The Ombudsman Office has accepted CASAs view that not “everyone in CASA was aware of APTAs concept.
If that’s true and the Ombudsman’s Office considers that that finding has any relevance to Glen’s complaint, it would be a manifestation of the extent to which the competence of the Office has deteriorated. It would be laughable if it didn’t have such profound consequences. Google ‘constructive notice’.
Sadly, it’s not surprising, because these kinds of government ‘watch dogs’ have been steadily starved of resources. (An erstwhile Ombudsman – John Macmillan – who became Australian Information Commissioner was ‘starved out’ of the latter position, eventually working from home because the government had not funded an office for him.) The current government would love to starve the Auditor-General’s office in the same way.
Anyway, the message is clear: Make sure you cc the CASA CEO in on all correspondence with anyone else in CASA.
In any event, there’s nothing in Part 141 or 142 that says an operator can’t conduct flying training activities at more than one location.
[T]he Ombudsman’s Office is unable to investigate allegations against an individual, such as an allegation against a CASA employee…
Here’s what the Ombudsman Act says:
3(6) For the purposes of this Act, action that is taken by an officer of a prescribed authority shall be deemed to be taken by the authority:
(a) if the officer takes, or purports to take, the action by virtue of his or her being an officer of the authority, whether or not:
(i) the action is taken for or in connexion with, or as incidental to, the performance of the functions of the prescribed authority; or
(ii) the taking of the action is within the duties of the officer; or
(b) if the officer takes, or purports to take, the action in the exercise of powers or the performance of functions conferred on him or her by an enactment.
…
officer means:
…
(b) in relation to a prescribed authority:
…
(iii) a person who is employed in the service of, or is a member of the staff of, the authority, whether or not he or she is employed by the authority; or
(iv) a person authorized by the authority to exercise any powers or perform any functions of the authority on behalf of the authority.
CASA falls within the definition of “prescribed authority”.
A CASA employee’s actions in their capacity as a CASA employee are deemed, for the purposes of the Ombudsman Act, to be the actions of CASA. A complaint about the actions of an individual CASA employee in that capacity is complaint against CASA.