Consideration Two- A magazine article about my business 12 months before CASA first became aware.
This magazine article was released at the end of 2017, being the January/ February edition of the Australian Flying Magazine article. This article is an essential read as it leaves the reader in no doubt as to the specific nature of my operation. I was approached by the magazine in mid-2017 requesting to do this article.
In this magazine article each of those respective schools talks of their experience with APTA and why they joined. Those operators interviewed in that article, had already been formally approved by CASA. It is just not feasible for Mr Aleck to assert that CASA was not fully aware of the exact and specific nature of my operation that CASA had formally approved, revalidated, and audited over many years.
It would be fair to say that if the aviation media was fully aware and approached me in mid-2017, it would be highly likely that CASA were aware of the operation that they had approved over a decade earlier, fully revalidated 18 months earlier, audited a year earlier, and approved bases under throughout the last decade.
If somehow CASA was not aware at the time the media were approaching me, most certainly CASA would have fully been aware by early 2018, on release of the article to the general public, being 10 months prior to CASA claiming to the Ombudsman that they first became fully aware of the specific nature of my operations. That being the operations that they had previously formally approved, years earlier. That article can be accessed here.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/1akmm9gxra...CTION.pdf?dl=0
Ms Spence, you will appreciate that as this entire structure was formally revalidated by CASA in April 2017, and the media is writing about it 6 months later, it is more likely than not that CASA was truthfully fully aware of the specific nature of my operation long before the claimed date of October of 2018.
Consideration Three- CASA formally approved multiple bases, years before they have led the Ombudsman to believe CASA first became aware.
Recall that Mr Aleck asserts that CASA first became fully aware of the specific nature of the operations just prior to October 2018.
Under FOI I obtained our application for what was our most recent base to be formally approved by CASA, before CASA reversed their position and declared it unlawful and unauthorised.
These most recent 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 in October 2018. If you review those documents, and particularly the attached risk assessment, it is obvious as to the exact nature of the operation, in fact the risk assessment deals exactly with the considerations of incorporating another entity to operate under our AOC.
This Freedom of Information request cost over $300, so I have made a request for the most recent base only. I will invest further money in other applications if this single application alone is not enough to bring honesty and integrity to the process, and I will go as far back as the AV8 base over 6 years prior if that becomes necessary.
There can be no doubt that CASA was fully aware of the specific nature of our operation, at least twelve months earlier than CASA would lead the Ombudsman’s office to believe, and highly likely, as I claim that CASA was fully aware for many years.
Accesses via this link is the application for these bases, and risk assessment.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/4frisc0ufd...ACTED.PDF?dl=0
https://www.dropbox.com/s/nqgytj8xjr...ACTED.PDF?dl=0
Consider that multiple applications of bases were made to CASA over many years, and approved by CASA over many years. This was the last base approved by CASA and then reversed by CASA in October 2018.
As you will appreciate Ms Spence it is not truthful that CASA first became fully aware of the specific nature of my operation in October 2018.
Consideration Four- If CASA first became aware just prior to October 2018, how could they have been formally approving bases many years earlier.
CASA formally approved our first remote base at Darwin via the AV8 business in Darwin over 6 years before CASA claims that they first became fully aware “
just prior to October 2018”.
There were no changes to the “structure” from that first base six years prior, to the last base that CASA approved in mid-2018, when CASA suddenly first became fully aware, and they declared that it was now unlawful.
Therefore, I absolutely maintain the position that CASA was fully aware of the specific nature of my operation for at least 6 years, and that it was in fact common CASA approved practice throughout the industry.
If there is any difference at all to how I operated, then CASA must be able to identify what that difference was that led them to first become fully aware of the structure in October 2018, and does CASA really maintain that they weren’t fully aware for many years.?
Consideration Five- CASA was fully aware of the exact nature of the structure when I was doing the planning and preparation to continue what I was doing in the new regulatory structure.
I have attached Emails with CASA in mid-2016, clearly discussing the expansion of the concept. That correspondence alone should have made CASA first become fully ware, if they hadn’t already become fully aware. This is over two years before Mr Aleck/CASA claim that CASA “first became fully aware of the specific nature”.
