Glen Buckley and Australian small business -V- CASA

[Squawk7700]

It was only a matter of time for them based on my personal opinion.

A friend of mine was at Colac one day and saw a guy strangely taking photos of aircraft from a nearby oval. He went over and asked him what he was doing as he was drawing attention to himself. He was from CASA and he said he was surveilling a certain colour of aircraft. Again, it was only a matter of time.

[Lead Balloon]

If that’s true - and I’m not suggesting you’re making it up - that would suggest to me that the person “from CASA” was either bull****ting or incompetent. It’s so hard to make confident predictions on these matters these days.

[Squawk7700]

It was approximately around the time of the crash at Stawell.

I digress, but maintain it was a ticking timebomb and there would be better case studies out there.

[glenb]

The Soar analogy

I hear what you say about the SOAR analogy.

However, i feel that it has some value for the following reason.

I have an expert knowledge of that Company, having had a lot to do with its CEO and personnel. The Companies manuals were surprisingly similar with the exception of name changes to the manuals that I was using at the time, and to be honest, it is more likely to be an "Achilles heel" for CASA, because it does provide a good comparative analysis. The very same CASA personnel out of the same office treating two organisations so differently. Both matters before the Ombudsmans Office

You are correct that it was already a ticking time bomb, but it did go on for two years with no CASA action. Mine happened overnight with no warning, and no allegations of any safety concerns at all. As pointed out the LNP Deputy PM popped down to visit them and do a photo op.

At some stage, I am convinced that this entire matter will get some media coverage, and that is what I am working towards. I think the SOAR analogy could be "topical".

I appreciate you letting me know your concerns, I really do, but at this stage i think it warrants a couple of paragraphs in my rather substantial allegation of misfeasance. Hope to get a couple more posts up today, one being a very direct letter to Ms Spence, which i look forward to any feedback.
Cheers. Glen. Heading off to "Fat Daddys breakfast club", back later, cheers. Glen

[PiperCameron]

Originally Posted by Beryllium Erbium

Did anyone view any of the aircraft for sale at Bankstown when the Soar liquidation took place? I'd expect it would have been the same at Moorabbin? The damage history was, uh-hum, interesting. I'd also heard that multiple damaged aircraft were hidden around the bases having not been reported to CASA or RAAus.

Well.. I do know that a few of the Soar Vixxens at Moorabbin are now operating out of Lilydale FS and are a popular option to their Jabiru fleet. Of the ones that didn't leave immediately, most of the remainder of the Soar fleet were parked behind the hangar in First Street for a while and slowly drifted off to new owners over time.. farmers, other flying schools, etc. Even their Bristells which I wouldn't take even if someone gave me one! None were damaged AFAIK and there are none left now. There hasn't been a yellow aircraft in the circuit at Moorabbin for a long time (thank goodness).

[glenb]

Proposed letter to send 14/09/22

A proposed letter to Ms Spence,

slightly rushed. on side of road again with dying laptop battery, so publishing for feedback, cheers. Glen. [email protected]

13/09/22 Ombudsman Investigation ref 2019-713834-R



Dear Ms Pip Spence, CEO of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA), and other included recipients.



As you are aware in you role as the CASA CEO, I have alleged that CASA has deliberately provided false and misleading information to the current Commonwealth Ombudsman’s Office investigation into the closure of my business by CASA.

The false and misleading information has been provided by CASA on multiple occasions, over a protracted period, and on several different but each very significant issues.

The person providing that information would be fully aware, that the information that was being provided to the Commonwealth Ombudsman was both false, and misleading. For complete clarity, there were multiple considered and deliberate decision to provide substantively false and misleading information.

The substantively false and misleading information was provided by CASA to pervert the outcome of the inquiry.

The person responsible for providing that false and misleading information to the Commonwealth Ombudsman investigation was, the CASA Executive Manager of Legal, International and Regulatory Affairs, Mr Jonathan Aleck.

It is essential that I ascertain if Mr Aleck is acting alone in his decision making to mislead the Ombudsman’s investigation or is this in fact a broader, “CASA” decision.

Therefore, I am seeking clarity on the position of “CASA” on this single matter,of many, whereby CASA has clearly provided substantially false and misleading information.

Mr Aleck has deceptively led the Ombudsman to be of the view that, “CASA was not fully aware of the specific nature of APTA’s operations until just prior to issuing the notice in October 2018,”

For Mr Aleck to lead the Ombudsman’s to believe that CASA was not fully aware of the specific nature of APTAs operations until just prior to October 2018, is clearly false and misleading, and grossly so.

Importantly, it is easily proven to be false, and misleading.

The irrefutable truth is that CASA was fully aware of the specific nature of APTAs operations for over 10 years, with no changes to the “nature” of the operations over those 10 years.

Recall the CASA position that they have represented to the Ombudsman investigation.

“CASA was not fully aware of the specific nature of APTAs operations until just prior to October 2018,”

There is so much irrefutable evidence to demonstrate the level of deception being perpetrated by CASA on multiple topics, but for pure simplicity, let me just attend to this one single topic of when CASA first became aware of the specific nature of APTAs operations.







Consideration One

This magazine article was released at the end of 2017, being the January/ February edition of the Australian Flying Magazine article. This article is an essential read as it leaves the reader in no doubt as to the exact structure. I was approached by the magazine in mid-2017 requesting to do an article.

It would be fair to say that if the aviation media was aware and approached me in mid-2017, it would be highly likely that CASA were aware. If not at the time the media were approaching me, most certainly CASA would have been aware by early 2018, on release of the article to the general public, being 10 months prior.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/1akmm9gxra...CTION.pdf?dl=0



Consideration Two



Recall that Mr Aleck asserts that CASA first became aware of the nature of the operations just prior to October 2018.

Under FOI I obtained our application for what was our last base to be formally approved by CASA, before CASA reversed their position and declared my business unlawful and unauthorised.

These applications were submitted over twelve months prior to the date that Mr Aleck/CASA claims that CASA first became aware of the specific nature of my operation. If you review those documents, and particularly the attached risk assessment, it is obvious as to the exact nature of the operation, in fact the risk assessment deals exactly with the considerations of incorporating another entity to operate under our AOC.

This Freedom of Information request cost over $300, so I have made a request for the most recent base only. I will invest further money in other applications if this single application alone is not enough to bring honesty and integrity to the process, and I will go as far back as the AV8 base over 6 years prior if that becomes necessary.

There can be no doubt that CASA was fully aware of the specific nature of our operation, at least twelve months earlier than CASA would lead the Ombudsman’s office to believe. I claim that CASA was fully aware for many years.

Accesses via this link is the application for these bases, and risk assessment.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/4frisc0ufd...ACTED.PDF?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/s/nqgytj8xjr...ACTED.PDF?dl=0



Consider that multiple applications of bases were made to CASA over many years, and approved by CASA over many years. This was the last base approved by CASA and then reversed by CASA in October 2018.



Consideration Three

CASAs own Industry Complaints Commissioner (ICC) on 12/04/19 found that

“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.

So CASAs own Industry Complaints Commissioner finds that CASA knew for a “significant time prior” to 23rd October 2018, yet later Mr Aleck leads the Ombudsman to be of the view that CASA became aware “just prior”.

Whilst the ICC did not specify what a “significant period of time” is, one would assume it is at least six years.

Consideration Four

CASA formally approved our first remote base at Darwin via the AV8 business in Darwin 6 years before CASA claims that they first became aware “just prior to October 2018”. There were no changes to the “structure” from that first base six years prior, to the last base CASA approved in mid-2018, until they declared that it was now unlawful, once they first became aware in October 2018.

