FORMAL SUBMISSION OF ALLEGATIONS THAT CASA EXECUTIVE MANAGER- LEGAL INTERNATIONAL AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS, Mr. JONATAHAN ALECK IS DELIBERATELY MISLEADING THE COMMONWEALTH OMBUDSMAN OFFICE TO MANIPULATE THE INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION AND PERVERT THE OUTCOME OF THAT INVESTIGATION
Submitted 06/08/20
Dear Mr. XXXXXXX XXXX, Assistant Director of Investigations, Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman.
Thank you for your continuing work into my complaint regarding CASAs' conduct and decisions.
My interpretation of Phase One of your investigation indicates that your concluded view is that there was an administrative deficiency. Obviously, I concur with that finding and respect the diligence with which you have attended to a difficult and complicated matter.
I note that Phase Two of your investigation continues and that it will extend over a protracted period, and I appreciate the resources that are being allocated to this project.
As part of that continuing investigation, I do request that you consider this correspondence.
Mr. Jonathan Aleck acts in the role of the CASA Executive Manager of Legal, International Regulatory Affairs, and is the accountable person in CASA and the person that drove the CASA actions and decisions against me and my business. He chose to target me specifically.
It is my assertion that Mr. Aleck is deliberately misleading your office in its continuing investigation. I have attempted to resolve this matter with the CASA Board by requesting the opportunity to meet with them and put my allegations to them. The CASA Board has flatly refused to meet with me, either in person or by a video conference. I have also written to the Deputy PM, Mr. Michael McCormack but my correspondence continues to be completely ignored despite my requests for an acknowledgment of receipt.
My intent was to provide the CASA Board with the opportunity to meet their obligations to ensure good governance, improve aviation safety, and to promote the Australian owned sector of the industry. For that reason, I would like to raise those allegations with you, provide supporting information on those substantive claims, and make myself available to provide further information should you deem it appropriate.
Important background information
At no stage did I submit an application for a new AOC application. I had an existing business that had been operating with an industry-leading level of safety and compliance since its inception in 2006. For clarity, it was not a new application, it was a well-established business with an impeccable reputation, and CASA records will support that contention.
The CASA action came without any prior warning at all, and no CASA actions were based on any safety issues at all, and there were no regulatory breaches. I am fully satisfied that the CASA actions were motivated by my public criticism of CASAs failed Regulatory program referred to as Part 61/141 and 142. My criticism was based on the fact that CASA spent hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayer funds, and the result was the enormous negative impact on many Australian owned businesses, with no safety benefit. CASA themselves have made that admission. I made a number of predictions about the regulatory impact. The passage of time vindicated my public comments in the media and that was most likely the motivation for the CASA actions i.e. they were vindictive and vexatious.
The Aviation Ruling regarding Franchised AOCs did not apply to the flight training industry and was never intended to be applied to the flight training industry. It was written for the Charter Industry and specifically the carriage of freight. This was clearly articulated to the flight training industry by CASA, by way of a series of face to face briefings by CASA personnel on its release in 2006. My organization received that briefing from CASA personnel in early 2006, and that is the clear recollection of many flight training organizations who have contacted me and validated that comment.
The truth is that the Aviation Ruling was introduced when a Melbourne based charter company was closed down by CASA and they resumed operations the next day under another AOC. As previously stated, the Aviation Ruling was never intended for the flight training industry.
The truth is that after the introduction of the Aviation Ruling, CASA continued facilitating many flight training organizations to operate under a franchised AOC system. There is ample evidence of that assertion. A company called XXXX operated under my AOC for an extended period of time.
The truth is that the XXXXXXX XXXXXX XXXX XXXX had been operating under a franchised AOC system with XXXXXXX until the day before they joined APTA. It was the application to add XXXXXXX XXXXXX XXXX XXXX to APTA that resulted in the complete reversal of CASA "opinion"
CASA executive Manager of Regulatory Services and Surveillance, Mr. Craig Martin was previously the CASA Regional Manager of the Eastern Region encompassing Queensland, and this practice was particularly prevalent in his own region. i.e. flying schools operating under a franchised AOC system. Mr. Craig Martin could be contacted by your office and will be unable to truthfully refute that claim.
My business at the time, APTA was in fact the first time in Australia that an organization had acted with good intent to improve safety and compliance of the franchised AOC system that had deficiencies and weaknesses that had been accepted by CASA. The truth is that CASA worked side by side with me for two years and was assessed by CASA on over 600 individual requirements, to build this safer and more robust system. i.e. APTA was designed for no other reason than to attend to the existing deficiencies in the accepted practice of franchised AOCs.
Specific Allegations against Mr. Jonathan Aleck
Mr. Aleck was fully aware that the use of franchised AOCs was accepted practice in the flight training industry, and CASA had fully sanctioned those arrangements.
Mr. Aleck applied his opinion to my business only, and chose not to apply it to other operators that were operating under a "franchised AOC."
Mr. Aleck was fully aware that I had worked with CASA for two years and invested many hundreds of thousands of dollars in achieving a safe, compliant, and well-intentioned system that was designed to attend to deficiencies in franchised AOCs.
Mr. Aleck is fully aware that in fact, APTA had the largest and most highly resourced safety department of any flying school in Australia.
Mr. Aleck is fully aware that his decisions and actions were not based on concerns regarding aviation safety.
Mr. Aleck is fully aware that there were no regulatory breaches.
Mr. Aleck is fully aware that audit results were fabricated and written up many months after an audit was conducted, and that those audit results differed entirely to the audit findings provided at the CASA mandated on-site audit exit meeting.
Mr. Aleck is fully aware that when I challenged those fabricated audit findings, CASA was unable to provide any supporting evidence of those false allegations, because they were not truthful.
Mr. Aleck has been responsible for actions and decisions that are not in accordance with obligations placed on him my
- The Minister's Statement of Expectations
- The CASA Enforcement Manual
- Administrative Law, Natural Justice, and Procedural Fairness.
- CASAs Regulatory Philosophy
Mr. Aleck is responsible for providing information to your office that is clearly not truthful and is done for the purpose of protecting his position and supporting his decisions that are unlawful, unfair, and unjust.
Mr. Aleck has led your office to believe that my business/ concept was unique and failed to identify that I was specifically targeted whilst others were permitted to operate.
Summary
Mr. Aleck has initiated similar action against many individuals and businesses resulting in many people losing their businesses, their reputations, and their livelihoods. Many of those people have contacted me in the background and offered to submit their allegations if you deem that it would assist your ongoing investigation.
I reassert that I will provide any further information that you require to support my claims.
Can I also draw your attention to an opportunity that has been provided to me by the Australian Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA), which is Australia's peak aviation body representing the aviation industry.
On Tuesday 11th August that Organisation will conduct a Facebook video conference on my matter at 7 PM. These attract a wide audience from Industry and are highly interactive. I will ensure that you are provided with a copy of that conference as it will highlight many of the challenges for the industry as a result of the way CASA chooses to conduct themselves, despite the obligations placed on them.
Respectfully and thankfully, Glen Buckley