Dear Mr. Anthony Mathews, and all Members of the CASA Board
Whilst I appreciate that you may not be in a position to personally respond to my request, can I ask that you draw on Mr. Jonthan Aleck in his role as the CASA Executive Manager, Legal, International, and Regulatory Affairs as well as any other personnel that you deem appropriate in formulating an official CASA response.
As you are aware, there are three primary core issues that have brought detriment to me, my family, and a number of other entities.
Issue One- The reversal of approval on APTA after 10 CASA personnel had spent two years designing it with me, approved it, approved bases under it, audited it, and in fact recommended it to a number of operators. By providing me with several short term interim approvals to operate, over a period of 8 months, the business was starved of revenue and was sold at 5% of its value. Importantly CASA has clearly stipulated procedures in their Enforcement Procedures Manual that they are compelled to follow should they Cancel, Suspend or vary an AOC, and those procedures were completely bypassed. No "show cause" notice was ever issued by CASA. The Commonwealth Ombudsman's Office is currently investigating that matter. My concerns with this matter were the clear breaches of Administrative Law, Procedural Fairness, and Natural Justice
Issue Two- The advice that my remaining business/flying school, Melbourne Flight Training, had to be transferred to the new owners of APTA. On this point, CASA, and specifically Mr. Craig Martin advised on 20/06, "For the avoidance of doubt, this would allow flight training to be conducted by APTA employees only-not employees of affiliates. Mr. Jason McHeyzer advised that CASA required complete operational control which included staff, resources, and total financial control. Currently, I do not believe that the Ombudsman's Office is investigating that matter
Issue Three- After obtaining employment in the industry, Mr. Jason McHeyzer the CASA Region Manager sent a direction to my Employer that my continuing employment was untenable based on comments that I was making publicly. As with Issue One, CASAs Enforcement Procedures Manual stipulates the procedures to be followed if a CASA approved Head of Operations is deemed not to be a 'fit and proper person". By completely bypassing these procedures, I was denied a fair process. On this matter, the Commonwealth Ombudsman is investigating.
On issues One and Three, CASA has refused to respond to my fair and reasonable questions, using the investigation by the Ombudsman's Office as a reason not to respond. I have previously spoken to the Ombudsman's Office and it appears that despite the investigation, I am entitled to maintain correspondence with you, and I believe that CASA is unfairly and unlawfully drawing on that investigation to frustrate my efforts to fairly resolve this matter.
However, in this correspondence, I am writing to you regarding Issue Two.
This matter has been specifically addressed by the Ombudsman's Office in Phase One of the Ombudsman's investigation. I have attached the Ombudsman's report for your reference. In light of that, I feel I am fully entitled to a detailed response.
You will note that in Phase One of the Ombudsman's report he made the following statements.
"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. This 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."
He then goes on to state "
as of October 2016, no Australian legislation prohibited "franchising of an AOC, subject only to the exclusivity of the AOC Holders operational control"
You will be fully aware that this conflicts with the advice provided to me by CASA, and that error on behalf of CASA has clearly resulted in detriment being caused to me.
CASA advised that a franchised AOC was not permitted and that "for the avoidance of doubt, this would allow flight training to be conducted by APTA employees only".
Phase Two of the Ombudsman's investigation deals with the "7 day notice period" for continuing operations and the direction to terminate my employment. As Phase One is completed and that is the phase relevant to the MFT issue (transferring my school to the owners of APTA), I now wish to seek CASA advice on where we move to from here. You have advised that we could progress matters on receiving the Ombudsman's findings.
The detriment caused is significant, as my flying school of 12 years was "handed over" to the new owners of APTA. This instantly denied me access to any revenue. This problem was only further compounded when Mr. Mc Heyzer the CASA Region Manager sent a direction to my Employer that my continuing employment was untenable based on comments that i was making publicly. This led to my termination and a protracted period of unemployment.
In the attached email dated 22/08/20, I advised Mr. Martin that I had complied with his requirements and transferred staff, resources, and financial control. Unfortunately, that left with me ongoing expenses by way of contractual obligations to a number of entities, which I was unable to attend to. Some of those entities have initiated legal action for breaches of my financial obligations to them. This occurred because of the CASA direction to transfer my income but did not attend to expenses.
For clarity, I feel I have a valid basis for a claim on CASA regarding the loss of my flying school of more than a decade, Melbourne Flight Training. That claim would require me to submit a request to the Department of Finance by way of the CDDA scheme
https://www.finance.gov.au/individua...on-cdda-scheme
I also draw your attention to Post 1273 in the thread on PPrune that is currently running
https://www.pprune.org/australia-new...ss-v-casa.html. This post refers to the Full Federal Court decision handed down on 22/06/2012 and obligations to act as model litigants.
I have also included an excerpt from The Commonwealth Ombudsman's office below. CASA has unnecessarily dragged this matter on for far too long. The time has truly arrived where the Board of CASA is compelled to act with good intent, and integrity, and work towards a mutually agreeable solution.
"Compensation for ‘detriment’ caused directly to a person by ‘defective administration’ can be made under the Scheme for Compensation for Detriment caused by Defective Administration (CDDA Scheme). ‘Detriment’ includes personal injury, property damage, and economic detriment. Examples of ‘defective administration’ are an unreasonable agency failure to follow procedures or to give proper advice or giving advice that was incorrect or ambiguous. A payment under the CDDA Scheme can be authorized by the agency against which the claim is made. Legal liability to pay compensation does not have to be proved"
I am fully satisfied that I have a valid basis for a claim under the CDDA Scheme. Could you please clearly identify if you will stand in the way of me making such a claim, or am I able to proceed? I note that CASA could veto such a claim, hence I seek clarity on that matter.
My hope is that you will act with good intent. Should you choose to frustrate my attempt at fair and reasonable compensation I will approach the responsible Minister, Mr. Michael McCormack directly to seek a resolution.
Respectfully Glen Buckley