UP commentary continued - 
MTF...P2
Quote:Sunfish
LB, your question is rhetorical. “how would APTA know? the answer is the same as that of the local flying school. APTA relies on trust - exactly the same way as the local school.
Short of a full blown telemetry system (eg ACARS) all operators rely on their staff to tell the truth in a timely manner and follow the procedures. If they can’t be trusted then there is no way in hell that ANY system can generate an accurate outcome.
‘’By definition, APTA surveillance can only ensure by audit that (a) Members know how to use the systems. and (b) Members are trustworthy.
CASA is entitled to ask APTA about matter (a) - which involves training. Item (b) is satisfied by the application of the fit and proper person test.
To put that another way; a mate was until recently a training and checking Captain on a very, very major international airline. The assessment of a pilot by him is still a matter of trustworthiness- and he has at least one story about this subject.
It is not possible to guarantee that humans will always behave and CASA has no business requiring APTA to do the impossible.
Lead Balloon
Quote:It is not possible to guarantee that humans will always behave and CASA has no business requiring APTA to do the impossible.
True.
But I’ll guarantee that humans make mistakes and, occasionally, even deliberately break rules. I used the example of GA aircraft defects and GA aircraft maintenance releases for the reasons I explained.
It's not about 'guaranteeing' that each and every contravention will be detected.
The answer “we trust everybody” is not, in itself, enough for any kind of complex system involving humans. I’ve yet to see a fraud control policy in any big organisation that is one sentence: “We just trust everybody.” (One of the ways in which auditors detect fraud in organisations: Their books are perfect and nobody’s ever made a mistake with the organisation’s money.)
I think “trust but verify” is the cliché required approach, with practical actions available when contraventions are inevitably detected.
The question: “What is APTA going to do when it finds out a 'base' instructor has not been recording defects?”, is a perfectly reasonable one and does not set the standard at impossible perfection. The question assumes a contravention has occurred. But there has to be some way of detecting some contraventions, then finding out whether they’re a mistake or deliberate or whatever, then doing something practicable about it.
We’ve been through the comparison with a ‘standard’ local flying school before and you, too, need to get your head around the key difference between a ‘standard’ flying school and the ATPA structure before it collapsed. The AOC holder at the ‘standard’ local flying school has direct legal control over most of the wandering cats that can cause problems. An officer of the AOC holder, or the AOC holder him or herself, are usually physically there during much of the activity. (How many instructors do you reckon instruct at a ‘standard’ local flying school without having any relationship as employee of or contractor to the AOC holder (unless, of course, that instructor is him or herself the AOC holder)? That AOC holder has legal and effective options at his, her or its disposal to detect and deal with detected contraventions in the course of flying training under that AOC. You listed those options earlier in this thread!
But APTA didn’t have those options because APTA didn’t have enforceable agreements between it and most of the wandering cats at the ‘alliance’ ‘member’ ‘bases’. And I’m not talking about an agreement with a single individual or a corporate entity at the ‘base’. There were other cats wandering around at those bases, with no binding legal relationship with ATPA. I’ve said it before: It’s a tragedy that this gap was not picked up and filled early in the development of the APTA structure and CASA should have picked it up during the consideration of the first application for a variation to APTA’s AOC to cover an additional ‘alliance’ ‘member’ ‘base’.
And I’ve also said before: The certification system for flying training in Australia is regulatory overreach. But I can’t change that. While the system is what it is, I’m trying to help Glen understand the arguments he’s up against, because I’ll bet my bottom dollar that CASA will have made and will continue to make this kind of argument (among others). It is what was in and between the lines of CASA's March 19 email, so I'm not revealing anything surprising.
sagesau
Regardless of the detail and/or legality of what happened, at the very least CASA have demonstrated that they are incapable of administrating civil aviation in Australia. By working with industry (in this case Glen and APTA/MFT, aunt gertrude, george, many other countless aviation organizations shafted by CASA or whoever you want to call them) for an extended period of time (in this case a couple of years) to then pull the pin at the last minute with no previous demonstrated concerns shows incompetence. They either don't have processes in place to know what they are doing, they aren't following their own processes or some combination of that. The slightest measure of management would have had multiple opportunities to alter the process Glenn was following and/or provided the specific guidance/direction necessary to ensure a workable outcome.
Bottom line CASA didn't. They led Glen (and countless others) down the garden path where they proceeded to introduce them to the CASA long pointy object. QED
Lead Balloon
Yep. CASA in effect encouraged APTA down a path that ultimately led to … a CASA trap. The left hand didn’t know what the right hand was doing.
The second sleaziest aspect of the process (so far) is CASA’s current pretence that it did not know the details of the APTA structure and the relationship between APTA and the people, premises and aircraft utilised by ‘alliance’ ‘members’ to deliver flying training. (The sleaziest being Mr Carmody’s allegations against Glen, under parliamentary privilege, of assault and stalking.)
Sandy Reith
The legalities and reasons for certification
On the other hand LB’s comprehensive explanations are valuable and do point to CASA’s view of the world. A world of beautiful symmetry of regularity that is, unfortunately, unreal, unworkable in practicality, given the complexities and costly procedures that it imposes. In this case by force on a demoralised and shrinking training environment for the VH registered segment of General Aviation(GA). GA provides the most important training ground for various areas that are directly of value to the community at large. For example the various emergency areas of police work, firefighting, air ambulance. In addition charter for business and government and the crucial work of the aerial application industry. Therefore the Australian community suffers.
Certification, just what value does it confer to the community? It does create a colossal amount of work for the monopoly provider CASA, and generates a considerable amount of fees that it extracts from those flying businesses that cannot operate without certain certifications. In the USA one can teach flying without holding a flying school certification. According to John King of King’s Schools about 70% of USA pilots are taught by independent instructors. John King was contracted for advice by CASA some years ago, a highly regarded GA operator. The fact that the USA trains more GA pilots by far than any other country and has a vigorous GA sector demonstrates that our extreme preoccupation with certification in this area is not justified, a costly aberration against the National interest.
MTF...P2