15/10/23
Link to the APTA
APTA Agreement.docx
To the CASA Board and CASA CEO
In this correspondence I would appreciate the opportunity to specifically address Action Item 2 that arose from our meeting, where it was stated.
“
I said I would follow up with CASA’s Freedom of Information team on the status of your request for APTA’s June 2019 contract with Latrobe Valley.’
The Latrobe Valley contract is essential to this entire matter. In fact, I believe it to be one of the most significant matters that has been completely overlooked by the Ombudsman investigation, and one of many systemic failures of the Ombudsman investigation.
I am not necessarily suggesting any bad intent within the Ombudsman’s office, but a lack of technical knowledge combined with disinformation emanating from senior levels within CASA has been responsible for what can only be described as gross technical misunderstandings, which I will attend to directly with the Ombudsman later.
Having read the Robodebt investigation, and the role of the Ombudsman Office it highlighted some failures of that Office, and from my own personal experience I have experienced those same failures of that Office in regard to this investigation.
I am of the understanding that despite the significance of this to the entire matter, the Ombudsman never required any contracts to be supplied during the investigation and relied on the ‘advice” of CASA only. A staggeringly low threshold of evidence to rely on ‘advice” from CASA, which provides opportunity for false and misleading advice, in fact it almost facilitates it. Matters addressed in the Robodebt inquiry.
The final contract that I was unable to achieve for 8 months but was achieved by someone else in a matter of hours is integral to this matter, because it speaks directly to “intent”.
Had I have been able to replicate that same document at any time within the 8 months of my best endeavours, and with all my industry experience and resources available to me, I would have had the trading restrictions lifted, and been able to return to business as usual.
Returning to business as usual became more challenging as this matter dragged on as my reputation, technical ability and credibility was understandably increasingly questioned by industry and those around me, including my family.
Why was Glen so totally unable to resolve this matter of wording in a commercial contract? was the reasonable question being asked by those around me.
The “contracts” issue was a central theme of this entire matter.
I appreciate that in your respective positions that up until now, it is reasonable to assume that you may not be across all the “specifics” of my matter.
I feel it essential to address the “contracts Issue” and specifically the importance of the “Latrobe Valley” contract to clarify this matter so that there can be no misunderstanding.
I believe I clarified it in our meeting, but to be honest I don’t recall if I made my point clearly enough, so please allow me the opportunity to clarify the significance of the “Latrobe Valley Contract” that I am seeking under Freedom of Information.
In regard to that request, I am not seeking the commercial contract in its entirety, in fact my preference is that the document is heavily “redacted” by CASA before it is provided to me.
The financial components or anything that is not related to matters of operational control is not being sought by me, and of absolutely no interest or relevance whatsoever.
My hope is that the document will be so heavily redacted that ONLY matters of Operational control are released to me, because they are the only pertinent matters in this case.
It will identify what it is that I could not achieve.
It is important to identify the significance of two traditionally unrelated documents. That being the
CASA approved Exposition and a
Commercial Contract
Previously, in the industry, matters of operational control were contained within the CASA approved “Exposition”, as legislation specifies. This is effectively the “contract” between CASA and the Operator.
“Commercial contracts” being the financial details between Operators and their customers are not contracts that CASA has traditionally had any involvement in, and CASA do not retain those contracts. Matters of operational control would never be exclusively contained within a commercial contract. I do not need to verify this because I know it to be true, although if CASA has evidence to refute that claim, then please provide me with that evidence.
For clarity. No Flight Training Operator has ever been required to specify matters of operational control exclusively within commercial contracts, and CASA will have no such documents on file to refute that claim. These matters are detailed in the Exposition.
This entire requirement was unique to me and my organisation only, and was highly unusual.
To recap
On 23rd October 2018 notified me that I was operating unlawfully, had as little as 7 days to continue operations, and I was likely subject to prosecution by CASA.
There had been no change to the way I operated over the last decade. All my Exposition manuals and procedures were fully approved by CASA. There had been no legislative change, and no deficiencies identified by CASA against any quality outcomes.
The business up until now was doing exactly what it had been doing throughout the last decade with full CASA approval.
If CASA is to be believed, despite a decade of operations, a three-year revalidation process, constant meetings with CASA, audits etc, it was only over a decade later in October 2018 that CASA “first became aware” that I was utilising personnel that were not always my direct employees, and advised me that I was operating unlawfully, and placed crippling trading restrictions on the business that caused commercial harm, but had absolutely no “safety” case to support that action, and did nothing to maintain or improve the safety of aviation. In fact it could reasonably be argued that when CASA places trading restrictions on a business the impact on that business it is more likely to have a negative safety impact, and particularly when those restrictions have remained in place for 8 months.
The root cause of the alleged regulatory breaches was that I utilised personnel under my AOC that were not always employees of the same Company that held the CASA Authorisation, being the AOC.
CASA presented me with three options.
Option One- Cease operations in 7 days.
Option Two: Completely change the business model of the last decade so that all personnel that operated under my AOC also became direct employees of the same Company that held the AOC. They could no longer be employed by another Entity, contractors etc. If I did that all trading restrictions would be lifted.
