Second Allegation to the Minister 1 of 2
Please note this is in drafty form. very close to finished, but I wanted to get it up here today. Im off air from now to midnight. keen on feedback.
Cheers. GlenTo the Minister responsible for the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA), the Honourable Ms. Catherine King MP.
I have included other recipients in this correspondence including the Honourable Ms. Carina Garland as my local MP, and who is assisting me and my family with this matter
I fully understand that I could be subject to prosecution if I was found to be raising these claims in a vindictive or vexatious manner.
The allegation against CASA Employees- Ms Spence and Mr Aleck
My name is Glen Buckley. Please accept the second of the five allegations, regarding the provision of false and misleading information to a Commonwealth Ombudsman investigation by two members of the senior management of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA). Those employees are:
1. Mr Jonathan Aleck, CASA Executive Manager of Legal, International and Regulatory Affairs who has provided false and misleading information to a Commonwealth Ombudsman’s Office investigation on five occasions. These are not errors or omissions; these are considered and deliberate decisions. The false and misleading information has been provided to the Ombudsman investigation to pervert the findings of that investigation and presumably cover up Mr Alecks own misconduct/misfeasance.
2. Ms Pip Spence CEO of CASA who has facilitated the provision of that false and misleading information to a Commonwealth Ombudsman Office investigation on each of those five occasions, and I am fully satisfied that she is complicit in this matter. Ms. Spence, perhaps more than any other person in Australia has ready access to the truth. Some time ago, I provided her with the contact details of a current long serving CASA employee, who would be the Subject Matter Expert within CASA on this matter, and who offered to tell the truth if asked.
Assuming that Ms Spence availed herself of that opportunity, as would be reasonably expected of her, then she is also fully aware of the truth, has been for a significant period of time.
If the Ministers Office would like me to provide the contact details of the current CASA Employee, please advise me, and I will promptly facilitate that request, alternatively Ms Spence could also promptly provide that employees details.
The Ministers Office could establish direct contact with that Employee, promptly ascertain the truth, and act accordingly. The extent of the deceptive conduct/misfeasance will be promptly identified if the Ministers Office chooses this option.
Whilst making these allegations against Ms. Spence, I acknowledge that she is relatively new to the role having come from a completely different Government Department and could not reasonably be expected to have a comprehensive understanding of the flight training sector of the industry.
Ms Spence however is a Subject Matter Expert on Government Department operations, ethics, integrity, CASAs Regulatory Philosophy, community expectations, administrative procedures, governance etc. commensurate with her senior position within the Public Service. By choosing to mislead and frustrate fair processes she prolongs the harm caused to me and my family, and in my opinion is therefore complicit.
The false and misleading information has been provided on five occasions, on five different matters, and each is substantive in nature.
In this correspondence I will attend to the second of the five allegations only. I will send you the additional three allegations, as soon as is practical.
I apologize that there will be at least five pieces of correspondence, each raising a separate allegation. As I explained previously, I have adopted this approach for two reasons.
1. The first being that the impact of this matter has had a substantial impact on my health, and now my wife’s. A lengthier single piece of correspondence covering five or more allegations is not something that I am able to attend to at the moment.
2. Secondly, it should not be necessary. If you are able to promptly clarify this second allegation in conjunction with the first allegation sent to your office on 09/12/22, I feel you will be compelled to act. In your decision making I ask you to also consider the lawfulness or not of this entire matter, and that was attended to, in brief, in the correspondence that I sent to you on 29/12/22.
I feel you will be compelled to act, and most especially because of the seniority of each of their respective positions, and the responsibility of the Department that they lead, i.e., the Nations aviation safety regulator, CASA. No doubt you will also need to consider any potential impact on the safety of aviation if they were to remain in their respective roles, and my substantive allegations were later to be found true. i.e. misconduct/misfeasance.
These are not vindictive or vexatious allegations that I make, these are genuine concerns about the ethics and integrity of senior executives within CASA that has the potential to impact individuals, business and perhaps most importantly, the safety of aviation, as it has already done.
Summary of the first of five allegations, sent to your Office on 09/12/22
You will recall that the first allegation sent to your Office on 09/12/22 related to whether Mr Aleck had misled the Ombudsman’s office as to whether or not CASA had always, and on every occasion permitted and formally approved the exact same structure that I had adopted for over 8 years.
