Glen Buckley and Australian small business -V- CASA
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: New Zealand
Age: 71
Posts: 1,475
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not only that, but the entire question begs the next question - what the hell does this say about the internal systems and processes of CASA that one group actively encouraged this business model, even, allegedly, suggesting smaller schools talk to APTA about joining and saving themselves the cost of obtaining a Part 142 approval - I believe it's clear based on this entire thread, that this actually happened.
What does it say about the integrity of CASA surveillance and assessment processes that this was not addressed in the initial approval - in fact, I believe this thread explains several times at the beginning that not only did CASA endorse the APTA model but actively encouraged it and provided input into the contracts that were in place, only later to say they were inadequate and not realise the previous CASA personnel had suggested them.
This rests at CASA's feet. An organisation responsible for regulation and oversight of aviation safety that either; a) did a u-turn on it's own decision v.v. APTA for reasons unknown; or b) has such poor assessment and surveillance procedures that what they basically were saying was a 'huge' problem sailed past the keeper at the initial approval stage.
It's either one or the other and I believe this thread contains multiple examples of CASA throwing up reasons for their actions and each one was effectively refuted by Glen using CASA's own instruments and determinations, of which the surveillance team were not aware or did not understand - but Glen did. Again, what does that say about CASA??
It is difficult to read the above mentioned and not conclude that each time Glen neutralised one argument, CASA just moved on to another argument until they found one that they thought might 'fly' so to speak. How is that not a determined effort to shut someone down for any reason they can find, followed by apparently utilising the overwhelming bureaucratic heft of the Commonwealth to effectively squash any complaint or call for recompense.
In a country that has in the last ten years; raided journalists and news organisations for evidence of whistleblower sources when a reporter wrote a story accusing instruments of the government of alleged murder (the alleged Afghanistan incidents), exposing allegedly corrupt practices in the ATO, someone in Defence whistleblowing details about Afghanistan and of course, the most prominent case; Witness K and his lawyer Bernard Collaery being subject to a 'secret trial' - the sort that belongs in Soviet era spy novels, not modern Australia - I have no direct information about CASA's intentions but in this country right now, although logic and decency has prevailed and the Collaery trial has been abandoned, I would not put it past government to be vindictive and merciless in destroying someones life and career - if the foregoing doesn't convince people, look at what the High Court said about Robodebt.
What does it say about the integrity of CASA surveillance and assessment processes that this was not addressed in the initial approval - in fact, I believe this thread explains several times at the beginning that not only did CASA endorse the APTA model but actively encouraged it and provided input into the contracts that were in place, only later to say they were inadequate and not realise the previous CASA personnel had suggested them.
This rests at CASA's feet. An organisation responsible for regulation and oversight of aviation safety that either; a) did a u-turn on it's own decision v.v. APTA for reasons unknown; or b) has such poor assessment and surveillance procedures that what they basically were saying was a 'huge' problem sailed past the keeper at the initial approval stage.
It's either one or the other and I believe this thread contains multiple examples of CASA throwing up reasons for their actions and each one was effectively refuted by Glen using CASA's own instruments and determinations, of which the surveillance team were not aware or did not understand - but Glen did. Again, what does that say about CASA??
It is difficult to read the above mentioned and not conclude that each time Glen neutralised one argument, CASA just moved on to another argument until they found one that they thought might 'fly' so to speak. How is that not a determined effort to shut someone down for any reason they can find, followed by apparently utilising the overwhelming bureaucratic heft of the Commonwealth to effectively squash any complaint or call for recompense.
In a country that has in the last ten years; raided journalists and news organisations for evidence of whistleblower sources when a reporter wrote a story accusing instruments of the government of alleged murder (the alleged Afghanistan incidents), exposing allegedly corrupt practices in the ATO, someone in Defence whistleblowing details about Afghanistan and of course, the most prominent case; Witness K and his lawyer Bernard Collaery being subject to a 'secret trial' - the sort that belongs in Soviet era spy novels, not modern Australia - I have no direct information about CASA's intentions but in this country right now, although logic and decency has prevailed and the Collaery trial has been abandoned, I would not put it past government to be vindictive and merciless in destroying someones life and career - if the foregoing doesn't convince people, look at what the High Court said about Robodebt.
Thread Starter
Worker Bees?
Lead Balloon, thankyou for the time and consideration that you put into your responses, and especially that last one.
Whilst the overall post was insightful, I feel I must pull you up on one particular reference, and that was your reference to the ‘worker bees”. I appreciate it wasn’t intended literally, although it must be addressed.
These were not worker bees. From the commencement of the revalidation between June 2016 through until April 2017, when we were approved, I dealt on every occasion with the most Senior of CASA personnel, from as high up as the second in charge of CASA. For day-to-day communications I had my CASA Certificate Management Team (CMT), a CASA team containing a small group of Subject Matter Experts on Flight School Operations, Maintenance and Safety. They worked with me on my Exposition and designing all systems and procedures for 18 months. On occasion CASA also tasked additional highly experienced CASA employees to the Project. These are senior personnel from within the Public Service/CASA, and their salaries are indicative of just how senior those roles are.
I was very dependent on those contacts within CASA that were allocated to me by CASA for the project of revalidating APTA to the new regulations using the same multi base multi entity structure that I had been using for many years.
Surely CASA has a Duty of Care I these circumstances.
There was a “special relationship” if you like. This Part 141/142 Transition to the new regulations was not something that I requested. It was something imposed on me, and in fact all flying schools in Australia by the Regulator.
The advice or information provided by CASA concerned a business and professional transaction. CASA being the Regulator and the authority that stipulated the requirements that I had to meet to continue operating my business after September 1st, 2017. I submitted my Exposition to CASA for assessment and approval. CASA was fully aware of the importance and influence attached to the answer and the information that they provided me.
In my dealings with the CASA personnel, I reasonably depended on CASAs special skill or ability to assess and approve all of my 600 requirements that CASA had stipulated for me, in order to continue doing what I was doing after September 1st, 2017. This was much more than me being reasonably reliant on CASA personnel, I was fully reliant. CASA had to assess and formally review all my procedures by way of the Exposition. CASA then formally approved them. This was a requirement if I was to continue operating after September 1st, 2017.
When CASA changed their mind and reversed the approval of my businesses and shut the operation down I, and others suffered significant loss. I had reasonably relied on the advice and information provided by CASA in obtaining my revalidation 18 months earlier and suffered loss as a result of that reliance on CASAs earlier advice when CASA reversed their opinion.
The entire application and Exposition went for a peer review within CASA. I submitted my Exposition and had it approved by CASA 18 months earlier. If the CASA team that had been dealing with my application over the previous 18 months had not identified that CASA would later deem my structure illegal, I had a reasonable expectation that such a deficiency would have been identified at the “Peer Review” stage 18 months earlier when a second team of CASA personnel assess the entire application and Exposition. In my opinion, both the CASA team that worked with me for eighteen months, and the CASA team that conducted the Peer Review failed to exercise a standard of care sufficient to discharge the duty of care arising from the very close relationship between me and the Regulator on this matter.
As it was CASA that introduced the new regulations and provided the guidance material that I followed closely, and also stipulated the more than 600 requirements that I would have to attend to. Then those same people would assess each of my procedures against the CASA stipulated requirements, the circumstances of the communications were so formal that the CASA personnel realised that they were being trusted by me fully as the recipient of that information. These personnel assessed my procedures and approved them by way of a formal process, I fully trusted them and was fully dependent on them for that advice.
The nature of the information or advice was very much of both a serious and a business nature. CASA had advised that flying schools could not operate after September 1st, 2017, if they did not comply with the new regulations. The matter was very serious and in fact essential to business continuity.
The CASA personnel that worked with me in the design of the structure, assessed it, approved it. The CASA personnel must have been fully aware that I intended to act on their information and advice. The communications were between CASA as the regulator and my Organisation. There were no other Parties involved in this Project to gain approval in September 2017. It was very much a bilateral relationship that was established by this reciprocity.
This was far more than a Preliminary review or a considered opinion that CASA gave me. It was a set of requirements that they stipulated. I met them. They were assessed and approved fully by CASA 18 months before CASA deemed the operation that they had approved illegal.
If there was a requirement for contacts, there were many opportunities over the 6 years that I was operating with this structure for CASA to identify that requirement, and most especially at throughout the 18 months that they worked with me leading up to the revalidation in April of 2017. Basically, information was not provided to me when it should have been by those CASA personnel. Once CASA realised that they had erred, that should have been the starting point for well intentioned discussion working towards resolution, rather than an engineered process to shut down the business.
Whilst the overall post was insightful, I feel I must pull you up on one particular reference, and that was your reference to the ‘worker bees”. I appreciate it wasn’t intended literally, although it must be addressed.
These were not worker bees. From the commencement of the revalidation between June 2016 through until April 2017, when we were approved, I dealt on every occasion with the most Senior of CASA personnel, from as high up as the second in charge of CASA. For day-to-day communications I had my CASA Certificate Management Team (CMT), a CASA team containing a small group of Subject Matter Experts on Flight School Operations, Maintenance and Safety. They worked with me on my Exposition and designing all systems and procedures for 18 months. On occasion CASA also tasked additional highly experienced CASA employees to the Project. These are senior personnel from within the Public Service/CASA, and their salaries are indicative of just how senior those roles are.
I was very dependent on those contacts within CASA that were allocated to me by CASA for the project of revalidating APTA to the new regulations using the same multi base multi entity structure that I had been using for many years.
Surely CASA has a Duty of Care I these circumstances.
There was a “special relationship” if you like. This Part 141/142 Transition to the new regulations was not something that I requested. It was something imposed on me, and in fact all flying schools in Australia by the Regulator.
The advice or information provided by CASA concerned a business and professional transaction. CASA being the Regulator and the authority that stipulated the requirements that I had to meet to continue operating my business after September 1st, 2017. I submitted my Exposition to CASA for assessment and approval. CASA was fully aware of the importance and influence attached to the answer and the information that they provided me.
In my dealings with the CASA personnel, I reasonably depended on CASAs special skill or ability to assess and approve all of my 600 requirements that CASA had stipulated for me, in order to continue doing what I was doing after September 1st, 2017. This was much more than me being reasonably reliant on CASA personnel, I was fully reliant. CASA had to assess and formally review all my procedures by way of the Exposition. CASA then formally approved them. This was a requirement if I was to continue operating after September 1st, 2017.
When CASA changed their mind and reversed the approval of my businesses and shut the operation down I, and others suffered significant loss. I had reasonably relied on the advice and information provided by CASA in obtaining my revalidation 18 months earlier and suffered loss as a result of that reliance on CASAs earlier advice when CASA reversed their opinion.
The entire application and Exposition went for a peer review within CASA. I submitted my Exposition and had it approved by CASA 18 months earlier. If the CASA team that had been dealing with my application over the previous 18 months had not identified that CASA would later deem my structure illegal, I had a reasonable expectation that such a deficiency would have been identified at the “Peer Review” stage 18 months earlier when a second team of CASA personnel assess the entire application and Exposition. In my opinion, both the CASA team that worked with me for eighteen months, and the CASA team that conducted the Peer Review failed to exercise a standard of care sufficient to discharge the duty of care arising from the very close relationship between me and the Regulator on this matter.
As it was CASA that introduced the new regulations and provided the guidance material that I followed closely, and also stipulated the more than 600 requirements that I would have to attend to. Then those same people would assess each of my procedures against the CASA stipulated requirements, the circumstances of the communications were so formal that the CASA personnel realised that they were being trusted by me fully as the recipient of that information. These personnel assessed my procedures and approved them by way of a formal process, I fully trusted them and was fully dependent on them for that advice.
The nature of the information or advice was very much of both a serious and a business nature. CASA had advised that flying schools could not operate after September 1st, 2017, if they did not comply with the new regulations. The matter was very serious and in fact essential to business continuity.
The CASA personnel that worked with me in the design of the structure, assessed it, approved it. The CASA personnel must have been fully aware that I intended to act on their information and advice. The communications were between CASA as the regulator and my Organisation. There were no other Parties involved in this Project to gain approval in September 2017. It was very much a bilateral relationship that was established by this reciprocity.
This was far more than a Preliminary review or a considered opinion that CASA gave me. It was a set of requirements that they stipulated. I met them. They were assessed and approved fully by CASA 18 months before CASA deemed the operation that they had approved illegal.
If there was a requirement for contacts, there were many opportunities over the 6 years that I was operating with this structure for CASA to identify that requirement, and most especially at throughout the 18 months that they worked with me leading up to the revalidation in April of 2017. Basically, information was not provided to me when it should have been by those CASA personnel. Once CASA realised that they had erred, that should have been the starting point for well intentioned discussion working towards resolution, rather than an engineered process to shut down the business.
I agree with the gist of your argument, Glen. In the circumstances it was reasonable for you to rely on the CASA personnel to explain all of the hoops through which CASA expected APTA to jump in order to satisfy applicable regulatory requirements. That was precisely the point of the interactions. Doesn’t matter whether the CASA personnel with whom you were dealing were ‘ordinary’ staff or the CEO. Whoever they were, CASA let them loose on APTA to work through what CASA considered to be the applicable regulatory requirements. You were entitled to assume they knew what they were talking about and would tell APTA the whole requirements story. If one of them happened to be a ‘head office’ adult, so much the better from your perspective.
As I’ve said before, if CASA’s requirements set out in its email of March 19 were applicable then, they were always applicable (at least from the point at which CASA was on notice that APTA’s structure included personnel who were not APTA employees operating out of premises of which APTA was not owner or lessee and using aircraft of which APTA was not registered operator). As I’ve also said before, I’m guessing CASA will continue with the story that it wasn’t on notice of the details of the APTA ‘Alliance’ ‘member’ structure until late 2018, to try to avoid potential liability. After all, CASA never makes mistakes.
As I’ve said before, if CASA’s requirements set out in its email of March 19 were applicable then, they were always applicable (at least from the point at which CASA was on notice that APTA’s structure included personnel who were not APTA employees operating out of premises of which APTA was not owner or lessee and using aircraft of which APTA was not registered operator). As I’ve also said before, I’m guessing CASA will continue with the story that it wasn’t on notice of the details of the APTA ‘Alliance’ ‘member’ structure until late 2018, to try to avoid potential liability. After all, CASA never makes mistakes.
I agree with the gist of your argument, Glen. In the circumstances it was reasonable for you to rely on the CASA personnel to explain all of the hoops through which CASA expected APTA to jump in order to satisfy applicable regulatory requirements. That was precisely the point of the interactions. Doesn’t matter whether the CASA personnel with whom you were dealing were ‘ordinary’ staff or the CEO. Whoever they were, CASA let them loose on APTA to work through what CASA considered to be the applicable regulatory requirements. You were entitled to assume they knew what they were talking about and would tell APTA the whole requirements story. If one of them happened to be a ‘head office’ adult, so much the better from your perspective.
As I’ve said before, if CASA’s requirements set out in its email of March 19 were applicable then, they were always applicable (at least from the point at which CASA was on notice that APTA’s structure included personnel who were not APTA employees operating out of premises of which APTA was not owner or lessee and using aircraft of which APTA was not registered operator). As I’ve also said before, I’m guessing CASA will continue with the story that it wasn’t on notice of the details of the APTA ‘Alliance’ ‘member’ structure until late 2018, to try to avoid potential liability. After all, CASA never makes mistakes.
As I’ve said before, if CASA’s requirements set out in its email of March 19 were applicable then, they were always applicable (at least from the point at which CASA was on notice that APTA’s structure included personnel who were not APTA employees operating out of premises of which APTA was not owner or lessee and using aircraft of which APTA was not registered operator). As I’ve also said before, I’m guessing CASA will continue with the story that it wasn’t on notice of the details of the APTA ‘Alliance’ ‘member’ structure until late 2018, to try to avoid potential liability. After all, CASA never makes mistakes.
Of course not. To paraphrase something Gough once said "they wouldn't have the guts comrade!!".
It is because Glen, a thoroughly decent person who exudes integrity and trust and has acted in good faith, does not pose enough of a threat to this organisation. Those of us who know Glen, know the quality of person we are dealing with here and we also know the sort of people/cabals we are dealing with in the Commonwealth Government who orchestrated robodebt and the active suppression of investigative journalism by utilising the organs of the State and obscenely over-the-top 'national security' laws to carry out actions aimed at covering the a-ses of former Ministers and Department Heads for authorising something that at least one senior, experienced jurist has deemed illegal, and instead persecuting a lawyer and his client. Presumably so the truth would never completely come out and those responsible never be brought to justice.
I say that to echo Paragraph's response, it's because they are only interested in the acquisition and maintenance of power and don't give a **** about decent people who get hurt along the way.
I just hope, not least for Glen's peace of mind, that the new government, which has made a good start by withdrawing the charges against Collaery, will follow through in other areas and make sure this bureaucratic bull**** is both eradicated and those it has harmed are given just compensation.
Just look at the John Barilaro (Porkbarilaro) New York job saga. A crooked State Government caught out acting corruptly for one of the ‘club members’. Politicians and Bureaucraps exist solely to feather the nests of themselves and their mates. They don’t give a **** about transparency, ethics, honesty or accountability. That’s how they feel about Glen, there is no personal gain or money in it for the rule makers so they couldn’t give a dollop of piss about Glen. Sad, but true.
I agree, AP. CASA, along with many government agencies, has got the beasting of practically defenceless individuals down pat. CASA Avmed, in particular, does a brisk trade in unlawful, inhumane bastardry.
What you may not realise - though it adds weight to your point - is that the ‘Robodebt’ litigation was settled in the Federal Court (not in the High Court) after which politicians and officials could and did claim that no court had ever made a finding of unlawfulness. These were the same people who rejected any suggestion that some of Robdebt’s victims had been driven to suicide.
No shame. No integrity. The senior ranks of the public sector are awash with them.
What you may not realise - though it adds weight to your point - is that the ‘Robodebt’ litigation was settled in the Federal Court (not in the High Court) after which politicians and officials could and did claim that no court had ever made a finding of unlawfulness. These were the same people who rejected any suggestion that some of Robdebt’s victims had been driven to suicide.
No shame. No integrity. The senior ranks of the public sector are awash with them.
LB:
Yes, quite correct Technically and legally no findings were made about Robodebt, just as CASA can probably claim that technically and legally its dealings with Glen Buckley are faultless. However there is an important "But" needed as a qualification;
There is an underlying presumption of "Good Faith" in negotiations and I don't mean it in the narrow commercial contract law sense, I mean it in the widest possible sense of being able to trust the other party. Without that ingredient from both parties, it is impossible to arrive at any meaningful long term agreement about anything because each party has to devote too much energy trying to protect themselves from the potential depredations of the other.
The entire Buckley saga once again demonstrates, sadly, that CASA, none of it, from top to bottom, can be trusted, period. if CASA was trustworthy and it had a genuine concern about APTA's organisation, it would have worked with him and fixed it come hell or high water instead of primly sitting on its hands. That's what someone working in good faith would do, it's the Australian expected community standard.
I say "once again" because the primary finding of the Forsyth review was just that; industry doesnt trust CASA although the committee didn't say it globally. The review mentioned 'trust' 25 times and not in a positive way for CASA. (see section 2.8.2 and the whole of section 4).
This is not to suggest that anyone is dishonest. However clearly, no matter what the well meaning Board, DAS and some individuals try to do, without a foundation of mutual trust, which is clearly lacking, CASA, the organisation, is building on sand.
In my opinion, in the knowledge that lack of trust is a managerial death sentence for football coaches and upwards, the question now is whether it is either possible or efficient to try and repair CASA's reputation or whether it would be easier to start again from a clean sheet of paper.
I agree, AP. CASA, along with many government agencies, has got the beasting of practically defenceless individuals down pat. CASA Avmed, in particular, does a brisk trade in unlawful, inhumane bastardry.
What you may not realise - though it adds weight to your point - is that the ‘Robodebt’ litigation was settled in the Federal Court (not in the High Court) after which politicians and officials could and did claim that no court had ever made a finding of unlawfulness. These were the same people who rejected any suggestion that some of Robdebt’s victims had been driven to suicide.
No shame. No integrity. The senior ranks of the public sector are awash with them.
What you may not realise - though it adds weight to your point - is that the ‘Robodebt’ litigation was settled in the Federal Court (not in the High Court) after which politicians and officials could and did claim that no court had ever made a finding of unlawfulness. These were the same people who rejected any suggestion that some of Robdebt’s victims had been driven to suicide.
No shame. No integrity. The senior ranks of the public sector are awash with them.
There is an underlying presumption of "Good Faith" in negotiations and I don't mean it in the narrow commercial contract law sense, I mean it in the widest possible sense of being able to trust the other party. Without that ingredient from both parties, it is impossible to arrive at any meaningful long term agreement about anything because each party has to devote too much energy trying to protect themselves from the potential depredations of the other.
The entire Buckley saga once again demonstrates, sadly, that CASA, none of it, from top to bottom, can be trusted, period. if CASA was trustworthy and it had a genuine concern about APTA's organisation, it would have worked with him and fixed it come hell or high water instead of primly sitting on its hands. That's what someone working in good faith would do, it's the Australian expected community standard.
I say "once again" because the primary finding of the Forsyth review was just that; industry doesnt trust CASA although the committee didn't say it globally. The review mentioned 'trust' 25 times and not in a positive way for CASA. (see section 2.8.2 and the whole of section 4).
This is not to suggest that anyone is dishonest. However clearly, no matter what the well meaning Board, DAS and some individuals try to do, without a foundation of mutual trust, which is clearly lacking, CASA, the organisation, is building on sand.
In my opinion, in the knowledge that lack of trust is a managerial death sentence for football coaches and upwards, the question now is whether it is either possible or efficient to try and repair CASA's reputation or whether it would be easier to start again from a clean sheet of paper.
Even if very aviation type person in Oz sent a vote of No Confidence to Miss Spent and copies went to the PM, who do you think might do anything to rectify the situation.?
CAsA is the fisherman’s creel with last weeks forgotten trout stinking in it. Nobody wants to clean it out.
Bloody silver tail malcontents, who the hell do they think they are.!
We have a world beating safety agency , the most safety regulations and the worlds best accident record all as a result of experts in our very expensive corporate agency,, the Civil Aviation SAFETY Authority, and they do nothing but complain.!
CAsA is the fisherman’s creel with last weeks forgotten trout stinking in it. Nobody wants to clean it out.
Bloody silver tail malcontents, who the hell do they think they are.!
We have a world beating safety agency , the most safety regulations and the worlds best accident record all as a result of experts in our very expensive corporate agency,, the Civil Aviation SAFETY Authority, and they do nothing but complain.!
No confidence and no trust
The reasons are its intransigence, inconsistencies, extraordinarily complex and costly regulations and too many instances of straight up dishonesty.
There’s only one appropriate overall remedy and that is to revert to the Westminster system of responsible government. CASA must be disbanded and its functions given to a Department of government with Minister at its head.
The experiment of the independent corporate has failed, always was a muddle headed concept which was, initially all the rage, the creation of what was the idiotic and contradictory notion of a Government Business Enterprise (GBE). This term you may note has fallen out of use, having a government sponsored monopoly and trying to give it a semblance of a “business,” and the word “enterprise” in keeping with the free market idea, was never more than a dishonest confidence truck.
We must approach our MPs and ask them to support this fundamental reform.
Join Date: Oct 2019
Location: Australia
Age: 53
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That is the last thing we need, a politician at the helm. No corruption in politics right. The minister signs off on everything they do now. I listen to the inspectors we deal with then i look at CASA, there is obviously a major internal disconnect, the regulator has obviously lacked leadership and direction.
No politics to be involved?
Dear Breedapart, sounds like you lack faith in democracy because logically if the directives of government, I’ll presume you can see that laws are important, are enforced by unelected bodies who take power by any means available other than being voted into power, then ask what alternatives are going to be viable?
Yes it’s true that Parliament rubber stamps what CASA puts up as new regulations, but that doesn’t mean that having much more direct Ministerial involvement wouldn’t be better. It seems that Australians have a most jaundiced view of politicians, in my experience this is not justified and we have one of the best records in the world, but people love to hate the system.
Part of the answer is to get involved in political institutions because democracy only works with participation and the more the better.
