pun intended).
months (years!!) long review of the Regulations and discussion with CASA about what they meant and how they were to be implemented.
Parts 141 and 142, their MOS, and the associated AMC/GM material, are prominent examples of everything that's been wrong with CASA's regulatory development process. The individuals responsible for proposing, drafting and releasing these regs are so self-evidently not right for the job it's not funny. It reminds me of the Simpsons episode where Homer gets to design a new car for his long-lost brother's car manufacturing company and bankrupts the business with his incompetence.
Most operators have bent over and taken the pineapple, by changing their ops manuals and training syllabuses into huge unreadable tracts of gumph no instructor, or indeed CASA inspector, could practically use, just to be 'compliant' with the MOS. The focus is so much on the paperwork and box-ticking that there's lamentably little room for the practical, honest, effective, realistic discussion of instructional technique and methods.
I've said before that an organisation like Glen's, which aimed to promote standardisation and effective flying training while reducing the administrative burden for the individual branches, is to my mind a really great idea, and CASA should have fostered it.
CASA appears to be locked into a long-standing mode of creating more, rather than less, legislation. The oft-touted statement that the new CASRs have 'simplified' the regulatory landscape is laughable, yet various CEOs have quoted it as some kind of key indicator of how well they've been doing.
The CASA employees who have produced and promoted the new flying training regs (and most of the other new stuff, for that matter) don't have to work under them, and it shows! Don't even mention CAR 217 and how it's supposed to fit in with Parts 141 and 142, nobody really knows that either. But I digress!
An apt analogy, AOTW.
Australia’s civil aviation rules: The regulatory equivalent of The Homer.
Australia’s civil aviation rules: The regulatory equivalent of The Homer.
I'm wondering how much of Glen's intellectual property has been fed to industry through CASA. I remember when 142 was being introduced, Glen was schooling CASA on it.
You have the industry support.
I would imagine you would raise 100k fairly quickly, no it would not go far but I would imagine it would start the ball rolling. Fighting fire with fire seems to be the only way now.
Thread Starter
Global Aviator and others
Thanks for the taking the time to comment and follow the story.
Regarding the GoFundMe. It is most certainly an option. One that I am keen to avoid. It should not be necessary.
In the not-too-distant future, I will be writing to Ms. Spence and basically presenting the two options to Ms. Spence and let her decide. Litigation or well-intentioned discussion. The choice will be very clearly put before her.
In the background, a journalist has been editing and formatting my allegation of misfeasance, and I must say its looking very "snappy" and business like. I look forward to posting it, although I suggest it is still a couple of weeks away.
As you will be aware the allegation is against Mr. aleck, although I must say Ms. Spence may well get an honorable mention. After all, she just needs to get on the phone, call the FOI whose details have been provided to her previously and put the questions to that CASA FOI. She could quickly ascertain the truth.
She either chooses not to, or chooses to cover up the truth. Both approaches demonstrsate a lack of integrity and intent. She is the CEO, she could act. She could have initiated an investigation, but she chose not to.
Regarding the GoFundMe. It is most certainly an option. One that I am keen to avoid. It should not be necessary.
In the not-too-distant future, I will be writing to Ms. Spence and basically presenting the two options to Ms. Spence and let her decide. Litigation or well-intentioned discussion. The choice will be very clearly put before her.
In the background, a journalist has been editing and formatting my allegation of misfeasance, and I must say its looking very "snappy" and business like. I look forward to posting it, although I suggest it is still a couple of weeks away.
As you will be aware the allegation is against Mr. aleck, although I must say Ms. Spence may well get an honorable mention. After all, she just needs to get on the phone, call the FOI whose details have been provided to her previously and put the questions to that CASA FOI. She could quickly ascertain the truth.
She either chooses not to, or chooses to cover up the truth. Both approaches demonstrsate a lack of integrity and intent. She is the CEO, she could act. She could have initiated an investigation, but she chose not to.
Glen, to be fair to Pip Spence and her Board. they are walking a tightrope. They are stuck with the whole "procedural fairness/ natural justice" thing. If they don't navigate that correctly, they may be paying you AND Dr. Aleck many millions each or perhaps worse from a public perspective, millions to Dr. Aleck and nothing for you.
It is difficult to see how CASA can get anything out of this but lose / lose.
