Glen Buckley and Australian small business -V- CASA
The origins of CASA
Perhaps some smart mandarins who figured they could ride on the back of Brit. PM Margaret Thatcher’s privatisation policies and thus unhook their salaries from the regular Public Service pay scales and allow them greater scope for improving working conditions and perhaps pursue pet projects.
However it was implemented in1988 by Labor Minister for Transport Gareth Evans and Parliament passed the new Act which still supports the denial of the Westminster system of responsible government. Evans turfed out the administration of aviation out of his Department and probably heaved a sigh of relief. Unfortunately his salary didn’t take the dive it should have in light of his much reduced responsibility.
Then in 2009 another Labor Minister of Transport did the same with the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB), guess who? Well who’d a thunk it? Anthony Albanese. In his reading speech his main justification was that the body should not be subject of politics. What a great idea, take that thought to its logical conclusion and we could run all of government in this manner, no need for elected MPs at all.
The abject performance of today’s ATSB is testament to Albanese’s naïveté and muddle headed approach to removing Ministerial oversight from the various arms of government. The idea that the taxpayer can employ some people to carry out functions most effectively and efficiently at the lowest reasonable cost without any real oversight is pie in the sky. The ATSB’s performance after 2009 was so poor that the Canadian Board of Transportation was brought in to audit our ATSB. The report would make you blush.
The obvious trend of government by monopoly independent corporations is causing a real shift in power away from our elected representatives. CASA has been at it for thirty five years, and very successfully for them. Big money, CEO Pip Spence is paid $650,000.00 pa, which is considerably more than the Minister.
Sooner or later something must give, General Aviation (GA) is too important to be truncated and hindered at every turn by the out of control make work salary factory that is today’s CASA. The many aspects of GA include its part as an element of National security because aerial mobility is a crucial factor considering our small population and large continent.
My fervent hope is that Glen Buckley receives due compensation and that his case will contribute a notoriety about the dysfunction and waste caused by CASA.
The following 4 users liked this post by Sandy Reith:
In response to the ATSB repcon on Airserivces recent (heavy) use of TIBA, CASA has provided this gem in relation to a clear breach of the regs
"......and is actively engaging directly with Airservices Australia (AA) to assist them to address the underlying drivers so that they can deliver services to the expected level."
Just imagine if the same courtesy had been extended to Glen; ".....and is actively engaging directly with Glen Buckley to assist him to address the underlying drivers so that he can deliver services to the expected level."
Keep up the fight Glen,
Alpha
"......and is actively engaging directly with Airservices Australia (AA) to assist them to address the underlying drivers so that they can deliver services to the expected level."
Just imagine if the same courtesy had been extended to Glen; ".....and is actively engaging directly with Glen Buckley to assist him to address the underlying drivers so that he can deliver services to the expected level."
Keep up the fight Glen,
Alpha
The following users liked this post:
Contradictions of CASA
Alpha has found yet another colossal CASA contradiction in both what it says and how it actually operates.
“…. address the underlying drivers so that they can deliver services to the expected level."
As far as the many bureaucratically induced inflictions on GA is concerned CASA is incapable of making the necessary reforms.
Similarly it will not admit its culpability towards Glen Buckley and the Board and Ms Spence are shamefully in error for allowing this awful episode to remain unresolved. https://gofund.me/1799a035
“…. address the underlying drivers so that they can deliver services to the expected level."
As far as the many bureaucratically induced inflictions on GA is concerned CASA is incapable of making the necessary reforms.
Similarly it will not admit its culpability towards Glen Buckley and the Board and Ms Spence are shamefully in error for allowing this awful episode to remain unresolved. https://gofund.me/1799a035
Thread Starter
An update. Apologies for my absence
I'm sorry, I've been absent for a while. I have adopted a new time management strategy based on some expert advice, with the intention of preserving my mental health. I appreciate the boost to the Gofundme. I am immensely appreciative and emotionally buoyed, by it.
It should be entirely unnecessary. The industry should not have to fund an investigation into misconduct.
I know that I have been stubborn on this, and that it has frustrated many, but if I seriously have to litigate to demonstrate misconduct within the most senior levels of CASA, it is simply ludicrous.
Going forward, I am going to make videos, again on expert advice. They will take far less time, and i will be able to make my point far more clearly. My first one will be on here and will be to my Local Member expressing my concern as a 57 year resident of the Electorate, as to her response to me, which i posted on here recently.
This matter, simply will not go away, I will not let it, and i thank you all for your ongoing support.
Regarding the tell all piece that AOPA was bringing. My understanding is that it is postponed, not cancelled. Ben Morgan reached out to me last night and advised that he has been in contact with the person that was to partake. That individual does have some more important matters that need to be considered, and I fully respect that. I am in this for the long haul, I want CASA employees coming forward when they are comfortable and ready.
I need to be very clear on this. That individual is not out to "bash" CASA. He wants to raise serious concerns that have the potential to impact on the safety of aviation.in this Country. He is doing this with the very real likelihood, that a vindictive element may choose to bring harm to him, as they have to me. This individual, is not after grandstanding or becoming a celebrity, and Im sure he would remain anonymous if he could do so effectively. I have met with this individual on a couple of protracted occasions recently. He holds an enormous amount of firsthand knowledge on my matter, and his testimony and telling of the truth would be very important. If he chooses not to do it, I fully respect that. AOPAs challenge is to create that environment, and my hope is that it can be achieved, as I believe it will be. I believe there is significant desire within AOPA to expose this matter in its entirety.
Cheers. Glen.
It should be entirely unnecessary. The industry should not have to fund an investigation into misconduct.
I know that I have been stubborn on this, and that it has frustrated many, but if I seriously have to litigate to demonstrate misconduct within the most senior levels of CASA, it is simply ludicrous.
Going forward, I am going to make videos, again on expert advice. They will take far less time, and i will be able to make my point far more clearly. My first one will be on here and will be to my Local Member expressing my concern as a 57 year resident of the Electorate, as to her response to me, which i posted on here recently.
This matter, simply will not go away, I will not let it, and i thank you all for your ongoing support.
Regarding the tell all piece that AOPA was bringing. My understanding is that it is postponed, not cancelled. Ben Morgan reached out to me last night and advised that he has been in contact with the person that was to partake. That individual does have some more important matters that need to be considered, and I fully respect that. I am in this for the long haul, I want CASA employees coming forward when they are comfortable and ready.
I need to be very clear on this. That individual is not out to "bash" CASA. He wants to raise serious concerns that have the potential to impact on the safety of aviation.in this Country. He is doing this with the very real likelihood, that a vindictive element may choose to bring harm to him, as they have to me. This individual, is not after grandstanding or becoming a celebrity, and Im sure he would remain anonymous if he could do so effectively. I have met with this individual on a couple of protracted occasions recently. He holds an enormous amount of firsthand knowledge on my matter, and his testimony and telling of the truth would be very important. If he chooses not to do it, I fully respect that. AOPAs challenge is to create that environment, and my hope is that it can be achieved, as I believe it will be. I believe there is significant desire within AOPA to expose this matter in its entirety.
Cheers. Glen.
Thread Starter
And once thankyou Sandy
Dear Dr. Carina Garland,
In regard to your officer Jarrod Panther’s reply on your behalf to Glen Buckley, I request that you personally make yourself familiar with the salient features of his case.
I support Glen’s pursuit of justice, he has had wrong treatment at the hands of CASA and its disgraceful treatment of him must be redressed.
It is the duty of a Parliamentary representative to pursue the claim of a constituent. Otherwise why have single member constituent representatives? This is a fundamental element of our democratic system.
I vigorously implore you to look again at an obvious injustice that has been perpetrated against Glen Buckley and his well crafted flying training organisation which assisted smaller flying schools and aero clubs to maintain their flying training abilities in the face of a new and far more complex environment of rules, compared to regulations and procedures than pertained in the past (and nothing like the workable system that applies in the USA).
