COMPLAINT TWO - DIRECT OPERATIONAL CONTROL – Submitted-26/02/20
Dear Mr Jonathan Hanton,
Please accept the lodgement of a formal complaint. Please not that I have included Mr Anthony Mathews the Chair of the CASA Board in on this email. I have also included the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Michael Mc Cormack as he is the Minister responsible for CASA.
Background
As you are aware there are three separate and distinct actions that CASA has done to bring harm to my ability to derive my livelihood in the industry. For clarity, and CASA does not dispute this fact, none of these actions were taken on the basis of any safety concerns. For that reason, I cannot understand why CASA adopted such an unnecessary and heavy-handed approach.
I would also point out that there were no legislative breaches.
The CASA actions had no basis on safety concerns, or no regulatory breaches. Admittedly, I had been critical of CASAs waste of hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayer funds, and I had put my name to that criticism. I therefore believe that CASA actions were vindictive, vexatious, bullying and intimidating in nature. There is no legislative support of CASA actions.
The CASA actions lead to the closure of a several well intentioned, safe and compliant businesses, of which mine was one of those.
Those three separate actions have cost me many millions of dollars and resulted in the loss of my business, and caused unacceptable harm to my parents, my wife, my children, other entities, suppliers and people depending on me for their livelihood.
Those were
1. CASA reversal of approval with no prior notice on APTA and the associated restrictions on my ability to trade, leading to the failure of the business. I point out that I had spent two years and hundreds of thousands of dollars designing APTA with significant involvement of CASA personnel as I attended to over 600 CASA stipulated requirements.
2. CASA introducing terminology called “direct operational control” and applied that to my business only, and not others.
3. The direction that my position as an employee of APTA was untenable from the Region Manager, Mr jason Mc Heyzer. He made that direction on the basis of “comments that I was making publicly”, which I assume to be on a pilots chat forum pprune
https://www.pprune.org/australia-new...ss-v-casa.html
In this correspondence, I wish to concentrate on item 2, “direct operational control”.
I had a flying school that had been delivering industry leading levels of safety and compliance for over 15 years. That was the regular feedback that I received from CASA.
In June 2019, CASA Region Manager, Mr Jason Mc Heyzer introduced a new terminology that is not defined anywhere in CASA legislation. He called it “direct operational control”.
He directed that I was to transfer my customers and staff to a different entity under the control of the new owners of APTA. You will recall that I was forced to sell APTA under duress at 5% of its value because of restrictions on its ability to trade.
By directing me to transfer my flying school, MFT to another entity, this obviously moved my previous revenue streams to another business.
By denying me access to the revenue streams of my business of 15 years, that caused significant financial difficulties for me. I had transferred my revenue but was left “holding the bag” for the ongoing expenses of the business, with no capacity to pay those expenses.
An example of this is telephone systems with lease payments, photocopiers, vehicles, printers etc. I have two upcoming court cases regarding my inability to meet those contractual obligations, which as you will appreciate causes me significant stress and impacts on my family’s welfare.
Mr Craig Martin in his role as the CASA Executive Manager, Regulatory Services and Surveillance was aware of this action, and in an email dated 20/06/19 stated; “
for the avoidance of doubt, this would allow flight training to be conducted by APTA employees only- not employees of affilaites”.
That direction is in my opinion unlawful and exists nowhere else in industry i.e. it is a specific requirement placed on me only. I have never heard of this requirement, and believe it has no legislative basis. I am yet again dealing with someone’s opinion rather than any legislative requirement.
Once I had complied with Mr Jason Mc Heyzers requirements, I wrote to Mr Craig Martin to confirm I had done so, and I include the contents of that email dated 22/08/20 below.
“Dear Craig,
As the owner of MFT, I can now confirm that I have complied with the CASA requirements.
All staff have been transferred to APTA, as have aircraft and other resources. Bank account access has been handed over, and APTA has “direct operational control.” In all financial aspects APTA has now taken over control in addition to responsibilities previously held by APTA i.e. safety and compliance.
I appreciate that CASA is preparing a comprehensive response, and I anxiously await that.
Can I ask that response specifically addresses these questions.
Is the CASA expectation that all MFT employees are terminated from employment i.e. all leave paid, long service entitlements etc, and they all commence new employment contracts with APTA. This question is being asked of me by the staff. My assumption is that MFT must cease their employment. Please let me know as soon as practical if I have misunderstood the requirement, as I will be proceeding on this basis, as it appears there is no other option.
I appreciate that you were not satisfied with the previous arrangement between APTA and members where the members shared the costs of operating, hence I have taken the required action above. Obviously with APTA taking over financial control in addition to safety and compliance, all revenue from my own business, MFT is now redirected to APTA, which obviously leaves me as the business owner without a business i.e. no revenue.
Can you outline, the acceptable process by which I can derive an income i.e. I believe the CASA proposal is that APTA pays me per flying hour that they do on MFTs or something along those lines. Im hoping that after 9 months, CASA has had the opportunity to consider these matters.
I will comply with any requirement you stipulate. My family has been derived from any income for almost two months, and I want to get this resolved as soon as can be achieved, but I appreciate that it must be compliant with CASA legislation. For clarity, please outline in the new “direct operational control” model, my business MFT is able to derive its income.
Respectfully, Glen.
P.S. Can I call on you to respond as soon as practical so I can move forward, cheers”
Unfortunately, Mr Craig Martin chose not to respond as is often the case when dealing with him. Frequent follow up requests were also ignored, and I have attached that in support of my contentions.
My complaint
Does the direction to transfer my staff and students to a different entity have any basis in law?
If so can you state the relevant legislation?
Why does CASA apply that requirement to Glen Buckley but not to any other aviation organisation in Australia?
Expected Outcome
Clear and concise responses to the complaints I have raised.
Thanking you in anticipation of a response. The attachments clearly show I have tried repeatedly to resolve this with Mr Graeme Crawford, Mr Craig Martin, and Mr Jason Mc Heyzer. Their failure to respond raises concerns about their ethics, intentions, and the lawfulness of their directions.
Your response will assist me to identify if the decisions and administrative actions are lawful. It will also assist me to get a response to previous requests that CASA has not responded to in a meaningful or timely manner.