I have spoken to several of the CASA employees that were heavily involved in this project, both past and present, they will provide statutory declarations to support that contention that CASA was fully aware of the specific nature of my operation for many years. It should not be necessary to involve them in this matter, but I will do if your response compels me to obtain further evidence, of which there is an overwhelming amount as you will be aware.
Those past and present CASA employees were heavily involved in the design and approval of the specific structure. They each have a comprehensive recollection and are prepared simply to tell the truth. I am advised by one past CASA employee that, “I
still retain extraneous note taking of the process’s in the lead up to the CASA issued revalidation of APTA in April 2017, 18 months prior to CASA reversing the approval and claiming “CASA” was not fully aware of the specific nature until just prior to October 2018.
That email correspondence from mid 2016 can be accessed here;
https://www.dropbox.com/s/e2kcuci2ik...0awre.pdf?dl=0
Consideration Six – CASA was fully involved in the design and approval of APTA, it is not feasible that CASA only first became aware of the specific nature of the operation in October 2018.
After the discussion and encouragement from CASA as a result of those discussions in mid-2016, two and a half years before Mr Aleck claims CASA first became fully aware, I invested many hundreds of thousands of dollars in systems and procedures, IT, and personnel and I worked side by side with 10 CASA personnel redesigning every single aspect of everything we did to be ready for the new regulatory environment, with a vastly improved product with industry leading levels of operational control. CASA formally revalidated this exact structure designed from the ground up to do exactly what it did in April 2017, being 18 months before Mr Aleck claims to the Ombudsman that CASA first became aware.
It would be fair to say that it would have been one of the largest projects that CASA had undertaken with any flying school to date.
The checklist that CASA used to revalidate the entire business was obtained under FOI and is attached. This checklist generated a suite of Operations Manuals referred to as an Exposition. That document entails several thousand pages of policies, and procedures, responsibilities, accountabilities etc. The checklist that CASA used to revalidate the structure in April 2017. It is worth reviewing because it is exhaustive and clearly indicates that CASA was fully aware of the specific nature of my operation years before CASA would have the Ombudsman believe.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/xy5etr9253...SHEET.pdf?dl=0
CASA revalidated this exact structure in April 2017, being 18 months before CASA claim that they first became fully aware. It is ludicrous to suggest that CASA were not fully aware, they just revalidated us in that multi base structure, as one of Australia’s first Part 141/142 organisations 18 months prior, and subsequently formally approved bases under that exact structure.
Consideration Seven- Only Mr Aleck and/or the CASA CEO maintain that CASA first became fully aware in October 2018.
After CASA revalidated the structure in April 2017, they returned six months later for a routine Level One audit over a one-week period. A Level One audit being the highest-level audit that CASA conduct.
This is a year before CASA supposedly first became aware of the specific nature of my operation, and it included visits to the base’s that CASA had previously approved, but according to Mr Aleck, were unaware of, despite CASA employees having been on site at those bases on multiple occasions.
To suggest that the CASA team audited different flying schools at different bases and weren’t aware of the exact structure is surely embarrassingly ludicrous. The systems and procedures, syllabi, etc would have been identical at each of those schools. They dealt with my team of Key personnel at each of the bases because there was no other team of Key personnel. Everything would have been branded “APTA” and the syllabus of training would have been identical, and the same instructors were probably moving freely through each of those bases at the same time as the CASA employees were there.
I must make it clear that I have spoken to those past and present CASA employees, they were themselves fully aware as CASA employees, many years before Mr Aleck claims CASA first became aware. The deficiency in Mr Aleck first becoming fully aware, is a deficiency within CASA, and the proposition that CASA only first became fully aware in October 2018 is simply not truthful.
That deficiency should have been the “trigger” for CASA or Mr Aleck perhaps to act with good intent.
If Mr Aleck, in his role, only became fully aware in October 2018, many years after the rest of CASA became fully aware, and was now going to declare the entire business of a decade unlawful, he should have recognised that CASA had erred, and adopted a conciliatory approach. He chose not to, and that is why this entire matter resulted in so much harm, and continues on four years later.
