Dear CASA,
Please find above, the initial correspondence that you sent to me. At 9AM on the morning of 23 rd October 2018, I had no inkling at all that I was to receive that notification. CASA had not previously raised any concerns at all with me, in fact they had been extremely encouraging and supporting of the concept. My reasonable expectation is that the CASA Subject Matter Expert (SME) from my Certificate Management Team, would have raised any concerns with me prior to initiating such a substantive process. As you can see from the correspondence, there are no allegations of safety concerns raised, but rather an accusation related to the Aviation Ruling and our Temporary locations procedure, which I will attend to later.
This document, was effectively a "request for documents" and no determination had been made, and I was not given the opportunity to respond or defend myself.
CASA provided a surety of operations for only 7 days into the future, as you can see from the document. From the period 30th October until 25th January 2019, my business operated literally on a minute by minute approval, On 25th January 2019 you notified me that my business could continue operating for three months until 25th April 2019. On 12th February 2019 you advised me that my business could continue operating until 13th May 2019. On 3rd May 2019 you advised that my business could continue operating until 1st July 2019.
Consider the commercial impact on any business, when you take such action. APTAs "product" was in fact surety of operations into the future, in the more expensive to operate regulatory environment.
Imagine if CASA walked into QANTAS, made allegations, did not give QANTAS the right to respond. Placed a temporary date on their business, prevented them taking on any new customers, and prohibited them from marketing their ability. Quite simply, no business in Australia can have action taken against them by a Government Department of such a nature and be expected to "weather the storm". As Mr Carmody stated he does not believe any administrative action has been taken. This has been CASAs stance, and it is this stance that has prevented me going to the AAT to appeal CASAs decision. Therefore Mr Carmody, if what you say is correct, then it only reaffirms my position that CASA have denied me procedural fairness.
This is in my opinion a variation to my AOC. If as CASA claim, it is not, then I would ask them to provide an example of a variation to an AOC.
How can CASA take such substantive action against a business on a simple "request for documents and not based on safety concerns.
Consider the impact of your action on my business, and the people who depend on me for their livelihood;
No one will approach APTA to join as a Member, because APTA has only a limited period of operation.
I cannot attract new staff to the Organisation, because I don't know if we will be approved.
APTA has been prevented from marketing or adding on any new customers.
Every one of my exceptional staff and the member entities now have only that assured employment.
I cannot enter into contracts of supply due the potential limited date of operations.
The business previously valued at a fair amount has now become worthless.
I have no issue with any CASA action provided the approach complies with CASAs own regulatory philosophy, it is well intentioned, and the decision is made in the interest of aviation safety In this case I am firmly of the opinion that it is not. By CASA choosing to adopt this stance they have in my opinion breached their obligations under Administrative Law, Procedural Fairness, and the concept of natural justice.
With reference to CASAs Regulatory Philosophy. You may recall that this was borne from a the ASSR Review (Forsythe Review). It was a direct result of the manner in which CASA had been engaging with Industry.
I attach the link below, and would particularly like to address the manner CASA engaged me against
Item 1
Item 2
Item 3
Item 5
Item 6
Item 7
Item 8
Item 9
Item 10
Item
https://www.casa.gov.au/about-us/sta...ory-philosophy