Glen Buckley and Australian small business -V- CASA
Join Date: Jul 2019
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What's the status of the corporate entity of APTA or MFT currently then? Was APTA and MFT the same corporate entity? As we know APTA today continues to operate, however have seemingly absolved themselves of all responsibilities involved with MFT.
Thread Starter
Lead balloon and others
Please let me preface this response with some background information.
I was a flying instructor of 25 years and not a businessman. I opened my school with my closest friend because we had a vision. I know that sounds naïve, but thats the truth. With my hand on my heart, I am really answering these questions to the very very best of my knowledge. I know you are not asserting anything else, but I just want to clarify that. I do consider myself an expert on the law related to the aviation sector, but not on business law.
I had an accountancy firm that stood behind me for far longer than any other firm in Australia would have. They knew I had no capacity to pay, and i have no doubt that they would offer what assistance they could to this day. Quite simply, I am just too embarrassed to contact them. It sounds ridiculous, but that thought is actually causing increased anxiety as I sit here typing away. There are so many people that stood beside me, and i let them, thinking that i would be able to resolve this matter and resolve it, to make good all the damage. To date, with no success.
This is a matter i am also having trouble conveying to the Ombudsman's office so guidance from anyone is appreciated..
I think its the absolute simplicity that makes it so confusing, but I am concerned that I am not conveying this.
My instructions to the accountant at the time were very clear.
The Registered Training Organization status, the AOC, the International Student Training approval CRICOS are all connected to this. It needs to be a change of name of the ACN only that name change is from Melbourne Flight Training PTY LTD to Australian Pilot Training Alliance Pty Ltd. There are no other changes at all. it is a change of name only to reflect an Australian Wide capability which I thought was potentially useful in our current and projected market. Particularly overseas.
This name change was a surprisingly cheap process, that alone suggests that it was as simple as I had intended.
PLEASE be patient with me if I'm missing something. I welcome anyone to do a Company search and post it on here, to confirm that what I say "stacks up".
Yes the MFT that CASA determined an unauthorized operation after 10 years, had no other changes. It did have an AOC at the time of the CASA notification, yet was listed as one of the unauthorized operations. That is in fact the exact point of one of the three topics. It makes absolutely no sense to me at all.
How could a flying school suddenly become an unauthorized operation, when the only change was to name change to the Company with the trading name unchanged. It makers no sense at all that my business of more than a decade that provides my family suddenly becomes an unauthorized operation. The name change had happened 2 years prior to the best of recollection.
I'm trying to put the onus back onto CASA. I simply cannot understand how CASA arrived at this determination. Im spending enormous amounts of mental capacity trying to resolve this with the Ombudsman. Its incumbent for CASA to identify what the changes were. Then i will understand what I'm addressing, but i simply cannot get CASA to address this. My hope is that after my recent conversation with the ombudsman's office that the Office will request CASA to clearly identify what they "thought" had changed and what made them "think" that, and if they had some confusion what did hey do to resolve it. I had engaged with and fully communicated with CASA throughout the process, and they were fully onboard.. My very best recollection is that a fee was paid to CASA with the certificates issued. No changes to any numbers at all on that certificate. There was a reflection of name change only. Melbourne Flight Training continued unchanged.
For complete clarity, I don't think CASA had any basis to shut down any of the schools, but with respect to MFT, they have well overstepped any lawful Authority. MFT was my "baby" if you like. That was my business, and where I derived my income. APTA was a method for me and 9 other schools to work collaboratively. It was not my "business" if you like.
I hope that makes sense, heading home to catch the tail end of the footy, cheers. Glen
I was a flying instructor of 25 years and not a businessman. I opened my school with my closest friend because we had a vision. I know that sounds naïve, but thats the truth. With my hand on my heart, I am really answering these questions to the very very best of my knowledge. I know you are not asserting anything else, but I just want to clarify that. I do consider myself an expert on the law related to the aviation sector, but not on business law.
I had an accountancy firm that stood behind me for far longer than any other firm in Australia would have. They knew I had no capacity to pay, and i have no doubt that they would offer what assistance they could to this day. Quite simply, I am just too embarrassed to contact them. It sounds ridiculous, but that thought is actually causing increased anxiety as I sit here typing away. There are so many people that stood beside me, and i let them, thinking that i would be able to resolve this matter and resolve it, to make good all the damage. To date, with no success.
This is a matter i am also having trouble conveying to the Ombudsman's office so guidance from anyone is appreciated..
I think its the absolute simplicity that makes it so confusing, but I am concerned that I am not conveying this.
My instructions to the accountant at the time were very clear.
The Registered Training Organization status, the AOC, the International Student Training approval CRICOS are all connected to this. It needs to be a change of name of the ACN only that name change is from Melbourne Flight Training PTY LTD to Australian Pilot Training Alliance Pty Ltd. There are no other changes at all. it is a change of name only to reflect an Australian Wide capability which I thought was potentially useful in our current and projected market. Particularly overseas.
This name change was a surprisingly cheap process, that alone suggests that it was as simple as I had intended.
PLEASE be patient with me if I'm missing something. I welcome anyone to do a Company search and post it on here, to confirm that what I say "stacks up".
Yes the MFT that CASA determined an unauthorized operation after 10 years, had no other changes. It did have an AOC at the time of the CASA notification, yet was listed as one of the unauthorized operations. That is in fact the exact point of one of the three topics. It makes absolutely no sense to me at all.
How could a flying school suddenly become an unauthorized operation, when the only change was to name change to the Company with the trading name unchanged. It makers no sense at all that my business of more than a decade that provides my family suddenly becomes an unauthorized operation. The name change had happened 2 years prior to the best of recollection.
I'm trying to put the onus back onto CASA. I simply cannot understand how CASA arrived at this determination. Im spending enormous amounts of mental capacity trying to resolve this with the Ombudsman. Its incumbent for CASA to identify what the changes were. Then i will understand what I'm addressing, but i simply cannot get CASA to address this. My hope is that after my recent conversation with the ombudsman's office that the Office will request CASA to clearly identify what they "thought" had changed and what made them "think" that, and if they had some confusion what did hey do to resolve it. I had engaged with and fully communicated with CASA throughout the process, and they were fully onboard.. My very best recollection is that a fee was paid to CASA with the certificates issued. No changes to any numbers at all on that certificate. There was a reflection of name change only. Melbourne Flight Training continued unchanged.
For complete clarity, I don't think CASA had any basis to shut down any of the schools, but with respect to MFT, they have well overstepped any lawful Authority. MFT was my "baby" if you like. That was my business, and where I derived my income. APTA was a method for me and 9 other schools to work collaboratively. It was not my "business" if you like.
I hope that makes sense, heading home to catch the tail end of the footy, cheers. Glen
Thread Starter
Lead balloon and others
Lead Balloon,
As time permits, and if you think it would bring the clarity that you require.
Could you give me a short question that succintly provides the answer that you are seeking. I will frame it in a question to both CASA, and gulp, one last time to my accountant.
Cheers. Glen
As time permits, and if you think it would bring the clarity that you require.
Could you give me a short question that succintly provides the answer that you are seeking. I will frame it in a question to both CASA, and gulp, one last time to my accountant.
Cheers. Glen
It may be the language you’re using to try to explain the structure that is causing the confusion. Or perhaps I’m confusing you (or myself). I apologise if I’m confusing you.
This confuses me:
Why did you use the term “parent company” and, on your understanding, of what other company/ies was that company the “parent”?
On the ‘pure’ APTA ‘alliance member’ model, no member needed to be a related entity - parent or otherwise - to any of the others or APTA in a corporate law sense. That’s why I’m confused. (In any event and importantly, even if any of them was related to the other in the corporate law sense, they remained separate legal entities. That’s what gave CASA the vapours and resulted in the ultimate demand for evidence of effective control over non-employees etc.) It may be that you’re using the word “parent” as your layperson’s description of APTA’s ‘position’ in the ‘alliance’ ‘hierarchy’? That’s fine, so long as there’s clarity of what you mean.
In relation to the ‘parent’ company, are you saying that it started out being named MFT and then its name was changed to APTA trading as MFT, but with the same ACN throughout? CASA’s letter of 23 October 2018 clearly treats the APTA entity to which CASA wrote as being a separate legal person to e.g. the MFT entity mentioned in the letter. Either they were one and the same entity or they weren’t. It would be unusual even for CASA to make such a big stuff up, but I suppose almost anything is possible.
