[Peetwo]

Make it happen REX - 

Here's one for the new Senate RRAT committee; today I got an update from the ANAO office with their proposed audits of agencies/entities that full under the Infrastructure, Transport, Cities and Regional Development portfolio and once again CASA features:

Administration of regulation by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority
POTENTIAL
Potential audit: 2019-20
Portfolio 
Infrastructure, Transport, Cities and Regional Development
Entity 
Civil Aviation Safety Authority
Contact 
Please direct enquiries through our contact page.
Activity 
Regulation

This audit would examine whether the Civil Aviation Safety Authority administers its legislative and regulatory responsibilities in an efficient and effective manner, consistent with the Australian Government’s Regulator Performance Framework and with other relevant standards and better practice principles.

 
Maybe it is about time that the Senators make this happen? 

Especially when you consider the seriously sinister upcoming introduction of Part 149 and the ongoing embuggerance of APTA under the provisons of the dodgy Part 142 - reference the following well written letter from Glen Buckley to St Commode:

Dear Mr Carmody,

 
Prior to proceeding with the contents of this letter, it is important that I clarify some important matters.
 
The business has been operating for 15 years delivering well intentioned, safe and highly compliant flight training. CASA records will support that contention.
 
Flying schools conducting a practice referred to as ‘sharing an Air Operators Certificate” is a practice that has been going on for many decades within the flight training industry. The practice has been conducted with the full knowledge, consent, and support of CASA. This cannot be refuted.
 
There were deficiencies in those arrangements, as often the organisations operated independently and in their own interests.
 
APTA was the first time in Australia that the deficiencies in the existing practice were addressed. This cannot be refuted, as CASA personnel worked side by side with APTA personnel in designing the purpose built system that we now have. We attended to over 600 CASA requirements, and in fact we were one of the few schools that met the CASA stipulated deadline of September 1 2017. APTA was approved by CASA in April 2017 and has been operating in that format for more than two years. In November 2017, 6 months after we Transitioned, CASA conducted a level one audit (the highest available), and no concerns were raised.
 
At no stage during the process did CASA ever require contracts of us, or in fact any other flying training organisation in Australia. The requirements regarding contracts, is a requirement specifically being placed on APTA. Other operators continue to be exempted from this requirement. I assert that in the last 25 years of the practice of schools sharing AOCs, CASA does not hold any contracts on any other operators. They have chosen not to refute my allegation, because the fact is the CASA requirement is unique to APTA. It is unfair and unjust that you elect to single my Organisation out, and apply conditions to me that you choose not to apply to other operators.
 
Importantly, the use of a contract was an APTA initiative, and at no stage had CASA ever required a contract The contracts were drawn up by lawyers, and have been reviewed on at least 5 occasions since that time by lawyers. APTA and APTA members are satisfied with the contracts that we use. It is only CASA that is not satisfied. It is incumbent on CASA to tell me what you want in the contracts.
 
In October 2018, without any prior warning at all, CASA did a complete reversal of policy and initiated the action that has been continuing for more than 8 months now. The impact of that action on the business, my family, my members and staff has been traumatic. It is a clear breach of many aspects of your own regulatory philosophy.
 
Initially CASA action was not based on contracts, but the action was taken on the basis of 

1. Aviation Ruling and
   
2. Temporary locations procedure.
   

After approximately two months, CASA admitted that the Aviation Ruling was the incorrect basis to be taking the action and “took the Aviation Ruling off the table”.
CASA also realised that the Temporary locations procedure was in fact their own procedure that they had suggested, helped us design, approved, and in fact they approved bases under the system.  It is ludicrous that you now penalise me and my organisation for the very procedure that CASA in fact suggested.
 
After the CASA confusion was sorted out, they moved to the Latrobe Valley audit results. CASA has ignored 10 requests from me to finalise the allegations made, and they have tried to avoid addressing my concerns. The audit results and the associated process could not be justified, with new allegations arriving many months after you conducted an audit.
 
With the aviation ruling off the table, the temp locations embarrassingly identified as CASAs own procedure, and an inability to back up the allegations of regulatory breaches, CASA moved to the topic of contracts.
 
CASA initially accused us of not having contracts in place. CASA had forgotten they had been provided with contracts on multiple occasions. The topic them changed yet again but this time to a requirement to see signed copies of the contracts which we had, and they were provided to CASA.
 
As nothing appeared to be “sticking” he topic then moved yet again, but now back to the content of the contracts. CASA then provided guidance material on the first occasion that I fully adopted and submitted to CASA. For reasons that I cannot understand, they then rejected the contracts with their own material included.
 
