Attachments
- Emails raising the concept 2 ½ years before CASA claim they “first became aware of my structure.”
- CASA checklist to revalidate all of our systems. (Obtained under FOI). Refer Part 1 of this document that clearly confirm CASA would have been aware of the structure, as Part 1 deals exclusively with such matters. These items were assessed and ticked off by CASA approximately 2 years before they claim they first became aware of my structure.
- Technical Assessor Handbook used by CASA. This attends to organisational structure in significant detail. CASA used this guidance to revalidate my structure in April 2017 (18 months before they claim they first became aware of my structure)
- Exposition- the overriding set of CASA approved manuals to deliver multi base, multi entity training. These were fully approved by CASA in April 2017, 18 months before they first became aware.
Dear Mark of the Commonwealth Ombudsman Office,
As you are aware I am fully satisfied an employee of CASA has deliberately provided substantially misleading information to the Ombudsman Office. It is most likely that was done with the intention of altering the findings of the investigation.
In this correspondence I wish to introduce a second highly credible witness who has offered to come forward and simply tell the truth on this matter. The truth will contrast substantively to the assertion by a CASA employee, whom you have relied on to provide truthful information.
The gentleman that has come forward as a witness is Mr XXXXXX XXXXX, I met him briefly in a chance encounter at a regional petrol station recently, and he offered to come forward and tell the truth to the Ombudsman’s office. He advised that he retains “extraneous notes”, on this matter.
Mr XXXXX XXXXX will be able to introduce himself, and his credentials, and you can establish contact with him via his email address which has been included in the “recipients” of this correspondence.
I can advise you that his experience includes many years as a Pilot and Officer with the Royal Australian Air Force. Mr XXXX has also operated at the most senior pilot management roles with Airlines in Australia, and Overseas. He has extensive experience in the flight training industry, which is rare amongst CASA employees, so has an expert knowledge on this industry. He is universally respected across the industry as highly professional.
Importantly, he was also a highly respected and qualified senior CASA employee, and one of the CASA employees allocated to my “project” by CASA and the attached emails will clearly indicate that initial contact is 2 ½ years prior to the date that CASA has led you to believe they first became aware.
I recently sent you emails that very clearly indicate the concept was bought up with CASA in the middle of 2016, being two and a half years before CASA claim that they “first became aware” of my business structure. I have attached those emails again.
The truth is that CASA was made fully aware of the multi base multi entity structure in mid-2016, and Mr XXXX XXXX will be able to attest to that. He will be able to address the following matters comprehensively, accurately and truthfully with you.
- Did CASA know about my structure years before their claimed date of October 2018.
- Was CASA supportive and encouraging of the concept prior to declaring it unlawful in October 2018?
- Did CASA give me the go-ahead to continue the Project?
- Did CASA allocate CASA employees including Mr XXXX, to assist with and assess every one of more than 600 CASA requirements, in the design of the Exposition. Mr XXXX could speak to the enormity of the task, and the level of CASA involvement required.
- Considering the size and scope of the project, and the significant CASA involvement, Mr XXXX could attest to the possibility of CASA not being aware, and most especially as CASA had approved AVIA and Learn to Fly as part of a formal CASA process called a “Significant Change.”
- CASA have asserted that they had not previously permitted more than one entity to operate under an AOC. Mr XXXX will be aware that it was in fact common and CASA approved practice for more than one entity to operate under a single authorisation with the authorisation holder accepting full responsibility for all operations, and in fact that was common practice. Clarity on this matter alone will indicate that an employee of CASA has provided the Ombudsman with untruthful information. CASA claim that it was not permitted and had never been permitted. That is clearly not truthful.
- Importantly Mr XXXX will be able to confirm or deny that CASA was involved in every facet of assessment and design of more than 600 CASA requirements, and that all procedures and structures were designed around the multi base, multi entity approach, and that CASA was fully aware 2 ½ years before they have led the Ombudsman’s Office to believe.
- He will be able to brief you on the processes leading up to the CASA revalidation in the multi base, multi entity structure, including the substantial involvement of CASA personnel, including the use of the attached worksheet that was signed off by himself and others, and the assessor workbook that is attached.
- Mr XXXX will be able to attest to the fact that the part 141/142 revalidation was issued in April 2017, and at that time CASA was fully aware of APTAs structure.
- Mr XXXX will be able to attest to the truth that APTA was designed from the ground up in conjunction with CASA employees for the sole purpose of delivering a multi base. Multi entity structure. That was exactly its purpose.
Please note that I have included XXXX XXXX in this correspondence. Other Witnesses have approached me, and I will write again over coming days.
Thankyou for your consideration, and I hope that you will consider accessing this witness.
Respectfully
Glen Buckley