[Peetwo]

GlenB D-day tomorrow?? -   

Via the AP emails:

 To the CASA CEO and CASA Board, 
 
I am writing to confirm that my wife and I will be attending the scheduled meeting with the CASA Chair, Mark Binskin, and the CASA CEO, Pip Spence  on 
Tuesday 3rd October between 1400 and 1600 at Aviation House,16 Furzer Street in Philip, ACT.
 
My understanding is that the CASA ICC, Mr Hanton will also be attending, 
 
I had previously advised that I was considering bringing along a person with legal training as a "support person" in order to help me to understand CASAs actions and decisions. I have tried. The truth is that I have left myself insufficient time frames to arrange that, so the attendees from my side will be my wife and I only.
 
I assume that CASA would have access to recording facilities for meetings of this nature, and I would request that CASA make a recording of the meeting  with a copy of that recording being made available to me as soon as practicable after our meeting. 
 
I would also welcome any other attendees at the meeting including Mr Aleck, if you deem it appropriate. 
 
You have my assurance that I will be respectful and professional with every Employee, as I always have done, on every occasion that I have engaged with CASA Employees.
 
I will forewarn you that my 45kg wife, while not physically intimidating, will most likely be more "emotional". Please understand that of everybody affected by this totally unnecessary matter, my wife has been the most affected, and continues to be. She will not be aggressive, but saddened,  impacted. and there may possibly be some tears. This meeting will be a significant day for her, as you will appreciate. She intends to participate primarily as an observer to try and comprehend this matter.
 
From my perspective. Quite simply, I operated a business for over a decade, and then one day, a single CASA Employee from his Canberra Office, with no legislative basis and no industry precedent, and no forewarning decided that my business only, and not others, had become unlawful, and I was to potentially  subject to prosecution, CASA placed crippling restrictions on the business for 8 months, and then CASA determined that all personnel operating under an AOC must also be Employees of the same Company that owns the AOC, effectively closing the business.
 
As you are aware, I am fully satisfied that it was an "unlawful" determination. It should have been accompanied by a "decision letter" in accordance with CASAs own stipulated procedures, but it was not, and this breach of following CASA own procedures is what denied me procedural fairness, as the trading restrictions remained in place for 8 months while CASA ``rethought" about the structure. I had no right of review or appeal.
 
It was a complete change in regulatory approach that applied to my business only. As you are aware I am fully satisfied that a small but senior group of CASA personnel commenced an engineered process to bring harm to me personally.
 
CASA advised that I could possibly return to lawfulness and have the trading restrictions lifted,if I could satisfy that same CASA Employee as to some additional wording in our commercial contracts. If he was satisfied, I may be permitted to have the CASA imposed trading restrictions lifted, and potentially  return to Business as Usual. 
 
After 8 months despite every best endeavour by me to satisfy the CASA Employee, for reasons that I cannot explain,he  could not be satisfied, and CASA met with all customers and directed that they leave the business, and this included my own flying school, Melbourne Flight Training, on the basis that all personnel operating under an AOC must also be employed direct;ly by the same Company that holds the AOC.
 
To quote Craig Martin's correspondence as late as 20th June 2019, Mr Martin in his very senior role within CASA as the Acting Executive Manager of Regulatory Services and Surveillance, and the person representing Mr Aleck, wrote advising "for the avoidance of doubt...... flight training can be conducted by APTA employees only- not employees of affiliates. 
 
That unalwful determination was effectively the "death knell" as CASA imposed new terminology referred to as "Direct Operational Control" where the one Company that held the AOC must also employ all personnel directly, maintain all bank accounts, social networking, admin etc.
 
CASA has never placed that requirement on any Operator in Australia. Ever.
 
I need to ensure that I make these points clearly, and that you can correct me at the meeting if my understanding is incorrect.
 
The changes that CASA required of me could have been attended to instantly. I had been operating in that structure for a decade with full CASA approval, as many  of Australia's flight training organisations were, and my CASA approved Exposition and oversight tool Flight School Manager  (FSM) met and exceeded every regulatory requirement. There were never any identified deficiencies at all. 
 
It was never a quality control issue, and it was never a  legislative issue,it was an issue that CASA effectively created. A new and unique requirement that is not remotely aligned with any legislation at all.
 
A requirement that personnel operating under an AOC must also be employees of that same Company in order to maintain operational control. If those personnel were emplyed by another entity different procedures of operational control were required. 
 
Until this new determination, all personnel operating under an AOC, irrespective of who employs them are subject to the same high levels of operational control. 
 