Without the involvement of MPs who are willing to step up and truly represent their constituents at an individual level we deny the basis of single member representatives and responsible government.
Kind regards, and always ready to engage or answer your questions.
Sandy Reith
In regard to your officer Jarrod Panther’s reply on your behalf to Glen Buckley, I request that you personally make yourself familiar with the salient features of his case.
I support Glen’s pursuit of justice, he has had wrong treatment at the hands of CASA and its disgraceful treatment of him must be redressed.
It is the duty of a Parliamentary representative to pursue the claim of a constituent. Otherwise why have single member constituent representatives? This is a fundamental element of our democratic system.
I vigorously implore you to look again at an obvious injustice that has been perpetrated against Glen Buckley and his well crafted flying training organisation which assisted smaller flying schools and aero clubs to maintain their flying training abilities in the face of a new and far more complex environment of rules, compared to regulations and procedures than pertained in the past (and nothing like the workable system that applies in the USA).
Without the involvement of MPs who are willing to step up and truly represent their constituents at an individual level we deny the basis of single member representatives and responsible government.
Kind regards, and always ready to engage or answer your questions.
Sandy Reith
The following users liked this post:
Thread Starter
And a letter from my wife
I only found about this letter from my wife. I need to paint the picture without getting too graphic I had reached the absolute limit, i really had. I had reached the rock bottom. The response from Ms Garland, was my tipping point. I felt so betrayed and let down by her in her role as my Local MP.
It was the final tipping point. My sisters literally saved my life and were able to get me to see one of Australia's leading Psychiatrists almost immediately in the city, early on a Saturday. I had two options. Follow his advice or go on a 6-month waiting list to find another psychiatrist. Within hours i was in a psych ward and remained there for over two weeks.
My wife has come home from work to find her husband had been whisked off. She was in total shock, as i had hidden it well.
I had met with Ms Garland previously, but unbeknown to me, my wife had organized her own meeting with Ms Garland. My wife is not a native English Speaker and was highly emotional. I have elected, with my wife's 51% consent, to publish this letter. This is not my wife, I have NEVER EVER heard her react to anything in a similar manner.
Dear Ms Garland,
I’m requesting to have meeting with you.
My husband Glen received email from you, and it was very disappointing and disgusting, the way you wrote to him. There was no explanation about why you can’t help with Glen’s issue. I heard about you saying to Glen during election that you can help. Glen believed you and spent so much time and money to distribute leaflets for you.
Glen has been hospitalised today because of this.
We might be nothing to you but we are good people always trying to help people. We deserve to get treated as human beings. All you people need is to treat people with respect like I was brought up in Japan.
I would like to have meeting with you and I would also like you to organise a meeting with CASA’s minister. My children would like to attend.
Before we move on, we need to understand why CASA bullied Glen, and destroyed his life completely.
If something happened to Glen, I will never ever forgive CASA. My children are old enough so I don’t mind ending up the rest of my life in jail.
I expect you to organise meeting with me ASAP. I work everyday for long hours and I only have Fridays at 1pm available.
Please reply with respect and treat us like human.
Kind Regards
Sonoko Buckley
It was the final tipping point. My sisters literally saved my life and were able to get me to see one of Australia's leading Psychiatrists almost immediately in the city, early on a Saturday. I had two options. Follow his advice or go on a 6-month waiting list to find another psychiatrist. Within hours i was in a psych ward and remained there for over two weeks.
My wife has come home from work to find her husband had been whisked off. She was in total shock, as i had hidden it well.
I had met with Ms Garland previously, but unbeknown to me, my wife had organized her own meeting with Ms Garland. My wife is not a native English Speaker and was highly emotional. I have elected, with my wife's 51% consent, to publish this letter. This is not my wife, I have NEVER EVER heard her react to anything in a similar manner.
Dear Ms Garland,
I’m requesting to have meeting with you.
My husband Glen received email from you, and it was very disappointing and disgusting, the way you wrote to him. There was no explanation about why you can’t help with Glen’s issue. I heard about you saying to Glen during election that you can help. Glen believed you and spent so much time and money to distribute leaflets for you.
Glen has been hospitalised today because of this.
We might be nothing to you but we are good people always trying to help people. We deserve to get treated as human beings. All you people need is to treat people with respect like I was brought up in Japan.
I would like to have meeting with you and I would also like you to organise a meeting with CASA’s minister. My children would like to attend.
Before we move on, we need to understand why CASA bullied Glen, and destroyed his life completely.
If something happened to Glen, I will never ever forgive CASA. My children are old enough so I don’t mind ending up the rest of my life in jail.
I expect you to organise meeting with me ASAP. I work everyday for long hours and I only have Fridays at 1pm available.
Please reply with respect and treat us like human.
Kind Regards
Sonoko Buckley
The following 2 users liked this post by glenb:
The following users liked this post:
Thread Starter
A letter from Pip Spence
26/05/23
Dear Mr. Buckley
In my correspondence to you over the last 18 months I committed to meet with you to discuss the issues you have raised about CASAs oversight of the Australian Pilot Training Alliance (APTA) after the Ombudsman had finalized its review of your concerns.
CASA has now received the outcome of the Ombudsman ‘s review and I have had the opportunity to consider its findings. Overall, I consider the Ombudsman ‘s report confirms the position that I put to you previously, which is that;
That said what is apparent is that CASA is yet to acknowledge the Industry Complaints Commissioners ((ICC) findings of 18th of July 2019. The ICC found that the timing of the change in CASA‘s regulatory approach in October 2018, and the manner in which it was communicated to APTA was likely to be unfair, even though the regulatory approach itself was appropriate and reasonable. The ICC also concluded that CASA had taken a different position about APTA business model without forewarning and, collectively, it was likely to have had sufficient information about APTAs, business and operational model prior to October 2018 to form a position about it’s compliance with regulation.
I would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge the ICCs findings on these issues and to set out CASA, accepts those conclusions Reflecting on those findings on behalf of CASA. I would like to extend our apologies for the timing and manner of CASA ‘s correspondence of 23 October 2018, that APTAS significant change application may not be approved. I accept that it was likely that you had relied on information from CASA on temporary bases in developing APTAs processes, and CASA change of position on these issues would’ve been unexpected and unsettling. It is apparent that with the benefit of hindsight, once CASA and identified the issues with the proposed model we could and should’ve taken a more collaborative approach in working through these issues with you earlier than we did.
In light of the significant concerns you have raised with me, I did want to confirm that while the ICC concluded in 2019 "that it was likely that CASA collectively was likely to have had sufficient information about APTA‘s business and operational model prior to October 2018 to form a position about its compliance with regulation", neither the ICC nor the Ombudsman concluded that Dr Jonathan Aleck had any involvement in the oversight of APTA prior to 23 October 2018.
Please let my office know a suitable time to discuss your concerns and I will make the necessary arrangements.
Yours sincerely Pip Spence
Dear Mr. Buckley
In my correspondence to you over the last 18 months I committed to meet with you to discuss the issues you have raised about CASAs oversight of the Australian Pilot Training Alliance (APTA) after the Ombudsman had finalized its review of your concerns.
CASA has now received the outcome of the Ombudsman ‘s review and I have had the opportunity to consider its findings. Overall, I consider the Ombudsman ‘s report confirms the position that I put to you previously, which is that;
- CASA ‘s October 2018 notice of intention to decline APTAs significant changes applications was not a decision to close APTA. and was a reasonable and appropriate action for CASA to take in the circumstances.
- CASA had required evidence of contracts with other operators as evidence of operational control before a request for contracts was made to APTA
- CASA’s request for contracts from APTA was supported by legislation and civil aviation regulation and was not unreasonable.
- CASA did not mislead the ombudsman ‘s office.