Yes it’s true that Parliament rubber stamps what CASA puts up as new regulations, but that doesn’t mean that having much more direct Ministerial involvement wouldn’t be better. It seems that Australians have a most jaundiced view of politicians, in my experience this is not justified and we have one of the best records in the world, but people love to hate the system.
Part of the answer is to get involved in political institutions because democracy only works with participation and the more the better.
As my friend Paul Phelan wrote many years ago the aviation industry has lost trust in CASA.
The reasons are its intransigence, inconsistencies, extraordinarily complex and costly regulations and too many instances of straight up dishonesty.
There’s only one appropriate overall remedy and that is to revert to the Westminster system of responsible government. CASA must be disbanded and its functions given to a Department of government with Minister at its head.
The experiment of the independent corporate has failed, always was a muddle headed concept which was, initially all the rage, the creation of what was the idiotic and contradictory notion of a Government Business Enterprise (GBE). This term you may note has fallen out of use, having a government sponsored monopoly and trying to give it a semblance of a “business,” and the word “enterprise” in keeping with the free market idea, was never more than a dishonest confidence truck.
We must approach our MPs and ask them to support this fundamental reform.
The reasons are its intransigence, inconsistencies, extraordinarily complex and costly regulations and too many instances of straight up dishonesty.
There’s only one appropriate overall remedy and that is to revert to the Westminster system of responsible government. CASA must be disbanded and its functions given to a Department of government with Minister at its head.
The experiment of the independent corporate has failed, always was a muddle headed concept which was, initially all the rage, the creation of what was the idiotic and contradictory notion of a Government Business Enterprise (GBE). This term you may note has fallen out of use, having a government sponsored monopoly and trying to give it a semblance of a “business,” and the word “enterprise” in keeping with the free market idea, was never more than a dishonest confidence truck.
We must approach our MPs and ask them to support this fundamental reform.
Besides, Australia has a blend of US and UK systems but interestingly, during the early attempts to draft a constitution, ultimately resulting in us practically plagiarising large tracts of text from the US Constitution, the British Advisors at the time actually stated words to the effect "if you can come up with a better system than 'responsible government' then go ahead as it simply does not work.'
You can't be 'responsible' to parliament if you're only in a position of responsibility because your party has a majority and as we've seen during Morrison's reign, will do anything up to and including manipulation of the language to get out of actually making a Minister responsible to parliament. That's how we ended up with an AG, the most senior law officer of the Commonwealth, refusing to step down and his PM refusing to ask him to, when he was accused of rape.
Responsible to no one is what the system should be called.
There are virtually no checks and balances like the US system and others. Even the GG serves at the pleasure of the PM in reality.
Unfortunately that means there is no restraint on the executive or very, very little and what there is usually drives someone to 'do the right thing' because of an eye on the next election.
Nearly all ... (people) can stand adversity, but if you want to test a .... (person's) character, give .... (them) power.
Abraham Lincoln
Thread Starter
Submission of allegation- Part One
For those that have been following in some recent posts I had a draft of my allegation of a CASA employee providing false and misleading information to the current Commonwealth Ombudsman investigation. That document has been rejigged and edited, and was sent to the CASA Industry Complaints Commissioner today, with a copy also forwarded to the Board of CASA. That document follows over this post and those that follow. Cheers. Glen.28th July 2022.
Useful Links
Civil Aviation Act Civil Aviation Act 1988 (legislation.gov.au)
Civil Aviation Regulations Civil Aviation Regulations 1988 (legislation.gov.au)
CASRs Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 (legislation.gov.au)
COMPLAINT TO THE CASA INDUSTRY COMPLAINTS COMMISSIONER (ICC) OF A CASA EMPLOYEE CHOOSING TO PROVIDE CLEARLY FALSE AND MISLEADING INFORMATION TO THE COMMONWEALTH OMBUDSMANS OFFICE INVESTIGATION, WITH THE INTENTION TO PERVERT THE FINDINGS OF THAT INVESTIGATION.
Dear Mr Hanton,
I write to you in your dual roles within the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA), as both the Industry Complaints Commissioner (ICC), and as the CASA Ethics and Integrity Officer (E&IO).
The purpose of this correspondence is to formally submit a complaint to your office of a CASA employee deliberately providing false and misleading information to an investigation currently being conducted by the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s Office. That investigation being conducted by the Ombudsman’s Office is into the closure of my two businesses and the subsequent direction from CASA to my Employer at the time, that my continuing employment was “no longer tenable based on comments that I was making publicly”.
The person responsible for providing that false and misleading information to the Ombudsman’s Office is Mr Jonathan Aleck, the CASA Executive Manager of Legal, International and Regulatory Affairs.
Perhaps not coincidentally, Mr Aleck is also the sole decision maker within CASA that determined my business of more than a decade was suddenly operating unlawfully and forced it into closure on 23rd October 2018 when CASA sent the following notification to me.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/k3qn3qdgoa...ation.pdf?dl=0
As the investigation by the Ombudsman’s Office is about the processes and consequences associated with Mr Alecks decision making, it is a possibility that Mr Aleck may be tempted to provide false and misleading information to the Ombudsman’s Office to coverup his alleged misconduct.
Importantly, this correspondence is not a complaint about Mr Alecks conduct. This is a complaint about the truthfulness and accuracy of information provided to the Ombudsman’s Office, and a further opportunity for CASA to act professionally and with integrity and simply tell the clear and concise truth to the office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman.
As you are aware the ramifications of Mr Alecks “change of opinion” and determination to close down my businesses in October 2018 and with no prior warning, caused significant harm, as could be expected. The notification that my business was now operating illegally, caught me completely off guard, and was not expected.
My family has been significantly impacted by this matter. I have lost my home, and I have been bankrupted. After CASA closed my businesses, and I obtained employment within the industry, CASA withdrew their approval of me to operate in the role of CASA approved Head of Operations, and directed my employer that my “continuing employment was no longer tenable”, there can be no doubt that I was forced out of the industry that I had spent the last 25 years in.
My wife and I have been left with total assets of $6000. We now rent, and if my wife or I were to stop working for more than 6 weeks, we would be facing homelessness. That is the plain and simple truth, and the inevitability of that situation is traumatic. My physical and mental health has been impacted and my poor wife has had a total of 6 days free of work in the last 1500 days, since CASA did this in October of 2018, as she tries desperately to claw back some level of meagre financial security for our future.
Like most small business owners in Australia, that business that CASA closed, was in fact my Superannuation. The future of my wife and I is bleak, and our latter years will be dependent on social housing. Our life changed significantly on receipt of the notification that the business I had operated for over a decade was suddenly illegal. We have been left destitute.
As the person impacted, by the conduct and decision making of the single CASA employee, Mr Jonathan Aleck, at the very minimum I believe I am entitled to a thorough and well-intentioned investigation, and a written explanation of why CASA took such disproportionate, unnecessary, unlawful, and totally avoidable action against my business. My reasonable expectation of CASA is that they will act professionally and honestly in providing information to the Ombudsman’s Office to facilitate a fair determination.
As you are aware there are three primary issues in that investigation.
1. The sudden reversal of CASA approval for my business, the Australian Pilot Training Alliance (APTA).
2. The decision that my flying school of more than a decade, Melbourne Flight Training, was now suddenly operating unlawfully and shut down.
3. The direction by CASA to my Employer that I was not a fit and proper person to hold the CASA approved position as the Head of Operations (HOO), based on comments that I was making publicly, yet CASA refuses to identify the alleged comments that I made publicly to justify that direction from CASA.
As you are aware, CASA never made any allegations against any safety matter, CASA never stated that we did not have full operational control, never raised any concerns at all about any quality outcomes at all. It was simply a determination by Mr Aleck that my business had suddenly become unlawful against a regulation from 30 years prior. The very same business that had been operating for more than a decade with an industry leading level of safety and compliance.
For complete clarity, I am fully satisfied that Mr Alecks decision making, and actions may not have been primarily motivated by the safety of aviation, but that they were in fact made for other less altruistic reasons, and his decision making may not have had the clarity that it should have had. There are reasons I say this, but they do not need to be attended to in this correspondence. This may be a contributing factor as to why he chose to bypass clearly stipulated procedures in CASAs own manuals, when CASA decide to
A) Close a business down by cancelling, varying or suspending an AOC, or
B) CASA determine that a person is no longer a “fit and proper” person to hold a position as a CASA approved Head of Operations.
By choosing to bypass these stipulated procedures in designed to protect individuals such as myself from abuses of power by public officials, Mr Aleck was able to operate unchecked, and I was left with no appeal available to be to dispute his change of opinion.
It is important, not only for me, but also for the wider industry, for the purposes of investigating if improvements in procedures can be adopted within CASA to ensure that this can never happen again to any other person. It does not seem reasonable that in any industry, the Regulator should be able to shut down a business, effective immediately without a sound supporting case, and particularly so when that owner of the business impacted, has no appeal process available to them against the Regulators determination, and always has shown a complete willingness to comply with any new requirements stipulated by the Regulator.
As you are aware on 23rd October 2018, and without any warning Mr Aleck determined that my business of more than ten years was somehow suddenly unlawful, and advised it was most likely I was to be prosecuted as a result.
Three years later, as the person impacted the entire matter remains inexplicable, in fact probably more so now than before.
There were never any allegations against by CASA against any safety matters, or any quality outcomes, just a determination that it was unlawful against a regulation from 30 years prior. The business had been operating for twelve years and was established almost two decades after that regulation was even written.
It was ludicrous and made absolutely no sense at all. Of more concern, it was totally unnecessary and totally avoidable. A well-intentioned discussion could have fully resolved this matter in less than half a day, and that is the plain and simple truth.
Had CASA intended to resolve this matter, there is no reason that it could not have been totally resolved and all the associated harm and trauma avoided. There is no reason that the entire matter could not have been resolved at any time by way of a 4 hour well intentioned discussion between CASA and me. Quite simply, someone in CASA did not want this matter resolved. They wanted my business shut down. It was personal. Whilst I appreciate the difficulty in proving that Mr Aleck acted vindictively and vexatiously against me is most likely not feasible, a genuine assessment of his decision making would have to raise some concerns.
Mr Aleck immediately implemented restrictions on my businesses ability to trade, from that first notification on 23rd October 2018. Those restrictions created an impossible environment to operate a business and deprived me of almost all revenue throughout the next 6-month period, until CASA confirmed their original position in the original document of 23rd October 2018, determined my business unlawful, and forced any remaining customers to leave, leading to the inevitable closure of the business, and significant material harm and trauma.
That trauma was most significant on me and my family but also extended to staff that lost employment and entitlements, to the foreign and domestic students who had their training impacted, to suppliers left unpaid, and businesses dependant on me that were forced into closure as a result.
I appreciate that Mr Aleck will likely try and contend that CASA took no action against my business. As the Owner of that business, and the individual directly affected, please let me be very clear that the restrictions on my businesses were devastating. On multiple occasions, in writing, CASA was made fully aware of the impact of Mr Alecks determination. Throughout the 8 months between the restrictions on trade being applied, and CASA shutting down the business, CASA was repeatedly advised of the commercial impact. In fact within 24 hours of CASA reversing their approval and placing restrictions on my ability to trade, I had contacted CASA.
That initial notification sent by CASA can be accessed here:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/k3qn3qdgoa...ation.pdf?dl=0
My initial response to that CASA notification can be accessed here:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ke7rl708n9...ponse.pdf?dl=0
The impacts of that notification were significant. All restrictions remained in place for 8 months until CASA stood by their original determination and forced all my remaining customers to leave, despite that not being the customers preferred option.
· CASA advised I was operating unlawfully and subject to prosecution.
· CASA prevented me from accepting any new customers.
· CASA contacted all my existing customers within 30 days and advised them that I was operating unlawfully, and that their continuing involvement with my business would subject them also to regulatory action.
· CASA restrictions prevented me from marketing my business at a critical time for the business i.e., end of the school year.
· CASA placed several short terms “interim approvals to operate” of as little as 7 days. With 7 days surety of operations, it was impossible and unlawful for me to enrol students into our 15-month courses with those 7 days surety of operations. These short-term interim approvals to operate made business difficult and created anxiety on employees, suppliers, and customers over the lack of certainty regarding continuing operations.
· Placed an “administrative freeze” on the business whereby CASA refused to process any regulatory tasks including approving personnel, renewing flight simulators, adding on any new courses etc.
· Caused enormous reputational damage to the business and to me personally
· Bought enormous organisational instability.
· Starved the business of income.
· CASA allowed the business to remain open, but it was unable to access new customers or retain existing customers. By acting in this way, CASA had not formally “decided”, but rather they were “thinking about it”. As no decision was ever made, the restrictions were never lifted, and I had no appeal process open to me. I was at the complete mercy of Mr Aleck, who may not have been acting with good intent.
With those restrictions being in place for over 6 months, Mr Aleck then stood by his initial determination and closed the business down when he forced all remaining customers to leave, despite that not being the customers preferred option.
The business was obviously forced into closure by CASA. On that matter there is no question.
All of this was done without CASA ever providing any supporting safety case.
It was a reversal of CASAs previously issued approvals, that had been held by me for over a decade.
CASA never issued any documentation throughout this entire process that gave me the right to appeal or challenge the change of opinion by Mr Aleck. I was completely denied procedural fairness and natural justice. These are clear breaches of CASAs obligations in administrative law, as outlined in CASAs own procedures. These include thespecified procedures to be followed when CASA close down a business by “suspending, cancelling, or varying an AOC’ as they did with mine. CASA completely bypassed these stipulated procedures. These procedures can be accessed via CASAs Enforcement Manual located here.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/960oiyktzv...anual.pdf?dl=0
Similarly, CASA also completely bypassed all of their own procedures in that same Manual, when they determined that I was not a “fit and proper person” to hold the formally CASA approved position of Head of Operations (HOO) and directed my Employer that my continuing employment as the HOO was “no longer tenable based on comments that I was making publicly”, although CASA fails to identify to me what those “ comments that I was making publicly” were, despite CASA using those “comments” as the basis to force me out of the industry. Once CASA had declared that I was not a “fit and proper person”, I was effectively unemployable in the flight training industry where I had worked for over 25 years. Having lost my two businesses, I was now forced to exit the industry I loved.
The entire matter of closing down my business is absurd. I had been operating in that same structure for the last six years, until Mr Aleck suddenly declared it unlawful in October 2018. I am fully satisfied that Mr Aleck was the sole decision maker throughout this entire matter, and that he was abusing his significant power.
What made this even more absurd is that two and a half years earlier, CASA had worked side by side with me, for hundreds of hours, as I invested many hundreds of thousands of dollars in systems, procedures and personnel to become one of Australia’s first schools to get CASA accreditation as both a Part 141 and 142 organisation in April 2017, and we were operating in the same multi base structure that CASA would later, suddenly determine to be illegal in October 2018, and deceptively claim that they were not aware of. It is such a ludicrous assertion, and so clearly false and misleading.
As you are aware, I am fully satisfied that Mr Aleck, the sole decision maker in closing my business. drew on no supporting safety case, no regulatory breach, no identified concern against any quality outcome whatsoever. You simply need to ask him, to put forward his arguments clearly and concisely. The tenuous nature of Mr Alecks opinion will become immediately obvious. Despite my repeated requests for an explanation, none has been forthcoming. CASA is extremely evasive in providing an explanation for Mr Alecks decisions and actions, and this has been my experience throughout the last three years. To be frank, I believe that there is an attempt to cover up this matter, at the highest levels of CASA.
It is important to understand that I was not disputing CASAs safety case because there was never any safety case put forward by CASA to dispute. CASA have never put forward any safety case at all in support of Mr Alecks decision making. Surely one would expect that such substantial decision making within CASA, such as the decision to shut down a business of more than a decade would be driven by decisions on based on safety with supporting safety cases and evidence-based data. Surely that failure to have any supporting safety case at all, must raise concerns as to the quality of his decision making, and more so when I have made formal allegations before the Senate that he was acting vindictively and vexatiously against me. That presentation to Senate on 23rd November 2020 where I raised these allegations of misfeasance in Public Office against Mr Aleck, can be accessed here.
This entire and exact structure that I had been using for 6 years and that that Mr Aleck suddenly declared unlawful in October 2018, had been re-designed from the ground up and formally revalidated 18 months earlier by CASA in April of 2017. Yet inexplicably,18 months later, in October 2018, CASA declare it unlawful and shut it down, then assert to the Ombudsman that they weren’t fully aware of my structure. The level of deception being propagated by Mr Alecks Legal, International and Regulatory Affairs Department is substantive, and easily proven to be so.
Mr Hanton, please note that I have also included by new Local Member for Chisholm in this correspondence, as I anticipate seeking her assistance on this matter.
For Ms Carina Garland my local MP, and other relevant recipients. At this stage it may be worth reviewing two magazine articles from the Australian Flying magazine. One written when APTA was revalidated by CASA and the other after APTA was closed down by CASA. They provide a fairly plain English overview of the background to this matter. The first article was published in early 2018. This is 10 months before Mr Aleck would have the Ombudsman’s office believe that CASA “first became aware of APTA”, and further indicates that perhaps Mr Aleck is being deceptive. It is highly unlikely that a respected industry magazine is publishing a story a year before CASA claim that they first became aware of my business that CASA had themselves approved through a revalidation 6 months earlier.
Useful Links
Civil Aviation Act Civil Aviation Act 1988 (legislation.gov.au)
Civil Aviation Regulations Civil Aviation Regulations 1988 (legislation.gov.au)
CASRs Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 (legislation.gov.au)
COMPLAINT TO THE CASA INDUSTRY COMPLAINTS COMMISSIONER (ICC) OF A CASA EMPLOYEE CHOOSING TO PROVIDE CLEARLY FALSE AND MISLEADING INFORMATION TO THE COMMONWEALTH OMBUDSMANS OFFICE INVESTIGATION, WITH THE INTENTION TO PERVERT THE FINDINGS OF THAT INVESTIGATION.
Dear Mr Hanton,
I write to you in your dual roles within the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA), as both the Industry Complaints Commissioner (ICC), and as the CASA Ethics and Integrity Officer (E&IO).
The purpose of this correspondence is to formally submit a complaint to your office of a CASA employee deliberately providing false and misleading information to an investigation currently being conducted by the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s Office. That investigation being conducted by the Ombudsman’s Office is into the closure of my two businesses and the subsequent direction from CASA to my Employer at the time, that my continuing employment was “no longer tenable based on comments that I was making publicly”.
The person responsible for providing that false and misleading information to the Ombudsman’s Office is Mr Jonathan Aleck, the CASA Executive Manager of Legal, International and Regulatory Affairs.
Perhaps not coincidentally, Mr Aleck is also the sole decision maker within CASA that determined my business of more than a decade was suddenly operating unlawfully and forced it into closure on 23rd October 2018 when CASA sent the following notification to me.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/k3qn3qdgoa...ation.pdf?dl=0
As the investigation by the Ombudsman’s Office is about the processes and consequences associated with Mr Alecks decision making, it is a possibility that Mr Aleck may be tempted to provide false and misleading information to the Ombudsman’s Office to coverup his alleged misconduct.
Importantly, this correspondence is not a complaint about Mr Alecks conduct. This is a complaint about the truthfulness and accuracy of information provided to the Ombudsman’s Office, and a further opportunity for CASA to act professionally and with integrity and simply tell the clear and concise truth to the office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman.
As you are aware the ramifications of Mr Alecks “change of opinion” and determination to close down my businesses in October 2018 and with no prior warning, caused significant harm, as could be expected. The notification that my business was now operating illegally, caught me completely off guard, and was not expected.
My family has been significantly impacted by this matter. I have lost my home, and I have been bankrupted. After CASA closed my businesses, and I obtained employment within the industry, CASA withdrew their approval of me to operate in the role of CASA approved Head of Operations, and directed my employer that my “continuing employment was no longer tenable”, there can be no doubt that I was forced out of the industry that I had spent the last 25 years in.
My wife and I have been left with total assets of $6000. We now rent, and if my wife or I were to stop working for more than 6 weeks, we would be facing homelessness. That is the plain and simple truth, and the inevitability of that situation is traumatic. My physical and mental health has been impacted and my poor wife has had a total of 6 days free of work in the last 1500 days, since CASA did this in October of 2018, as she tries desperately to claw back some level of meagre financial security for our future.
Like most small business owners in Australia, that business that CASA closed, was in fact my Superannuation. The future of my wife and I is bleak, and our latter years will be dependent on social housing. Our life changed significantly on receipt of the notification that the business I had operated for over a decade was suddenly illegal. We have been left destitute.
As the person impacted, by the conduct and decision making of the single CASA employee, Mr Jonathan Aleck, at the very minimum I believe I am entitled to a thorough and well-intentioned investigation, and a written explanation of why CASA took such disproportionate, unnecessary, unlawful, and totally avoidable action against my business. My reasonable expectation of CASA is that they will act professionally and honestly in providing information to the Ombudsman’s Office to facilitate a fair determination.
As you are aware there are three primary issues in that investigation.
1. The sudden reversal of CASA approval for my business, the Australian Pilot Training Alliance (APTA).
2. The decision that my flying school of more than a decade, Melbourne Flight Training, was now suddenly operating unlawfully and shut down.
3. The direction by CASA to my Employer that I was not a fit and proper person to hold the CASA approved position as the Head of Operations (HOO), based on comments that I was making publicly, yet CASA refuses to identify the alleged comments that I made publicly to justify that direction from CASA.
As you are aware, CASA never made any allegations against any safety matter, CASA never stated that we did not have full operational control, never raised any concerns at all about any quality outcomes at all. It was simply a determination by Mr Aleck that my business had suddenly become unlawful against a regulation from 30 years prior. The very same business that had been operating for more than a decade with an industry leading level of safety and compliance.
For complete clarity, I am fully satisfied that Mr Alecks decision making, and actions may not have been primarily motivated by the safety of aviation, but that they were in fact made for other less altruistic reasons, and his decision making may not have had the clarity that it should have had. There are reasons I say this, but they do not need to be attended to in this correspondence. This may be a contributing factor as to why he chose to bypass clearly stipulated procedures in CASAs own manuals, when CASA decide to
A) Close a business down by cancelling, varying or suspending an AOC, or
B) CASA determine that a person is no longer a “fit and proper” person to hold a position as a CASA approved Head of Operations.
By choosing to bypass these stipulated procedures in designed to protect individuals such as myself from abuses of power by public officials, Mr Aleck was able to operate unchecked, and I was left with no appeal available to be to dispute his change of opinion.
It is important, not only for me, but also for the wider industry, for the purposes of investigating if improvements in procedures can be adopted within CASA to ensure that this can never happen again to any other person. It does not seem reasonable that in any industry, the Regulator should be able to shut down a business, effective immediately without a sound supporting case, and particularly so when that owner of the business impacted, has no appeal process available to them against the Regulators determination, and always has shown a complete willingness to comply with any new requirements stipulated by the Regulator.
As you are aware on 23rd October 2018, and without any warning Mr Aleck determined that my business of more than ten years was somehow suddenly unlawful, and advised it was most likely I was to be prosecuted as a result.
Three years later, as the person impacted the entire matter remains inexplicable, in fact probably more so now than before.
There were never any allegations against by CASA against any safety matters, or any quality outcomes, just a determination that it was unlawful against a regulation from 30 years prior. The business had been operating for twelve years and was established almost two decades after that regulation was even written.
It was ludicrous and made absolutely no sense at all. Of more concern, it was totally unnecessary and totally avoidable. A well-intentioned discussion could have fully resolved this matter in less than half a day, and that is the plain and simple truth.
Had CASA intended to resolve this matter, there is no reason that it could not have been totally resolved and all the associated harm and trauma avoided. There is no reason that the entire matter could not have been resolved at any time by way of a 4 hour well intentioned discussion between CASA and me. Quite simply, someone in CASA did not want this matter resolved. They wanted my business shut down. It was personal. Whilst I appreciate the difficulty in proving that Mr Aleck acted vindictively and vexatiously against me is most likely not feasible, a genuine assessment of his decision making would have to raise some concerns.
Mr Aleck immediately implemented restrictions on my businesses ability to trade, from that first notification on 23rd October 2018. Those restrictions created an impossible environment to operate a business and deprived me of almost all revenue throughout the next 6-month period, until CASA confirmed their original position in the original document of 23rd October 2018, determined my business unlawful, and forced any remaining customers to leave, leading to the inevitable closure of the business, and significant material harm and trauma.