One of the published attractions of the APTA concept was that each ‘alliance’ ‘member’ - not APTA - would retain “complete control” of its “business” (and I’ve noted before why those words evidently caused APTA so many problems from CASA’s perspective). On 23 October 2018, who was in “complete control” of the “business” at the MFT ‘base’ in the sense APTA used the word “business” on its website?
When you opened “your” flying school, was the AOC authorising that operation issued to a natural person or a corporate entity? If it was issued to a corporate entity, can you remember whether the ACN of that entity was the same as the APTA entity on 23 October 2018?
I understand all this corporate stuff can be complicated and confusing, but if you’re not across the detail it’s going to be difficult for you to explain it to e.g. the Ombudsman. After all, it was your trainset. (I occasionally fear that you might’ve been the victim of a corporate pea and thimble trick yourself.)
This confuses me:
The only change was a change of name of the parent company from MFT to APTA. The trading name MFT remain unchanged.
On the ‘pure’ APTA ‘alliance member’ model, no member needed to be a related entity - parent or otherwise - to any of the others or APTA in a corporate law sense. That’s why I’m confused. (In any event and importantly, even if any of them was related to the other in the corporate law sense, they remained separate legal entities. That’s what gave CASA the vapours and resulted in the ultimate demand for evidence of effective control over non-employees etc.) It may be that you’re using the word “parent” as your layperson’s description of APTA’s ‘position’ in the ‘alliance’ ‘hierarchy’? That’s fine, so long as there’s clarity of what you mean.
In relation to the ‘parent’ company, are you saying that it started out being named MFT and then its name was changed to APTA trading as MFT, but with the same ACN throughout? CASA’s letter of 23 October 2018 clearly treats the APTA entity to which CASA wrote as being a separate legal person to e.g. the MFT entity mentioned in the letter. Either they were one and the same entity or they weren’t. It would be unusual even for CASA to make such a big stuff up, but I suppose almost anything is possible.
One of the published attractions of the APTA concept was that each ‘alliance’ ‘member’ - not APTA - would retain “complete control” of its “business” (and I’ve noted before why those words evidently caused APTA so many problems from CASA’s perspective). On 23 October 2018, who was in “complete control” of the “business” at the MFT ‘base’ in the sense APTA used the word “business” on its website?
When you opened “your” flying school, was the AOC authorising that operation issued to a natural person or a corporate entity? If it was issued to a corporate entity, can you remember whether the ACN of that entity was the same as the APTA entity on 23 October 2018?
I understand all this corporate stuff can be complicated and confusing, but if you’re not across the detail it’s going to be difficult for you to explain it to e.g. the Ombudsman. After all, it was your trainset. (I occasionally fear that you might’ve been the victim of a corporate pea and thimble trick yourself.)
Thread Starter
Lead Balloon
I am very much of the opinion that CASA has erred, and had absolutely no legal basis to close down the flying school trdaing as MFT. I have attached two versions of the AOC prior to and after the name change. I think this will resolve your query. Cheers. Glen.
https://www.dropbox.com/t/TPuoRDkKcmPZuGUp
https://www.dropbox.com/t/TPuoRDkKcmPZuGUp
Thanks Glen.
Those copies of versions 6 and 7 of the AOC show that CASA was on notice that there was no change in the legal entity holding the AOC. The entity remained ACN 119 046 285. The name change from Melbourne Flight Training Pty Ltd to Australian Pilot Training Alliance Pty Ltd made no difference to the legal entity holding the AOC. Accordingly, unless there was some change to the annexes as between the two versions of the AOC, ACN 119 046 285 continued to be authorised under that AOC to conduct, in the name “Australian Pilot Training Alliance Pty Ltd”, exactly the same operations as it was authorised to conduct in the name “Melbourne Flight Training Pty Ltd”.
So the mystery remains as to why CASA alleged, in its 23 October 2018 letter, that “MFT” was not operating under the authority of an AOC. And this is why it continues to be very (very) important to get (crystal) clarity about who’s talking about whom when they say “MFT” and you talk about “my” flying school.
I’ll try this set of questions, first, to try to solve that mystery. They only require a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answer.
When you originally started ‘your’ flying school, was that the flying school which became generally known as “Melbourne Flight Training” or “MFT”?
Was the AOC for ‘your’ original flying school issued to corporate person ACN 119 046 285? If the answer is ‘no’, was the AOC issued to you personally?
In the year up to 23 October 2018 (though the precise period does not matter) were any flying training activities being engaged in by instructors at the school generally known as “Melbourne Flight Training” or “MFT”? If the answer is ‘yes’, were those “MFT” flying school instructors employees of corporate person ACN 119 046 285? To be crystal clear: Did ACN 119 046 285 pay those instructors directly for the instructing work they did at “MFT”?
Please: Just a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ (or ‘don’t know’) in response to each.
Those copies of versions 6 and 7 of the AOC show that CASA was on notice that there was no change in the legal entity holding the AOC. The entity remained ACN 119 046 285. The name change from Melbourne Flight Training Pty Ltd to Australian Pilot Training Alliance Pty Ltd made no difference to the legal entity holding the AOC. Accordingly, unless there was some change to the annexes as between the two versions of the AOC, ACN 119 046 285 continued to be authorised under that AOC to conduct, in the name “Australian Pilot Training Alliance Pty Ltd”, exactly the same operations as it was authorised to conduct in the name “Melbourne Flight Training Pty Ltd”.
So the mystery remains as to why CASA alleged, in its 23 October 2018 letter, that “MFT” was not operating under the authority of an AOC. And this is why it continues to be very (very) important to get (crystal) clarity about who’s talking about whom when they say “MFT” and you talk about “my” flying school.
I’ll try this set of questions, first, to try to solve that mystery. They only require a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answer.
When you originally started ‘your’ flying school, was that the flying school which became generally known as “Melbourne Flight Training” or “MFT”?
Was the AOC for ‘your’ original flying school issued to corporate person ACN 119 046 285? If the answer is ‘no’, was the AOC issued to you personally?
In the year up to 23 October 2018 (though the precise period does not matter) were any flying training activities being engaged in by instructors at the school generally known as “Melbourne Flight Training” or “MFT”? If the answer is ‘yes’, were those “MFT” flying school instructors employees of corporate person ACN 119 046 285? To be crystal clear: Did ACN 119 046 285 pay those instructors directly for the instructing work they did at “MFT”?
Please: Just a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ (or ‘don’t know’) in response to each.
Thread Starter
Yes, to all questions.
Of the three topics:
Cheers to those both following and posting, Glen
Of the three topics:
- The direction that my employment was" no longer tenable based on comments that I was making publicly."
- The closure of APTA after CASA had approved that structure for all time and on every occasion.
- The failure for CASA to explain how MFT became an unauthorized operation.
Cheers to those both following and posting, Glen
If the answers you've given to my questions are correct as a matter of fact - and I don't doubt you consider them to be correct as a matter of fact - it inexorably follows in my view that even on CASA's view of the regulatory requirements MFT was the only flying school whose operations were actually authorised by the AOC held by ACN 119 046 285 in October 2018! So how CASA managed to include MFT on the list in the October 2018 letter is anyone's guess.
I still can't get my head around how a company you set up (and, I would have thought, controlled) managed to sack you as an employee. I'm assuming there was an internal change such that you weren't the CEO or somehow didn't make any of the employee hire/fire decisions? In any event, I hope by now you realise exactly what CASA will continue to argue:
McHeyzer didn't 'direct' anyone to do anything but, even if that's wrong, the 'direction' was given to APTA and McHeyzer was off on a frolic of his own. Your argument is therefore (according to CASA) with APTA and McHeyzer.
In relation to the "closure of APTA after CASA had approved that structure for all time and on every occasion" I note that, strictly speaking - which is how I reckon CASA will speak - CASA did not close APTA. CASA actually invited APTA to provide evidence as to the way in which APTA would exercise effective control over a bunch of activities being carried out at 'alliance' 'bases' by personnel of whom APTA had no legal control, using premises and facilities over which APTA had no legal control and using aircraft of which APTA was not the registered operator. That was the point of the White email regurgitating the LARP opinion in 2019. But that task was practically impossible for APTA to complete, given the time and cost constraints on APTA at the time - which constraints were and are not a bother to CASA.
The approval of additional 'alliance' 'bases' on every occasion is the elephant in the room. The problem for APTA and CASA is that two wrongs don't make a right. The related problem for APTA and you is that CASA never admits it makes mistakes.
