Glen Buckley and Australian small business -V- CASA
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: australia
Age: 81
Posts: 207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Depend’s on the country of registration regulation’s. For the N-reg example, FAR 61.3 is where you find permission for operation of a N-reg plane in overseas territories but only if you have a licence from that airspace’s authorities. I.e. An Aussie FCL to fly in Aussie airspace.
Countries such as Caymans, Isle of Man, Aruba etc. work on a validation principle. You don’t get a Caymans FCL the same way you would get a CASA one (flight tests, exams etc.) but you get it on the basis of having an ICAO FCL. So if your CASA PPL gets cancelled, so does your validation one.
(1) Has in the person's physical possession or readily accessible in the aircraft when exercising the privileges of that pilot certificate or authorization -
(i) A pilot certificate issued under this part and in accordance with § 61.19;
(ii) A special purpose pilot authorization issued under § 61.77;
(iii) A temporary certificate issued under § 61.17;
(iv) A document conveying temporary authority to exercise certificate privileges issued by the Airmen Certification Branch under § 61.29(e);
(v) When engaged in a flight operation within the United States for a part 119 certificate holder authorized to conduct operations under part 121 or 135 of this chapter, a temporary document provided by that certificate holder under an approved certificate verification plan;
(vi) When engaged in a flight operation within the United States for a fractional ownership program manager authorized to conduct operations under part 91, subpart K, of this chapter, a temporary document provided by that program manager under an approved certificate verification plan; or
(vii) When operating an aircraft within a foreign country, a pilot license issued by that country may be used.
Part .1 says a US cert
Part vii says a local cert MAY be used
ie either a US or an Australian certificate.
That is not how I see § 61.3 Requirement for certificates, ratings, and authorizations.(a)Required pilot certificate for operating a civil aircraft of the United States. No person may serve as a required pilot flight crewmemberof a civil aircraft of the United States, unless that person:
(1) Has in the person's physical possession or readily accessible in the aircraft when exercising the privileges of that pilot certificate or authorization -
(i) A pilot certificate issued under this part and in accordance with § 61.19;
(ii) A special purpose pilot authorization issued under § 61.77;
(iii) A temporary certificate issued under § 61.17;
(iv) A document conveying temporary authority to exercise certificate privileges issued by the Airmen Certification Branch under § 61.29(e);
(v) When engaged in a flight operation within the United States for a part 119 certificate holder authorized to conduct operations under part 121 or 135 of this chapter, a temporary document provided by that certificate holder under an approved certificate verification plan;
(vi) When engaged in a flight operation within the United States for a fractional ownership program manager authorized to conduct operations under part 91, subpart K, of this chapter, a temporary document provided by that program manager under an approved certificate verification plan; or
(vii) When operating an aircraft within a foreign country, a pilot license issued by that country may be used.
Part .1 says a US cert
Part vii says a local cert MAY be used
ie either a US or an Australian certificate.
(1) Has in the person's physical possession or readily accessible in the aircraft when exercising the privileges of that pilot certificate or authorization -
(i) A pilot certificate issued under this part and in accordance with § 61.19;
(ii) A special purpose pilot authorization issued under § 61.77;
(iii) A temporary certificate issued under § 61.17;
(iv) A document conveying temporary authority to exercise certificate privileges issued by the Airmen Certification Branch under § 61.29(e);
(v) When engaged in a flight operation within the United States for a part 119 certificate holder authorized to conduct operations under part 121 or 135 of this chapter, a temporary document provided by that certificate holder under an approved certificate verification plan;
(vi) When engaged in a flight operation within the United States for a fractional ownership program manager authorized to conduct operations under part 91, subpart K, of this chapter, a temporary document provided by that program manager under an approved certificate verification plan; or
(vii) When operating an aircraft within a foreign country, a pilot license issued by that country may be used.
Part .1 says a US cert
Part vii says a local cert MAY be used
ie either a US or an Australian certificate.
Otherwise every United/Delta pilot would have a myriad of licences from every corner of the Earth.
Last edited by DrongoDriver; 3rd Aug 2019 at 11:04.
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: Currently: A landlocked country with high terrain, otherwise Melbourne, Australia + Washington D.C.
Posts: 396
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Does CASA actually have a say in which foreign registered aircraft fly into and within Australian airspace? For instance, would it be fine with CASA if I operate a Norwegian registered aircraft in Australia with my Aussie FCL (assuming that's compliant with Norwegian regulations)? I would expect that some form must be submitted beforehand (+ a fee duly paid) as with most matters related to aviation here. Crossing borders as a pilot in an aircraft is an area of surprising opacity in my opinion. I might be overthinking this but comparing flying with driving often proves too simplistic to point of being wrong. I would expect that the scenario is less of an issue when you are an Australian GA pilot (cuz, jaayzus, you ain't leaving 'Straya in a bug smasher, heey?) but when you're from Europe with a view to return in medium term, you start asking yourself how you may legally fly when overseas. N-reg aircraft are scattered around the world but VH ones less so. I'd find it amusing to fly my own VH aeroplane back in Oslo but I'm guessing that if you aren't seeing VH tails elsewhere, there's got to be some good reason behind it.
Okihara,
There are dozens of VH- registered Bizjets flying all over the globe. So what's the issue? There are VH- registered bug smashers in PNG, Philippines, Indonesia, Singapore.
Two considerations worth considering are; sheer cost when an airline ticker is cheaper, lack of Avgas, cost of handling agents, landing fees, navigation charges. I have been flying a N-reg in Australia for 20+ years under FAA 61.3...… Foreign registered aircraft operating in Australia will eventually require maintenance, there is a few shops with FAA approval of sorts, as well as PNG, Indonesian and New Zealand.