Your actions, understandable though they are in publishing everything, implies that there can be no "off the record' discussions of a settlement, assuming CASA wanted to make one.
Yes, I know you didn't get procedural fairness etc.
It is difficult to see how CASA can get anything out of this but lose / lose.
Your actions, understandable though they are in publishing everything, implies that there can be no "off the record' discussions of a settlement, assuming CASA wanted to make one.
Yes, I know you didn't get procedural fairness etc.
Thread Starter
Response to Post 2459
In Posts #2459 I sent follow up correspondence to my Local MP, Ms Carina Garland after our meeting. I received this response from her office today.Dear Glen,
Thank you for your email and thank you also for coming to the Chisholm Electorate Office to meet with me and Carina last week.
I am writing to let you know that I have contacted Minister King’s Ministerial Office. I will get back in touch you as soon as I hear back from them to give you an update.
Best, Ghariza
Thank you for your email and thank you also for coming to the Chisholm Electorate Office to meet with me and Carina last week.
I am writing to let you know that I have contacted Minister King’s Ministerial Office. I will get back in touch you as soon as I hear back from them to give you an update.
Best, Ghariza
Through long and sometimes bitter experience.
I dont think you mean an NDA anyway because those are about IP (and useless). What you mean is a confidentiality agreement or confidentiality clause in a settlement which is a different animal.
Anyway, its a bit late for that unless CASA wants to discuss terms and offers Glen a heads of agreement.
I dont think you mean an NDA anyway because those are about IP (and useless). What you mean is a confidentiality agreement or confidentiality clause in a settlement which is a different animal.
Anyway, its a bit late for that unless CASA wants to discuss terms and offers Glen a heads of agreement.
You could have the worlds most public court case and still have a confidential settlement.
An NDA (also known as a confidentiality agreement) is a legal contract, which should be used when sensitive information needs to be shared between two parties. It ensures that the person or organisation who gains access to sensitive information doesn't disclose it to a third party.
I think you’re a bit confused, Sunfish. Deeds of settlement in legal claims and potential legal claims often include non-disclosure obligations as to the amount of the settlement and sometimes an acknowledgement that no liability was admitted. That can and does happen even if the circumstances that led to legal claim or potential legal claim have all been made public.
You continue to conflate your narrow experience in amateur commercial arrangements for the general practise of professionals in settling legal proceedings or threatened legal proceedings.
But I agree: Best to get back to trying to support Glen.
But I agree: Best to get back to trying to support Glen.
So Strayan you both say back to Glen B and both keep dishen out bush law.
I could also add some factual ****e from personal experience but not here.
Glen I really do admire you continuing to go it alone. If CASA were going to back down they would have already one would think. I do love your style and tenacity and trying to get to that point and I really hope you do.
If not then the only option is going to be to throw silly money at the legal system, I would never advocate using your own money for this as fighting a government body you are always against it. This is where go fund me is brilliant. We all donate knowing dam well that it is a tough cause, but a few hundred or more from many doesn’t hurt the individual. No doubt you have been in touch with some strong very wealthy independent aviators who may also back yo to a degree.
CAA/CASA the dirty ****e they have gotten away with over the years does border on……
Good luck and do not give up.
I could also add some factual ****e from personal experience but not here.
Glen I really do admire you continuing to go it alone. If CASA were going to back down they would have already one would think. I do love your style and tenacity and trying to get to that point and I really hope you do.
If not then the only option is going to be to throw silly money at the legal system, I would never advocate using your own money for this as fighting a government body you are always against it. This is where go fund me is brilliant. We all donate knowing dam well that it is a tough cause, but a few hundred or more from many doesn’t hurt the individual. No doubt you have been in touch with some strong very wealthy independent aviators who may also back yo to a degree.
CAA/CASA the dirty ****e they have gotten away with over the years does border on……
Good luck and do not give up.
I’m led to believe LB is an actual (rather than bush) lawyer who once worked for CASA. So in my eyes his advice has legitimacy and shouldn’t be disregarded. But hey, SF has paid legal bills so has probably forgotten more jurisprudence than any HCA Justice ever knew.
Dead right, Aerial Perspective. Glen's case is a long and complex saga, but it really boils down to CASA not having clear regulations in the first place, and making them worse rather than better with so-called reform.