The only limitation on preventing me returning to Business as Usual was that I needed to place new wording in contracts that reflected exactly what I was already doing. There was no requirement by CASA to change any system, policy, or procedure. All legislated responsibilities accountabilities were already attended to in the CASA approved Exposition, where they should be. I had been operating this structure for a decade, so it would be reasonable to assume that I am experienced with that business structure, and that if it has satisfied CASA for the previous decade,  should have some surety of operations with that structure, provided I do not alter it, which I did not.
 
The important point being that if any deficiencies were ever identified, CASA would have brought them to my attention. Absolutely no deficiencies of any kind have ever been put forward by CASA.
 
The stumbling block for 8 months is that I could not satisfy Mr Aleck. At any stage throughout the 8 months, he could have instantly resolved the matter in its entirety by giving me sufficient guidance, as to whose responsibilities and what responsibilities he needed in the contracts.
 
In the "contract" CASA were requiring me to incorporate responsibilities that are not legislated and CASA was unable to identify,  for personnel who CASA were never able to specify to me, and who are not legislated. 
 
I can only reiterate, that every legislative procedure had been attended to, as it had always been through the decade that I operated in this structure, within the Exposition where such matters are attended to. 
 
CASA were required of me, and me only that matters of Operational Control were now to be identified in "commercial contracts", a document that CASA is not a signatory to, and does not hold on file for any operators because these are commercial agreements of a sensitive business nature.
 
Despite the bizarre nature of this requirement I made my best endeavours to satisfy the CASA employee, but after 8 months of trying i was completely unable to satisfy the employee.
 
I was highly dependent on CASA for guidance as they had never placed these requirements on any other Operator, including those that had also adopted the structure that I adopted. These were new and unique requirements for people and responsibilities that were not required by legislation. CASA were asking me to effectively take responsibilities away from legislated Key Personnel, and transfer or specify those responsibilities to persons that were not specified in legislation  or qualified. i.e. an aero Club committee who may or may not even hold a pilot licence, and have no experience at all in flight training. 
 
The Ombudsman was mislead and failed to comprehend just how "unique" the requirement placed on me that CASA would require matters of operational control and safety that are not specified in any legislation that CASA cannot identify, amd responsibilities that CASA cannot identify into a commercial agreement, and NOT in the CASA Exposition
 
Such complicated changes to responsibilities and accountabilities required very clear direction from CASA. As soon as CASA provided that guidance, I remained ready to embed those new requirements immediately into the "commercial contracts" and return to business as usual., within a matter of hours. To have it unresolved for 8 months can only be as a result of bad intent. There can be no other plausible explanation.
 
If I may refer to previous correspondence between the CASA CEO and myself. I outlined my expectations of that meeting which I have cut and pasted below. I have also cut and pasted your responses. I have made some brief italicized notes for your consideration prior to our meeting
 
My Expected Outcome One- Act of Grace Payment 
 
I am of the opinion that CASA unlawfully and with targeted malice took action that closed my business and was entirely unnecessary. There were no legitimate safety concerns nor were there any regulatory breaches, and at all times I operated fully in accordance with all CASA approved procedures in my Exposition/Operations Manual.
 
My understanding is that CASA would not dispute that position, and that is what makes the entire situation so bizarre. 
 
I believe that I have a valid basis for a claim against CASA. That is not my preferred option.
 
Throughout the last five years, I have gone further than could be reasonably expected of any person to avoid litigation. Litigation suggests to me that there is a complete breakdown of “good intent”. It is unnecessarily combative, protracted and distracts resources.
 
My preferred course of action is to put forward a request for an Act of Grace payment. This request would not be successful if it were opposed by CASA.
 
My hope is that An Act of Grace payment could be considered an Alternative Dispute Resolution,  as outlined in  Appendix B of the Legal Services Directions 2017,  where it states
 
“the Commonwealth and Commonwealth agencies are to behave as model litigants in the conduct of litigation.

In civil litigation matters, Model Litigant rules provide that government agencies should, wherever possible:
· act honestly, consistently, and fairly in handling claims and litigation
· deal with claims promptly
· make an early assessment of the government’s prospects of success
· pay legitimate claims promptly
· not take advantage of a party who lacks resources to litigate a legitimate claim
· keep costs to a minimum e.g. not rely on a merely technical defence
· consider alternative dispute resolution (ADR) options.”

At the end of that two-hour meeting, I would like to obtain a decision from you and the Chair of the Board, whether or not CASA will oppose that claim for an Act of Grace payment.
 
For simplicity of the Act of Grace Payment, it would be for the purpose of compensating/reimbursing staff, customers, students, Suppliers, the other businesses closed down by CASA actions, and others who were dependent on me.
 
It would not contain any claim for me personally, or for the harm and trauma caused to me. I would waive any claim to those aspects in the interests of a prompt resolution, by way of an Act of Grace Payment By rectifying the harm caused to so many, it would lift an enormous mental burden from me, and at least go some way to resolving this entire matter and allowing me to move forward with my life.
 