Not quite sure where the thread is leading ….
There are dozens of VH- registered Bizjets flying all over the globe. So what's the issue? There are VH- registered bug smashers in PNG, Philippines, Indonesia, Singapore.
Two considerations worth considering are; sheer cost when an airline ticker is cheaper, lack of Avgas, cost of handling agents, landing fees, navigation charges. I have been flying a N-reg in Australia for 20+ years under FAA 61.3...… Foreign registered aircraft operating in Australia will eventually require maintenance, there is a few shops with FAA approval of sorts, as well as PNG, Indonesian and New Zealand.
Not quite sure where the thread is leading ….
Thread Starter
Part 1 of 2 letter to CASA Board
I have made at least 6 requests to meet with the CASA Board since my dramas started unfolding over 9 months. Those requests were all ignored except for when Mr Crawford the Manager of the Aviation Group wrote to me explaining he would not permit it. Not having a lot of respect of the mans ethics I persevered and was successful. I met with Mr Tony Mathews at Melbourne Airport. I requested a response by 2nd August ( two weeks after our meeting). Typically, nothing came. For reference I have posted a copy of the leeter that summarises the meeting. Due to length, I have had to post it over two consecutive posts. Cheers. Glen.
Dear Mr Anthony Mathews
Thank you for providing the opportunity to meet with you, in your role as the Chair of the CASA Board, and for facilitating the attendance of the Regional Manager, Mr Jason McHeyzer, in his role as the Regional Manager for the Southern Region, at Melbourne Airport from approximately 4PM to 6PM on Friday 19/07/19.
I attended with my father Derek Buckley, in his role, purely as my father, someone who has supported me throughout this experience, and is after all. My father.
As you are aware, I have made numerous requests over the last 8 months to meet with the Board of CASA. Those repeated requests were not responded to, or acknowledged, and this is a contributing factor to the delays in our meeting. I note that you are relatively new in the role, irrespective the delays in facilitating the meeting have had a significant impact, and due to the passage of time, unavoidably, the nature of the meeting has changed.I asked you if you had the opportunity to view the final report from the Industry Complaints Commissioner, and you responded that you had viewed that, approximately one month prior to our meeting, which was approximately one month prior to its release to me. My opinion of the ICC report is that it has been carefully written and it avoids most of the complaints. I will attend to that in separate correspondence.
During the meeting,I had the opportunity to very clearly identify to you that CASA has not at any time made any allegations of anything related to safety. In fact, CASA actions can be demonstrated to have negatively impacted on safety. I also had the opportunity to clearly identify to you that CASA has not at any time made any allegations of any regulatory breach.Very early in the meeting I asked if you aware of the commercial impact of the actions that CASA had taken, and I appreciate that in your role, you could not be expected to have a detailed knowledge of my issue.
I then asked the Regional Manager, Mr Mc Heyzer if he could perhaps outline the impact. As he has had been closely involved in this process since it began, he was better able to encapsulate the situation, as would be my expectation.
To recap,
CASA;· Placed a limited date of approval on my business that has been as short as, a minute by minute approval, but no longer than three months. That action alone would have an enormous and destabilising effect on any organisation, and the staff and suppliers associated with that organisation. That action has continued for a staggering 9 months and is still not resolved.·
CASA actions prevented me from marketing my product·
CASA actions prevented me from taking on customers.·
CASA actions prevented me from adding courses and capabilities that I am fully entitled to.·
CASA actions prevented me from renewing capabilities as they came up for renewal.
When CASA initiated that action in October 2018, I clearly identified to CASA that the impact on my business would be significant, and conservatively it would cause my business to lose $10,000 per week. This matter has now dragged on for over 9 months, and lead to a situation where the business was no longer able to sustain itself. In fact, no business in Australia could sustain those restrictions to its trade
.I outlined to you that the APTA model required 10 members contributing $80,000 each, as the cost of operating APTA was $800,000 per annum. By preventing me signing up new members, you will appreciate my problem. I outlined that APTA was purpose built over many years, and is a significant investment.
With CASA actions placing such insecurity on the business, it had no value and was sold for a price of 5% its actual value.
The business was sold under duress for no other reason than to protect the members and staff who depend on it for their livelihood.
Quite truthfully, I explained how I could no longer sustain the business and pay the staff salaries. If APTA were to discontinue operations at any time on CASA actions, it would directly impact on other operators depending on our continuing approval. I was carrying a significant burden as you will appreciate.
The associated impact on my own business, Melbourne Flight Training has been catastrophic, as it has been supporting the ongoing costs of running APTA. Its own certainty, now hangs in the balance.My own flying school, Melbourne Flight Training is currently in a state of financial duress that is quite likely to be irreparable. The Company has incurred unacceptable debt levels as it has attempted to ensure continuity of operations for APTA and the members that have depended on it.
I identified two other business that have ceased operations as result of the CASA decisions made in relation to APTA. By restricting my revenue streams for 9 months, I could not be expected to survive. No business in any industry, could sustain that.
Personally, the process since CASA implemented Part 61/141 and 142, has also been catastrophic. I clearly identified that in fact I couldn’t even muster up the money for the car park fees if the meeting extended for one more than one hour. That is the truth. I have been left destitute and that includes the loss of my family home. That is the fact. There are no hidden accounts or trust funds. I have exhausted every fund I have available to me to defend the APTA model.
I resolutely stand by the fact that it
Was well intentioned.
mproved safety.
Improved regulatory compliance.
Created jobs.
Protected regional aviation and most particularly regional aero clubs.
Protected the fast dwindling Australian Owned sector of the industry.
