Regulation by opinion
 

It seem to me, more and more, that the Authority appears to regulate on the basis of opinion, rather than on the basis of law. At least, in the USA, anyone can request a (legally binding) ruling stating the FAA's official position on any subject from the FAA equivalent of the OLC.

As GlenB has shown, getting anything in writing from CASA doesn't really mean a thing as 1) there appears to be no accountability, 2) the regulations only mean what one person thinks the regulations should mean and 3) what one CASA person thinks the regulations should mean will differ from what another CASA person thinks it should mean.

Perhaps the Regulations should be more accurately renamed Suggestions.

Reply to QFF in Post 203
 

A brief precursor to this post for anyone not familiar with the terminology. I will use the term "GA". That refers to General Aviation. CASA, have a complicated and everchanging definition. The industry in its entirety, considers "GA", to be predominantly the charter industry, aerial work, flight training, and the maintenance and support services behind those operations. .Anyway, to the post....
.
QFF, you make an interesting point that is perhaps the root cause of my problems, and is in fact the issue that effects the entire sector of the Industry.

Simply ask ANY small business operator operating in the General Aviation (GA) sector, what the biggest challenge to their business is. Im convinced over 90% of GA business owners will tell you its "CASAs failure to achieve clear and concise aviation safety standards."

Its not a "nice to have" or a "try your best" or a "pink elephant stamp for trying." The achievement of clear and concise aviation safety standards is actually the core function of CASA. Its in the Civil Aviation Act and its copied below. I have bolded some of the more interesting parts.

Importantly, and I call on AOPA to conduct a survey to test my assertion. Over 90 % of the intended recipients of that legislation will state that they cannot fully understand the rules because they are not clear and concise. Imagine how quick the Deputy Prime Minister would act if 90% of road users couldn't understand the rules. Somehow, he gets away with inaction on rules regarding aviation safety. Its absurd. If the public knew there would be an outcry.

What better way than to demonstrate CASAs failure than me posing this simple question....

Dear Mr Crawford, could you please show me the legislation that lead you to initiate the action against my business?

The simple fact is that you cant. This all started because CMT 3 had a different opinion, and sadly and unnecessarily, it was not well intentioned. The legislation is more disjointed than "cards against humanity".

There were no regulatory breaches. Its all opinion, and regulations that are not clear or concise. An environment in which CASA should engage professionally with Industry to enhance safety. At least engage in accordance with your own regulatory philosophy that you came up with, because your previous approach to industry was found to be inappropriate. Only in Australia, could this happen, seriously.

Part II—Establishment, functions etc. of CASA8 Establishment of CASA

(1) An authority called the Civil Aviation Safety Authority is established by this subsection.

(2) CASA: (a) is a body corporate with perpetual succession; (b) shall have a seal; and (c) may sue and be sued in its corporate name.Note: The Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013 applies to the CASA. That Act deals with matters relating to corporate Commonwealth entities, including reporting and the use and management of public resources.

(3) All courts, judges and persons acting judicially shall take judicial notice of the imprint of the seal of CASA appearing on a document and shall presume that the document was duly sealed.

9 CASA’s functions

(1) CASA has the function of conducting the safety regulation of the following, in accordance with this Act and the regulations:

(a) civil air operations in Australian territory;
(b) the operation of Australian aircraft outside Australian territory;
(ba) ANZA activities in New Zealand authorised by Australian AOCs with ANZA privileges;

by means that include the following: (c) developing and promulgating appropriate, clear and concise aviation safety standards;

(b) promoting full and effective consultation and communication with all interested parties on aviation safety issues.

Just to get everyone out of the weeds, here's what a clear and concise aviation standard looks like:
Note that the above does not depend on the opinion of someone in CASA. The criteria are binary: a factual yes or no. The satisfaction of each of those criteria might depend indirectly on the opinion of someone in CASA - some zealot in AVMED or aircrew licensing - but it shouldn't.

Here's how to turn the above hypothetical into the kind of mess CASA is continuing to build:
The second example, though hypothetical, is in substance typical of the current and developing rules. As a matter of practicality, those rules set the standard here: Whatever someone in CASA decides the standard should be each day.

CASA doesn't know how to develop and promulgate appropriate, clear and concise aviation safety standards. And governments no longer know how to make CASA do it.

It's not about the content of manuals (or at least it shouldn't be). If we took copies of all of the manuals of a successful airline and gave them to your shelf company, the outcome would not be the creation of another successful airline.

The substantive issue is (or at least it should be) whether an organisation has the critical mass of expertise, resources and competence to do the stuff, and then actually does the stuff, to produce the required outcome. And that's where the chronic problem comes in.

The chronic problem is that the assessment of those things is left to the subjective opinion of individuals in CASA, which opinions can and do differ on the same set of facts. And, more importantly, those individuals are unable to put a price on risk and decide when the entire costs of the mitigation of a risk outweighs the benefits. Any risk can be conjured into an aviation disaster, the mitigation of which is therefore simple in the case of 'little people': say no; stop it; ground it; send it broke; destroy it. That approach and outcome is zero cost for CASA.

If there were proper standards set, the pricing of risks and mitigations wouldn't be left to individuals in CASA. A proper standard is itself the decision as to the balance.

Folks,
Following Lead Balloon's recent point: In the "reformed" certification regulations in 1998, great care was taken to exclude CASA "decision making".

The "rules" were written in "black and white", ie: Do A, B,C & D and you will get Certificate E, NOT the previous form of: Do A, B, C, and D, and CASA IS SATISFIED, , only then do you get the certificate E being applied for. Of course, there was no enforceable standard of "CASA is satisfied".

The reason for the "black and white" rules for design, certification and manufacturing was to eliminate CASA liability, or the perceived liability of CASA individual employees, a major factor in CASA (none or negative) decision making. Needless to say, we were much criticised at the time, and not just by CASA persons. And, needless to say, it has crept back in, and in recent " regulation development" the policy has been ignored.

As to why we do not have "binding aviation rulings" ------ because there is no legal capacity to make one.

Should CASA have such delegated law making power, without the scrutiny of parliament ( that is, CASA making legal instruments that are not disallowable) ---- my view is absolutely and definitely not ----- and there is a history, CAA tried this on years ago, having received legal advice that "Orders" could be legally enforceable, but be isolated from parliamentary scrutiny.

I even still have my "free" A4 binder that CAA gave to all license holders to file the forecast avalanche of "new" Orders, in lieu of "regulations".

Some smart footwork by several, again opposed by many in industry, not just CAA, challenged to legal advice as being unconstitutional, and the brave new world of rule by CAO without parliamentary disallowance fell over .

