[Peetwo]

GlenB embuggerance update: 28/05/23

Via the UP: 

A letter from Pip Spence


26/05/23

Dear Mr. Buckley

In my correspondence to you over the last 18 months I committed to meet with you to discuss the issues you have raised about CASAs oversight of the Australian Pilot Training Alliance (APTA) after the Ombudsman had finalized its review of your concerns.

CASA has now received the outcome of the Ombudsman ‘s review and I have had the opportunity to consider its findings. Overall, I consider the Ombudsman ‘s report confirms the position that I put to you previously, which is that;

• CASA ‘s October 2018 notice of intention to decline APTAs significant changes applications was not a decision to close APTA. and was a reasonable and appropriate action for CASA to take in the circumstances.
  
• CASA had required evidence of contracts with other operators as evidence of operational control before a request for contracts was made to APTA
  
• CASA’s request for contracts from APTA was supported by legislation and civil aviation regulation and was not unreasonable.
  
• CASA did not mislead the ombudsman ‘s office.
  

That said what is apparent is that CASA is yet to acknowledge the Industry Complaints Commissioners ((ICC) findings of 18th of July 2019. The ICC found that the timing of the change in CASA‘s regulatory approach in October 2018, and the manner in which it was communicated to APTA was likely to be unfair, even though the regulatory approach itself was appropriate and reasonable. The ICC also concluded that CASA had taken a different position about APTA business model without forewarning and, collectively, it was likely to have had sufficient information about APTAs, business and operational model prior to October 2018 to form a position about it’s compliance with regulation.

I would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge the ICCs findings on these issues and to set out CASA, accepts those conclusions Reflecting on those findings on behalf of CASA. I would like to extend our apologies for the timing and manner of CASA ‘s correspondence of 23 October 2018, that APTAS significant change application may not be approved. I accept that it was likely that you had relied on information from CASA on temporary bases in developing APTAs processes, and CASA change of position on these issues would’ve been unexpected and unsettling. It is apparent that with the benefit of hindsight, once CASA and identified the issues with the proposed model we could and should’ve taken a more collaborative approach in working through these issues with you earlier than we did.

In light of the significant concerns you have raised with me, I did want to confirm that while the ICC concluded in 2019 "that it was likely that CASA collectively was likely to have had sufficient information about APTA‘s business and operational model prior to October 2018 to form a position about its compliance with regulation", neither the ICC nor the Ombudsman concluded that Dr Jonathan Aleck had any involvement in the oversight of APTA prior to 23 October 2018.

Please let my office know a suitable time to discuss your concerns and I will make the necessary arrangements.

Yours sincerely Pip Spence

Sandy, Sunfish et.al in reply...

joe_bloggs

Jeez Glen. I hope this is that crack in the dam wall we have all been waiting on.

”I would like to extend our apologies for the timing and manner of CASA ‘s correspondence of 23 October 2018, …It is apparent that with the benefit of hindsight, once CASA and identified the issues with the proposed model we could and should’ve taken a more collaborative approach in working through these issues with you earlier than we did”

Perhaps time to have a discussion with your legal folks.

I have a big smile on my face!

---

glenb

Cheers Joe

I must say, I am somewhat encouraged, but the CASA beast is a crafty devil. Working on my next maneuver.

---

Sandy Reith

The damn wall definitely has a crack in it.

“taken a more collaborative approach in working through these issues with you earlier than we did.”

I think that is a lie.

I would be asking “what collaborative approach” are you referring to?

Ms Spence is trying to limit the damage which is evident to anyone with knowledge of the basic facts.

At any rate such admission, shockingly late admission, is welcome, but only the beginning of the start. Will she be able to find the courage to deal with this horrendous miscarriage of justice and begin to restore some semblance of respect for CASA?

Hope springs eternal but at least a legal challenge must surely have more legs with Ms. Spence’s admission.

CASA may think it has an academic point about the chain of responsibility as an excuse for its devastating reversal but in real life there was nothing in APTA’s model that was fundamentally wrong in practice.

Then look at the flying schools in the USA where individual instructors can teach flying either solely or in business groups without Part 141 or 142 approvals.

Never forget the big picture of CASA’s control freak mentality and the colossal damage it’s done to General Aviation in Australia. Damage that has implications for our aviation strength as a Nation including our readiness from a security point of view because aerial mobility is a crucial factor in the defence of Australia.

---

LAME2

crafty devil

I agree. I would get legal interpretation on her language. I still think this case will only be resolved in the courts. There are”weasel words” being used to play down their responsibilities to your situation.

---

Sunfish

Sorry for shouting but: DO NOT ANSWER THAT LETTER WITHOUT LEGAL ADVICE because in my opinion, it misrepresents and trivialises CASAs bad behaviour and by not challenging each and every assertion in it you are accepting their version of events. Your letter in reply needs to start with “Without Prejudice “ I think, but I am not a lawyer.

Given the assertion made, it’s going to be a long reply…... More to follow. Sandy is right.