Consideration Eight- A CASA reversal of its position
In the CASA Office on 20/12/18, two months after CASA restrictions were applied, Mr Peter White the Executive Manager of Regulatory Services and Surveillance at the time, advised both me and my father that in fact CASA had been fully aware of APTA and that they would not adopt a stance of refuting that knowledge. Initially I recall being relieved but immediately afterward he went on to advise “his Senior” had advised it was still illegal and needed to be disbanded. Both my father and I are prepared to provide a Statutory Declaration to that effect. The current stance of CASA claiming that they were not aware of APTA is in direct contradiction to the commitment given to me by Mr Peter White at that meeting, and a complete reversal by CASA as to when CASA first became fully aware of the specific nature of my operation.
Consideration Nine- The second most senior CASA Executive knew almost two years prior.
On 18th January 2017, I met with the second most senior executive at CASA at the time, Mr Graeme Crawford the Executive manager of the Aviation Group in the Canberra Head office.
This being almost 2 years before Mr Aleck claims that CASA “first became fully aware of the specific nature of my operation”. There was no doubt from that meeting almost two years prior that the second most senior executive at CASA was fully aware of the specific nature of my operation. Some of the emails relating to that meeting are attached.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/7vavbhith3...mails.pdf?dl=0
Ms, Spence, I could go on and on and on, but there is enough information here, and you have enough historical knowledge to know that CASAs position is untenable. CASA obviously was fully aware of the specific nature of my operation for at least six years when the first base was approved in Darwin, by CASA
If there is any doubt in your mind, I have previously provided you with the name of a current employee of CASA.
I have spoken to him, and I am fully satisfied that he will be truthful on this matter. He was my CASA allocated primary contact for almost a decade and was heavily involved in every aspect of my business throughout the entire decade, including the project of many years whereby I worked with CASA personnel to gain revalidation in April 2017.
You have easy access to the truth if the above considerations leave you in any doubt.
So why do I believe that Mr Aleck would provide false and misleading information to the Ombudsman
Phase One of the Commonwealth Ombudsman investigation found that CASA had erred, and in fact I had not broken any regultory requirements, and as a result of that failure by CASA “detriment may have been caused”.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/7vavbhith3...mails.pdf?dl=0
What should have happened on release of that finding that CASA had erred, was a well-intentioned discussion between CASA and myself, and the written record clearly shows that is what I tried to achieve. At least some internal review procedure within CASA should have been initiated.
Sadly, what happened was a determined effort of bullying and intimidating and what can only be described as an attempt to crush me financially, emotionally, and physically. An inexcusable amount of public resources have been directed away from safety towards achieving that objective, and it has been largely successful
Understandably once the Ombudsman’s report was released, CASA was then placed in a difficult situation. There is no doubt after the release of the Ombudsman’s report that Mr Alecks decision now had no basis in either safety or law, and it may have caused detriment.
Once Mr Aleck realised that he had erred and had no valid basis to take the action that he had, It would be expected that CASA may try to position themselves as “not being fully aware of the specific nature of my operation until just prior to October 2018.”, when that is very clearly, very far from an accurate representation of the truth.
Consider how much more likely it is that CASA would adopt this position, if the single CASA employee responsible for providing information to the Ombudsman is the very same person that made the decision that the business was unlawful in the first instance. There would be an increased tendency to provide disinformation, and that is why your role in this is so important as the CEO , to clearly identify if it is CASAs position or the position of Mr Aleck only that CASA only first became fully aware of the specific nature of my operation.
There is an overwhelming body of irrefutable evidence to support how preposterous Mr Alecks and/or your position on this matter as to when CASA first became fully aware of the specific nature of my operations.
The purpose of this correspondence is to seek a formal response from your office clearly indicating if “CASA” maintain that they only
first became fully aware of the specific nature of my operations just prior to October 2018, when they issued the notification and put trading restrictions in place.
The truth of this matter is that CASA was fully aware of the exact and specific nature of my operations throughout more than a decade that I operated, and CASA formally approved multiple bases to operate under my Authorization for many years.
