12/10/20
Allegation that CASA Employees have misled the Commonwealth Ombudsman's Office in Phase One of his Investigation.
Dear Mr. Anthony Mathews, Chairperson of the Board of CASA.
I am concerned that CASA Personnel have deliberately misled the Commonwealth Ombudsman's office. Most likely with the intention of affecting the outcome of the investigation currently being undertaken.
In your role as the Chairperson of the CASA Board, you are the person ultimately responsible for ensuring CASA performs its functions in a “
proper, efficient and effective manner”. I am bringing this to your attention, and also the attention of the Ombudsman's Office. I am imploring you to act with integrity and truthfulness, while being mindful of your obligations whilst acting as the Chair of the CASA Board, being Australia's national safety regulator, and operating under the Australian Coat of Arms.
The misleading information that CASA has provided is substantive and fundamental to the integrity of the investigation and subsequent findings of that investigation. Should these misconceptions be carried into Phase Two of the investigation it is likely that the outcome may be perverted.
1. CASA has led the Commonwealth Ombudsman Office to be of the view that CASA did not, and had not, historically permitted Flight Training Organisations (FTOs) to partake in “Franchised Air Operator Certificates ( AOC) arrangements,” when this is clearly not truthful.
2. CASA has led the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s Office to be of the view that the “Aviation Ruling- Franchised AOC arrangements’, was intended for Flight Training Organisations. That is not truthful.
3. CASA has led the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s office to believe that the legislative change introduced on 1 September 2014 was the date that the Civil Aviation Regulations (CAR) changed. It was on that date the issue of misalignment of the CAR and Aviation Ruling began. That is not truthful.
4. CASA has led the Commonwealth Ombudsman to believe that APTA had made an AOC application. That is not correct.
The truth is.
On Point 1.
- CASA did permit FTOs to operate under Franchised AOC arrangements throughout my 25 years of involvement in the flight training industry.
- This practice was permitted by CASA and continued up until the day CASA gave my organization notification that it was not permitted. and simultaneously placed restrictions on my business's ability to trade. This action was taken against my business only, and not others.
- CASA had approved a number of FTOs under Franchised AOC arrangements both prior to, and after the legislative change that CASA introduced on 1 September 2014.
- CASA approved FTOs to enter such arrangements well after the date of 1 September 2014. I know that from my own personal experience because CASA permitted an FTO called TVSA to operate under my AOC after the date of September 1st, 2014. Similarly, CASA permitted Latrobe Valley Aero Club to operate under the AOC of Bairnsdale Air Charter. There are many examples throughout Australia. I am informed that this practice also occurred in Mr. Craig Martins Region when he was a CASA Regional Manager. You will be able to confirm this directly with him in his current role as the current CASA Executive Manager of Regulatory Services and Surveillance.
- There was no change of law, there was only a change of "opinion" by Mr. Jonathan Aleck in his role as the CASA Executive Manager of Legal, International, and Regulatory Affairs. The first indication that Mr. Aleck had changed his mind was the notification made to my organization on 23/10/18. The change of opinion was applied to my business only, and not others. It came with no warning at all. It had no basis on any safety concerns. There was no legislative change, I was dealing with a change of “opinion” only, and I maintain that the change of opinion was not well-intentioned and had no basis in law or aviation safety.
On Point 2.
- The Aviation Ruling was released in 2006. On its release, CASA approached FTOs and advised them specifically, that the Aviation Ruling only applied to Charter Operators, and not to FTOs. I personally received that briefing from CASA as the business owner of a flying school. I have confirmed this with other FTOs, and that is clearly their recollection also. I can provide Statutory Declarations from those individuals if required. For CASA to suggest that their intention was that the Aviation Ruling applies to FTOs they are not being truthful. The truth is that it was not intended to apply to FTOs and that is the advice that CASA provided to the FTOs at the time of its release in 2006.
- The truth is that the Aviation Ruling was introduced many years ago when a Charter Operator in Melbourne was shut down by CASA and recommenced operations the next day under another Charter Operators AOC. The Aviation Ruling was written as a response to that occurrence in the Charter industry, and its intention and purpose were entirely different than the purposes CASA used it for in my case.
- After the introduction of the AOC, CASA did not permit Charter Organisations to operate under franchised AOCs, but importantly they did permit FTOs to operate under such arrangements. That further supports my contention that the wrong document is being used for the wrong sector of the industry i.e. charter v flying training
On point 3,
- CASA led the Ombudsman to believe that the date of September 1st, 2014, is the date that Aviation Ruling and the Civil Aviation Regulations (CARs) became misaligned. The truth is that on that day, the CAR and Aviation Ruling became more aligned. The Aviation Ruling clearly refers to Civil Aviation Regulation 206 (CAR 206) where it defines "commercial" purposes. On September 1st, 2014, CASA legally removed Flying training from CAR 206 with the intention to separate the distinct categories. The information provided to FTOs on the release of the Aviation Ruling i.e. that the ruling did not apply to them, was now finally reflected in the legislation as was CASAs intention.
On point 4.
- To clarify a misunderstanding in the Phase One report by the Commonwealth Ombudsman. There was no new AOC application. The business received its AOC in 2005, and it is the only AOC. CASA had fully approved several Operators to become Members of APTA, it was an application to CASA to add on additional bases to the existing AOC. CASA had previously approved almost identical applications by my Organisation. I had received positive feedback from CASA on those applications, so had no reason to doubt
- The CASA trading restrictions were placed on my AOC that was operating safely and compliantly, and with no prior warning. There was only ever one AOC of which APTA had full operational control. The AOCs were not being distributed, the entities came under the APTA AOC with Aviation Reference Number (ARN) 759217, with me holding full accountability.
The purpose of this correspondence, and what I am expecting
Dear Mr. Mathews, Chairperson of the Board of CASA. Could I respectfully request that you clarify the following with the Commonwealth Ombudsman and myself, to ensure there is no misunderstanding as Phase Two commences?
Is the following statement truthful?
CASA had been aware of, approved, and on occasions encouraged franchised AOC arrangements for Flight Training Organisations, and that was the situation throughout the last 25 years in the aviation industry right up until the date that CASA reversed their approval of my business.
This request does not require an extensive response, and it could be as short as a "yes" or a "no'. I appreciate you may choose to issue a more lengthy statement, but please be assured, I will hold you to account against every word that you write.
I am advised that this matter would also be under consideration by the BARC. The BARC ensures integrity over the Boards conduct.
https://www.casa.gov.au/sites/defaul...rangements.pdf
Can you please advise me of the members of the BARC, and am I permitted to contact them directly.
Thank you in anticipation of you clarifying the misunderstandings and ensuring the integrity of the information that CASA provides to the Commonwealth Ombudsman.
Respectfully, Glen Buckley
