[Peetwo]

GlenB embuggerance update: 07/07/22

Via the UP - from here: 4 of 12. Continued from Post 2132- Complaint to ICC, false and misleading information 

Lead Balloon etc. in reply today:

Lead Balloon

APTA’s short point: CASA was well aware, for years, of APTA’s structure.

That’s undeniable.

CASA’s short point: CASA adults weren’t aware, until around 2018, that APTA’s structure did not include legally binding agreements between APTA and ‘Alliance’ ‘member’ personnel and others, giving APTA effective control over the operational activities of ‘Alliance’ ‘members’.

That claimed ignorance is probably true, because CASA is a governance basket case. But it does not mean CASA had no duty to make clear to APTA, very early in the protracted and detailed interactions between APTA and CASA personnel, the important CASA requirements which were instead sprung upon APTA in 2018 and beyond. CASA should have made those requirements clear to APTA, from the outset.

I’m guessing that the various CASA personnel dealing with ATPA from day to day were blissfully unaware of the nature of the legal relationship - or, more accurately - the absence of any binding legal relationship, between APTA and the personnel of ‘Alliance’ ‘members’. But again, that does not mean CASA had no duty to take reasonable care not to make misleading statements to APTA. And silence can constitute a statement: saying nothing about an important subject can mislead someone into believing the subject is of no importance. Why would APTA have dedicated time and energy and money to formulating effective binding agreements with ‘Alliance’ ‘member’ personnel and others, when the CASA personnel with whom APTA was interacting didn’t say those agreements were among the many requirements against which CASA was already assessing and approving additional ‘bases’?

But CASA’s not going to admit negligence misstatement. CASA never makes mistakes.

---

Chronic Snoozer

CASA never makes mistakes.

Except when they do something right.

---

glenb

Lead balloon and others

A very poorly proof read document, but a response nevertheless. Apologies but about to get a flat battery on the laptop.CASA’s short point: CASA adults weren’t aware, until around 2018, that APTA’s structure did not include legally binding agreements between APTA and ‘Alliance’ ‘member’ personnel and others, giving APTA effective control over the operational activities of ‘Alliance’ ‘members’.

My response needs to be based on a truthful appreciation of the industry, not as misrepresented to the Ombudsman by CASA. The plain and simple truth is that CASA ALWAYS approved more than one flying school to operate under a single CASA approval, with the single Authorisation Holder of the “master” school taking on full responsibility for both operations.

I did it myself at no charge on occasions for flying schools. When a regional flying school was unable to attract the required personnel to continue operations, I assisted with full CASA approval, to take on responsibility for those operations until they could resume operations on their own

Admittedly it used to be a lot easier. The respective school syllabi blended easier with probably only about 10% of the box ticking that is required nowadays, and I mean that. We used to regularly accept students from other schools. A one hour records assessment by me as the CFI would give me a pretty reasonable “handle” on a new student. That was in 2006. Less than 10 years later, that same student record transfer had become at least a 10 hour exercise with approximately 8 hours of that as an admin task at $40 an hour, and two hours at a more Senior level @ $100 an hour, and the same task becomes well in excess of a $500 task. When a flying schools hoping to make about $50 an hour, that’s a lot of flying to pay for that predominantly admin task. Its no wonder no smaller regional flying schools can continue.

The point is that CASA always and frequently approved this single authorisation, multiple base multiple entity approach. At this stage its not a discussion about the merits or not of it. Its just a truthful overview. Did CASA always know that this CASA approved structure was adopted by industry? Yes they did, and that was the case throughout my 25 years in the industry. CASA always knew this structure was adopted and CASA approved it, and

CASA never required contracts of any other Operator despite being fully aware that this structure was adopted throughout the industry. This was the case throughout my 25 years in the industry. This was a unique requirement placed on me. That alone makes me question the motivation.

CASA therefore have no records on file of any contracts required of any other Operator.

Also recall that as a courtesy, and as part of the process of I did provide multiple copies of our contact back in 2016. CASA initially denied this, but after I showed them the emails they concurred, and looked rather “awkward”. Had they have realised they had held the contracts for over two years, they may well have not sent that that ‘initial notification” of October 2018. A copy of the contract provided in 2016 is attached. Although it is fairly dry but the last few pages are the :”spirit of APTA”. This document was provided to the second in charge of CASA years earlier, as well as my CASA CMT. At any time I would have welcomed any changes CASA required. There was no resistance at all from me, in fact if it was really only about the wording in the contract the entire matter could have been fully resolved in a day. Regarding that contract provided to multiple CASA personnel in 2016, those last pages alone would have made CASA fully aware that they were dealing with a multi entity multi base single approval operation.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/tdhss2mpf9t0oa...t.pdf?dl=0

Just to clarify, this entire matter is about his is the “commercial contracts”. Operational Matters are all contained within the CASA approved Exposition. CASA never suggested any changes at all to the way we operated, as there were no concerns against any quality outcomes, and no changes required of our Exposition.

CASA only wanted terminology in the commercial contracts, although they did not want to be a signatory to those commercial contracts. Rather bizarre, but nevertheless, CASA met no resistance from me. Why would they?

Understand that CASAs initial position was. “We are shutting you down, and placing immediate restrictions on your business. Your structure is illegal.”

My argument was “Ummm, no its not, could you lift the restrictions on my business.”

CASA refused to lift the restrictions for 8 months, until they decided. Yep, we still think its illegal.

CASA used the 8 months to play a game of “ping pong” over the contracts while keeping the trading restrictions in place, to achieve their original purpose.

Im very interested in others take on my perspective. No-one ever handed over any operational control, because they didn’t have it to hand over and they were fully aware of that. That is in fact the reason an aero club or similar would approach me. Without me, they have nothing. Wow, that sounds a bit self opinionated. Hopefully you get he gist of what I am saying. The aero club pulls beers, because that’s all they can do. They have Members with predominantly a recreational interest.

---

The contract at the link in your post does not give APTA any power of control over the operational activities of 'member' personnel.

If CASA has been 'approving' flying training (or any other operation) by a 'school' under an AOC held by someone who does not have legal power to control the activities of the personnel engaged in the flying training or other operations at the 'school', CASA is incompetent.

Once approval is granted for flying training to be conducted at 'club' X or 'base' X under APTA's AOC, 'club' X / 'base' X has everything. APTA is 'responsible' for flying training activities at 'club' X / 'base' X but has no control over them. If something goes wrong, CASA goes APTA, not the 'club' or 'base.

---

glenb

As it should be.

The legislation stipulate the Authorisation Holder and the Key Personnel. Every responsibility is already in the legislation for the Key personnel. There was never any intention by me to deflect any responsibility from where it rightfully belongs. With me and the Key Personnel.

MTF...P2