Mr Aleck initially asserted to the Ombudsman that CASA had NEVER permitted this identical structure that I had adopted for over eight years.
During the investigation, Mr Alecks deceptiveness became apparent. My understanding is that Mr Alecks representations to the Ombudsman may have adjusted from one of, ‘CASA never permitted this structure” to “On very rare occasions CASA may have permitted something similar to the structure that Glen adopted”. This representation is still very far from the truth, and I cannot emphasise how very far from the truth.
I had truthfully asserted by drawing on my 25 years’ experience in the flight training industry, that CASA had always and, on every occasion, permitted and formally approved the identical structure that I had adopted, and in fact CASA continues to approve that identical structure. I provided you with an example of the most recent approval to another operator at Moorabbin. This clearly demonstrates the level of deception perpetrated by the two named individuals to the Ombudsman investigation.
Quite clearly the named CASA Executives have misled the Ombudsman. If the Ombudsman is of the opinion that I was doing something unique, something that had not been done before, something not conventional, something not CASA approved, then the Ombudsman has clearly been misled, and substantially so.
The very clear and easily proven truth is that the identical structure that I had adopted was standard industry practice and was adopted on multiple occasions by multiple operators throughout my 25 years in the industry. On every occasion with full CASA knowledge and approval, as it was in my case.
The level of deception being perpetrated can easily be proven because quite simply, on every one of those occasions the additional base could not commence operations until CASA had done an onsite assessment and formally approved the base to commence operations. An extremely comprehensive process with CASA processing those applications prior to approval. On occasion those approvals could take up to 10 months for CASA to issue. For Mr Aleck to assert that CASA first became aware of the specific nature of my operation, only after 8 years, and having formally issued multiple base approvals throughout that period, would be laughable, had it not caused so much unnecessary harm and trauma.
The reality is that Mr Alecks conduct is more akin to “criminal” than “laughable.” I say that because he was not compelled to make any of the decisions that he made, and he was not compelled to take any of the actions that he did. He had no supporting safety case, there was no breach of any regulations. His conduct cannot be justified.
The level of deception being perpetrated is staggering, and I can think of no other appropriate word. It is blatant. It is deliberate, and it can only be intended to pervert the outcome of the Ombudsman investigation.
If the Ministers Office was to approach any CASA Flight Operations Inspector (FOI) of more than 10 years’ experience, and ask them, I have no doubt at all that this matter would be instantly resolved and the truth revealed, that in fact I was not the first, I was one of many, and the truth is that it was, and continues to be, completely standard industry practice with full CASA approval, with the most recent approval being issued to another operator at Moorabbin over the last few weeks.
The point being that CASA, or rather Mr Aleck specifically, had led the Ombudsman Office to believe that I was doing something different and unique, when in fact what I was doing was completely standard industry practice, and continues to be so today. Importantly. This issue is black or white, there is no grey area, the truth can be promptly ascertained.
Either CASA never permitted the identical structure that I adopted as Ms Spence and Mr Aleck falsely assert, or CASA always and on every occasion regularly approved the identical structure that I utilised, and continues to do so as of today, as I assert, and as will any of the CASA Flight Operations Inspectors with expertise and experience in the Flight Training Sector.
It is critical to ascertain this core matter. If it had never been done before as Mr Aleck and Ms Spence assert, then obviously my claim that I was a victim of targeted malice would have little basis.
If it can be truthfully established that this was in fact standard industry practice, throughout my 25 years in the industry, was commonplace, and always fully approved by CASA amongst many operators, and I was the only Operator shut down, then my claim that I was the victim of targeted malice by Mr Aleck, covered up by Ms. Spence would be more likely to have a valid basis.
For that reason, it is essential that the Minister obtains a very clear determination on this from the CASA Board, or whoever you deem appropriate, and who is also prepared to be accountable for providing you with that information.
It is essential that you ascertain whether CASA always permitted the identical structure, or CASA never permitted the identical structure. The response from CASA to the Minister could be promptly attended to, as it requires only a very short response, and CASA has ready access to that information.
Regarding this correspondence may I respectfully request an acknowledgement of receipt.
Second submission to your Office regarding the lawfulness or not of Mr Alecks decision making.