The third and only other option available to me was that I satisfied a single CASA employees’ opinion up in Canberra, as to additional wording in our commercial contracts regarding matters of operational control. No changes were required of our Exposition,
I could continue to operate, for the 7 days, I just couldn’t accept any new customers, and I had a “freeze placed on all CASA administrative tasks such as the addition of new simulators, Key Personnel, additional courses etc. The restrictions were placed on the business in its entirety including bases that CASA had previously approved throughout that decade.
It was explained to me that those trading restrictions would be lifted, and I would be permitted to return to Business as Usual if I could place additional wording into the “commercial contracts”, and specifically NOT into the Exposition. A most bizarre requirement but one that I was fully willing to comply with, and why wouldn’t I?
I had crippling trading restrictions that were costing me well in excess of $10,00 every week, and causing irreparable reputational harm, and unimaginable levels of stress, as I had to watch my business that I had built decade building be systematically destroyed as this matter remained completely unresolved for eight months.
There is no reason that this matter could not have been fully resolved within 4 hours. The fact that it wasn’t indicates that in fact there was no intent from the decision maker within CASA to resolve it.
The matter was not complicated and could have been immediately resolved. The reason I say that is twofold.
1. Everything was already specified over in the CASA approved Exposition, had been for over a decade. We were rigidly adhering to every CASA approved procedure in our Exposition. If CASA was requiring that I specify matters of operational control for persons and responsibilities that were not specified in legislation or by any industry precedent, and those requirements were an industry first that were applicable to my organisation only, then I required clear and concise guidance on those requirements. There was absolutely no resistance from me at all, and the email conversations between myself and CASA certainly indicate that to be the case.
2. The second reason that I believe that it was so easy to resolve is because it was finally resolved, just not by me. Once CASA had made the determination that all personnel had to also be employees, that effectively meant that only one base would be permitted to continue operating, and one of the bases took over control of the Company and AOC, the matter that I had been unable to resolve in 8 months was almost immediately resolved. The new owner of the business with no flying instructing experience at all, and almost no knowledge of the flight training regulations, was able to produce a contract in a matter of hours that fully satisfied CASA. That was the contract between APTA and Latrobe Valley Aero Club, and Latrobe Valley alone was permitted to continue under APTA. All other members including my own flying school of a decade had to leave APTA.
That Latrobe Valley contract is essential to this matter. It was the solution that solved everything.
I have been very clear throughout and continue to be fully satisfied that the ONLY reason that I could not fully resolve this matter with my 25 years industry experience was because someone had decided within CASA that it would not be resolved.
Acknowledging the different positions.
· CASA maintain that they did not and had not ever approved the identical structure to mine.
· I maintained that CASA had always and on multiple occasions permitted the identical structure to mine throughout my 25 years involvement in the industry, and I have provided multiple examples.
Irrespective of whose position is the truthful and accurate one, this Latrobe Valley contract is the first time in the flight training industry that a successful commercial contract has been established that outlines matter of operational control that are not specified in any other document i.e. the Exposition to the satisfaction of CASA that permitted operations to continue at the Latrobe Valley base only.
You will appreciate the significance of this contract. Once I obtain a copy of that redacted contract, I will be able to clearly identify specifically what it was that I could not achieve.
It was my failure to achiever that wording, that caused so much harm and trauma.
In closing I feel I need to address some pertinent points.
CASA held a copy of the contracts prior to sending me the notification in October 2018, and the truth is that they had been provided to CASA as a courtesy on multiple occasions as early as 2016.
Once CASA issued me the notification in October 2018, I immediately advised CASA that CASA already had the contracts, and CASA initially denied this, until I provided irrefutable evidence that the contracts had been supplied on multiple occasions as far back as 2016, and CASA was forced to change its position. These contracts had been provided to the most senior executives within CASA and a copy of that document is attached. I would encourage you to review it.
Understand that I had built a structure that was designed to have 10 members in order to meet all operating costs. Less than 10 members and I had to meet the shortfall. These trading restrictions remained in place for 8 months because a single CASA employee could not be satisfied. They caused irreparable commercial and reputational harm.
To finalise.
On receipt of that Latrobe Valley contract, I will be able to fully satisfy myself as to the intent of the sole CASA employee that was the decision maker on behalf of CASA that caused so much harm to me and my family, and the business, customers, students, and suppliers.
If the final document that was accepted by CASA is highly detailed and technical document, outlining matters of operational control that are not replicated within the Exposition then I will understand what my deficiencies were, and what it is that my Management team and I were unable to achieve in 8 months.
If however the document produced by CASA is a basic and very simple document, as I suspect, I would seriously have to question why I could not achieve that, and why were far more onerous requirements placed on me., and pursue my allegation that CASA was acting to bring harm to me personally, as I am fully satisfied is the case.
You will appreciate my interest in obtaining that document, and I will appreciate you facilitating the provision of that document as that was ‘The Solution” that I could not achieve.
At this stage I want to reiterate that I am firmly of the opinion that you are both acting with good intent. This correspondence is not intended to be disrespectful or to change the tone of our communications to date. It is an attempt by me to bring clarity and integrity to this matter, in as short a timeline as possible.
I will attend to the further action items as soon as practical.
Yours respectfully, and with appreciation.
Glen Buckley
P.S I should note that the provision of those documents may be as result of an error on my behalf. I am in no way suggesting CASA is frustrating processes.