That trauma was most significant on me and my family but also extended to staff that lost employment and entitlements, to the foreign and domestic students who had their training impacted, to suppliers left unpaid, and businesses dependant on me that were forced into closure as a result.
I appreciate that Mr Aleck will likely try and contend that CASA took no action against my business. As the Owner of that business, and the individual directly affected, please let me be very clear that the restrictions on my businesses were devastating. On multiple occasions, in writing, CASA was made fully aware of the impact of Mr Alecks determination. Throughout the 8 months between the restrictions on trade being applied, and CASA shutting down the business, CASA was repeatedly advised of the commercial impact. In fact within 24 hours of CASA reversing their approval and placing restrictions on my ability to trade, I had contacted CASA.
That initial notification sent by CASA can be accessed here:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/k3qn3qdgoa...ation.pdf?dl=0
My initial response to that CASA notification can be accessed here:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ke7rl708n9...ponse.pdf?dl=0
The impacts of that notification were significant. All restrictions remained in place for 8 months until CASA stood by their original determination and forced all my remaining customers to leave, despite that not being the customers preferred option.
· CASA advised I was operating unlawfully and subject to prosecution.
· CASA prevented me from accepting any new customers.
· CASA contacted all my existing customers within 30 days and advised them that I was operating unlawfully, and that their continuing involvement with my business would subject them also to regulatory action.
· CASA restrictions prevented me from marketing my business at a critical time for the business i.e., end of the school year.
· CASA placed several short terms “interim approvals to operate” of as little as 7 days. With 7 days surety of operations, it was impossible and unlawful for me to enrol students into our 15-month courses with those 7 days surety of operations. These short-term interim approvals to operate made business difficult and created anxiety on employees, suppliers, and customers over the lack of certainty regarding continuing operations.
· Placed an “administrative freeze” on the business whereby CASA refused to process any regulatory tasks including approving personnel, renewing flight simulators, adding on any new courses etc.
· Caused enormous reputational damage to the business and to me personally
· Bought enormous organisational instability.
· Starved the business of income.
· CASA allowed the business to remain open, but it was unable to access new customers or retain existing customers. By acting in this way, CASA had not formally “decided”, but rather they were “thinking about it”. As no decision was ever made, the restrictions were never lifted, and I had no appeal process open to me. I was at the complete mercy of Mr Aleck, who may not have been acting with good intent.
With those restrictions being in place for over 6 months, Mr Aleck then stood by his initial determination and closed the business down when he forced all remaining customers to leave, despite that not being the customers preferred option.
The business was obviously forced into closure by CASA. On that matter there is no question.
All of this was done without CASA ever providing any supporting safety case.
It was a reversal of CASAs previously issued approvals, that had been held by me for over a decade.
CASA never issued any documentation throughout this entire process that gave me the right to appeal or challenge the change of opinion by Mr Aleck. I was completely denied procedural fairness and natural justice. These are clear breaches of CASAs obligations in administrative law, as outlined in CASAs own procedures. These include thespecified procedures to be followed when CASA close down a business by “suspending, cancelling, or varying an AOC’ as they did with mine. CASA completely bypassed these stipulated procedures. These procedures can be accessed via CASAs Enforcement Manual located here.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/960oiyktzv...anual.pdf?dl=0
Similarly, CASA also completely bypassed all of their own procedures in that same Manual, when they determined that I was not a “fit and proper person” to hold the formally CASA approved position of Head of Operations (HOO) and directed my Employer that my continuing employment as the HOO was “no longer tenable based on comments that I was making publicly”, although CASA fails to identify to me what those “ comments that I was making publicly” were, despite CASA using those “comments” as the basis to force me out of the industry. Once CASA had declared that I was not a “fit and proper person”, I was effectively unemployable in the flight training industry where I had worked for over 25 years. Having lost my two businesses, I was now forced to exit the industry I loved.
The entire matter of closing down my business is absurd. I had been operating in that same structure for the last six years, until Mr Aleck suddenly declared it unlawful in October 2018. I am fully satisfied that Mr Aleck was the sole decision maker throughout this entire matter, and that he was abusing his significant power.
What made this even more absurd is that two and a half years earlier, CASA had worked side by side with me, for hundreds of hours, as I invested many hundreds of thousands of dollars in systems, procedures and personnel to become one of Australia’s first schools to get CASA accreditation as both a Part 141 and 142 organisation in April 2017, and we were operating in the same multi base structure that CASA would later, suddenly determine to be illegal in October 2018, and deceptively claim that they were not aware of. It is such a ludicrous assertion, and so clearly false and misleading.
As you are aware, I am fully satisfied that Mr Aleck, the sole decision maker in closing my business. drew on no supporting safety case, no regulatory breach, no identified concern against any quality outcome whatsoever. You simply need to ask him, to put forward his arguments clearly and concisely. The tenuous nature of Mr Alecks opinion will become immediately obvious. Despite my repeated requests for an explanation, none has been forthcoming. CASA is extremely evasive in providing an explanation for Mr Alecks decisions and actions, and this has been my experience throughout the last three years. To be frank, I believe that there is an attempt to cover up this matter, at the highest levels of CASA.
It is important to understand that I was not disputing CASAs safety case because there was never any safety case put forward by CASA to dispute. CASA have never put forward any safety case at all in support of Mr Alecks decision making. Surely one would expect that such substantial decision making within CASA, such as the decision to shut down a business of more than a decade would be driven by decisions on based on safety with supporting safety cases and evidence-based data. Surely that failure to have any supporting safety case at all, must raise concerns as to the quality of his decision making, and more so when I have made formal allegations before the Senate that he was acting vindictively and vexatiously against me. That presentation to Senate on 23rd November 2020 where I raised these allegations of misfeasance in Public Office against Mr Aleck, can be accessed here.
This entire and exact structure that I had been using for 6 years and that that Mr Aleck suddenly declared unlawful in October 2018, had been re-designed from the ground up and formally revalidated 18 months earlier by CASA in April of 2017. Yet inexplicably,18 months later, in October 2018, CASA declare it unlawful and shut it down, then assert to the Ombudsman that they weren’t fully aware of my structure. The level of deception being propagated by Mr Alecks Legal, International and Regulatory Affairs Department is substantive, and easily proven to be so.
Mr Hanton, please note that I have also included by new Local Member for Chisholm in this correspondence, as I anticipate seeking her assistance on this matter.
For Ms Carina Garland my local MP, and other relevant recipients. At this stage it may be worth reviewing two magazine articles from the Australian Flying magazine. One written when APTA was revalidated by CASA and the other after APTA was closed down by CASA. They provide a fairly plain English overview of the background to this matter. The first article was published in early 2018. This is 10 months before Mr Aleck would have the Ombudsman’s office believe that CASA “first became aware of APTA”, and further indicates that perhaps Mr Aleck is being deceptive. It is highly unlikely that a respected industry magazine is publishing a story a year before CASA claim that they first became aware of my business that CASA had themselves approved through a revalidation 6 months earlier.
Thread Starter
Submission of allegation- Part Two
Those two magazine articles can be accessed here
· APTA before CASA action https://www.dropbox.com/s/5xdbzhba4l...CTION.pdf?dl=0
· APTA after CASA action
https://www.dropbox.com/s/k12d43vtnh...CTION.PDF?dl=0
For reference for Ms Carina Garland. This matter has attracted widespread industry interest on a discrete pilots forum referred to as Pprune. My particular thread has had over 1,000,000 views and encouraged robust discussion. My particular thread can be accessed via this link. Glen Buckley and Australian small business -V- CASA - PPRuNe Forums
When CASA acted to shut down my business, the industry established a crowd funding page, and that can be accessed here. The comments associated with donations make interesting reading. Fundraiser for Glen Buckley by Cale Johnston : Glen Buckley vs. CASA (gofundme.com)
I provide the above information as background information to the lodgement of formal complaints that follow.
The response to the three complaints in this correspondence is simple and really only requires the very briefest of responses, and possibly as short as a yes or a no from CASA.
It requires only statements of fact and requires no judgement applied to it. It is not a complaint against a person, it is a complaint against truthfulness, and requiring only clarification of clear statements of fact. There is only one truthful response to each complaint.
To the “trigger” for these three complaints.
I recently had the opportunity to receive a telephone update from the Ombudsman’s Office on progress of the three-year investigation into the closure of my two businesses by CASA in October 2018, and the subsequent written direction to my Employer from CASA that my “continuing employment was no longer tenable based on comments that I was making publicly”, and my subsequent termination of employment as a result of that directive.
That telephone call with the Ombudsman’s office left me in no doubt, that a CASA employee has been responsible for providing information to the Ombudsman Office as part of the investigation that is “false and misleading”, substantially so, and is integral to this entire matter.
Furthermore, that recent communication with the Ombudsman’s office has left me in no doubt that the false and misleading information provided by the CASA Employee has had the effect that the CASA Employee intended when he knowingly provided that false and misleading information. That being to pervert the findings of the investigation.
There is an overwhelming body of well documented evidence to support my allegation, and I look forward to presenting that evidence in full to you, if the evidence provided here is insufficient.
In this correspondence I will limit myself to only the most pertinent supporting information to assist you in an initial assessment of the validity or not of my complaint, and whether you are able to investigate my allegations.
There can be no doubt that the single CASA employee responsible for providing that information, Mr Jonathan Aleck, CASAs second most senior employee, was fully aware that the information was false and misleading at the time of providing that information to the Ombudsman’s Office. It was a considered decision and deliberate.
Mr Aleck has also chosen to omit providing pertinent information highly relevant to the investigation to the Ombudsman’s Office. I am fully satisfied that this was also a considered decision and deliberate.
I am fully satisfied that Mr Aleck acted in this way to pervert the findings of the Ombudsman’s Office investigation, and most likely, in part, to coverup his own misconduct, and his sub optimal decision making.
These are not “matters of opinion” or “grey areas” that I am referring to. These are gross misrepresentation of facts that have been presented to the Ombudsman’s Office. The complaints that I will put forward will only require short but truthful responses. The answers are either black or white. There are no grey areas.
Truthful responses will clearly indicate that the information previously provided by CASA to the Ombudsman’s Office was false and misleading.
Any CASA Flight Operations Inspector (FOI) with more than 10 years’ experience with CASA will be able to assist you in arriving at the truth, alternatively the CASA CEO Ms Spence would have prompt access to truthful information, should she choose to obtain it.
These are matters where the truth can be readily obtained. The matters can be easily clarified so that there can be no doubt. I urge you in this investigation to cross check any information that is provided to you by Mr Aleck. Unlike the Ombudsman’s Office you have the advantage of access to more than one point of contact, so accessing truthful information and fact checking will be more easily achieved by your office, rather than the Ombudsman Office, which is dependant only on information that Mr Aleck is responsible for providing.
Due to the substantive nature of the false and misleading information, I have been compelled to request that the Ombudsman hold off releasing any final report until these matters can be clarified by CASA. At this stage the Ombudsman Office is holding off finalising the report, based on my request, and to provide CASA the opportunity to be truthful.
It is not reasonable or fair for the many people impacted by Mr Alecks alleged misconduct, that the Ombudsman’s office arrives at a determinations or findings based on significantly false and misleading information, provided by that same CASA employee, and potentially to cover up his own misconduct.
Understandably the Ombudsman’s Office is likely to have trust and confidence in information provided to it by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, and particularly so when one the most senior and highly experienced CASA Executive Managers is providing that information.
It would be a reasonable expectation that the Ombudsman’s Office should be able to depend on the truthfulness and good intent of any information provided by CASA. The Office is likely to receive that information, reasonably believing it to have those qualities. The perceived “trustworthiness” of CASA may require a lesser amount of supporting evidence. i.e., CASA may be trusted on their word, and that has been my experience.
The CASA employee would be fully aware of that credibility imbalance between an individual such as myself, and information provided by himself as the second most senior executive at CASA. If the senior CASA Executive was aware of that credibility imbalance, he could potentially use it to his advantage, and most especially when providing information to the Ombudsman’s Office that is false or misleading. It could not reasonably be expected that the Ombudsman’s Office would be able to easily identify the truthfulness or not of the information provided, and more so when it is provided by someone of Mr Alecks senior position as the second in charge of CASA.
My only reasonable assumption is that this grossly false and misleading information has been provided with the intention to alter the findings of that investigation The information provided is substantially and materially misleading and false. I am fully satisfied that I have an overwhelming body of evidence to support that allegation.
I have personally witnessed this same CASA Employee be responsible for providing false and misleading information to the current Senate Inquiry, and now also to the Ombudsman. This employee has had allegations made against him previously. The best predictor of future behaviour is past behaviour. As I have witnessed it previously, as others have, it is reasonable that I have concerns about the intent to with which information is provided to the Ombudsman’s office, and most especially when it is provided by the same person that I raise allegations of misfeasance in public office against.
I appreciate the seriousness and substantive nature of my allegation. I stand fully behind it, and I understand that I am fully liable if my allegations are found to be false or vexatious. An investigation would clarify the situation one way or another.
I have approached the CASA CEO, Ms Pip Spence directly bringing this complaint of false and misleading information to her attention and calling on her to act and correct any substantial misunderstandings that the Ombudsman’s Office may have developed based on false and misleading information that CASA has previously provided.
Ms. Spence, the CASA CEO has chosen not to correct the misleading information provided; this is despite her having ready access to the truthful information. Some of that correspondence with the CASA CEO on this topic be found via the following link.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/1wkdinj8av...AILS.docx?dl=0
If the CASA employee that I make allegations against is prepared to mislead the Ombudsman’s Office, and the Senate Inquiry, it is possible that they would also be prepared to mislead the CASA CEO. Ms Spence also may be acting on disinformation, although she does have access to other personnel that can promptly advise her on the tenuous nature of CASAs information provided to the Ombudsman’s Office to date, and I again refer her to any CASA Flight Operations Inspector with more than 10 years’ experience, as they will be able to confirm that previously provided advice is false and misleading and provide her the opportunity to intervene, and act appropriate to her senior role within Government.
For that reason, I once again make the same offer I have since Ms. Spence commenced in the role over 12 months ago. I have requested a meeting with Ms. Spence to brief her on the facts and have a well-intentioned discussion. Ms Spence has chosen not to take advantage of that opportunity. That invitation remains in place. I have no doubt that if Ms. Spence were to provide me that opportunity, the truth could be promptly ascertained, and Ms Spence would be compelled to act. If the CEO of CASA is unable to meet with me, my only option is to submit my complaint via your Office for assessment.
It is not possible for me to proceed with costly litigation in pursuit of the truth and a determination if I have legitimate concerns as to whether CASA will act truthfully and as a model litigant. By CASA demonstrating that it is prepared to mislead both the Senate Inquiry and the Ombudsman’s Office it must be reasonably assumed, that the CASA employee would be likely to repeat that behaviour in a courtroom scenario, in fact it is more likely that the individual would further propagate that disinformation, rather than act honestly and risk highlighting the falsehoods previously propagated. It is this very misconduct that denies me an opportunity for procedural fairness, and natural justice. I trust you can appreciate my position.
CASA has an obligation to act as a model litigant and whilst I certainly don’t intend to go through the entire charter here, I would like to highlight some of the relevant commitments given. The first of these being particularly salient in this matter, as that is in fact the crux of the three formal complaints that follow later in this correspondence.
· “Not requiring the other party to prove a matter which the Crown knows to be true.
· Act honestly and fairly
· Not causing unnecessary delay.
· Endeavouring to avoid litigation wherever possible.
· Not taking advantage of a claimant who lacks the resources to litigate a legitimate claim
· Apologising where the Crown is aware that it or its lawyers have acted wrongfully or improperly,
· The Court also traced the model litigant obligation back to the traditional relationship between the Crown and its subjects and noted that the Commonwealth and its agencies have no legitimate private interest in the performance of their functions and frequently also have greater access to resources than private litigants. For these reasons, the Court held that Australian Government Agencies and their legal representatives should act as moral exemplars when engaging with private litigants.”
Quite simply I am asking the CASA to tell the truth. CASA knows the truth of the three complaints that I submit. If CASA acts honestly, I can avoid any further ongoing stress and pressure on myself trying to prove matters true, which CASA already knows to be true, yet claims to the Ombudsman’s Office that they are not. This matter has dragged on for three years. The cumulative stress has taken a toll not only financially, but mentally and physically. It is in fact CASAs continuing deceptiveness on this entire matter and attempts to frustrate any investigation that have caused so much unnecessary and additional cumulative trauma. This is an opportunity for CASA under the CASA CEO, Ms Pip Spence to bring it to a well-intentioned conclusion by simply being truthful and well intentioned.
This complaint, however, is specifically about that second most Senior Executive at the Civil Aviation Safety Authority choosing to provide, and being responsible for, the provision of false and misleading information to an Ombudsman Office investigation into this matter, and particularly in relation to Phase Two of the ongoing Ombudsman investigation, into the closure of my business, and the direction from CASA to my Employer that my continuing employment was no longer tenable.
On the release of Phase One of the Ombudsman investigation where the Ombudsman advised that CASAs position that I was operating unlawfully was not correct, the Ombudsman advised that he now move on to Phase two of the investigation.
Phase Two of the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s investigation includes” proposing to continue this investigation in order to consider issues giving rise to, and subsequent to CASAs notice of 23rd October 2018 to you to cease all operations in 7 days, and matters leading up to 27th August 2019 intervention by Mr Jason McHeyzer in your workplace.”
Phase One of the Ombudsman’s investigation can be accessed via here. Phase Two being the final phase is currently on hold at my request, pending truthful information being provided by CASA.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/41fkyjy9sd...81%29.pdf?dl=0
False and misleading information has been provided on multiple occasions, but in this correspondence, I will limit myself to three core topics, and specifically to the following issues. These three topics are in fact the cornerstone of this entire matter. If these three complaints can be truthfully addressed publicly, and with the Ombudsman’s Office I would have trust and confidence in the findings of the Ombudsman’s Office.
· APTA before CASA action https://www.dropbox.com/s/5xdbzhba4l...CTION.pdf?dl=0
· APTA after CASA action
https://www.dropbox.com/s/k12d43vtnh...CTION.PDF?dl=0
For reference for Ms Carina Garland. This matter has attracted widespread industry interest on a discrete pilots forum referred to as Pprune. My particular thread has had over 1,000,000 views and encouraged robust discussion. My particular thread can be accessed via this link. Glen Buckley and Australian small business -V- CASA - PPRuNe Forums
When CASA acted to shut down my business, the industry established a crowd funding page, and that can be accessed here. The comments associated with donations make interesting reading. Fundraiser for Glen Buckley by Cale Johnston : Glen Buckley vs. CASA (gofundme.com)
I provide the above information as background information to the lodgement of formal complaints that follow.
The response to the three complaints in this correspondence is simple and really only requires the very briefest of responses, and possibly as short as a yes or a no from CASA.
It requires only statements of fact and requires no judgement applied to it. It is not a complaint against a person, it is a complaint against truthfulness, and requiring only clarification of clear statements of fact. There is only one truthful response to each complaint.
To the “trigger” for these three complaints.
I recently had the opportunity to receive a telephone update from the Ombudsman’s Office on progress of the three-year investigation into the closure of my two businesses by CASA in October 2018, and the subsequent written direction to my Employer from CASA that my “continuing employment was no longer tenable based on comments that I was making publicly”, and my subsequent termination of employment as a result of that directive.
That telephone call with the Ombudsman’s office left me in no doubt, that a CASA employee has been responsible for providing information to the Ombudsman Office as part of the investigation that is “false and misleading”, substantially so, and is integral to this entire matter.
Furthermore, that recent communication with the Ombudsman’s office has left me in no doubt that the false and misleading information provided by the CASA Employee has had the effect that the CASA Employee intended when he knowingly provided that false and misleading information. That being to pervert the findings of the investigation.
There is an overwhelming body of well documented evidence to support my allegation, and I look forward to presenting that evidence in full to you, if the evidence provided here is insufficient.
In this correspondence I will limit myself to only the most pertinent supporting information to assist you in an initial assessment of the validity or not of my complaint, and whether you are able to investigate my allegations.
There can be no doubt that the single CASA employee responsible for providing that information, Mr Jonathan Aleck, CASAs second most senior employee, was fully aware that the information was false and misleading at the time of providing that information to the Ombudsman’s Office. It was a considered decision and deliberate.
Mr Aleck has also chosen to omit providing pertinent information highly relevant to the investigation to the Ombudsman’s Office. I am fully satisfied that this was also a considered decision and deliberate.
I am fully satisfied that Mr Aleck acted in this way to pervert the findings of the Ombudsman’s Office investigation, and most likely, in part, to coverup his own misconduct, and his sub optimal decision making.
These are not “matters of opinion” or “grey areas” that I am referring to. These are gross misrepresentation of facts that have been presented to the Ombudsman’s Office. The complaints that I will put forward will only require short but truthful responses. The answers are either black or white. There are no grey areas.
Truthful responses will clearly indicate that the information previously provided by CASA to the Ombudsman’s Office was false and misleading.
Any CASA Flight Operations Inspector (FOI) with more than 10 years’ experience with CASA will be able to assist you in arriving at the truth, alternatively the CASA CEO Ms Spence would have prompt access to truthful information, should she choose to obtain it.
These are matters where the truth can be readily obtained. The matters can be easily clarified so that there can be no doubt. I urge you in this investigation to cross check any information that is provided to you by Mr Aleck. Unlike the Ombudsman’s Office you have the advantage of access to more than one point of contact, so accessing truthful information and fact checking will be more easily achieved by your office, rather than the Ombudsman Office, which is dependant only on information that Mr Aleck is responsible for providing.
Due to the substantive nature of the false and misleading information, I have been compelled to request that the Ombudsman hold off releasing any final report until these matters can be clarified by CASA. At this stage the Ombudsman Office is holding off finalising the report, based on my request, and to provide CASA the opportunity to be truthful.
It is not reasonable or fair for the many people impacted by Mr Alecks alleged misconduct, that the Ombudsman’s office arrives at a determinations or findings based on significantly false and misleading information, provided by that same CASA employee, and potentially to cover up his own misconduct.
Understandably the Ombudsman’s Office is likely to have trust and confidence in information provided to it by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, and particularly so when one the most senior and highly experienced CASA Executive Managers is providing that information.
It would be a reasonable expectation that the Ombudsman’s Office should be able to depend on the truthfulness and good intent of any information provided by CASA. The Office is likely to receive that information, reasonably believing it to have those qualities. The perceived “trustworthiness” of CASA may require a lesser amount of supporting evidence. i.e., CASA may be trusted on their word, and that has been my experience.
The CASA employee would be fully aware of that credibility imbalance between an individual such as myself, and information provided by himself as the second most senior executive at CASA. If the senior CASA Executive was aware of that credibility imbalance, he could potentially use it to his advantage, and most especially when providing information to the Ombudsman’s Office that is false or misleading. It could not reasonably be expected that the Ombudsman’s Office would be able to easily identify the truthfulness or not of the information provided, and more so when it is provided by someone of Mr Alecks senior position as the second in charge of CASA.
My only reasonable assumption is that this grossly false and misleading information has been provided with the intention to alter the findings of that investigation The information provided is substantially and materially misleading and false. I am fully satisfied that I have an overwhelming body of evidence to support that allegation.
I have personally witnessed this same CASA Employee be responsible for providing false and misleading information to the current Senate Inquiry, and now also to the Ombudsman. This employee has had allegations made against him previously. The best predictor of future behaviour is past behaviour. As I have witnessed it previously, as others have, it is reasonable that I have concerns about the intent to with which information is provided to the Ombudsman’s office, and most especially when it is provided by the same person that I raise allegations of misfeasance in public office against.
I appreciate the seriousness and substantive nature of my allegation. I stand fully behind it, and I understand that I am fully liable if my allegations are found to be false or vexatious. An investigation would clarify the situation one way or another.
I have approached the CASA CEO, Ms Pip Spence directly bringing this complaint of false and misleading information to her attention and calling on her to act and correct any substantial misunderstandings that the Ombudsman’s Office may have developed based on false and misleading information that CASA has previously provided.