The initial approvals by CASA of additional 'alliance' 'bases' without first having required the kinds of evidence which CASA subsequently required as described in the While email regurgitating LARP opinion in 2019 was, in my view, a massive f*ckup by CASA. That's because the initial approvals encouraged ATPA - and in my view reasonably - to believe that approvals of further 'alliance' 'bases' in like circumstances to previously approved 'alliance' 'bases' would be granted on the production of like evidence.
That's why, in my view, CASA's falling over backwards to try to convince the Ombudsman and others that CASA was not aware of the detail of the APTA 'structure' - i.e. the legal relationship between the APTA AOC holder and those with legal control over the people, premises and aircraft at the 'alliance' 'bases' - until 'later'. But even if it is true in fact that CASA did not become aware of those details until 'later', CASA was on constructive notice of them and its job was to find out about them before granting each variation covering each new 'base' from the start.
CASA should have made very clear to APTA, from the start of the 'alliance' 'base' concept, the time-consuming and costly requirements that were instead sprung on APTA years later. But having not done so from the start, CASA could not continue making the same mistake by continuing to grant variations to cover more and more people, premises and aircraft - and therefore operations - over which APTA had not established legal and effective control. But rather than admitting that and making amends by working with APTA to try to bridge the gap - which gap, as I've said, could have been bridged with some fairly simple deeds of agreement and some governance in APTA for securing compliance with the deeds - CASA must maintain the pretence that it never makes mistakes.
I still can't get my head around how a company you set up (and, I would have thought, controlled) managed to sack you as an employee. I'm assuming there was an internal change such that you weren't the CEO or somehow didn't make any of the employee hire/fire decisions? In any event, I hope by now you realise exactly what CASA will continue to argue:
McHeyzer didn't 'direct' anyone to do anything but, even if that's wrong, the 'direction' was given to APTA and McHeyzer was off on a frolic of his own. Your argument is therefore (according to CASA) with APTA and McHeyzer.
In relation to the "closure of APTA after CASA had approved that structure for all time and on every occasion" I note that, strictly speaking - which is how I reckon CASA will speak - CASA did not close APTA. CASA actually invited APTA to provide evidence as to the way in which APTA would exercise effective control over a bunch of activities being carried out at 'alliance' 'bases' by personnel of whom APTA had no legal control, using premises and facilities over which APTA had no legal control and using aircraft of which APTA was not the registered operator. That was the point of the White email regurgitating the LARP opinion in 2019. But that task was practically impossible for APTA to complete, given the time and cost constraints on APTA at the time - which constraints were and are not a bother to CASA.
The approval of additional 'alliance' 'bases' on every occasion is the elephant in the room. The problem for APTA and CASA is that two wrongs don't make a right. The related problem for APTA and you is that CASA never admits it makes mistakes.
The initial approvals by CASA of additional 'alliance' 'bases' without first having required the kinds of evidence which CASA subsequently required as described in the While email regurgitating LARP opinion in 2019 was, in my view, a massive f*ckup by CASA. That's because the initial approvals encouraged ATPA - and in my view reasonably - to believe that approvals of further 'alliance' 'bases' in like circumstances to previously approved 'alliance' 'bases' would be granted on the production of like evidence.
That's why, in my view, CASA's falling over backwards to try to convince the Ombudsman and others that CASA was not aware of the detail of the APTA 'structure' - i.e. the legal relationship between the APTA AOC holder and those with legal control over the people, premises and aircraft at the 'alliance' 'bases' - until 'later'. But even if it is true in fact that CASA did not become aware of those details until 'later', CASA was on constructive notice of them and its job was to find out about them before granting each variation covering each new 'base' from the start.
CASA should have made very clear to APTA, from the start of the 'alliance' 'base' concept, the time-consuming and costly requirements that were instead sprung on APTA years later. But having not done so from the start, CASA could not continue making the same mistake by continuing to grant variations to cover more and more people, premises and aircraft - and therefore operations - over which APTA had not established legal and effective control. But rather than admitting that and making amends by working with APTA to try to bridge the gap - which gap, as I've said, could have been bridged with some fairly simple deeds of agreement and some governance in APTA for securing compliance with the deeds - CASA must maintain the pretence that it never makes mistakes.
Thread Starter
Lead Balloon
Wow. Thousands of pages of toing and froing and Ping-Pong over four years, and you have summarized this matter clearly and concisely. Are you comfortable if i were to write directly to the Ombudsman and draw their attention to the most recent posts. I am rescheduled to talk with the Office in a little over a week. I would like the office to review this prior. Cheers. Glen.
Do with the text whatever you like, Glen. It's a public post.
The facts will be whatever they happen to be. And if CASA's requirements set out in its email in March 19 were valid then and necessary to satisfy the criteria for approval of an 'alliance' 'base' to operate under the authority of APTA's AOC in 19, they were valid and necessary to satisfy the criteria for the approval of all 'alliance' 'bases' and, therefore, should have been imposed and explained by CASA from the outset. CASA can't have it both ways, but will of course try to have it both ways.
The facts will be whatever they happen to be. And if CASA's requirements set out in its email in March 19 were valid then and necessary to satisfy the criteria for approval of an 'alliance' 'base' to operate under the authority of APTA's AOC in 19, they were valid and necessary to satisfy the criteria for the approval of all 'alliance' 'bases' and, therefore, should have been imposed and explained by CASA from the outset. CASA can't have it both ways, but will of course try to have it both ways.
Join Date: Jul 2019
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Would it be correct to say that APTA, as it currently exists today, is still the same company, same ACN as APTA and MFT that was operating prior to mid-2019?
APTA still exists today, albeit looking like a totally different company and structure than was originally in place.
APTA still exists today, albeit looking like a totally different company and structure than was originally in place.
Thread Starter
Lead Balloon and Big Papi
Lead Balloon. By June 30th, VORTEX had taken over that Company. Vortex being a new APTA Member that was now faced with closure as a result of the CASA change of direction.
The CASA CEO had sent me correspondence that on June30th 2019, they would make a decision as to whether operations would continue. At that stage we were operating under a short term interim approval to operate.
Vortex would have been very dependent on CASA, for continuing operations. My recollection is that they were given another 3 month extension. The new owners had implemented some very significant cost cuts, including halving salaries, and halving the size of the safety department. The relationship between me and one of the two owners was less than ideal. I think that it may have suited the new owners. A bit more to it than that, but probably enough for the purposes of the response.
Big Papi, I believe you are correct. That Company, AOC, continue as a single school. in a very different format, and i believe the operating environment has been very challenging.
Cheers. Glen
The CASA CEO had sent me correspondence that on June30th 2019, they would make a decision as to whether operations would continue. At that stage we were operating under a short term interim approval to operate.
Vortex would have been very dependent on CASA, for continuing operations. My recollection is that they were given another 3 month extension. The new owners had implemented some very significant cost cuts, including halving salaries, and halving the size of the safety department. The relationship between me and one of the two owners was less than ideal. I think that it may have suited the new owners. A bit more to it than that, but probably enough for the purposes of the response.
Big Papi, I believe you are correct. That Company, AOC, continue as a single school. in a very different format, and i believe the operating environment has been very challenging.
Cheers. Glen
No. No. Nooooooo. No. No. This is not helpful, Glen.
Please: Slow down and stop. Then take a deep breath.
“By June 30th” of what year did “Vortex” take over “that Company”?
Who was ”that company” precisely, which you say “Vortex” took over?
Who are ”the owners” to whom you refer, and of what were they “the owners”.
Sorry Glen, but this is really, really important ****, which I’m confident CASA already knows. It also reinforces my concern that you might have been the victim of a corporate pea and thimble trick.
Please: Slow down and stop. Then take a deep breath.
“By June 30th” of what year did “Vortex” take over “that Company”?
Who was ”that company” precisely, which you say “Vortex” took over?
Who are ”the owners” to whom you refer, and of what were they “the owners”.
Sorry Glen, but this is really, really important ****, which I’m confident CASA already knows. It also reinforces my concern that you might have been the victim of a corporate pea and thimble trick.
Thread Starter
I refer to it as Vortex, although it may have another Company Name.
I was a nervous wreck by now, it was June 30th of 2019, 8 months after this had begun, and i walked out the door, and gave that Company to them in return for paying all debt. I took nothing at all personally.
Unfortunately not all debt and entitlements were paid, and that is the motivating force behind the last 4 years.
I was a nervous wreck by now, it was June 30th of 2019, 8 months after this had begun, and i walked out the door, and gave that Company to them in return for paying all debt. I took nothing at all personally.