That said what is apparent is that CASA is yet to acknowledge the Industry Complaints Commissioners ((ICC) findings of 18th of July 2019. The ICC found that the timing of the change in CASA‘s regulatory approach in October 2018, and the manner in which it was communicated to APTA was likely to be unfair, even though the regulatory approach itself was appropriate and reasonable. The ICC also concluded that CASA had taken a different position about APTA business model without forewarning and, collectively, it was likely to have had sufficient information about APTAs, business and operational model prior to October 2018 to form a position about it’s compliance with regulation.
I would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge the ICCs findings on these issues and to set out CASA, accepts those conclusions Reflecting on those findings on behalf of CASA. I would like to extend our apologies for the timing and manner of CASA ‘s correspondence of 23 October 2018, that APTAS significant change application may not be approved. I accept that it was likely that you had relied on information from CASA on temporary bases in developing APTAs processes, and CASA change of position on these issues would’ve been unexpected and unsettling. It is apparent that with the benefit of hindsight, once CASA and identified the issues with the proposed model we could and should’ve taken a more collaborative approach in working through these issues with you earlier than we did.
In light of the significant concerns you have raised with me, I did want to confirm that while the ICC concluded in 2019 "that it was likely that CASA collectively was likely to have had sufficient information about APTA‘s business and operational model prior to October 2018 to form a position about its compliance with regulation", neither the ICC nor the Ombudsman concluded that Dr Jonathan Aleck had any involvement in the oversight of APTA prior to 23 October 2018.
Please let my office know a suitable time to discuss your concerns and I will make the necessary arrangements.
Yours sincerely Pip Spence
The following 4 users liked this post by glenb:
Jeez Glen. I hope this is that crack in the dam wall we have all been waiting on.
”I would like to extend our apologies for the timing and manner of CASA ‘s correspondence of 23 October 2018, …It is apparent that with the benefit of hindsight, once CASA and identified the issues with the proposed model we could and should’ve taken a more collaborative approach in working through these issues with you earlier than we did”
Perhaps time to have a discussion with your legal folks.
I have a big smile on my face!
”I would like to extend our apologies for the timing and manner of CASA ‘s correspondence of 23 October 2018, …It is apparent that with the benefit of hindsight, once CASA and identified the issues with the proposed model we could and should’ve taken a more collaborative approach in working through these issues with you earlier than we did”
Perhaps time to have a discussion with your legal folks.
I have a big smile on my face!
The following users liked this post:
The following users liked this post:
The damn wall definitely has a crack in it.
“taken a more collaborative approach in working through these issues with you earlier than we did.”
I think that is a lie.
I would be asking “what collaborative approach” are you referring to?
Ms Spence is trying to limit the damage which is evident to anyone with knowledge of the basic facts.
At any rate such admission, shockingly late admission, is welcome, but only the beginning of the start. Will she be able to find the courage to deal with this horrendous miscarriage of justice and begin to restore some semblance of respect for CASA?
Hope springs eternal but at least a legal challenge must surely have more legs with Ms. Spence’s admission.
CASA may think it has an academic point about the chain of responsibility as an excuse for its devastating reversal but in real life there was nothing in APTA’s model that was fundamentally wrong in practice.
Then look at the flying schools in the USA where individual instructors can teach flying either solely or in business groups without Part 141 or 142 approvals.
Never forget the big picture of CASA’s control freak mentality and the colossal damage it’s done to General Aviation in Australia. Damage that has implications for our aviation strength as a Nation including our readiness from a security point of view because aerial mobility is a crucial factor in the defence of Australia.
I think that is a lie.
I would be asking “what collaborative approach” are you referring to?
Ms Spence is trying to limit the damage which is evident to anyone with knowledge of the basic facts.
At any rate such admission, shockingly late admission, is welcome, but only the beginning of the start. Will she be able to find the courage to deal with this horrendous miscarriage of justice and begin to restore some semblance of respect for CASA?
Hope springs eternal but at least a legal challenge must surely have more legs with Ms. Spence’s admission.
CASA may think it has an academic point about the chain of responsibility as an excuse for its devastating reversal but in real life there was nothing in APTA’s model that was fundamentally wrong in practice.
Then look at the flying schools in the USA where individual instructors can teach flying either solely or in business groups without Part 141 or 142 approvals.
Never forget the big picture of CASA’s control freak mentality and the colossal damage it’s done to General Aviation in Australia. Damage that has implications for our aviation strength as a Nation including our readiness from a security point of view because aerial mobility is a crucial factor in the defence of Australia.
The following users liked this post:
crafty devil
The following users liked this post:
Sorry for shouting but: DO NOT ANSWER THAT LETTER WITHOUT LEGAL ADVICE because in my opinion, it misrepresents and trivialises CASAs bad behaviour and by not challenging each and every assertion in it you are accepting their version of events. Your letter in reply needs to start with “Without Prejudice “ I think, but I am not a lawyer.
Given the assertion made, it’s going to be a long reply…... More to follow. Sandy is right.
Given the assertion made, it’s going to be a long reply…... More to follow. Sandy is right.
Repeat after me :
In loving memory of David Wells, Senior Partner in Mallesons
IN GOOD FAITH
- fairness
- honesty
- reasonableness
-not undermining the contractual objectives
-not acting arbitrarily or capriciously
-having regard to the interests of the other party, without having to subordinate one’s own interests to the interests of the other.
CASA's actions towards Buckley and APTA from 23 October were not in good faith.
In loving memory of David Wells, Senior Partner in Mallesons
IN GOOD FAITH
- fairness
- honesty
- reasonableness
-not undermining the contractual objectives
-not acting arbitrarily or capriciously
-having regard to the interests of the other party, without having to subordinate one’s own interests to the interests of the other.
CASA's actions towards Buckley and APTA from 23 October were not in good faith.
CASA has now received the outcome of the Ombudsman ‘s review and I have had the opportunity to consider its findings. Overall, I consider the Ombudsman ‘s report confirms the position that I put to you previously, which is that;
CASA's actions towards Buckley and APTA from 23 October were not in good faith.
- CASA ‘s October 2018 notice of intention to decline APTAs significant changes applications was not a decision to close APTA. and was a reasonable and appropriate action for CASA to take in the circumstances.
CASA's actions towards Buckley and APTA from 23 October were not in good faith.
- CASA had required evidence of contracts with other operators as evidence of operational control before a request for contracts was made to APTA
- CASA’s request for contracts from APTA was supported by legislation and civil aviation regulation and was not unreasonable.
- CASA did not mislead the ombudsman ‘s office.
I accept that it was likely that you had relied on information from CASA on temporary bases in developing APTAs processes, and CASA change of position on these issues would’ve been unexpected and unsettling.
Requirements and regulations
Sunfish …”Why did CASA change its position? Is CASA allowed to take positions? I thought the regulations spelled out the requirements?”
Exactly. And what about “operational control?”
Who is in control in a teaching environment? Obviously we have regulatory standards and then we have the PIC and the judgement of a testing Officer because we are talking about teaching someone to fly.
CASA have persuaded Parliament to inappropriately migrate virtually all the rules into the criminal code, how many more layers of “operational control” do you need?
If it wasn’t for the horrendous consequences, in the first instance to Glen Buckley, his family and APTA employees and associated parties, you could describe the CASA play book as farcical. In the second instance the whole of GA, which includes thousands of people, aircraft owners, maintainers, suppliers and all of the economic generating activities and services, continues to suffer untold losses.
And safety, what a joke, zero encouragement to those of us who could contribute to flying training and GA activity are dissuaded at every turn, be it a completely unreal medical certification process or the mountain of super expensive time consuming and useless paperwork and the waste of the ASIC to boot.
Not one word do we hear from the CASA Board to Government about the loss of critical airport infrastructure, loss of flying schools or questioning the ASIC or loss of maintenance personnel. The Board is an irresponsible and costly irrelevance and should be disbanded.
Exactly. And what about “operational control?”
Who is in control in a teaching environment? Obviously we have regulatory standards and then we have the PIC and the judgement of a testing Officer because we are talking about teaching someone to fly.