Importantly, it was a multi million dollar investment. It was designed with CASA. It was approved by CASA. It was audited by CASA. The fact is that Mr Crawford and four other CASA personnel operating under his direct operational control, and I include;· Mr Jones.· Mr Martin, · Mr Nuttall, and · Mr Lacy initiated a process in October 2018. That process was a complete reversal of previous CASA policy. It came instantly, and with absolutely no warning.
The entire process could have been avoided had CASA decided to inform me or meet with me. The associated impact on my business and the gross waste of taxpayer funds achieving that objective, has been truly disgraceful and unacceptable. My experiences may be shared by others in Industry, and if so, it requires a Royal Commission, it really does.
Those actions and decisions·
Dear Mr Anthony Mathews
Thank you for providing the opportunity to meet with you, in your role as the Chair of the CASA Board, and for facilitating the attendance of the Regional Manager, Mr Jason McHeyzer, in his role as the Regional Manager for the Southern Region, at Melbourne Airport from approximately 4PM to 6PM on Friday 19/07/19.
I attended with my father Derek Buckley, in his role, purely as my father, someone who has supported me throughout this experience, and is after all. My father.
As you are aware, I have made numerous requests over the last 8 months to meet with the Board of CASA. Those repeated requests were not responded to, or acknowledged, and this is a contributing factor to the delays in our meeting. I note that you are relatively new in the role, irrespective the delays in facilitating the meeting have had a significant impact, and due to the passage of time, unavoidably, the nature of the meeting has changed.I asked you if you had the opportunity to view the final report from the Industry Complaints Commissioner, and you responded that you had viewed that, approximately one month prior to our meeting, which was approximately one month prior to its release to me. My opinion of the ICC report is that it has been carefully written and it avoids most of the complaints. I will attend to that in separate correspondence.
During the meeting,I had the opportunity to very clearly identify to you that CASA has not at any time made any allegations of anything related to safety. In fact, CASA actions can be demonstrated to have negatively impacted on safety. I also had the opportunity to clearly identify to you that CASA has not at any time made any allegations of any regulatory breach.Very early in the meeting I asked if you aware of the commercial impact of the actions that CASA had taken, and I appreciate that in your role, you could not be expected to have a detailed knowledge of my issue.
I then asked the Regional Manager, Mr Mc Heyzer if he could perhaps outline the impact. As he has had been closely involved in this process since it began, he was better able to encapsulate the situation, as would be my expectation.
To recap,
CASA;· Placed a limited date of approval on my business that has been as short as, a minute by minute approval, but no longer than three months. That action alone would have an enormous and destabilising effect on any organisation, and the staff and suppliers associated with that organisation. That action has continued for a staggering 9 months and is still not resolved.·
CASA actions prevented me from marketing my product·
CASA actions prevented me from taking on customers.·
CASA actions prevented me from adding courses and capabilities that I am fully entitled to.·
CASA actions prevented me from renewing capabilities as they came up for renewal.
When CASA initiated that action in October 2018, I clearly identified to CASA that the impact on my business would be significant, and conservatively it would cause my business to lose $10,000 per week. This matter has now dragged on for over 9 months, and lead to a situation where the business was no longer able to sustain itself. In fact, no business in Australia could sustain those restrictions to its trade
.I outlined to you that the APTA model required 10 members contributing $80,000 each, as the cost of operating APTA was $800,000 per annum. By preventing me signing up new members, you will appreciate my problem. I outlined that APTA was purpose built over many years, and is a significant investment.
With CASA actions placing such insecurity on the business, it had no value and was sold for a price of 5% its actual value.
The business was sold under duress for no other reason than to protect the members and staff who depend on it for their livelihood.
Quite truthfully, I explained how I could no longer sustain the business and pay the staff salaries. If APTA were to discontinue operations at any time on CASA actions, it would directly impact on other operators depending on our continuing approval. I was carrying a significant burden as you will appreciate.
The associated impact on my own business, Melbourne Flight Training has been catastrophic, as it has been supporting the ongoing costs of running APTA. Its own certainty, now hangs in the balance.My own flying school, Melbourne Flight Training is currently in a state of financial duress that is quite likely to be irreparable. The Company has incurred unacceptable debt levels as it has attempted to ensure continuity of operations for APTA and the members that have depended on it.
I identified two other business that have ceased operations as result of the CASA decisions made in relation to APTA. By restricting my revenue streams for 9 months, I could not be expected to survive. No business in any industry, could sustain that.
Personally, the process since CASA implemented Part 61/141 and 142, has also been catastrophic. I clearly identified that in fact I couldn’t even muster up the money for the car park fees if the meeting extended for one more than one hour. That is the truth. I have been left destitute and that includes the loss of my family home. That is the fact. There are no hidden accounts or trust funds. I have exhausted every fund I have available to me to defend the APTA model.
I resolutely stand by the fact that it
Was well intentioned.
mproved safety.
Improved regulatory compliance.
Created jobs.
Protected regional aviation and most particularly regional aero clubs.
Protected the fast dwindling Australian Owned sector of the industry.
Importantly, it was a multi million dollar investment. It was designed with CASA. It was approved by CASA. It was audited by CASA. The fact is that Mr Crawford and four other CASA personnel operating under his direct operational control, and I include;· Mr Jones.· Mr Martin, · Mr Nuttall, and · Mr Lacy initiated a process in October 2018. That process was a complete reversal of previous CASA policy. It came instantly, and with absolutely no warning.
The entire process could have been avoided had CASA decided to inform me or meet with me. The associated impact on my business and the gross waste of taxpayer funds achieving that objective, has been truly disgraceful and unacceptable. My experiences may be shared by others in Industry, and if so, it requires a Royal Commission, it really does.
