Previous post continuyed
My position has always been that CASA was fully aware of the exact nature of my business model since they approved my first satellite base in Darwin, and had literally hundreds, if not thousands of opportunities to become fully aware through the following eight years that I built my business with full and formal CASA approval.
It is important to reiterate that Mr Aleck, CASAs Executive Manager for Legal, International and Regulatory Affairs was the sole decision maker in my matter, he is the single person that closed down my business. He did not consult with anyone, including the CASA Board. He acted alone, and his decision making was not subjected to any scrutiny or any independent external legal advice. I had no right of review or appeal. Ms Spence will be fully aware of that and be in a position to promptly confirm or deny that directly with the Ministers Office.
Unfortunately for me, Mr Aleck is also the “Agency Representative” for CASA. He is the sole individual that communicates on behalf of CASA with any Ombudsman investigation. The Ombudsman communicates only with Mr Aleck. Mr Aleck manages the flow of information/disinformation and interpretation of that information to the Ombudsman investigation.
It is possible, and must be considered, that if a person whose decision making is under investigation, is also the same sole individual responsible for provision of information to a subsequent investigation, that person may be tempted to provide false and misleading information, in order to cover up their misconduct, and most especially so if they were confident that they would not subjected to any organisational scrutiny.
My fair and reasonable presumption is that at any date after the 12th of April 2019 the “CASA position” would be that of their own CASA Industry Complaints Commissioner findings that in fact CASA was, to use the CASA ICCs words, “aware for a significant period of time prior”.
It is this finding that makes the matter so absurd. How could something that CASA knew about for many years, approved for many years, and audited over many years, suddenly become unlawful.
Concerningly, the Ombudsman wrote to me on July 21st, 2021, two years after the CASA ICC released the CASA finding and states the complete opposite to the CASA ICC finding, advising that they will be discontinuing the investigation and 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.”
We have this concerning discrepancy, CASAs own ICC finds that in fact CASA knew for a significant time prior, yet the Ombudsman determines that the investigation will not be continuing because now, somehow CASA did not know for a significant period of time prior. The Ombudsman has arrived at this determination solely on advice provided by Mr Aleck, in his role as the Agency Representative for CASA.
This is absurd, CASAs own ICC makes a finding that CASA did know what I was doing yet subsequently, Mr Aleck, as the Agency representative for CASA convinces the Ombudsman Office to discontinue the investigation because apparently CASA now adopts the position that in fact didn’t become aware eight years prior, but they only became aware just prior to closing the business in October of 2018.
Surely that must raise concerns about the ethics and integrity of these CASA employees at Ministerial level. For Mr Aleck to purport to the Ombudsman Office that CASA first became aware of the structure that I had adopted only in October of 2018 must surely meet the threshold of misconduct.
Surely if CASAs own ICC finds that CASA knew of my operation for a significant period of time prior, that should be the official position presented to an Ombudsman investigation by the organisation being CASA, and not the complete opposite.
The single question that would fully resolve this matter.
If I could respectfully suggest to the Minister that the following question is put to CASA. A clear and concise response to this single question will immediately demonstrate the significant nature of the disinformation provided by CASA employees to the Ombudsman investigation.
Recall that Mr Aleck has led the Ombudsman Office to be of the view that CASA first became fully aware of the specific nature of my operation, only in October 2018.
I claim that CASA was fully aware of the specific nature of my operation for at least eight years prior, and CASA was afforded hundreds if not thousands of opportunities to become fully aware throughout those eight years before Mr Aleck falsely claims CASA first became fully aware.
By its very nature, there must be an occurrence that made CASA become aware. What is that occurrence, and most importantly what is the date that CASA concede that they first became fully aware of the specific nature of my operation.
I have made multiple requests to have this date identified to me. Ms Spence steadfastly refuses to identify that date to me. It cannot be disputed that this is a fair and reasonable request. The only reason that Ms Spence would refuse to identify that date, is because a truthful response from CASA would expose this matter in its entirety.
For clarity.
If Mr Aleck/Ms Spence claim that CASA only first became aware of the exact nature of my business just prior to October 23rd 2018, yet I claim that CASA was fully aware of the specific nature of my business over 8 years prior, then there is obviously a significant disparity, which is potentially indicative as to the level of deception being perpetrated by one Party or another.
