CASA has now received the outcome of the Ombudsman ‘s review and I have had the opportunity to consider its findings. Overall, I consider the Ombudsman ‘s report confirms the position that I put to you previously, which is that;
- CASA ‘s October 2018 notice of intention to decline APTAs significant changes applications was not a decision to close APTA. and was a reasonable and appropriate action for CASA to take in the circumstances.
Comment: This is bull****. It effectively closed APTA. As It was not a decision it could not be appealed.
What "circumstances"? It represented a complete 180 degree change of CASAs attitude to APTA OVERNIGHT WITH NO REASONS GIVEN. Given that this matter had nothing to do with safety and considering both the known effect and magnitude of this change it is reasonable to expect firstly a detailed explanation of the reason for this policy change, followed by good faith negotiations by both parties to accommodate the changes. Buckley tried CASA didn't. Even if there was a legislative impediment, I would have thought an exemption was not out of the question. No good faith.
CASA's actions towards Buckley and APTA from 23 October were not in good faith.- CASA had required evidence of contracts with other operators as evidence of operational control before a request for contracts was made to APTA
- CASA’s request for contracts from APTA was supported by legislation and civil aviation regulation and was not unreasonable.
Yes, contracts were provided. That isn't the issue. CASA refused to specify the nature of the defect and specify a remedy in the contracts supplied - no good faith.- CASA did not mislead the ombudsman ‘s office.
?????