Consideration Five

Emails with CASA in mid 2016, clearly discussing the expansion. This is over two years before CASA “first became aware of the specific nature”.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/e2kcuci2ik...0awre.pdf?dl=0

Consideration Six

After the discussion and encouragement from CASA as a result of those discussions in mid 2016, two and a half years before CASA claim they first became aware, I invested many hundreds of thousands of dollars in systems and procedures, IT, and personnel and I worked side by side with 10 CASA personnel redesigning every single aspect of everything we did to be ready for the new regulatory environment, with a vastly improved product with industry leading levels of operational control. CASA formally revalidated this exact structure designed from the ground up to do exactly what it did.

The checklist that CASA used to revalidate the entire business was obtained under FOI and is attached.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/xy5etr9253...SHEET.pdf?dl=0

CASA revalidated this exact structure in April 2017, being 18 months before CASA claim that they first became aware. It is ludicrous to suggest that CASA were not fully aware, they just revalidated us in that multi base structure, as one of Australias first Part 141/142 organisations.

Ms, Spence, I could go on and on and on, but there is enough information here, and you have enough historical knowledge to know that CASAs position is untenable.

If there is any doubt in your mind, I have previously provided you with the name of a current employee of CASA. I have spoken to him, and I am fully satisfied that he will be truthful on this matter. He was my CASA allocated primary contact and was heavily involved in every aspect of my business throughout the entire decade that I operated until CASA closed me down.

You have easy access to the truth if the above considerations leave you in any doubt.

Phase One of the Commonwealth Ombudsman investigation found that CASA had erred, and in fact I had not broken any regultory requirements, and as a result of that failure by CASA detriment may have been caused.

Understandably CASA was then placed in a difficult situation. There is no doubt after the release of the Ombudsman’s report that Mr Alecks decision now had no basis in either safety or law, and it may have caused detriment.

Once Mr Aleck realised that he had erred, and had no valid basis to take the action that he had, It would be expected that CASA may try to position themselves as “not being fully aware of the specific nature of my operation until just prior to October 2018.”

Consider how much more likely that is to happen if the single CASA employee responsible for providing information to the Ombudsman is the very same person that made the decision that the business was unlawful. There would be an increased tendency to provide disinformation, and that is why your role in this is so important.

There is an overwhelming body of irrefutable evidence to support how preposterous Mr Alecks and/or your position on this matter as to when CASA first became aware of the nature of my operations.

The purpose of this correspondence is to seek a formal response from your office clearly indicating if CASA maintain that they only first became aware of the specific nature of my operations just prior to October 2018, when they issued the notification and put trading restrictions in place.

The truth of this matter is that CASA was fully aware of the exact and specific nature of my operations throughout more than a decade that I operated, and CASA formally approved multiple bases to operate under my Authorization for many years.

What has really happened here is that Mr Aleck in his role was not aware, and the deficiency is entirely within CASA. It is not fair and reasonable that I can operate a business for a decade, and eventually when Mr Aleck does become aware, he reverses that approval of a decade, closes the business down.

The point being that “CASA” knew for many many years. Mr Aleck only found out just prior to October 2018.

In my position that I operate within it was not required or expected that I would have any dealings at all with Mr Aleck. It was not my job to let Mr Aleck know everything about my flying school. It was my job to ensure that CASA is provided with all of the information, as stipulated by CASA, in order for Mr Aleck to be able to find out the specific nature of my operation. I have a reasonable expectation that if I do something on multiple occasions over many years with formal CASA approval that CASA “knows” about it, as they obviously did.


On each and every one of those applications to add an entity under our Air Operator Certificate, over the decade that I operated, a fee was paid to CASA. It was a fee for service, requiring CASA personnel attendance on site at each of those proposed bases. CASA also conducted a desk top assessment. In addition, consider that in the entire lead up to this process would have been discussed with the CASA team attached to my Organisation referred to at the time as a CMT or Certificate Management Team.

The CASA personnel that I was dealing with, were each highly experienced in the flight training background, and had many years’ experience within CASA. They had been professional, well intentioned, and we had a relationship of trust and confidence. I had the same CASA team allocated to my business for over 10 years. I spoke to them at met with them at least weekly throughout that 10 years.



CASA knew about my structure as soon as CASA considered my first application for a variation to my Air Operator Certificate over 6 years prior. That was the application for a variation to my AOC to authorise operations at our first alliance base, being AV8 in Darwin.







CASA gets to know stuff as a consequence of experience, and that is through that frequent and formal communication with the team of CASA personnel allocated to my organisation, as well as extensive application, review, auditing and approval processes.




CASA gets to ‘know’ stuff as a consequence of 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 my rights in the circumstances.

Furthermore, 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 my application to add our second base. My own base Melbourne Flight Training (MFT) had been operating for many years and which holds a flying training AOC issued by CASA and conducts flying training under the authority of that AOC at Moorabbin Airport. I then applies to CASA for a variation of my AOC so as to authorise MFT to also conduct flying training at Darwin aerodrome on behalf of AV8 a Freight operator in Darwin.

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 MFT 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 Moorabbin and Darwin. And that task, of its very essence, requires CASA to, among other things, find out whether MFT 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 Darwin location.

The only way in which CASA can find out whether MFT 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 I applied for a variation to my 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 any potential implications.

Irrespective of what individual CASA officers understood or assumed and when, CASA was at least on constructive notice of the 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.



I look forward to your response confirming whether or not that CASA first became aware of the specific nature of my structure just prior to October 2018, as CASA has led the Ombudsman to believe.



Respectfully



Glen Buckley

[Sandy Reith]

Letter proposed.

Suggest address the letter to your federal MP asking that she ask CASA CEO Ms. Spence to respond. At the very least your MP should pass it on and you could ask for acknowledgement.

it must be clear now that without MPs and Parliamentary intervention we are unlikely to obtain any timely action, if any at all, in any of the pressing issues let alone this particular glaring injustice.

[Lead Balloon]

Don’t forget you’re dealing with people who’ll seize on any words you use or mistakes you make to distract from the substantive issues.

I suggest you insert “fully” before “aware” and “specific” before “nature” in this sentence: “Recall that Mr Aleck asserts that CASA first became aware of the nature of the operations just prior to October 2018.” I suggest you review the entire draft to ensure consistency in those words.

And if you’re arguing that a named person said those words to the Ombudsman, you’d better have a basis for that argument, especially if you’re alleging that person did so out of malice towards you. There’s a difference, for example, between arguing someone said something to the Ombudsman and arguing someone made the decision to authorise the release of a document saying those words to the Ombudsman, which words were drafted by someone else. Same ultimate responsibility but, as I say, any chink in the armour will be exploited to distract and the distinction may be fundamental on the malice issue. You twigged to the point yourself, here: “These applications were submitted over twelve months prior to the date that Mr Aleck/CASA claims that CASA first became [fully] aware of the specific nature of my operation.”

Of course the words “fully” and “specific” are exquisitely imprecise in context and were used for that precise reason. Nonetheless, the complete answer in principle is that CASA was on at least constructive notice of all of the facts which were relevant to APTA’s applications. And based on the documents submitted by APTA to CASA in support of variation applications and what CASA was paid to do to consider and decide the applications, only a deaf, dumb and blind pinball player in the CASA process could claim ignorance rather than actual knowledge of the details of the structure. (The ICC in effect says that in the 12/04/19 finding you quoted!)

But I suggest you still need to be prepared to provide a crystal clear explanation in response to the ‘pub test’ applied to the statement on APTA’s website that ‘alliance’ ‘members’ would remain in ‘complete control of their business’. It’s obvious to me that ‘CASA’ will focus on the words ‘complete control’ and argue that ‘business’ covers the whole of the activities carried out at the relevant ‘base’, including flying training. ‘CASA’ will argue that this control issue was fundamental and struck CASA with the force of complete novelty, out of the blue just prior to October 2018. Try to formulate some clear, layman-understandable explanation as to the distinction between control over the moving parts that determined compliance with regulatory requirements on the one hand, and what you meant by ‘business’ on the APTA website on the other (assuming of course a distinction was intended and operated in fact).

