If there is any doubt about the lack of integrity and effectiveness of CASA having an Industry Complaints Commissioner that is internal, compared to having an independent body such as the Commonwealth Ombudsman investigate matters. Here it clearly is.!!
I want to be very clear. At this stage, I have no doubt at all about the integrity of Mr. Hanton in the role of the CASA Industry Complaints Commissioner. My allegation is that he is being misled, and deliberately so by members of CASAs Executive Management.
I initially submitted this complaint to the CASA Industry Complaints Commissioner in December of 2018, and much later to the Commonwealth Ombudsman.
It is interesting to see the two very distinctive outcomes that resulted. I had fought with CASA on this matter, and finally CASA and after two months CASA admitted to me verbally that they had erred. Nevertheless, they maintained the restrictions on the business's ability to trade for a further 6 months, until the business was unable to continue.
The complaint was significant and in fact, the use of the Aviation Ruling was the trigger that CASA used to bring down my business. My submitted complaint to the CASA Industry Complaints Commissioner follows:
APTA REFERENCE- MATTER “F” FOXTROT
DATE OF SUBMISSION- 31/12/18
COMPLAINT LODGED BY Glen Buckley-CEO- Australian Pilot Training Alliance ARN 759217
Email (preferred contact)
[email protected]
Mobile 0418772013
Address – Hangar 17, Northern Avenue, Moorabbin Airport, 3194
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
CASA initiated action against my Business on 23/10/18, and at the time of writing CASA seems some way off from resolving this matter. To date, this has cost my Business approximately $200,00 and has significantly impacted on my ability to continue operating.
I advised CASA very clearly and repeatedly throughout the process of the cost impact.
Such a substantive action would usually be due to a grave and imminent risk to aviation safety.
CASA has raised no concerns at all about Safety but drew on the Aviation Ruling to initiate this significant action.
COMPLAINT
Significant harm has been brought to me and my business as a result of CASA using the Aviation Ruling as the basis of their action, which I have repeatedly objected to and asked guidance on how I can have this “tested”.
I do not believe that the Aviation Ruling applies and have repeatedly highlighted that to CASA over the last 10 weeks.
EXPECTED OUTCOME
My understanding is that the Aviation Ruling does not have a “Head of Power”. Can CASA specifically confirm whether my understanding is correct?
The Aviation Ruling is for “CAR 206 operations”. My understanding is that Flying Training organizations were specifically removed from CAR 206 operations in September 2014. Can you confirm that: for the purposes of action against my business has CASA elected to slip it back in, or is it an “oversight” on CASAs behalf.
The Aviation Ruling refers to a Chief Pilot, and this position does not exist in a flying training environment. Can you confirm that the Chief Pilot (Charter Organisations) and Head of Operations (Flying Training) are interchangeable throughout the legislation, or is this a peculiarity to CASAs action against me only?
The Aviation Ruling was written for a completely different regulatory environment in early 2006. With the complete overhaul of legislation in September 2014, I felt that this may have become redundant. Can you confirm that it does apply?
If the Aviation Ruling does apply, why specifically has CASA turned a blind eye to it for almost 13 years and has reactivated it against my Business so aggressively?
The Aviation Ruling specifically refers to Organisations operating with an “arm's length contractual arrangement”. This is, in fact, the exact opposite of what APTA is, and highlights the confusion that exists within casa. I have highlighted this repeatedly to CASA throughout the process. Can CASA specifically state whether or not they are of the opinion that I operate with an “arms-length contractual arrangement” as opposed to a contract?
Can CASA please clearly state the link between applying the Aviation Ruling and Safety.
END OF COMPLAINT
So as a response to that complaint, how did they respond?
Here is the CASA response from the Industry Complaints Commissioner.
"Because APTA advised CASA has taken the Aviation Ruling "off the table", I continue to be of the view that there is no utility in making an assessment of issues that are no longer in contention"
In other words, CASA can make scurrilous allegations against someone over a protracted period. When the individual lodges a complaint, CASA simply takes it "off the table" and the person lodging the complaint loses their opportunity to have their complaint considered by CASAs Industry Complaints Commissioner.
Yet when the Commonwealth Ombudsman conducts an investigation he finds;
"The Ruling was not amended to reflect that legislative change from 1 September 2014, meaning that the CAR and the Ruling were no longer aligned in material ways"
"In my concluded view there was an administrative deficiency due to an absence of a direct relationship between the activity being regulated and the policy said to regulate it. That gave rise to ambiguity and uncertainty with the potential to cause detriment to those relying on the accuracy of the regime or conversely prevent detriment from occurring"
"It is my concluded view that CASA should have made a concurrent amendment to its ruling at the entry into force of the 1 September 2014 compilation of the CAR because of the practical effect of the change to those relying on the regulatory regime."
Thank goodness we have a Commonwealth Ombudsman and don't need to solely rely on CASA to act with integrity when they investigate themselves. The function and accountability of the CASA ICC process need a complete overhaul if stakeholders in this industry are to have access to a well-intentioned ICC who is determined to arrive at fair and transparent outcomes.
Later today (time permitting) i intend to post another example of the CASA internal dispute resolution process i.e. the ICC being completely flawed,