Request One- Does CASA maintain Mr Alecks original opinion that I was operating in breach of the regulations that CASA used to close my business.
CASA advised me that I was in breach of CASR 141.050, Civil Aviation Act s29, and the Aviation Ruling in October 2018. CASA placed restrictions on my business that prevented me from taking on new customers. This continued for eight months until mid when CASA stood by Mr Alecks opinion and closed my business by forcing all remaining customers, including my own flying school of ten years to discontinue operations.
There were never any safety concerns raised by CASA. There were no identified deficiencies identified by CASA. CASA never requested any changes at all to any of our procedures. It was not a “quality control” matter it was a “legal” matter.
My understanding was that it was those breaches that were used as the basis to close my business down.
I absolutely reject that I was in breach of those regulations. The first stage of the Ombudsman investigation also clearly supports my position and confirmed CASA had erred when the Ombudsman found;
“As of October 2016, no Australian legislation prohibited 'franchising' of an AOC, subject only to the exclusivity of the AOC holder’s operational control, and that remained the case as of 25 March 2020.”
It is fair and reasonable that as the person impacted by this matter that CASA now very clearly state their position.
The response to these questions, only requires a “yes” or a “no.”
1. As of November 2022, does CASA still maintain that there was a breach of CASR 141.050
2. As of November 2022, does CASA still maintain that there was a breach of Civil Aviation Act s29,
3. As of November 2022, does CASA still maintain that I was in breach of the Aviation Ruling.
As the person impacted, I feel a response to that request is fair and reasonable, and most especially as these breaches were the basis for closing my business of more than a decade, which was where I derived my livelihood.
If CASA cannot clearly state that as of November 2022, the CASA position is, that I was in breach of those regulations, then I question the legality and validity of this matter in its entirety.
There is absolutely no reason that CASA should not respond to this request, and my expectation is that CASA will stand behind those allegations of regulatory breaches. It would be concerning if somehow a breach of regulations in October 2018 was a breach, but four years later it is not a breach. If that were the case, and there had been no change to the legislation that would require an explanation.
The response from CASA should be brief. A response of more than one word is not required and is totally unnecessary. I request only a single word response to each of the three alleged breaches. A yes or a no.
This is something that can be promptly attended to, and for clarity of this matter I have a very strong preference for a single word response. A regulatory breach is a relatively black and white issue, the law was either broken or the law was not broken.
You alleged it was broken in October of 2018, can CASA clearly and concisely articulate whether I was in breach of those regulations, or in fact any regulation at all.
I simply want to know what I did wrong, and if I did in fact breach any regulations.
Request Two- Can CASA explain why it did not follow its own procedures when it varied my AOC/Authorisation , and therefore denied me my right to procedural fairness?
CASA breached its obligations to me under Administrative Law.
I say that because CASA completely bypassed its own procedures stipulated in its own Enforcement Manual.
CASA Enforcement Manual.pdf
There are clearly outlined procedures when CASA cancel, vary, or suspend a CASA issued AOC/Authorisation, or shut down a business of ten years as they did with mine.
By placing an “interim approval to operate” on my AOC/Authorisation of as little as 7 days surety of operations, CASA should have followed those procedures stipulated in its own manual when CASA cancel, vary or suspend an AOC/Authorisation.
By ignoring these procedures, I was never provided anything that gave me any right of appeal to Mr Alecks decision making, and the associated trading restrictions that were put in place.
This has resulted in confusion because there is no reference document that identifies what I did wrong. I should have received a Show Cause Notice (SCN) when the trading restrictions were first put in place, and a “Decision” from CASA as the basis for closing the business in mid-2019. Because I was never provided with these, it has facilitated CASA running an alternating narrative.
There is no doubt in my mind at all that the narrative Mr Aleck is providing to the Commonwealth Ombudsman is substantially different to the narrative that CASA provided me.
Despite the passage of time, I feel it is a fair and reasonable request of CASA that as the family who has had their life significantly impacted by the matter, CASA provide us with the “SCN” and the “Decision” that CASA made as the basis of forcing all customers to leave my business, and closing it.