Aviation rules can be understandable, there are plenty of examples. However, when the criteria is: "Aviation law if for lawyers and judges, for the safe conviction of pilots and engineers", and not the operating and airworthiness of aircraft, it ain't going to happen.

In one exercise in CASA, years ago during the currency of the PAP/CASA Review, a Canadian lawyer presented a paper on how rules could be written if the design prosecution conviction rate of 99% was reduced to "just" 95%.

All of a sudden, "plain English" regulations.

Another exercise, at the same time, was to remove from the regulations as criminal law all matters that were just administrative/procedural ---- in a section of maintenance ------ the result was to reduce the relevant MRO rules with criminal penalties by about 70+%.

Almost everything the bulk of industry wants is not just possible, but required in this day and age, and has been tried and proven before ----- but the bureaucracy (aka. CASA the iron ring) doesn't want it, so reforms forever slip backwards.

For a full non-aviation exposition of the "how and why", known as Hewart's Law, I can recommend reading "The New Despotism", by Lord Hewart of Bury, Lord Chief Justice of the UK during a period in the 1920's.

Tootle pip!!

PS: I always have a bit of a giggle when anyone comes up with the hoary old nonsense that we can't emulate US, because we have "The Westminster System" ---- izzatso ??
Folks, have a close look, the Australian Commonwealth (unlike CA or NZ) is closely modeled on the US, with a House of Representatives (not "Commons") and a state based Senate, and all our legal systems (AU, USA,CA, NZ etc) all drive from the Blackstone Commentaries, as opposed to Europeans (and Scottish) Roman law.

Indeed, on of the first things the brand new Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia did was legislate by reference --- by importing as Australian law large slabs of US Federal Law ---- the US Sherman Anti-Trust Act 1890, only a couple of words were changed. But that is another story.

Suggestions for using the ICC process
 

If anyone intends to avail themselves of the ICC process

POINT ONE
If you have, multiple complaints. Do not submit them as "grouped complaint".

Submit them individually, and insist on them being attended to individually.

As you will see from my corrrspondence below, I had concerns about the grouped approach. Initially the ICC and I both agreed, as per his preference the individual approach be adopted. For some reason not known to me, that position was reversed by CASA and days later the ICC had a preference for a grouped approach.

Copy of my email sent to the ICC on 05/02/19 below. Please note that I did finally consent to the grouped approach. Looking back on it now that I have the final report I am convinced this was one of my fundamental errors for the exact reasons I noted and feared.



Dear Mr Hanton,

Thankyou for the opportunity to chat on the phone today. I acknowledge your suggestion that the responses be “grouped”.For perfect clarity, that would not be acceptable to me. The complaints do not relate to CASAs “oversight”. They are more specific in nature, and I need them to be responded to in that manner.

A “grouped” response will result in delayed response compared to attending to the matters individually, and as you are aware my business has been placed under significant duress by this process to date. My timelines are critical. My strong preference is to begin receiving “drip fed” responses rather than playing a waiting game over many more months.

A “grouped” response will result in more likelihood that individual items are “diluted” or not attended to in the detail that they should be. The result of this would be follow up questions with associated prolonged response times.

I feel that attending to items individually will reduce the burden on the ICCs office as it would give the opportunity to attend to matters individually.

Individual responses will bring more clarity to the process.

My experience to date is that outstanding matters with the ICC are already experiencing protracted timelines, and particularly for matters that were not really complicated. I am reluctant to allow this process to drag on any further.

Finally as per our previous phone conversation, the preference expressed by both you and I, and agreed on by both parties was an individual approach, so the changing of goal posts makes me feel that the office could potentially be acting in CASAs interests which would degrade the integrity of the office.

Please appreciate that from my perspective, I have been treated unfairly by CASA and I am trying to resolve the matter and “get to the bottom of it”. To date, I feel I have been treated unfairly. and understandably I have little trust and confidence.

If CASA insist on using their preferred approach rather than mine, it will only further degrade any remaining trust and confidence, and that feeling would extend to the office of the ICC.

Can you please advise if CASA insist on using their “grouped” approach, or in fact will CASA act in accordance with the individual approach that both you and I expressed as our preference, on our recent telephone call, and remains my preference.

Yours respectfully


Glen Buckley

False allegations of Flight and Duty breaches
 

The following correspondence came from the Regional Manager in November 2018 “These anomalies should be known by XXXX (as the APTA HOO) as there were problems identified with the FSM system and Flight and Duty (F&D) management, in particular associated to the F&D exceedances.”

My response;

David, I am completely fed up with your constant attempts to bring harm to me and my Business.

I truly have absolutely no idea what drives this obsession, but as evidenced, it has absolutely nothing to do with safety or compliance.

Quite simply that statement you made above is bull****, and unfortunately, there is not a more appropriate word to use.

Had you identified flight and duty exceedances, they would be documented. I look forward to you supplying supporting evidence by 4PM today.

That gives you and XXXXX the whole day to see what you can come up with. Good luck.

I must have that by 4PM today. I have absolutely zero trust or confidence in you, XXXXXX, and XXXXXX. If you fail to provide that evidence by 4PM today, all bets are off. I asked you to escalate my matter external to CASA by last Friday and you chose to ignore me.

At 9AM on Monday I met with Barnaby Joyce and a number of other politicians. David. I do what I say. If this matter is not finalised today, I will ensure a 30 minute investigative journalism piece goes to air in the new year. It will happen. Track XXXX down and see what you fellas can “come up with”

This clearly identifies the lack of technical competence of the CASA person I was dealing with. There were no breaches and the system worked flawlessly. Despite documented and repeated requests, CASA refused to respond to me. I simply asked repeatedly who the pilot was, but they weren't able to identify the pilot. Some time later the Regioanl Manager sent through the alleged breach. It was clearly not a breach, was not anywhere near a breach, and could not even be misunderstood to be a breach. It was a CASA person unfamiliar with their own legislation.

This is only a small smapling of the continual harassment as CASA threw everything they had at APTA to bring it down. Lots more to come.



Glen.

My question I guess would be:- Is this matter all about a single AOC being used to support numerous other operators? Makes good sense to me!

The reason I ask is that I trawled through the aircraft register this afternoon and I notice a trend where a lot of biz-jets appear to be operating under one or more AOC's or aligned with an 'operator' possibly as a matter of convenience. I'm not suggesting any wrong doing. Common operators that appear to either manage or operate numerous biz jets include;- Execujet, Business Aviation Solutions, Australian Corporate Jet Centre.
I'm thinking along the lines that instead of all biz jet operators applying for their own AOC and having CASA delays in processing same hinder their business, that by aligning with an operator with mechanisms already in place that would save heaps of money. I am assuming that all the flash aircraft are operated the same way in accordance with the manufacturers specs... There would only be a need for one CP and one or two T&C people to cover a multitude of airframes. perhaps a contract arrangement?