Ms. Spence, the CASA CEO has chosen not to correct the misleading information provided; this is despite her having ready access to the truthful information. Some of that correspondence with the CASA CEO on this topic be found via the following link.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/1wkdinj8av...AILS.docx?dl=0
If the CASA employee that I make allegations against is prepared to mislead the Ombudsman’s Office, and the Senate Inquiry, it is possible that they would also be prepared to mislead the CASA CEO. Ms Spence also may be acting on disinformation, although she does have access to other personnel that can promptly advise her on the tenuous nature of CASAs information provided to the Ombudsman’s Office to date, and I again refer her to any CASA Flight Operations Inspector with more than 10 years’ experience, as they will be able to confirm that previously provided advice is false and misleading and provide her the opportunity to intervene, and act appropriate to her senior role within Government.
For that reason, I once again make the same offer I have since Ms. Spence commenced in the role over 12 months ago. I have requested a meeting with Ms. Spence to brief her on the facts and have a well-intentioned discussion. Ms Spence has chosen not to take advantage of that opportunity. That invitation remains in place. I have no doubt that if Ms. Spence were to provide me that opportunity, the truth could be promptly ascertained, and Ms Spence would be compelled to act. If the CEO of CASA is unable to meet with me, my only option is to submit my complaint via your Office for assessment.
It is not possible for me to proceed with costly litigation in pursuit of the truth and a determination if I have legitimate concerns as to whether CASA will act truthfully and as a model litigant. By CASA demonstrating that it is prepared to mislead both the Senate Inquiry and the Ombudsman’s Office it must be reasonably assumed, that the CASA employee would be likely to repeat that behaviour in a courtroom scenario, in fact it is more likely that the individual would further propagate that disinformation, rather than act honestly and risk highlighting the falsehoods previously propagated. It is this very misconduct that denies me an opportunity for procedural fairness, and natural justice. I trust you can appreciate my position.
CASA has an obligation to act as a model litigant and whilst I certainly don’t intend to go through the entire charter here, I would like to highlight some of the relevant commitments given. The first of these being particularly salient in this matter, as that is in fact the crux of the three formal complaints that follow later in this correspondence.
· “Not requiring the other party to prove a matter which the Crown knows to be true.
· Act honestly and fairly
· Not causing unnecessary delay.
· Endeavouring to avoid litigation wherever possible.
· Not taking advantage of a claimant who lacks the resources to litigate a legitimate claim
· Apologising where the Crown is aware that it or its lawyers have acted wrongfully or improperly,
· The Court also traced the model litigant obligation back to the traditional relationship between the Crown and its subjects and noted that the Commonwealth and its agencies have no legitimate private interest in the performance of their functions and frequently also have greater access to resources than private litigants. For these reasons, the Court held that Australian Government Agencies and their legal representatives should act as moral exemplars when engaging with private litigants.”
Quite simply I am asking the CASA to tell the truth. CASA knows the truth of the three complaints that I submit. If CASA acts honestly, I can avoid any further ongoing stress and pressure on myself trying to prove matters true, which CASA already knows to be true, yet claims to the Ombudsman’s Office that they are not. This matter has dragged on for three years. The cumulative stress has taken a toll not only financially, but mentally and physically. It is in fact CASAs continuing deceptiveness on this entire matter and attempts to frustrate any investigation that have caused so much unnecessary and additional cumulative trauma. This is an opportunity for CASA under the CASA CEO, Ms Pip Spence to bring it to a well-intentioned conclusion by simply being truthful and well intentioned.
This complaint, however, is specifically about that second most Senior Executive at the Civil Aviation Safety Authority choosing to provide, and being responsible for, the provision of false and misleading information to an Ombudsman Office investigation into this matter, and particularly in relation to Phase Two of the ongoing Ombudsman investigation, into the closure of my business, and the direction from CASA to my Employer that my continuing employment was no longer tenable.
On the release of Phase One of the Ombudsman investigation where the Ombudsman advised that CASAs position that I was operating unlawfully was not correct, the Ombudsman advised that he now move on to Phase two of the investigation.
Phase Two of the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s investigation includes” proposing to continue this investigation in order to consider issues giving rise to, and subsequent to CASAs notice of 23rd October 2018 to you to cease all operations in 7 days, and matters leading up to 27th August 2019 intervention by Mr Jason McHeyzer in your workplace.”
Phase One of the Ombudsman’s investigation can be accessed via here. Phase Two being the final phase is currently on hold at my request, pending truthful information being provided by CASA.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/41fkyjy9sd...81%29.pdf?dl=0
False and misleading information has been provided on multiple occasions, but in this correspondence, I will limit myself to three core topics, and specifically to the following issues. These three topics are in fact the cornerstone of this entire matter. If these three complaints can be truthfully addressed publicly, and with the Ombudsman’s Office I would have trust and confidence in the findings of the Ombudsman’s Office.
Thread Starter
Submission of allegation- Part Three
The CASA employee has provided clearly false and misleading advice about
1. Whether CASA had in fact always and on every occasion permitted the identical structure that I had adopted throughout the industry. CASA falsely claims to the Commonwealth Ombudsman that they did not and did not ever permit it. This is not truthful. CASA always previously permitted it.
2. Clearly misled the Ombudsman as to the level of involvement by CASA in the design, assessment, peer review, approval, and subsequent auditing of my structure. I underwent a full CASA revalidation in that multi base structure, and CASA fully revalidated it 18 months before CASA claim that they “first became aware” that I was using this CASA accepted and approved structure. For CASA to suggest that they were not aware of my exact structure is a blatant misrepresentation of the facts. It is false and misleading.
3.Whether I had followed all procedures required by CASA during the design and approval of APTA in April 2017. CASA have misled the Ombudsman to believe that some notification, application, or communication was not done correctly by me, and that I am in some way responsible for that. The truth is that every single procedure and communication and submission was rigidly followed. For CASA to suggest otherwise is false and misleading.
A fair outcome of this investigation is reliant on well-intentioned and truthful information being provided to the Ombudsman’s Office by all Parties.
That information should not be false, and it should not be misleading, and if it is known to be false and misleading it should not be provided to the Ombudsman’s Office.
It is not the role of the Ombudsman’s Office to sift through false and misleading information and then attempt to uncover the truth. It is incumbent on CASA, as it is on me, to provide truthful information that is not false or misleading in its nature.
Furthermore, every CASA employee from the CEO down has an obligation, morally, ethically, and professionally to correct false and misleading information as soon as they become aware that false and misleading information has been provided to the Ombudsman’s Office by an employee of CASA, or they themselves risk being complicit in that misconduct.
I will address the specifics of the three complaints.
Complaint One - CASA Executive Manager, Legal, International and Regulatory Affairs, Mr Jonathan Aleck employee has been responsible for providing false and misleading information to the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s Office investigation
A CASA Employee has falsely and misleadingly led the Ombudsman’s Office to believe CASA did not, and had not ever, permitted more than one flying school to operate under a single CASA Authorisation using the identical structure that I used, and that I was the first person to adopt the structure that I did. i.e., that CASA had never previously permitted that structure.
That representation by CASA to the Ombudsman’s Office is blatantly false and misleading.
The irrefutable truth is CASA had always and, on every occasion, permitted and approved, the identical structure to mine in the flight training industry, and that was the case throughout my 25 years in the industry. It was commonplace and done on every occasion with full CASA approval. For CASA to assert to the Ombudsman’s Office that was not the case is a blatant untruth, and CASA would be fully aware that the information provided is false and misleading.
This exact structure was standard industry practice and required CASA approval. CASA would be fully aware of this. It is ludicrous to assert that CASA would not be fully aware.
The simple truth is that CASA had always permitted that more than one Operator to operate under a single CASA authorisation referred to as an AOC, or Air Operator Certificate, and in the identical structure that I also used, with the person who is the holder of the single AOC taking on full liability for all operations at all bases, operating under that single AOC as required in the legislation.
If CASA claims to the Ombudsman’s Office that this is not the case, then the Ombudsman’s office is being blatantly and deliberately misled. It is commonplace not only in the flight training industry but also in the military and airlines. It was standard industry practice throughout the aviation industry.
This is fundamentally what makes my matter so concerningly inexplicable. CASA always permitted and formally approved the same structure as mine, yet they would lead the Ombudsman’s Office to believe that they had not.
Why would a CASA employee close my business down specifically against a regulation from 3 decades prior, and then lead the Ombudsman to believe that my structure was unique? Why was it only Glen Buckley’s operation that was suddenly declared unlawful against that 1988 regulation? Noting that the Ombudsman report was to find later that there was no valid legal basis for CASAs action. CASA acted unlawfully.
Whilst there are multiple examples that can be cited to highlight the level of deception in CASAs representation to the Ombudsman’s Office, let me put a single scenario to you.
How was Latrobe Valley Aero Club permitted by CASA with full CASA approval to operate under Bairnsdale Air Charters AOC until the very day that they changed to my organisation, and it was my structure that was suddenly deemed to be illegal, and my business shut down, despite Latrobe Valley previously operating under that same structure.
If CASA claim that they never permitted the multi base, multi entity structure, how do they explain how the Latrobe Valley aero Club was operating for the period prior to joining APTA. The truthful answer to the question is because CASA had always permitted one AOC Holder to take on responsibility and accountability for multiple entities. There are multiple examples of this structure throughout the industry, that I can put forward to you if required, although the issue regarding Latrobe Valley Aero club is particularly pertinent, and that one example should suffice. It clearly indicates that CASA has been deceptive and provided false and misleading information to the Ombudsman’s Office investigation.
To assert to the Ombudsman that my structure was unique to me and not others is a blatant untruth.
To assert that CASA had not regularly fully approved such operations throughout the previous 25 years is a blatant untruth.
This matter is black and white. There are only two options, and only one of those options is the truth. Either CASA always permitted this identical structure that I adopted, or CASA never permitted this structure that I adopted. It seems entirely reasonable that CASA clearly and publicly state the truth on this matter.
If CASA now forced to admit that CASA had always permitted more than one flying school to operate, under a single authorisation, and that my structure was somehow different to anybody else’s, CASA should be able to identify clearly and concisely what those differences were. There were none.
For clarity, Compliant One is that CASA has been responsible for providing false and misleading information to the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s Office that CASA had never previously and routinely fully approved more than one entity operating under a single CASA issued authorisation in the same structure as mine, with the single authorisation holder taking on full responsibility.
A truthful response to this compliant is critical.
If in fact CASA had never permitted such operations, then that potentially could go some way to explaining CASAs action against me. If, however, CASA had always permitted such operations, then it must raise the question as to why I was targeted. It makes the matter inexplicable.
To ensure there is no confusion, my complaint is that a CASA employee has misled the Ombudsman’s Office as to whether CASA had always permitted and approved the same structure that I adopted and had done so on every occasion over the last 25 years at least.
If the ICC determines that in fact CASA had always permitted the identical structure to mine, I feel that it is incumbent upon the CASA CEO to ensure that the Ombudsman’s Office is fully aware that the information previously supplied to the Ombudsman’s Office by CASA was not technically accurate. CASA is compelled to ensure that the Ombudsman’s Office is fully and clearly aware that CASA had always and, on every occasion, permitted that exact same structure that I had used, despite CASA previously claiming this was not the case.
What am I expecting as an outcome from this complaint?
That on finalisation of investigation of this complaint, CASA, should very clearly and concisely state CASAs position. There should be no doubt of CASAs public position on this matter.
A. Either CASA never permitted more than one flying school to operate under a single AOC with the holder of the AOC taking on full responsibility for all operations, in the same structure that I adopted or
B. CASA always permitted more than one flying school to operate under a single AOC with the holder of the AOC taking on full responsibility for all operations in the same structure that I adopted.
A truthful and honest response from CASA will ensure that there is no doubt in the Ombudsman’s Office that CASA always permitted the identical structure that I used, yet CASA deemed my operation to be unlawful.
1. Whether CASA had in fact always and on every occasion permitted the identical structure that I had adopted throughout the industry. CASA falsely claims to the Commonwealth Ombudsman that they did not and did not ever permit it. This is not truthful. CASA always previously permitted it.
2. Clearly misled the Ombudsman as to the level of involvement by CASA in the design, assessment, peer review, approval, and subsequent auditing of my structure. I underwent a full CASA revalidation in that multi base structure, and CASA fully revalidated it 18 months before CASA claim that they “first became aware” that I was using this CASA accepted and approved structure. For CASA to suggest that they were not aware of my exact structure is a blatant misrepresentation of the facts. It is false and misleading.
3.Whether I had followed all procedures required by CASA during the design and approval of APTA in April 2017. CASA have misled the Ombudsman to believe that some notification, application, or communication was not done correctly by me, and that I am in some way responsible for that. The truth is that every single procedure and communication and submission was rigidly followed. For CASA to suggest otherwise is false and misleading.
A fair outcome of this investigation is reliant on well-intentioned and truthful information being provided to the Ombudsman’s Office by all Parties.
That information should not be false, and it should not be misleading, and if it is known to be false and misleading it should not be provided to the Ombudsman’s Office.
It is not the role of the Ombudsman’s Office to sift through false and misleading information and then attempt to uncover the truth. It is incumbent on CASA, as it is on me, to provide truthful information that is not false or misleading in its nature.
Furthermore, every CASA employee from the CEO down has an obligation, morally, ethically, and professionally to correct false and misleading information as soon as they become aware that false and misleading information has been provided to the Ombudsman’s Office by an employee of CASA, or they themselves risk being complicit in that misconduct.
I will address the specifics of the three complaints.
Complaint One - CASA Executive Manager, Legal, International and Regulatory Affairs, Mr Jonathan Aleck employee has been responsible for providing false and misleading information to the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s Office investigation
A CASA Employee has falsely and misleadingly led the Ombudsman’s Office to believe CASA did not, and had not ever, permitted more than one flying school to operate under a single CASA Authorisation using the identical structure that I used, and that I was the first person to adopt the structure that I did. i.e., that CASA had never previously permitted that structure.
That representation by CASA to the Ombudsman’s Office is blatantly false and misleading.
The irrefutable truth is CASA had always and, on every occasion, permitted and approved, the identical structure to mine in the flight training industry, and that was the case throughout my 25 years in the industry. It was commonplace and done on every occasion with full CASA approval. For CASA to assert to the Ombudsman’s Office that was not the case is a blatant untruth, and CASA would be fully aware that the information provided is false and misleading.
This exact structure was standard industry practice and required CASA approval. CASA would be fully aware of this. It is ludicrous to assert that CASA would not be fully aware.
The simple truth is that CASA had always permitted that more than one Operator to operate under a single CASA authorisation referred to as an AOC, or Air Operator Certificate, and in the identical structure that I also used, with the person who is the holder of the single AOC taking on full liability for all operations at all bases, operating under that single AOC as required in the legislation.
If CASA claims to the Ombudsman’s Office that this is not the case, then the Ombudsman’s office is being blatantly and deliberately misled. It is commonplace not only in the flight training industry but also in the military and airlines. It was standard industry practice throughout the aviation industry.
This is fundamentally what makes my matter so concerningly inexplicable. CASA always permitted and formally approved the same structure as mine, yet they would lead the Ombudsman’s Office to believe that they had not.
Why would a CASA employee close my business down specifically against a regulation from 3 decades prior, and then lead the Ombudsman to believe that my structure was unique? Why was it only Glen Buckley’s operation that was suddenly declared unlawful against that 1988 regulation? Noting that the Ombudsman report was to find later that there was no valid legal basis for CASAs action. CASA acted unlawfully.
Whilst there are multiple examples that can be cited to highlight the level of deception in CASAs representation to the Ombudsman’s Office, let me put a single scenario to you.
How was Latrobe Valley Aero Club permitted by CASA with full CASA approval to operate under Bairnsdale Air Charters AOC until the very day that they changed to my organisation, and it was my structure that was suddenly deemed to be illegal, and my business shut down, despite Latrobe Valley previously operating under that same structure.
If CASA claim that they never permitted the multi base, multi entity structure, how do they explain how the Latrobe Valley aero Club was operating for the period prior to joining APTA. The truthful answer to the question is because CASA had always permitted one AOC Holder to take on responsibility and accountability for multiple entities. There are multiple examples of this structure throughout the industry, that I can put forward to you if required, although the issue regarding Latrobe Valley Aero club is particularly pertinent, and that one example should suffice. It clearly indicates that CASA has been deceptive and provided false and misleading information to the Ombudsman’s Office investigation.
To assert to the Ombudsman that my structure was unique to me and not others is a blatant untruth.
To assert that CASA had not regularly fully approved such operations throughout the previous 25 years is a blatant untruth.
This matter is black and white. There are only two options, and only one of those options is the truth. Either CASA always permitted this identical structure that I adopted, or CASA never permitted this structure that I adopted. It seems entirely reasonable that CASA clearly and publicly state the truth on this matter.
If CASA now forced to admit that CASA had always permitted more than one flying school to operate, under a single authorisation, and that my structure was somehow different to anybody else’s, CASA should be able to identify clearly and concisely what those differences were. There were none.
For clarity, Compliant One is that CASA has been responsible for providing false and misleading information to the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s Office that CASA had never previously and routinely fully approved more than one entity operating under a single CASA issued authorisation in the same structure as mine, with the single authorisation holder taking on full responsibility.
A truthful response to this compliant is critical.
If in fact CASA had never permitted such operations, then that potentially could go some way to explaining CASAs action against me. If, however, CASA had always permitted such operations, then it must raise the question as to why I was targeted. It makes the matter inexplicable.
To ensure there is no confusion, my complaint is that a CASA employee has misled the Ombudsman’s Office as to whether CASA had always permitted and approved the same structure that I adopted and had done so on every occasion over the last 25 years at least.
If the ICC determines that in fact CASA had always permitted the identical structure to mine, I feel that it is incumbent upon the CASA CEO to ensure that the Ombudsman’s Office is fully aware that the information previously supplied to the Ombudsman’s Office by CASA was not technically accurate. CASA is compelled to ensure that the Ombudsman’s Office is fully and clearly aware that CASA had always and, on every occasion, permitted that exact same structure that I had used, despite CASA previously claiming this was not the case.
What am I expecting as an outcome from this complaint?
That on finalisation of investigation of this complaint, CASA, should very clearly and concisely state CASAs position. There should be no doubt of CASAs public position on this matter.
A. Either CASA never permitted more than one flying school to operate under a single AOC with the holder of the AOC taking on full responsibility for all operations, in the same structure that I adopted or
B. CASA always permitted more than one flying school to operate under a single AOC with the holder of the AOC taking on full responsibility for all operations in the same structure that I adopted.
A truthful and honest response from CASA will ensure that there is no doubt in the Ombudsman’s Office that CASA always permitted the identical structure that I used, yet CASA deemed my operation to be unlawful.
Thread Starter
Submission of allegation- Part Four
Complaint Two of a CASA employee being responsible for providing false and misleading information to the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s Office.
The CASA Employee has misled the Ombudsman. Specifically, regarding the date that CASA “first became fully aware,” of the CASA approved training structure that I had adopted.
If Mr Aleck, the second most senior CASA Executive, maintains to the Ombudsman’s Office that; “CASA,” Australia’s aviation safety regulator, did not become fully aware I had adopted the CASA approved structure until just prior to October 2018, when CASA unlawfully closed my businesses, I claim that to be a blatantly false and misleading statement provided to the Ombudsman’s Office by CASA.
The suggestion by Mr Aleck is that somehow my flying school structure “crept up on CASA” and CASA only became aware in October 2018, when they acted promptly to close it down.
CASA was fully aware of my exact structure for at least 6 years prior to October 2018, and an overwhelming body of evidence supports that assertion. I say that because I was completely dependant on CASA approving those additional bases over the previous 6 years.
If Mr Aleck is truthful and advises that CASA was in truthfully fully aware of the exact structure , and formally approved that structure, and was fully aware I had adopted the multi base multi entity one approval structure for at least 6 years, but the truth is that Mr Aleck in his role, maybe wasn’t personally aware until October 2018, that would indicate a substantial flaw within CASAs own systems, and something that I had no control over, although obviously I was impacted substantially. Such a significant breakdown on such a substantial matter would indicate gross deficiencies within CASA, and no deficiency on my behalf.
Irrespective, the irrefutable truth is “CASA,” was fully aware for at least 6 years that I had adopted the single approval, multi base, multi entity structure, because I required their formal assessment and approval to do it throughout the previous 6 years.
Importantly that is not the position that CASA currently asserts.
The “CASA” position is that CASA only found about my structure just prior to October 2018, when they acted promptly to close me down.
October 2018, being 6 years after I commenced multi base multi entity operations with CASA approval, and two and a half years after I formally met with CASA personnel about the structure on multiple occasions, two years after CASA allocated 10 CASA personnel to work with me on all aspects of the redesign of all structures, systems and procedures, and eighteen months after CASA fully revalidated all those systems, and twelve months after CASA conducted a routine Level One audit over a one-week period
To seriously assert to the Commonwealth Ombudsman investigation that CASA first found about my structure in October 2018, is blatantly false and misleading, and the basis of this complaint.
Such grossly false and misleading information provided to the Ombudsman’s Office investigation by CASA cannot be permitted to go unchallenged, and most especially when the person providing that information does so, fully aware that the information is false and misleading, and would most likely have provided that false and misleading information to the investigation to pervert the outcome of an investigation by the Ombudsman’s Office.
This matter is significant. If CASA suddenly found out about my flying school structure in October 2018 and acted promptly to shut it down, that would be unfair, but if CASA knew about it for many years, and changed their opinion overnight, that would have to raise much more serious concerns about Mr Alecks conduct.
For clarity. I cannot confirm when Mr Aleck personally first found out that I had adopted the same structure that many other operators had adopted throughout the industry. I can categorically state that CASA was fully aware I had adopted that same structure for at least 6 years, and CASA had always permitted Operators to operate in the multi base, multi entity structure.
If CASA is truthful on this matter, as CASA is compelled to be, it may well impact on this matter, as it raises the question of why CASA clearly permitted, encouraged, and formally approved me, and others to operate in that structure for 6 years. After having adopted that same structure for 6 years with full and formal CASA approval, I as the business owner had a reasonable expectation that I had been operating lawfully throughout those 6 years.
Then on October 23rd, 2018, the CASA Executive Manager of Legal International and Regulatory Affairs, without drawing on any external or independent advice, declares my business unlawful by using a regulation from 30 years prior in a manner that has no precedent, and he can provide absolutely no allegations against any quality outcomes or put forward any supporting safety case.
He does that happen with no prior notification at all. I was completely unaware of any CASA concerns. In fact, there were never concerns. CASA never raised any concerns against any quality outcomes at all, simply a determination that I was now operating unlawfully, and a reversal of a previous issued approval.
Mr Hanton, it is just not feasible that I could operate for over 6 years in a multi base multi entity structure, under one CASA issued AOC, and then go through a two-year process with CASA designing the entire structure exactly in the multi base structure and have it revalidated in April 2017, audited by CASA in November 2017, and then CASA claims it only finds out about it 18 months later in October 2018, and after they have formally approved additional bases.
To be frank, I think this gets to the very heart of the matter. CASA permitted me to do something for many years, as they did with many operators i.e., deliver multi base multi entity training, under the one approval. It was done formally and with full CASA knowledge and formal CASA approval. It seems absurd that overnight CASA deem my operation, and my operation only, illegal against a regulation from 30 years prior, and without any supporting safety case at all. It is a change of opinion only by Mr Aleck, and a reversal of a previously given approval by CASA. It not only lacks ethics and integrity. It is unlawful.
There can be no doubt that I had been operating in the multi base multi entity structure with CASAs full knowledge, consent, and full approval for many years. For CASA to assert otherwise is a blatant untruth. Consider the highly regulated industry that flight schools operate in. It would just not be possible that I ran a flying school in Darwin 6 years earlier with formal CASA approval, and over the next 6 years CASA formally approve additional bases, and fully revalidate the structure in April 2017. Six months after that in November of 2017, CASA attend the CASA approved bases as part of a routine Level one audit. This is twelve months before Mr Aleck claims that “CASA” first became aware of my structure.
For CASA to assert to the Ombudsman’s Office that they “first became aware of my structure” in October 2018 is such a blatant misrepresentation of the truth that it cannot go unchallenged. It clearly demonstrates the depth of deception that the CASA employee is prepared to perpetrate to cover up his misconduct.