Those actions and decisions·
- Were in clear breach of almost every element of CASAs own Regulatory Philosophy.·
- In breach of the PGPA Act which requires these personnel to use public funds and resources responsibly.·
- Breach the requirements of Administrative Law, Procedural Fairness, and Natural Justice.·
- Were quite simply. Not well intentioned, and certainly not based on safety considerations.·
- Bullying and Intimidating in their nature.·
- Cannot be supported by any clear or concise legislation, and that is a requirement placed on CASA.
Thread Starter
Part 2 of 2
I offered up to 20 examples of the negligent conduct of those personnel, and their associated decisions.The examples I used were;
Example One
The inappropriateness of the use of the Aviation Ruling as the basis of the initial action in October 2018. As; · On its release in 2006, CASA advised flying schools that it did not apply to them, it was intended for charter operators, and CASA has in fact facilitated “shared AOCs” in flying schools since my initial involvement in the industry in the early 1980s.· It applies to “commercial purposes”. CASA removed flying training from “commercial purposes” in September 2014. How can it apply. Flying Training is not a “Commercial purpose.”· It has no Head of Power.· It refers to Key Personnel i.e. Chief Pilot that do not exist in flying training.· CASA themselves acknowledged it was the incorrect document after 2 months.· It is 13 years old, and written for an entirely different regulatory environment.
Example Two
CASA also initiated the action in October 2018 based on our Temporary locations’ procedure. Embarrassingly it was only later realised by CASA that it was in fact their own procedure, and that they had recommended it to us, approved it for our use, approved bases under that exact procedure, audited it, and even recommended it to flying schools. How can this happen? I simply cannot understand it, I really cant!
Example Three
The “contract issue”CASA never required contracts of us. I had a contract with my members. I had provided copies of the contract to CASA on multiple occasions. CASA seemed disinterested. October 2018 was a complete change of policy application and CASA insisted on provision of contracts within 7 days. CASA was embarrassed when I demonstrated that contracts had previously been provided, including a copy to Mr Graeme Crawford more than 12 months prior. In fact, had CASA realised they already held the contract, they may not have made the decision to take action on a perceived “lack of contracts”.CASA provided guidance material on the contracts which I fully adopted. CASA rejected that. CASA provided a second lot of guidance material. Again, I fully adopted the guidance material. CASA provided written notification the new version was acceptable, and I could proceed. Hours later, CASA reversed that decision and advised it was no longer acceptable. After many months. CASA engaged legal advice external to CASA and came back with a third set of guidance material. CASA advised that I should not use it “word for word”. So, I didn’t. I am satisfied that my contracts and associated Exposition are industry leading and meet all CASA requirements. I have not heard the outcome.I pointed out to you, that this requirement being placed on APTA is unique to APTA, and CASA is not applying it to other operators. I cannot understand how this issue can still be continuing on after 9 months.
Example Four
The impact of the CASA delay. I pointed out that the new CASA regulations i.e. Part 61/141 and 142 were implemented over a decade behind schedule, and they were underpinned by a grossly negligent Regulation Impact Statement (RIS). I advised I would provide a copy of that document and it is attached. I draw your attention to the effect on Businesses, identified on page 15 of the RIS. I discussed how CASA placed a Transition Date of September 1st of 2018 for all of Australia’s 350 flying training organisations. After that date, if they had not completed the re-approval process under the new rules, they would not be permitted to continue operating. My Company made an enormous investment in time and money over a two-year period to achieve the deadline referred to as the Transition Date i.e. September 1st, 2017.As the date approached it appeared to me that CASA was not ready for the Transition date. CASA assure me they were. I “flicked the switch” and Transitioned. That process resulted in a very substantial increase in operating costs.Weeks later, as only a staggeringly low 5% of Industry had achieved Part 142 status, CASA was forced into reversing its decision, and postponed the Transition date by 12 months. CASA forced me to operate under the new regulatory structure while other operators remained in the far more cost effective “Civil Aviation Regulation 5” (CAR 5) for a further 12 months. That delay alone, cost me many hundreds of thousands of dollars.
Example Five
I talked to you about the commercially unviable turnaround times of CASA processing tasks, which are essential to running the business. I used the example of the addition of one of our “Temporary locations”. It was quoted by CASA as a five-hour task and took 10 months to complete. In fact, those timelines are indicative of my businesses experience. i.e. CASA process tasks at the rate of 30 minutes per month i.e. a 2-hour task will take 4 hours, a 5 hour task will take 10 months. In fact, this was the subject of a formal complaint to the Industry Complaints Commissioner, but was not attended to in his final report, only just released 7 months later.My point being, that these unacceptable timelines impact significantly on Industry and particularly so when industry is paying commercial rates for CASA services. The effects have been substantial on my business, and the members.
Example Six
The blatant and total disregard for CASAs own Regulatory Philosophy in its dealings with me since the change to CMT 3 headed up by ............... which coincided with the commencement of the action initiated by CASA without any prior indication in October 2018.
Example Seven
I clearly outlined my frustration that as a Part 141 and 142 Organisation I have authorisation to conduct a number of courses including low level, Multi Crew courses, Type ratings etc. CASA applied an “Administrative Freeze” on those tasks, and that had a significant implication on one of my members, leading to the closure of his business. CASA should have substantial grounds for refusing to process those tasks, as they were within my Authorisation and not related to any other issue, including bases.
Due to time constraints I did not get to touch on the other feedback that I can offer, including; the root cause of this entire issue being CASAs failure to achieve clear and concise aviation safety standards as is required of it in the Civil Aviation Act, technical incompetence on behalf of some personnel i.e. the Regional Manager stating “Im new to the role, and not all over it. I will need to organise a meeting with my staff, yet his signature sits on the initial correspondence that he sent a day earlier. Why sign it, if you’re not “all over it”!