So how does this differ from Glen Buckley's APTA? Seems rather odd to me.

On November 20th, 2018, CASA provide me with the “inspection” notes from the audit done at Latrobe Valley on September 3rd 2018.

Please note that these audit results came in 2 ½ months after the audit.

That timeline will become integral, and in my opinion clearly demonstrate clear breaches of Administrative Law, Natural Justice, and Procedural Fairness.

This post will also highlight significant deficiencies in the ICC process.

03/09/18. CASA visit Latrobe Valley (one of our bases). CASA identify minor anomalies only with the exam. We are told a written report will follow. CASA procedures require this. Those procedures all identify that “no new items” should be raised in the written report that follows, if they were not identified on the day i.e. no unexpected surprises.

16/11/18. I attended the CASA office. The Regional Manager began giving me a verbal debrief summary of Latrobe Valley Aerodrome audit results. This time he raised completely new concerns. These were inaccurate claims and different to what I had previously been informed. It was then identified by the Regional Manager that in fact an audit report had not been completed, and he would get it to me by the following Tuesday, which he did.

For clarity. We had an audit conducted on 03/09/18, then on 16/11/18 it is identified by CASA that an audit report was not done, and that it would be.

A few days later on the 20/11/18 the newly “minted” audit results have been prepared over the weekend and now arrive.

Recall, that these are now being written more than two months after the audit. Surprisingly the Regional Manager advises me in the accompanying email, that the Latrobe Valley audit results were “used as the basis of seeking CASA legal advice”. Well that leads me to some obvious questions.

If the Regional Manager admits that audit results were not produced until after our meeting on 16/11/18 (Friday), he writes to me on the following Tuesday stating they were “used as the basis of seeking CASA legal advice”. The legal department couldn’t possibly have used the audit results because they had not been created yet!!!!!!

That statement cannot possibly be truthful!

Interestingly, these newly minted audit results have allegations of breaches of
· CASR 141.310 (1),(5), and (6)
· CASR 142.390 (1),(5), and (6)
· CASR 117· CASR 141.260 (g)
· CASR 142.340 (g)

The ICC seemed to brush these matters aside. I specifically identified to the ICC that CASA made allegations of regulatory breaches and the Regional Manager required me to respond. I will contain excerpts of associated emails. The point of these emails is that they clearly demonstrate I was required to respond to an allegation of a regulatory breach as I am.

“Good afternoon Glen,

Please excuse me for any confusion that you may have, but CASA is waiting for you to reply to those matters that were provided in my email to you dated 20th Nov 18 (copy attached again for your reference)

At the meeting with Mr Peter White - CASA Executive Manager Regulatory Services and Surveillance on Friday 16th November 18, it was established that I would provide you the feedback from the CASA assessment of the Latrobe Valley training base, and it was further agreed that this assessment information would be reviewed by yourself, and that you would provide your response to all of the issues identified. Once we received your response, we would resubmit the information to our CASA legal team for a second review ………….



Then again from the Regional Manager a few days later;

“Hi Glen,

This is just a follow-up email requesting your assistance to provide CASA a reply to the information I supplied you last Tuesday 20th November 18 (please see attached).

May I please seek some assurance that you will be able to provide CASA your feedback against the Latrobe Valley Aero Club training base inspection results, in a timely manner. It is respectfully requested that you provide this feedback to CASA by close-of-business on Tuesday 4th December 18, as this equates to a period of 14-days since the information was sent to you.

As you will recall, it was agreed at the 4th December 18 meeting between APTA and CASA that following the receipt of your reply to the Latrobe Valley Aero Club inspection information, we would request another review of the relevant information by the CASA legal team to ascertain if there is any change against the original determination that APTA is a franchised arrangement. I look forward to your reply.

Kind regards,

Those above emails clearly indicate that I am clearly required to respond to the allegations of regulatory breaches.

I will clearly indicate in following posts how the Regional Manager ignored and frustrated my attempts to resolve these issues over many months,

The reason. The allegations were not correct, and to this day after more than 9 months despite over 30 requests for assistance which I will document, CASA cannot support or justify any of the new allegations that arose. Furthermore and interestingly the notes provided on the audit were not dated. It was almost as though CASA was trying to hide this clear breach of administrative law.

28/11/18 the Regional Manager writes “ a level 2 surveillance event was created in our system”, yet the ICC says in his Preliminary report dated 12/04/19 “theres no record of the documents I would expect to see if a Level 2 had been commenced in CASAs Sky Sentinel surveillance databaseLater, CASA tried to reverse the position and called it a surveillance event rather than an audt. The ICC claims that it was a surveillance event, and that’s why he chose to avoid addressing my complaint in my final ICC report.

My point, the changing terminology for the event is irrelevant. My complaint was not about the terminology used, it was clearly about CASA frustrating my attempts at a resolution, and prolonging the impact of the damage caused by CASA actions.Overall, an audit or “event” that is surrounded by significant, repeated, and sustained breaches of procedures. Why? Because the named personnel in CASA made a decision to act this way. Its not an error or an omission. It is a deliberate attempt to frustrate fair processes.

CASA frustrating my attempts to resolve
 

Importantly CASA made a number of allegations of breaches.

The accusation of CASR 117 was particularly concerning, as it relates to misrepresenting your organisations capabilities.

A serious breach. CASA raised this allegation against me. The CASA allegation placed a serious restriction on my trade, and prevented me from marketing my product.

I was in a situation where I believed CASA was wrong. I made many attempts to resolve this issue over manty many months as you will see. This was typical of my dealings, and my requests were completely ignored. There can be no doubt that CASA raised the allegations, CASA clearly required me to respond. It was the CASA personnel that DECIDED not to respond and allow me to become compliant again.

This is an important piece of information that the ICC decided not to address. t was listed as one of my complaints, but masterfully avoided. Whilst I have not included all of the emails, it does clearly demonstrate unacceptable behaver by those CASA personnel.


28/11/18

CASR 117. I have visited the Latrobe Valley Website and cannot identify the breach. Could you please provide information on specifically which part of the website is causing the regulatory breach, perhaps a link to the relevant page.

05/12/18

In regards to our alleged breach of CASR 117, I have visited the Latrobe Valley website and cannot identify the breach. As per my request submitted to you on 28/11/18 can I make a second request to have the offending link sent through to me, so I can satisfactorily address the breach.