CASA have persuaded Parliament to inappropriately migrate virtually all the rules into the criminal code, how many more layers of “operational control” do you need?
If it wasn’t for the horrendous consequences, in the first instance to Glen Buckley, his family and APTA employees and associated parties, you could describe the CASA play book as farcical. In the second instance the whole of GA, which includes thousands of people, aircraft owners, maintainers, suppliers and all of the economic generating activities and services, continues to suffer untold losses.
And safety, what a joke, zero encouragement to those of us who could contribute to flying training and GA activity are dissuaded at every turn, be it a completely unreal medical certification process or the mountain of super expensive time consuming and useless paperwork and the waste of the ASIC to boot.
Not one word do we hear from the CASA Board to Government about the loss of critical airport infrastructure, loss of flying schools or questioning the ASIC or loss of maintenance personnel. The Board is an irresponsible and costly irrelevance and should be disbanded.
I appreciate that this didn’t happen on Spence or the current Boards watch, but Why did CASA go to extraordinary lengths to close down APTA - a high quality operator and hound its founder, Glen Buckley, out of the industry, while turning a blind eye to the perhaps criminal behaviour of a sleazy, unsafe, fraudulent flight training school called SOAR?
https://australianaviation.com.au/20...t-school-soar/
Hundreds of students who trained at collapsed flight school Soar are set to receive a five-figure payout after agreeing to a $33 million settlement.
Soar collapsed into administration on 29 December 2020, but it was already indirectly facing a class action from students arguing its standards were so poor it didn’t meet the subsequent requirements to obtain a pilot licence.
The payout means many former students will now be able to enrol in new courses and qualifications after having used up their limited student loans.
The case was brought by Gordon Legal against Melbourne TAFE provider Box Hill Institute (BHI) –students studied the theory element of their diploma of aviation at BHI but undertook the practical flying elements at Soar………
………
More seriously, the ATSB is also investigating an incident that saw a Soar Aviation instructor and student die when one of its Aquila AT01s crashed in NSW in 2020.
More recently, in a separate incident, the ATSB in May 2021 said a Soar Aviation student pilot who crashed his Bristell aircraft and suffered serious head injuries didn’t have permission to conduct the flight solo.
However, the report revealed the trainee believed he did have authorisation, despite clearly not following the correct procedures.
Soar collapsed into administration on 29 December 2020, but it was already indirectly facing a class action from students arguing its standards were so poor it didn’t meet the subsequent requirements to obtain a pilot licence.
The payout means many former students will now be able to enrol in new courses and qualifications after having used up their limited student loans.
The case was brought by Gordon Legal against Melbourne TAFE provider Box Hill Institute (BHI) –students studied the theory element of their diploma of aviation at BHI but undertook the practical flying elements at Soar………
………
More seriously, the ATSB is also investigating an incident that saw a Soar Aviation instructor and student die when one of its Aquila AT01s crashed in NSW in 2020.
More recently, in a separate incident, the ATSB in May 2021 said a Soar Aviation student pilot who crashed his Bristell aircraft and suffered serious head injuries didn’t have permission to conduct the flight solo.
However, the report revealed the trainee believed he did have authorisation, despite clearly not following the correct procedures.
https://australianaviation.com.au/20...t-school-soar/
Last edited by Sunfish; 27th May 2023 at 10:20.
The following users liked this post:
The Board of CASA
Quote:
Sunfish , 27th May 2023 21:04
“I appreciate that this didn’t happen on Spence or the current Boards watch,..,”
True, but the “sins of the fathers are visited on their offspring (read successors)” and in this case by full measure because CASA is a corporate entity. It was quite deliberately created as such by Parliament. There will be no hiding from its hideous misdeeds by pretending that it was someone else, and so far thankfully we are not hearing that argument.
Truth be we hear nothing of value whatsoever from the Board and it has had every opportunity to converse with Glen Buckley and find an equitable redress for Glen Buckley.
Sunfish , 27th May 2023 21:04
“I appreciate that this didn’t happen on Spence or the current Boards watch,..,”
True, but the “sins of the fathers are visited on their offspring (read successors)” and in this case by full measure because CASA is a corporate entity. It was quite deliberately created as such by Parliament. There will be no hiding from its hideous misdeeds by pretending that it was someone else, and so far thankfully we are not hearing that argument.
Truth be we hear nothing of value whatsoever from the Board and it has had every opportunity to converse with Glen Buckley and find an equitable redress for Glen Buckley.
The following users liked this post:
Glen, definitely engage some lawyers before answering that letter. Since it is all happening in Melbourne, the "Vibe of it" demands a QC (now I guess a KC). Pity Lawrence Hammil QC isn't available (Bud Tingwell). However it is time to get serious about nailing these bastards at CASA to the wall! As Jack said in that same movie..."yeah Fark 'em!" 👍
Thread Starter
My response to Ms Pip Spence re. post 2608
04/06/2023
Dear Ms Spence,
Thank you for the letter, dated 25 May 2023, extending the invitation to meet with my wife and I, to discuss the profound and harmful impact CASA’s actions have had, and continue to have, on us and the mental burden we carry for all the persons impacted so unnecessarily by this, including many valued and loyal staff, customers, suppliers, and students who depended on us.
I believe that the meeting would be protracted and take up to 4 hours to attend to the matter in its entirety, and to minimise any ongoing ‘ping pong’ subsequent to the meeting, which obviously best serves both our interests.
We fully appreciate that you will have existing commitments, but our preference would be to delay the meeting until your schedule would accommodate a meeting of 4 hours’ duration. I do not anticipate that it would exceed 4 hours, but I do believe it will consume the majority of the 4 hours. The allegations and the associated impacts are significant as you will appreciate.
As you may be aware, the industry initiated a crowdfunding page to assist me in this matter and those funds could be used to facilitate travel for my wife and I to Canberra, noting that may be your more preferred venue, although obviously a meeting in Melbourne is an option. I will leave the determination of time and venue to you. My wife and I will accommodate any preferred option provided we can have 14 days’ notice.
Once you have the opportunity to determine a suitable date and venue, could you also please advise me of any other attendees that you anticipate joining us on the day. At this stage, my intention is that only my wife and I attend. As a request, could I ask that the Chair of the CASA Board, or his nominee also be present, and I have forwarded this correspondence to the CASA Board. I feel there should be an awareness at Board level, although I will respect your determination on this matter.
I initially intended to provide the fairly brief response to your letter. However, I feel compelled to address some of the statements made in it. By allowing those statements to go “unchecked” in written correspondence, it may incorrectly suggest that I accept those statements when clearly my wife and I, do not.
CASA’s 23 October 2018 letter and restrictions was sent on the pretext that CASA had suddenly become aware of some new and important information about the arrangements between APTA, its alliance members and the individuals and aircraft utilised in flying training operations.
In fact, as has been proven, the truth is that CASA was fully aware of the fine detail of those arrangements and worked ‘side-by-side’ with APTA, for a very long time, assessing them against regulatory requirements for exactly the purpose of providing a “single AOC, multi base, multi entity, approach to flight training using personnel that were not necessarily my employees, and, ultimately, recertifying them to the new legislation in April of 2017. The suggestion in your 25 May 2023 letter to the effect that CASA somehow did not know about or was not on notice of those arrangements until some sudden revelation sometime in 2018 is simply wrong in fact.
I ask that you consider the obvious possibility that the ‘the right hand didn’t know what the left hand was doing’ in CASA, and that it is neither appropriate nor reasonable for CASA to expect an ‘outsider’ like APTA and my family to bear the brunt of the capricious consequences of internal CASA dysfunction and disagreement.
I also ask you to consider that the motivation may have been more “sinister” than the right hand not knowing what the left hand was doing. It is possible that a CASA employee or small group of CASA Executives may have been deliberately prolonging a resolution, to in fact cause maximum commercial harm to me personally.