What has really happened here is that Mr Aleck in his role was not fully aware, and the deficiency is entirely within CASA. It is not fair and reasonable that I can operate a business for a decade, and eventually when Mr Aleck does become fully aware, he reverses that approval of a decade, closes the business down.
The point being that “CASA” knew for many many years. Mr Aleck only found out just prior to October 2018. The fact that Mr Aleck personally was not aware for many years clearly substantiates industry concerns about the Civil Aviation Safety Authority.
The deficiency is clearly within CASA, and it is extremely concerning that it was his own department that approved each of those bases over many years, and in fact his own Department then fully revalidated the entire operation in that exact structure in April 2017, being 18 months before Mr Aleck claims that “CASA” first became fully aware.
Ms Spence, to demonstrate how ludicrous the “CASA” position is.
Consider that four schools all operated at the same airport, being Moorabbin Airport. Those schools were MFT, LTF, AVIA, and ARC aviation. The only school that had ever submitted an Operations Manual/Exposition to CASA was MFT. The only CASA approved Key Personnel were MFTs Key personnel.
CASA would have someone believe that CASA personnel who would visit the airport on an almost daily basis did not notice those three schools operating with no CASA approval or knowledge. If they did pop their head in and want to talk to the Key personnel, there were none. CASA had never approved any Key personnel for these other three schools. It truly is preposterous.
Its important to emphasise that your own CASA employees, past and present are not trying to portray that highly unrealistic scenario with the exception of course, of Mr Aleck, and depending on your response, “CASA”
In my position that I operate within it was not required or expected that I would have any dealings at all with Mr Aleck. It was not my job to let Mr Aleck know everything about my flying school. It was my job to ensure that CASA is provided with all of the information, as stipulated by CASA, in order for Mr Aleck to be able to find out the specific nature of my operation. I have a reasonable expectation that if I do something on multiple occasions over many years with formal CASA approval that CASA “knows” about it, as they obviously and truthfully did.
On each and every one of those applications to add an entity under our Air Operator Certificate, over the decade that I operated, a fee was paid to CASA. It was a fee for service, requiring CASA personnel attendance on site at each of those proposed bases. CASA also conducted a desk top assessment. In addition, consider that in the entire lead up to this process would have been discussed extensively with the CASA team attached to my Organisation referred to at the time as a CMT or Certificate Management Team. Significant accompanying documentation accompanied each of those applications would have been submitted to CASA. One example is found earlier in this correspondence.
The CASA personnel that I was dealing with, were each highly experienced in the flight training background, and had many years’ experiences within CASA. They had been professional, well intentioned, and we had a relationship of trust and confidence. I had the same CASA team allocated to my business for over 10 years. I spoke to them and met with them at least weekly throughout those 10 years. To suggest that I ran this operation without them being fully aware of the specific nature of my operation until just prior to October 2018 is absurd, as you will appreciate.
There would be absolutely no reason that I would not be fully upfront with CASA. It is not realistic that I would not have fully communicated the exact nature of my operation, as I was dependant on CASA for those approvals.
CASA knew about my structure as soon as CASA considered my first application for a variation to my Air Operator Certificate over 6 years prior. That was the application for a variation to my AOC to authorise operations at our first alliance base, being AV8 in Darwin.
CASA gets to know stuff as a consequence of experience, and that is through that frequent and formal communication with the team of CASA personnel allocated to my organisation, as well as extensive application, review, auditing and approval processes.
CASA gets to ‘know’ stuff as a consequence of what its human officers find out in their capacity as officers of CASA. And it is not necessary for every officer of CASA to know something before CASA, in law, knows that thing. That would be absurd. In law, the artificial person CASA can ‘know’ something after merely one officer of CASA becomes aware of that thing in their capacity as a CASA officer.
So when e.g. a CASA FOI receives an application from an AOC holder for e.g. a variation to an AOC, in law CASA ‘knows’ the application has been made and CASA has ‘received’ the application. The officers in ‘Head Office’ can claim, reasonably and truly, that they did not know that the application had been submitted, but that makes no difference to CASA’s obligations and my rights in the circumstances.