10/12/18

Similarly with CASR 117. I have reviewed CASR 117, and I do understand the regulation but I am having difficulty in responding, as I cant see the “offending:” page on the LTV website. Perhaps a link could be sent through to me and I will attend to that immediately.


07/01/19

Dear Mr Jones, I thought I would take the opportunity to remind you to attend to this. One month ago, you advised that you would respond. My experience dealing with you is that you consistently deflect or do not respond. My request is fair and reasonable and your consistent failure to respond and assist me to finalise this matter is unethical and brings unnecessary continuing harm to my business. Repeated and consistent requests have been made. I am very strongly of the opinion that you are deliberately frustrating my efforts. There can be no other explanation as my request is entirely reasonable. Can you please clearly address my queries, by the end of the day. You have obligations placed on you by the PGPA Act, and I call on you to act professionally and act in accordance with those obligations. Failing an answer to my questions, I will have no option but to initiate a further ICC complaint about the approach that you have chosen to adopt with my business.

Glen



04/04/19


The purpose of this letter is to ascertain the status of the alleged breach of CASR 117 made by CASA against APTA. I am hoping that the variations to our operating conditions will be soon lifted. I want to ensure there are no outstanding concerns that could delay this.

17/05/19

Dear Owen/Jason,

On 3rd September 2018, CASA conducted an audit at Latrobe Valley. The verbal debrief on site on the day identified some suggestions regarding our exams, and those suggestions were immediately embedded. No other concerns were raised.

Then at a subsequent meeting with CASA new allegations regarding Latrobe Valley “forms” was raised by the Regional Manager. This differed to the verbal debrief on the day of the audit. CASA further identified that unfortunately the audit results had not been provided to APTA. Months after the audit, notes were finally presented. They were not dated and obviously written up months after the audit was conducted. The new allegations of breaches appeared for the first time. These results differed entirely to the exit interview, and the meeting in the CASA office with the executive manager and Regional Manager then emerged for the first time, and no mention had been made prior. These “newly written” audit results now claimed breaches of CASR 141.310 (1)

CASR 141.310 (5)

CASR 141.310 (6)

CASR 142.390 (1)

CASR 142.390 (5)

CASR 142.390 (6)

CASR 117

CASR 141.260 (g)

142.340 (g)

Flight and Duty exceedances.

I have made repeated and well documented attempts to resolve these allegations, and CASA has chosen not to respond. As you are aware CASA have varied by AOC and reduced the date of approval. It is critical that I resolve this matter, as the commercial impact is significant, as I have outlined previously. CASA is working on its requirements in the contracts for more than 7 months now, and there is nothing that I can do from that side. My concern is that once CASA finalise the contractual requirements, these allegations will reappear and further impact on my business, by delaying our start.Could you please clarify which of the allegations I need to attend to, and which ones can be withdrawn. You will appreciate that I am obligated to resolve these matters, and that is my only intention. I encourage CASA to assist me by providing guidance. Thanking you in anticipation of your assistance, Respectfully, Glen Buckley


21/05/19


Dear Mr McHeyzer,

Could I respectfully request clarification of the status of the allegations of regulatory breaches made by CASA.

Respectfully, Glen







21/05/19 Email to Mr Crawford

I have made repeated and well documented attempts to resolve these allegations, and CASA has chosen not to respond.

As you are aware CASA have varied by AOC and reduced the date of approval. It is critical that I resolve this matter, as the commercial impact is significant, as I have outlined previously.

CASA is working on its requirements in the contracts for more than 7 months now, and there is nothing that I can do from that side. My concern is that once CASA finalise the contractual requirements, these allegations will reappear and further impact on my business, by delaying our start. Could you please clarify which of the allegations I need to attend to, and which ones can be withdrawn. You will appreciate that I am obligated to resolve these matters, and that is my only intention. I encourage CASA to assist me by providing guidance. Thanking you in anticipation of your assistance, Respectfully, Glen Buckley

11/06/19

Dear Mr Martin,

As you are aware CASA conducted an audit of Latrobe valley. I wish to clarify an incorrect statement in the “structure review” of APTA.

CASA records will clearly indicate that in fact APTA has two CASA approved CEOs, two CASA approved HOOs (with a third on hold due to the current CASA action, and two CASA approved Safety Managers.

This is a misunderstanding on behalf of my CMT, and I would like the opportunity to clarify that. As you are aware we submitted an application on 22/06/18 for the addition of Latrobe Valley as an APTA base.

On 03/09/18 CASA attended and conducted an audit. It was identified that CASA had not provided the audit results and they were provided to us on 20/11/18, months after the audit. On provision of those audit results there were allegations that we were misrepresenting APTA.

Specifically I was concerned about the CASA allegation of breach CASR 117. These were entirely new allegations that we had not seen before. As a precaution, I called a halt to our extensive advertising of APTA and that has continued on for many months.

As you will appreciate that is effectively placing a restriction on my trade. I have made multiple requests to have this resolved and none have been responded to.

I have not done an exhaustive check due time constraints although I did make the following requests in an attempt to resolve the allegation of a breach by CASA
28/11/18 Email to David Jones asking for information to attend to the CASA allegation of a regulatory breach. There was no response to my request

05/12/18 Email to David Jones. Second request. No response to my request.

10/12/18 Email to David jones. Third request. No response to my request.

11/12/18 Email to Will Nuttall requesting meeting to sort out Latrobe Valley audit results. There was no response to my request.

28/11/18 Email to David Jones. No response to my request.

07/01/19 Email to David Jones urging him to respond to my emails regarding audit findings. No response to my request.1

6/05/19 Email to Graeme Crawford.
21/05/19 Emailed to Jason McHeyzer and he advised me to contact Craig Martin.
21/05/19 Emailed Graeme Crawford.
22/05/19 Emailed to Craig Martin. No response to my request.
27/05/19 Emailed to Craig Martin. No response to my request. Craig, please, if CASA make allegations of regulatory breaches, they do impact on my business. After nearly 8 months, can you please respond to my request, to assist me to resolve the allegations made by CASA.

One finalised, that will allow me to recommence marketing. As you can see there have been at least 12 requests. They are reasonable requests. The impact of CASAs allegations is significant, please meet your obligations and assist me to resolve this matter.

Respectfully, Glen Buckley.