CASA must have first become fully aware of the specific nature of my structure because of an occurrence. That may have been a comment, a meeting, documents, feedback, an approval. On some particular day because of some occurrence CASA must have first have become fully aware of the specific nature of my operation, and according to Mr Aleck that was just prior to the issuance of the notification on October 23rd 2018.
It would be reasonable that CASA advise the Ministers Office of the exact date and occurrence at which CASA concur that they first became fully aware of the specific nature of my structure.
The Ministers Office could also put the following question to the Ombudsman Office.
Has either Ms. Pip Spence as the CEO of CASA with expert knowledge on this matter, or Mr. Jonathan Aleck, CASA Executive Manager of Legal, International and Regulatory Affairs, acting as the sole representative of CASA in communications with the Ombudsman, as part of that investigation, led the Ombudsman’s investigation to be of the view that the CASA first became fully aware of the specific nature of my business some time just prior to October 2018?
The expectation is that the date and event nominated by CASA would be a date and event just prior to October 23rd 2018.
I suggest to you that Ms Spence will have a strong preference not to nominate that date and occurrence, and will provide the Ministers Office a lengthy response as to why she cannot nominate the date and occurrence. In laymans terms, it would be the date and occurrence that CASA smacked itself in the forehead and said, “oops that’s what he’s doing.”
She will not provide the date and occurrence because by nominating the truthful date and occurrence when CASA first became fully aware of the specific nature of my operation, she will be presented with two options. Either,
· Nominate the truthful date and expose the entire matter or
· Deliberately mislead the Minister.
Why would CASA Executives choose to mislead the Ombudsman’s investigation as to the date that CASA first became fully aware of the specific nature of my operation
It is essential that I address my perceived motivation for the conduct of Ms. Spence and Mr Aleck.
CASA closed me down because they determined that I was operating unlawfully. The Ombudsman subsequently found that I was not operating unlawfully.
CASA, and specifically Mr Aleck has made a substantial error.
My business was clearly not unlawful, and CASA had no basis to close it down, that has always been my view, and the Ombudsman findings in phase one support that contention very clearly. It was not unlawful.
Despite Ms Spences refusal to address this matter with me, I am fully satisfied that Ms Spence is fully aware that CASA acted unlawfully, and has known this throughout her tenure.
So it therefore becomes a central theme of how much did CASA really know, and for how long did CASA really know.
As impractical as it is, If CASA really had no idea of what I was doing for 8 years that would be indicative of gross systemic deficiencies within the regulator. Obviously, the levels of industry oversight would be dangerously deficient, and that alone would warrant significant internal review of procedures within CASA. If an Operator operated unlawfully for eight years without CASA becoming aware despite thousands of opportunities over the eight years, then the potential impact on safety of that deficiency in oversight would be alarming.
I’m not suggesting for one moment that the above scenario is what happened. That would be impossible.
What I am suggesting is that Mr Aleck acted unlawfully and vindictively, and his malice was targeted specifically towards, me and my family business.
I’m suggesting that CASA did know of the exact structure of my business for many years. What happened was Mr Aleck saw an opportunity to potentially manipulate the legislation and abuse his significant power to bring harm to me personally. He has done it before to others. He has done for many years and continhes to operate unchecked within the organisation which further empowers his misconduct.
Mr Alecks mistake was simply an error of judgement. He believed that he would get away with it, as he nearly has again. This time however his victim has pursued justice for four years and will continue to do so.
As soon as CASA became aware that they had erred, good intent should have prevailed, and well-intentioned discussion could have resolved this entire matter many years ago. Well intentioned discussion all those years ago would have eliminated, or at least significantly reduced the trauma and harm caused. Sadly, what followed was a culture of bullying, intimidation, and coverup that causes only greater trauma, as it most certainly has.
The Ombudsman did also go on in Phase one of the investigation to state that this error by CASA had the potential to cause detriment to me, and others as it most clearly has. There is no doubt in my mind, and as the person most affected, CASAs attempt to cover up this matter over the last four years have only compounded that harm.
Of significant concern is just how involved CASA was in the design and approval of that system that Mr Aleck determined to be unlawful in October 2018.
This is a significant matter. The reason being. Mr Aleck has led the Ombudsman Office to be of the view that CASA first became fully aware of my structure in the weeks prior to October 2018.
It is a ludicrous proposition that Mr Aleck has put to the Ombudsman’s Office. The truth is that CASA was fully aware of the structure that I had adopted for eight years, and that can easily be proven. It is a black and white matter.