The second piece of correspondence sent to your office on 29/12/22 was not an allegation of providing false and misleading information but attended to the lawfulness or not of CASAs actions. As you are aware, I allege that Mr Aleck abused his significant power to bring harm to me, my family, and my business, as he quite clearly has done, and he had no lawful basis to do so. You will recall that the Ombudsman had found that there was no regulatory breach, CASA had erred, and detriment could have been caused, as it most clearly has.
The purpose of this correspondence- The Second Allegation of providing false and misleading information to a Commonwealth Ombudsman investigation.
Please accept this as the third piece of correspondence sent to your office on my matter, noting it is the second of the five, allegations of CASA Executives, specifically Ms Spence and Mr Aleck providing, or being complicit in, providing false and misleading information to the Ombudsman’s investigation
This second allegation relates to the specific date, that CASA first became fully aware of the structure that I had adopted.
Mr Aleck, and Ms Spence falsely and absurdly assert that CASA first became fully aware of the specific nature of my operation only in October of 2018, at which time Mr Aleck, without drawing on any external legal advice, and applying his opinion only, determined that my business of more than a decade was now operating unlawfully, and he acted promptly to close it down as soon as CASA became aware.
The truth is that CASA was fully aware of my structure for at least 8 years, and later in this correspondence I will introduce you to an Expert Witness, who has offered to come forward and tell the truth. I believe that his testimony alone will expose the misconduct/misfeasance of Mr Aleck, and call Ms Spences governance of this matter into question.
If this correspondence alone does not compel you to act, I have no doubt you will be compelled to act upon receipt of the Witness Statement. I anticipate you receiving that Witness Statement approximately 7 days prior to the submission of my third allegation, being my next allegation.
Of the almost 1000 CASA Employees within CASA, this witness, a senior ex CASA employee, during his period within CASA was inextricably involved with APTA from inception, through to design, peer review, and formal approval of APTA. He is without any doubt at all the single most qualified person to address this topic, and bring truthfulness to this entire matter.
That being whether or not Mr Aleck is being highly deceptive by representing to CASA that CASA first became fully aware of the exact structure of my business only in October of 2018.
For Ms Spence and Mr Aleck to assert that CASA first became aware of the specific nature of my organisation in October 2018, after I had operated for more than 8 years utilising that structure is truly absurd. It is so far removed from the truth that it can only indicate bad intent. For complete clarity. It is a blatant lie.
I have dealt with this extensively in other correspondence, so will attend to it only briefly here. There is an overwhelming body of evidence to support my contention that CASA was fully aware of my structure for many years prior, here I list only 10 dot points, of which there are literally hundreds.
This limited sampling will raise concerns as to the truthfulness or not of Mr Alecks and Ms Spences assertions that CASA first became fully aware of my structure in October 2018. Any remaining doubt will be completely dispelled once you receive correspondence from the expert witness.
1. CASA first formally approved me to adopt that identical structure over 8 years prior. This was an extensive and formal process. CASA will hold records. I refer you to ask CASA about our first base “AV8” in Darwin and the date that that was first approved, adopting the identical structure that I was using in October 2018.
2. CASA revalidated a significantly upgraded system in April 2017, (one and a half years before CASA supposedly first found out). The leadup to this CASA revalidation in April 2017 required an investment by me, of several hundred thousand dollars, as I worked literally across a desk from 10 CASA employees over a two-year period. I can provide the Ministers Office with the contact details of two current CASA employees who were involved in the APTA project 2 years before Ms Spence and Mr Aleck would have the Ombudsman believe. This process over 2 years was to specifically design with CASA a Single Authorisation, multi base, multi entity model, exactly as we did, and that is what makes this matter so absurd and leaves me with no doubt that the reversal of CASA approval of my business was personal, and vindictive.
3. CASA audited my operation in November 2017. This was the scheduled Level One audit that was standard operating procedure and conducted routinely 6 months after the revalidation in April. This involved a team of CASA personnel onsite over a one-week period, including visits to each of our CASA approved bases. To seriously suggest that this audit occurred in November of 2017, and nobody from CASA was aware of the structure, or didn’t become aware of the structure for almost another year is just not at all plausible. Not at all. This single point alone with no other evidence at all is indicative of the level of deceit, hence my allegation of misfeasance in public office.