13/06/19

Dear Mr Martin,

As you are aware CASA raised a number of allegations of regulatory breaches, and there have been multiple recorded attempts by me, to resolve those issues which have been completely ignored by CASA. These requests have been frequent and been made over many months. You are obligated in your role to assist me. Mr Martin, I must insist that you immediately stop frustrating my attempts to resolve these matters.The approach by CASA is totally unacceptable, and by doing so, you are preventing me access to fair processes. As I have maintained since October 2018, there are no regulatory breaches, and no safety concerns. Not one of my requests has been responded to. By refusing to assist me in resolving these matters I am of the opinion that you are deliberately frustrating my attempts to resolve these matters, and are deliberately protracting time lines. You are not acting in accordance with your obligations.The failure by you to respond, restricts me from conducting my business, which is my common law right. My strong preference is to avoid lodging a formal complaint to the ICC about your conduct, hence I will make one further attempt to receive a response in 24 hours to my fair and reasonable request Mr Martin, I call on you in your role to meet your obligations and assist me to resolve the matter. I call on you to minimise the commercial impact on me and my business to respond. I look forward to your response,


Glen

Ballina Base saga
 

The Ballina base saga.

The APTA team travelled to Ballina for the establishment as a temporary location.

We used the exact procedures that CASA suggested to us, provided to us, CASA approved for use by us, audited by CASA, and in fact CASA had previously used this procedures on previous bases.

In October 2018, when CMT 3 headed by Will Nuttall elected to apply a complete change of policy based on opinion only, the pilots at that base became concerned about continuing operations. I assured them our procedures were approved, but they elected not to fly, as is any pilots option if they are not comfortable.

I was concerned as the owners had made a significant investment of the belief that CASA had approved APTA (as they had), and future options would be secure, provided levels of safety and compliance remained high.

Unfortunately, once again despite my attempts to get resolution on this, CASA steadfastly refused to reply. Eventually as in my own case with MFT, the business could not sustain continuing operations and the Ballina base stopped delivering GA flight training.

The financial impact on persons who had invested in the base was significant and totally unnecessary. Whilst I don’t intend to include all the emails, I have included a sampling that clearly show CASA frustrating processes. I never received an answer, and 9 months later, still haven’t.

05/12/18

“Dear David, We had Ballina operating as a temporary location, after the entire APTA team travelled to Ballina to execute our procedures, strictly in accordance with our approved procedures.

The nature of the location is temporary as it will be awaiting CASA acceptance or rejection, and the Ballina base understands that is the procedure.

No surety of operations can be guaranteed until CASA processes are finalised.This base elected to cease operations shortly after the initial CASA action 6 weeks ago.

There hope was that this matter would be finalised by now, although as you will appreciate it is taking somewhat of a long time to resolve. My preference is to reactivate the base.

We followed all CASA approved procedures and I am fully satisfied that it should run as a temporary location until CASA makes a determination as to whether it will become a permanent training base.Therefore, in order to minimise the impact on APTA can we reactivate the Ballina base with me accepting full responsibility under APTA for that operation?Cheers. Glen.”


05/12/18

“Hi Dave, Just for further clarity regarding the previous email, can you confirm that Ballina is legal to operate? Yes or no,?Cheers. Glen”



12/12/18

Dear Mr David Jones, Please distribute within CASA as required. You are the only CASA recipient.

The Ballina operation is requiring a response as to their ability to reactivate operations. I emphasise again that we strictly followed all CASA approved procedures in activating this as a temporary location. It can only be a Temporary location as CASA may veto it as they did with Ballarat and Latrobe valley. We followed all procedures, and invested heavily in the induction process. This included onsite visits to Ballina over consecutive days with attendance by CEO, HOO, GSM, Internal Co-ordinator, two supporting administrative support workers and our HOO in Training.

There has been no breach. As an APTA base, I am very strongly of the opinion that the base should be operational. I must also respect the pilots rights to only fly on operations that they are 100% comfortable with. I need to be able to assure the pilots that they are not acting in breach of any CASA legislative requirements.Ballina has advised that if this matter is not fully resolved by Friday the base will be permanently closed. Three onsite staff are affected, and the costs associated with running a base that has ceased operations is obviously not economically viable.

Your assistance in providing guidance would be greatly appreciated. I am available at any time for a face to face catch up at the CASA office if my onsite presence will assist in a mutually acceptable outcome.Cheers. Glen.


07/01/19

“Dear Mr Jones, This email query was sent through a month ago, and you have chosen not to respond. Can you please provide an estimated timeline”

20/02/19

Sadly, I received this email below from the investors in the Ballina base.

Good evening Glen, I am writing to advise that White Star Aviation, having now grounded GA Operations since November last year and having now lost all of the students we had enrolled, have made the decision to focus on RAAus operations and as such cancel our membership with APTA.
We appreciate how incredibly disruptive and damaging the action taken by CASA has been on your organisation, as it has on ours and others. I truly hope APTA and CASA find a solution to allow your other not-yet approved bases to commence/re-commence operations as soon as possible.

08/04/19

After discussions with the Ballina investors I sent the following email to CASA.

Dear Jason and Regservices, I am writing to you regarding this Regservices task. I received the email from White Star on 20/02/18. I have established contact with the Director of White Star today, as a further 6 weeks has passed, and as could be reasonably expected, the additional delay has only made their situation worse. They will not be continuing with their APTA membership, and we will remove all reference from the APTA website within 24 hours.

Could you please cancel the task. I must point out that multiple requests were made by APTA to clarify the status of this base, and Mr Will Nuttall undertook to write to us.

Numerous written requests were sent to CASA and they were repeatedly ignored over almost 6 months, and it is important that is noted. Respectfully, Glen.

CASA personnel looking after each other
 

Regarding the Ballina base.

CASA had an issue with the procedure that we adopted in activating Ballina.

The truth of the matter is that CASA personnel had absolutely no idea because they elected to shoot first, and ask questions later.

My matter was slowly being accelerated up the chain and I had the opportunity to meet with Mr Craig Martin.

As a precursor to that meeting I made a suggestion to him, which I have included below.

Had Mr Craig Martin availed himself of that opportunity I presented to him, he would have realised CASAs deficiencies back in December 2018, and I may not be dealing with this, 9 moths later. His decision not to interview the named personnel, and bring his own independent determination to the matter demonstrates to me that there was no intent to resolve this matter. Mr Martin made a decision not to avail himself of the opportunity.

Email I sent to Craig Martin below
"...…….Can I make a well intentioned suggestion that will demonstrate quite clearly to you, the deficiencies within CASA.


Ask either Mr Brad Lacey or David Jones to explain how we introduce a new base.


A good example would be to ask them to describe how we activated the Ballina base and the procedures we adopted? Who attended on site for training from APTA? How long did we stay? Did APTA personnel meet with the CAGRO for the airport? Did we meet with the fire and emergency services. Were the Prof checks conducted in Melbourne or were they conducted in Ballina and why? How we attend to the FSM training. Was our Group Safety Manager able to attend on site. Seriously Mr Martin, please ask them anything, i believe that no-one from my CMT has got absolutely any idea, and quite seriously, I mean nothing. That was done many months ago, so I would expect that they have at least some idea. I have absolutely no intention whatsoever to ask of you what their answers are. But I would ask that you compare answers with mine.

