I'll say it again, Kurt: Welcome to the party.
At least you've quickly worked out the 'end game': CASA has already decided it's not going to approve your application. As a matter of practicality, your application is doomed.
Like "the safety of air navigation", the concept of "bringing the sport, the club or yourself into disrepute" means everything and nothing. CASA and the club are Humpty Dumpty, using those words to mean whatever they choose them to mean.
My prediction: In the unlikely event that your AAT application progresses to a point where the AAT is going to consider the merits of your application for a Part 149 ASAO certificate and could find in your favour, CASA will issue an instrument limiting the number of PG ASAO certificates so that the approval of your application would exceed that number. CASR 149.060 says:
149.060 CASA may limit number of ASAO certificates
(1) For the purposes of subsection 98(5A) of the Act, CASA may issue a legislative instrument imposing limits on the number of ASAO certificates that may be issued if CASA is satisfied that exceeding the limit is likely to have an adverse effect on the safety of air navigation.
(2) A limit may be imposed:
(a) indefinitely or for a specified period; or
(b) generally or in relation to a specified class of aviation administration functions.
(3) CASA may, by legislative instrument, vary or revoke an instrument made under subregulation (1).
You would have to spend around half a dozen years and a few lazy millions getting to the High Court to get a judgment on whether CASA's limitation instrument was valid, and you would probably lose. "CASA is satisfied that exceeding the limit is likely to have an adverse effect on the safety of air navigation" are Humpty Dumpty words.
An application for an ASOA certificate is subject to CASR 11.055. As you can see, CASR 11.055 is clear and concise without any subjective criteria:
11.055 Grant of authorisation
(1) This regulation applies despite any other provision of these Regulations that provides for the grant or issue of an authorisation, but subject to section 30A and paragraphs 30DY(2)(b), 30DZ(2)(b) and 30EC(2)(b) of the Act.
Note 1: Under section 30A of the Act, the Court may make an order excluding a person from a particular aviation activity for a specified period (the exclusion period). Under subsection 30A(4), during the exclusion period any authorisation granted to the person for the activity is of no effect and a new authorisation to undertake the activity is not to be granted to the person.
Note 2: Under section 30DY of the Act, CASA must give the holder of an authorisation a demerit suspension notice if the holder has incurred at least 12 demerit points in relation to authorisations of the same class in a 3 year period. Under paragraph 30DY(2)(b), the holder is not entitled to be granted a new authorisation of that class during the period of the suspension.
Note 3: Under section 30DZ of the Act, CASA must give the holder of an authorisation a demerit suspension notice if the holder has incurred at least 6 demerit points in relation to authorisations of the same class in a 3 year period and has previously been given a demerit suspension notice in relation to that class of authorisations. Under paragraph 30DZ(2)(b), the holder is not entitled to be granted a new authorisation of that class during the period of the suspension.
Note 4: Under section 30EC of the Act, CASA must give the holder of an authorisation a demerit cancellation notice if the holder has incurred at least 6 demerit points in relation to authorisations of the same class in a 3 year period and has twice previously been given a demerit suspension notice in relation to that class of authorisations. Under paragraph 30EC(2)(b), the holder is not entitled to be granted a new authorisation of that class for 3 years from the date of the notice.
(1A) Subject to subregulations (1B) and (1C), if a person has applied for an authorisation in accordance with these Regulations, CASA may grant the authorisation only if:
(a) the person meets the criteria specified in these Regulations for the grant of the authorisation; and
(b) any other requirements in relation to the person that are specified in these Regulations for the grant of the authorisation are met; and
(c) any other requirements in relation to the thing in respect of which the application is made that are specified in these Regulations for the grant of the authorisation are met; and
(d) these Regulations do not forbid CASA granting the authorisation in the particular case; and
(e) granting the authorisation would not be likely to have an adverse effect on the safety of air navigation.
(1B) If another provision of these Regulations provides that this subregulation applies to the granting of the authorisation, CASA may grant the authorisation only if:
(a) the requirements of paragraphs (1A)(a) to (d) are satisfied; and
(b) granting the authorisation will preserve a level of aviation safety that is at least cceptable.
(1C) If the authorisation is an experimental certificate, CASA may grant the authorisation only if:
(a) the requirements of paragraphs (1A)(a) to (d) are satisfied; and
(b) granting the authorisation would not be likely to have an adverse effect on the safety of other airspace users or persons on the ground or water.
(2) In paragraph (1A)(a), a reference to meeting the criteria for the grant of an uthorisation includes (in the case of an applicant who is an individual):
(a) having any qualifications required by or under these Regulations for the grant of the authorisation; and
(b) having any experience required by or under these Regulations for that grant; and
(c) having successfully completed any training required by or under these Regulations for that grant; and
(d) if there is a requirement as to recency or currency of the applicant’s training or experience—meeting that requirement; and
(e) if a standard of medical fitness is required by or under these Regulations for that grant:
(i) having attained that standard; and
(ii) having been granted any medical certificate required; and
(f) if particular attributes of character are required by or under these Regulations for that grant—having those attributes; and
(g) if a standard of proficiency in an activity is required by or under these Regulations for that grant—meeting that standard of proficiency.