I believe that it is worth reiterating our perspective prior to the meeting to ensure that the meeting can be as effective as possible because me must arrive at the truth.
Regarding your first dot point. ‘CASAs October 2018 notice of intention to decline APTAs significant changes applications was not a decision to close APTA. and was a reasonable and appropriate action for CASA to take in the circumstances”.
I must clarify this. The notification of intention to decline APTA’s significant change applications for the addition of further bases in CASA’s letter dated 23 October 2018 which you refer to in your correspondence, was not, of itself, the issue which caused so much harm.
Admittedly that alone was concerning, particularly in light of the fact that CASA had approved multiple bases for me over the previous decade, as well as for many other flight training organisations across Australia, in what was an identical proposal. The complete reversal was totally unexpected, and unjustified, and more concerning because it was directed at my business only, and not others against all precedent.
Most of the harm however was caused by the surrounding restrictions placed on the business by CASA and the unjustifiably long duration that those restrictions remained in place. CASA was fully aware of the commercial impact of the trading restrictions, because I notified CASA in writing on multiple occasions of the impact
These CASA imposed trading restrictions remained in place for eight months, costing me and my family well in excess of $10,000 to $15,000 every week they were in place to avoid staff redundancies, and to meet staff salaries. Throughout the 8 months I had no avenue of appeal against those restrictions. I was completely at the mercy of a CASA employees opinion.
The business was allowed to continue operating in the short term based on CASA issuing a number of subsequent “interim approvals” to allow me to continue operating. These short-term interim approvals were as short as 24 hours, but never longer than 90 days.
These “interim approvals” impacted significantly and immediately on the business by preventing APTA taking on new members, and the previously CASA approved bases unable to enrol new students into courses, past the expiry date of the CASA interim approvals. This effectively prevented the business taking on any new customers, as most courses were of 18 months duration. A course of 18 months obviously being far in excess of the duration of the interim approvals on the business that CASA had imposed. Please understand that as a Registered Training Organisation (RTO), these restrictions impacted significantly, and unnecessarily on the organisation.
For clarity, CASA placed restrictions on APTA’s business in its entirety. The entire business was given only seven days’ certainty of operation. This was much much more than a proposed notice to reject two significant change applications.
CASA advised that all previously approved bases were now determined to be “unauthorised” despite the fact that they had been operating for, in some cases, as long as a decade, and all of those operations had been assessed and certified by CASA previously against regulatory requirements applicable to APTA as the sole AOC holder.
CASA even included Melbourne Flight Training in its list of “unauthorised operations”, even though Melbourne Flight Training was always, and remained the original APTA flying school covered by APTA’s original AOC. Melbourne Flight Training was merely the name of the entity whose name changed to APTA. I hope that this can be explained to me at our meeting.
Additionally, as you are aware CASA placed an administrative “freeze” on processing any regulatory tasks for the business in its entirety. These included upgrading of CASA required Key Personnel, not processing requests for courses waiting to be added, and refusal to process applications for new flight simulators that were essential to course delivery. This “Administrative Freeze was placed on the business in its entirety.
Additionally in that correspondence from CASA in October 2018, I was threatened with prosecution because, according to CASA, APTA had facilitated operations in contravention of regulatory requirements. CASA also wrote to APTA’s customers and advised them that APTA was operating unlawfully, and that they could also be subject to prosecution. All of this, and yet I had no right of appeal.
If there were any safety concerns, CASA would have adopted a different approach. The approach adopted by CASA was most certainly the approach that caused the most commercial harm and reputational harm to my family and our business, while achieving absolutely no safety benefit. If it were a safety concern that was driving CASAs actions, CASA should have prevented all flying operations, instead CASA restricted new members and students enrolling, but permitted existing students and bases to continue trading albeit under short term interim approvals. The safety issue or concern, if they existed cannot have been significant if existing customers and students were permitted to remain in the short term.
The restrictions were harmful, and entirely unnecessary and CASA was not compelled to take that course of action. Restrictions that I believe were placed unlawfully on the business, and could have and should been lifted at any time, This single action would have allowed me to return somewhat, to business as usual.
Consider also the reputational harm caused to the business when the industry becomes aware that CASA has imposed the most substantive restrictions placed on any flying school ever. Reputationally a decade of developing an industry leading reputation of safety and compliance is destroyed.
For many years I have led industry to believe that I am fully CASA approved, as I was. I have taken on many additional bases with full CASA approval over the previous decade. Many have seen me do it successfully during that decade, and they have placed their trust and confidence in me. Suddenly, after a decade of operations and with no concerns having ever been raised CASA advises me that the entire structure, I had invested hundreds of thousands of dollars in, and three years of working side by side with CASA to meet the new regulatory procedures and is approved for that very specific purpose. It has been redesigned with CASA for the new regulations, fully approved to the new regulations, yet is declared unlawful less than two months after those regulations are introduced.
So, although CASA’s 23 October 2018 letter was not technically a decision to close APTA, the practical consequences of CASA’s surrounding actions effectively crushed the financial and reputational viability of the business and sent me broke including the loss of my family home, along with three hundred thousand dollars contributed by my parents to maintain staff salaries and prevent redundancies during the eight months that the trading restrictions are in place.
I urge you to read that original notification of October 2018. It was the initial contact, it advised that the entire business was operating unlawfully, had 7 days to operate, and me and my members were potentially subject to prosecution, and all bases including mine was now determined to be “unauthorised”. This notification and subsequent approach by CASA were much much more than a proposal to reject the most recent application to add two new bases. It was effectively notifying that my business of ten years would not be permitted to continue operating.
Regarding dot point two.
“CASA had required evidence of contracts with other operators as evidence of operational control before a request for contracts was made to APTA”.
That statement is misleading, and I feel compelled to address it. The truth is that CASA never required evidence of contracts from other flight training operators.
I have confirmed this with operators that had been doing exactly what I was doing over the previous 25 years. All advise me that CASA was not involved in commercial contracts at all within the flight training environment, and never required commercial contracts from them.
On this matter, I believe that CASA has provided false and misleading information to the Ombudsman investigation. I believe that you have also been misled Ms Spence.
On this matter, I intend to make an FOI request for any existing commercial contracts that CASA has required of any operator, where the operator has had to outline matters of operational control within a commercial contract which CASA is not a signatory to.
This is fundamental. Matters of operational control are specified in the CASA approved Operations /Exposition that CASA has control over.
Matters of operational control are not specified in “commercial contracts” because CASA is not a party to those commercial contracts.
The significance of this is that the Exposition is the Master CASA approved document specifying matters of operational control.
A “commercial contract is not.
The content of that commercial contract can replicate the CASA approved procedures within the Exposition, but it cannot be the primary source location to stipulate those procedures of operational control. Not without the changes going into the Exposition first.
Pending the release of my FOI request, this is something that you may choose to initiate from within your office.
The significance of this matter is that every single piece of legislation and all additional considerations for this exact operating structure that I had adopted for a decade were already fully contained within the CASA approved Exposition. The truth is that there were no deficiencies. My hope is that prior to our meeting you can discuss with the CASA Executive Management that were involved in my matter, and very clearly and specifically identify what procedures were deficient or absent in the CASA approved Exposition, that CASA wanted to address in the commercial contracts, and not in the Exposition.
It would be ideal if you could present me with some scenarios that CASA feels had not been considered or attended to.
Furthermore, the statement, “before a request for contracts was made to APTA” does not accurately represent the situation. It suggests that I did not have contracts and that CASA made a request for contracts.
The truth is that despite there being no previous requirement from CASA on any operators operating in the same structure that I adopted, to provide commercial contracts, I had supplied them to CASA on multiple occasions over the previous years to CASA as a courtesy. Until now, CASA showed little interest, as they were “commercial contracts”
By legislation those matters of operational control, safety etc must be contained within the Operations Manual/Exposition as ours were. I have spoken to other Operators that adopted the same model as mine and they assure me that CASA never require contracts. I can see that this may be a point of contention, and prior to our meeting I will make a FOI request for the contracts that CASA has advised the Ombudsman’s office that they held, so that we can clarify this matter on the day.