You will have a very clear understanding of the deficiency, very quickly.

Unfortunately the misunderstandings and confusion exist within CASA, and not within my own organisation, and that is why we are in this current situation.

If you decide to ask either Brad Lacey or David Jones could I respectfully request that you give them some time to consider their response to you, and I have no concerns with you giving them a heads up today of your requirements.
Thankyou again for your approach, regards. Glen Buckley.

Ho-lleeee ****!

Of all the CAsA embuggerances we've heard about over the years this one is just diabolical.
Based on Glen's experience I cannot see any doubt that CAsA is corrupt and rotten to the core.
A judicial enquiry at the very least is required, but I'm not holding my breath.
Where the hell is the media??????

How has CASA contributed to safety in my Organisation
 

How casa contributed to the demise of my operation...XXXXX..poisoned it with the connivance of a competitor company, and heaps of casa bs and lies to clients..
Corrupt and rotten to the core is right. Criminals too, some of them, just not in jail yet.
Keep beating that drum JI, JI and save GA ! Maybe

Hi Glen,
I'm struggling to think of words that adequately describe what has been done to you and your business. Outrageous, disgraceful, shameful, disgusting, reprehensible, appalling....none of them seem strong enough, even with the word f**king in front of them..! If you still have the will to keep fighting (and I wouldn't blame you if you don't), then please don't give up. They can't be allowed to get away with this. There are many in the industry who will support you via a fighting fund like go fund me.

Time to take a stand everyone. You could be next.

IFEZ,
How about "normal".
Tootle pip!!

Folks, it appears Glen has written to the PM's department regarding his predicament.
If this was the USA, a few hundred thousand letters would be flying about the place to various congressmen
and senators.
This is corruption Glen is talking about and experiencing the consequences of, we Tut Tut, wring
our hands, a few good men, doing nothing. The grubs in the upper echelons of CAsA are getting paid upwards
of half a million dollars a year each to destroy our industry, we do nothing they get away with it.
I just sent my letter to the PM's office in support of Glen, we may be goats bleating in the wilderness, but the old Sinatra song
about the ram and the dam might just ring true if everyone does the same.

What is new?

CASA has used "administrative decisions" to eliminate large numbers of GA operators over the past 30 years. CASA makes an administrative decision to suspend an AOC, claims the Act Sect 9 as a defense in the AAC, then repetitiously ignores the many Show Cause Notice responses, procrastinates and obfuscates until the target operator goes broke and out of business.

Here is an actual text book case written by retired aviation journalist Paul Phelan and published in Australian Flying magazine, although in this instance the operator, whilst mortally wounded, won their AOC back and something of an apology:

Case to Answer?

By Paul Phelan

“CASA will do all it can to ensure that a person whose licence, certificate or authority is suspended or cancelled has ready access to full external merits review in the AAT. Once before the AA T, CASA will conduct itself as a model litigant" CASA, in a document entitled: "A new approach to enforcement".

March, 1989."Anyone other than Dick Smith who joins CASA, becomes “infallible." DICK SMITH.

August 1998. "That's the way the system works. They think: "We are powerful and we are totally unaccountable." DICK SMITH.

When he made those comments, Dick Smith had already found the battle against authoritarian, intransigent and what he has sometimes called `incompetent' bureaucracy, tougher going than he had expected. Recent events in the Torres Strait show how much further there is to go. This incident is not the first in which CASA has used its administrative procedures to create a situation in which an operator has faced impossible financial burdens, while totally sidestepping the accountability Smith has fought for.The fatal crash of another Britten-Norman Islander in April 1996 resulted in the immediate suspension of another AOC and forced that operator out of business. The final BASI finding was not one which supported that outcome. Anyone contemplating investment or a career in aviation, should read this and study its implications. There's still hope for the industry, but a lot of things have to be fixed first, and the industry is wondering whether the right people and motivations are in place to fix them.Many of these documents would never have surfaced, had an operator not dug its heels in and fought for their release. Uzu's friends, as well as many of its commercial rivals, are united in the belief that these events represent an ongoing threat to the orderly conduct of aviation, and ultimately a negative impact on air safety. They also believe that CASA has developed a tactic to subvert the Administrative Appeals Tribunal process, by cynically sheltering behind Section 9 of the Civil Aviation Act.A CASA public relations officer recently told Australian Flying, when we queried the fairness of the procedure which an administrative decision of one individual can put a company out of business: "Well, that's the decision we have made. If (the victim) doesn't like it, he can appeal to the AAT, can't he?” When this went to press, another victim of this affair, the L.A.M.E licence of the chief engineer of Uzu's engineering company, had been cancelled. That engineer, one of the best-respected in the industry, simply cannot afford the process, especially if the AAT is likely to accept a bald CASA statement it is acting within its `safety responsibility.’

Jul 96 to Dec 98:

Uzu Air's general manager wrote 13 letters to CASA and its predecessors, seeking clarification of the anomalies surrounding the carriage of individual paying passengers at fixed fares on subsidised remote area mail service flights. None were answered, and a CASA officer later told Uzu: "Officially they don't exist."

14 Aug 96:

A CASA safety systems assessment profile report on the company then employing Uzu's general manager noted: "The company management has spent a considerable time trying to clarify the status of its Australia Post mail services, which appear to have been in non-compliance since the repeal of CAR 203. ... CASA must address the operation of vital rural mail services to remote communities and draft appropriate legislation to allow their continued operation. ... [the company] endeavour to conduct their operation in accordance with regulatory requirements. However they feel frustrated by the lack of appropriate legislation and CASA's reluctance or inability to allow regular passenger/mail services into non-surveyed landing strips or operation of single-engine IFR aircraft on such services."

4-6 Nov 97:

A periodic inspection is conducted by an FOI from Cairns District. The officer's report, subsequently obtained only at the direction of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, says: "20 NCNs in total!" (exclamation mark as in the report.) The report added that: "This is no longer a compliant operator."

17-20 Nov 97:

Uzu is visited by an unannounced team headed by the Manager, Safety Audits, Southeast Region.The four-man team conduct a four-day audit over 52 man-hours, which results in the issue of four NCNs. Three of these detailed minor errors in maintenance documentation, and one questioned dangerous goods acceptance procedures. The report concluded: "Uzu Air are considered not to be an unsafe operator."