I do have upcoming court matters in the Supreme Court as a defendant, and as I don’t know what I did wrong, provision of this would assist me in those legal proceedings and give me the best opportunity to defend myself.
I am requesting a “SCN” and a “Decision.” as should have been provided to me in accordance with CASAs own procedures in October 2018 (SCN) and mid 2019 when the final decision was made.
There is no valid reason that CASA would not provide me with these documents. I am fully entitled to them and should have been at the time, as part of CASAs obligations under Procedural fairness.
Request Three- Requesting a confirmation that CASA maintains that I was the first and only Operator to adopt this structure
Mr Aleck asserted to the Ombudsman that CASA never permitted the identical structure that I adopted. He led the Ombudsman to believe that my structure was an “industry first”, and I was the sole operator utilising this structure, when in fact I was not.
I maintained that CASA had always, and on every occasion, permitted and formally approved the identical structure that I adopted for multiple other operators, and on regular occasions throughout my 25 years in the industry.
For complete clarity. This structure was industry standard practice and was fully and formally approved by CASA. Mr Aleck and any other CASA Executive that suggest the structure that the exact structure I adopted was never previously approved by CASA is being blatantly deceptive.
After four years of an unnecessarily lengthy Ombudsman investigation, I have obtained the impression that the Ombudsman had accepted the view perpetuated by Mr Aleck to the Ombudsman’s Office. i.e. that the structure was not and had not ever been permitted by CASA.
As evidence that CASA is acting in a false and misleading manner. I put this to you.
CASA has recently approved two Operators at Moorabbin Airport to conduct operations under the one AOC/Authorisation. This is EXACTLY the structure that I adopted.
Not all personnel are directly employed by the AOC/Authorisation Holder. This is the exact structure that I adopted.
CASA has promptly facilitated and approved this Operator to conduct operations in this manner. This Operator is located approximately 100 metres away on the same Airport, from where I was operating the same structure but mine was determined to be illegal.
As this is exactly the same structure that I adopted, I feel that I am entitled to a clear and concise explanation as to why CASA facilitated another operator to operate in the same structure as I did, yet CASA closed my business down. As you are aware, I believe that I was a victim of targeted malice by Mr Aleck. A satisfactory explanation to this would go some way to allaying my concerns that Mr Aleck targeted me personally.
This requires a clear and concise response.
If Ms. Spence can provide a valid explanation as to what is different in the structure of the currently permitted operation at Moorabbin Airport compared to mine that would go some way to “watering down” my allegation that Mr Aleck targeted me. I suggest to you that there are in fact no differences at all, and that you will be unable to address this question.
For clarity, I am asking that you clearly identify the differences between my operation that was closed down, and the most recent operation that CASA has facilitated.
Request Four- CASA should nominate the date that they first became fully aware of the specific nature of my operation.
Mr Alecks position is that CASA only became fully aware of the specific nature of APTAs operations in October 2018, when CASA placed the trading restrictions in place, and that is what he led the Ombudsman to believe.
I know that because the Ombudsman wrote to me on July 21st, 2021, advising that they will
not be investigating my matter because Mr Aleck had provided the Ombudsman’s Office with; “
a reasonable explanation of CASAs view that it was not fully aware of the specific nature of APTA’s operations until just prior to issuing the notice in October 2018.”
As you are aware I have maintained that CASA was fully aware of the specific nature of my operations for at least 8 years prior to the date that Mr Aleck asserts.
My concern stems from the fact that over two years prior on 12th April 2019, CASAs own Industry Complaints Commissioner (ICC) had come to a completely different conclusion to that of Mr Aleck and the line that Mr Aleck peddled to the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman forming their view not on information provided by the CASA ICC but provided by Mr Aleck.
Unfortunately the Ombudsman engages with Mr Aleck as the sole Agency Representative of CASA and not the CASA Industry Complaints Commissioner.