Unfortunately not all debt and entitlements were paid, and that is the motivating force behind the last 4 years.
Thread Starter
Response from ICC to Posts 2235 to 2241, and my response.
From CASA ICC 01/08/22Hi Glen
Thanks for your email.. In response to your question and proposal, I can confirm that you are welcome to invite a support person. This can be whoever you would like to attend. Reviewing your complaints, ahead of our meeting it would be helpful if you could provide the outcomes or conclusions of the Ombudsman reviews you say were informed by incorrect information provided by CASA.
Thanks Jonathan
My response 16/08/22
Dear Mr. Hanton,
I am responding to your query from your correspondence of 01/08/22, where you requested the following.
“Reviewing your complaints, ahead of our meeting it would be helpful if you could provide the outcomes or conclusions of the Ombudsman reviews you say were informed by incorrect information provided by CASA.”
The Ombudsman’s Office stated to me that; “CASA has provided us with a reasonable explanation for its view that it was not fully aware of the specific nature of APTAs operations until just prior to issuing the notice in October 2018”.
Considering that the same Company, albeit with a name change only, from MFT Pty Ltd to APTA Pty Ltd had been delivering those exact operations for over a decade, in that identical structure with full and formal CASA approval, it is not truthful for CASA to assert that “CASA” was not aware until just prior to October 2018, as you, yourself have previously identified.
I am fully satisfied that CASA was fully aware of the specific nature of the operations for at least six years.
I think it’s reasonable that if CASA is being truthful, then CASA should be willing to nominate the date to both the Ombudsman’s office and I, that CASA claim they first became aware of the structure that I had adopted. CASA should have no reason to withhold such important and relevant information.
Similarly, the Ombudsman’s Office has formed the view that CASA never permitted the exact same structure that I adopted. I refer you to the initial notification of October 2018, where CASA advises that CASA is not able to approve such operations.
The truth is that CASA had always and, on every occasion, approved such operations and permitted the exact structure that I adopted and had done so throughout my 25 years in the industry. If the Ombudsman’s Office is of the opinion that this is not the case, then, the Ombudsman’s Office has been misled.
I am asking that CASA ensure that there is no doubt in the mind of the Ombudsman’s office that CASA had always permitted not only me, but many other Operators across Australia with that identical structure.
The final complaint was that the Ombudsman has formed the view that I perhaps failed to inform CASA or missed some procedure in informing CASA. As you are aware, I claim that I invested hundreds of thousands of dollars, worked with ten CASA personnel over a two-year period designing a significantly improved version the same structure that I had been utilising for many years. This was fully revalidated by CASA in April 2017 and audited 6 months later. If CASA is claiming to the Ombudsman that I did not communicate the exact structure, which I claim that I did, then CASA should be able to identify to both the Ombudsman’s Office and me, any omissions on my behalf that would have created the situation whereby CASA was “not aware until just prior to October 2018”.
I hope that clears the matter up, and adequately addresses my concerns. This is very much a matter of intent, and I feel confident that you understand the intent of the complaints. My hope is that the matters will be addressed with good intent, rather than putting effort into deflecting and avoiding.
Please be assured that comment is not directed towards your Office specifically, but rather more towards the office of the CASA CEO and my general experience with CASA on all aspects of this matter.
Respectfully, Glen Buckley
Thanks for your email.. In response to your question and proposal, I can confirm that you are welcome to invite a support person. This can be whoever you would like to attend. Reviewing your complaints, ahead of our meeting it would be helpful if you could provide the outcomes or conclusions of the Ombudsman reviews you say were informed by incorrect information provided by CASA.
Thanks Jonathan
My response 16/08/22
Dear Mr. Hanton,
I am responding to your query from your correspondence of 01/08/22, where you requested the following.
“Reviewing your complaints, ahead of our meeting it would be helpful if you could provide the outcomes or conclusions of the Ombudsman reviews you say were informed by incorrect information provided by CASA.”
The Ombudsman’s Office stated to me that; “CASA has provided us with a reasonable explanation for its view that it was not fully aware of the specific nature of APTAs operations until just prior to issuing the notice in October 2018”.
Considering that the same Company, albeit with a name change only, from MFT Pty Ltd to APTA Pty Ltd had been delivering those exact operations for over a decade, in that identical structure with full and formal CASA approval, it is not truthful for CASA to assert that “CASA” was not aware until just prior to October 2018, as you, yourself have previously identified.
I am fully satisfied that CASA was fully aware of the specific nature of the operations for at least six years.
I think it’s reasonable that if CASA is being truthful, then CASA should be willing to nominate the date to both the Ombudsman’s office and I, that CASA claim they first became aware of the structure that I had adopted. CASA should have no reason to withhold such important and relevant information.
Similarly, the Ombudsman’s Office has formed the view that CASA never permitted the exact same structure that I adopted. I refer you to the initial notification of October 2018, where CASA advises that CASA is not able to approve such operations.
The truth is that CASA had always and, on every occasion, approved such operations and permitted the exact structure that I adopted and had done so throughout my 25 years in the industry. If the Ombudsman’s Office is of the opinion that this is not the case, then, the Ombudsman’s Office has been misled.
I am asking that CASA ensure that there is no doubt in the mind of the Ombudsman’s office that CASA had always permitted not only me, but many other Operators across Australia with that identical structure.
The final complaint was that the Ombudsman has formed the view that I perhaps failed to inform CASA or missed some procedure in informing CASA. As you are aware, I claim that I invested hundreds of thousands of dollars, worked with ten CASA personnel over a two-year period designing a significantly improved version the same structure that I had been utilising for many years. This was fully revalidated by CASA in April 2017 and audited 6 months later. If CASA is claiming to the Ombudsman that I did not communicate the exact structure, which I claim that I did, then CASA should be able to identify to both the Ombudsman’s Office and me, any omissions on my behalf that would have created the situation whereby CASA was “not aware until just prior to October 2018”.
I hope that clears the matter up, and adequately addresses my concerns. This is very much a matter of intent, and I feel confident that you understand the intent of the complaints. My hope is that the matters will be addressed with good intent, rather than putting effort into deflecting and avoiding.
Please be assured that comment is not directed towards your Office specifically, but rather more towards the office of the CASA CEO and my general experience with CASA on all aspects of this matter.
Respectfully, Glen Buckley
Thread Starter
Follow up to CASA CEO from post #2256
16/08/22
Dear Ms Pip Spence, CEO of CASA,
Please note that I have included the Board, and the Office of the Hon Catherine King MP as the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, and Local Government, in this correspondence.
I sent you correspondence on August 1st , requesting that you publicly correct what is clearly false and misleading information provided by Mr Carmody, your predecessor, to the Senate. For your reference, I have also included a copy of that correspondence below.
On August 4th, I sent a short follow up email that read;
“Dear Ms Spence,
My preference is to wait for a well-considered response, so please feel under no pressure to reply at this stage other than to confirm that you have received my email of Monday 01/08/22.
Respectfully Glen Buckley”.
Fourteen days have now passed. I am not seeking any answer to my request, I am simply seeking a confirmation that you have received my fair and reasonable request.
Respectfully, Glen Buckley.
A copy of the email sent to you on August 1st, although dated 31/07/22 is below.
Allegation of false and misleading information being provided to the Senate, and request for CASA to correct that false and misleading information.
31/07/22
Dear Ms. Pip Spence, CEO of CASA.
For clarity, this correspondence relates to false and misleading information being provided to the Senate.
It is not related to my allegations of CASA providing false and misleading information to the Ombudsman which is the subject of the CASA Industry Complaint Commissioner investigation, and an entirely separate matter.
I have included my Local MP for the Electorate of Chisholm, as I anticipate seeking her assistance on these matters. I have provided her office with a copy of my previous allegations of false and misleading information provided to the Ombudsman Investigation, and I have also included this correspondence on the separate matter of false and misleading information being provided to the Senate.
As you are aware CASA closed my two businesses and subsequently directed my Employer that my” continuing employment was no longer tenable based on comments that I was making publicly”. These are the matters are currently being investigated by the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s Office.
In this correspondence I refer to the allegation made by the CASA CEO at the time, Mr. Shane Carmody.
Mr Carmody made the allegation that I had “stalked and assaulted CASA staff”. An allegation made to the Senators in Senate on 20/11/20.
Allegations that I absolutely refute, in fact the first time I had any awareness that I had stalked, and assaulted CASA staff was when Mr. Carmody raised it on that day, in that forum with the protection of Parliamentary Privilege.