(3) If these Regulations limit in any way the number of authorisations of the relevant kind that may be granted, CASA may refuse to grant the authorisation if the limit will be exceeded if the authorisation is granted.
(4) For paragraphs (1A)(e) and (1B)(b), CASA may take into account:
(a) the applicant’s record of compliance with regulatory requirements (in Australia or elsewhere) relating to aviation safety and other transport safety; and
(b) the applicant’s demonstrated attitude towards compliance with regulatory requirements (in Australia or elsewhere) relating to aviation safety and other transport safety; and
(c) the applicant’s experience (if any) in aviation; and
(d) the applicant’s knowledge of the regulatory requirements applicable to civil aviation in Australia; and
(e) the applicant’s history, if any, of serious behavioural problems; and
(f) any conviction (other than a spent conviction, within the meaning of Part VIIC of the Crimes Act 1914) of the applicant (in Australia or elsewhere) for a transport safety offence; and
(g) any evidence held by CASA that the applicant has contravened:
(i) the Act or these Regulations; or
(ii) a law of another country relating to aviation safety; or
(iii) another law (of Australia or of another country) relating to transport safety; and
(h) in the case of an authorisation referred to in subregulation 11.040(2), the applicant’s financial standing and financial stability; and
(i) any other matter relating to the fitness of the applicant to hold the authorisation.
(5) For the application of paragraphs (4)(a) to (i) in relation to an applicant that is a corporation, references to the applicant include each of the officers (other than employees) of the applicant.
(6) For the application of paragraphs (4)(a) to (i) in relation to an applicant that is a member of a partnership, references to the applicant include each of the other members of the partnership.
(7) CASA may grant the authorisation in respect of only some of the matters sought in the application.
Note the Humpty Dumpty words: "granting the authorisation would not be likely to have an adverse effect on the safety of air navigation"; "the applicant’s demonstrated attitude towards compliance with regulatory requirements"; "the applicant’s history, if any, of serious behavioural problems".
Note also that an applicant doesn't have to have been convicted of anything before it is possible for CASA to hold "evidence ... that the applicant has contravened ... the Act or these Regulations". In any event, CASA can take into account "any other matter relating to the fitness of the applicant to hold the authorisation".
You are upsetting and bothering people in 'authority'. That's a serious behavioural problem. Your attitude to compliance with the rules is not a good one. You're being investigated for a breach of the law. That's evidence of a contravention.
Before they have to play those tricks on you, you'll get the "Buckley Treatment". Under CASR 11.030, your application is not complete unless and until a number of criteria are satisfied. You should look at those criteria.
Some comments on the content of your earlier posts, to try to get you focussed on productive activities rather than bush lawyer rabbit holes:
You say:
PS. To pass the time, I have asked CASA freedom of information (FOI) for a copy of all PG accident reports (or accident investigation reports) that SAFA provides to CASA. The initial CASA reply has been to suggest that CASA does not hold such data. If true, then SAFA really is left to run things without oversight. The FOI officer hinted that if I were to persist with requests for safety reports, my request could be deemed vexatious. My reply was that I would enjoy a situation where CASA tried to justify denying access to basic safety reports. So it seems the adversarial CASA culture goes all the way to the core, even for basic safety report matters. I remain hopeful the new CEO can address the current CASA culture problems.
We don't make accident reports to CASA. Accident reports are made to ATSB. The ATSB may pass on information about accidents to CASA, but that's not the same thing and is not what you asked for.
I'd suggest you back out of the FOI rabbit hole, until you understand who has what records and you know how to frame a sensible FOI request. Being "deemed vexatious" can't be good for you when CASA comes to assess your "behaviour" and "attitude".
You say:
anyone should be entitled to apply to start a Part 149 org
Indeed. And anyone is indeed entitled to apply to start a Part 149 org.
But being entitled to be granted the approval is an entirely different matter. You first have to submit an application that is "complete" as defined in CASR 11.030 and then the applicant and the application are assessed in accordance with CASR 11.055. And, as I noted above, if CASA issues an instrument limiting the number of PG ASAOs, it's instantly 'game over'.
You ask and opine:
why does Senate estimates allow such CASA conduct to be possible, if not probable? my theory - it serves as a test case of what Aus citizens will tolerate, and what the courts can and/or will do about it to push back. it used to be called justice.
What a bad attitude! The conduct is in the interests of the safety of air navigation. Who and what could possibly and sensibly get in the way of those interests?
You say in your letter to Ms Spence:
So much for innocent until proven guilty, CASA knows better apparently.
Precisely. As you can see from CASR 11.055, you don't have to be convicted of anything and CASA can still have evidence that you've contravened the rules and use it against you. "Innocent until proven guilty" would get in the way of the safety of air navigation.
You also said:
The SAFA constitution is illegal under Australian law, specifically the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 which states a person receiving an unfavourable decision must be informed of their right of reply.
That's a bush lawyer rabbit hole. Do yourself a favour and back out of it.
Most important question de jour: What happened at the "interlocutory hearing set for Fri 24 Sep 21"?