There’s nothing wrong with that distinction as a matter regulatory principle, if the certificate holder has legal and effective control over the moving parts that determine compliance with regulatory requirements. Except for financial viability potentially putting compliance at risk, how money flowed around and between whom inside the structure was none of CASA’s business. Provided regulatory requirements continue to be complied with, smart or dumb business decisions, who’s making them and profiting or bleeding money from them are irrelevant to CASA’s decision-making. CASA has certified many, many operators who eventually went broke while holding an AOC, and many more continue to line up for certification.

Delete the ‘s from this: “For Mr Aleck to lead the Ombudsman’s …” or add “Office”.

There is a typo and some dangerous words in this: “I then applies to CASA for a variation of my AOC so as to authorise MFT to also conduct flying training at Darwin aerodrome on behalf of AV8 a Freight operator in Darwin.”

“applied” not “applies”

I don’t think APTA was conducting any flying training “on behalf of” anyone other than APTA, at least not under the ‘alliance’ ‘base’ structure. Remember: The fundamental structure was that only one entity was conducting flying training – APTA – not “on behalf of” anyone else – but utilising people who weren’t APTA employees, premises of which APTA was not the owner or lessee and aircraft of which APTA was not owner or registered operator.

And I know it hurts, but the AOC was never yours personally. The AOC was and remains APTA’s. So try to avoid “my AOC”.

I hope I’m wrong, but I expect you’ll be fobbed off by Ms Spence. At the moment, I reckon a number of people in CASA are staring into the middle distance hoping this will go all away when you’re finally driven to despair again.They know you were led down the garden path but, sadly, CASA does not have the corporate integrity and corporate competence to admit it.CASA has ‘form’ in toughing out arguments with powerless individuals and only conceding when there’s a chance of being found out by a court or tribunal.

[glenb]

Update to Post #2638. 1 of 2

This draft has been finalised and is posted at #2379 and #2380

[glenb]

2 of 2

This conatined a draft, moved to Post #2379 and 2380

[Lead Balloon]

I reckon this is a very powerful point, Glen:

I note that you have previously advised that you are reluctant to “interfere” in the Ombudsman investigation. By having a reasonable doubt as to the accuracy of information provided by CASA, and choosing not to act, you are in fact choosing to interfere in the outcome, by being complicit in the provision of false and misleading information.

I would have thought that the ICC's finding as to the timing of CASA's knowledge of the details of the APTA model would, in and of itself, demand further internal investigation by any organisation with even a modicum of corporate integrity. And, if CASA is and remains of the view that the ICC's finding on that issue was wrong, CASA should tell you and the ICC why.

[sagesau]

If CASA had a leg to stand on in then all of this discussion would have been shut down years ago.

[Flaming galah]

Originally Posted by Lead Balloon

I reckon this is a very powerful point, Glen:I would have thought that the ICC's finding as to the timing of CASA's knowledge of the details of the APTA model would, in and of itself, demand further internal investigation by any organisation with even a modicum of corporate integrity. And, if CASA is and remains of the view that the ICC's finding on that issue was wrong, CASA should tell you and the ICC why.

As Glen has noted, the ICC avoided the key issues, and failed to provide an honest, open and transparent assessment of the complaints. Whatever was said by the ICC is tainted by those shortcomings.

[Lead Balloon]

That’s some rather odd logic there, FG. It does not necessarily follow, from those shortcomings, that the ICC’s finding that CASA was on notice of the detail of the APTA structure “for a significant period of time prior to its compliance with regulation being called into question” is incorrect. If the ICC stuffed that up as well, might as well punt the whole ICC concept and save the money. (I’ve always considered the concept, of a fundamentally conflicted internal CASA employee - with no powers - being masqueraded as some grandiose ‘commissioner’, to be a nonsense, notwithstanding that the people involved are probably lovely and kind to their Mums.)

But nail your colours to the mast, FG.

Given all of the interactions between CASA personnel with APTA over the years during which APTA expanded to more ‘bases’ - all approved by CASA through AOC variations after applications with supporting documentation from APTA - do you honestly believe that: “CASA was not fully aware of the specific nature of APTA’s operations until just prior to issuing the notice in October 2018.”? Say it.

(Glen: See what I mean by some of your words being used to try to distract from the real issue?)

[Flaming galah]

Originally Posted by Lead Balloon

But nail your colours to the mast, FG.

CASA must have known.

[glenb]

Finalised and sent

I will remove previous drafts. This has been sent to the recipients indicated in the letter, with the exception of the ABC who i will contact tomorrow. Cheers All.

Only minor changes based on feedback here. i.e. repositioning the considerations to weight them accordingly.

Ombudsman Investigation ref 2019-713834-R



Dear Ms Pip Spence, CEO of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA), and other included recipients, including but not limited to:

The CASA Board, The Ombudsman’s Office, Ms Carina Garland MP for Chisholm, Senator Glenn Sterle, and the ABC.

As you are fully aware in your role as the CASA CEO, I have alleged that CASA has deliberately provided false and misleading information to the current Commonwealth Ombudsman’s Office investigation into the closure of my business by CASA.

I note that you have previously advised that you are reluctant to “interfere” in the Ombudsman investigation. By having a reasonable doubt as to the accuracy of information provided by CASA, and choosing not to act, you are in fact choosing to interfere in the outcome, by being complicit in the provision of false and misleading information.



The false and misleading information has been provided by CASA on multiple occasions, over a protracted period, and on several different, but each very significant issues.

The person providing that information would be fully aware, that the information that was being provided to the Commonwealth Ombudsman investigation was both false, and misleading. For complete clarity, there were multiple considered and deliberate decisions to provide substantively false and misleading information.

The substantively false and misleading information was provided by CASA to pervert the outcome of the inquiry. I am fully satisfied that the information is so false and misleading in nature yet so fundamental to the entire matter, that it can only have been provided to pervert the outcome of that inquiry.

The person responsible for providing that false and misleading information to the Commonwealth Ombudsman investigation was, the CASA Executive Manager of Legal, International and Regulatory Affairs, Mr Jonathan Aleck acting in his role as the sole representative of CASA in communications with the Ombudsman’s Office as the “Agency” representative of CASA.

I am advised by the Ombudsman’s Office that by convention they only engage with one representative of the “Agency” i.e., Mr Aleck in this particular case.

It is important, going forward that I ascertain if Mr Aleck is acting alone in his decision making to provide false and misleading information to the Ombudsman’s investigation or is this in fact a broader, “CASA” decision, coming from higher up within CASA, and specifically the Office of the CASA CEO. As Mr Aleck is CASAs longest serving and second most senior Executive, the only positions higher in the direct reporting line is your Office, being the Office of the CASA CEO, noting that the CASA Board is my next option.

Therefore, I am seeking clarity on the position of “CASA” on this single matter. There are a number of issues that CASA has provided false and misleading information on.

Specifically, in this correspondence, I am addressing the false and misleading advice provided to the Ombudsman, regarding as to when CASA “first became fully aware of the specific nature of my operation”.

This is the operation that CASA closed because it was unlawful, only to find out much later from the Ombudsman investigation that in fact, it was not unlawful. CASA had no legal or valid basis to close my business. That is my position on this matter. None!

CASA have led the Ombudsman to believe that it was just prior to October 2018 when they notified me that I was operating unlawfully and closed my business of a decade, that Mr Aleck claims CASA, “first became fully aware of the nature of my business.”