You may well choose to listen to the Presentation in its entirety if you have not previously had the opportunity.
· My presentation commencing from the 12:40:30 mark to 13:21:00
· Mr. Carmody, CASA CEO presentation commencing from the 13:21:00 to 14:03:00 mark.
There are some particular excerpts in those presentations that I would draw your attention to, that are particularly salient to this matter
13:26:35 Mr. Carmody states that allegations that he has misled the Ombudsman Office are “offensive.”
13:26:50, Mr. Carmody the CASA CEO at the time then makes a second statement asserting his integrity where he makes the following statement, “I object strongly and personally to allegations that I have misled the committee. I have not and I stand by my record”
Mr. Carmody has now advised the Committee that he has not mislead the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s Inquiry, and then reaffirmed his integrity by advising that he has also not misled the Senate Committee.
Then at the 13; 28:30 mark, less than two minutes later after Mr. Carmody has given those assurances, he continues on and does exactly what he said he doesn’t do.
He knowingly misleads the Senate Committee and very clearly states to the Senate Committee that I have “stalked and assaulted CASA employees”.
The recordings can be accessed here:
Rural & Regional Affairs & Transport - 20/11/2020 08:49:59 - Parliament of Australia (aph.gov.au)
Whilst wanting to keep this correspondence as professional as practical, it truly is like a scene from Yes Minister. The Head of a Government Department states that he would not mislead the Committee, and then proceeds to go ahead and do exactly that i.e. mislead the Committee.
I cannot possibly present this in any other way, other than to call it a blatant lie presented to the Senate for the purposes of damaging my reputation under the protection of Parliamentary Privilege.
I need to be very clear on this.
The first time that I ever became aware of this allegation that I had stalked and assaulted CASA staff was on that day before Senate when Mr. Carmody raised those allegations.
As you will appreciate both stalking and assault are some of the more serious criminal offences that can be committed, with potential prison sentences.
For complete clarity, I never stalked or assaulted any individual in my entire life whether they be a CASA employee or not. Never.
I totally reject those allegations of assaulting and stalking CASA staff.
The purpose of this correspondence.
I acknowledge that there has been a change of CASA CEO, and that these false and misleading statements were made by the previous CEO, before Senate and are in no way attributed to you.
Had I assaulted or stalked CASA employees, as you would be fully aware, there would be some sort of supporting evidence by way of:
· CASA would have filed a police report.
· CASA would have supporting internal communications on the matter.
· The police would have most likely contacted me for a statement with a view to laying charges.
· CASA would have OHS documentation supporting those allegations.
· Witness statements, security surveillance.
· Some medical record of the person assaulted (assuming it was physical)
· Some correspondence on this matter from CASA advising me that I had assaulted and stalked CASA employees.
CASA has none of this supporting evidence, and I know that to be the case because I made a Freedom of Information request for any supporting information that CASA held. CASA was unable to provide anything at all in support of either the allegation of stalking or assault. I was not surprised by that outcome, because I knew it to be a false and misleading statement made to the Senate immediately Mr. Carmody made that statement.
That is not to say that I am not animated and passionate at times, and I do recall one occasion many years ago when I hit my fist on a desk harder than intended to the surprise of attendees, one of them a CASA employee.
This is something entirely different. This is an allegation that I stalked and assaulted CASA employees. These are serious criminal matters with potential terms of imprisonment.
Ms Spence, please understand that I am not seeking any compensation or claim about that false and misleading statement, and you have my word on that, and in writing.
I am simply asking that if you, in your role as the CASA CEO are aware that CASA has provided false and misleading information, it is incumbent upon you to publicly correct those false and misleading statements.
My expectation is that CASA will release a short statement to acknowledge the false and misleading nature of CASAs previous false assertion to the Senate, and very clearly identify that no CASA employee has ever been assaulted or stalked by Glen Buckley. Ever.
If CASA are not prepared to act truthfully on this matter, and CASA maintain that I stalked and assaulted CASA employees, I ask only that CASA advise me of the date. At this stage I have no requirement for any other information other than the dates of either the stalking or assault. Obviously, such serious offences would have occurred on a particular date or a number of different dates.
I have no intention to get into a discussion at this stage as to which offence occurred on what day, and to the nature or the severity of the offence. I can appreciate that CASA may be reluctant to go into that level of detail at this stage. I reiterate, I am only asking that CASA nominate the date/s of the alleged offences.
It does seem entirely reasonable that the person that the allegations were made against is at least made aware of the date that the alleged stalking and/or assaults of CASA employees occurred.
Thankyou for considering my request, and I look forward to your response against this matter only, and whether CASA is prepared to correct this wrong, or if it is a matter I need to seek assistance from my new Labor MP for Chisholm, Ms Carina Garland.
Yours respectfully
Glen Buckley
Dear Ms Pip Spence, CEO of CASA,
Please note that I have included the Board, and the Office of the Hon Catherine King MP as the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, and Local Government, in this correspondence.
I sent you correspondence on August 1st , requesting that you publicly correct what is clearly false and misleading information provided by Mr Carmody, your predecessor, to the Senate. For your reference, I have also included a copy of that correspondence below.
On August 4th, I sent a short follow up email that read;
“Dear Ms Spence,
My preference is to wait for a well-considered response, so please feel under no pressure to reply at this stage other than to confirm that you have received my email of Monday 01/08/22.
Respectfully Glen Buckley”.
Fourteen days have now passed. I am not seeking any answer to my request, I am simply seeking a confirmation that you have received my fair and reasonable request.
Respectfully, Glen Buckley.
A copy of the email sent to you on August 1st, although dated 31/07/22 is below.
Allegation of false and misleading information being provided to the Senate, and request for CASA to correct that false and misleading information.
31/07/22
Dear Ms. Pip Spence, CEO of CASA.
For clarity, this correspondence relates to false and misleading information being provided to the Senate.
It is not related to my allegations of CASA providing false and misleading information to the Ombudsman which is the subject of the CASA Industry Complaint Commissioner investigation, and an entirely separate matter.
I have included my Local MP for the Electorate of Chisholm, as I anticipate seeking her assistance on these matters. I have provided her office with a copy of my previous allegations of false and misleading information provided to the Ombudsman Investigation, and I have also included this correspondence on the separate matter of false and misleading information being provided to the Senate.
As you are aware CASA closed my two businesses and subsequently directed my Employer that my” continuing employment was no longer tenable based on comments that I was making publicly”. These are the matters are currently being investigated by the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s Office.
In this correspondence I refer to the allegation made by the CASA CEO at the time, Mr. Shane Carmody.
Mr Carmody made the allegation that I had “stalked and assaulted CASA staff”. An allegation made to the Senators in Senate on 20/11/20.
Allegations that I absolutely refute, in fact the first time I had any awareness that I had stalked, and assaulted CASA staff was when Mr. Carmody raised it on that day, in that forum with the protection of Parliamentary Privilege.
You may well choose to listen to the Presentation in its entirety if you have not previously had the opportunity.
· My presentation commencing from the 12:40:30 mark to 13:21:00
· Mr. Carmody, CASA CEO presentation commencing from the 13:21:00 to 14:03:00 mark.
There are some particular excerpts in those presentations that I would draw your attention to, that are particularly salient to this matter
13:26:35 Mr. Carmody states that allegations that he has misled the Ombudsman Office are “offensive.”
13:26:50, Mr. Carmody the CASA CEO at the time then makes a second statement asserting his integrity where he makes the following statement, “I object strongly and personally to allegations that I have misled the committee. I have not and I stand by my record”
Mr. Carmody has now advised the Committee that he has not mislead the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s Inquiry, and then reaffirmed his integrity by advising that he has also not misled the Senate Committee.
Then at the 13; 28:30 mark, less than two minutes later after Mr. Carmody has given those assurances, he continues on and does exactly what he said he doesn’t do.
He knowingly misleads the Senate Committee and very clearly states to the Senate Committee that I have “stalked and assaulted CASA employees”.
The recordings can be accessed here:
Rural & Regional Affairs & Transport - 20/11/2020 08:49:59 - Parliament of Australia (aph.gov.au)
Whilst wanting to keep this correspondence as professional as practical, it truly is like a scene from Yes Minister. The Head of a Government Department states that he would not mislead the Committee, and then proceeds to go ahead and do exactly that i.e. mislead the Committee.
I cannot possibly present this in any other way, other than to call it a blatant lie presented to the Senate for the purposes of damaging my reputation under the protection of Parliamentary Privilege.