It seems entirely reasonable that if CASA simply “changes its mind” about a business after 10 years, the persons affected by that change of “interpretation” of the law, should not be impacted, just as a homeowner is reimbursed when the house is to be bulldozed for a road. It is an entirely reasonable expectation.
 
If the CASA Chair and CEO determine that they will oppose an Act of Grace Payment, then I can see little benefit in waiting until October to receive that information.
 
Could you please advise if you would be in a position to advise me at the conclusion of that meeting if CASA will oppose my request for an Act of Grace Payment?

(For full version refer - HERE - on the UP)

---

Pip Spence reply:

Response to previous post from Pip Spence

Dear Mr Buckley

Thank you for your update on attendance at the meeting. From CASA’s perspective it will just be myself, the Chair and Jonathan Hanton.

On completion of the meeting, we will circulate to participants a document setting out the agreed outcomes but we will not be recording the meeting.

Finally, as I indicated in my emails to you of 4 August and 27 June, while I and the CASA Chair remain committed to the undertakings I gave you on 19 November 2021 and 7 January 2022 to meet with you to discuss the outcome of the Ombudsman’s independent investigation once it had been finalised, it is not our intention to revisit the matters you have raised, given these have now been reviewed by the Ombudsman.

We look forward to meeting with you and your wife on Tuesday.

Pip

And Sandy's response and support for Glen:

The meeting

I’m sure that I and many others would willingly back you and be prepared to standby and help in any way if it were possible.

For my part I would testify that CASA’s unnecessarily complex rules around flying training have destroyed hundreds of flying schools for no good reason.

My opinion, having followed the way in which you have been treated, is that you should be compensated to the fullest degree.

That the rationale of CASA that you didn’t have sufficient control is a nonsense, particularly when one considers the plethora of criminal sanction laws that control in minute detail every aspect of flying.

That whatever CASA decided after it changed its mind about your umbrella system it should have stated clearly its reasons and published same for all to see.

That CASA should take heed of the successful USA training model which obviates and gives lie to CASA’s expensive, obsessive and prescriptive flying training regime.

Wishing you well, but not hopeful of a just outcome

I too wish you well Glen and hope that you do get a just outcome but the bollocks response from Spence IMO doesn't bode well...

While on the subject of CASA embuggerances, I note that the other day Pup Spence's crew put out yet another totally obscure 'stating the bollocks' post on their media link pages: [/url]

Flying commercially and privately in Australia

Australia's aviation safety regulations are designed to keep you safe every time you fly but you need to be aware that the rules can vary according to the classification of the activity, an aircraft and its pilot.



Our rules cover how pilots are licensed, who can maintain the aircraft, who the operator is and what permissions they need. The rules also include requirements for aircraft to be registered, as well as certification and airworthiness standards.

Airlines and other commercial operators face more stringent requirements than private pilots, although there are safety obligations both must meet.

When you get into a car with a neighbour or friend there are different rules than if you are getting into a taxi or bus. These include different types of licences, maintenance requirements and who is responsible in the event of an accident and how they are 'checked'.

This is the same for aviation. When you fly with a friend or family member, you are probably flying privately. The pilot must be appropriately licenced, the aircraft must be airworthy, and it's the pilot's responsibility to ensure these requirements have been met.

However, the safety standard applied to private flights is not as stringent as the standards applied to commercial flights.

On the other hand, commercial flights can include everything from flying with a major airline, scenic flights and what are commonly referred to as 'charter' flights.

Charter flights are where you hire a company with a plane to fly you somewhere. Examples of this might be fly-in, fly-out flights or they could be flights put on for a specific event or reason. In some ways, these are like hiring a bus company or a limousine to drive your guests somewhere.

Commercial operators need to be approved to operate by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) and are subject to regular and routine oversight activities to make sure that they continue to operate safely.

Here is some further information on each...

Hmm...if the intention is to edumacate Mr and Mrs Joe Public and family, why place this important safety information in such obscure, self-serving webpage??

Both the 'Commercial Operators' and 'Private Pilot' info paragraphs have this 'dobber' link:   

CASA encourages reporting of any [url=https://help.casa.gov.au/csp?id=sc_cat_item&sys_id=8154df17dbe3e1907558065bd39619b4]suspected unsafe behaviour or commercial operations without our approval.

Hmm...there is no doubt that this is all related to the Broome R44 fatal prang , which for some reason Su_Spence (plus her executive crew) are feeling very sensitive about. However is this a prelude to seeing a timewarp kneejerk reaction back to the bollocks attacks on Angel flight and the Private Pilot fraternity?? -    

MTF...P2