Complaint Three of a CASA employee being responsible for providing false and misleading information to the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s Office.
A CASA Employee falsely and misleadingly led the Ombudsman to be of the opinion that I failed to inform CASA of what I was doing or that I missed some formal procedure or required notification and that is the basis for CASAs clearly false claim that they only became aware of my structure some time just prior to October 2018 when they unlawfully closed the business down. The suggestion by CASA
After discussion with the Ombudsman’s office, it has become abundantly clear that Mr Aleck, an employee of CASA has led the Ombudsman’s office to be of the view that CASA was not fully aware of my business structure, until just prior to October 2018, when CASA incorrectly decided that I was operating unlawfully, issued the notification, and closed my business down.
The Ombudsman’s Office suggested that I may have “failed to let everyone know within CASA”.
Whilst I accept that the Ombudsman did not mean literally that I had to advise everyone in CASA, the insinuation was that I had bypassed some procedure, or not advised someone within CASA of what I was doing i.e., that there was an omission on my behalf.
Quite simply. I was doing this for 6 years with full CASA formal approval. I met with CASA in mid-2016 to outline the proposal for expanding on the exact same structure that I had adopted for many years but this time doing it to a much higher standard and in accordance with the new upcoming regulations. Many thousands of pages of documentation, risk assessments, interviews, Significant Change applications etc were done, fees paid, and even a meeting with the second in charge of CASA. The truth is that I provided all information, and there is nothing that I believe I could have done to communicate my exact intentions i.e., to expand on what I was already doing.
If CASA have led the Ombudsman to believe that I missed some procedure, or some form was not completed, or I was deficient in any way at all in communicating fully and completely with CASA, then CASA should be able to clearly identify what step or procedure that I missed was.
This is important, not only for me, but for other business owners. If CASA close a business down and try to claim that a contributing factor is that the Owner was deficient in communicating the exact nature of his or her business, and that Business Owner maintains robustly that he did not miss any steps, procedures, notifications, communications, etc, CASA should be able to clearly what form or procedure was missed, and especially so when those CASA personnel are working side by side with the business owner in a full revalidation of the business two years prior. It is highly unlikely that bases would have been approved formally by CASA if a procedure had been missed.
I am fully satisfied that no steps, procedures, notifications or communications were missed. I met or exceeded every obligation that I had placed on me. The correct people were spoken to within CASA. I worked with the correct CASA employees. I submitted the correct documentation including all applications, Significant Change requests, met on site with the correct CASA employees, developed the manuals with CASA years earlier, paid all fees, etc etc
I accept that perhaps Mr Aleck as the Executive Manager of Legal, International, and regulatory Affairs did not know, although his department was responsible for the final approval of our revalidation issued 18 months before Mr Aleck claims that CASA first became aware. In my 25 years in the industry, I had never had any contact with Mr Aleck at all and would not be expected to have contact.
I absolutely cannot accept that CASA did not know, or that I missed some obligation or opportunity. If Mr Aleck claims that he was not aware then that is indicative of major deficiencies within CASA that need to be addressed, not a deficiency on my part.
Every correct contact was made with every person and department in CASA that I was required to communicate with. Mr Aleck is in Canberra and to the best of my knowledge had not even been to the Airport where our Head office was based. He has never been to any of my bases. I would not be expected to ever have any communication with him. Any communication with Mr Aleck on my structure would be an internal communication within CASA, after I complete all my procedures with the front-line staff i.e., my CASA Certificate Management Team (CMT)
My complaint is that CASA has mislead the Ombudsman’s Office to be of the view that I may have missed some notification, application, procedure, communication, documentation etc.
If CASA claim this to be the truth. Then CASA should be able to clearly identify what procedure was missed by me. If CASA now concur that every single procedure was attended to, and that there were absolutely no errors at all on my behalf, CASA should be able to explain at least, what I could have done to better inform CASA of my structure.
A response to this will assist me but is also important for the wider industry. A business owner must be confident in CASAs procedures. The reasonable expectation is that once a CASA approval has been issued to a person or a business, and that business has operated safely and compliantly for over a decade, that CASA has well and truly done their due diligence, and that is exactly the basis for the issue.
To come back many years later, reverse a previously issued approval, close businesses down and contend that those approvals were issued in error because the holder failed to properly notify the issuing authority all of the details is absurd, and more so if the authority is unable to identify what was missed or the procedures that were omitted.
A response to this is important because my compliant concerns CASA misleading and providing false information to the Ombudsman that I had failed or was deficient in some way in communicating the same structure that other flight training organisations had adopted throughout my 25 years in the industry. CASA should be able to identify those omissions clearly and concisely on my behalf, if in fact there were any.
My expected outcome from this complaint is that if CASA contend that I was deficient in any way in fully and formally communicating the exact structure that I had adopted for 6 years, then CASA should be able to identify that omission on my behalf. CASA should also be able to identify how I could have avoided this entire matter by explaining what I should have done better.
Conclusion
I trust that you can appreciate the significance of the Ombudsman’s Office being very clear on the outcome of these three complaints, but may I put the importance of truthful responses into context.
If CASA always permitted on every occasion, and had done since the inception of CASA, more than one flying school to operate under a single CASA authorisation, exactly as I did,
and;
If CASA was fully aware that I had adopted that exact CASA approved structure for at least 6 years,
and;
If CASA has no supporting safety case at all to support their decision to close my businesses.
and;
If CASA can identify no regulatory breach to support their decision to close my businesses
and;
If CASA claim that their regulatory approach is outcome based yet cannot identify any concerns against any quality outcomes at all to support their decision to close my business
and;
if CASA have shown a flagrant disregard for their own procedures and obligations under Administrative Law in their Enforcement Manual , and shown total disregard for their own Regulatory Philosophy
Our regulatory philosophy | Civil Aviation Safety Authority (casa.gov.au)
and;
if the Owner of the business closed down by CASA maintains that all of the harm caused by CASAs decision to close the business could have been avoided by a well intentioned 4 hour discussion, and CASA is unable to challenge that assertion.
and;
If you consider the enormity of the trauma caused to me and my family, not only financially but also the impact on our mental and physical health,
Then you will appreciate that responses to my complaints are essential in any determination by a third party such as the Ombudsman or some other forum. I look forward to hearing from you.
Respectfully, Glen Buckley