I claim that it was almost a decade earlier, which is why this entire matter, and all the associated harm is so inexplicable, and so concerning.

A description of the nature of that operation follows. I need to be crystal clear however on this matter.

Mr Aleck has maintained to the Ombudsman that CASA never permitted the exact structure that I am about to describe, throughout the flight training industry.

Mr Aleck has maintained to the Ombudsman that CASA was not fully aware that I had adopted that structure,

I need to be blunt. Mr Aleck is blatantly lying to the Ombudsman’s office. He is deliberately providing false and misleading information, and substantially so.

CASA always, and on every occasion permitted this exact structure throughout the flight training industry for at least the 30 years that I was involved in it.

Glen Buckley’s business was the only one, ever in Australia that was declared unlawful by CASA.

CASA was fully aware of the exact and specific nature of every aspect of my operation throughout the decade that CASA approved it to operate.

It is simply not reasonable, it is deceptive, and it is false and misleading for Mr Aleck and/or the CASA CEO to falsely represent to the Commonwealth Ombudsman investigation that CASA was not fully aware of the exact nature of my operation for many years prior to Mr Alecks asserted date of October 2018.



The structure that Mr Aleck falsely claims CASA never permitted is:

· Only one CASA issued Air Operator Certificate (AOC) being issued to Entity A. Entity A operates a flying school under that AOC.

· Entity B approaches Entity A being the one and only AOC Holder. Entity B does not hold an AOC or CASA approval to deliver flying training in its own right. Entity B would typically be a rural voluntary run aero club with a committee. It has a building, aircraft, instructors, a refuelling facility etc, but no approval. It is primarily a social club.

· Entity B does not have a CASA issued AOC. Entity B does not have an Operations Manual, or syllabi of training, a Safety department, or the CASA required 3 X Key Personnel i.e. Head of Operations, CEO, or Safety Manager. Entity B has no involvement with CASA because quite simply it is a social aero club run by aviation enthusiasts who are not flying instructors and it is not a flying school.

· Entity B, approaches Entity A and enters into an arrangement whereby Entity A uses the only AOC being its own, to deliver flight training at Entity Bs location using Entity B facilities i.e. building, aircraft, flying instructors, refuelling and maintenance, after they are fully inducted into Entity A,

· After an application is made to CASA and CASA makes a formal fee for service assessment, they would formally approve that arrangement whereby Entity A delivered flight training at the Entity B location, with Entity A being the one and only AOC Holder taking on responsibility for all operations at both locations, with Entity B fully inducted into Entity A systems and procedures.

· As legislated the legislated Key Personnel from Entity A who hold all legislated responsibility for that operation are employed by me, and I hold the single CASA issued Authorisation. All responsibility in law for all operations rests completely with me, as the AOC Holder and my Key Personnel.

Considering that CASA had always permitted that structure, Mr Aleck/CASA has deceptively led the Ombudsman to be of the view that, CASA never permitted it, and that CASA did not know I had adopted it for many years with full and formal CASA approval.

Following is an italicised text, it is a direct quote from the Ombudsman’s written correspondence to me. The Ombudsman’s preliminary finding has obviously been perverted by Mr Alecks falsehoods.

“CASA was not fully aware of the specific nature of APTA’s operations until just prior to issuing the notice in October 2018,”

A subsequent telephone call with the Ombudsman’s office confirmed my concerns and has left no doubt in my mind that CASA had provided false and misleading information.

For Mr Aleck to lead the Ombudsman investigation to believe that “CASA” was not fully aware of the specific nature of APTAs operations until just prior to October 2018, is clearly false and misleading, and grossly so.

Importantly, it is easily proven to be false, and misleading.

There is so much irrefutable evidence to demonstrate the level of deception being perpetrated by CASA on multiple topics, but for pure simplicity, let me just attend to this one single topic in this correspondence as to “when” CASA first became fully aware of the specific nature of my operations.



Consideration One- CASAs own Industry Complaints Commissioner findings demonstrate that CASA is misleading the Ombudsman as to when CASA first became fully aware of the nature of my operation.

CASAs own Industry Complaints Commissioner (ICC) on 12/04/19 found that

“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.”

So CASAs own Industry Complaints Commissioner finds that CASA knew for a “significant time prior” to 23rd October 2018, yet later Mr Aleck leads the Ombudsman to be of the view that CASA became fully aware “just prior to October 2018”.

Whilst the ICC did not specify what a “significant period of time” is, one would assume it is at least six years when CASA formally approved the first base in Darwin.

What concerns me most here is that CASAs own Industry Complaints Commissioner finds that CASA knew of the specific nature of my operation for a “significant period of time prior”, and my expectation is that that would be the official position of CASA, yet CASA leads the Ombudsman to be of the view that CASA only became fully aware of the specific nature “just prior to October 2018”.

How could two completely contradicting narratives be emanating from the same organisation i.e., CASA

There is only one correct and truthful answer, as you will be aware. Either CASA became fully aware of the specific nature of my operation in October 2018, OR CASA first became fully aware of the specific nature of my operation many years earlier.

It is concerning to me that CASAs own ICC would make such a fundamental finding that effectively CASA “led me up the garden path” and then closed me down, and that would not initiate some internal process of review, and most especially in the nations “safety” regulator.

Surely the contradicting narratives from two different CASA departments is evidence enough of the deceit being propagated.

[glenb]

The rest of it is here.

Consideration Two- A magazine article about my business 12 months before CASA first became aware.

This magazine article was released at the end of 2017, being the January/ February edition of the Australian Flying Magazine article. This article is an essential read as it leaves the reader in no doubt as to the specific nature of my operation. I was approached by the magazine in mid-2017 requesting to do this article.

In this magazine article each of those respective schools talks of their experience with APTA and why they joined. Those operators interviewed in that article, had already been formally approved by CASA. It is just not feasible for Mr Aleck to assert that CASA was not fully aware of the exact and specific nature of my operation that CASA had formally approved, revalidated, and audited over many years.

It would be fair to say that if the aviation media was fully aware and approached me in mid-2017, it would be highly likely that CASA were aware of the operation that they had approved over a decade earlier, fully revalidated 18 months earlier, audited a year earlier, and approved bases under throughout the last decade.

If somehow CASA was not aware at the time the media were approaching me, most certainly CASA would have fully been aware by early 2018, on release of the article to the general public, being 10 months prior to CASA claiming to the Ombudsman that they first became fully aware of the specific nature of my operations. That being the operations that they had previously formally approved, years earlier. That article can be accessed here.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/1akmm9gxra...CTION.pdf?dl=0

Ms Spence, you will appreciate that as this entire structure was formally revalidated by CASA in April 2017, and the media is writing about it 6 months later, it is more likely than not that CASA was truthfully fully aware of the specific nature of my operation long before the claimed date of October of 2018.



Consideration Three- CASA formally approved multiple bases, years before they have led the Ombudsman to believe CASA first became aware.

Recall that Mr Aleck asserts that CASA first became fully aware of the specific nature of the operations just prior to October 2018.

Under FOI I obtained our application for what was our most recent base to be formally approved by CASA, before CASA reversed their position and declared it unlawful and unauthorised.

These most recent applications were submitted over twelve months prior to the date that Mr Aleck/CASA claims that CASA first became fully aware of the specific nature of my operation in October 2018. If you review those documents, and particularly the attached risk assessment, it is obvious as to the exact nature of the operation, in fact the risk assessment deals exactly with the considerations of incorporating another entity to operate under our AOC.

This Freedom of Information request cost over $300, so I have made a request for the most recent base only. I will invest further money in other applications if this single application alone is not enough to bring honesty and integrity to the process, and I will go as far back as the AV8 base over 6 years prior if that becomes necessary.