It is important to understand here, that after the closure of the business by CASA, the Ombudsman found that CASA had erred and in fact the structure was not illegal, but by then the significant damage had been caused. This complaint is not related to the legality or not of CASAs decision. This complaint relates only to how long CASA was fully aware of the structure that I had adopted, and the depth of knowledge and level of involvement CASA had of the exact structure that I adopted.
It is feasible that once Mr Aleck realised that he had acted unlawfully and in fact CASA had no legal basis to close down my business after the release of Phase One of the Ombudsman’s investigation that he then tried to misrepresent that CASA were not fully aware of my multi base multi entity structure, and CASA tried to “distance” themselves from any involvement in the process from inception, through to design and approval in April of 2017. A full 18 months before Mr Aleck claims that CASA “first became aware”.
The Phase One report by the Commonwealth Ombudsman can be accessed here.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/0nyon53qll...eport.pdf?dl=0
I appreciate that this matter is best “swept under the carpet” and that would be CASAs more convenient option.
I understand that it would be hard for CASA to justify its conduct if the truth was revealed, and in fact CASA had approved my exact structure 6 years earlier than they have led the Ombudsman to believe. Then ten CASA employees had worked side by side, across a desk from me and my team over a two-year period redesigning and upgrading every policy and procedure to operate in this exact structure, requiring an investment by me of several hundred thousand dollars.
Then as part of a CASA mandated process for all flying schools in Australia, CASA assesses every one of those more than 600 procedures designed exactly for the structure that I had designed with those 10 CASA employees.
That body of work is contained within a large suite of operations manuals referred to as the Exposition. That Exposition is then sent up the chain within CASA for a Peer Review. Then after passing that peer review, CASA formally approve that system, in fact we are one of the first schools in Australia to be accredited to the new Part 141/142 legislation in April of 2017 whilst operating in the same structure that I adopted many years prior.
Imagine if the truth was to come out and it was found that CASA had audited the entire system in November 2017 including visiting those bases. Consider also that CASA has formally approved several bases to operate under the structure, almost 2 years prior to the date that CASA claim that “CASA first became aware”, and this was done by way of formal CASA procedures.
Then one day in October 2018, a single CASA employee, Mr Aleck suddenly declares it unlawful, and shuts it down. He draws on no precedent, no safety case, no external independent legal advice. My assumption is that he did not discuss it with his direct report (Mr Carmody CASA CEO at the time, although I cannot confirm that), and there is no discussion at all with me. CASA raises no concerns or does not contact me on any matter to discuss any concerns prior. To do that Mr Aleck can identify no safety concerns or any concerns about any quality outcomes. He simply inappropriately uses a regulation from 30 years prior in a way that it has never been used before, to shut down a well-established, well intentioned, safe and compliant business.
That alone is bizarre that it would become unlawful after so long. Hopefully you can appreciate why the entire matter appears inexplicable. Hopefully you will understand that after 6 years of operating in that structure with full CASA knowledge, I assumed that I was operating lawfully.
The situation I portray above may go some way to explaining why Mr Aleck may try to provide misleading information to the Commonwealth Ombudsman Office, and why the CASA CEO may be reluctant to clarify the truth with the Ombudsman’s Office
If CASA were to truthfully admit that they really became aware of the structure many years before they claim that they became aware, that would lead to the question that I have been seeking a response to for over three years, and CASA steadfastly refuse to address. If you were fully aware of my business structure for many years, how did it suddenly become illegal against a 1988 regulation, only in October 2018. Why was it not illegal prior to that date? What changed? what was the “trigger”, and why were no concerns ever raised with me. Why couldn’t a well-intentioned discussion resolve the entire matter. Why did CASA just spend two years working with me to revalidate the entire structure over 18 months prior, then suddenly determine that it is illegal. CASA had literally hundreds of opportunities over the 6 years to raise any concerns. Why did CASA target me, and not other Operators? Why would CASA try and lead the Ombudsman to believe that they weren’t fully aware of my structure for at least 6 years?
The truth is that CASA had been fully involved in the very substantial project to design every policy and procedure of that exact structure with me, years earlier. CASA assessed all of those 600 requirements provided by CASA, approved my systems and procedures, peer reviewed it, approved it, audited it, and approved bases under it for many years prior. To assert anything contrary is a blatant untruth.
The checklist that CASA used to assess my structure over the two years leading up to revalidation in the multi base multi entity structure in April 2017, was obtained by me under Freedom of Information and is attached.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/xy5etr9253...SHEET.pdf?dl=0
In fact, I was fully reliant on CASA to provide me with their requirements as they did. CASA provided me with guidance material and that 600-point checklist above. Using that checklist, I designed our Operations Manuals referred to as the Exposition. CASA would then use that checklist to assess my manuals, as they did. I was then compelled to address all those criteria designed exactly for continuation of my multi base multi entity structure. This involved many thousands of pages of correspondence between CASA and my Internal Co-ordinator, Management Team, and Technical Writer throughout 2016 and 2017.
The contents of that CASA checklist are comprehensive and goes some way to demonstrating the full dependence on CASA for full approval of my multi base, multi entity, single Authorisation structure, years before CASA claim they first became aware. Consider that this worksheet was the checklist CASA used against our Exposition to assess and approve it. Our Exposition was a substantial document covering all aspects of our operation and outlining all policies and procedures. It was designed from the ground up to do exactly what it did: multi base, multi entity training.
An example of those manuals is provided here in Volume 1, which outlines the General Operating Procedures. This manual was approved by CASA almost two years before Mr Aleck claims that CASA first became fully aware of the structure I had adopted.
APTA OPERATIONS MANUAL - VOLUME 1 - ED 3 REV 0 (1).pdf
If CASA claim that they were still not aware of my structure after they approved the first base in Darwin six years earlier, or when they met with me in mid-2016, then fully revalidated my business and structure in April of 2017, then CASA most certainly would have become fully aware in November of 2017, (almost a year before CASA claim that they first became aware), when they visited all our bases and spent an entire week with me and my management team during the routine Level One Audit that is standard procedure 6 months after revalidation as a Part 141/142 Organisation. The entire audit was based around this exact structure, and CASA went to the bases.
I believe that this point is significant to this matter. You will recall from your own findings as CASAs Industry Complaints Commissioner on 12/04/19 where you stated.
“I don’t consider CASA treated APTA fairly when its approach changed on 23 October. That’s because collectively as an organisation, CASA had an awareness of the APTA business model for a significant period of time prior to its compliance with regulation being called into question. In changing its position so drastically, the circumstances were such that CASA’s actions weren’t fair, given APTA’s likely to have relied on CASA’s failure to highlight any concerns when conducting its operations and planning.
That full correspondence from you on 12/04/19 can be accessed here:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/kes5jaml22...80719.pdf?dl=0
I obviously concur with your finding in your role as the Industry Complaints Commissioner finding, although obviously CASA does not agree, in fact CASA continues to promote what is clearly a false and misleading position to the Ombudsman’s Office.
Specifically, this complaint relates to the date that CASA first became fully aware of my business structure. i.e. being more than one flying school operating under a single CASA issued authorisation with the holder of the single CASA authorisation taking on full responsibility for all operations.
What was the occurrence or situation that first alerted CASA to my structure, and on what date did that occur? CASA asserts to the Ombudsman’s office that they first became aware of my structure in approximately October 2018. I claim that is grossly false and misleading and that CASA was fully aware many years prior because CASA worked with me over many years designing it.
I think it entirely reasonable that CASA clearly state the specific date and occurrence that CASA claims that they first became aware of the multi base multi entity structure that I was using.
At some stage and on some specific date, CASA must have become aware of the structure that I had adopted. If it was not 6 years prior when CASA approved that first base in Darwin, or mid 2016 when I met with CASA regarding the proposal, or not in or in April 2017 when CASA fully revalidated the structure, or not in November 2017 when CASA spent one week conducting a routine level one audit, or on the dates that they formally approved bases, then what was the date or occurrence?
The truth is that CASA was heavily involved in the design and approval of my exact structure many years before CASA claim that they “first became aware”, and that is what in fact makes this entire situation so absurd.
Then entire system was formally revalidated by CASA and that required me submitting many thousands of pages of documentation to CASA, regular meetings, onsite visits, formal CASA approval of bases etc, years before October 2018, when CASA claim that they “first became aware”. In fact, CASA fully revalidated the structure in April 2017, so CASA were fully aware of the structure by that date that is eighteen months earlier, that cannot be denied.
It seems entirely reasonable that CASA should be able to nominate the date that they first became aware that I was adopting the multi base multi entity structure. I put forward this following timeline to assist with CASA nominating the date that they will admit that they first became fully aware I was using the multi base multi entity structure.
I claim CASA first became fully aware by 2012 when they formally approved my first base.
Mr Aleck claims that CASA first became aware just prior to October 2018 when he incorrectly determined my operation unlawful.
Mr Alecks claims are clearly false as it is just not possible that CASA did not become aware until October 2018.
My hope is that CASA can nominate that date or occurrence. This is important. If CASA reversed their approval shortly after issuing the approval, the damage is potentially far less. If CASA permit someone to operate for 6 years, and then change their mind, the damage will obviously be far more significant.
It seems very reasonable that as the person impacted by this matter, I should be entitled to the same information that CASA is providing to the Ombudsman. I can see no reason why CASA would be reluctant to advise me of that date. It seems only fair that I know what CASA is advising the Ombudsman on this matter, and most especially because I believe CASA has been deceptive on this matter. If CASA is acting in good faith, there is no reason that I, as the person impacted should not be advised of the date that CASA claims they first became aware that I had adopted that structure.
Therefore, I feel that CASA should publicly confirm the date that CASA claims they first became aware that I was operating under a multi base multi entity structure with me as the Holder of the single CASA Authorisation, drawing on the timeline below for some key opportunities.
If CASA is acted truthfully and with integrity, then there would be no reason that they would not identify that date.
The CASA Employee has misled the Ombudsman. Specifically, regarding the date that CASA “first became fully aware,” of the CASA approved training structure that I had adopted.
If Mr Aleck, the second most senior CASA Executive, maintains to the Ombudsman’s Office that; “CASA,” Australia’s aviation safety regulator, did not become fully aware I had adopted the CASA approved structure until just prior to October 2018, when CASA unlawfully closed my businesses, I claim that to be a blatantly false and misleading statement provided to the Ombudsman’s Office by CASA.
The suggestion by Mr Aleck is that somehow my flying school structure “crept up on CASA” and CASA only became aware in October 2018, when they acted promptly to close it down.
CASA was fully aware of my exact structure for at least 6 years prior to October 2018, and an overwhelming body of evidence supports that assertion. I say that because I was completely dependant on CASA approving those additional bases over the previous 6 years.
If Mr Aleck is truthful and advises that CASA was in truthfully fully aware of the exact structure , and formally approved that structure, and was fully aware I had adopted the multi base multi entity one approval structure for at least 6 years, but the truth is that Mr Aleck in his role, maybe wasn’t personally aware until October 2018, that would indicate a substantial flaw within CASAs own systems, and something that I had no control over, although obviously I was impacted substantially. Such a significant breakdown on such a substantial matter would indicate gross deficiencies within CASA, and no deficiency on my behalf.
Irrespective, the irrefutable truth is “CASA,” was fully aware for at least 6 years that I had adopted the single approval, multi base, multi entity structure, because I required their formal assessment and approval to do it throughout the previous 6 years.
Importantly that is not the position that CASA currently asserts.
The “CASA” position is that CASA only found about my structure just prior to October 2018, when they acted promptly to close me down.
October 2018, being 6 years after I commenced multi base multi entity operations with CASA approval, and two and a half years after I formally met with CASA personnel about the structure on multiple occasions, two years after CASA allocated 10 CASA personnel to work with me on all aspects of the redesign of all structures, systems and procedures, and eighteen months after CASA fully revalidated all those systems, and twelve months after CASA conducted a routine Level One audit over a one-week period
To seriously assert to the Commonwealth Ombudsman investigation that CASA first found about my structure in October 2018, is blatantly false and misleading, and the basis of this complaint.
Such grossly false and misleading information provided to the Ombudsman’s Office investigation by CASA cannot be permitted to go unchallenged, and most especially when the person providing that information does so, fully aware that the information is false and misleading, and would most likely have provided that false and misleading information to the investigation to pervert the outcome of an investigation by the Ombudsman’s Office.
This matter is significant. If CASA suddenly found out about my flying school structure in October 2018 and acted promptly to shut it down, that would be unfair, but if CASA knew about it for many years, and changed their opinion overnight, that would have to raise much more serious concerns about Mr Alecks conduct.
For clarity. I cannot confirm when Mr Aleck personally first found out that I had adopted the same structure that many other operators had adopted throughout the industry. I can categorically state that CASA was fully aware I had adopted that same structure for at least 6 years, and CASA had always permitted Operators to operate in the multi base, multi entity structure.
If CASA is truthful on this matter, as CASA is compelled to be, it may well impact on this matter, as it raises the question of why CASA clearly permitted, encouraged, and formally approved me, and others to operate in that structure for 6 years. After having adopted that same structure for 6 years with full and formal CASA approval, I as the business owner had a reasonable expectation that I had been operating lawfully throughout those 6 years.
Then on October 23rd, 2018, the CASA Executive Manager of Legal International and Regulatory Affairs, without drawing on any external or independent advice, declares my business unlawful by using a regulation from 30 years prior in a manner that has no precedent, and he can provide absolutely no allegations against any quality outcomes or put forward any supporting safety case.
He does that happen with no prior notification at all. I was completely unaware of any CASA concerns. In fact, there were never concerns. CASA never raised any concerns against any quality outcomes at all, simply a determination that I was now operating unlawfully, and a reversal of a previous issued approval.
Mr Hanton, it is just not feasible that I could operate for over 6 years in a multi base multi entity structure, under one CASA issued AOC, and then go through a two-year process with CASA designing the entire structure exactly in the multi base structure and have it revalidated in April 2017, audited by CASA in November 2017, and then CASA claims it only finds out about it 18 months later in October 2018, and after they have formally approved additional bases.
To be frank, I think this gets to the very heart of the matter. CASA permitted me to do something for many years, as they did with many operators i.e., deliver multi base multi entity training, under the one approval. It was done formally and with full CASA knowledge and formal CASA approval. It seems absurd that overnight CASA deem my operation, and my operation only, illegal against a regulation from 30 years prior, and without any supporting safety case at all. It is a change of opinion only by Mr Aleck, and a reversal of a previously given approval by CASA. It not only lacks ethics and integrity. It is unlawful.
There can be no doubt that I had been operating in the multi base multi entity structure with CASAs full knowledge, consent, and full approval for many years. For CASA to assert otherwise is a blatant untruth. Consider the highly regulated industry that flight schools operate in. It would just not be possible that I ran a flying school in Darwin 6 years earlier with formal CASA approval, and over the next 6 years CASA formally approve additional bases, and fully revalidate the structure in April 2017. Six months after that in November of 2017, CASA attend the CASA approved bases as part of a routine Level one audit. This is twelve months before Mr Aleck claims that “CASA” first became aware of my structure.
For CASA to assert to the Ombudsman’s Office that they “first became aware of my structure” in October 2018 is such a blatant misrepresentation of the truth that it cannot go unchallenged. It clearly demonstrates the depth of deception that the CASA employee is prepared to perpetrate to cover up his misconduct.
It is important to understand here, that after the closure of the business by CASA, the Ombudsman found that CASA had erred and in fact the structure was not illegal, but by then the significant damage had been caused. This complaint is not related to the legality or not of CASAs decision. This complaint relates only to how long CASA was fully aware of the structure that I had adopted, and the depth of knowledge and level of involvement CASA had of the exact structure that I adopted.
It is feasible that once Mr Aleck realised that he had acted unlawfully and in fact CASA had no legal basis to close down my business after the release of Phase One of the Ombudsman’s investigation that he then tried to misrepresent that CASA were not fully aware of my multi base multi entity structure, and CASA tried to “distance” themselves from any involvement in the process from inception, through to design and approval in April of 2017. A full 18 months before Mr Aleck claims that CASA “first became aware”.
The Phase One report by the Commonwealth Ombudsman can be accessed here.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/0nyon53qll...eport.pdf?dl=0
I appreciate that this matter is best “swept under the carpet” and that would be CASAs more convenient option.
I understand that it would be hard for CASA to justify its conduct if the truth was revealed, and in fact CASA had approved my exact structure 6 years earlier than they have led the Ombudsman to believe. Then ten CASA employees had worked side by side, across a desk from me and my team over a two-year period redesigning and upgrading every policy and procedure to operate in this exact structure, requiring an investment by me of several hundred thousand dollars.
Then as part of a CASA mandated process for all flying schools in Australia, CASA assesses every one of those more than 600 procedures designed exactly for the structure that I had designed with those 10 CASA employees.
That body of work is contained within a large suite of operations manuals referred to as the Exposition. That Exposition is then sent up the chain within CASA for a Peer Review. Then after passing that peer review, CASA formally approve that system, in fact we are one of the first schools in Australia to be accredited to the new Part 141/142 legislation in April of 2017 whilst operating in the same structure that I adopted many years prior.
Imagine if the truth was to come out and it was found that CASA had audited the entire system in November 2017 including visiting those bases. Consider also that CASA has formally approved several bases to operate under the structure, almost 2 years prior to the date that CASA claim that “CASA first became aware”, and this was done by way of formal CASA procedures.
Then one day in October 2018, a single CASA employee, Mr Aleck suddenly declares it unlawful, and shuts it down. He draws on no precedent, no safety case, no external independent legal advice. My assumption is that he did not discuss it with his direct report (Mr Carmody CASA CEO at the time, although I cannot confirm that), and there is no discussion at all with me. CASA raises no concerns or does not contact me on any matter to discuss any concerns prior. To do that Mr Aleck can identify no safety concerns or any concerns about any quality outcomes. He simply inappropriately uses a regulation from 30 years prior in a way that it has never been used before, to shut down a well-established, well intentioned, safe and compliant business.
That alone is bizarre that it would become unlawful after so long. Hopefully you can appreciate why the entire matter appears inexplicable. Hopefully you will understand that after 6 years of operating in that structure with full CASA knowledge, I assumed that I was operating lawfully.
The situation I portray above may go some way to explaining why Mr Aleck may try to provide misleading information to the Commonwealth Ombudsman Office, and why the CASA CEO may be reluctant to clarify the truth with the Ombudsman’s Office
If CASA were to truthfully admit that they really became aware of the structure many years before they claim that they became aware, that would lead to the question that I have been seeking a response to for over three years, and CASA steadfastly refuse to address. If you were fully aware of my business structure for many years, how did it suddenly become illegal against a 1988 regulation, only in October 2018. Why was it not illegal prior to that date? What changed? what was the “trigger”, and why were no concerns ever raised with me. Why couldn’t a well-intentioned discussion resolve the entire matter. Why did CASA just spend two years working with me to revalidate the entire structure over 18 months prior, then suddenly determine that it is illegal. CASA had literally hundreds of opportunities over the 6 years to raise any concerns. Why did CASA target me, and not other Operators? Why would CASA try and lead the Ombudsman to believe that they weren’t fully aware of my structure for at least 6 years?
The truth is that CASA had been fully involved in the very substantial project to design every policy and procedure of that exact structure with me, years earlier. CASA assessed all of those 600 requirements provided by CASA, approved my systems and procedures, peer reviewed it, approved it, audited it, and approved bases under it for many years prior. To assert anything contrary is a blatant untruth.
The checklist that CASA used to assess my structure over the two years leading up to revalidation in the multi base multi entity structure in April 2017, was obtained by me under Freedom of Information and is attached.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/xy5etr9253...SHEET.pdf?dl=0
In fact, I was fully reliant on CASA to provide me with their requirements as they did. CASA provided me with guidance material and that 600-point checklist above. Using that checklist, I designed our Operations Manuals referred to as the Exposition. CASA would then use that checklist to assess my manuals, as they did. I was then compelled to address all those criteria designed exactly for continuation of my multi base multi entity structure. This involved many thousands of pages of correspondence between CASA and my Internal Co-ordinator, Management Team, and Technical Writer throughout 2016 and 2017.
The contents of that CASA checklist are comprehensive and goes some way to demonstrating the full dependence on CASA for full approval of my multi base, multi entity, single Authorisation structure, years before CASA claim they first became aware. Consider that this worksheet was the checklist CASA used against our Exposition to assess and approve it. Our Exposition was a substantial document covering all aspects of our operation and outlining all policies and procedures. It was designed from the ground up to do exactly what it did: multi base, multi entity training.
An example of those manuals is provided here in Volume 1, which outlines the General Operating Procedures. This manual was approved by CASA almost two years before Mr Aleck claims that CASA first became fully aware of the structure I had adopted.
APTA OPERATIONS MANUAL - VOLUME 1 - ED 3 REV 0 (1).pdf
If CASA claim that they were still not aware of my structure after they approved the first base in Darwin six years earlier, or when they met with me in mid-2016, then fully revalidated my business and structure in April of 2017, then CASA most certainly would have become fully aware in November of 2017, (almost a year before CASA claim that they first became aware), when they visited all our bases and spent an entire week with me and my management team during the routine Level One Audit that is standard procedure 6 months after revalidation as a Part 141/142 Organisation. The entire audit was based around this exact structure, and CASA went to the bases.
I believe that this point is significant to this matter. You will recall from your own findings as CASAs Industry Complaints Commissioner on 12/04/19 where you stated.
“I don’t consider CASA treated APTA fairly when its approach changed on 23 October. That’s because collectively as an organisation, CASA had an awareness of the APTA business model for a significant period of time prior to its compliance with regulation being called into question. In changing its position so drastically, the circumstances were such that CASA’s actions weren’t fair, given APTA’s likely to have relied on CASA’s failure to highlight any concerns when conducting its operations and planning.
That full correspondence from you on 12/04/19 can be accessed here:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/kes5jaml22...80719.pdf?dl=0
I obviously concur with your finding in your role as the Industry Complaints Commissioner finding, although obviously CASA does not agree, in fact CASA continues to promote what is clearly a false and misleading position to the Ombudsman’s Office.
Specifically, this complaint relates to the date that CASA first became fully aware of my business structure. i.e. being more than one flying school operating under a single CASA issued authorisation with the holder of the single CASA authorisation taking on full responsibility for all operations.
What was the occurrence or situation that first alerted CASA to my structure, and on what date did that occur? CASA asserts to the Ombudsman’s office that they first became aware of my structure in approximately October 2018. I claim that is grossly false and misleading and that CASA was fully aware many years prior because CASA worked with me over many years designing it.
I think it entirely reasonable that CASA clearly state the specific date and occurrence that CASA claims that they first became aware of the multi base multi entity structure that I was using.
At some stage and on some specific date, CASA must have become aware of the structure that I had adopted. If it was not 6 years prior when CASA approved that first base in Darwin, or mid 2016 when I met with CASA regarding the proposal, or not in or in April 2017 when CASA fully revalidated the structure, or not in November 2017 when CASA spent one week conducting a routine level one audit, or on the dates that they formally approved bases, then what was the date or occurrence?
The truth is that CASA was heavily involved in the design and approval of my exact structure many years before CASA claim that they “first became aware”, and that is what in fact makes this entire situation so absurd.
Then entire system was formally revalidated by CASA and that required me submitting many thousands of pages of documentation to CASA, regular meetings, onsite visits, formal CASA approval of bases etc, years before October 2018, when CASA claim that they “first became aware”. In fact, CASA fully revalidated the structure in April 2017, so CASA were fully aware of the structure by that date that is eighteen months earlier, that cannot be denied.
It seems entirely reasonable that CASA should be able to nominate the date that they first became aware that I was adopting the multi base multi entity structure. I put forward this following timeline to assist with CASA nominating the date that they will admit that they first became fully aware I was using the multi base multi entity structure.
I claim CASA first became fully aware by 2012 when they formally approved my first base.
Mr Aleck claims that CASA first became aware just prior to October 2018 when he incorrectly determined my operation unlawful.
Mr Alecks claims are clearly false as it is just not possible that CASA did not become aware until October 2018.