Furthermore, CASA can in law ‘know’ something even if not a single one of its officers is aware of that thing. One of those ways of ‘knowing’ is called “constructive knowledge”, which is stuff CASA ought to know in the circumstances.
Let’s now consider my application to add our second base. My own base Melbourne Flight Training (MFT) had been operating for many years and which holds a flying training AOC issued by CASA and conducts flying training under the authority of that AOC at Moorabbin Airport. I then applied to CASA for a variation of the AOC so as to authorise MFT to also conduct flying training at Darwin aerodrome at the AV8 base, a freight operator in Darwin. We utilised AV8 buildings, aircraft, facilities, and employees as we were fully approved to do by CASA.
What is the very purpose of the regulatory requirement for this application and variation process? The very purpose?
Its purpose is for CASA to find out whether MFT satisfies the criteria in section 28 of the Civil Aviation Act and other regulatory provisions in relation to the conduct of flying training at both Moorabbin and Darwin. And that task, of its very essence, requires CASA to, among other things, find out whether MFT has effective control over the people and the premises and the aircraft whom and which will be used to deliver flying training at the proposed Darwin location.
The only way in which CASA can find out whether MFT has effective control over the people and the premises, and the aircraft is to find out who employs the people, who controls the premises and who is the registered operator of the aircraft. Even if no CASA officer finds those things out – for whatever reason, including that every CASA officer has no clue as to the implications of those things – CASA ought to know them because they are at the essence of CASA’s regulatory task in the circumstances.
In short, on every occasion that I applied for a variation to the AOC so as to cover an additional ‘alliance’ ‘base’, CASA ought to have found out, as they did, who employed the people, who controlled the premises and who was the registered operator of the aircraft whom and which would be engaged in flying training activities at the base. On every occasion. And CASA ought to have understood any potential implications.
Irrespective of what individual CASA officers understood or assumed and when, CASA was at least on constructive notice of the structure and its implications from a regulatory perspective from additional ‘alliance’ ‘base’ one. It was CASA’s job to find those things out, as it did It was the very purpose of the variation application process.
I look forward to your response confirming that CASA first became fully aware of the specific nature of the structure I had adopted just prior to October 2018, as CASA has led the Ombudsman to believe.
May I respectfully request that you personally respond and clearly identify when CASA first became fully aware of the specific nature of my operation. It is reasonable that CASA nominate that date. There must have been something that acted as the trigger for CASA to become fully aware. It is a reasonable request, and something that should be available to me. That is, I should be privy as to the same information that you are providing to the Ombudsman. If CASA is acting truthfully, there would be no reason that you would not provide that date to me.
I have also attached a copy of correspondence sent through to the CASA Industry Complaints Commissioner. At this stage he has not initiated the investigation, as I am awaiting a response from my new Local MP for Chisholm, Ms Carina Garland whose support and assistance I will be seeking.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/sl0y2c1810...2022.docx?dl=0
My hope is that ethics and integrity will be bought to this process, and you will act in accordance with obligations placed on you.
Whilst my hope is that ethics and integrity will prevail, I would also draw your attention to obligations placed on you. These include the Legal Services Direction 2017, and I draw your attention to the document in its entirety but most particularly the following obligation on CASA of ; “not requiring the other party to prove a matter which the Commonwealth or the agency knows to be true” Legal Services Directions 2017 (legislation.gov.au)
Also, I encourage you to consider the obligations placed on you by CASAs Regulatory Philosophy in your response. Our regulatory philosophy | Civil Aviation Safety Authority (casa.gov.au)
I appreciate that CASA may contend that there is no litigation in progress at this stage, and therefore the LSD directions do not apply. That technicality should not absolve CASA from the responsibility to be truthful and act in accordance with those obligations. It should not only become an obligation on CASA once I initiate litigation. Those principles, and most especially; “not requiring the other party to prove a matter which the Commonwealth or the agency knows to be true” Legal Services Directions 2017 (legislation.gov.au)
Respectfully
Glen Buckley