There can be no doubt that CASA was fully aware of the specific nature of our operation, at least twelve months earlier than CASA would lead the Ombudsman’s office to believe, and highly likely, as I claim that CASA was fully aware for many years.

Accesses via this link is the application for these bases, and risk assessment.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/4frisc0ufd...ACTED.PDF?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/s/nqgytj8xjr...ACTED.PDF?dl=0

Consider that multiple applications of bases were made to CASA over many years, and approved by CASA over many years. This was the last base approved by CASA and then reversed by CASA in October 2018.

As you will appreciate Ms Spence it is not truthful that CASA first became fully aware of the specific nature of my operation in October 2018.



Consideration Four- If CASA first became aware just prior to October 2018, how could they have been formally approving bases many years earlier.

CASA formally approved our first remote base at Darwin via the AV8 business in Darwin over 6 years before CASA claims that they first became fully aware “just prior to October 2018”.

There were no changes to the “structure” from that first base six years prior, to the last base that CASA approved in mid-2018, when CASA suddenly first became fully aware, and they declared that it was now unlawful.

Therefore, I absolutely maintain the position that CASA was fully aware of the specific nature of my operation for at least 6 years, and that it was in fact common CASA approved practice throughout the industry.

If there is any difference at all to how I operated, then CASA must be able to identify what that difference was that led them to first become fully aware of the structure in October 2018, and does CASA really maintain that they weren’t fully aware for many years.?



Consideration Five- CASA was fully aware of the exact nature of the structure when I was doing the planning and preparation to continue what I was doing in the new regulatory structure.

I have attached Emails with CASA in mid-2016, clearly discussing the expansion of the concept. That correspondence alone should have made CASA first become fully ware, if they hadn’t already become fully aware. This is over two years before Mr Aleck/CASA claim that CASA “first became fully aware of the specific nature”.

I have spoken to several of the CASA employees that were heavily involved in this project, both past and present, they will provide statutory declarations to support that contention that CASA was fully aware of the specific nature of my operation for many years. It should not be necessary to involve them in this matter, but I will do if your response compels me to obtain further evidence, of which there is an overwhelming amount as you will be aware.

Those past and present CASA employees were heavily involved in the design and approval of the specific structure. They each have a comprehensive recollection and are prepared simply to tell the truth. I am advised by one past CASA employee that, “I still retain extraneous note taking of the process’s in the lead up to the CASA issued revalidation of APTA in April 2017, 18 months prior to CASA reversing the approval and claiming “CASA” was not fully aware of the specific nature until just prior to October 2018.

That email correspondence from mid 2016 can be accessed here;

https://www.dropbox.com/s/e2kcuci2ik...0awre.pdf?dl=0



Consideration Six – CASA was fully involved in the design and approval of APTA, it is not feasible that CASA only first became aware of the specific nature of the operation in October 2018.

After the discussion and encouragement from CASA as a result of those discussions in mid-2016, two and a half years before Mr Aleck claims CASA first became fully aware, I invested many hundreds of thousands of dollars in systems and procedures, IT, and personnel and I worked side by side with 10 CASA personnel redesigning every single aspect of everything we did to be ready for the new regulatory environment, with a vastly improved product with industry leading levels of operational control. CASA formally revalidated this exact structure designed from the ground up to do exactly what it did in April 2017, being 18 months before Mr Aleck claims to the Ombudsman that CASA first became aware.

It would be fair to say that it would have been one of the largest projects that CASA had undertaken with any flying school to date.

The checklist that CASA used to revalidate the entire business was obtained under FOI and is attached. This checklist generated a suite of Operations Manuals referred to as an Exposition. That document entails several thousand pages of policies, and procedures, responsibilities, accountabilities etc. The checklist that CASA used to revalidate the structure in April 2017. It is worth reviewing because it is exhaustive and clearly indicates that CASA was fully aware of the specific nature of my operation years before CASA would have the Ombudsman believe.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/xy5etr9253...SHEET.pdf?dl=0

CASA revalidated this exact structure in April 2017, being 18 months before CASA claim that they first became fully aware. It is ludicrous to suggest that CASA were not fully aware, they just revalidated us in that multi base structure, as one of Australia’s first Part 141/142 organisations 18 months prior, and subsequently formally approved bases under that exact structure.



Consideration Seven- Only Mr Aleck and/or the CASA CEO maintain that CASA first became fully aware in October 2018.

After CASA revalidated the structure in April 2017, they returned six months later for a routine Level One audit over a one-week period. A Level One audit being the highest-level audit that CASA conduct.

This is a year before CASA supposedly first became aware of the specific nature of my operation, and it included visits to the base’s that CASA had previously approved, but according to Mr Aleck, were unaware of, despite CASA employees having been on site at those bases on multiple occasions.

To suggest that the CASA team audited different flying schools at different bases and weren’t aware of the exact structure is surely embarrassingly ludicrous. The systems and procedures, syllabi, etc would have been identical at each of those schools. They dealt with my team of Key personnel at each of the bases because there was no other team of Key personnel. Everything would have been branded “APTA” and the syllabus of training would have been identical, and the same instructors were probably moving freely through each of those bases at the same time as the CASA employees were there.

I must make it clear that I have spoken to those past and present CASA employees, they were themselves fully aware as CASA employees, many years before Mr Aleck claims CASA first became aware. The deficiency in Mr Aleck first becoming fully aware, is a deficiency within CASA, and the proposition that CASA only first became fully aware in October 2018 is simply not truthful.

That deficiency should have been the “trigger” for CASA or Mr Aleck perhaps to act with good intent.

If Mr Aleck, in his role, only became fully aware in October 2018, many years after the rest of CASA became fully aware, and was now going to declare the entire business of a decade unlawful, he should have recognised that CASA had erred, and adopted a conciliatory approach. He chose not to, and that is why this entire matter resulted in so much harm, and continues on four years later.



Consideration Eight- A CASA reversal of its position

In the CASA Office on 20/12/18, two months after CASA restrictions were applied, Mr Peter White the Executive Manager of Regulatory Services and Surveillance at the time, advised both me and my father that in fact CASA had been fully aware of APTA and that they would not adopt a stance of refuting that knowledge. Initially I recall being relieved but immediately afterward he went on to advise “his Senior” had advised it was still illegal and needed to be disbanded. Both my father and I are prepared to provide a Statutory Declaration to that effect. The current stance of CASA claiming that they were not aware of APTA is in direct contradiction to the commitment given to me by Mr Peter White at that meeting, and a complete reversal by CASA as to when CASA first became fully aware of the specific nature of my operation.



Consideration Nine- The second most senior CASA Executive knew almost two years prior.

On 18th January 2017, I met with the second most senior executive at CASA at the time, Mr Graeme Crawford the Executive manager of the Aviation Group in the Canberra Head office.

This being almost 2 years before Mr Aleck claims that CASA “first became fully aware of the specific nature of my operation”. There was no doubt from that meeting almost two years prior that the second most senior executive at CASA was fully aware of the specific nature of my operation. Some of the emails relating to that meeting are attached.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/7vavbhith3...mails.pdf?dl=0





Ms, Spence, I could go on and on and on, but there is enough information here, and you have enough historical knowledge to know that CASAs position is untenable. CASA obviously was fully aware of the specific nature of my operation for at least six years when the first base was approved in Darwin, by CASA

If there is any doubt in your mind, I have previously provided you with the name of a current employee of CASA.

I have spoken to him, and I am fully satisfied that he will be truthful on this matter. He was my CASA allocated primary contact for almost a decade and was heavily involved in every aspect of my business throughout the entire decade, including the project of many years whereby I worked with CASA personnel to gain revalidation in April 2017.

You have easy access to the truth if the above considerations leave you in any doubt.