I need to be very clear on this.
The first time that I ever became aware of this allegation that I had stalked and assaulted CASA staff was on that day before Senate when Mr. Carmody raised those allegations.
As you will appreciate both stalking and assault are some of the more serious criminal offences that can be committed, with potential prison sentences.
For complete clarity, I never stalked or assaulted any individual in my entire life whether they be a CASA employee or not. Never.
I totally reject those allegations of assaulting and stalking CASA staff.
The purpose of this correspondence.
I acknowledge that there has been a change of CASA CEO, and that these false and misleading statements were made by the previous CEO, before Senate and are in no way attributed to you.
Had I assaulted or stalked CASA employees, as you would be fully aware, there would be some sort of supporting evidence by way of:
· CASA would have filed a police report.
· CASA would have supporting internal communications on the matter.
· The police would have most likely contacted me for a statement with a view to laying charges.
· CASA would have OHS documentation supporting those allegations.
· Witness statements, security surveillance.
· Some medical record of the person assaulted (assuming it was physical)
· Some correspondence on this matter from CASA advising me that I had assaulted and stalked CASA employees.
CASA has none of this supporting evidence, and I know that to be the case because I made a Freedom of Information request for any supporting information that CASA held. CASA was unable to provide anything at all in support of either the allegation of stalking or assault. I was not surprised by that outcome, because I knew it to be a false and misleading statement made to the Senate immediately Mr. Carmody made that statement.
That is not to say that I am not animated and passionate at times, and I do recall one occasion many years ago when I hit my fist on a desk harder than intended to the surprise of attendees, one of them a CASA employee.
This is something entirely different. This is an allegation that I stalked and assaulted CASA employees. These are serious criminal matters with potential terms of imprisonment.
Ms Spence, please understand that I am not seeking any compensation or claim about that false and misleading statement, and you have my word on that, and in writing.
I am simply asking that if you, in your role as the CASA CEO are aware that CASA has provided false and misleading information, it is incumbent upon you to publicly correct those false and misleading statements.
My expectation is that CASA will release a short statement to acknowledge the false and misleading nature of CASAs previous false assertion to the Senate, and very clearly identify that no CASA employee has ever been assaulted or stalked by Glen Buckley. Ever.
If CASA are not prepared to act truthfully on this matter, and CASA maintain that I stalked and assaulted CASA employees, I ask only that CASA advise me of the date. At this stage I have no requirement for any other information other than the dates of either the stalking or assault. Obviously, such serious offences would have occurred on a particular date or a number of different dates.
I have no intention to get into a discussion at this stage as to which offence occurred on what day, and to the nature or the severity of the offence. I can appreciate that CASA may be reluctant to go into that level of detail at this stage. I reiterate, I am only asking that CASA nominate the date/s of the alleged offences.
It does seem entirely reasonable that the person that the allegations were made against is at least made aware of the date that the alleged stalking and/or assaults of CASA employees occurred.
Thankyou for considering my request, and I look forward to your response against this matter only, and whether CASA is prepared to correct this wrong, or if it is a matter I need to seek assistance from my new Labor MP for Chisholm, Ms Carina Garland.
Yours respectfully
Glen Buckley
What you went through was terrible, Glen, and I earnestly hope you get adequate compensation.
In relation to your post #2312, I interpret your answer to my questions at post #2313 as in effect being that in June 2019 an entity called Vortex took over control of company ACN 119 046 285, the latter by that time having the name Australian Pilot Training Alliance Pty Ltd. If that’s correct, it makes no difference to the circumstances that prevailed before, and led to, CASA’s October 2018 letter and March 2019 email.
How do things without brains ‘know’ stuff?
I hope you find this helpful, Glen, in trying to articulate why CASA ‘knew’ about the details of the APTA ‘alliance’ structure as soon as CASA considered the first application from entity ACN 119 046 285 (with the original name “Melbourne Flight Training Pty Ltd” which changed to “Australian Pilot Training Alliance Pty Ltd”) for a variation to its AOC to authorise operations at an additional ‘alliance’ ‘base’.
CASA is simply an artificial person created by a sentence in a piece of legislation. It has no brain or arms or legs. In those respects CASA is exactly the same as a corporations law company like ACN 119 046 285. How, then, can it be possible for CASA to ‘know’ stuff, like the details of the APTA ‘alliance’ structure?
The law deals with that, too. CASA gets to ‘know’ stuff as a consequence of, for example, what its human officers find out in their capacity as officers of CASA. And it is not necessary for every officer of CASA to know something before CASA, in law, knows that thing. That would be absurd. In law, the artificial person CASA can ‘know’ something after merely one officer of CASA becomes aware of that thing in their capacity as a CASA officer.
So when e.g. a CASA FOI receives an application from e.g. an AOC holder for e.g. a variation to an AOC, in law CASA ‘knows’ the application has been made and CASA has ‘received’ the application. The officers in ‘Head Office’ can claim, reasonably and truly, that they did not know that the application had been submitted, but that makes no difference to CASA’s obligations and the applicant’s rights in the circumstances.
Further, and I suspect more importantly in the APTA ‘alliance’ structure case, CASA can in law ‘know’ something even if not a single one of its officers is aware of that thing. One of those ways of ‘knowing’ is called “constructive knowledge”, which is stuff CASA ought to know in the circumstances.
Let’s now consider a company – let’s call it Generic Pty Ltd – which holds a flying training AOC issued by CASA and conducts flying training under the authority of that AOC at Kickatinalong aerodrome. Generic then applies to CASA for a variation of its AOC so as to authorise Generic to also conduct flying training at Kumbukta aerodrome.
Let’s also now pause to ask: What is the very purpose of the regulatory requirement for this application and variation process? The very purpose?
Its purpose is for CASA to find out whether Generic satisfies the criteria in section 28 of the Civil Aviation Act and other regulatory provisions in relation to the conduct of flying training at both Kickatinalong and Kumbukta. And that task, of its very essence, requires CASA to, among other things, find out whether Generic has effective control over the people and the premises and the aircraft whom and which will be used to deliver flying training at the proposed Kumbukta location.
The only way in which CASA can find out whether Generic has effective control over the people and the premises and the aircraft is to find out who employs the people, who controls the premises and who is the registered operator of the aircraft. Even if no CASA officer finds those things out – for whatever reason, including that every CASA officer has no clue as to the implications of those things – CASA ought to know them because they are at the essence of CASA’s regulatory task in the circumstances.
In short, on every occasion that APTA applied for a variation to its AOC so as to cover an additional ‘alliance’ ‘base’, CASA ought to have found out who employed the people, who controlled the premises and who was the registered operator of the aircraft whom and which would be engaged in flying training activities at the base. On every occasion. And CASA ought to have understood the implications of those people not being APTA employees, of APTA not being in control of the premises and of APTA not being the registered operator of the aircraft.
(And, as I’ve said before, the tragedy is that if CASA had done its job properly for the first additional ‘alliance’ ‘base’, the implications could have been dealt with then and APTA would have known what was necessary when proposing the addition of further ‘alliance’ ‘bases’. There is nothing in the aviation law that says, for example, that all instructors have to be the employees of the holder of the AOC under which the flying training is being conducted. The aviation law actually expressly accommodates arrangements in which instructors are not the employees of the certificate holder. However, the aviation law does require the AOC holder to have effective legal control over those instructors.)
What I suspect happened is that APTA was initially dealing with CASA officers who didn’t understand the implications of the ‘alliance’ structure. Maybe they just assumed that everyone was going to be employees of APTA, the premises would be under the control of APTA and APTA would be the owner or registered operator of the aircraft at all ‘bases’. Wrong assumption. Or maybe – and this is the one I’d bet folding money on - they assumed that the production of a bunch of shelfware in the form of things like a base-specific operations manual would magically confer on APTA legal power to (a) control people who weren’t APTA’s employees, (b) control premises of which APTA was not owner or lessee and (c) control aircraft of which APTA was not owner or registered operator. Another wrong assumption.
Irrespective of what individual CASA officers understood or assumed and when, CASA was at least on constructive notice of the APTA structure and its implications from a regulatory perspective from additional ‘alliance’ ‘base’ one. It was CASA’s job to find those things out. It was the very purpose of the variation application process. Any pretence by CASA (read individuals in damage control) otherwise would be disturbing, but disturbingly typical.
