Part 2
In my third piece of correspondence dated 17/10/23 (my reference pprune #2889) I addressed Action items 3 and 4;
Action Item Three, being your offer to contact the Ombudsman and ask them to review any further information that I provide. I asked you to establish contact and advise them of such.
On this subject, one of the matters that I will be clarifying will be the Authorisations that the Ombudsman believes that the other Entities held.
The Ombudsman makes numerous statements that leave me in no doubt that the Ombudsman believes that there are multiple flying schools involved in this matter, when in fact there is only one flying school, that being APTA. The Ombudsman refers to the other Entities conducting flying training, and the Authorisations that they hold.
It's quite a bizarre position. No other Entities held any Authorisations or Approvals,as CASA is fully aware, and if they did, then they would be a flying school in their own right, and most likely a competitor to APTA, and therefore not part of APTA. It would be somewhat like a Woolworths Store asking Coles to run their store, when they already have their own approvals and business model.
CASA is fully aware that there were no other Authorisations or Part 141/142 Approvals because it is CASA that issues them. If there were any other authorizations or approvals then there would be an associated comprehensive Exposition/Operations Manual, there would be Key personnel, there would be courses and syllabi etc. I will be asking the Ombudsman to state what other Authorisations they identified when making those statements. I had advised the Ombudsmann on numerous occasions that there were no other authorisations or flying schools. This was another topic that could have been fully resolved with a single question but was not even attended to by the Ombudsman. A fairly significant misunderstanding on the part of the Ombudsman, and a misunderstanding that CASA seems reluctant to clarify.
There are other matters that I will attend to with the Ombudsman but the existence, or not of any other Authorisations/ flying schools is a fairly high priority.
Action Item 4 being that the Board Chair would explore whether APTAs Exposition alone sufficiently set out the type of arrangements that would have allowed it to demonstrate compliance with regulatory requirements. My response remains that EVERY regulatory requirement was met or exceeded. every one of them . For reasons that defy any logical explanation, the misconception is that there was some deficiency, and I believe that "misconception" exists within the Ombudsman's office.
I have previously provided the CASA checklist that I obtained under FOI. This document confirms that during the three year revalidation process, every regulation was considered and attended to, and assessed as satisfactory by CASA.
In order to make that assessment, it would require a review of our suite of manuals that formed the Exposition. This would include the Primary suite of manuals as well as the "differences" manuals for each of the bases, referred to as the Base Procedures Manuals (BPM) which contained only limited information, but contained the different procedures between bases. An example would be different Emergency Response Plans (ERP) for different bases, different local contacts for Drug and Alcohol testing etc.
The Ombudsman had previously made a comment that they had reviewed the Base Procedures Manual and raised concerns that they did not specify matters of operational control. That demonstrated one of many misunderstandings that exist within the Ombudsman investigation. The Base Procedures manuals are Base specific, they do not, should not, and would not contain matters of operational control. That is the very purpose of them, as they deal with base differences only. They do not, and are not intended to contain matters of operational control. Those procedures are contained within the Exposition. Another concerning misunderstanding that exists within the Ombudsman Office
A thorough consideration may also require you to consider the "Flight School Manager (FSM)'' system that we utilised to maintain the high levels of operational control that are required. After reviewing a number of systems available, we selected the FSM because it was Australian made and designed to our regulations. We were also able to have the system tailored to our requirements. This system was an industry leading system, that shared all information across all bases with regards to all legislative, and safety requirements. It is the system used to maintain operational control. I am advised that the Ombudsman did not review this system at all during the investigation. That appears to be a stunning oversight, but further demonstrates the reliance of the Ombudsman on CASA providing truthful information, rather than the Ombudsman having any appetite to independently ascertain or make an independent assessment.
I must add that for the very first time in Australia an Operator made this entire system available to CASA. Unlike every other school that required on site visits by CASA personnel to conduct audits, all information was fully available to CASA to provide additional oversight from the comfort of an office in Canberra if required.
For the first time ever CASA could now check every aspect of a flying school in real time. This included all aircraft tracking, flight and duty times, pilot qualifications and recency, all training records, safety meetings, aircraft maintenance scheduled and unscheduled etc etc.
This was an industry leading" first" providing previously unseen levels of CASA oversight.
My expectation is that at the end of that exploration, if there were any deficiencies against any legislation then CASA would clearly be able to identify the specific deficiency and the legislation. None has ever been brought to my attention to date.
If CASA is unable to specify any breaches or and deficiencies against any legislation, then even if they could provide a "scenario" that demonstrates what any legitimate concerns were. i.e. highlight some deficiency in our comprehensive systems and fully CASA approved systems.
My understanding is that CASA has reversed its position and now concedes that there was in fact no regulatory breach, although I look forward to the further investigation that you will conduct.
If there were any deficiencies against any legislation then they would have been identified to me. Considering that the act of making all personnel also my employees would have instantly resolved the issue, one can only assume that any deficiencies would be related to that matter, although I welcome any other information that CASA can provide me with.
This is after all, literally the very information that I have been imploring CASA tio provide to me for five years. i.e. what is the deficiency?
