[Peetwo]

Ref: TICK..TOCK goes the captured McDonaught's clock 

Dots-n-dashes to GlenB embuggerance vs CASA blind eye to Soar Aviation?? 

Ref: BJ reply to GlenB  

"..In my own matter, and far closer to home. I operated only a few hundred meters from SOAR aviation. The truth is that industry, including other Government Departments raised safety concerns about that organization on multiple occasions, and repeatedly so over a protracted period. The Company had more accidents, incidents, than most, and even a fatality. That business went on right under CASAs nose and they knew about it. They ignored it. It wasn’t CASA that shut SOAR down. It was the students going to the Australian Skills and Qualifications Authority (ASQA), Its mind boggling.

ASQA was taking action against SOAR, while CASA was shutting me down. Its simply inexplicable at least..."

Via Oz Aviation (4 days ago):

$33M PAYOUT FOR STUDENTS AT COLLAPSED FLIGHT SCHOOL SOAR

written by Adam Thorn | October 17, 2022

Hundreds of students that enrolled with collapsed flight school Soar are set to receive a five-figure payout after agreeing to a $33 million settlement.

Soar collapsed into administration on 29 December 2020, and it came with the company indirectly facing a class action from students arguing its standards were so poor it didn’t meet the subsequent requirements to obtain a pilot licence.

The payout means many former students will now be able to enrol in new courses and qualifications after having used up their limited student loans.

The case was brought by Gordon Legal against Melbourne TAFE provider Box Hill Institute (BHI), which partnered with Soar for the course.

Of the final amount, $5.455 million in legal fees and $4.8 million in administrative costs will be deducted, and the settlement still has to be approved in a court hearing scheduled for 17 November.

The class action made a number of claims, including accusing BHI of breaching its duty of care by working with the troubled flight school.

It also stated BHI engaged in “misleading and deceptive conduct” by suggesting to potential students that it would enable them to subsequently obtain a CASA pilot licence.

In January 2020, Australian Aviation reported how those calling the flight school in the days after its collapse were were presented with a voice message bluntly informing them that the business wouldn’t be taking or responding to any messages.

It was the last chapter in a difficult history for the once-prestigious flight school.

Founded in 2012, the company grew to have campuses at Moorabbin Airport in Melbourne, Bendigo Airport in regional Victoria, and Sydney’s Bankstown Airport.

Its fleet of 50 aircraft comprised Bristell LSA, Technam P2006T, Foxbat A22LS, Vixxen A32 and Aquila A210 aircraft, as well as a CKAS 7D0F simulator.

However, things turned sour in 2019 when partners Box Hill demanded the business supply documentation about its fleet and trainers.

Soar’s registered training organisation status was then revoked after an audit by the regulatory body for vocational education before Gordon Legal launched its class action.

While the business eventually had its accreditation restored, it still faced sanctions before it finally collapsed into administration late in 2020.

Founder Neel Khokhani resigned in early 2019, though has insisted it was purely a result of personal health reasons unrelated to the company’s struggles.

More seriously, the ATSB is also investigating an incident that saw a Soar Aviation instructor and student die when one of its Aquila AT01s crashed in NSW in 2020.

More recently, in a separate incident, the ATSB in May 2021 said a Soar Aviation student pilot who crashed his Bristell aircraft and suffered serious head injuries didn’t have permission to conduct the flight solo.

However, the report revealed the trainee believed he did have authorisation, despite clearly not following the correct procedures.

 

MTF...P2 

PS: In a follow up to P9's post above, via the UP - 

Sunfish

GA is dead. No one but an idiot will invest in private sector GA given the regulatory risk to their capital that CASA poses, as demonstrated by Glen Buckley. All Spence and Binskin are doing is what is termed palliative care - the future is electric multi copters and drones don't you know.. There will be the appearance of reform but it will have no substance, well, not enough to convince investors anyway.

---

glenb

Reply to post #2410 from CASA ICC

In post #2410 I had written to the CASA ICC. That correspondence being a request to attend a meeting between CASA and the Ombudsmans office.

20/10/22 Good morning Glen

Thanks for your email.

The meeting with the Ombudsman has already taken place. The primary purpose of the meeting was to discuss what further material CASA may be able to provide to assist the Ombudsman in the investigation of your complaint to that Office. I anticipate that as a result of the meeting, a further request for information will be made to CASA.

Regards

Jonathan Hanton

And back to the ICC
21/10/22

Good morning, Mr. Hanton,

Thank you for the notification that the meeting has occurred. Am I able to be advised as to who attended that meeting from CASA apart from yourself obviously?

Cheers. Glen

---

Sandy Reith

Meeting attendees

I’m sure we’d all like to know who attended the meeting, and what was the outcome of their discussions.

Public servants and their activities should be transparent, just as said by CASA Chair Mr. Binskin.

In the circumstances, and the enormity of Glen’s case concerns the whole of the General Aviation industry, it would be fitting to have a full run down of the proceedings.

This would be in the spirit of the Government’s model litigant requirements, fairness and displaying a willingness to address any wrongful treatment of Glen Buckley.

---

Ms Spence reply to my correspondence in Post#2409

Dear Mr Buckley

I apologise for the delay in responding, but as you have observed I have been travelling.

As I have consistently indicated, I am awaiting advice from the Ombudsman as they complete their review of their original investigation. Once that process has been finalised, I will be happy to meet with you and discuss their findings.

That said, there are some points that I do need to clarify.

The first is that I have no reason to doubt the accuracy of the information that CASA provided to the Ombudsman.

The second is that I have now asked the Ombudsman’s office to address their correspondence to me rather than Dr Aleck. This is not because I have concerns about him or the role that he has played, but because I think it is appropriate in light of the issues that you are raising about Dr Aleck’s role.

In terms of your questions about the meeting between CASA and the Ombudsman, as Mr Hanton has already advised the primary purpose of the meeting was to discuss what further material CASA may be able to provide to assist the Ombudsman in its investigation.

Your sincerely

Pip