It was APTA that initiated the commercial contracts years prior, and I had provided them to CASA as a courtesy. There was never any objection from me to fully resolve the contract issue. The issue was that CASA was unable to provide me the requirements that they wanted in the contract.
Please note that on 30 April 2019, with the crippling trading restrictions in place for 6 months, CASA informed me that CASA had only now issued instructions to external legal service providers for the provision of ‘model clauses’ for contractual arrangements that would meet the minimum regulatory requirements imposed by CASA. Up until that point, CASA was effectively demanding that APTA guess what words CASA wanted to read in contracts in order to satisfy CASA. Recall that EVERYTHING was already attended to in the CASA approved Exposition, and perhaps that is something you can clarify at our meeting.
Unfortunately, by the point at which CASA finally took an ‘appropriate and reasonable’ approach to its contract clauses demand, I was exhausted financially, physically and mentally. I could not bear the prospect of CASA coming up with yet another and different “appropriate and reasonable” “regulatory approach” at it did shortly afterward when CASA determined that all personnel operating under the AOC MUST also be employees, which very clearly has no basis in law, and CASA have no requirement in the legislation that anyone be an” employee”. The very plain and simple truth is that no-one must be an employee, and that includes all positions including instructors, CEOs, Head of operations, safety Manager etc. No-one.
Regarding dot point three.
“Request for contracts from APTA was supported by legislation and civil aviation regulation and was not unreasonable.”
On this point it is very important that there be a very clear distinction between the what the CASA Exposition is, and what it contains as per the regulations, as mine did, and what a commercial contract is.
I maintain that there is no legislation at all that suggests or requires that matters of operational control are contained within a commercial contract.
As somebody who has operated within the flight training environment for over 25 years, that requirement is as bizarre, as it is absurd.
May I respectfully request that at that meeting you are able to direct me to the legislation that you refer to.
Regarding dot point four.
“CASA did not mislead the ombudsman ‘s office.”
Until now I have steadfastly maintained that Mr Aleck has been responsible for providing false and misleading information to a Commonwealth Ombudsman investigation. In recent correspondence you suggested that it was in fact the CASA ICC that was responsible for providing information to the Ombudsman’s Office. I hope that at the meeting we can clarify who, and what stage, which personnel or CASA Departments were responsible for providing information to the Ombudsman’s Office investigation.
At this point I will say this: If, as you say, the “regulatory approach” that CASA took after 2018 was “appropriate and reasonable”, that “regulatory approach” should have been taken by CASA during the processes through which CASA worked ‘side-by-side’ with APTA and certified all of that which CASA subsequently determined to be “unauthorised”. If CASA had done that a decade prior when we opened our first base or during 2016, 2017, and 2018 as I redesigned APTA with CASA to meet the new regulatory structure, it would have become clear that CASA was not going to permit me to continue adopting the structure that I had been using over the previous decade.
Had CASA not encouraged me to develop APTA, and revalidated APTA 18 months prior, and if I was made aware that the process was at substantial risk of turning into a complex and expensive regulatory nightmare, I would have abandoned the concept and my family and I would not have lost all that we have lost.
Instead, I was encouraged by CASA to believe the concept and the arrangements APTA put in place complied with regulatory requirements, without any mention of the “regulatory approach” you say was “appropriate and reasonable”.
Regarding your characterisation of CASA’s 23 October 2018 letter as “unexpected and unsettling”, please note that the letter effectively said that all that I had built, that all of the blood, sweat and tears I had shed, that all of the money invested by my family and I, that all of the work done with and by CASA to get it all certified, was all for nought. And I was a criminal.
A much-higher-than-expected electricity bill is “unexpected and unsettling”, Ms Spence. Losing an entire life’s work is devastating. That devastation has been wrought on my family and me. Your characterisation seemed quite trivialising, and it led my wife to insisting she participate in this meeting as one of the persons most affected by CASA’s actions.
These are all matters that we can discuss in greater detail at a professional and well-intentioned meeting.
I should point out that I have a YouTube broadcast on this subject going to air next Tuesday (6 June 2023) evening. Whilst I certainly don’t expect you to watch that live presentation, I will arrange for a link to be sent to your Office, and may I respectfully request that you view that prior to our meeting.
Ms. Spence, please be assured that I am not trying to be combative. But CASA has delayed properly remedying the injustice done to my family and me for too long, and we have paid a very high price for that delay, not only financially but mentally and physically. My wife and I hope that you will come to the meeting with a concrete proposal to bring that delay and associated suffering and trauma to an end, and ensuring that no other General Aviation Business is ever subjected to such treatment again. We look forward to the meeting.
At that meeting and to ensure we can both "cover as much ground as practical", may I respectfully request that you have access to the following documents, and similarly please advise if you have any suggestions or requirements of me.
You will also be aware that I have restricted the discussion of this matter to two discrete pilot forums, rather than wider social media. Those two forums being Aunty Pru and Pprune. The Pprune thread on this matter has attracted well over 1,000,000 views and thousands of revealing comments by concerned industry participants, and a link to that thread can be accessed here. I appreciate that it is easy to be dismissive of such forums, but I sincerely believe that the associated comments by industry professionals must be considered in the wider context of this matter. Glen Buckley and Australian small business -V- CASA - PPRuNe Forums
If I may finish with this request. I asked my wife what a “blue sky” would look like. She wanted two things.
She wanted to walk out of our meeting knowing very clearly what it was that her husband did wrong because like I, she simply cannot understand “what I did wrong”. You will appreciate the connotations that surround a person having their aviation business closed down by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, and we would like that clearly identified to us.
Secondly, my wife, like me, would like to obtain a full understanding as to why this entire matter occurred. Why couldn’t it have been fully resolved prior to CASA placing any restrictions at all on the business. Specifically, she would like someone to explain why this whole matter in its absolute entirety could not have been avoided by a well-intentioned discussion of less than 4 hours.
Again, I thank you for providing this opportunity, we appreciate the opportunity you have provided, and we look forward to a professional, respectful, and productive meeting at your earliest practical convenience. I hope that this correspondence has demonstrated the requirement for the meeting to be somewhat protracted.
Yours sincerely
Glen Buckley
Dear Ms Spence,
Thank you for the letter, dated 25 May 2023, extending the invitation to meet with my wife and I, to discuss the profound and harmful impact CASA’s actions have had, and continue to have, on us and the mental burden we carry for all the persons impacted so unnecessarily by this, including many valued and loyal staff, customers, suppliers, and students who depended on us.
I believe that the meeting would be protracted and take up to 4 hours to attend to the matter in its entirety, and to minimise any ongoing ‘ping pong’ subsequent to the meeting, which obviously best serves both our interests.
We fully appreciate that you will have existing commitments, but our preference would be to delay the meeting until your schedule would accommodate a meeting of 4 hours’ duration. I do not anticipate that it would exceed 4 hours, but I do believe it will consume the majority of the 4 hours. The allegations and the associated impacts are significant as you will appreciate.
As you may be aware, the industry initiated a crowdfunding page to assist me in this matter and those funds could be used to facilitate travel for my wife and I to Canberra, noting that may be your more preferred venue, although obviously a meeting in Melbourne is an option. I will leave the determination of time and venue to you. My wife and I will accommodate any preferred option provided we can have 14 days’ notice.
Once you have the opportunity to determine a suitable date and venue, could you also please advise me of any other attendees that you anticipate joining us on the day. At this stage, my intention is that only my wife and I attend. As a request, could I ask that the Chair of the CASA Board, or his nominee also be present, and I have forwarded this correspondence to the CASA Board. I feel there should be an awareness at Board level, although I will respect your determination on this matter.
