Follow up to correspondence Post #2915
26/02/24
Ombudsman reference 2019-713834
My reference Pprune #2923
To the Commonwealth Ombudsman office.
On 16/01/24 I wrote to the Commonwealth Ombudsman Office regarding gross technical errors that had developed within the Ombudsman investigation, and impact on my family’s ability to pursue this matter.
It seems entirely reasonable that where gross misunderstandings have developed within the Ombudsman Office, that the Ombudsman Office would be compelled to address those issues and publicly correct those errors where they have developed.
I am firmly of the belief that these misunderstandings may have developed based on false and misleading information provided to the Ombudsman investigation.
I understand that the Ombudsman Office is firmly of the view that they have not been misled, although surprisingly in correspondence I received under FOI, it is immediately obvious that in fact the Ombudsman Office has previously identified that CASA had been somewhat obstructing the process and providing information that may have hindered any investigation rather than assist the investigation with CASAs best endeavours and truthfulness.
That correspondence was sent to you on 16/01/24, and almost 6 weeks later remains unacknowledged.
To be frank, I am of the view that the Ombudsman is fully aware of these gross technical errors, but has chosen to afford the Agency, being CASA, a higher level of “protection” than the public would expect of the Ombudsman’s Office.
The purpose of the correspondence was to correct a fundamental error, of which there are many.
The Ombudsman correspondence received by me indicates that there was more than one flying school, when that is incorrect. This is not a matter of contention, and CASA will be able to promptly clarify that for your Office.
If the Ombudsman maintains that there was more than one flying school which there most clearly was not, and I bought the error to the attention of the Office, it is concerning that the Ombudsman Office would be reluctant to address this fact.
I have very clearly expressed my preference that the Ombudsman withdraw the report in its entirety.
As you are aware, I made multiple requests of your Office to have the matter completely withdrawn, once I became aware that these errors had developed, based on false and misleading information.
Despite my request, the Ombudsman Office elected to proceed with the examination.
If the Ombudsman refuses to withdraw the report, then it seems entirely reasonable that the Ombudsman address those errors, rather than afford the Agency the level of protection that it has to date.
For clarity, there were no other flying schools. There was only ever one CASA approved flying school, and that error by the Ombudsman is easily corrected.
An Approval for an Entity to deliver flying training is referred to as a Part 141 or Part 142 School.
The purpose of the correspondence 6 weeks ago was to correct this gross misunderstanding and ask that the Ombudsman identify which Entities held a Part 141 or Part 142 Approval.
CASA issues these Approvals after a very complex, lengthy, and expensive process, and there can be no doubt that it is very clear to CASA which Entities hold a Part 141 or Part 142 Approval.
I am concerned because this matter could be completely clarified with a single telephone call, and it concerns me that after 6 weeks, I have not heard back from the Ombudsman Office.
The purpose of this correspondence is to follow up on that correspondence that I sent to your Office over 6 weeks ago. I know my Father has also been pursuing information from the Ombudsman Office and after 6 months he is still pursuing that matter.
The Ombudsman Office has obviously struggled with this matter in its entirety, and some statements made by that Office leave me in no doubt that there is a significant level of confusion within the Office, which has led to gross technical errors.
My request was quite simple and straight forward, I asked the Ombudsman Office to identify if there were any other flying schools or any other Entity apart from mine, holding the required CASA Approvals.
The Ombudsman Office has demonstrated that it accepts CASA Statements at face value and does not pursue evidence when it is clearly and readily available.
In order to operate as a Part 141 or 142 Flight Training Organisation, that Entity would require.
· A CASA approved Exposition.
· It would have Key personnel, such as a CASA approved Head of operations, safety Manager, and a CASA approved CEO.
· A CASA issued certificate.
· Correspondence between that Organisation and CASA on operational matters etc
The point being that these are black and white matters. The only CASA approved school was APTA, there were no others. When the ombudsman refers to the other Organisations approvals and Authorisations that is quite astounding, as there are none.
This entire investigation has limped along for over 5 years, and the entire process has been mentally exhausting, and pushed me to the very limit.
I am therefore calling on the Ombudsman to respond in a timely manner, and with good intent rather than frustrate processes.
Can the Ombudsman Office please clarify and correct its error and confirm to me that they are fully aware that there was only one Authorisation, that being APTAs, and that no other Entity was a flying school and therefore obviously could not operate a flying school.
Thankyou for your prompt attention to this matter. Could I request that the Ombudsman Office outline the procedure for me to have technical errors addressed.
Respectfully.
Glen Buckley