So why do I believe that Mr Aleck would provide false and misleading information to the Ombudsman

Phase One of the Commonwealth Ombudsman investigation found that CASA had erred, and in fact I had not broken any regultory requirements, and as a result of that failure by CASA “detriment may have been caused”.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/7vavbhith3...mails.pdf?dl=0

What should have happened on release of that finding that CASA had erred, was a well-intentioned discussion between CASA and myself, and the written record clearly shows that is what I tried to achieve. At least some internal review procedure within CASA should have been initiated.

Sadly, what happened was a determined effort of bullying and intimidating and what can only be described as an attempt to crush me financially, emotionally, and physically. An inexcusable amount of public resources have been directed away from safety towards achieving that objective, and it has been largely successful

Understandably once the Ombudsman’s report was released, CASA was then placed in a difficult situation. There is no doubt after the release of the Ombudsman’s report that Mr Alecks decision now had no basis in either safety or law, and it may have caused detriment.

Once Mr Aleck realised that he had erred and had no valid basis to take the action that he had, It would be expected that CASA may try to position themselves as “not being fully aware of the specific nature of my operation until just prior to October 2018.”, when that is very clearly, very far from an accurate representation of the truth.

Consider how much more likely it is that CASA would adopt this position, if the single CASA employee responsible for providing information to the Ombudsman is the very same person that made the decision that the business was unlawful in the first instance. There would be an increased tendency to provide disinformation, and that is why your role in this is so important as the CEO , to clearly identify if it is CASAs position or the position of Mr Aleck only that CASA only first became fully aware of the specific nature of my operation.

There is an overwhelming body of irrefutable evidence to support how preposterous Mr Alecks and/or your position on this matter as to when CASA first became fully aware of the specific nature of my operations.

The purpose of this correspondence is to seek a formal response from your office clearly indicating if “CASA” maintain that they only first became fully aware of the specific nature of my operations just prior to October 2018, when they issued the notification and put trading restrictions in place.

The truth of this matter is that CASA was fully aware of the exact and specific nature of my operations throughout more than a decade that I operated, and CASA formally approved multiple bases to operate under my Authorization for many years.

What has really happened here is that Mr Aleck in his role was not fully aware, and the deficiency is entirely within CASA. It is not fair and reasonable that I can operate a business for a decade, and eventually when Mr Aleck does become fully aware, he reverses that approval of a decade, closes the business down.

The point being that “CASA” knew for many many years. Mr Aleck only found out just prior to October 2018. The fact that Mr Aleck personally was not aware for many years clearly substantiates industry concerns about the Civil Aviation Safety Authority.

The deficiency is clearly within CASA, and it is extremely concerning that it was his own department that approved each of those bases over many years, and in fact his own Department then fully revalidated the entire operation in that exact structure in April 2017, being 18 months before Mr Aleck claims that “CASA” first became fully aware.

Ms Spence, to demonstrate how ludicrous the “CASA” position is.

Consider that four schools all operated at the same airport, being Moorabbin Airport. Those schools were MFT, LTF, AVIA, and ARC aviation. The only school that had ever submitted an Operations Manual/Exposition to CASA was MFT. The only CASA approved Key Personnel were MFTs Key personnel.

CASA would have someone believe that CASA personnel who would visit the airport on an almost daily basis did not notice those three schools operating with no CASA approval or knowledge. If they did pop their head in and want to talk to the Key personnel, there were none. CASA had never approved any Key personnel for these other three schools. It truly is preposterous.

Its important to emphasise that your own CASA employees, past and present are not trying to portray that highly unrealistic scenario with the exception of course, of Mr Aleck, and depending on your response, “CASA”

In my position that I operate within it was not required or expected that I would have any dealings at all with Mr Aleck. It was not my job to let Mr Aleck know everything about my flying school. It was my job to ensure that CASA is provided with all of the information, as stipulated by CASA, in order for Mr Aleck to be able to find out the specific nature of my operation. I have a reasonable expectation that if I do something on multiple occasions over many years with formal CASA approval that CASA “knows” about it, as they obviously and truthfully did.


On each and every one of those applications to add an entity under our Air Operator Certificate, over the decade that I operated, a fee was paid to CASA. It was a fee for service, requiring CASA personnel attendance on site at each of those proposed bases. CASA also conducted a desk top assessment. In addition, consider that in the entire lead up to this process would have been discussed extensively with the CASA team attached to my Organisation referred to at the time as a CMT or Certificate Management Team. Significant accompanying documentation accompanied each of those applications would have been submitted to CASA. One example is found earlier in this correspondence.

The CASA personnel that I was dealing with, were each highly experienced in the flight training background, and had many years’ experiences within CASA. They had been professional, well intentioned, and we had a relationship of trust and confidence. I had the same CASA team allocated to my business for over 10 years. I spoke to them and met with them at least weekly throughout those 10 years. To suggest that I ran this operation without them being fully aware of the specific nature of my operation until just prior to October 2018 is absurd, as you will appreciate.



There would be absolutely no reason that I would not be fully upfront with CASA. It is not realistic that I would not have fully communicated the exact nature of my operation, as I was dependant on CASA for those approvals.



CASA knew about my structure as soon as CASA considered my first application for a variation to my Air Operator Certificate over 6 years prior. That was the application for a variation to my AOC to authorise operations at our first alliance base, being AV8 in Darwin.



CASA gets to know stuff as a consequence of experience, and that is through that frequent and formal communication with the team of CASA personnel allocated to my organisation, as well as extensive application, review, auditing and approval processes.


CASA gets to ‘know’ stuff as a consequence of 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 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 my rights in the circumstances.

Furthermore, 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 my application to add our second base. My own base Melbourne Flight Training (MFT) had been operating for many years and which holds a flying training AOC issued by CASA and conducts flying training under the authority of that AOC at Moorabbin Airport. I then applied to CASA for a variation of the AOC so as to authorise MFT to also conduct flying training at Darwin aerodrome at the AV8 base, a freight operator in Darwin. We utilised AV8 buildings, aircraft, facilities, and employees as we were fully approved to do by CASA.

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 MFT 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 Moorabbin and Darwin. And that task, of its very essence, requires CASA to, among other things, find out whether MFT 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 Darwin location.

The only way in which CASA can find out whether MFT 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 I applied for a variation to the AOC so as to cover an additional ‘alliance’ ‘base’, CASA ought to have found out, as they did, 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 any potential implications.

Irrespective of what individual CASA officers understood or assumed and when, CASA was at least on constructive notice of the structure and its implications from a regulatory perspective from additional ‘alliance’ ‘base’ one. It was CASA’s job to find those things out, as it did It was the very purpose of the variation application process.



I look forward to your response confirming that CASA first became fully aware of the specific nature of the structure I had adopted just prior to October 2018, as CASA has led the Ombudsman to believe.



May I respectfully request that you personally respond and clearly identify when CASA first became fully aware of the specific nature of my operation. It is reasonable that CASA nominate that date. There must have been something that acted as the trigger for CASA to become fully aware. It is a reasonable request, and something that should be available to me. That is, I should be privy as to the same information that you are providing to the Ombudsman. If CASA is acting truthfully, there would be no reason that you would not provide that date to me.



I have also attached a copy of correspondence sent through to the CASA Industry Complaints Commissioner. At this stage he has not initiated the investigation, as I am awaiting a response from my new Local MP for Chisholm, Ms Carina Garland whose support and assistance I will be seeking.



https://www.dropbox.com/s/sl0y2c1810...2022.docx?dl=0





My hope is that ethics and integrity will be bought to this process, and you will act in accordance with obligations placed on you.