4. CASA formally approved bases under it and spent up to ten months considering and issuing those approvals. It was an extensive regulatory process, and CASA issued those approvals on multiple occasions, over may years, after lengthy well considered processes, that fees were paid for. This occurred on multiple occasions over many years before Mr Aleck falsely claims that CASA first became aware.
5. CASA personnel directed struggling schools to APTA 18 months before CASA supposedly first found out about my structure. Case in point are both the Ballarat Aero Club (within your own electorate) and the Latrobe Valley Aero Club. Quite simply, you could approach the Ballarat Aero Club, and ask them if they thought CASA was aware. I am very confident you will find that CASA actually directed them toward APTA. How could it possibly be that CASA employees were directing struggling schools to APTA in early 2017, shortly after CASA had approved the structure, yet somehow “CASA” weren’t fully aware of the structure, if Mr Aleck is to be believed, for another 18 months.
6. The Media were doing stories on the revalidation and expansion of APTA 18 months before CASA first supposedly found out. Another single point that must raise concerns about the truthfulness or not of any representations that CASA first became fully aware as late as October 2018, when Mr Aleck acted promptly to close the business.
7. I met at least weekly with CASA personnel throughout the 8 years leading up to when CASA first supposedly found out about it, in October 2018, the topic of those meetings was based around exactly what we were doing.
CASA utilised a team of specialists referred to as a “Certificate Management Team” or CMT. Within that team was a CASA specialist on Flying School Operations, a specialist on Safety, and a specialist on Maintenance and Airworthiness. Each CASA Team, and in my case CMT2, had responsibility for a group of I estimate to be 20 flying schools. These Teams were the first contact with CASA. Throughout the decade that I operated my business I was in daily communication via telephone, email, face to face meetings, audits, safety meetings etc etc. with my CASA team.
The very point of the CMT was that they needed to “know what was going on”, as they very clearly did. For Mr Aleck to suggest that I maintained an eight-year professional relationship with my same CMT, and that they were not fully aware of the structure that I had adopted throughout eight of the 10 years of operating is just not plausible. That single point alone must raise serious doubts as to the assertions made by Ms Spence and Mr Aleck.
8. I invested many hundreds of thousands of dollars investing in upgrading and revalidating all systems and procedures and personnel throughout 2015, 2016, and early 2017 as I worked literally across a desk with 10 CASA personnel, and my CMT attending to 600 CASA specified criteria, and in conjunction with my management team and technical writer submitted thousands of pages of associated documentation throughout that period. There is no reason that I would invest hundreds of thousands of dollars in my business and not be open with CASA. It makes no sense at all. That single issue alone must raise concerns as to the truthfulness of representations made to the Ombudsman Office.
9. I have irrefutable evidence and confirmation from CASA that they received my proposed contracts two years before they claim they first became aware of my structure. The ONLY reason I would even have a contract was if I was operating in the structure that I was operating in. Providing CASA with those contracts 2 years prior would have alerted CASA to the structure that I was adopting.
10. CASA personnel, past and present have offered to tell the truth on the matter, although the Ombudsman is unable to access those personnel as the Ombudsman is restricted to communications with the Agency Representative only, being Mr Aleck. The Ministers office will be able to access these personnel, that the Ombudsman cannot. I can provide you with names and contact details provided they are afforded appropriate protections regarding ongoing employment within CASA.
I could go on and on and on, I really could. By now it should be unnecessary.
I am fully satisfied Mr Aleck has provided, and Ms Spence has facilitated, the provision of false and misleading information to the Ombudsman investigation regarding the date that CASA first became fully aware of the specific nature of my operation. The following timeline clearly demonstrates the level of deception being propagated by Ms. Spence and Mr. Aleck, and must raise serious concerns at Ministerial level.
On the 12th April 2019, CASAs own Industry Complaints Commissioner (ICC) made the following finding.
“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 the 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.
Importantly, on the 12th of April 2019 the CASA ICC has now identified that CASA was aware for a “significant period of time prior” to the 23rd of October of 2018 when Mr Aleck wrongfully declared my business unlawful.
I must draw attention to the integrity of the CASA ICC, Mr Hanton in making that finding. It is a very significant finding and speaks very much to his integrity and independence. Something that Mr Hanton, personally is acknowledged for throughout the industry, despite the structural challenges of his position.