CASA’s participants at the meeting were myself and Dr Aleck. Dr Aleck attended given his greater familiarity with what material existed in relation to the exchanges between CASA and APTA in early 2019 in relation how APTA’s contracts with its affiliates could demonstrate operational control.
If I understand the ombudsmans position correctly, what that means is that the Ombudsman accepts CASA's argument that it is allowed. if not commanded, to make very, very fine distinctions between pilots and operators situations, unwritten distinctions, when applying the law and associated regulations. This making of fine distinctions in regulating anyone, is the very essence of corrupt behaviour because the process is highly subjective as it occurs in the brain of a regulator and is therefore not subject to logical, rational analysis for example comparisons with simple objective criteria.
To explain that last point, if the subject of "operational control" was central to the issue of an AOC, then straight forward written, legislated requirements would have to exist for what constitutes "operational control" that Glen Buckley could have complied with in a heartbeat. According to him, he pleaded with CASA for such direction but was fobbed off on each occasion. In effect he was sent off by CASA each time to search for a Unicorn or a perfect Shiraz, while CASA sat back in their overstuffed armchairs pontificating upon his efforts while idly watching the clock to see how long his business would last with no cashflow.
For the avoidance of doubt, If the regulator was genuine, this matter would have been fixed by the usual Australian device of : "This is how you do it mate, now write it up that way so I can sign it off and get rid of you!". Instead , Glen Buckley got the death of a thousand cuts.
I say again; by this action, the Ombusdman is giving permission to all bureaucrats to make highly subjective decisions that are normally only the province of judges and juries. This is utterly corrupt because what it means is that it is ultimately legal in the ombudsmans eyes for a bureaucrat to distinguish between for example, Avmed medical decisions, AOC applications or investigation outcomes as if they are distinguishing between two fine Shiraz wines instead of applying bjective criteria.
If this stands, then CASA and its regulations are corrupt in the full sense of the word in that it can do anything it likes on a whim. There is thus no way that potential investors in Australian aviation can manage regulatory risk and they will act accordingly.