I did briefly touch on CASA consistently ignoring my requests for assistance in resolving CASA allegations of regulatory breaches, and how well over 30 emails have been completely ignored, clear breaches of CASAs Enforcement Manual, breaches etc.
We closed the meeting with me asking that I be provided with a final CASA position on this matter by 5PM on Friday August 2nd. I appreciate you currently have obligations that require you to be outside of Australia, and I respect that. I did reply to you that it only needed one well intentioned person, to make well considered and well-intentioned decision. That person did not have to be you, but I needed to know by August 2nd.
The impact of CASAs actions has been significant, they really have. That impact has extended to me, my wife, and my children, it will impact on their education, I have lost my home, other businesses have closed as a result of this, safety has been compromised, staff will lose employment, and the APTA model has been completely decimated by CASA.
Businesses will be affected, and the entire process was so completely and totally unnecessary. It really could have been entirely avoided had CASA acted in a well-intentioned manner, in the interests of safety, and in accordance with the regulatory philosophy.
Those personnel I have named decided that APTA would not be permitted to operate, and they worked diligently to achiever that outcome.As a pilot with 25 years training experience, I cannot see how a less than ideal relationship between industry and CASA can possibly optimise safety outcomes. A relationship of confidence and trust is essential to achieve those optimal safety outcomes. In my opinion and drawing on my experience dealing with those five named individuals I sincerely believe they have demonstrated unconscionable conduct in their respective roles within CASA, and that is my only experience with those people. I can make no comment outside of my own perceived experience. Their actions and decisions have compromised safety. I can demonstrate that and am prepared to.
You are a Pilot, as I am. Our job is about nothing else than “good and sound decision making”. I call on CASA to deal with me in a fair and reasonable manner promptly. I do not want to involve lawyers. Two Parties acting in a well-intentioned and respectful manner and dealing only in the complete truth, can resolve anything. That has been my experience over the last 54 years, and I am hoping that common sense can prevail in this situation. By meeting with you, I have truly exhausted EVERY option for an internal resolution with CASA, and I will need to seek legal support and guidance if we cannot resolve this matter. I am mentally, emotionally, and financially drained and exhausted after this 9 month and more, I am only wanting to get some closure on this unnecessarily traumatic period.
I really am at the cusp. Please!Irrespective of the outcome, I sincerely thank you for your time. I felt you genuinely did provide “a good ear”, and I respect that. Yours respectfully
Glen Buckley
Mr Will Nuttall
Example One
The inappropriateness of the use of the Aviation Ruling as the basis of the initial action in October 2018. As; · On its release in 2006, CASA advised flying schools that it did not apply to them, it was intended for charter operators, and CASA has in fact facilitated “shared AOCs” in flying schools since my initial involvement in the industry in the early 1980s.· It applies to “commercial purposes”. CASA removed flying training from “commercial purposes” in September 2014. How can it apply. Flying Training is not a “Commercial purpose.”· It has no Head of Power.· It refers to Key Personnel i.e. Chief Pilot that do not exist in flying training.· CASA themselves acknowledged it was the incorrect document after 2 months.· It is 13 years old, and written for an entirely different regulatory environment.
Example Two
CASA also initiated the action in October 2018 based on our Temporary locations’ procedure. Embarrassingly it was only later realised by CASA that it was in fact their own procedure, and that they had recommended it to us, approved it for our use, approved bases under that exact procedure, audited it, and even recommended it to flying schools. How can this happen? I simply cannot understand it, I really cant!
Example Three
The “contract issue”CASA never required contracts of us. I had a contract with my members. I had provided copies of the contract to CASA on multiple occasions. CASA seemed disinterested. October 2018 was a complete change of policy application and CASA insisted on provision of contracts within 7 days. CASA was embarrassed when I demonstrated that contracts had previously been provided, including a copy to Mr Graeme Crawford more than 12 months prior. In fact, had CASA realised they already held the contract, they may not have made the decision to take action on a perceived “lack of contracts”.CASA provided guidance material on the contracts which I fully adopted. CASA rejected that. CASA provided a second lot of guidance material. Again, I fully adopted the guidance material. CASA provided written notification the new version was acceptable, and I could proceed. Hours later, CASA reversed that decision and advised it was no longer acceptable. After many months. CASA engaged legal advice external to CASA and came back with a third set of guidance material. CASA advised that I should not use it “word for word”. So, I didn’t. I am satisfied that my contracts and associated Exposition are industry leading and meet all CASA requirements. I have not heard the outcome.I pointed out to you, that this requirement being placed on APTA is unique to APTA, and CASA is not applying it to other operators. I cannot understand how this issue can still be continuing on after 9 months.
Example Four
The impact of the CASA delay. I pointed out that the new CASA regulations i.e. Part 61/141 and 142 were implemented over a decade behind schedule, and they were underpinned by a grossly negligent Regulation Impact Statement (RIS). I advised I would provide a copy of that document and it is attached. I draw your attention to the effect on Businesses, identified on page 15 of the RIS. I discussed how CASA placed a Transition Date of September 1st of 2018 for all of Australia’s 350 flying training organisations. After that date, if they had not completed the re-approval process under the new rules, they would not be permitted to continue operating. My Company made an enormous investment in time and money over a two-year period to achieve the deadline referred to as the Transition Date i.e. September 1st, 2017.As the date approached it appeared to me that CASA was not ready for the Transition date. CASA assure me they were. I “flicked the switch” and Transitioned. That process resulted in a very substantial increase in operating costs.Weeks later, as only a staggeringly low 5% of Industry had achieved Part 142 status, CASA was forced into reversing its decision, and postponed the Transition date by 12 months. CASA forced me to operate under the new regulatory structure while other operators remained in the far more cost effective “Civil Aviation Regulation 5” (CAR 5) for a further 12 months. That delay alone, cost me many hundreds of thousands of dollars.