Two years earlier, CASAs own ICC stated, “I don’t consider CASA treated APTA fairly when its approach changed on 23 October 2018. That’s because collectively as an organisation, CASA had an awareness of the APTA business model for a significant period of time prior to its compliance with regulation being called into question. In changing its position so drastically, the circumstances were such that CASA’s actions weren’t fair, given APTA’s likely to have relied on CASA’s failure to highlight any concerns when conducting its operations and planning.
As you will appreciate, I am confused. In mid-2019 the CASA ICC admits that CASA knew of my structure for a significant period of time prior, but two years later, Mr Aleck has convinced the Ombudsman to discontinue the investigation because CASA now somehow didn’t have an awareness of the structure until just prior to October 2018, despite me having operated in that structure for over eight years, and CASAs ICC acknowledging that.
My expectation is that when the CASA Industry Complaints Commissioner came to that determination in April 2019, that would become CASAs official wider position on the matter. It is inexplicable that Mr Aleck would subsequently run an alternating narrative two years later, and one that is so different, unless perhaps he was trying to mislead the Ombudsman and cover up his misconduct.
To remove all confusion and noting that it is a fair and reasonable request, as the family impacted by the closure of our business, I request that the CASA nominate the date that CASA claim that they first became fully aware of the specific nature of my operation.
There must be a specific date that CASA will admit to, and it would be somewhere between eight years prior when they approved the first base through until October 2018, being the date that Mr Aleck claims that CASA first became fully aware of the specific nature of my operation.
Obviously, this query, also only requires a short response, and could be promptly attended to. It is simply a nomination of the date that I am seeking. I am not seeking any further information other than the date that CASA concedes that it “first became fully aware of the specific nature of my operation”. The nature of that operation being the standard structure that CASA had always permitted with other operators and continues to do so today.
As an interesting side note I refer you to the first of the two articles supplied, “APTA before CASA action”. This magazine was released in January 2018. This is 10 months before Mr Aleck claimed to the Ombudsman inquiry that CASA first became fully aware of the specific nature of my operations. If one reads the article, it is plainly obvious as to what the structure of my business is. If CASA hadn’t become aware of my structure during the eight years that I operated in that structure with CASA approval, or during the two year revalidation project where CASA fully revalidated my entire structure culminating in its approval as one of Australia’s first part 141/142 organisations in April of 2017, or at the CASA level one audit of my organisation in November 2017, or when they formally approved new members to join, then surely by early 2018 someone in CASA must have read that article and become aware, even if every single one of CASAs own internal procedures had failed. It is just not feasible that CASA first became fully aware of the structure that I had adopted.
I had invested many hundreds of thousands of dollars investing in systems and procedures to revalidate my entire structure to the new regulatory structure being introduced in September 2017. I worked side by side with ten CASA employees over a two year period during 2015,2016 and 2017. This was the largest project undertaken by CASA to date with a flight training organisation and the hours allocated to the task on CASA records would clearly support that contention, and that is exactly what CASA personnel advised me CASA formally revalidated my exact structure to the new regulations in April 2017. To suggest that CASA was not fully aware of the exact structure of my operation is ludicrous, mischievous, and not credible, as you will be fully aware.
Ex CASA employees heavily involved in the project have offered to provide Statutory Declarations. I hold off on accepting those offers at this stage. In principle, it should be entirely unnecessary because it only requires the CASA CEO to be truthful, which is the opportunity that I am presenting here.
Depending on Ms Garlands success or not in assisting me in obtaining a response to this question, my next step will be to submit two Statutory Declarations from ex CASA Employees who could be considered Subject Matter Experts (SMEs). They will provide a comprehgensive response that clearly identifies the level of false and misleading information regarding Mr Alecks assertion that CASA first became fully aware of the specific nature of my operation only in October 2018.
For clarity, this requires only a very short response, as I am only requesting the date that CASA concedes that “CASA” first became fully aware of the structure that I had adopted.
Whilst it is only the date that I am after, please feel free to indicate the occurrence that made CASA become aware, if you feel that is pertinent, although I emphasise that I am only after the date.
I appreciate that there will be reluctance by CASA to nominate the date, but there must be a date, and it is entirely reasonable that CASA nominate that date and advise me of that date.