Whilst my hope is that ethics and integrity will prevail, I would also draw your attention to obligations placed on you. These include the Legal Services Direction 2017, and I draw your attention to the document in its entirety but most particularly the following obligation on CASA of ; “not requiring the other party to prove a matter which the Commonwealth or the agency knows to be true” Legal Services Directions 2017 (legislation.gov.au)



Also, I encourage you to consider the obligations placed on you by CASAs Regulatory Philosophy in your response. Our regulatory philosophy | Civil Aviation Safety Authority (casa.gov.au)



I appreciate that CASA may contend that there is no litigation in progress at this stage, and therefore the LSD directions do not apply. That technicality should not absolve CASA from the responsibility to be truthful and act in accordance with those obligations. It should not only become an obligation on CASA once I initiate litigation. Those principles, and most especially; “not requiring the other party to prove a matter which the Commonwealth or the agency knows to be true” Legal Services Directions 2017 (legislation.gov.au)





Respectfully



Glen Buckley
​​​​​​​

[Lead Balloon]

Originally Posted by Flaming galah

CASA must have known.

Precisely.

So, this specific issue now resolves to a test of Ms Spence's integrity and intestinal fortitude. Hopefully she'll call the Ombudsman's Office to let it know that there's some formal, clarifying correspondence on the issue on its way (hopefully drafted by someone unconnected with the drafter of the original correspondence). Or maybe she'll try to tough it out and only act if manoeuvred into a position where she has little choice but to make a virtue out of necessity.

[Lead Balloon]

Don't forget, Glen: I suggest you still need to be prepared to provide a crystal clear explanation in response to the ‘pub test’ applied to the statement on APTA’s website that ‘alliance’ ‘members’ would remain in ‘complete control of their business’. If CASA's going to tough it out, I reckon 'CASA' will focus on the words ‘complete control’ and argue that ‘business’ covers the whole of the activities carried out at the relevant ‘base’, including flying training. ‘CASA’ will argue that this control issue was fundamental and struck CASA with the force of complete novelty, out of the blue just prior to October 2018. Try to formulate some clear, layman-understandable explanation as to the distinction between control over the moving parts that determined compliance with regulatory requirements on the one hand, and what you meant by ‘business’ on the APTA website on the other (assuming of course a distinction was intended and operated in fact).

There’s nothing wrong with that distinction as a matter regulatory principle, if the certificate holder has legal and effective control over the moving parts that determine compliance with regulatory requirements. Except for financial viability potentially putting compliance at risk, how money flowed around and between whom inside the structure was none of CASA’s business. (And obviously CASA did not do an analysis of those money flows when APTA submitted applications for AOC variations to cover additional 'bases'. So even if those flows were relevant from a regulatory perspective, CASA failed to do its job properly by analysing them.) Provided regulatory requirements continue to be complied with, smart or dumb business decisions, who’s making them and profiting or bleeding money from them are irrelevant to CASA’s decision-making. CASA has certified many, many operators who eventually went broke while holding an AOC, and many more continue to line up for certification.

Ms Spence and the Ombudsman's Office will be easily baffled with bull**** disguised in high sounding regulatory words invoking the safety of air navigation. I suggest you get prepared - if you haven't already - to hose that down the drain.

[glenb]

Misfeasance continued

Sorry folks, I have jumped around here a bit. In post #2344 i commenced posting my rather large document of an allegation of misfeasance in public office and did digress with another topic. I am back to that original document, and I am continuing it here.

A quick recap. There are a number of sections, and it is structured around the Attorney General's Office guidance. Those sections are copied and pasted below. This post is a continuation of the bolded section being the "Bad faith mental element. I am still working on this substantive document, and will keep posting.1. Introduction/The allegation

2. Misfeasance in Public Office

3. First Element-Holder of Public Office

4. Second Element-Exercising a Public Power that was an incident of that Office

5. Must the Public Officer owe the plaintiff a duty with respect to the exercise of power.

6. Third Element- The Exercise of Authority must be invalid or otherwise lacking lawful authority.

7. Fourth Element- The “Bad Faith” mental Element

8. Can the Commonwealth be vicariously liable for the misfeasance of its employees?

9. Commonwealth liability for ministerial misfeasance?

10. Importance of an early and vigorous assessment of an allegation of misfeasance.

11. Damages

12. Assisting Commonwealth Officers, other than Ministers

13. Assisting Commonwealth Ministers

14. Reducing the risk of misfeasance claims

15. The need to report misfeasance issues as significant claims

16. Preference for CASA to investigate this allegation.

17. Considerations of Mr Aleck remaining in the role.

18. Summary/conclusion



Mr Aleck has clearly demonstrated a propensity to provide false and misleading information to the current Commonwealth Ombudsman’s investigation with the intention to pervert the findings of that investigation, and that is supported by substantial, supporting evidence evidence.

There can be no doubt that Mr Aleck has provided clearly and deliberately misleading evidence to the current Commonwealth Ombudsman’s Office investigation.



If in fact my allegations are upheld, and Mr Aleck has provided substantially false and misleading advice then that would be an indicator of acting in bad faith. Mr Aleck has clearly attempted to influence the outcome of the Ombudsman’s investigation to pervert the findings of the investigation.

Mr Aleck has provided false and misleading information to the Ombudsman on several critical facts,

He has led the Ombudsman to believe that CASA never previously formally approved both my own business, and in fact many businesses around Australia to operate in the multi base, multi entity single approval structure.

That is clearly false and misleading and easily proven to be so.

Mr Aleck has led the Ombudsman to believe that CASA first became fully aware that I had adopted the structure just prior to October 2018 when he declared it unlawful and closed the business down,

The truth is that in fact CASA was fully aware of the exact nature for many years prior, because CASA approved it at least six years prior, revalidated it, audited it, and approved bases under the structure for many years.

Mr Aleck is clearly providing false and misleading information as to when CASA first became fully aware of the specific nature of my operation.

The following correspondence provides more detail on these substantial matters. The investigation by the CASA Industry Complaints commissioner (ICC) has not commenced at my request, until I have had the opportunity to meet with my local MP, Ms Carina Garland seeking her assistance and support.

If Mr Aleck is found to have provided false and misleading advice, which he most obviously has, then that alone should be an indicator of the bad faith mental element. it is part of his deliberate decision making. He clearly is aware of the truth but chooses not to provide it to the Ombudsman’s Office.

https://www.dropbox.com/t/oGq7MulaoFIYobAL





Outcome Based Legislation

Mr Aleck personally made a commitment to industry of the move away from prescriptive legislation to outcome-based legislation.

Mr Aleck has chosen not to follow his own commitment that he gave to industry i.e. to adopt the principles of “outcome based legislation” that CASA is committed to by way of its own CASA advisory circular with particular reference to Section 8. advisory-circular-1-01-understanding-legislative-framework.pdf

I also draw your attention to a presentation by Mr Aleck to industry providing his explanation of “outcome based legislation.

You Tube

The point of this being. Consider that Mr Aleck as the sole decision maker closed down my business, yet cannot produce a single deficiency against a single outcome.

What Mr Aleck did was, make a considered and deliberate decision not to act in accordance with his commitments given regarding outcome-based legislation.

It is completely inexplicable that there would be absolutely no allegations against any quality outcomes at all. None. Isn’t that the very principle of outcome-based legislation, that Mr Aleck espouses.

For complete clarity. CASA has never stated that they had concerns about operational control. At no stage did CASA ever request that we amend or change any of our procedures or systems. There were no identified safety concerns, and we maintained our industry leading levels of safety and compliance

If CASA had any concerns about operational control, they should be able to clearly identify them. CASA cannot produce a single piece of evidence to support the closure of my business.

We had industry leading level s of operational control, and associated systems, a large team of highly experienced management personnel, the largest safety department of any school in Australia etc.