In relation to your post #2312, I interpret your answer to my questions at post #2313 as in effect being that in June 2019 an entity called Vortex took over control of company ACN 119 046 285, the latter by that time having the name Australian Pilot Training Alliance Pty Ltd. If that’s correct, it makes no difference to the circumstances that prevailed before, and led to, CASA’s October 2018 letter and March 2019 email.
How do things without brains ‘know’ stuff?
I hope you find this helpful, Glen, in trying to articulate why CASA ‘knew’ about the details of the APTA ‘alliance’ structure as soon as CASA considered the first application from entity ACN 119 046 285 (with the original name “Melbourne Flight Training Pty Ltd” which changed to “Australian Pilot Training Alliance Pty Ltd”) for a variation to its AOC to authorise operations at an additional ‘alliance’ ‘base’.
CASA is simply an artificial person created by a sentence in a piece of legislation. It has no brain or arms or legs. In those respects CASA is exactly the same as a corporations law company like ACN 119 046 285. How, then, can it be possible for CASA to ‘know’ stuff, like the details of the APTA ‘alliance’ structure?
The law deals with that, too. CASA gets to ‘know’ stuff as a consequence of, for example, what its human officers find out in their capacity as officers of CASA. And it is not necessary for every officer of CASA to know something before CASA, in law, knows that thing. That would be absurd. In law, the artificial person CASA can ‘know’ something after merely one officer of CASA becomes aware of that thing in their capacity as a CASA officer.
So when e.g. a CASA FOI receives an application from e.g. an AOC holder for e.g. a variation to an AOC, in law CASA ‘knows’ the application has been made and CASA has ‘received’ the application. The officers in ‘Head Office’ can claim, reasonably and truly, that they did not know that the application had been submitted, but that makes no difference to CASA’s obligations and the applicant’s rights in the circumstances.
Further, and I suspect more importantly in the APTA ‘alliance’ structure case, CASA can in law ‘know’ something even if not a single one of its officers is aware of that thing. One of those ways of ‘knowing’ is called “constructive knowledge”, which is stuff CASA ought to know in the circumstances.
Let’s now consider a company – let’s call it Generic Pty Ltd – which holds a flying training AOC issued by CASA and conducts flying training under the authority of that AOC at Kickatinalong aerodrome. Generic then applies to CASA for a variation of its AOC so as to authorise Generic to also conduct flying training at Kumbukta aerodrome.
Let’s also now pause to ask: What is the very purpose of the regulatory requirement for this application and variation process? The very purpose?
Its purpose is for CASA to find out whether Generic satisfies the criteria in section 28 of the Civil Aviation Act and other regulatory provisions in relation to the conduct of flying training at both Kickatinalong and Kumbukta. And that task, of its very essence, requires CASA to, among other things, find out whether Generic has effective control over the people and the premises and the aircraft whom and which will be used to deliver flying training at the proposed Kumbukta location.
The only way in which CASA can find out whether Generic has effective control over the people and the premises and the aircraft is to find out who employs the people, who controls the premises and who is the registered operator of the aircraft. Even if no CASA officer finds those things out – for whatever reason, including that every CASA officer has no clue as to the implications of those things – CASA ought to know them because they are at the essence of CASA’s regulatory task in the circumstances.
In short, on every occasion that APTA applied for a variation to its AOC so as to cover an additional ‘alliance’ ‘base’, CASA ought to have found out who employed the people, who controlled the premises and who was the registered operator of the aircraft whom and which would be engaged in flying training activities at the base. On every occasion. And CASA ought to have understood the implications of those people not being APTA employees, of APTA not being in control of the premises and of APTA not being the registered operator of the aircraft.
(And, as I’ve said before, the tragedy is that if CASA had done its job properly for the first additional ‘alliance’ ‘base’, the implications could have been dealt with then and APTA would have known what was necessary when proposing the addition of further ‘alliance’ ‘bases’. There is nothing in the aviation law that says, for example, that all instructors have to be the employees of the holder of the AOC under which the flying training is being conducted. The aviation law actually expressly accommodates arrangements in which instructors are not the employees of the certificate holder. However, the aviation law does require the AOC holder to have effective legal control over those instructors.)
What I suspect happened is that APTA was initially dealing with CASA officers who didn’t understand the implications of the ‘alliance’ structure. Maybe they just assumed that everyone was going to be employees of APTA, the premises would be under the control of APTA and APTA would be the owner or registered operator of the aircraft at all ‘bases’. Wrong assumption. Or maybe – and this is the one I’d bet folding money on - they assumed that the production of a bunch of shelfware in the form of things like a base-specific operations manual would magically confer on APTA legal power to (a) control people who weren’t APTA’s employees, (b) control premises of which APTA was not owner or lessee and (c) control aircraft of which APTA was not owner or registered operator. Another wrong assumption.
Irrespective of what individual CASA officers understood or assumed and when, CASA was at least on constructive notice of the APTA structure and its implications from a regulatory perspective from additional ‘alliance’ ‘base’ one. It was CASA’s job to find those things out. It was the very purpose of the variation application process. Any pretence by CASA (read individuals in damage control) otherwise would be disturbing, but disturbingly typical.
It is so sad what has happened to APTA and of course, personally to Glen. I was employed at APTA in 2017 as the Deputy HOO and I saw a committed bunch of people trying to make a great things happen despite the CASA part 61/141/142 debacle. I hope that Glen can eventually get some compensation from someone to make it right. Best of luck to you Glen. 👍
Thread Starter
Malcom Reynolds
Cheers, I appreciate the sentiment. Over the last four years there have been many lovely gestures by way of goodwill messages, bottles of "CASA" wine, Vouchers, donations to Go Fund Me etc.
These gestures always seem to land at just the right time for me, as yours has.
Thankyou sincerely, cheers. Glen
These gestures always seem to land at just the right time for me, as yours has.
Thankyou sincerely, cheers. Glen
Thread Starter
Response to Posts 2256 and 2316
In posts 2256 and 2316, I had asked Ms. Spence to retract what i claim to be false allegations of stalking and assault made by the previous CASA CEO, Mr Carmody.
I sent that on 01/08, and had not received an aknowledgement of receipt, so followed up on 04/08 (refer those posts).
At 3PM on 04/08 i sent this"Dear Ms Spence,
My preference is to wait for a well-considered response, so please feel under no pressure to reply at this stage other than to confirm that you have received my email of Monday 01/08/22.
Respectfully Glen Buckley."
At 8.45 AM on 16/08 I sent this follow up
16/08/22
Dear Ms Pip Spence, CEO of CASA,
Please note that I have included the Board, and the Office of the Hon Catherine King MP as the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, and Local Government, in this correspondence.
I sent you correspondence on August 1st , requesting that you publicly correct what is clearly false and misleading information provided by Mr Carmody, your predecessor, to the Senate. For your reference, I have also included a copy of that correspondence below.
“Dear Ms Spence,
My preference is to wait for a well-considered response, so please feel under no pressure to reply at this stage other than to confirm that you have received my email of Monday 01/08/22.
Respectfully Glen Buckley”.
Fourteen days have now passed. I am not seeking any answer to my request, I am simply seeking a confirmation that you have received my fair and reasonable request.
Respectfully, Glen Buckley.
Approximately 1 hour later i received this from Ms Spences Office
Dear Buckley
Thank you for your emails to CASA CEO Pip Spence.
We are looking into the matters you have raised and will come back to you as soon as possible.
Kind regards
Rosie
Then shortly afterwards i received this again
Dear Mr Buckley
My sincerest apologies for not addressing you correctly in my acknowledgement that we have received your emails to Ms Spence.
Kind regards
Rosie
My response
Hi Rosie,
You shouldn’t have said anything, I didn’t notice, but appreciate the gesture, cheers. Glen
My follow up sent to Ms Spence earlier today
17/08/22
Dear Ms Pip Spence, CEO of CASA,
I understand that you are in the process of considering my request for CASA to publicly retract the allegations of Stalking and Assault that I am alleged to have committed against CASA employees.
As you will appreciate this matter in its entirety, is about “intent,” and the nature of that intent i.e. well intentioned or not well intentioned.
It’s not really about any safety concerns, regultory breaches, degraded quality outcomes, nor any examples offered by CASA that are indicative of any lack of operational control.
If I am to be believed, it’s a matter of a single CASA employee engineering a process to bring harm to me personally, and as you are aware I am fully satisfied that process was engineered by Mr Aleck. Mr Alecks conduct was facilitated by Mr Shane Carmody, the CASA CEO at the time.
It is fact, Mr Carmody’s statements made to the Senators, that I am asking you to retract or substantiate.