+

Repeat after me :

In loving memory of David Wells, Senior Partner in Mallesons

IN GOOD FAITH

- fairness

- honesty

- reasonableness

-not undermining the contractual objectives

-not acting arbitrarily or capriciously

-having regard to the interests of the other party, without having to subordinate one’s own interests to the interests of the other.

CASA's actions towards Buckley and APTA from 23 October were not in good faith.

CASA has now received the outcome of the Ombudsman ‘s review and I have had the opportunity to consider its findings. Overall, I consider the Ombudsman ‘s report confirms the position that I put to you previously, which is that;

• CASA ‘s October 2018 notice of intention to decline APTAs significant changes applications was not a decision to close APTA. and was a reasonable and appropriate action for CASA to take in the circumstances.
  

Comment: This is bullshit. It effectively closed APTA. As It was not a decision it could not be appealed. What "circumstances"? It represented a complete 180 degree change of CASAs attitude to APTA OVERNIGHT WITH NO REASONS GIVEN. Given that this matter had nothing to do with safety and considering both the known effect and magnitude of this change it is reasonable to expect firstly a detailed explanation of the reason for this policy change, followed by good faith negotiations by both parties to accommodate the changes. Buckley tried CASA didn't. Even if there was a legislative impediment, I would have thought an exemption was not out of the question. No good faith.

CASA's actions towards Buckley and APTA from 23 October were not in good faith.

• CASA had required evidence of contracts with other operators as evidence of operational control before a request for contracts was made to APTA
  
• CASA’s request for contracts from APTA was supported by legislation and civil aviation regulation and was not unreasonable.
  

Yes, contracts were provided. That isn't the issue. CASA refused to specify the nature of the defect and specify a remedy in the contracts supplied - no good faith.
CASA did not mislead the ombudsman ‘s office.
?????

+

I accept that it was likely that you had relied on information from CASA on temporary bases in developing APTAs processes, and CASA change of position on these issues would’ve been unexpected and unsettling.

Why did CASA change its position? Is CASA allowed to take positions? I thought the regulations spelled out the requirements?

---

Sandy Reith

Requirements and regulations

Sunfish …”Why did CASA change its position? Is CASA allowed to take positions? I thought the regulations spelled out the requirements?”

Exactly. And what about “operational control?”

Who is in control in a teaching environment? Obviously we have regulatory standards and then we have the PIC and the judgement of a testing Officer because we are talking about teaching someone to fly.

CASA have persuaded Parliament to inappropriately migrate virtually all the rules into the criminal code, how many more layers of “operational control” do you need?

If it wasn’t for the horrendous consequences, in the first instance to Glen Buckley, his family and APTA employees and associated parties, you could describe the CASA play book as farcical. In the second instance the whole of GA, which includes thousands of people, aircraft owners, maintainers, suppliers and all of the economic generating activities and services, continues to suffer untold losses.

And safety, what a joke, zero encouragement to those of us who could contribute to flying training and GA activity are dissuaded at every turn, be it a completely unreal medical certification process or the mountain of super expensive time consuming and useless paperwork and the waste of the ASIC to boot.

Not one word do we hear from the CASA Board to Government about the loss of critical airport infrastructure, loss of flying schools or questioning the ASIC or loss of maintenance personnel. The Board is an irresponsible and costly irrelevance and should be disbanded.

---

Sunfish

I appreciate that this didn’t happen on Spence or the current Boards watch, but Why did CASA go to extraordinary lengths to close down APTA - a high quality operator and hound its founder, Glen Buckley, out of the industry, while turning a blind eye to the perhaps criminal behaviour of a sleazy, unsafe, fraudulent flight training school called SOAR?

Hundreds of students who trained at 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, but it was already 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) –students studied the theory element of their diploma of aviation at BHI but undertook the practical flying elements at Soar………

………

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.

https://australianaviation.com.au/2022/10/33m-payout-for-students-at-collapsed-flight-school-soar/

---

Sandy Reith

The Board of CASA

“I appreciate that this didn’t happen on Spence or the current Boards watch,..,”

True, but the “sins of the fathers are visited on their offspring (read successors)” and in this case by full measure because CASA is a corporate entity. It was quite deliberately created as such by Parliament. There will be no hiding from its hideous misdeeds by pretending that it was someone else, and so far thankfully we are not hearing that argument.

Truth be we hear nothing of value whatsoever from the Board and it has had every opportunity to converse with Glen Buckley and find an equitable redress for Glen Buckley.

---

MalcolmReynolds

Glen, definitely engage some lawyers before answering that letter. Since it is all happening in Melbourne, the "Vibe of it" demands a QC (now I guess a KC). Pity Lawrence Hammil QC isn't available (Bud Tingwell). However it is time to get serious about nailing these bastards at CASA to the wall! As Jack said in that same movie..."yeah Fark 'em!" ?

Talking of 'crafty devil', I note that Pup_Spence timed the sending of that correspondence for 3 days after she appeared at Budget Estimates...  

MTF...P2