I know your weary folk but I do have a few more days on my own deadline. A few finishing touches.
In posts #2915,2923, and 2962 I made a request of the Ombudsman over several months. The response is below. Nothing new or exciting in it, but I am just posting it for reference. Cheers,.2019-713834 / 2024-102179
28 March 2024
Mr Glen Buckley
By email:
[email protected]
Dear Mr Buckley
Your complaints about the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA)
I am writing in response to your emails of 16 January 2024 and 26 February 2024 regarding the Office’s handling of your complaint about CASA between 2019 and 2023.
While your emails are lengthy and cover several issues, I understand your main points
to be:
• you believe Office investigation staff understood there were flying schools other than APTA involved, which is incorrect.
• you are unhappy that, despite your requests to withdraw your complaint about CASA, the Office elected to continue with its investigation.
• you believe the Office’s conclusions regarding your complaint about CASA were based on false and misleading information.
To consider these issues, I reviewed all records associated with the investigation conducted by Mike and Mark, and the review conducted by Catherine.
Involvement of 'other' flying schools
In your emails, you asserted that correspondence provided to you by Office staff suggested those staff understood that the existence of flying schools other than APTA
was a factor in CASA's decision making. You pointed out that entities that wish to deliver flying training must hold relevant CASA approvals and asked the Office to identify
which other entities held these.
In my review of our records, I did not identify any statements by Office staff about approved flying schools other than APTA. I also did not identify any such statements in
CASA's responses to the Office's investigation.
Further, based on the records and correspondence on the investigation file, I am satisfied that Mike, Mark and Catherine understood that, across its members, APTA was
the only CASA approved flying school. The records reflect Office staff were aware that APTA's business model was premised on flying training being conducted from
members' bases under APTA's authorisation, being necessary because members did not hold their own approvals.
Failure to act on requests to withdraw
I acknowledge that on at least 2 occasions you asked Mark and Catherine to pause or cease their handling of your complaint about CASA. At those times you explained that the impacts of CASA’s decision on your business and finances were causing you significant distress and you no longer wished to engage with the Office about these or associated matters.
Under section 8(1) of the Ombudsman Act 1976, Ombudsman staff have broad discretion to investigate complaints in the way they think best. This means that while
staff may agree to cease their investigation when a complainant asks them, they are not required to do so. It is clear from the records and from their contacts with you that
Mark and Catherine believed the matters you raised with the Office were serious and complex and - given the time the Office had already invested and the serious impact
you said that CASA’s actions had on your business - warranted continued investigation.
I note that you continued to communicate with Mark and Catherine about the investigation after they declined your requests to withdraw your complaint.
I am satisfied this position was open to them in the circumstances and, as such, do not consider there is any basis for the Office to withdraw the conclusions that resulted from the investigation and subsequent review.
1 Under Part 141 or 142 of the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations.
1300 362 072 ombu
dsman.gov.au GPO Box 442, Canberra ACT 2601
Reliance on false and misleading information
In your emails, you claimed the Office's conclusions about your complaint were based on 'gross misunderstandings' that arose from CASA providing false and misleading
information. You called on the Office to ‘address and publicly correct’ its errors. Catherine was aware of your view that CASA misled the Office by providing incorrect
information and this was one of the focuses of her review. In her letters to you on 8 and 17 February 2023, Catherine advised:
Having considered the information provided to the Office by yourself and CASA during the investigation, I do not believe CASA has mislead our office, or sought
to withhold information from us.
Your most recent emails do not contain any information that would prompt me to
revisit Catherine's assessment of the truthfulness of CASA's responses. However, if you have further information or evidence on this point, I invite you to provide this to the
Office so we may consider it.
Conclusion
In the absence of additional information or evidence (as outlined above), I do not intend to take any further action on your recent emails. While I know you may be
dissatisfied with this outcome, I hope you will see that I have carefully considered the issues you raised.
If you would like to speak with me about this letter, please contact me at
[email protected] so we can arrange a suitable date and time.
Yours sincerely
XXXXXXX
Senior Assistant Ombudsman
Investigations