My hope is that CASA can nominate that date or occurrence. This is important. If CASA reversed their approval shortly after issuing the approval, the damage is potentially far less. If CASA permit someone to operate for 6 years, and then change their mind, the damage will obviously be far more significant.
It seems very reasonable that as the person impacted by this matter, I should be entitled to the same information that CASA is providing to the Ombudsman. I can see no reason why CASA would be reluctant to advise me of that date. It seems only fair that I know what CASA is advising the Ombudsman on this matter, and most especially because I believe CASA has been deceptive on this matter. If CASA is acting in good faith, there is no reason that I, as the person impacted should not be advised of the date that CASA claims they first became aware that I had adopted that structure.
Therefore, I feel that CASA should publicly confirm the date that CASA claims they first became aware that I was operating under a multi base multi entity structure with me as the Holder of the single CASA Authorisation, drawing on the timeline below for some key opportunities.
If CASA is acted truthfully and with integrity, then there would be no reason that they would not identify that date.
Thread Starter
Submission of allegation- Part Five
Mr Aleck asserts that CASA first became aware of my structure in October 2018. There are some currently serving CASA employees that attended those meetings with me 2 ½ years prior to October 2018 as I was developing the concept. I have no doubt they will act with integrity and professionally and tell you the truth on this matter i.e., as to when CASA first became fully aware of my structure that I had been using for many years with full and formal CASA approval. For expediency, I can direct you to those current CASA employees, should you require. The timeline below provides a sampling of some of the opportunities for “CASA” to become aware of my structure.
· 2006, My business commenced CASA approved flight training operations from Moorabbin Airport, at the time of opening called Melbourne Flight Training.
· 2012 CASA formally approved me to conduct multi base multi entity operations with the second school being our “AV8” base in Darwin. This was an extensive process requiring submission of formal documentation to CASA, including a CASA visit to the site, and a CASA audit of the site, fees paid to CASA etc. CASA will have access to substantial records that confirm this. (This is 6 years before CASA claim to the Ombudsman that they first became aware of my multi base multi entity structure).
CASA also claims that they have never permitted this structure in the industry. That is false and misleading. CASA obviously permitted it, or they would not have let me proceed with this first additional base, as they did with many other Operators around the Country.
The fact that this was the first time that we adopted this structure, it is highly probable that I would have fully involved the Regulator in the process, and particularly so, as I could not commence operations in Darwin until they were approved by CASA.
If CASA claim that structure has changed in anyway during those 6 years, they should be expected to explain what those changes are. There were no changes. Quite simply, that second base could not have commenced operations without CASA being fully aware, and more importantly, formally approving me to commence operations at that base. Only once CASA had approved us to operate at that base, did we commence operations. Had I have commenced operating a flying school in Darwin without approaching CASA, it is highly likely that at some stage CASA would have realised and approached me, and no doubt prosecuted me, as would be expected of CASA.
I can see no valid reason that CASA would assert that they were not fully aware of my exact structure by 2012. The Company had been operating as a single school single entity from its opening in 2006, but by 2012, CASA had formally approved me to operate in the multi base multi entity, single CASA approval, structure, as many other Operators throughout the industry did, and had always done.
If CASA had overlooked this approval being given, it is likely that they would have become aware during their onsite visits to that Darwin base, and the regular communications with CASA on operation of that base.
· 2015 when CASA formally approved me to add an additional base using our multi base multi entity one approval structure at “TVSA” Bacchus Marsh. Also requiring an extensive formal CASA approval process, as above. (This is over 3 years before CASA claim they first became aware of my “structure”). Honestly Mr Hanton, CASA cannot surely be contending that they didn’t know about my structure at least 3, if not 6 years before they claim to the Ombudsman that they first became aware of this structure, and surely CASA cannot be leading the Ombudsman to believe that this was not standard industry practice and fully approved by CASA with many flight training organisations throughout the industry. This entity TVSA was very clearly operating under my CASA approval. This was done with full CASA knowledge and formal approval. It is just not feasible that I would have gone rogue, bypassed all legal requirements, and now have opened two additional bases without CASA being fully aware. Anybody with industry experience, or any CASA employee apart from CASA CEO Ms. Spence and CASA Executive Manager, Mr Aleck will confirm to you, that it is just not feasible.
· May 18th, 2016- Met with CASA Flight Operations Inspectors (FOI) XXXXX XXX and XXXXXX XXXXXXXX for initial discussions regarding expanding on the multi base multi entity structure that we were already utilising and approved by CASA to do so. For the first time in Australia, rather than the rather loose arrangements in industry to date, we would redesign every single system and procedure from the ground up, from day one for exactly the purpose of bringing 10 flying schools under my single CASA issued authorisation. The entire system would be designed to fully comply with the new regultory structure scheduled for implementation on September 1st, 2017, being 18 months away. This was to be a significant project requiring substantial investment of several hundred thousand dollars by me. It was the largest project undertaken by a flying school in Australia to date. CASA attendees at that meeting on May 18th, 2016, will confirm the contents of that meeting. By mid-2016, CASA were fully briefed on my intentions, and CASA was fully aware. For CASA to lead the Ombudsman to believe that they were not fully involved in every aspect of design and approval is obscene.
By May 2016, these formal meetings with CASA must by now have made CASA fully aware of the exact structure if inexplicably they had not become aware four years earlier when the second base was approved, or twelve months earlier when the third base was approved.
In fact, this was a prime opportunity for CASA to stop me, and in fact they should have stopped me. Instead, what I found was that CASA were very encouraging of the concept and encouraged me to proceed with the expansion and development of the concept
Considering that CASA had been fully aware that I had been operating in this structure for many years, my CASA Certificate Management Team (CMT) team were fully aware that I intended continuing and expanding on what I was doing. In fact, CASA assured me that I could “keep doing everything I was already doing” in the new regulatory structure. Two of the attendees at these meetings are still CASA employees. You could ask them directly. I know they will both be professional and truthful.
· May 27th, 2016- Met with CASA Flight Operations Inspectors (FOI) XXXXX XXX and CASA Team Leader, Mr XXXX XXXXX for further discussions on expanding on the multi base multi entity structure that I had already been doing for many years and ensuring it would meet the new regultory requirements of part 141/142. Both attendees at the meeting recollect those meetings, and Statutory declarations can be obtained on your request.
CASA had the opportunity to raise any concerns at these meetings. In fact, CASA attendees were extremely encouraging on expanding the concept to the new regulations, and that is the recollection of attendees from CASA and my own Management team.
· June 2016- Emails clearly indicating significant discussion with CASA around the proposal to expand significantly on what I was already doing i.e. The multi base multi entity, one approval structure. If Mr Aleck claims that CASA was not aware of my structure by now, it is a blatant untruth.
These were emails to my “direct reports” within CASA. Those CASA personnel clearly recollect the meetings that followed. They are prepared to confirm this, and to use the words of one of those CASA employees, “I still retain extraneous notes on these meetings and discussions”.
I refer you to those emails attached
https://www.dropbox.com/s/e2kcuci2ik...0awre.pdf?dl=0
Those emails are 2 ½ years before CASA claim to the Ombudsman that CASA first became aware of my structure. I particularly refer you to the email of 20th June 2016 where I wrote to the senior CASA management. The content of these emails clearly indicate that CASA was by now fully aware. The appendix contains the emails in full, but I refer you here to two pertinent excerpts.
“As you are aware, I am in the process of putting together an alliance of flight organisations, under an industry leading group of professionals. My intention is to build a team that can communicate with CASA in an effective, professional, and constructive manner.”
and….
“I have now invested significantly in the Proposal. If practical I would like the opportunity to meet with you in the CASA office to outline my proposed course of action. I will be seeking significant guidance from CASA during this process. My intention is to get it right the first time. I genuinely want to work as closely with CASA as your resources permit.”
There are several emails in this attachment, but they can leave the reader in no doubt that CASA was fully aware of my structure many years before they have led the Ombudsman’s office to believe. For Mr Aleck to suggest to the Ombudsman that CASA were not fully aware of the structure by mid-2016 is not reasonable. I was about to embark on a very significant investment. To put that in some perspective, the investment required exceeded the entire profit of the Company of the previous decade. It is highly unlikely that I would not have been fully upfront with CASA prior to embarking on the significant investment required.
Importantly, this was a CASA mandated process. After September 1st, 2017, all schools had to be fully compliant with the new legislation or cease trading. The project that I was about to undertake, was something required of me by CASA. All of Australia’s more than 300 flight training organisations was required to undertake a revalidation into the new school categories that were being introduced.
I would point out that I made repeated written offers to CASA. In that correspondence I offered to fund a secondment of a CASA employee to my organisation for a twelve-month period, that I would fully fund to the value of $150,000. The intention was that we would redesign all the systems and procedures with CASA to ensure there were no misunderstandings. The suggestion was that we would then make those manuals and procedures available to the wider industry at no charge. My hope being that other flying schools could come together in a similar alliance across the Country with the intention to increase safety, compliance and protect the Australian owned sector of the industry,
Please consider that this is two and a half years before Mr Aleck would have the Ombudsman believe that CASA first became aware of my structure. The same structure I had been using for the previous six years, only now I wanted to invest in it and expand on it to encompass ten schools. That was the exact proposal that I put to CASA in meetings in mid-2016. The senior CASA personnel present at those meetings were extremely supportive of the concept, advised that “it is not a concept we are unfamiliar with, the military and airlines use it all the time” and “we encourage you and will work with you”. These are the recollections of both the CASA personnel present at those 2016 meetings and my own.
· The 2 years lead up to that revalidation in April 2017 by CASA required an investment of many hundreds of thousands of dollars by me and was most likely the largest project ever undertaken by any flight training organisation in Australia. It required full CASA involvement, assessment, peer review, formal approval, and revalidation. Every single system and procedure were formally approved by CASA years before CASA have led the Ombudsman to believe. Each of those procedures revalidated by CASA in April 2016 was designed specifically for the purpose of encompassing 10 schools, exactly as discussed with CASA 2 ½ years prior, and exactly as I had been doing for at least six years, albeit on a larger scale but with an associated investment in systems, procedures, facilities, personnel etc.
The Worksheet is evidence of the size of the project and the high level of detail that CASA considered in granting that revalidation. In fact, much of the checklist is against the structure of the Organisation. As you will appreciate, it is ludicrous that CASA would assert to the Ombudsman that they were not fully aware of the structure when they ticked off on those assessment criteria, two years prior to October 2018, when CASA falsely claims that CASA “first became aware”
https://www.dropbox.com/s/xy5etr9253...SHEET.pdf?dl=0
· Mid-2016. From this date on I was highly reliant on CASA. There was a special relationship between the parties being CASA and myself. CASA provided the Regulatory structure and the guidance material; I was required to write manuals and procedures to those CASA stipulated requirements. If, like all schools in Australia I did not complete that process by September 1st, 2017, I would have to cease operations as would any school in Australia that had not completed the Transition process to the new regulations. CASA assessed each of those procedures contained within our Exposition. CASA then sent them internally for a “peer review”.
CASA was encouraging of the concept and provided me with two comprehensive documents that I needed to attend to. They were the Worksheet containing CASAs 600 assessment items which I referred to previously.
CASA also provided me with a guidance document called the Technical Assessor Workbook. This was the primary document, in conjunction with the 600-point checklist, previously referred to, that CASA used as part of that process leading to a full revalidation in April of 2017, being 18 months before CASA determined the business structure unlawful. One only has to look at CASA Handbook below, to realise that CASA was fully involved in every aspect of design and later approval of the exact structure.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ody0wjgw29...dbook.pdf?dl=0
If I attended to all of those more than 600 requirements, I would be able to keep doing what I was already doing i.e., delivering multi base multi entity flight training under the single CASA issued Authorisation after CASA conducted their review and audit process.
I was required to rewrite my entire manual suite referred to as the Exposition, and in writing those manuals and deciding I had to attend to over 600 specified CASA requirements. CASA responses and answers were important and influential, in fact CASA had to assess, peer review and then approve each of those 600 procedures.
It was in fact the CASA personnel that I was fully dependent on. As the Regulator and the body that would approve my structure, it was reasonable that I depended on those CASA employees. As the recipient, I trusted them and should have been able to depend on CASA to assess and approve my policies and procedures and approve them as they did. If there were any concerns at all by now, it was incumbent on CASA to identify those by now.
Surely when CASA provided me with their requirements by way of the technical assessor worksheet, the Technical Assessor Workbook they had some duty of care when providing me with their requirements. It was in fact much more than a mere reliance on CASA, it was a total dependence. If I intended doing what I was already doing i.e., the multi base structure after September 1st, 2017, then I had to rewrite every policy and procedure, and have CASA assess them and approve them exactly as they did.
There was clear assumption and responsibility, and CASA was fully aware that I relied heavily on the information provided. Those representations were directly between my business and CASA, there were no third parties, nor any reliance on anyone else. CASA gave me their requirements, I fully attended to them, CASA assessed them and approved them. They formally revalidated and approved my business in April of 2017 to operate in accordance with the new regulations being introduced on September 1st of 2017 in the multi base multi entity format. Had CASA not spent two years assessing all of my procedures, and revalidated them in April 2017, my business would not have been permitted, as was the case with all flying schools in Australia after September 1st, 2017.
I was 100% reliant on CASA for guidance and advice. Had CASA said “No”, I would not have proceeded with the significant investment of time, money and resources that would follow. These were the correct CASA employees to be raising this proposal with, they were encouraging, that is their recollection. The contents of those meetings were “fed back up all appropriate CASA channels, and throughout the entire Southern Region CASA Head Office, I am assured of that.
My reasonable judgement was that the CASA employees that worked with me and assessed every one of my policies and procedures possessed the skills necessary to
assess my manuals, after all they had been allocated by CASA to do that exact task i.e. assess my proposed procedures against CASAs new regulatory requirements.
My reasonable assumption was that those same CASA personnel were suitably trained and experienced to be able to exercise their judgement when they approved those 600 policies and procedures, approved the entire system after sending it for Peer review within CASA in early 2017, almost two years before CASA claim they “first became aware of the structure” of the business.
Surely CASA has some duty of care. I actively sought information and advice on a substantial matter. That being the revalidation of my entire business to continue operations after September 1st, 2017 (later postponed 12 months by CASA). CASA issued that approval in April 2017, and then in October 2018, they declare my operation unlawful, and me subject to regulatory action, although it is the identical business, they approved 18 months earlier.
· August of 2016, At the meetings two months earlier with CASA, I had advised CASA that I intended to make an application for an additional Air Operator Certificate. The original concept being to have two separate AOCs. The original one for MFT my flying school of a decade, and a new AOC for APTA.
CASA advised that they were unable to process any new applications due to stretched resources. All of Australia’s 350 flight training organisations had to complete their Transition to the new Part 141/142 regulatory structure in 12 months’ time, or they would not be able to continue trading after September 1st, 2017.
It was in fact CASA suggested that I continue doing what I was already doing, with my single current Approval, i.e., expand the multi base structure on my current Approval rather than apply for another one. The CASA attendee at that meeting will provide a Statutory Declaration if required confirming that was CASAs advice at the time.
The point of this is that these meetings would have very clearly identified what I was doing. It is highly improbable that these matters would not have been very clear. I was not proposing to scale back my operation to a single flying school. The concept was very clearly an expansion of what I was already doing. The very topic of the meeting would have centred around the Multi base, multi entity structure. The name changes alone from Melbourne Flight Training to Australian Pilot Training Alliance and was clearly discussed with CASA at the time.
The very name change alone would have probably raised a query from CASA if as Mr Aleck claims CASA was still not aware.
I advised CASA that the Company would have a change of name only from MFT PTY LTD to APTA PTY LTD. The flying school that I had owned that traded as MFT would continue with the same name, although the parent company would become known as Australian Pilot Training Alliance to better represent the intention of the business going forward. The reason being that the word “Australian” better represented the concept rather than the more geographically restricting title using the word “Melbourne”. There were no changes to directors, structure, shares etc. It was a simple change of name only. If I had a meeting with CASA regarding the change of name and how to best handle it
I began an 18-month intensive project employing several fulltime staff including technical writers, educators, safety experts, management etc to refine and develop all my existing procedures to ensure that they were industry leading, and ready for the new legislation
Understand this. At those meetings in mid-2016 with CASA I had already been operating in that multi base, multi entity structure. The meetings were about how we intended to Transition to the new regulatory structure. It is not feasible that I would have mislead CASA to believe that I intended to move away from the multi base multi entity structure and proceed in the new regulatory environment as a single flying school. There would be no reason for me to be deceptive. It would serve no purpose and quite simply I would have been “found out” at some stage and no doubt been prosecuted.
The truth is that I was very clear, and the CASA personnel involved in the process will confirm that.
I worked side by side, across the desk with ten CASA employees throughout the next year and a half developing all our systems and procedures.
· July 2016 to January 2017, as CASA reviewed, assessed, and accepted every single proposed policy and procedure to be contained within our Exposition. In fact, CASA will confirm that their employees spent more hours allocated to our project compared to any of the other 350 schools across Australia, and that is information you could readily access, as all hours will be tracked. For CASA to suggest that by the time of submission of our completed Exposition to CASA in early 2017, that they were not fully aware of the structure of my Organisation is implausible, and to further mislead the Ombudsman’s Office that CASA wasn’t aware to absolve CASA is immoral and causes only further unnecessary trauma to me and my family. I draw your attention to the CASA Worksheet. Assuming that I was not trying to hide what I was doing from CASA, which would be impossible, and there is absolutely no reason that I would do that, consider the contents. CASA assessed and signed off on organisational structure, corporate structure, key personnel, Base Procedures Manuals (BPMs), facilities etc. These items were all signed off by CASA almost two years before CASA claim that they first became aware.
It really makes no sense that CASA would mislead the Ombudsman to be of the view that they only first became aware of APTA just prior to October of 2018. It is such a gross misrepresentation of the truth, that it is indicative of the “intent: of Mr Aleck.
This was the largest project ever undertaken by a flight training organisation in Australia. The investment extended into many hundreds of thousands of dollars. We were already delivering multi base multi entity training, we used this opportunity to both attend to the new regulatory structure and invest significantly in systems, and procedures.
· 18th January 2017, just prior to CASA issuing our new revalidation as one of Australia’s first Part 141/142 operators, when I travelled to Canberra to meet with the second in charge of CASA at the time, Mr Graeme Crawford, where Mr Crawford’s was obviously fully aware of the concept, and we discussed it. Emails confirm the contents of that meeting and can be accessed here.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/xiba0wynkw...mails.pdf?dl=0
This is more than eighteen months before CASA claim they first became aware of the structure, yet only 3 months before CASA formally fully revalidate the entire structure as Australia’s first multi base multi operation to meet the new CASA Part 141 and 142 regulatory structures. There can be no doubt that in January 2017, 18 months before CASA claim they first became aware of my structure that the second in charge of CASA and the Executive Manager of the Aviation Group within CASA was aware that I continued to expand on the structure that I had adopted and done so with full CASA approval for many years.
As a courtesy, and not by way of any regultory obligation, I provided Mr Crawford with a copy of our intended commercial agreement. CASA had no requirement to hold a copy of the commercial agreement, and never required previous operators to provide one. It was provided as a courtesy. Emails referring to that meeting with the second in charge of CASA and providing a copy of our contract to CASA can be found via this link. Noting that this is over 18 months before Mr aleck would lead the Ombudsman to believe that CASA first became aware.If I was operating as a single standalone school, it is unlikely that I would have this contract and provided it to Mr Crawford, and others within CASA on multiple occasions. In fact the provision of that contract would have raised a query as to why it was being provide, if I was operating as a single school. While much of the contracts of the commercial agreement is “dry”, I would refer you to the latter pages where it discusses the “spirit” of APTA. This section alone would have raised queries if CASA were not already fully aware.
Provided CASA with copy of this contract
https://www.dropbox.com/s/tdhss2mpf9...tract.pdf?dl=0
· February 2017- consisted of approximately a dozen very substantial meetings with CASA personnel sitting across a desk finalising all procedures, and formally assessing them. During these meetings formal applications and interviews were made of all Key Personnel as required by the legislation. Those interviews were based around our systems and procedures designed for the structure that we used. It is simply ludicrous to suggest that CASA were not fully aware of our structure by now, if not many years earlier.
· February 1st 2017-Meeting with CASA Team Leader John Costa and a CASA Flight Operations Inspector to finalise assessment of our substantial submission for our revalidation of our fully overhauled systems and procedures designed specifically for the purpose of multi base, multi entity training under the single approval in the new regulatory environment that was at that time scheduled to come into force on September 1st 2017.
· February 23rd, 2017- Meeting between CASA Flight Operations Inspector and our Technical Writer Wes Mason finalising our submission of our Exposition for approval by CASA. The final stage in a very significant process over many years as I worked side by side with CASA to update all systems and procedures to meet the new regulatory requirements by CASAs deadline of September 1st, 2017.
· February 2017- CASA conduct an internal peer review of our entire suite of manuals and procedures referred to as the Exposition, that have been fully redesigned to meet the new legislation and that we had developed throughout 2015, 2016, and 2017 with CASA.
These manuals have been designed throughout the process to deliver the multi base- multi entity structure. We were already operating in this identical structure, but we used this opportunity to significantly upgrade all our systems procedures, personnel etc in anticipation of This is the final stage in the issue of our new Part 141/142 Approval process. This is 18 months before CASA claim they first became aware of my “structure”
The manuals and procedures submitted as a part of this peer review are referred to as the Exposition. They are extensive covering several thousand pages when all printed out would be entirely unsuitable for a single entity single base school. They are far too large for such an operation. It would have been immediately apparent to CASA at this peer review and particularly, as we were already operating in the multi base-multi entity format that we had for many years. For clarity, our submitted Exposition would be completely unsuitable for a single base single entity school. If by some inexplicable reason “CASA” was not aware by this time, which I suggest by now is obviously unlikely, CASA most certainly would have become aware at this stage. Our Exposition was specifically written with CASA to attend to exactly that multi base multi entity structure. If CASA had any doubts, they should have raised them at this stage. By working side by side developing and assessing and fully accepting our manuals, and CASA satisfying themselves that everything was attended to, they then approved them.
· 2006, My business commenced CASA approved flight training operations from Moorabbin Airport, at the time of opening called Melbourne Flight Training.
· 2012 CASA formally approved me to conduct multi base multi entity operations with the second school being our “AV8” base in Darwin. This was an extensive process requiring submission of formal documentation to CASA, including a CASA visit to the site, and a CASA audit of the site, fees paid to CASA etc. CASA will have access to substantial records that confirm this. (This is 6 years before CASA claim to the Ombudsman that they first became aware of my multi base multi entity structure).
CASA also claims that they have never permitted this structure in the industry. That is false and misleading. CASA obviously permitted it, or they would not have let me proceed with this first additional base, as they did with many other Operators around the Country.
The fact that this was the first time that we adopted this structure, it is highly probable that I would have fully involved the Regulator in the process, and particularly so, as I could not commence operations in Darwin until they were approved by CASA.
If CASA claim that structure has changed in anyway during those 6 years, they should be expected to explain what those changes are. There were no changes. Quite simply, that second base could not have commenced operations without CASA being fully aware, and more importantly, formally approving me to commence operations at that base. Only once CASA had approved us to operate at that base, did we commence operations. Had I have commenced operating a flying school in Darwin without approaching CASA, it is highly likely that at some stage CASA would have realised and approached me, and no doubt prosecuted me, as would be expected of CASA.
I can see no valid reason that CASA would assert that they were not fully aware of my exact structure by 2012. The Company had been operating as a single school single entity from its opening in 2006, but by 2012, CASA had formally approved me to operate in the multi base multi entity, single CASA approval, structure, as many other Operators throughout the industry did, and had always done.
If CASA had overlooked this approval being given, it is likely that they would have become aware during their onsite visits to that Darwin base, and the regular communications with CASA on operation of that base.
· 2015 when CASA formally approved me to add an additional base using our multi base multi entity one approval structure at “TVSA” Bacchus Marsh. Also requiring an extensive formal CASA approval process, as above. (This is over 3 years before CASA claim they first became aware of my “structure”). Honestly Mr Hanton, CASA cannot surely be contending that they didn’t know about my structure at least 3, if not 6 years before they claim to the Ombudsman that they first became aware of this structure, and surely CASA cannot be leading the Ombudsman to believe that this was not standard industry practice and fully approved by CASA with many flight training organisations throughout the industry. This entity TVSA was very clearly operating under my CASA approval. This was done with full CASA knowledge and formal approval. It is just not feasible that I would have gone rogue, bypassed all legal requirements, and now have opened two additional bases without CASA being fully aware. Anybody with industry experience, or any CASA employee apart from CASA CEO Ms. Spence and CASA Executive Manager, Mr Aleck will confirm to you, that it is just not feasible.