1-4 Dec 97:

At the direction of CASA's Canberra office, two investigators and one Cairns FOI conduct an investigation with the following terms of reference: "Determine the extent of operations in the Torres Strait region which are being conducted for fare paying passengers that fall into the definition of RPT and which are currently being conducted as charter." The TOR directed that: "The differentiation between RPT and charter that is to be used for this investigation shall be drawn from the "draft" paper prepared by (a CASA lawyer) as attached."The draft opinion, later obtained by Uzu, attempted to define the five elements which must exist to constitute RPT. However it provided no definitions of two of the critical elements: "Specific route" and "fixed terminal".The investigators had thus been instructed to investigate whether operators were in breach not of a regulation or rule, but of a draft opinion, which failed to provide critical definitions.

7 Jan 99:

CASA issues a notification of proposed action to suspend or cancel the AOCs of four operators including Uzu. The notification summarised the reasons CASA believed the companies were undertaking unauthorised RPT flights, contrary to the Civil Aviation Act. Uzu's notification also resurrected a number of NCNs issued over the previous two years, all of which had previously been acquitted.

16 Jan 99:

Uzu Air's Britten Norman Islander is involved in a fatal accident at Coconut Island. (refer http://www.atsb.gov.au/aviation/occurs/occurs_detail.cfm?ID=171 )

17 Jan 99:

An "Immediate Safety Report", outlines the few known circumstances of the accident, and states under recommended action: "DFOM (District Flying Operations Manager) to now recommend 28 day suspension of AOC." The report, faxed to Canberra at 10.55 am, on that day (a Sunday), does not state any reason for the recommendation.(CASA now claims: "This recommendation was made on the advice of BASI who clearly indicated that the left hand engine was not developing significant power at the time of impact, a view they still hold." BASI says this is untrue.)

19 Jan 99:

BASI, insurer and operator representatives fly to accident site. In a faxed message, CASA suspends Uzu Air's AOC for 28 days, with effect from 2359 that night.

20 Jan 99:

Uzu files a notice of application for review of the CASA decision to suspend its AOC, claiming that the Authority had acted ultra vires (outside its legislated authority); breached rules of procedural fairness and natural justice; failed to provide adequate reasons for the decision; misapplied administrative principles, and "failed to correctly interpret and apply the law".

22 Jan 99:

Uzu lodges a detailed 127-page response to CASA's notice of the show cause.The response was never acknowledged. At the same time, the operator attends the first hearing on the matter in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, (AAT) seeking a stay of its AOC suspension. CASA is successful in having the stay denied. CASA's use in such stay proceedings of Section 9A of the Civil Aviation Act, appears to question the ability of any operator to gain a stay. (Look it up!). The operator believes the AAT's effectiveness in reviewing administrative processes may be neutered by this tactic. Uzu would have to wait for the 28 day suspension to expire, before being able to proceed to a substantive hearing. Uzu seeks an order from the AAT to require CASA to produce specified documents such as CASA Audit Reports, related to its decision. The AAT refuses to issue a stay order, instructs that the hearing is to be expedited, and orders CASA to provide the documents within one week or as soon thereafter as is possible. A telephone conference is then to be held to arrange the hearing. (The documents were made available about 10 days later. The 13 letters seeking clarification of RPT/charter status were not included in the documents.)

22 Jan 99:

BASI investigators recover engines from the Islander and return to Cairns. BASI holds meeting at CASA Cairns with CASA AWI. BASI advises CASA the left engine did not appear to be developing power at impact and the fuel mixture control rod was found to be broken at the accident site, but advises the component will require metallurgical examination to determine cause and time of breakage.

26 Jan 99:

Uzu Air lodges a 40-page response to CASA's AOC suspension.

27 Jan 99:

BASI advises Uzu and CASA that laboratory analysis verifies the fuel mixture control rod failed "... due to overload as a result on impact forces".

2 Feb 99:

BASI strips down left engine at Archerfield. Following day, BASI advises all interested parties of the outcome of the engine strip down.

4 Feb 99:

CASA serves a Notice to Show Cause on Uzu Air's associated company, Tamco Engineering, and asserts that BASI investigations "resulted in a finding of a disconnected mixture control rod on the left engine, which was not delivering power prior to time of aircraft impact, and was considered by these BASI Investigators to be a contributing factor to the loss of control of the aircraft prior to that impact. The subject mixture control was found to have suffered failure which exhibited severe corrosion of the mixture control ball end connection." BASI Investigator verbally denies the assertions were ever made and advises BASI was lodging a protest with CASA regarding the allegations.

8 Feb 99:
Uzu Air holds an informal conference in Cairns with the CASA regional manager, the acting DFOM, and the assigned FOI. Uzu made a proposal that it implement check and training and Class A aircraft maintenance, immediately upon reinstatement of the AOC. The company believed this met with CASA approval. (CASA now says: "CASA's requirement is that UZU has a class A maintenance system and appropriate training and checking in place prior to the reissue of the AOC." That is not the recollection of, the Uzu representatives.

(Torres note: It is not possible to have a CASA approved Training & Checking system and approved System of Maintenance in a suspended AOC, which CASA was aware of!)

12 Feb 99:
Deputy Director, BASI, faxes BASI Preliminary Report to Uzu Air. Also faxes Preliminary Report to General Manager, Aviation Safety Branch, CASA, Canberra. Also telephoned CASA Canberra to confirm CASA's receipt of the Report. The report stated inter alia: "Examination of the left engine, while still in the wreckage at the accident site, revealed the linkage between the mixture control cable on the carburettor had failed. Subsequent metallurgical examination of these components confirmed that failure was due to overload as a result of impact forces, and that it had not contributed to the accident."

15 Feb 99:
CASA suspends Uzu Air's AOC for a further 28 days and asserts inter alia: "The Bureau of Air Safety Investigation (BASI) has been investigating the crash but has not published a preliminary or final report on its causes."

17 Feb 99:
The Cairns Post newspaper publishes an article headed "Crash report rocks CASA," (by this writer) detailing the conflict between CASA's allegations and those of the preliminary BASI report. A fax letter is received on the same morning from Assistant Director, CASA, Canberra, saying: "I have now been made aware of the content of a preliminary report of the accident by BASI. Please note that neither the crash itself, nor the possible causes of the crash, were the, or a decisive consideration in my decision to suspend your AOC. I would have suspended your AOC even if I had been aware of the content of the BASI preliminary report." The Assistant Director did not reveal his reasons for this assertion at that time.

18 Feb 99:
An AAT-directed teleconference is scheduled for 1700, between Uzu counsel, the AAT registrar, and CASA's office of legal counsel, to determine the process of an AAT hearing on the second suspension, and to enable Uzu's counsel to advise CASA of the witnesses Uzu required to examine. Uzu counsel and the AAT were connected. CASA's phone rings out without answering.