Introduction of Witness to the Minister.
Dear Minister, I have been extremely reluctant to involve anybody else in this matter to date. Numerous witnesses, experts, current CASA employees, and ex CASA employees have contacted me over the last four years, offering to tell the truth on this matter.
I have avoided accepting any of those offers, because I am acutely aware of how vindictively some CASA employees can act, and of the significant power that they wield.
After 4 years, and being fully satisfied that both Ms Spence, and Mr Aleck have committed the offence of misfeasance in public office, and of providing false and misleading advice to an investigation, and being fully satisfied that those same individuals are abusing their significant power and authority to cover up this matter, I have made the decision from today, to begin accepting those offers, and the first “witness” that I am calling on is Mr XXXXXX. Mr XXXXX would be considered a Subject Matter Expert as to when CASA first became aware of the exact nature of the structure that I had adopted.
You will recall that Mr Aleck and Ms Spence claim that date to be “just prior to October 2018” when CASA wrongfully determined my business to be illegal.
I have attached a sampling of emails almost 2 ½ years before Ms Spence and Mr Aleck claim that CASA first became aware of the structure. These emails should leave your office in no doubt that the Ombudsman Office has been misled, and CASA was at least fully aware of the structure many years prior.
The emails that will promptly identify the substantive level of disinformation can be accessed via Appendix Six.
· Email 20th June 2016 To CASA addressing the concept of an alliance of flight training organisations.
· Email 21 June 2016 To CASA advising my timeline for expanding operations and specifically visiting flying schools. In that correspondence I actually request that someone from CASA meet with me and potentially interested Members.
· Email 23rd June 2016. I attached and submitted a detailed proposal of the concept to CASA by way of an attachment to this email.
· Email 13 July 2016, I contact CASA to advise that I have got significant interest, and intend to add a further base, I also advise that it is likely we will be adding another base.
· Email 1st August 2016 Advising CASA that I am officially changing the name of the business from MFT to APTA to more accurately reflect what APTA is actually about i.e. a “collaborative approach’ between the schools that will be APTA Members.
· Email August 1st 2016 from CASA advising that they will meet with me 4 days later at Moorabbin Airport to discuss the details. The feedback from the meeting four days later was highly supportive and encouraging.
· Email 26th April 2017, Emails arranging for the CASA Regional Manager to come to the APTA Head Office to present our Approvals as a revalidated Part 141/142 Organisation approximately 4 months before the deadline of September 1st 2017 ( shortly after CASA will postpone this Transition date 12 months to September 1st 2018 due to the low uptake of flying schools that will be able to complete the process in time). Extensive conversations about APTA left no doubt in the mind of the attending CASA personnel of what APTA was all about.
· Email 7 October 2017, being one year prior to CASAs reversal of APTA in which I refer to my meeting in Canberra with Mr Graeme Crawford on 18th January 2017. This email refers to Mr Crawford querying me about the APTA project.
· Email 26 April 2017 from the CASA Executive Manager of the Aviation Group, and second in charge of CASA at the time, Mr Graeme Crawford congratulating me and my APTA team.
I claim that that CASA was aware for 8 years, prior to the date that they have led the Ombudsman to believe, and if they weren’t, they most certainly became aware at least 2 ½ years prior to the date that Ms Spence and Mr Aleck falsely assert. It is this specific matter that the witness, Mr Derek Fox can attest to.
Please be assured that there are dozens of witnesses, and all prepared to tell the truth on this matter. My intention is to use a “drip feed” approach and introduce them to you one at a time, to minimise the number of people exposed to any potential vindictive action from a CASA employee.
My hope is that you will be compelled to act before I have exposed too many individuals, to too much potential harm.
Regarding Mr XXXXX as a witness,
Approximately 18 months to 2 years ago, I bumped into an ex-CASA Flight Operations Inspector (FOI) by the name of Mr XXXXX.
Mr XXXXX has impeccable credentials with many years in the Airforce as a Pilot, and many years’ experience operating at the most senior level of some of the World’s leading airlines. I am told anecdotally that he was also a shortlisted candidate for the position of the CEO of CASA.
At our chance meeting at that regional petrol station, Mr XXXXX offered to come forward and tell the truth on this matter if that was required of him. Despite my reluctance to do so to date, I have now decided to accept his offer to tell the truth on this matter, and I am making an approach to him.