· May 18th, 2016- Met with CASA Flight Operations Inspectors (FOI) XXXXX XXX and XXXXXX XXXXXXXX for initial discussions regarding expanding on the multi base multi entity structure that we were already utilising and approved by CASA to do so. For the first time in Australia, rather than the rather loose arrangements in industry to date, we would redesign every single system and procedure from the ground up, from day one for exactly the purpose of bringing 10 flying schools under my single CASA issued authorisation. The entire system would be designed to fully comply with the new regultory structure scheduled for implementation on September 1st, 2017, being 18 months away. This was to be a significant project requiring substantial investment of several hundred thousand dollars by me. It was the largest project undertaken by a flying school in Australia to date. CASA attendees at that meeting on May 18th, 2016, will confirm the contents of that meeting. By mid-2016, CASA were fully briefed on my intentions, and CASA was fully aware. For CASA to lead the Ombudsman to believe that they were not fully involved in every aspect of design and approval is obscene.
By May 2016, these formal meetings with CASA must by now have made CASA fully aware of the exact structure if inexplicably they had not become aware four years earlier when the second base was approved, or twelve months earlier when the third base was approved.
In fact, this was a prime opportunity for CASA to stop me, and in fact they should have stopped me. Instead, what I found was that CASA were very encouraging of the concept and encouraged me to proceed with the expansion and development of the concept
Considering that CASA had been fully aware that I had been operating in this structure for many years, my CASA Certificate Management Team (CMT) team were fully aware that I intended continuing and expanding on what I was doing. In fact, CASA assured me that I could “keep doing everything I was already doing” in the new regulatory structure. Two of the attendees at these meetings are still CASA employees. You could ask them directly. I know they will both be professional and truthful.
· May 27th, 2016- Met with CASA Flight Operations Inspectors (FOI) XXXXX XXX and CASA Team Leader, Mr XXXX XXXXX for further discussions on expanding on the multi base multi entity structure that I had already been doing for many years and ensuring it would meet the new regultory requirements of part 141/142. Both attendees at the meeting recollect those meetings, and Statutory declarations can be obtained on your request.
CASA had the opportunity to raise any concerns at these meetings. In fact, CASA attendees were extremely encouraging on expanding the concept to the new regulations, and that is the recollection of attendees from CASA and my own Management team.
· June 2016- Emails clearly indicating significant discussion with CASA around the proposal to expand significantly on what I was already doing i.e. The multi base multi entity, one approval structure. If Mr Aleck claims that CASA was not aware of my structure by now, it is a blatant untruth.
These were emails to my “direct reports” within CASA. Those CASA personnel clearly recollect the meetings that followed. They are prepared to confirm this, and to use the words of one of those CASA employees, “I still retain extraneous notes on these meetings and discussions”.
I refer you to those emails attached
https://www.dropbox.com/s/e2kcuci2ik...0awre.pdf?dl=0
Those emails are 2 ½ years before CASA claim to the Ombudsman that CASA first became aware of my structure. I particularly refer you to the email of 20th June 2016 where I wrote to the senior CASA management. The content of these emails clearly indicate that CASA was by now fully aware. The appendix contains the emails in full, but I refer you here to two pertinent excerpts.
“As you are aware, I am in the process of putting together an alliance of flight organisations, under an industry leading group of professionals. My intention is to build a team that can communicate with CASA in an effective, professional, and constructive manner.”
and….
“I have now invested significantly in the Proposal. If practical I would like the opportunity to meet with you in the CASA office to outline my proposed course of action. I will be seeking significant guidance from CASA during this process. My intention is to get it right the first time. I genuinely want to work as closely with CASA as your resources permit.”
There are several emails in this attachment, but they can leave the reader in no doubt that CASA was fully aware of my structure many years before they have led the Ombudsman’s office to believe. For Mr Aleck to suggest to the Ombudsman that CASA were not fully aware of the structure by mid-2016 is not reasonable. I was about to embark on a very significant investment. To put that in some perspective, the investment required exceeded the entire profit of the Company of the previous decade. It is highly unlikely that I would not have been fully upfront with CASA prior to embarking on the significant investment required.
Importantly, this was a CASA mandated process. After September 1st, 2017, all schools had to be fully compliant with the new legislation or cease trading. The project that I was about to undertake, was something required of me by CASA. All of Australia’s more than 300 flight training organisations was required to undertake a revalidation into the new school categories that were being introduced.
I would point out that I made repeated written offers to CASA. In that correspondence I offered to fund a secondment of a CASA employee to my organisation for a twelve-month period, that I would fully fund to the value of $150,000. The intention was that we would redesign all the systems and procedures with CASA to ensure there were no misunderstandings. The suggestion was that we would then make those manuals and procedures available to the wider industry at no charge. My hope being that other flying schools could come together in a similar alliance across the Country with the intention to increase safety, compliance and protect the Australian owned sector of the industry,
Please consider that this is two and a half years before Mr Aleck would have the Ombudsman believe that CASA first became aware of my structure. The same structure I had been using for the previous six years, only now I wanted to invest in it and expand on it to encompass ten schools. That was the exact proposal that I put to CASA in meetings in mid-2016. The senior CASA personnel present at those meetings were extremely supportive of the concept, advised that “it is not a concept we are unfamiliar with, the military and airlines use it all the time” and “we encourage you and will work with you”. These are the recollections of both the CASA personnel present at those 2016 meetings and my own.
· The 2 years lead up to that revalidation in April 2017 by CASA required an investment of many hundreds of thousands of dollars by me and was most likely the largest project ever undertaken by any flight training organisation in Australia. It required full CASA involvement, assessment, peer review, formal approval, and revalidation. Every single system and procedure were formally approved by CASA years before CASA have led the Ombudsman to believe. Each of those procedures revalidated by CASA in April 2016 was designed specifically for the purpose of encompassing 10 schools, exactly as discussed with CASA 2 ½ years prior, and exactly as I had been doing for at least six years, albeit on a larger scale but with an associated investment in systems, procedures, facilities, personnel etc.
The Worksheet is evidence of the size of the project and the high level of detail that CASA considered in granting that revalidation. In fact, much of the checklist is against the structure of the Organisation. As you will appreciate, it is ludicrous that CASA would assert to the Ombudsman that they were not fully aware of the structure when they ticked off on those assessment criteria, two years prior to October 2018, when CASA falsely claims that CASA “first became aware”
https://www.dropbox.com/s/xy5etr9253...SHEET.pdf?dl=0
· Mid-2016. From this date on I was highly reliant on CASA. There was a special relationship between the parties being CASA and myself. CASA provided the Regulatory structure and the guidance material; I was required to write manuals and procedures to those CASA stipulated requirements. If, like all schools in Australia I did not complete that process by September 1st, 2017, I would have to cease operations as would any school in Australia that had not completed the Transition process to the new regulations. CASA assessed each of those procedures contained within our Exposition. CASA then sent them internally for a “peer review”.
CASA was encouraging of the concept and provided me with two comprehensive documents that I needed to attend to. They were the Worksheet containing CASAs 600 assessment items which I referred to previously.
CASA also provided me with a guidance document called the Technical Assessor Workbook. This was the primary document, in conjunction with the 600-point checklist, previously referred to, that CASA used as part of that process leading to a full revalidation in April of 2017, being 18 months before CASA determined the business structure unlawful. One only has to look at CASA Handbook below, to realise that CASA was fully involved in every aspect of design and later approval of the exact structure.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ody0wjgw29...dbook.pdf?dl=0
If I attended to all of those more than 600 requirements, I would be able to keep doing what I was already doing i.e., delivering multi base multi entity flight training under the single CASA issued Authorisation after CASA conducted their review and audit process.
I was required to rewrite my entire manual suite referred to as the Exposition, and in writing those manuals and deciding I had to attend to over 600 specified CASA requirements. CASA responses and answers were important and influential, in fact CASA had to assess, peer review and then approve each of those 600 procedures.
It was in fact the CASA personnel that I was fully dependent on. As the Regulator and the body that would approve my structure, it was reasonable that I depended on those CASA employees. As the recipient, I trusted them and should have been able to depend on CASA to assess and approve my policies and procedures and approve them as they did. If there were any concerns at all by now, it was incumbent on CASA to identify those by now.
Surely when CASA provided me with their requirements by way of the technical assessor worksheet, the Technical Assessor Workbook they had some duty of care when providing me with their requirements. It was in fact much more than a mere reliance on CASA, it was a total dependence. If I intended doing what I was already doing i.e., the multi base structure after September 1st, 2017, then I had to rewrite every policy and procedure, and have CASA assess them and approve them exactly as they did.
There was clear assumption and responsibility, and CASA was fully aware that I relied heavily on the information provided. Those representations were directly between my business and CASA, there were no third parties, nor any reliance on anyone else. CASA gave me their requirements, I fully attended to them, CASA assessed them and approved them. They formally revalidated and approved my business in April of 2017 to operate in accordance with the new regulations being introduced on September 1st of 2017 in the multi base multi entity format. Had CASA not spent two years assessing all of my procedures, and revalidated them in April 2017, my business would not have been permitted, as was the case with all flying schools in Australia after September 1st, 2017.
I was 100% reliant on CASA for guidance and advice. Had CASA said “No”, I would not have proceeded with the significant investment of time, money and resources that would follow. These were the correct CASA employees to be raising this proposal with, they were encouraging, that is their recollection. The contents of those meetings were “fed back up all appropriate CASA channels, and throughout the entire Southern Region CASA Head Office, I am assured of that.
My reasonable judgement was that the CASA employees that worked with me and assessed every one of my policies and procedures possessed the skills necessary to
assess my manuals, after all they had been allocated by CASA to do that exact task i.e. assess my proposed procedures against CASAs new regulatory requirements.
My reasonable assumption was that those same CASA personnel were suitably trained and experienced to be able to exercise their judgement when they approved those 600 policies and procedures, approved the entire system after sending it for Peer review within CASA in early 2017, almost two years before CASA claim they “first became aware of the structure” of the business.
Surely CASA has some duty of care. I actively sought information and advice on a substantial matter. That being the revalidation of my entire business to continue operations after September 1st, 2017 (later postponed 12 months by CASA). CASA issued that approval in April 2017, and then in October 2018, they declare my operation unlawful, and me subject to regulatory action, although it is the identical business, they approved 18 months earlier.
· August of 2016, At the meetings two months earlier with CASA, I had advised CASA that I intended to make an application for an additional Air Operator Certificate. The original concept being to have two separate AOCs. The original one for MFT my flying school of a decade, and a new AOC for APTA.
CASA advised that they were unable to process any new applications due to stretched resources. All of Australia’s 350 flight training organisations had to complete their Transition to the new Part 141/142 regulatory structure in 12 months’ time, or they would not be able to continue trading after September 1st, 2017.
It was in fact CASA suggested that I continue doing what I was already doing, with my single current Approval, i.e., expand the multi base structure on my current Approval rather than apply for another one. The CASA attendee at that meeting will provide a Statutory Declaration if required confirming that was CASAs advice at the time.
The point of this is that these meetings would have very clearly identified what I was doing. It is highly improbable that these matters would not have been very clear. I was not proposing to scale back my operation to a single flying school. The concept was very clearly an expansion of what I was already doing. The very topic of the meeting would have centred around the Multi base, multi entity structure. The name changes alone from Melbourne Flight Training to Australian Pilot Training Alliance and was clearly discussed with CASA at the time.
The very name change alone would have probably raised a query from CASA if as Mr Aleck claims CASA was still not aware.
I advised CASA that the Company would have a change of name only from MFT PTY LTD to APTA PTY LTD. The flying school that I had owned that traded as MFT would continue with the same name, although the parent company would become known as Australian Pilot Training Alliance to better represent the intention of the business going forward. The reason being that the word “Australian” better represented the concept rather than the more geographically restricting title using the word “Melbourne”. There were no changes to directors, structure, shares etc. It was a simple change of name only. If I had a meeting with CASA regarding the change of name and how to best handle it
I began an 18-month intensive project employing several fulltime staff including technical writers, educators, safety experts, management etc to refine and develop all my existing procedures to ensure that they were industry leading, and ready for the new legislation
Understand this. At those meetings in mid-2016 with CASA I had already been operating in that multi base, multi entity structure. The meetings were about how we intended to Transition to the new regulatory structure. It is not feasible that I would have mislead CASA to believe that I intended to move away from the multi base multi entity structure and proceed in the new regulatory environment as a single flying school. There would be no reason for me to be deceptive. It would serve no purpose and quite simply I would have been “found out” at some stage and no doubt been prosecuted.
The truth is that I was very clear, and the CASA personnel involved in the process will confirm that.
I worked side by side, across the desk with ten CASA employees throughout the next year and a half developing all our systems and procedures.
· July 2016 to January 2017, as CASA reviewed, assessed, and accepted every single proposed policy and procedure to be contained within our Exposition. In fact, CASA will confirm that their employees spent more hours allocated to our project compared to any of the other 350 schools across Australia, and that is information you could readily access, as all hours will be tracked. For CASA to suggest that by the time of submission of our completed Exposition to CASA in early 2017, that they were not fully aware of the structure of my Organisation is implausible, and to further mislead the Ombudsman’s Office that CASA wasn’t aware to absolve CASA is immoral and causes only further unnecessary trauma to me and my family. I draw your attention to the CASA Worksheet. Assuming that I was not trying to hide what I was doing from CASA, which would be impossible, and there is absolutely no reason that I would do that, consider the contents. CASA assessed and signed off on organisational structure, corporate structure, key personnel, Base Procedures Manuals (BPMs), facilities etc. These items were all signed off by CASA almost two years before CASA claim that they first became aware.
It really makes no sense that CASA would mislead the Ombudsman to be of the view that they only first became aware of APTA just prior to October of 2018. It is such a gross misrepresentation of the truth, that it is indicative of the “intent: of Mr Aleck.
This was the largest project ever undertaken by a flight training organisation in Australia. The investment extended into many hundreds of thousands of dollars. We were already delivering multi base multi entity training, we used this opportunity to both attend to the new regulatory structure and invest significantly in systems, and procedures.
· 18th January 2017, just prior to CASA issuing our new revalidation as one of Australia’s first Part 141/142 operators, when I travelled to Canberra to meet with the second in charge of CASA at the time, Mr Graeme Crawford, where Mr Crawford’s was obviously fully aware of the concept, and we discussed it. Emails confirm the contents of that meeting and can be accessed here.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/xiba0wynkw...mails.pdf?dl=0
This is more than eighteen months before CASA claim they first became aware of the structure, yet only 3 months before CASA formally fully revalidate the entire structure as Australia’s first multi base multi operation to meet the new CASA Part 141 and 142 regulatory structures. There can be no doubt that in January 2017, 18 months before CASA claim they first became aware of my structure that the second in charge of CASA and the Executive Manager of the Aviation Group within CASA was aware that I continued to expand on the structure that I had adopted and done so with full CASA approval for many years.
As a courtesy, and not by way of any regultory obligation, I provided Mr Crawford with a copy of our intended commercial agreement. CASA had no requirement to hold a copy of the commercial agreement, and never required previous operators to provide one. It was provided as a courtesy. Emails referring to that meeting with the second in charge of CASA and providing a copy of our contract to CASA can be found via this link. Noting that this is over 18 months before Mr aleck would lead the Ombudsman to believe that CASA first became aware.If I was operating as a single standalone school, it is unlikely that I would have this contract and provided it to Mr Crawford, and others within CASA on multiple occasions. In fact the provision of that contract would have raised a query as to why it was being provide, if I was operating as a single school. While much of the contracts of the commercial agreement is “dry”, I would refer you to the latter pages where it discusses the “spirit” of APTA. This section alone would have raised queries if CASA were not already fully aware.
Provided CASA with copy of this contract
https://www.dropbox.com/s/tdhss2mpf9...tract.pdf?dl=0
· February 2017- consisted of approximately a dozen very substantial meetings with CASA personnel sitting across a desk finalising all procedures, and formally assessing them. During these meetings formal applications and interviews were made of all Key Personnel as required by the legislation. Those interviews were based around our systems and procedures designed for the structure that we used. It is simply ludicrous to suggest that CASA were not fully aware of our structure by now, if not many years earlier.
· February 1st 2017-Meeting with CASA Team Leader John Costa and a CASA Flight Operations Inspector to finalise assessment of our substantial submission for our revalidation of our fully overhauled systems and procedures designed specifically for the purpose of multi base, multi entity training under the single approval in the new regulatory environment that was at that time scheduled to come into force on September 1st 2017.
· February 23rd, 2017- Meeting between CASA Flight Operations Inspector and our Technical Writer Wes Mason finalising our submission of our Exposition for approval by CASA. The final stage in a very significant process over many years as I worked side by side with CASA to update all systems and procedures to meet the new regulatory requirements by CASAs deadline of September 1st, 2017.
· February 2017- CASA conduct an internal peer review of our entire suite of manuals and procedures referred to as the Exposition, that have been fully redesigned to meet the new legislation and that we had developed throughout 2015, 2016, and 2017 with CASA.
These manuals have been designed throughout the process to deliver the multi base- multi entity structure. We were already operating in this identical structure, but we used this opportunity to significantly upgrade all our systems procedures, personnel etc in anticipation of This is the final stage in the issue of our new Part 141/142 Approval process. This is 18 months before CASA claim they first became aware of my “structure”
The manuals and procedures submitted as a part of this peer review are referred to as the Exposition. They are extensive covering several thousand pages when all printed out would be entirely unsuitable for a single entity single base school. They are far too large for such an operation. It would have been immediately apparent to CASA at this peer review and particularly, as we were already operating in the multi base-multi entity format that we had for many years. For clarity, our submitted Exposition would be completely unsuitable for a single base single entity school. If by some inexplicable reason “CASA” was not aware by this time, which I suggest by now is obviously unlikely, CASA most certainly would have become aware at this stage. Our Exposition was specifically written with CASA to attend to exactly that multi base multi entity structure. If CASA had any doubts, they should have raised them at this stage. By working side by side developing and assessing and fully accepting our manuals, and CASA satisfying themselves that everything was attended to, they then approved them.
Thread Starter
Submission of allegation- Part Six
· April 28th, 2017- . This was perhaps the most significant milestone for my business over the last decade. We were one of less than 10% of Australia’s flying schools that was approved to the new regultory structure now less than 6 months away.
CASA attends APTA Head Office to present us with a full revalidation of our entire system to the new regulations. Our entire Exposition covering every aspect of our operation that have been designed from the ground up to deliver multi base, multi entity training as we had been for many years. This was an industry leading This is eighteen months before CASA would have the Ombudsman’s office believe that CASA first became aware of the structure, and further highlights the level of false and misleading information provided.
All of Australia’s flying schools must cease trading on September 1st, 2017, if they have not complied with the new rules scheduled for implementation. We are one of only about 10% of Australia’s flying schools to have reached this deadline. The deadline date or Transition Date is September 1st, 2017.
The CASA procedures leading up this revalidation was extremely robust and thorough, with many hundreds of thousands of dollars invested by me into the two-year project to ensure I met or exceeded all CASA requirements. On completion of the approval process, the entire approval was passed on within CASA for a peer review and approval. It would be almost impossible that CASAs Legal Department would not have been fully aware, and especially so considering that was the actual Department that issued the Part 141 and 142 Approval in April 2017, eighteen months before CASA changed their mind, and reversed the businesses approval. Mr. Aleck had been the Executive Manager of Legal, International, and Regulatory Affairs over an extended period, and should have been fully aware.
If Mr Aleck still claims that he was not fully aware of the structure that CASA had revalidated, and I had adopted for 6 years. The exact same structure that CASA had permitted and approved multiple operators to utilise, then the deficiency in communications is entirely a deficiency within CASA, and a very significant one. One that has had totally unacceptable consequences to so many. That error needs to be acknowledged.
· 27th August 2017 submitted a comprehensive formal application that clearly identified to CASA the structure, supporting risk assessments, significant change request all supporting documentation for “AVIA”. (More than one year before CASA claim they first became aware of the structure). If the ICC was to call for the application that I submitted to CASA for this application, you will quickly identify that we were very very clear in the application as to the exact structure. I simply cannot believe that CASA would still contend that they were not fully aware of my structure that they had formally approved several months earlier. I emphasise that if you request that initial application submitted to CASA for the addition of this base, it is crystal clear that AVIA was its own entity and applying to join APTA, as were all the previous applications. CASA attended the base and met with me and my management team.
· 5th October 2017 submitted a comprehensive formal application for Learn to Fly (LTF) that clearly identified to CASA the structure, supporting risk assessments, significant change request and all supporting documentation for “LTF”. (One year before CASA claim they first became aware of the structure) In this highly regulated environment, it is not credible that CASA claim they were still not aware of my structure. Again, the ICC could call on CASA to provide the initial application/significant change request that we submitted. It clearly indicates the structure. Learn to fly had been approved approximately one year prior to operate under my AOC. This was an application to continue with the arrangement but Learn to Fly was moving into a far improved facility. The application was for a move from the CASA approved facility that they were into the improved facility. Once again CASA met with me and my management team at that facility. Again, this emphasises how ludicrous it is that a CASA employee would lead the Ombudsman’s Office to believe that
· November 2017, CASA personnel approach both Latrobe Valley Aero Club and Ballarat Aero club and advise them that by joining APTA they would be able to maintain operations in the new regulatory environment. Those bases have a clear recollection of this and will provide sworn statements to that effect. The point being that it is highly likely that CASA knew about my structure at least one year before they claim that they first became aware because they were in fact recommending the structure to schools that were struggling to get the qualified required Key personnel in order to continue operating. For CASA employees to be identifying my business structure of the last 6 years to operators struggling to continue operations in the new burdensome regulatory environment, CASA was obviously aware of it. For a CASA employee to suggest otherwise is clearly false and misleading.
· November 2017- A team of CASA personnel spend one week conducting a Level One audit. The highest-level audit possible. This is a routine, but intensive audit conducted on all Operators 6 months after they have completed the Transition to operate under the new regulatory structure. This included visiting our approved bases at MFT Moorabbin, AVIA Moorabbin, LTF Moorabbin, Latrobe Valley Aero Club and the Ballarat Aero Club, assessing compliance with all CASA legislative and safety requirements. It’s an extremely robust procedure, and highly likely that the CASA team would have noticed the structure at this stage, particularly as they mwt with the same Key Personnel at each of those bases, rather than different Key Personnel at each of the bases as would be expected. This CASA audit was conducted against the many thousands of pages of policies and procedures that I had designed with CASA between mid-2016 to early, and CASA were liaising with only one team of Key Personnel. If the bases had of been operating outside of the APTA structure, the CASA personnel would have been meeting with five different teams of Key Personnel. It is simply ludicrous for CASA to contend that they were not fully aware of the exact structure that I had adopted. In fact, I don’t believe CASA is asserting this. It is only Mr Aleck, a single employee of CASA that would trry and contend that CASA were not fully aware of the exact structure by now. I point out here that the only person that I disagree with here is Mr Aleck. All CASA personnel past and current have the same recollection of events that I put forward here. It is only Mr Aleck and the CASA CEO that would have the Ombudsman believe otherwise.
· 14th December 2017, CASA formally approve AVIA to operate under my structure. This was as a result of the formal application lodged with CASA on 27th August 2017. CASA spent three months processing this application. It was a very thorough process. To suggest that CASA was not fully aware of the structure by now, is just not feasible.
Although we were already operating in the multi base, multi entity structure, for many years this was the first application for an additional base to be submitted to the new regulatory structure that CASA introduced, and approved us to operate to, on April 28th, 2017. CASA charged us a fee for this regulatory task. It included CASA conducting an inspection of the base and meeting with me and my Key Personnel. CASA conducted an inspection, a consideration and issued an approval, which we paid it, and CASA completed the regulatory task. The nature of these regulations required a far higher standard of application and significantly more detail than had been required under the previous regulations. It is just not possible that CASA were not fully awre of the structure that I had adopted.