Example Five
I talked to you about the commercially unviable turnaround times of CASA processing tasks, which are essential to running the business. I used the example of the addition of one of our “Temporary locations”. It was quoted by CASA as a five-hour task and took 10 months to complete. In fact, those timelines are indicative of my businesses experience. i.e. CASA process tasks at the rate of 30 minutes per month i.e. a 2-hour task will take 4 hours, a 5 hour task will take 10 months. In fact, this was the subject of a formal complaint to the Industry Complaints Commissioner, but was not attended to in his final report, only just released 7 months later.My point being, that these unacceptable timelines impact significantly on Industry and particularly so when industry is paying commercial rates for CASA services. The effects have been substantial on my business, and the members.
Example Six
The blatant and total disregard for CASAs own Regulatory Philosophy in its dealings with me since the change to CMT 3 headed up by ............... which coincided with the commencement of the action initiated by CASA without any prior indication in October 2018.
Example Seven
I clearly outlined my frustration that as a Part 141 and 142 Organisation I have authorisation to conduct a number of courses including low level, Multi Crew courses, Type ratings etc. CASA applied an “Administrative Freeze” on those tasks, and that had a significant implication on one of my members, leading to the closure of his business. CASA should have substantial grounds for refusing to process those tasks, as they were within my Authorisation and not related to any other issue, including bases.
Due to time constraints I did not get to touch on the other feedback that I can offer, including; the root cause of this entire issue being CASAs failure to achieve clear and concise aviation safety standards as is required of it in the Civil Aviation Act, technical incompetence on behalf of some personnel i.e. the Regional Manager stating “Im new to the role, and not all over it. I will need to organise a meeting with my staff, yet his signature sits on the initial correspondence that he sent a day earlier. Why sign it, if you’re not “all over it”!
I did briefly touch on CASA consistently ignoring my requests for assistance in resolving CASA allegations of regulatory breaches, and how well over 30 emails have been completely ignored, clear breaches of CASAs Enforcement Manual, breaches etc.
We closed the meeting with me asking that I be provided with a final CASA position on this matter by 5PM on Friday August 2nd. I appreciate you currently have obligations that require you to be outside of Australia, and I respect that. I did reply to you that it only needed one well intentioned person, to make well considered and well-intentioned decision. That person did not have to be you, but I needed to know by August 2nd.
The impact of CASAs actions has been significant, they really have. That impact has extended to me, my wife, and my children, it will impact on their education, I have lost my home, other businesses have closed as a result of this, safety has been compromised, staff will lose employment, and the APTA model has been completely decimated by CASA.
Businesses will be affected, and the entire process was so completely and totally unnecessary. It really could have been entirely avoided had CASA acted in a well-intentioned manner, in the interests of safety, and in accordance with the regulatory philosophy.
Those personnel I have named decided that APTA would not be permitted to operate, and they worked diligently to achiever that outcome.As a pilot with 25 years training experience, I cannot see how a less than ideal relationship between industry and CASA can possibly optimise safety outcomes. A relationship of confidence and trust is essential to achieve those optimal safety outcomes. In my opinion and drawing on my experience dealing with those five named individuals I sincerely believe they have demonstrated unconscionable conduct in their respective roles within CASA, and that is my only experience with those people. I can make no comment outside of my own perceived experience. Their actions and decisions have compromised safety. I can demonstrate that and am prepared to.
You are a Pilot, as I am. Our job is about nothing else than “good and sound decision making”. I call on CASA to deal with me in a fair and reasonable manner promptly. I do not want to involve lawyers. Two Parties acting in a well-intentioned and respectful manner and dealing only in the complete truth, can resolve anything. That has been my experience over the last 54 years, and I am hoping that common sense can prevail in this situation. By meeting with you, I have truly exhausted EVERY option for an internal resolution with CASA, and I will need to seek legal support and guidance if we cannot resolve this matter. I am mentally, emotionally, and financially drained and exhausted after this 9 month and more, I am only wanting to get some closure on this unnecessarily traumatic period.
I really am at the cusp. Please!Irrespective of the outcome, I sincerely thank you for your time. I felt you genuinely did provide “a good ear”, and I respect that. Yours respectfully
Glen Buckley
Mr Will Nuttall
Thread Starter
Freedom of Information
I intend to file formal complaints against 5 X personnel within CASA including the Head of the Aviation Group, Mr Crawford. in order to lodge a legitimate complaints, the starting point for that must be the incumbents Position Description. Something that should be freely available, but it wasn't. It necessitated a Freedom of Information request, which arrived some time later.
Nothing less than a QC and the High Court is going to change this Glen, and CASA is gambling on the assumption you don’t have the money to fund that.
The other alternative is a crusading journalist and news organisation prepared to run with your story, and they don’t exist any more.
Sorry to be so rough.
The other alternative is a crusading journalist and news organisation prepared to run with your story, and they don’t exist any more.
Sorry to be so rough.
Thanks to people who have PM'd me advice.
Last edited by Clare Prop; 5th Aug 2019 at 10:40.
..."Since nothing less than a QC and the High Court" required and CAsA know full well 99.99% of aviatiors and Av businesses cant afford the challenges to the bureaucratic buggery. So, what to do ?
Keep beating the RC or Judicial Inquiry drum and if enough noise about that is eventually heard in the right circles, something might get done.
Despite all the pap, crap and motherhood statements about change from CAsA ..its all bull****.
The culture within the Fort and out in the region orifices is way too toxic. CAsA WILL NOT rock their endless trough.