This is the first contact with him since our chance encounter over 18 months ago. I acknowledge that his situation may have changed, but in the following correspondence I am proceeding on the assumption that his offer to tell the truth still stands. Obviously, I will fully respect his position if the passage of time has affected that offer, and he would prefer to withdraw his offer.
Mr XXXXX is receiving this entire body correspondence for the first time, and he is receiving it at the same time as the Ministers Office. He has absolutely no prior expectation of receiving this correspondence. My intention is to maintain the integrity of the process.
Mr XXXXX was allocated to my APTA project over 2 years before Mr Aleck and Ms Spence have led the Ombudsman to believe that CASA first became aware of the structure of my organisation. He was one of the ten CASA employees that worked across a desk from me and my management team as my family invested many hundreds of thousands of dollars redesigning every system and procedure to fully comply with the new legislation.
Every single procedure was designed exactly for the purpose of providing a single authorisation, multi base multi entity approach to flight training. Every procedure was assessed by CASA against those criteria.
My point being that CASA was fully aware of the exact nature of my organisation for many years before October 2018 as Mr Aleck falsely claims.
My initial correspondence to Mr XXXXX follows
Dear Mr XXXXX,
I apologise that this is my initial contact with you.
The only contact I have had with you since CASA closed my business down in October of 2018, was that chance encounter at a regional petrol station, and I estimate that was over 18 months ago.
At that encounter, despite you having left the employ of CASA, you advised me that you would be prepared to tell the truth, and that you “retained extraneous notes on the matter”.
I am sorry to put you “on the spot”, and I do acknowledge that I have done that. I hope you understand that it is essential that I maintain the integrity of the process. I did not want to establish contact with you prior, to avoid any suggestion of collusion.
You extended an offer at that chance encounter, to come forward and simply tell the truth on this matter. The passage of time has been substantial, and I understand that circumstances may have changed.
I am writing to you as one of the CASA employees that was heavily involved in the revalidation of APTA from mid-2016, through to its formal approval in April of 2017.
My best recollection is that you were allocated to the APTA project, after I had met with the then second in charge of CASA, Mr Graeme Crawford. At that meeting with Mr Crawford, I had raised my concerns about lack of resources within CASA, and how we were waiting for CASA to catch up with our backlog of workload held up within CASA. Mr Crawford gave me a commitment, that CASA would direct more resources to my Project and you were tasked to the Project. That Project being the APTA Project.
Whilst I do not expect you to have detailed knowledge of my matter after you left the employ of CASA, you are aware that CASA closed my business down approximately four years ago. A Commonwealth Ombudsman investigation was initiated, and in phase one of that investigation found that CASA had erred and what I was doing was not illegal.
I believe that what happened was that once CASA realised they had no lawful basis to close my business down, CASA was in a position where they had to admit error or attempt to cover up this matter, and Mr Aleck opted for the latter.
From my perspective, the entire matter is quite absurd. I built that exact business from the ground up in conjunction with a team of CASA personnel over a 2 year period, of which you were a member of that team. CASA fully revalidated this structure in April 2017 after I had invested many hundreds of thousands of dollars to gain to meet all CASA requirements.
Mr Aleck claims that CASA didn’t first become aware of the structure until October 2018. I am of the opinion that CASA is trying to mislead the Ombudsman into believing that CASA didn’t know what I was doing, because if the truth was identified it would raise the question, “if CASA knew what I was doing for eight years, or at least the 2 ½ that you can you can attest to, and fully approved my operation, what made CASA change their mind?
The purpose of this letter to you and the intended outcome.
Can I respectfully call on you to submit one piece of correspondence to the Minster and the CASA Board.
Can I ask that you simply tell the truth on this matter. Can I ask that you specifically address the likelihood that CASA first became fully aware of my structure in October 2018, considering that it was revalidated by CASA in April of 2017, and you were heavily involved in that revalidation process in the years leading up to that revalidation as one.
That correspondence would be addressed to both the Minister (insert email address) and the CASA Board, and specifically the CEO (insert email address)
I reiterate that I will respect your decision if you choose not to be involved in this matter. My allegations are substantial i.e. misfeasance in public office and misleading a commonwealth investigation. With regards to Ms. Spence, I am fully satisfied that Ms Spence has facoilitated that misconduct.
Your witness statement would be critical to this entire matter and may have significant ramifications with CASA, I appreciate that you need to consider your options carefully.
Thankyou in anticipation of your assistance.
Glen Buckley