· This formal CASA approval of this most recent base, the first to the new regulatory structure is almost 12 months prior to the date that CASA claims to the Ombudsman that they first became aware of my structure. This approval was to be reversed by CASA in CASAs initial notification of October 2018. CASA have now formally approved by way of a formal “Significant Change Request” the addition of a further base. This is almost twelve months before CASA claim that they became aware of the structure of my business. Mr Hanton, may I suggest you request the application that I submitted to CASA for this base in August 2017. The application was significant and was in fact all CASA required documents, and an associated fee paid to CASA. Importantly the application, and accompanying risk assessment very clearly indicate the nature of the multi base multi entity structure, and in fact the accompanying risk assessment attends to it in detail. Already, it is ludicrous for CASA to maintain that they were not fully aware, and I cannot emphasise that enough. CASA were fully aware by now. If CASA maintain that they were not aware previously, surely by now there can be no argument that CASA is not by now fully aware. If CASAs assertion is to be believed, CASA would still not become aware of my structure for almost another year.
· January 2018, Australian Flying writes an article about APTA. If CASAs own internal procedures had not alerted them to my structure by now even though I had been doing it for many years, it is probable that a CASA employee would have read that article and been alerted to my structure. The structure of my operation is known to the wider aviation community, it is likely that CASA were aware of it. In January 2018, if CASA was still not fully aware of the structure that they had fully revalidated almost 12 months earlier, it is likely that several of CASAs 1000 employees would have read that article and been alerted to the structure. The article I refer to has been provided previously, although can be found again here for ease of reference.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/1akmm9gxra...CTION.pdf?dl=0
· May 2018 commenced operations at Latrobe Valley Aero Club utilising the “Temporary Locations procedure that CASA suggested, helped us design, approved and audited and formally notified CASA of such (6 months before CASA have led the Ombudsman’s Office to first became aware of the structure I had adopted) This operation would not have commenced at Latrobe Valley without CASA being fully aware, and in fact CASA had met with both myself and the aero club committee. It cannot be disputed that by now CASA is fully aware. Committee Members could provide Statutory Declarations that they had previously had discussions with CASA on this very structure, in fact it was CASA personnel that directed the Latrobe Valley Aero Club towards my structure, and that is the recollection of that Committee. To suggest that CASA is not fully aware, when I have been operating in that structure for 6 years, been formally revalidated over 12 months earlier by CASA on April 28th, 2017 and audited 6 months earlier in November 2017. If CASA were not fully aware of the exact structure of my business, they would not have suggested my structure to continue operations instead of ceasing operations. Quite simply CASA was fully aware of the exact structure many years before they would have the Ombudsman believe.
· 7th August 2018 formally approved the LTF application submitted to CASA ten months prior on October 5th of 2017. CASA took a staggering 10 months to process and formally approve this base. This was obviously a thorough and comprehensive assessment that CASA undertook prior to approval. To suggest that during this ten-month application process CASA was not fully aware of my exact structure by way of that application is not feasible and considering that it was me submitting all documentation and meeting with the CASA personnel at that base.
· This was a substantial application that we submitted. The submission was according to CASA to a very high standard, and CASA required no changes at all to our proposed operation. Despite that, this application took CASA 10 months to assess. This seemed an unusual length of time for CASA to process the application, and my assumption was that it had been looked at it very detail. It is improbable that after operating for 6 years in the multi base multi entity single Authorisation Holder with full and formal approval that CASA have issued this formal notification for the addition of yet another base, and CASA is not by now fully aware. Similarly, this approval was reversed in the notification of October 2018,
CASA has now formally approved the following bases to operate under my own structure, MFT, AV8, TVSA, LTF, and AVIA. MFT and TVSA have been under the CASA approved structure for several years, and now CASA has formally approved AVIA and LTF to operate under the structure. Over recent years, CASA has now formally approved, several bases.
For anyone at CASA from the CEO down to suggest that CASA were not fully aware of the exact structure of my organisation for many years prior, is simply not reasonable. Such erroneous information is not a slip or an error. It is a conscious and deliberate decision to provide clearly false and misleading information to a Commonwealth Ombudsman’s Office investigation.
The very same regulator that permitted me to do what I was doing for at least 6 years, formally several bases throughout that time, fully revalidated in April 2017 after a two-year CASA approval process, audited in November 2016, then formally added more bases, would try and assert to the Ombudsman that they only became aware of my structure years later. It is so deceptive, that it is not only offensive, but also most likely criminal.
It is bizarre. The entire business has been operating for 10 years, at least the last 6 years in a multi base multi entity structure, and then suddenly it becomes illegal against a regulation from 1988. Surely someone in CASA could have advised me many years earlier if they believed the structure was illegal, before they revalidated me in April 2017, and before they had formally approved multiple bases.
If after considering the above timeline, it has not become obvious that CASA was in fact fully aware of the exact structure of the flight training model that I had adopted, then I ask you to consider the following additional considerations.
· CASA advised me that they had spent more time working with me on my procedures than any other Company, of the 350 flight training operators in Australia, as part of the Transition process that led to our revalidation as a Part 141/142 organisation already operating in the multi base multi entity structure.
It is likely that CASA would have become fully aware during that exhaustive process throughout 2015,2016 and 2017. I have no doubt that as part of this process i.e., all schools having to undergo a full revalidation to comply with the legislation, CASA would have tracked the hours allocated to each operator. CASA have previously advised me that due to the nature of my application and the fact that I was one of Australia’s first operators to undergo the process, CASA allocated more hours to my revalidation than any other operator. As I was already operating in the multi base muti entity structure it is highly unlikely that they were not fully aware.
· CASA personnel had a standing invitation to turn up at any of our weekly Group meetings held in our Head Office Board room, and CASA did frequently attend both Group Safety Meetings and Group Management meetings with all members present, throughout 2017, and 2018, and formal records of attendees at those meetings held. if they were not already aware of my structure it is likely that the CASA attendees at that meeting would have become immediately aware by the very nature of the meetings.
· We were also one of the first of Australia’s 350 flying schools to meet the new regulatory requirements ahead of the deadline. As one of the first operators in Australia to gain the 141/142 approval, it is likely that CASA legal would have been heavily involved, and certainly aware of the structure that they were helping me to design and subsequently approved.
· Past and present CASA employees have offered to come forward and tell the truth on this matter and I can provide you with their contact details. I have their permission. These CASA personnel were heavily involved in the design and subsequent approval of the multi base multi entity years before Mr Aleck claims that CASA first became aware of the structure. These contacts have previously been provided to the Ombudsman’s Office, I do not know whether the Ombudsman’s office has established contact, although I would request that you do as part of your investigation into my complaint.
· The structure of our systems as outlined in our Exposition was entirely unsuitable for a single school single entity structure. To suggest that the entire Exposition could be fully approved by CASA without CASA noticing is ludicrous. Why on earth would I try and be at all deceptive with CASA. It makes absolutely no sense at all. As the person investing hundreds of thousands of dollars in the project, it makes no sense that I would not be fully open with CASA. Even if I had for some reason and not been fully open with CASA, CASA would have become immediately aware once they started assessing our proposed new procedures for the new regulations, and approving our Exposition.
· The very structure that CASA adopted would make it impossible that CASA were not fully aware. CASA was broken up into regions, with my region being the Southern Region. In each Region was a CASA Regional Manager, and several teams referred to as CMTs or Certificate Management Teams. These teams consisted of a Team Leader and a small team of Subject Matter Experts with experience in the respective areas of Safety, Flying School Operations, and Maintenance and Airworthiness. Each team would oversight a number of flying schools. I was in regular contact on multiple occasions each week with my CASA CMT, which was CMT 2. It is implausible to suggest that they were not aware, although they are not claiming otherwise. I have contacted the members of that CMT Team, and their recollection is accurate and truthful. It is only Mr Aleck that suggests CASA was not aware. It is important to clarify that point. The CASA personnel that I was dealing with at the time, know the truth of the matter. Mr Aleck, the person I make allegations of misconduct against, is the same person responsible for providing information to the Ombudsman’s office, he and perhaps Ms Spence, the CASA CEO are the only two employees that will maintain that CASA was not fully aware of the exact structure. Any CASA employee at the coal face, and certainly any of the ten CASA employees that worked with me during the two years prior to our revalidation have clear and truthful recollections that CASA was fully aware of the exact structure of my training organisation.
Throughout my 10 years of operating in the business, I had been allocated to CASA CMT2. They were my primary contact for all matters regarding my operation. We would meet and communicate frequently, and that is in fact how CASA provided oversight. The same CMT team looked after APTA, MFT, TVSA, AVIA, and LTF bases, all APTA Members operating under that one CASA approval that belonged to me, and my team of legislated Key Personnel. CASA would have been fully aware, and I have absolutely no doubt that if any member of that CMT were approached by the CASA ICC they would provide truthful information, i.e., that it is simply not possible that CASA was fully aware of my exact structure for many years before Mr Aleck would have the Ombudsman’s Office believe.
My expected outcome for this complaint, is that it is reasonable that CASA identify to me, the specific date that CASA claim they first became aware that I had adopted the multi base, multi entity, under the one approval. Obviously that date could be early as 6 years prior when the first Darwin base was approved, or as late as October 2018 when CASA closed the business. Quite simply, there must be a date that CASA will publicly state that they first became aware. Both the Ombudsman’s Office and I should be entitled to that date.
CASA attends APTA Head Office to present us with a full revalidation of our entire system to the new regulations. Our entire Exposition covering every aspect of our operation that have been designed from the ground up to deliver multi base, multi entity training as we had been for many years. This was an industry leading This is eighteen months before CASA would have the Ombudsman’s office believe that CASA first became aware of the structure, and further highlights the level of false and misleading information provided.
All of Australia’s flying schools must cease trading on September 1st, 2017, if they have not complied with the new rules scheduled for implementation. We are one of only about 10% of Australia’s flying schools to have reached this deadline. The deadline date or Transition Date is September 1st, 2017.
The CASA procedures leading up this revalidation was extremely robust and thorough, with many hundreds of thousands of dollars invested by me into the two-year project to ensure I met or exceeded all CASA requirements. On completion of the approval process, the entire approval was passed on within CASA for a peer review and approval. It would be almost impossible that CASAs Legal Department would not have been fully aware, and especially so considering that was the actual Department that issued the Part 141 and 142 Approval in April 2017, eighteen months before CASA changed their mind, and reversed the businesses approval. Mr. Aleck had been the Executive Manager of Legal, International, and Regulatory Affairs over an extended period, and should have been fully aware.
If Mr Aleck still claims that he was not fully aware of the structure that CASA had revalidated, and I had adopted for 6 years. The exact same structure that CASA had permitted and approved multiple operators to utilise, then the deficiency in communications is entirely a deficiency within CASA, and a very significant one. One that has had totally unacceptable consequences to so many. That error needs to be acknowledged.
· 27th August 2017 submitted a comprehensive formal application that clearly identified to CASA the structure, supporting risk assessments, significant change request all supporting documentation for “AVIA”. (More than one year before CASA claim they first became aware of the structure). If the ICC was to call for the application that I submitted to CASA for this application, you will quickly identify that we were very very clear in the application as to the exact structure. I simply cannot believe that CASA would still contend that they were not fully aware of my structure that they had formally approved several months earlier. I emphasise that if you request that initial application submitted to CASA for the addition of this base, it is crystal clear that AVIA was its own entity and applying to join APTA, as were all the previous applications. CASA attended the base and met with me and my management team.
· 5th October 2017 submitted a comprehensive formal application for Learn to Fly (LTF) that clearly identified to CASA the structure, supporting risk assessments, significant change request and all supporting documentation for “LTF”. (One year before CASA claim they first became aware of the structure) In this highly regulated environment, it is not credible that CASA claim they were still not aware of my structure. Again, the ICC could call on CASA to provide the initial application/significant change request that we submitted. It clearly indicates the structure. Learn to fly had been approved approximately one year prior to operate under my AOC. This was an application to continue with the arrangement but Learn to Fly was moving into a far improved facility. The application was for a move from the CASA approved facility that they were into the improved facility. Once again CASA met with me and my management team at that facility. Again, this emphasises how ludicrous it is that a CASA employee would lead the Ombudsman’s Office to believe that
· November 2017, CASA personnel approach both Latrobe Valley Aero Club and Ballarat Aero club and advise them that by joining APTA they would be able to maintain operations in the new regulatory environment. Those bases have a clear recollection of this and will provide sworn statements to that effect. The point being that it is highly likely that CASA knew about my structure at least one year before they claim that they first became aware because they were in fact recommending the structure to schools that were struggling to get the qualified required Key personnel in order to continue operating. For CASA employees to be identifying my business structure of the last 6 years to operators struggling to continue operations in the new burdensome regulatory environment, CASA was obviously aware of it. For a CASA employee to suggest otherwise is clearly false and misleading.
· November 2017- A team of CASA personnel spend one week conducting a Level One audit. The highest-level audit possible. This is a routine, but intensive audit conducted on all Operators 6 months after they have completed the Transition to operate under the new regulatory structure. This included visiting our approved bases at MFT Moorabbin, AVIA Moorabbin, LTF Moorabbin, Latrobe Valley Aero Club and the Ballarat Aero Club, assessing compliance with all CASA legislative and safety requirements. It’s an extremely robust procedure, and highly likely that the CASA team would have noticed the structure at this stage, particularly as they mwt with the same Key Personnel at each of those bases, rather than different Key Personnel at each of the bases as would be expected. This CASA audit was conducted against the many thousands of pages of policies and procedures that I had designed with CASA between mid-2016 to early, and CASA were liaising with only one team of Key Personnel. If the bases had of been operating outside of the APTA structure, the CASA personnel would have been meeting with five different teams of Key Personnel. It is simply ludicrous for CASA to contend that they were not fully aware of the exact structure that I had adopted. In fact, I don’t believe CASA is asserting this. It is only Mr Aleck, a single employee of CASA that would trry and contend that CASA were not fully aware of the exact structure by now. I point out here that the only person that I disagree with here is Mr Aleck. All CASA personnel past and current have the same recollection of events that I put forward here. It is only Mr Aleck and the CASA CEO that would have the Ombudsman believe otherwise.
· 14th December 2017, CASA formally approve AVIA to operate under my structure. This was as a result of the formal application lodged with CASA on 27th August 2017. CASA spent three months processing this application. It was a very thorough process. To suggest that CASA was not fully aware of the structure by now, is just not feasible.
Although we were already operating in the multi base, multi entity structure, for many years this was the first application for an additional base to be submitted to the new regulatory structure that CASA introduced, and approved us to operate to, on April 28th, 2017. CASA charged us a fee for this regulatory task. It included CASA conducting an inspection of the base and meeting with me and my Key Personnel. CASA conducted an inspection, a consideration and issued an approval, which we paid it, and CASA completed the regulatory task. The nature of these regulations required a far higher standard of application and significantly more detail than had been required under the previous regulations. It is just not possible that CASA were not fully awre of the structure that I had adopted.
· This formal CASA approval of this most recent base, the first to the new regulatory structure is almost 12 months prior to the date that CASA claims to the Ombudsman that they first became aware of my structure. This approval was to be reversed by CASA in CASAs initial notification of October 2018. CASA have now formally approved by way of a formal “Significant Change Request” the addition of a further base. This is almost twelve months before CASA claim that they became aware of the structure of my business. Mr Hanton, may I suggest you request the application that I submitted to CASA for this base in August 2017. The application was significant and was in fact all CASA required documents, and an associated fee paid to CASA. Importantly the application, and accompanying risk assessment very clearly indicate the nature of the multi base multi entity structure, and in fact the accompanying risk assessment attends to it in detail. Already, it is ludicrous for CASA to maintain that they were not fully aware, and I cannot emphasise that enough. CASA were fully aware by now. If CASA maintain that they were not aware previously, surely by now there can be no argument that CASA is not by now fully aware. If CASAs assertion is to be believed, CASA would still not become aware of my structure for almost another year.
· January 2018, Australian Flying writes an article about APTA. If CASAs own internal procedures had not alerted them to my structure by now even though I had been doing it for many years, it is probable that a CASA employee would have read that article and been alerted to my structure. The structure of my operation is known to the wider aviation community, it is likely that CASA were aware of it. In January 2018, if CASA was still not fully aware of the structure that they had fully revalidated almost 12 months earlier, it is likely that several of CASAs 1000 employees would have read that article and been alerted to the structure. The article I refer to has been provided previously, although can be found again here for ease of reference.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/1akmm9gxra...CTION.pdf?dl=0
· May 2018 commenced operations at Latrobe Valley Aero Club utilising the “Temporary Locations procedure that CASA suggested, helped us design, approved and audited and formally notified CASA of such (6 months before CASA have led the Ombudsman’s Office to first became aware of the structure I had adopted) This operation would not have commenced at Latrobe Valley without CASA being fully aware, and in fact CASA had met with both myself and the aero club committee. It cannot be disputed that by now CASA is fully aware. Committee Members could provide Statutory Declarations that they had previously had discussions with CASA on this very structure, in fact it was CASA personnel that directed the Latrobe Valley Aero Club towards my structure, and that is the recollection of that Committee. To suggest that CASA is not fully aware, when I have been operating in that structure for 6 years, been formally revalidated over 12 months earlier by CASA on April 28th, 2017 and audited 6 months earlier in November 2017. If CASA were not fully aware of the exact structure of my business, they would not have suggested my structure to continue operations instead of ceasing operations. Quite simply CASA was fully aware of the exact structure many years before they would have the Ombudsman believe.
· 7th August 2018 formally approved the LTF application submitted to CASA ten months prior on October 5th of 2017. CASA took a staggering 10 months to process and formally approve this base. This was obviously a thorough and comprehensive assessment that CASA undertook prior to approval. To suggest that during this ten-month application process CASA was not fully aware of my exact structure by way of that application is not feasible and considering that it was me submitting all documentation and meeting with the CASA personnel at that base.
· This was a substantial application that we submitted. The submission was according to CASA to a very high standard, and CASA required no changes at all to our proposed operation. Despite that, this application took CASA 10 months to assess. This seemed an unusual length of time for CASA to process the application, and my assumption was that it had been looked at it very detail. It is improbable that after operating for 6 years in the multi base multi entity single Authorisation Holder with full and formal approval that CASA have issued this formal notification for the addition of yet another base, and CASA is not by now fully aware. Similarly, this approval was reversed in the notification of October 2018,
CASA has now formally approved the following bases to operate under my own structure, MFT, AV8, TVSA, LTF, and AVIA. MFT and TVSA have been under the CASA approved structure for several years, and now CASA has formally approved AVIA and LTF to operate under the structure. Over recent years, CASA has now formally approved, several bases.
For anyone at CASA from the CEO down to suggest that CASA were not fully aware of the exact structure of my organisation for many years prior, is simply not reasonable. Such erroneous information is not a slip or an error. It is a conscious and deliberate decision to provide clearly false and misleading information to a Commonwealth Ombudsman’s Office investigation.
The very same regulator that permitted me to do what I was doing for at least 6 years, formally several bases throughout that time, fully revalidated in April 2017 after a two-year CASA approval process, audited in November 2016, then formally added more bases, would try and assert to the Ombudsman that they only became aware of my structure years later. It is so deceptive, that it is not only offensive, but also most likely criminal.
It is bizarre. The entire business has been operating for 10 years, at least the last 6 years in a multi base multi entity structure, and then suddenly it becomes illegal against a regulation from 1988. Surely someone in CASA could have advised me many years earlier if they believed the structure was illegal, before they revalidated me in April 2017, and before they had formally approved multiple bases.
If after considering the above timeline, it has not become obvious that CASA was in fact fully aware of the exact structure of the flight training model that I had adopted, then I ask you to consider the following additional considerations.
· CASA advised me that they had spent more time working with me on my procedures than any other Company, of the 350 flight training operators in Australia, as part of the Transition process that led to our revalidation as a Part 141/142 organisation already operating in the multi base multi entity structure.
It is likely that CASA would have become fully aware during that exhaustive process throughout 2015,2016 and 2017. I have no doubt that as part of this process i.e., all schools having to undergo a full revalidation to comply with the legislation, CASA would have tracked the hours allocated to each operator. CASA have previously advised me that due to the nature of my application and the fact that I was one of Australia’s first operators to undergo the process, CASA allocated more hours to my revalidation than any other operator. As I was already operating in the multi base muti entity structure it is highly unlikely that they were not fully aware.
· CASA personnel had a standing invitation to turn up at any of our weekly Group meetings held in our Head Office Board room, and CASA did frequently attend both Group Safety Meetings and Group Management meetings with all members present, throughout 2017, and 2018, and formal records of attendees at those meetings held. if they were not already aware of my structure it is likely that the CASA attendees at that meeting would have become immediately aware by the very nature of the meetings.
· We were also one of the first of Australia’s 350 flying schools to meet the new regulatory requirements ahead of the deadline. As one of the first operators in Australia to gain the 141/142 approval, it is likely that CASA legal would have been heavily involved, and certainly aware of the structure that they were helping me to design and subsequently approved.
· Past and present CASA employees have offered to come forward and tell the truth on this matter and I can provide you with their contact details. I have their permission. These CASA personnel were heavily involved in the design and subsequent approval of the multi base multi entity years before Mr Aleck claims that CASA first became aware of the structure. These contacts have previously been provided to the Ombudsman’s Office, I do not know whether the Ombudsman’s office has established contact, although I would request that you do as part of your investigation into my complaint.
· The structure of our systems as outlined in our Exposition was entirely unsuitable for a single school single entity structure. To suggest that the entire Exposition could be fully approved by CASA without CASA noticing is ludicrous. Why on earth would I try and be at all deceptive with CASA. It makes absolutely no sense at all. As the person investing hundreds of thousands of dollars in the project, it makes no sense that I would not be fully open with CASA. Even if I had for some reason and not been fully open with CASA, CASA would have become immediately aware once they started assessing our proposed new procedures for the new regulations, and approving our Exposition.
· The very structure that CASA adopted would make it impossible that CASA were not fully aware. CASA was broken up into regions, with my region being the Southern Region. In each Region was a CASA Regional Manager, and several teams referred to as CMTs or Certificate Management Teams. These teams consisted of a Team Leader and a small team of Subject Matter Experts with experience in the respective areas of Safety, Flying School Operations, and Maintenance and Airworthiness. Each team would oversight a number of flying schools. I was in regular contact on multiple occasions each week with my CASA CMT, which was CMT 2. It is implausible to suggest that they were not aware, although they are not claiming otherwise. I have contacted the members of that CMT Team, and their recollection is accurate and truthful. It is only Mr Aleck that suggests CASA was not aware. It is important to clarify that point. The CASA personnel that I was dealing with at the time, know the truth of the matter. Mr Aleck, the person I make allegations of misconduct against, is the same person responsible for providing information to the Ombudsman’s office, he and perhaps Ms Spence, the CASA CEO are the only two employees that will maintain that CASA was not fully aware of the exact structure. Any CASA employee at the coal face, and certainly any of the ten CASA employees that worked with me during the two years prior to our revalidation have clear and truthful recollections that CASA was fully aware of the exact structure of my training organisation.
Throughout my 10 years of operating in the business, I had been allocated to CASA CMT2. They were my primary contact for all matters regarding my operation. We would meet and communicate frequently, and that is in fact how CASA provided oversight. The same CMT team looked after APTA, MFT, TVSA, AVIA, and LTF bases, all APTA Members operating under that one CASA approval that belonged to me, and my team of legislated Key Personnel. CASA would have been fully aware, and I have absolutely no doubt that if any member of that CMT were approached by the CASA ICC they would provide truthful information, i.e., that it is simply not possible that CASA was fully aware of my exact structure for many years before Mr Aleck would have the Ombudsman’s Office believe.
My expected outcome for this complaint, is that it is reasonable that CASA identify to me, the specific date that CASA claim they first became aware that I had adopted the multi base, multi entity, under the one approval. Obviously that date could be early as 6 years prior when the first Darwin base was approved, or as late as October 2018 when CASA closed the business. Quite simply, there must be a date that CASA will publicly state that they first became aware. Both the Ombudsman’s Office and I should be entitled to that date.