Keep beating the RC or Judicial Inquiry drum and if enough noise about that is eventually heard in the right circles, something might get done.
Despite all the pap, crap and motherhood statements about change from CAsA ..its all bull****.
The culture within the Fort and out in the region orifices is way too toxic. CAsA WILL NOT rock their endless trough.
When CASA is wrong
When CASA is wrong they will firstly never admit anything. Secondly they will close all ranks. Thirdly they will engage the target and commence attack mode.
If you wish to engage in any defence the only avenue is the court system.
From experience unless you have several $x,000,000 to waste / fight CASA it is not worth your health. You are fighting a bureaucracy that is largely self serving and corrupt.
This is why GA is almost dead. The only way to live with CASA is to pay them off (not literally of course) but those that play know how it works.
Your $2M house, your privacy, your friends/family your physical and mental health is not worth the fight
If you wish to engage in any defence the only avenue is the court system.
From experience unless you have several $x,000,000 to waste / fight CASA it is not worth your health. You are fighting a bureaucracy that is largely self serving and corrupt.
This is why GA is almost dead. The only way to live with CASA is to pay them off (not literally of course) but those that play know how it works.
Your $2M house, your privacy, your friends/family your physical and mental health is not worth the fight
I'd suggest approaching Senators.
Last edited by Clare Prop; 5th Aug 2019 at 14:54.
Dont let the state yre in or the State you live in, stop you from sending your material to yr Senator of choice.
Just do it. Ask him to pass copies on to other Senators...there are a few pro -Aviation ones.
Or better still, a round robin email from yrself to as many as you can think of.
Clear prop !! And away you go,
Just do it. Ask him to pass copies on to other Senators...there are a few pro -Aviation ones.
Or better still, a round robin email from yrself to as many as you can think of.
Clear prop !! And away you go,
Does anybody here have any experience of dealing with the Industry Complaints Commission? Is it just another layer of CASA that will close ranks and be able to get away with telling a pack of lies despite loads of evidence? I see they share the same PO box.
Would I need to have the resources to take it to the High Court before embarking on the process? Should I get legal advice first?
Would I need to have the resources to take it to the High Court before embarking on the process? Should I get legal advice first?
Last edited by Clare Prop; 5th Aug 2019 at 10:41.
So much for the Forsyth Review. I fail to understand what progress, if any, has been made in implementing any of the recommendations. Perhaps a letter to the good Senator might be in order.
From the executive summary (My bolding):
https://www.infrastructure.gov.au/av...t_May_2014.pdf
From the executive summary (My bolding):
Despite Australia’s good standing, the aviation industry is highly self-critical and regularly has a ‘take no prisoners’ approach to public discourse. While this critical introspection may contribute to its good record, it can at times be counter-productive to promoting rational public debate on aviation safety and to building a positive and collaborative national aviation safety culture.
The current relationship between industry and the regulator is cause for concern. In recent years, the regulator has adopted an across the board hard-line philosophy, which in the Panel’s view, is not appropriate for an advanced aviation nation such as Australia. As a result, relationships between industry and the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) have, in many cases, become adversarial.
Leading regulators across the world are moving to performance-based regulation, using a ‘trust and verify’ approach, collaborating with industry to produce better safety outcomes and ensuring the regulator stays in touch with rapidly advancing technology and safety practices. On occasions, individual operators may push the boundaries and require close regulatory oversight and a firm regulatory response. An effective risk-based regulator will judge when a hard line is necessary.
A number of countries with advanced aviation regulatory systems have developed collaborative relationships between their regulators and industry, leading to open sharing of safety data. Due to the present adversarial relationship between industry and CASA, Australia lacks the degree of trust required to achieve this important aim. Sharing safety data is a fundamental principle of good safety management.
The Panel concludes that CASA and industry need to build an effective collaborative relationship on a foundation of mutual trust and respect. Therefore, CASA needs to set a new strategic direction.
The selection of a new Director of Aviation Safety should concentrate on finding an individual with leadership and change management abilities, rather than primarily aviation expertise. Other jurisdictions have appointed leaders without an aviation background, who have been successful in changing the strategic direction of the safety regulator.
The current relationship between industry and the regulator is cause for concern. In recent years, the regulator has adopted an across the board hard-line philosophy, which in the Panel’s view, is not appropriate for an advanced aviation nation such as Australia. As a result, relationships between industry and the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) have, in many cases, become adversarial.
Leading regulators across the world are moving to performance-based regulation, using a ‘trust and verify’ approach, collaborating with industry to produce better safety outcomes and ensuring the regulator stays in touch with rapidly advancing technology and safety practices. On occasions, individual operators may push the boundaries and require close regulatory oversight and a firm regulatory response. An effective risk-based regulator will judge when a hard line is necessary.
A number of countries with advanced aviation regulatory systems have developed collaborative relationships between their regulators and industry, leading to open sharing of safety data. Due to the present adversarial relationship between industry and CASA, Australia lacks the degree of trust required to achieve this important aim. Sharing safety data is a fundamental principle of good safety management.
The Panel concludes that CASA and industry need to build an effective collaborative relationship on a foundation of mutual trust and respect. Therefore, CASA needs to set a new strategic direction.
The selection of a new Director of Aviation Safety should concentrate on finding an individual with leadership and change management abilities, rather than primarily aviation expertise. Other jurisdictions have appointed leaders without an aviation background, who have been successful in changing the strategic direction of the safety regulator.
https://www.infrastructure.gov.au/av...t_May_2014.pdf
Does anybody here have any experience of dealing with the Commonwealth Complaints Commission?