Parts 141 and 142, their MOS, and the associated AMC/GM material, are prominent examples of everything that's been wrong with CASA's regulatory development process. The individuals responsible for proposing, drafting and releasing these regs are so self-evidently not right for the job it's not funny. It reminds me of the Simpsons episode where Homer gets to design a new car for his long-lost brother's car manufacturing company and bankrupts the business with his incompetence.
Most operators have bent over and taken the pineapple, by changing their ops manuals and training syllabuses into huge unreadable tracts of gumph no instructor, or indeed CASA inspector, could practically use, just to be 'compliant' with the MOS. The focus is so much on the paperwork and box-ticking that there's lamentably little room for the practical, honest, effective, realistic discussion of instructional technique and methods.
I've said before that an organisation like Glen's, which aimed to promote standardisation and effective flying training while reducing the administrative burden for the individual branches, is to my mind a really great idea, and CASA should have fostered it.
CASA appears to be locked into a long-standing mode of creating more, rather than less, legislation. The oft-touted statement that the new CASRs have 'simplified' the regulatory landscape is laughable, yet various CEOs have quoted it as some kind of key indicator of how well they've been doing.
The CASA employees who have produced and promoted the new flying training regs (and most of the other new stuff, for that matter) don't have to work under them, and it shows! Don't even mention CAR 217 and how it's supposed to fit in with Parts 141 and 142, nobody really knows that either. But I digress!
Parts 141 and 142, their MOS, and the associated AMC/GM material, are prominent examples of everything that's been wrong with CASA's regulatory development process. The individuals responsible for proposing, drafting and releasing these regs are so self-evidently not right for the job it's not funny. It reminds me of the Simpsons episode where Homer gets to design a new car for his long-lost brother's car manufacturing company and bankrupts the business with his incompetence.
Most operators have bent over and taken the pineapple, by changing their ops manuals and training syllabuses into huge unreadable tracts of gumph no instructor, or indeed CASA inspector, could practically use, just to be 'compliant' with the MOS. The focus is so much on the paperwork and box-ticking that there's lamentably little room for the practical, honest, effective, realistic discussion of instructional technique and methods.
I've said before that an organisation like Glen's, which aimed to promote standardisation and effective flying training while reducing the administrative burden for the individual branches, is to my mind a really great idea, and CASA should have fostered it.
CASA appears to be locked into a long-standing mode of creating more, rather than less, legislation. The oft-touted statement that the new CASRs have 'simplified' the regulatory landscape is laughable, yet various CEOs have quoted it as some kind of key indicator of how well they've been doing.
The CASA employees who have produced and promoted the new flying training regs (and most of the other new stuff, for that matter) don't have to work under them, and it shows! Don't even mention CAR 217 and how it's supposed to fit in with Parts 141 and 142, nobody really knows that either. But I digress!
Thread Starter
and back to Glen......
Only because i hate to see you guys arguing. It like being at a BBQ and a couple of your friends not getting along with each other.
Thread Starter
Response from Ms Spence
In post #2459 I had posted my correspondence to Ms Spence. Her reply follows
ear Mr Buckley
Thank you for copying me into your correspondence with Ms Garland. As I have advised you on a number of occasions, I am very happy to meet with you once the ombudsman has completed its review of its original decision. I can assure you CASA is committed to full co-operating with the ombudsman’s review and is working openly and transparently with the ombudsman. I would also like to be informed by the findings of the ombudsman’s review before responding to your questions.
Finally, and again as I have advised you, I have asked the Ombudsman’s office to address their correspondence to me rather than Dr Aleck. This is not because I have concerns about him or the role that he has played, but because I think it is appropriate in light of the issues that you are raising about Dr Aleck’s role.
Yours sincerely
Pip
ear Mr BuckleyThank you for copying me into your correspondence with Ms Garland. As I have advised you on a number of occasions, I am very happy to meet with you once the ombudsman has completed its review of its original decision. I can assure you CASA is committed to full co-operating with the ombudsman’s review and is working openly and transparently with the ombudsman. I would also like to be informed by the findings of the ombudsman’s review before responding to your questions.
Finally, and again as I have advised you, I have asked the Ombudsman’s office to address their correspondence to me rather than Dr Aleck. This is not because I have concerns about him or the role that he has played, but because I think it is appropriate in light of the issues that you are raising about Dr Aleck’s role.
Yours sincerely
Pip