From prior experience, not with CASA, regulators get extremely stressed when they get caught with the cart before the horse. I am fairly certain that is what happened. Glen Buckley’s work in building APTA and the encyclopaedic knowledge of training school regulation required to satisfy CASA requirements - which he succeeded in doing, made him the pre-eminent subject matter expert (SME) on training school administration and regulation in Australia. Such a situation is anathema to CASA, hence APTA and Buckley had to be destroyed in order to both maintain their reputation for omnipotence and their control of the training regulation agenda.
Think of it; a network of schools with state of the art administration, obviously compliant, Backed by a comprehensive knowledge of the minutiae of the regulation that was better than CASAs, with perhaps thousands of students and growing across the nation, who then has control of the training regulation agenda in Australia? Not CASA.
Translation: Buckley got too big for his boots in the view of CASA management and had to be destroyed. I can think of no other reason to destroy the APTA business model.
This also begs the question why APTA was crushed while the sub standard training disaster that is SOAR was allowed to continue.
The weasel words in CASA’S supplementary submission (46.1) also point to how and perhaps who engineered APTAs demise. It would however take a supreme Court judge to dissect the obfuscation therein. What jumped out at me were words to the effect that “ Dr. Aleck was not directly involved” in the process of making decisions under the regulations and writing letters, “nor should he have been”. The key word is “directly” this begs the question: was he indirectly involved?
Then CASA cites “lack of evidence ….that CASA did anything.Well of course there is no evidence….because CASA did precisely nothing, it killed APTA by omitting to allow it to continue to operate for no real reason. This appears to be a favorite tactic - starve the business to death by withholding approvals or renewing permissions or exemptions.
The cure for that practice of delaying approvals to deliberately starve a business to death is to rewrite the operative sentences in the regulations and change: "CASA must not issue unless......" to "CASA shall issue unless...".
Think of it; a network of schools with state of the art administration, obviously compliant, Backed by a comprehensive knowledge of the minutiae of the regulation that was better than CASAs, with perhaps thousands of students and growing across the nation, who then has control of the training regulation agenda in Australia? Not CASA.
Translation: Buckley got too big for his boots in the view of CASA management and had to be destroyed. I can think of no other reason to destroy the APTA business model.
This also begs the question why APTA was crushed while the sub standard training disaster that is SOAR was allowed to continue.
The weasel words in CASA’S supplementary submission (46.1) also point to how and perhaps who engineered APTAs demise. It would however take a supreme Court judge to dissect the obfuscation therein. What jumped out at me were words to the effect that “ Dr. Aleck was not directly involved” in the process of making decisions under the regulations and writing letters, “nor should he have been”. The key word is “directly” this begs the question: was he indirectly involved?
Then CASA cites “lack of evidence ….that CASA did anything.Well of course there is no evidence….because CASA did precisely nothing, it killed APTA by omitting to allow it to continue to operate for no real reason. This appears to be a favorite tactic - starve the business to death by withholding approvals or renewing permissions or exemptions.
The cure for that practice of delaying approvals to deliberately starve a business to death is to rewrite the operative sentences in the regulations and change: "CASA must not issue unless......" to "CASA shall issue unless...".