I have not heard of anyone having any material success with the Industry Complaints Commissioner. In WA, I suggest you contact Sen. Glenn Sterle (ALP) who used to be a truckie and understands the overall industry, and can see the effect of an over-reaching regulator.
He was also on the RRAT (Regional Rural affairs and Transport) Senate Committee and has demonstrated that he is no real fan of CASA.
I also ask that you and other operators think about joining AOPA and helping us to support the wider GA industry, not just the private owners.
Cheers
Does anybody here have any experience of dealing with the Industry Complaints Commission? Is it just another layer of CASA that will close ranks and be able to get away with telling a pack of lies despite loads of evidence? I see they share the same PO box.
Would I need to have the resources to take it to the High Court before embarking on the process? Should I get legal advice first?
Would I need to have the resources to take it to the High Court before embarking on the process? Should I get legal advice first?
My complaint arose out of a purported restriction that AVMED put on my medical certificate. After some correspondence and an AAT application, CASA OLC conceded that the purported restriction could not lawfully be imposed. The purported restriction was removed from my certificate. I took the - perhaps quaintly naive - view that CASA should take action to remove the same purported restriction from every other certificate on which it had been unlawfully imposed. I communicated this to the CASA Industry Complaints Commissioner’s office. Alas - the concept of voluntarily undoing the effects of an acknowledged unlawful practise seemed to strike them with the force of novelty.
This interaction occurred a few years ago and things might have changed, but I doubt it. For example, the CAD Test does not simulate an operational situation, as required by law, but that hasn’t stopped AVMED from persisting with its use as the ‘third tier’ test. It seems to me, from my first-hand experience, that AVMED has difficulty these days in accepting the concept that they are supposed to comply with the law without having to be forced to comply. CASA doesn’t seem to have the necessary governance arrangements in place to overcome that difficulty.
The fact that the zealot with whom you (Clare) are dealing was let loose on the industry is, in my view, also a manifestation of poor governance.
I’m the last person to discourage you (or Glen Buckley) from fighting CASA decisions and actions with which you disagree. However, don’t hold your breath expecting CASA or its employed ‘Complaints Commissioner’ to change anything without the threat of real external scrutiny and embarrassment. And there is, sadly, much truth in what 1a posted at #153.
Again using the CAD Test to make my point, it will eventually be dropped as the ‘third tier’ test. But it will not be dropped because CASA has had an epiphany and realised it’s a good idea to comply with the law and accept the objective evidence about CVD - CASA could have done that over a decade ago and put erstwhile PMO Navathe in his box. It will instead be dropped because the Kiwi aviation regulator has embarrassed CASA by exposing the egregious damage that the Kiwi regulator and CASA have allowed CVD zealots to inflict on competent pilots and would-be pilots. Kids who commit suicide because they’ve been told their CVD precludes them from being pilots will suddenly become important alive rather than necessary sacrifices to ‘the safety of air navigation’. (Let’s hear it for CASA. Yay!)
Sorry to be a voice of gloom and doom, but you need to understand what you’re up against.
Thanks Clinton, that's very helpful.
I remember a DAME friend telling them that CVD was an actually acronym for carsiovascular disease, and myself receiving a letter along the lines that I should ground any pilots who had it. Well, they wouldn't have a medical if they had CVD!
Are you aware of the issue with medicals where there is evidence of the applicant having ADHD or ASD? I have a student who could run rings around Mr Spock and was never formally diagnosed or medicated with either, yet CASA won't give him a medical without gaining access to his medical records and me having to fill in Form 420, that asks questions that seem to be written for primary school children, referring to play behaviour, toys and schoolwork.
To date, he has not been able to get a medical and the training of this exceptional student has ground to a halt as he can't solo. I also had to fill in this questionnaire for a gentleman in his 60s, a former Flight Service Officer, who has also had them demanding his medical records. So when there was talk of opting out of the My Health Record in case CASA used it against us, CASA are now refusing to give medicals to some applicants without gaining access to Medicare records. I find this very concerning and it seems the ICC won't be of much use.
Another student with the same problem is a rigger on construction sites, but he was told that his "disorder" was due to the fact he was likely to make impulsive and dangerous decisions. He has to stop his medication for six months and then be re-assessed. Another very good student unable to solo.
Using this logic, Neil Armstrong, who had many ASD traits, wouldn't be fit to hold a CASA medical.
Apologies to Glen for thread drift.
I remember a DAME friend telling them that CVD was an actually acronym for carsiovascular disease, and myself receiving a letter along the lines that I should ground any pilots who had it. Well, they wouldn't have a medical if they had CVD!
Are you aware of the issue with medicals where there is evidence of the applicant having ADHD or ASD? I have a student who could run rings around Mr Spock and was never formally diagnosed or medicated with either, yet CASA won't give him a medical without gaining access to his medical records and me having to fill in Form 420, that asks questions that seem to be written for primary school children, referring to play behaviour, toys and schoolwork.
To date, he has not been able to get a medical and the training of this exceptional student has ground to a halt as he can't solo. I also had to fill in this questionnaire for a gentleman in his 60s, a former Flight Service Officer, who has also had them demanding his medical records. So when there was talk of opting out of the My Health Record in case CASA used it against us, CASA are now refusing to give medicals to some applicants without gaining access to Medicare records. I find this very concerning and it seems the ICC won't be of much use.
Another student with the same problem is a rigger on construction sites, but he was told that his "disorder" was due to the fact he was likely to make impulsive and dangerous decisions. He has to stop his medication for six months and then be re-assessed. Another very good student unable to solo.
Using this logic, Neil Armstrong, who had many ASD traits, wouldn't be fit to hold a CASA medical.
Apologies to Glen for thread drift.
Last edited by Clare Prop; 5th Aug 2019 at 14:51.