I initially intended to provide the fairly brief response to your letter. However, I feel compelled to address some of the statements made in it. By allowing those statements to go “unchecked” in written correspondence, it may incorrectly suggest that I accept those statements when clearly my wife and I, do not.
CASA’s 23 October 2018 letter and restrictions was sent on the pretext that CASA had suddenly become aware of some new and important information about the arrangements between APTA, its alliance members and the individuals and aircraft utilised in flying training operations.
In fact, as has been proven, the truth is that CASA was fully aware of the fine detail of those arrangements and worked ‘side-by-side’ with APTA, for a very long time, assessing them against regulatory requirements for exactly the purpose of providing a “single AOC, multi base, multi entity, approach to flight training using personnel that were not necessarily my employees, and, ultimately, recertifying them to the new legislation in April of 2017. The suggestion in your 25 May 2023 letter to the effect that CASA somehow did not know about or was not on notice of those arrangements until some sudden revelation sometime in 2018 is simply wrong in fact.
I ask that you consider the obvious possibility that the ‘the right hand didn’t know what the left hand was doing’ in CASA, and that it is neither appropriate nor reasonable for CASA to expect an ‘outsider’ like APTA and my family to bear the brunt of the capricious consequences of internal CASA dysfunction and disagreement.
I also ask you to consider that the motivation may have been more “sinister” than the right hand not knowing what the left hand was doing. It is possible that a CASA employee or small group of CASA Executives may have been deliberately prolonging a resolution, to in fact cause maximum commercial harm to me personally.
I believe that it is worth reiterating our perspective prior to the meeting to ensure that the meeting can be as effective as possible because me must arrive at the truth.
Regarding your first dot point. ‘CASAs October 2018 notice of intention to decline APTAs significant changes applications was not a decision to close APTA. and was a reasonable and appropriate action for CASA to take in the circumstances”.
I must clarify this. The notification of intention to decline APTA’s significant change applications for the addition of further bases in CASA’s letter dated 23 October 2018 which you refer to in your correspondence, was not, of itself, the issue which caused so much harm.
Admittedly that alone was concerning, particularly in light of the fact that CASA had approved multiple bases for me over the previous decade, as well as for many other flight training organisations across Australia, in what was an identical proposal. The complete reversal was totally unexpected, and unjustified, and more concerning because it was directed at my business only, and not others against all precedent.
Most of the harm however was caused by the surrounding restrictions placed on the business by CASA and the unjustifiably long duration that those restrictions remained in place. CASA was fully aware of the commercial impact of the trading restrictions, because I notified CASA in writing on multiple occasions of the impact
These CASA imposed trading restrictions remained in place for eight months, costing me and my family well in excess of $10,000 to $15,000 every week they were in place to avoid staff redundancies, and to meet staff salaries. Throughout the 8 months I had no avenue of appeal against those restrictions. I was completely at the mercy of a CASA employees opinion.
The business was allowed to continue operating in the short term based on CASA issuing a number of subsequent “interim approvals” to allow me to continue operating. These short-term interim approvals were as short as 24 hours, but never longer than 90 days.
These “interim approvals” impacted significantly and immediately on the business by preventing APTA taking on new members, and the previously CASA approved bases unable to enrol new students into courses, past the expiry date of the CASA interim approvals. This effectively prevented the business taking on any new customers, as most courses were of 18 months duration. A course of 18 months obviously being far in excess of the duration of the interim approvals on the business that CASA had imposed. Please understand that as a Registered Training Organisation (RTO), these restrictions impacted significantly, and unnecessarily on the organisation.
For clarity, CASA placed restrictions on APTA’s business in its entirety. The entire business was given only seven days’ certainty of operation. This was much much more than a proposed notice to reject two significant change applications.
CASA advised that all previously approved bases were now determined to be “unauthorised” despite the fact that they had been operating for, in some cases, as long as a decade, and all of those operations had been assessed and certified by CASA previously against regulatory requirements applicable to APTA as the sole AOC holder.
CASA even included Melbourne Flight Training in its list of “unauthorised operations”, even though Melbourne Flight Training was always, and remained the original APTA flying school covered by APTA’s original AOC. Melbourne Flight Training was merely the name of the entity whose name changed to APTA. I hope that this can be explained to me at our meeting.
Additionally, as you are aware CASA placed an administrative “freeze” on processing any regulatory tasks for the business in its entirety. These included upgrading of CASA required Key Personnel, not processing requests for courses waiting to be added, and refusal to process applications for new flight simulators that were essential to course delivery. This “Administrative Freeze was placed on the business in its entirety.
Additionally in that correspondence from CASA in October 2018, I was threatened with prosecution because, according to CASA, APTA had facilitated operations in contravention of regulatory requirements. CASA also wrote to APTA’s customers and advised them that APTA was operating unlawfully, and that they could also be subject to prosecution. All of this, and yet I had no right of appeal.
If there were any safety concerns, CASA would have adopted a different approach. The approach adopted by CASA was most certainly the approach that caused the most commercial harm and reputational harm to my family and our business, while achieving absolutely no safety benefit. If it were a safety concern that was driving CASAs actions, CASA should have prevented all flying operations, instead CASA restricted new members and students enrolling, but permitted existing students and bases to continue trading albeit under short term interim approvals. The safety issue or concern, if they existed cannot have been significant if existing customers and students were permitted to remain in the short term.
The restrictions were harmful, and entirely unnecessary and CASA was not compelled to take that course of action. Restrictions that I believe were placed unlawfully on the business, and could have and should been lifted at any time, This single action would have allowed me to return somewhat, to business as usual.
Consider also the reputational harm caused to the business when the industry becomes aware that CASA has imposed the most substantive restrictions placed on any flying school ever. Reputationally a decade of developing an industry leading reputation of safety and compliance is destroyed.
For many years I have led industry to believe that I am fully CASA approved, as I was. I have taken on many additional bases with full CASA approval over the previous decade. Many have seen me do it successfully during that decade, and they have placed their trust and confidence in me. Suddenly, after a decade of operations and with no concerns having ever been raised CASA advises me that the entire structure, I had invested hundreds of thousands of dollars in, and three years of working side by side with CASA to meet the new regulatory procedures and is approved for that very specific purpose. It has been redesigned with CASA for the new regulations, fully approved to the new regulations, yet is declared unlawful less than two months after those regulations are introduced.
So, although CASA’s 23 October 2018 letter was not technically a decision to close APTA, the practical consequences of CASA’s surrounding actions effectively crushed the financial and reputational viability of the business and sent me broke including the loss of my family home, along with three hundred thousand dollars contributed by my parents to maintain staff salaries and prevent redundancies during the eight months that the trading restrictions are in place.
I urge you to read that original notification of October 2018. It was the initial contact, it advised that the entire business was operating unlawfully, had 7 days to operate, and me and my members were potentially subject to prosecution, and all bases including mine was now determined to be “unauthorised”. This notification and subsequent approach by CASA were much much more than a proposal to reject the most recent application to add two new bases. It was effectively notifying that my business of ten years would not be permitted to continue operating.
Regarding dot point two.
“CASA had required evidence of contracts with other operators as evidence of operational control before a request for contracts was made to APTA”.
That statement is misleading, and I feel compelled to address it. The truth is that CASA never required evidence of contracts from other flight training operators.
I have confirmed this with operators that had been doing exactly what I was doing over the previous 25 years. All advise me that CASA was not involved in commercial contracts at all within the flight training environment, and never required commercial contracts from them.
On this matter, I believe that CASA has provided false and misleading information to the Ombudsman investigation. I believe that you have also been misled Ms Spence.
On this matter, I intend to make an FOI request for any existing commercial contracts that CASA has required of any operator, where the operator has had to outline matters of operational control within a commercial contract which CASA is not a signatory to.
This is fundamental. Matters of operational control are specified in the CASA approved Operations /Exposition that CASA has control over.
Matters of operational control are not specified in “commercial contracts” because CASA is not a party to those commercial contracts.
The significance of this is that the Exposition is the Master CASA approved document specifying matters of operational control.
