Dear Mr Rebetzke,
- On 08/02/23 the Ombudsman Office wrote to me advising that the investigation into my matter was now closed. ( Ombudsman Reference 2019-713834. My reference Pprune #2691)
- On 10/02/23, I wrote to the Ombudsman requesting the release of further details. (My reference Pprune #2692)
- On 17/02/23. The Ombudsman provided me with those further details. (my reference Pprune #2693 and #2694)
- On 28/03/23. I wrote to the Ombudsman seeking further clarification regarding the following, which was fundamental to the entire investigation.
CASA had maintained to the Ombudsman that the structure I adopted was unique and new, and CASA had no prior knowledge or involvement in it. CASA claimed that they had never permitted that structure previously and that it was unlawful, unauthorised, and I was subject to prosecution.
I truthfully maintained that the structure that I adopted was not unique, and was completely standard industry practice with full CASA knowledge, and in fact formal approval by CASA on literally hundreds of occasions over decades. I maintained that CASA worked with me over a three year period designing it, with CASA formally revalidating my structure in April of 2017.
To me, and in fact the entire flight training industry that is following this matter, the CASA proposition to the Ombudsman Office was so preposterous that the expectation was that the Ombudsman Office would soon resolve this matter. i.e. did CASA ALWAYS permit this structure, or did CASA NEVER permit this structure.
It is concerning after a four year investigation, no doubt one of the longest that the Ombudsman Office has ever done. The Ombudsman Office has been totally unable to resolve this very simple matter. Something that could truthfully be resolved with a single 5 minute telephone call. It really is that simple.It requires a telephone call to any CASA Flight Operations Inspector. and it would be immediately resolved.
In regard to your response however it does not address the critical issue that I was seeking clarification about.
I was asking if the Ombudsman Office was able to determine if CASA had
always permitted the structure that I adopted,
or had CASA
never permitted that structure.
In your response 15/04/23 you advised that "the Ombudsman
sought information from CASA about this issue and ultimately decided she could not confidently conclude who (within CASA) knew what about your business model at what time, to assess the way your business was treated compared to other similar organisations. ".
The question that I put to you was not "who knew in CASA", but had CASA always permitted other Operators to adopt the identical structure that I adopted.
It appears to me that throughout the four year investigation, the Ombudsman's Office consistently avoided the critical issues in this investigation,, and pursued a path of "convenience" and to be perfectly frank, has gone to great lengths to protect and collaborate with the Agency being CASA. There are gross technical errors in the investigation, which I will address in separate correspondence as suggestions for improvements to the way the Ombudsman Office conducts investigations..
Whether it is a result of the false and misleading information provided by the CASA Executive, or whether it is something from within the Ombudsman's Office, I am unable to determine. Nevertheless, it is a matter that must be addressed, and a truthful and honest response from the Ombudsman's office will bring clarity and credibility to the matter, additionally it will assist me to ascertain where the "confusion" exists.
I will attempt to reframe my question to bring additional clarity. I truly believe that I am entitled to a response to this question, as it is fundamental to the entire mater.
This question has nothing to do with whether CASA was aware or not of the structure that I adopted. This question has nothing to do with who knew, or who did not know. This question has nothing to do with Glen Buckley or APTA. This is a question about whether CASA regularly, always, and on every occasion permitted Operators on hundreds of occasions to adopt the structure that I adopted throughout the flight training industry.
There are only two alternatives.
Either.
Since at least 1982, when I entered the industry. CASA had ,on each and every occasion, permitted and formally approved the identical structure that I had adopted. It was completely standard industry practice, and formally approved by CASA on every occasion. The structure that I adopted was completely standard CASA approved industry practice. It was commonly adopted throughout Australia, and I provided multiple examples to the Ombudsman's Office.
or
CASA never permitted it, as Mr Aleck has led the Ombudsman's office to believe.
I apologize if the nature of this correspondence appears somewhat terse, that is not my intention, but after more than four years I am increasingly frustrated.
Yours respectfully Glen Buckley