Don’t forget you’re dealing with people who’ll seize on any words you use or mistakes you make to distract from the substantive issues.
I suggest you insert “fully” before “aware” and “specific” before “nature” in this sentence: “Recall that Mr Aleck asserts that CASA first became aware of the nature of the operations just prior to October 2018.” I suggest you review the entire draft to ensure consistency in those words.
And if you’re arguing that a named person said those words to the Ombudsman, you’d better have a basis for that argument, especially if you’re alleging that person did so out of malice towards you. There’s a difference, for example, between arguing someone said something to the Ombudsman and arguing someone made the decision to authorise the release of a document saying those words to the Ombudsman, which words were drafted by someone else. Same ultimate responsibility but, as I say, any chink in the armour will be exploited to distract and the distinction may be fundamental on the malice issue. You twigged to the point yourself, here: “These applications were submitted over twelve months prior to the date that Mr Aleck/CASA claims that CASA first became [fully] aware of the specific nature of my operation.”
Of course the words “fully” and “specific” are exquisitely imprecise in context and were used for that precise reason. Nonetheless, the complete answer in principle is that CASA was on at least constructive notice of all of the facts which were relevant to APTA’s applications. And based on the documents submitted by APTA to CASA in support of variation applications and what CASA was paid to do to consider and decide the applications, only a deaf, dumb and blind pinball player in the CASA process could claim ignorance rather than actual knowledge of the details of the structure. (The ICC in effect says that in the 12/04/19 finding you quoted!)
But I suggest you still need to be prepared to provide a crystal clear explanation in response to the ‘pub test’ applied to the statement on APTA’s website that ‘alliance’ ‘members’ would remain in ‘complete control of their business’. It’s obvious to me that ‘CASA’ will focus on the words ‘complete control’ and argue that ‘business’ covers the whole of the activities carried out at the relevant ‘base’, including flying training. ‘CASA’ will argue that this control issue was fundamental and struck CASA with the force of complete novelty, out of the blue just prior to October 2018. Try to formulate some clear, layman-understandable explanation as to the distinction between control over the moving parts that determined compliance with regulatory requirements on the one hand, and what you meant by ‘business’ on the APTA website on the other (assuming of course a distinction was intended and operated in fact).
There’s nothing wrong with that distinction as a matter regulatory principle, if the certificate holder has legal and effective control over the moving parts that determine compliance with regulatory requirements. Except for financial viability potentially putting compliance at risk, how money flowed around and between whom inside the structure was none of CASA’s business. Provided regulatory requirements continue to be complied with, smart or dumb business decisions, who’s making them and profiting or bleeding money from them are irrelevant to CASA’s decision-making. CASA has certified many, many operators who eventually went broke while holding an AOC, and many more continue to line up for certification.
Delete the ‘s from this: “For Mr Aleck to lead the Ombudsman’s …” or add “Office”.
There is a typo and some dangerous words in this: “I then applies to CASA for a variation of my AOC so as to authorise MFT to also conduct flying training at Darwin aerodrome on behalf of AV8 a Freight operator in Darwin.”
“applied” not “applies”
I don’t think APTA was conducting any flying training “on behalf of” anyone other than APTA, at least not under the ‘alliance’ ‘base’ structure. Remember: The fundamental structure was that only one entity was conducting flying training – APTA – not “on behalf of” anyone else – but utilising people who weren’t APTA employees, premises of which APTA was not the owner or lessee and aircraft of which APTA was not owner or registered operator.
And I know it hurts, but the AOC was never yours personally. The AOC was and remains APTA’s. So try to avoid “my AOC”.
I hope I’m wrong, but I expect you’ll be fobbed off by Ms Spence. At the moment, I reckon a number of people in CASA are staring into the middle distance hoping this will go all away when you’re finally driven to despair again.They know you were led down the garden path but, sadly, CASA does not have the corporate integrity and corporate competence to admit it.CASA has ‘form’ in toughing out arguments with powerless individuals and only conceding when there’s a chance of being found out by a court or tribunal.