There is no doubt or argument that CASA must be satisfied that operational control is maintained. CASA were always satisfied, and that is how we operated safely and compliantly for so many years.

What Mr Aleck did here was reversed a previously given approval and CASA should be able to justify the reasons for that reversal.

If CASA became unsatisfied, a reasonable expectation is that CASA can identify what led them to become ‘unsatisfied, ” and most especially if Mr Aleck is acting in accordance with the commitments he personally gave to industry regarding outcome based legislation.

Some examples that CASA should be able to provide to support Mr Alecks decision making would be any regultory breaches, insufficient management structure, safety breaches, audit results, flight and duty breaches, anything at all. It is incumbent that Mr Aleck should be able to clearly identify a single piece of supporting evidence to support his decision making.

You will note that CASA has never said that they were unsatisfied. Their actions and decisions very much suggested that they were very “unsatisfied”, yet CASA only goes so far as to say “we have to be satisfied that I have operational control”.

If CASA were satisfied for many years, and became unsatisfied, they should be able to identify the “trigger” for that change of opinion. CASA refer to this trigger as an “SRF

I have made multiple requests for the “SRF” but CASA refuse to respond.

The point being that if CASA become “unsatisfied” then CASA should be able to identify what led them to be unsatisfied. CASA should be able to address this issue. If CASA could identify any concerns at all against any quality outcomes, CASA should be able to identify them, after all that is what “outcome-based legislation” is all about, if Mr Aleck is to be believed.

The point of this being that Mr Aleck was fully aware of his commitment, and he demonstrated bad faith by straying so far away from those commitments in his dealings with me. personally. In fact, what he did was take legislation and apply it so “prescriptively” that it made no sense at all.

Mr Aleck clearly acted in bad faith by inappropriately manipulating legislation to achieve his own personal desired outcome, and in doing so, showed a flagrant disregard for the principles of outcome-based legislation, and the commitment to outcome-based legislation that he gave to industry.

To make such considered and deliberate decisions, it is yet another indicator that Mr Aleck was acting in bad faith



The comparative analysis between APTA and other Operators.

Mr Aleck is the sole representative of CASA in dealings with the Ombudsman’s office.

The Ombudsman has advised me that by convention they do not contact “employees, of the Agency. They deal only with the Agency representative”.

Therefore the Ombudsman access to information is controlled by Mr Aleck.

That is unfortunate because every CASA employee that operates within the flight training sector would be able to confirm that what I am saying is the truth and that Mr Aleck is being blatantly deceptive.

Mr Aleck has led the Ombudsman’s office to be of the view that CASA did not ever permit the exact structure that I adopted. That is blatantly untrue and any CASA employee except for the CEO Ms Spence, and Mr Aleck will attest to that fact.

The question that should be presented to any CASA Employee with experience in the flight training sector, and would fully resolve this entire matter once and for all would be something along the lines of….

Did CASA always and on every occasion with multiple operators throughout Australia, always permit the following arrangement?

· Entity “A” is the holder of the sole CASA Authorisation referred to as an Air Operator Certificate (AOC). An AOC is issued by CASA to permit a flying school to operate.

· Entity “B” does not have an AOC, and is not permitted to deliver flying training but may want to deliver flying training.

· Entity B has the facilities and equipment to operate a school, i.e. buildings, classrooms, aircraft, instructors, refuelling, maintenance etc. Typically, Entity B would be an aero club with its members privately flying and renting aircraft, but importantly it has no approval to operate a flight training school

· Entity “B” approaches Entity “A”, and asks that they enter into a commercial arrangement, whereby Entity A delivers flight training at Entity Bs location using the facilities and equipment of Entity B.

· Entity A agrees after conducting its due diligence of Entity B.

· Entity A being the sole CASA AOC Authorisation Holder, approaches CASA and advises that it has entered into an agreement with Entity B to deliver flight training at Entity Bs location and using its facilities and equipment.

· CASA then stipulates its requirements to Entity A and Entity A submits the application, with substantial supporting documentation to CASA of how Entity A will maintain operational control of its operations at Entity Bs location.

· CASA conducts a formal assessment including a visit to the site and issues an approval for Entity A to deliver flight training at Entity Bs location, and Entity A commences delivery of flight training, once Entity B is fully inducted into Entity As CASA approved systems and procedures.

An example of this would be both the Ballarat Aero Club and the Latrobe Valley Aero Club.

Both aero clubs that operated a flying school using exactly that arrangement with other AOC Holders over an extended period of time, with full and formal CASA approval until the day they transfer to my operation, and it became unlawful.

It’s ludicrous, and this is exactly why I believe that Mr Aleck was acting in bad faith in his dealings with me, and why I believe that his malice was targeted towards me specifically, and not other persons.

If Mr Aleck was not acting in bad faith, he should be able to clearly and concisely explain why Latrobe Valley Aero Club and Ballarat Aero Club were permitted by CASA to operate under other Operators AOCs previously but not Mr Buckley’s?

If we accept that in fact CASA had always approved operators throughout Australia to adopt the very same structure that I used then that allows a comparative assessment.

This would lead to a number of pertinent questions that should be addressed and will go some way as to ascertain whether Mr Aleck was acting with good intent i.e., in the interests of aviation safety, or was he acting in bad faith.

Importantly, once it is ascertained that in fact CASA did always and on every occasion approve this exact structure it allows a comparative assessment to be made, as in fact it should be. The comparative assessment can then be made as to the quality and level of operational control.

That comparison can be made between my operation that was not permitted, and the operations that CASA permitted the day prior. That being the two other Operators that held the respective AOCs delivering flight training at the Ballarat Aero club and Latrobe Valley aero Club.

That comparison could be made against an infinite number of criteria but could include a comparison of

Management size and structure, Safety Departments, systems of oversighting maintenance, training records, fatigue monitoring, internal auduiting,frequency of meetings, continuous improvement programs, manuals, mentoring and staff development etc etc

In this correspondence I will provide just one example, there are hundreds.

Fatigue monitoring.

The fatigue monitoring of pilots is done through the monitoring of flight and duty times.

The system that CASA accepted from the previous operators at both Latrobe valley and Ballarat was a paper-based system where pilot instructors would enter their flight and duty times retrospectively (it had no predictive capability). Whilst I am not suggesting that this did happen there was the ability for entries to be manipulated, a process referred to as “fudging the flight and duties.” CASA would check the flight and duties occasionally, and in the case of both those operators, those flight and duties had been checked by CASA on one occasion in the last twelve months. Because those flight and duties were completed after the flight there was absolutely no capability to prevent a pilot flying fatigued or committing a breach. If an accident were caused by pilot fatigue, this system could not have prevented it. An investigation would only identify fatigue as a factor after the accident.

The system that we introduced when aero clubs joined APTA. All instructors moved to a fully electronic system, which tracked their flight and duties automatically when they signed out and returned from flights. It had a predictive capability and tracked the flying that had been done up the point of sign out. It then applied a predictive capability using the intended flight time with a safety margin for the intended flight. It would not permit the pilot to depart on that flight if it would lead to a breach of flight and duty times. CASA had full access to this system, so that at any time, not only my management team but also CASA could conduct a full audit of our flight and duty times from the Melbourne Head Office without even leaving their desk.

Such systems were repeated throughout our entire Exposition, and I would welcome any comparative analysis of the levels of operational control between my operation and what CASA previously permitted. from other operators.

I am fully satisfied that I maintained industry leading levels of operational control, and that Mr Alecks decision making was in bad faith and motivated by factors other that safety, compliance or quality outcomes.

Consider that this is the first flying school to my knowledge that CASA has closed down.

A comparative analysis is surely essential to ascertain that Mr Alecks decision making was valid and could be justified, and with