Recall that CASA was not asking for any changes to the CASA approved Exposition. These were changes to a "commercial contract between APTA and its members. It was not a document to specify matters of operational control, in fact CASA refused to be a signatory to it, despite it being CASA that was requiring the wording change in the commercial contract
Regarding the other outstanding matters, being "Action Items 5 and 6".
You reiterated CASA’s support for any Act of Grace payment application that I pursued, and agreed to ask your Executive Officer to contact me to provide whatever guidance CASA can in navigating the Department of Finance’s process. I am very appreciative of that gesture. Could I respectfully request that he first establish contact with the Department of Finance to assess accessibility to this scheme, as I have been advised by industry peers following this matter, that in fact I may not be eligible for the scheme. Once he has been able to access that information I would be appreciative of him reaching out to me, as that determination may force a change of approach to one of litigation which as you know is my least preferred option, but may become my only option, although that will be determined by CASA.
I also advised you at our meeting that I am fully satisfied that a CASA employee has been responsible for deliberately providing false and misleading information to that inquiry for the purpose of covering up misconduct and affecting the outcome of that inquiry. This would be a central theme in any complaint made to the National Anti Corruption Commission. In order for me to proceed with my complaint, it is reasonable that I am aware of the Employee or at least the Department that has been responsible for providing information, and at what stage of the investigation.
My understanding was that Mr Aleck the CASA Executive Manager of Legal, International and Regulatory Affairs was the Agency Representative for CASA in all dealings with the Ombudsman Office, and almost all communication was directed between his Office and the Ombudsman office. Mr Aleck was also the sole decision maker in my matter on behalf of CASA whio determined that my business was now unlawful and unauthorised.
Throughout the five year Ombudsman investigation, I made multiple appeals to CASA. It did not seem fair or reasonable that the person that the complaint is against, is the same person responsible for the provision of information to the Ombudsman investigation. It seenmedv to fly in the face of what any Organisation would deem acceptable practice.
At the conclusion of the Ombudsman investigation I was advised that the CEO had taken over responsibility, and later correspondence from CASA led me to believe that it was the Office of the ICC, and Mr Hanton.
I appreciate that at our meeting you did clarify these timelines, but as I did not take notes, can I respectfully request that you clarify them for me again. If I am notifying CASA that I wish to approach the Anti Corruption Commission on this matter, and specifically the provision of false and misleading information it seems reasonable that the Department or person responsible is clearly identified to me.
On other matters
Regarding the impact of Mr McHeyzers email, this is something that I would like to pursue, in a well intentioned manner with CASA. Are you able to direct me to an initial point of contact in order to commence that process. Ideally but perhaps naively I would like to progress on this matter without a lawyer if practical, but obviously would be somewhat compelled to engage a lawyer if CASA were to do so. From my perspective it should be entirely unnecessary as long as good intent from both parties prevails. I also respect that CASA protocols may require the involvement of lawyers, may I request who the "point of contact" would be within CASA, on this matter.
Thankyou for the offer of reimbursement for costs incurred. I feel somewhat compelled to accept that offer. As you are aware the industry established a GofundMe page, and I utilized those funds for the trip. As I was effectively using someone else's money I would appreciate the opportunity to reimburse those funds, and I will send through to your Personal Assistant the receipts for two airfares and the car rental for the day. Thanks again for the offer.
I acknowledge that at our meeting, we did not attend to the matter of the alleged assault by me on a CASA Employee, although I think it is pertinent to deal with it in this correspondence.
My understanding is that the independent investigation into whether or not I assaulted a CASA employee, as the employee has alleged, will be finalised by now. I do feel the matters are somewhat related, as I feel Iwas the victim of an "engineered" process, by CASA, of which the false allegation of assault, formed a part. Could I be advised of what happens now, regarding that report being finalised, and its conclusions as to whether or not I assaulted a CASA employee.
Thankyou for your consideration of my correspondence. I apologise for my delayed response and acknowledge again that I expect it to impact on your response times. I am prepared to wait as long as is required in order to receive well intentioned, and well considered responses. I apologise if my correspondence comes across as somewhat terse, that is not my intention. I am merely trying to ensure that all parties have clear expectations.
Far too many resources on both sides have been diverted to this matter. When i consider not only the harm caused to me and my family, but the other businesses forced into closure as result, the loss of jobs, the lost opportunities to the industry, the people and entities left unpaid, the International Students that lost funds, the students with their training impacted, and all this because I couldn't come up with wording in a commercial contract to satisfy a sole CASA employee. At any time, he could have instantly resolved it by clearly and concisely advising me of the required wording. It's the complete lack of good intent and integrity that has this matter still unresolved.
In closing let me apologise for the somewhat lengthy nature of this correspondence. Much of my correspondence has an intended recipient, as in this case, but also has a wider audience, and on that subject I specifically mention my local MP, Ms Carina Garland. Despite my local Member advising me that Minister King has directed her not to assist me, Ms Garland remains my local Member of Parliament and I feel it essential that she remains fully aware of this topic, and is able to keep the Minister briefed on this matter, as it is substantive and related to alleged corruption.
I look forward to hearing back from you at the appropriate time.
Respectfully, Glen Buckley