CASA provided a second lot of guidance material, which I fully adopted.  CASA then accepted the second version of the contracts. CASA advised “I have reviewed the draft contract provided this date.  I can confirm the content is acceptable to CASA.  My appreciation to you and your staff for provision of same”, but hours later reversed their position and withdrew the approved contracts. It appeared that nothing could satisfy CASA and I have no doubt that there was a “hidden agenda” and that was driven by Mr Crawford.
 
After approximately 6 months, and a high level of confusion within CASA, they were forced into outsourcing the contract requirement to an outside lawyer. That begs the question. Why would CASA initiate the action back in October 2018? In order to know that something is wrong, you do need to know what is right. CASA obviously didn’t!!! It took over 6 months before CASA had the third lot of guidance material.
 
Eventually a third set of guidance was supplied. CASA advised that it was guidance only and I should use my own terminology, rather than take theirs verbatim. I reviewed that against our contracts and exposition and am satisfied that our current contracts and exposition meet all requirements from their “guidance” material. I have asked CASA to identify any deficiencies and I will attend to them if they provide that information. There is no resistance from me, but I do require clear and concise guidance.
 
Unfortunately another point of confusion exists, as CASA have provided information on our Part 141 operations only, and have not provided any guidance on the Part 142 component, which is the majority of what we do, so until they clarify that, I am unable to move forward. I have made two requests, but they have not been answered.
 
CASA have also stipulated that all personnel must be APTA “employees”. The existing definitions of employees support the APTA model, so I have asked CASA to provide a definition of an employee that meets their requirements for this situation, which I am waiting on.
 
The third lot of guidance material suggests that we need to be assessed on the following. I point out that these are the exact items I attended to with CASA years earlier.
 

• Suitability of the organisation.
  
• Chain of Command in the organisation.
  
• The number, qualifications, and competency of personnel.
  
• Sufficiency of the facilities.
  
• Suitability of the procedures and practices.
  
• Suitability of Key Personnel.
  
• Full operational control.
  
• Compliance with procedures.
  
• Capability to comply with legislation.
  
• Compliance with directions.
  
• Understanding of commitments
  
• Access to reference library
  
• Standardisation and proficiency checks
  
• Ability to remove unsuitable personnel
  
• Notification of change of Key Personnel.
  
• Maintain a register of instructors.
  
• Notification of
  
• Provide a copy to all parties of the Operations manual
  
• Supervision to ensure compliance with the manual.
  
• Audits.
  
• Compliance with audit findings.
  
• Access to records.
  
• Log of all simulator training.
  
• List of simulators
  
• Information pertinent to aircraft
  
• Log of medicals of all personnel
  
• Ability of APTA to cancel or suspend the agreement.
  

 
As all members will be aware we do have all of these systems in place because we actually did exactly this more than two years ago, working with CASA personnel and that is what lead to our approval in April 2017. These were the exact items that I worked on with CASA over a two year period as we designed APTA, and they are the procedures we have been following for over two years.
 
It is obvious that the CASA personnel that I deal with really have no idea about APTA. I have asked CASA to describe to me their understanding of CASA, but they steadfastly refuse to do so. APTA is not confused. The members are not confused, and the personnel are not confused. It is in fact only CASA that is confused. It is CASA that is breaching its obligations placed on it by the Regulatory Philosophy. It is CASA that chose to initiate a complete reversal of policy with no warning, and it is CASA that has bought substantial damage to the business, the members, the staff and to me personally. There are no safety concerns, there are no regulatory breaches, and you cannot direct me to any legislative breaches. I am dealing with the “opinions” of CASA personnel who have displayed unconscionable conduct.
 
The current situation is that CASA will soon decide on continuing operations. I have engaged substantive legal advice, and a failure by CASA to act appropriately, will be met with a class action, and this will be immediately initiated if required. I will be calling on the wider industry and professional organisations to join me in that class action, as my concerns are shared by the wider GA community.
 
The failure of CASA to achieve clear and concise aviation safety standards, the failure of CASA to comply with its own regulatory philosophy, the malpractice of certain CASA individuals, and a flagrant disregard for the PGPA Act, the total disregard for the Ministers Statement of Expectation,  and a complete failure to act in a well-intentioned manner, and a preference to act in a bullying and intimidating manner are in fact the causes of the problems.
 
Quite simply, the confusion exists within CASA. APTA was designed to increase safety, increase regulatory compliance, protect our respective business, and to create jobs. The concept is fully approved by CASA and the complete reversal of policy is not acceptable.
 
CASA has placed a number of restrictions on my ability to trade that have had enormous consequences, and I emphasise that there are no allegations of safety concerns or regulatory breaches. This entire issue and all of the associated damage to so many businesses and people is truly disgusting and could have been avoided had Will Nuttalls, Brad Lacy, David Jones, and Craig Martin  acted in a well intentioned manner, and adhered to the obligations placed on them, in their roles.
 
Glen Buckley
 

 
MTF...P2