Mr Carmody’s presentation was “littered” with information that was clearly false and misleading. It was what can only be described as a character assassination on me, made with Parliamentary Privilege.
As you know, my opinion is that, if you determine that I had in fact stalked and assaulted CASA employees, it was incumbent on CASA to take measures to protect those employees, and that would involve a complaint to the police. That would allow me procedural fairness, and for the allegations to be fully investigated, and resolved. As the nature of the allegations is so substantial, I insist on that process being initiated, if it has not been commenced previously, and CASA chooses not to retract that false and misleading statement.
These are all matters that you are aware of.
In Mr Carmody’s presentation I have noted that he has provided false and misleading information on nine other occasions apart from the false and misleading statement that I had “stalked and assaulted CASA employees”.
Rural & Regional Affairs & Transport - 20/11/2020 08:49:59 - Parliament of Australia (aph.gov.au)
I would like to draw your attention to one other false and/or misleading statement. At the 13:27:50 mark of the presentation Mr Carmody refers to me as me “describing the experience as a very pleasant journey over a number of years designing his future.”
Mr Carmody was obviously inferring a smooth journey, most likely initiated by me to secure my financial security.
The intent of his comments is obvious.
Mr Carmody chose to mislead the senators.
Mr Carmody failed to mention that the new regulations that applied to all of Australia’s 350 flight training organisations was the largest project ever undertaken by the flight training industry in Australia.
The new legislation presented me with three options.
After assurances from CASA that the legislation was proceeding, as planned on September 1st 2017, I activated my new Part 141/142 compliant multi base structure that I had been using for many years, in April 2017, approximately 6 months before the deadline.
Weeks after I activated that structure fully compliant to the new regulations, CASA reversed their decision, and postponed the introduction of the legislation. This reversal by CASA cost me several hundred thousand dollars.
The truth is that it was path I was forced down by CASAs legislative changes, that required an enormous investment.
Mr Carmody’s comments about me describing the experience as “pleasant” are not only insulting to me personally, but I am sure they would be insulting to the highly professional CASA employees that had put so much of their time into the very substantial project.
Ms. Spence, please appreciate that this is not about the semantics. It is about a very carefully engineered process by a small number of current and past CASA employees.
It is about the “intent”. The intent of Mr Carmody’s presentation was not well intentioned. It was false and it was presented to mislead the Senators.
As I have advised, I am not seeking a prompt response from you. I am seeking a well-intentioned, and well considered response.
If you feel there would be some benefit in me addressing all 10 false and/or misleading statements prior to CASAs formal response, please advise and I will respond within 48 hours with that completed document.
I thank you in anticipation of your well-intentioned response,
Glen Buckley.
P.S. Whilst I am not apologising, I do acknowledge that you are relatively new to the position, and were not involved in the “problem”, although the burden of the “solution” has become yours.
I sent that on 01/08, and had not received an aknowledgement of receipt, so followed up on 04/08 (refer those posts).
At 3PM on 04/08 i sent this"Dear Ms Spence,
My preference is to wait for a well-considered response, so please feel under no pressure to reply at this stage other than to confirm that you have received my email of Monday 01/08/22.
Respectfully Glen Buckley."
At 8.45 AM on 16/08 I sent this follow up
16/08/22
Dear Ms Pip Spence, CEO of CASA,
Please note that I have included the Board, and the Office of the Hon Catherine King MP as the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, and Local Government, in this correspondence.
I sent you correspondence on August 1st , requesting that you publicly correct what is clearly false and misleading information provided by Mr Carmody, your predecessor, to the Senate. For your reference, I have also included a copy of that correspondence below.
“Dear Ms Spence,
My preference is to wait for a well-considered response, so please feel under no pressure to reply at this stage other than to confirm that you have received my email of Monday 01/08/22.
Respectfully Glen Buckley”.
Fourteen days have now passed. I am not seeking any answer to my request, I am simply seeking a confirmation that you have received my fair and reasonable request.
Respectfully, Glen Buckley.
Approximately 1 hour later i received this from Ms Spences Office
Dear Buckley
Thank you for your emails to CASA CEO Pip Spence.
We are looking into the matters you have raised and will come back to you as soon as possible.
Kind regards
Rosie
Then shortly afterwards i received this again
Dear Mr Buckley
My sincerest apologies for not addressing you correctly in my acknowledgement that we have received your emails to Ms Spence.
Kind regards
Rosie
My response
Hi Rosie,
You shouldn’t have said anything, I didn’t notice, but appreciate the gesture, cheers. Glen
My follow up sent to Ms Spence earlier today
17/08/22
Dear Ms Pip Spence, CEO of CASA,
I understand that you are in the process of considering my request for CASA to publicly retract the allegations of Stalking and Assault that I am alleged to have committed against CASA employees.
As you will appreciate this matter in its entirety, is about “intent,” and the nature of that intent i.e. well intentioned or not well intentioned.
It’s not really about any safety concerns, regultory breaches, degraded quality outcomes, nor any examples offered by CASA that are indicative of any lack of operational control.
If I am to be believed, it’s a matter of a single CASA employee engineering a process to bring harm to me personally, and as you are aware I am fully satisfied that process was engineered by Mr Aleck. Mr Alecks conduct was facilitated by Mr Shane Carmody, the CASA CEO at the time.
It is fact, Mr Carmody’s statements made to the Senators, that I am asking you to retract or substantiate.
Mr Carmody’s presentation was “littered” with information that was clearly false and misleading. It was what can only be described as a character assassination on me, made with Parliamentary Privilege.
As you know, my opinion is that, if you determine that I had in fact stalked and assaulted CASA employees, it was incumbent on CASA to take measures to protect those employees, and that would involve a complaint to the police. That would allow me procedural fairness, and for the allegations to be fully investigated, and resolved. As the nature of the allegations is so substantial, I insist on that process being initiated, if it has not been commenced previously, and CASA chooses not to retract that false and misleading statement.
These are all matters that you are aware of.
In Mr Carmody’s presentation I have noted that he has provided false and misleading information on nine other occasions apart from the false and misleading statement that I had “stalked and assaulted CASA employees”.
Rural & Regional Affairs & Transport - 20/11/2020 08:49:59 - Parliament of Australia (aph.gov.au)
I would like to draw your attention to one other false and/or misleading statement. At the 13:27:50 mark of the presentation Mr Carmody refers to me as me “describing the experience as a very pleasant journey over a number of years designing his future.”
Mr Carmody was obviously inferring a smooth journey, most likely initiated by me to secure my financial security.
The intent of his comments is obvious.
Mr Carmody chose to mislead the senators.
Mr Carmody failed to mention that the new regulations that applied to all of Australia’s 350 flight training organisations was the largest project ever undertaken by the flight training industry in Australia.
The new legislation presented me with three options.
-
- Cease trading on September 1st 2017
- Continue trading but my business would be unable to continue delivering its current courses. This would result in a reduction of revenue of over 90%, effectively making the business unviable.
- Invest many hundreds of thousands of dollars upgrading all systems and procedures via a rigid CASA procedure to the far more burdensome legislative requirements in order to continue operating as the new category Part 142 School.
After assurances from CASA that the legislation was proceeding, as planned on September 1st 2017, I activated my new Part 141/142 compliant multi base structure that I had been using for many years, in April 2017, approximately 6 months before the deadline.
Weeks after I activated that structure fully compliant to the new regulations, CASA reversed their decision, and postponed the introduction of the legislation. This reversal by CASA cost me several hundred thousand dollars.
The truth is that it was path I was forced down by CASAs legislative changes, that required an enormous investment.
Mr Carmody’s comments about me describing the experience as “pleasant” are not only insulting to me personally, but I am sure they would be insulting to the highly professional CASA employees that had put so much of their time into the very substantial project.
Ms. Spence, please appreciate that this is not about the semantics. It is about a very carefully engineered process by a small number of current and past CASA employees.
It is about the “intent”. The intent of Mr Carmody’s presentation was not well intentioned. It was false and it was presented to mislead the Senators.
As I have advised, I am not seeking a prompt response from you. I am seeking a well-intentioned, and well considered response.
If you feel there would be some benefit in me addressing all 10 false and/or misleading statements prior to CASAs formal response, please advise and I will respond within 48 hours with that completed document.
I thank you in anticipation of your well-intentioned response,
Glen Buckley.
P.S. Whilst I am not apologising, I do acknowledge that you are relatively new to the position, and were not involved in the “problem”, although the burden of the “solution” has become yours.