A “commercial contract is not.
The content of that commercial contract can replicate the CASA approved procedures within the Exposition, but it cannot be the primary source location to stipulate those procedures of operational control. Not without the changes going into the Exposition first.
Pending the release of my FOI request, this is something that you may choose to initiate from within your office.
The significance of this matter is that every single piece of legislation and all additional considerations for this exact operating structure that I had adopted for a decade were already fully contained within the CASA approved Exposition. The truth is that there were no deficiencies. My hope is that prior to our meeting you can discuss with the CASA Executive Management that were involved in my matter, and very clearly and specifically identify what procedures were deficient or absent in the CASA approved Exposition, that CASA wanted to address in the commercial contracts, and not in the Exposition.
It would be ideal if you could present me with some scenarios that CASA feels had not been considered or attended to.
Furthermore, the statement, “before a request for contracts was made to APTA” does not accurately represent the situation. It suggests that I did not have contracts and that CASA made a request for contracts.
The truth is that despite there being no previous requirement from CASA on any operators operating in the same structure that I adopted, to provide commercial contracts, I had supplied them to CASA on multiple occasions over the previous years to CASA as a courtesy. Until now, CASA showed little interest, as they were “commercial contracts”
By legislation those matters of operational control, safety etc must be contained within the Operations Manual/Exposition as ours were. I have spoken to other Operators that adopted the same model as mine and they assure me that CASA never require contracts. I can see that this may be a point of contention, and prior to our meeting I will make a FOI request for the contracts that CASA has advised the Ombudsman’s office that they held, so that we can clarify this matter on the day.
It was APTA that initiated the commercial contracts years prior, and I had provided them to CASA as a courtesy. There was never any objection from me to fully resolve the contract issue. The issue was that CASA was unable to provide me the requirements that they wanted in the contract.
Please note that on 30 April 2019, with the crippling trading restrictions in place for 6 months, CASA informed me that CASA had only now issued instructions to external legal service providers for the provision of ‘model clauses’ for contractual arrangements that would meet the minimum regulatory requirements imposed by CASA. Up until that point, CASA was effectively demanding that APTA guess what words CASA wanted to read in contracts in order to satisfy CASA. Recall that EVERYTHING was already attended to in the CASA approved Exposition, and perhaps that is something you can clarify at our meeting.
Unfortunately, by the point at which CASA finally took an ‘appropriate and reasonable’ approach to its contract clauses demand, I was exhausted financially, physically and mentally. I could not bear the prospect of CASA coming up with yet another and different “appropriate and reasonable” “regulatory approach” at it did shortly afterward when CASA determined that all personnel operating under the AOC MUST also be employees, which very clearly has no basis in law, and CASA have no requirement in the legislation that anyone be an” employee”. The very plain and simple truth is that no-one must be an employee, and that includes all positions including instructors, CEOs, Head of operations, safety Manager etc. No-one.
Regarding dot point three.
“Request for contracts from APTA was supported by legislation and civil aviation regulation and was not unreasonable.”
On this point it is very important that there be a very clear distinction between the what the CASA Exposition is, and what it contains as per the regulations, as mine did, and what a commercial contract is.
I maintain that there is no legislation at all that suggests or requires that matters of operational control are contained within a commercial contract.
As somebody who has operated within the flight training environment for over 25 years, that requirement is as bizarre, as it is absurd.
May I respectfully request that at that meeting you are able to direct me to the legislation that you refer to.
Regarding dot point four.
“CASA did not mislead the ombudsman ‘s office.”
Until now I have steadfastly maintained that Mr Aleck has been responsible for providing false and misleading information to a Commonwealth Ombudsman investigation. In recent correspondence you suggested that it was in fact the CASA ICC that was responsible for providing information to the Ombudsman’s Office. I hope that at the meeting we can clarify who, and what stage, which personnel or CASA Departments were responsible for providing information to the Ombudsman’s Office investigation.
At this point I will say this: If, as you say, the “regulatory approach” that CASA took after 2018 was “appropriate and reasonable”, that “regulatory approach” should have been taken by CASA during the processes through which CASA worked ‘side-by-side’ with APTA and certified all of that which CASA subsequently determined to be “unauthorised”. If CASA had done that a decade prior when we opened our first base or during 2016, 2017, and 2018 as I redesigned APTA with CASA to meet the new regulatory structure, it would have become clear that CASA was not going to permit me to continue adopting the structure that I had been using over the previous decade.
Had CASA not encouraged me to develop APTA, and revalidated APTA 18 months prior, and if I was made aware that the process was at substantial risk of turning into a complex and expensive regulatory nightmare, I would have abandoned the concept and my family and I would not have lost all that we have lost.
Instead, I was encouraged by CASA to believe the concept and the arrangements APTA put in place complied with regulatory requirements, without any mention of the “regulatory approach” you say was “appropriate and reasonable”.
Regarding your characterisation of CASA’s 23 October 2018 letter as “unexpected and unsettling”, please note that the letter effectively said that all that I had built, that all of the blood, sweat and tears I had shed, that all of the money invested by my family and I, that all of the work done with and by CASA to get it all certified, was all for nought. And I was a criminal.
A much-higher-than-expected electricity bill is “unexpected and unsettling”, Ms Spence. Losing an entire life’s work is devastating. That devastation has been wrought on my family and me. Your characterisation seemed quite trivialising, and it led my wife to insisting she participate in this meeting as one of the persons most affected by CASA’s actions.
These are all matters that we can discuss in greater detail at a professional and well-intentioned meeting.
I should point out that I have a YouTube broadcast on this subject going to air next Tuesday (6 June 2023) evening. Whilst I certainly don’t expect you to watch that live presentation, I will arrange for a link to be sent to your Office, and may I respectfully request that you view that prior to our meeting.
Ms. Spence, please be assured that I am not trying to be combative. But CASA has delayed properly remedying the injustice done to my family and me for too long, and we have paid a very high price for that delay, not only financially but mentally and physically. My wife and I hope that you will come to the meeting with a concrete proposal to bring that delay and associated suffering and trauma to an end, and ensuring that no other General Aviation Business is ever subjected to such treatment again. We look forward to the meeting.
At that meeting and to ensure we can both "cover as much ground as practical", may I respectfully request that you have access to the following documents, and similarly please advise if you have any suggestions or requirements of me.
- CASAs Regulatory Philosophy
- Copy of the initial notification sent to me. October 2018.
- CASA Regulatory Enforcement Manual
- Aviation Ruling
- CARs
You will also be aware that I have restricted the discussion of this matter to two discrete pilot forums, rather than wider social media. Those two forums being Aunty Pru and Pprune. The Pprune thread on this matter has attracted well over 1,000,000 views and thousands of revealing comments by concerned industry participants, and a link to that thread can be accessed here. I appreciate that it is easy to be dismissive of such forums, but I sincerely believe that the associated comments by industry professionals must be considered in the wider context of this matter. Glen Buckley and Australian small business -V- CASA - PPRuNe Forums
If I may finish with this request. I asked my wife what a “blue sky” would look like. She wanted two things.
She wanted to walk out of our meeting knowing very clearly what it was that her husband did wrong because like I, she simply cannot understand “what I did wrong”. You will appreciate the connotations that surround a person having their aviation business closed down by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, and we would like that clearly identified to us.
Secondly, my wife, like me, would like to obtain a full understanding as to why this entire matter occurred. Why couldn’t it have been fully resolved prior to CASA placing any restrictions at all on the business. Specifically, she would like someone to explain why this whole matter in its absolute entirety could not have been avoided by a well-intentioned discussion of less than 4 hours.
Again, I thank you for providing this opportunity, we appreciate the opportunity you have provided, and we look forward to a professional, respectful, and productive meeting at your earliest practical convenience. I hope that this correspondence has demonstrated the requirement for the meeting to be somewhat protracted.
Yours sincerely
Glen Buckley