19 Feb 99:
CASA office of legal counsel telephones Uzu to advise they had confused the day, thinking the teleconference was set for the following day. Uzu's lawyers indicate that there was no utility in having a telephone conference for a hearing in relation to the first suspension (which is what the telephone conference on 18 February was intended to do) because a second suspension had been issued. Uzu's lawyers indicated that Uzu would now be applying to the AAT for a stay of the second suspension for hearing in the following week. On the same day Uzu Air provides CASA with a detailed 50-page response to the further 28 day suspension of its AOC, detailing the foregoing events and again raising the question of RPT versus charter.

24 Feb 99:
Uzu's lawyers request the AAT issue three subpoenas to involved CASA staff members to attend the hearing the following day. AAT declines due to inadequate time.25

Feb 99:
At a cost of about $10,000, Uzu attend AAT Sydney at 0915. At 0930, AAT Vice President's associates advise that CASA will not be attending, due to commitments in Brisbane, but CASA will not object to a telephone hearing. (CASA claims it had earlier advised Uzu and the AAT it would be unable to attend but would not object to a telephone hearing.) However CASA's counsel objects to any evidence being tendered or any witnesses being called, "on the basis that it is inappropriate for oral evidence to be given at a stay hearing.” Deputy President Chappell rules that oral evidence was not appropriate for that reason. Uzu, which has now not earned any revenue for 36 days, is therefore again denied an opportunity to confront its accusers, some of whom are on "stress leave", a luxury unavailable to Uzu's general manager or his staff, some of whom have been stood down. CASA however successfully objects to the lifting of the suspension on the grounds of "Air Safety," relying on Section 9 of the Civil Aviation Act.

2 Mar 99:
Meeting in Canberra attended by Uzu's chief pilot, an Uzu consultant, CASA's General Manager, Aviation Operations and CASA's public affairs manager. Uzu was told that CASA wouldn't extend the suspension, but would either lift it, or let it run its course until 16 Mar. The company was also told that CASA would not renew the suspension or cancel the AOC. No explanation was offered as to why, having made that decision, CASA would not lift the suspension immediately. It was agreed that draft checking and training and maintenance procedures were required and had been submitted, and that checking and training and progressive maintenance would be progressively incorporated.

5 Mar 99:
AAT teleconference between CASA office of legal counsel, Uzu is advised that the relevant DFOM was reviewing the material on Uzu and had indicated that he would not recommend a cancellation. He indicated that he would consider a recommendation to lift the suspension, but only after reviewing the remainder of the material and speaking with airworthiness officers with respect to manuals. He advised that he would attempt to do so by 10 March at the earliest and 12 March at the latest. He also advised even if such a recommendation was made, it was just that. It would be ultimately a matter for the decision maker in Canberra to accept any recommendation.

8 Mar 99:
CASA acting DFOM Cairns advises he is satisfied with the draft manuals and will be making "unspecified recommendations" to CASA Canberra. Uzu's optimism is heightened.

9 Mar 99:
CASA publishes an amended CAO 82.3 and three blanket exemptions, authorising air charter operators in the Torres Straits to operate RPT without meeting the aerodrome, maintenance, or training and checking requirements for RPT until June 9.CASA's comment: "While the check and training system might have been satisfactory in draft form, the district AW manager was not satisfied with the AW control mechanisms." Uzu is thus denied access to the March 9 amendments to CAO 82.3, and to the exemptions granted to Torres Strait operators.

10 Mar 99:
AM - CASA shifts the goalposts again. While its competitors, who have been operating for the two months Uzu has been grounded, are still in the air and have 90 days to comply with RPT rules, Uzu is told it must comply BEFORE its AOC is restored.
PM - Uzu's solicitor contacts CASA office of legal counsel and is told the manuals the company has submitted are only DRAFT and that Uzu has not nominated a maintenance controller or check and training captain.Australian Flying faxes a draft of this chronology to CASA with an invitation to review it for accuracy.

11 Mar 99:
CASA phones and indicates that a response, detailing some "errors and omissions" will be faxed "tomorrow." Australian Flying admits that because of space limitations it has omitted considerable material, much of it damaging to CASA. (Information provided in CASA's response is incorporated in this narrative.)

12 Mar 99:
The CASA response does not arrive. Or maybe, obliquely, it does. A faxed message from CASA to Uzu suspends the AOC for a third period, "pending an investigation by CASA into your company's operations, and the risk to the safety of air navigation in allowing the AOC to continue in force... The reasons for this decision and the facts and circumstances on which I rely are set out below." The letter details thirty-eight points as "facts and circumstances.”

15 Mar 99:
A fax to the Hon. Warren Entsch, Member for Leichhardt, in response to a phone call to CASA from Mr. Entsch, says that for UZU to have its AOC reinstated, it must comply with three requirements - training and checking, Class A maintenance, and an approved maintenance controller, which UZU has already addressed.

24 Mar 99:
In a pre-hearing teleconference between Uzu, CASA and the AAT, the Tribunal indicates that it expects CASA to restore the AOC by close of business on Mar 26, provided the three CASA conditions are met (which UZU insists they already are). In anticipation of a full AAT hearing the following week, UZU has already applied for summonses requiring CASA personnel to be present at the hearing. This means they will almost certainly be called upon to give evidence and to face cross-examination.

26 Mar 99:
The AAT official indicates that she will be in her office for a further half hour after close of business, and that if the AOC is not restored by that time she will arrange a "substantive" hearing on Monday 29. Late on Friday afternoon, CASA blinks. In a faxed message UZU is advised its charter AOC is restored "subject to the company implementing Class A maintenance” and check and training - a unique requirement, but at least the company is back in business.

General aviation is not one big happy family; but other operators watched the process with keen interest, and even UZU's commercial rivals were horrified at its implications for the rest of the industry. CASA sources now acknowledge: "the matter could have been better handled".

Torres note: Within days of the lifting of the AOC suspension, Uzu Air submitted all documentation for the issue of a Remote Area RPT AOC. The issue of the AOC was stalled some weeks by CASA, Canberra (whilst they reviewed an application for a similar AOC by one of Uzu Air’s competitors), however Uzu Air still received the second such AOC in Australia.

Some years later a retired CASA FOI advised Torres there was an "element of revenge" involved for a totally different and unrelated matter in July 1987 involving CASA.

JF?

Does that position even exist anymore?

The only good light Paul's report shines on is the integrity of BASI.

I imagine if the crash had been investigated by CAsA's bastard child
in todays world the ATSB no doubt would have come to totally different
conclusions to suit CAsA's narrative rather than the truth.
What an unconscionable state we have allowed our bureaucrats to descend into.