Glen Buckley and Australian small business -V- CASA

[glenb]

Continued from above

MR ALECKS ACTIONS AND DECSIONS REDUCE THE SAFETY OF AVIATION

Mr Alecks actions and decisions have absolutely no basis in the safety of aviation.

Consider that CASAs very purpose is to increase the safety of aviation.

It would be expected that if Mr Alecks actions and decisions close down a well intentioned operator of ten years, who, according to CASA has consistently delivered an industry leading level of safety and compliance, then there should be some supporting safety case that CASA can supply in order to justify Mr Alecks actions and decision making. Something. Anything.

There is none, and that only confirms that Mr Alecks actions and decisions were done in bad faith. It would be a reasonable expectation that the nations aviation safety regulator could present some supporting evidence-based safety case to support that decision making. There is none. If there is one, I would urge CASA to go public with it. More importantly, I should be entitled to that supporting safety case.

As stated, Mr alecks actions and decisions demonstrably reduce the safety of aviation.

Utilising the single approval, multi base, multi entity approach that I had adopted for many years with full CASA approval since our first CASA approved base over 6 years prior we were able to pool and develop safety resources.

Just prior to Mr Aleck reversing APTAs approval, by pooling our collective resources we had the largest Safety Department of nay flight training organisation in Australia. It had an annual budget of approximately $500,000 per annum.

Regarding a comparative analysis that I have suggested previously, an excellent example that would demonstrate the quality of that department would be an “incident investigation”. If an investigator was to obtain three incident or accident reports from CASA. One for APTA, and one from each of the previous operators of Ballarat and Latrobe Valley and compare the result. I have viewed all three Operators reports, the comparison is revealing. Alternatively, a comparison of risk assessments made, safety educational material, safety training programs etc would be equally revealing.

To put this in comparison, the safety department of APTA exceeded the size of the safety departments of the large foreign owned schools delivering well in excess of 10 times the volume of flying that we were.

The point of this being that by dismantling the collaborative approach that CASA had previously approved, each of those entities lost access to a well-funded safety department.

Of the operators that did continue on in a one form or another after CASA forced them to leave APTA, not one of them maintains a fulltime safety department. Each member also lost access to group expertise, and safety data sharing that was previously available to them as part of APTA.

In actual fact, Mr Alecks actions and decisions have not increased aviation safety, and nor have they maintained the safety of aviation. They have decreased the safety of aviation.

The consistent approach of bullying and intimidation that Mr Aleck chooses to engage industry with cannot possibly enhance the safety of aviation. These are not just my views, these are industries views, and that is not in dispute. Mr Aleck has headed up the legal department of CASA for two decades. The approach of CASA towards industry has been a significant issue, and it has been highlighted at many Governments initiated reviews and through Senate inquiries.

If any regulator be it the Police, ASIC, or CASA adopts an attitude of bullying and intimidation with the people that it regulates. that cannot possibly improve outcomes, and in the case of CASA it simply cannot improve the safety of aviation.

Multiple well documented allegations of misconduct by Mr Aleck have been made over many years, and all of them have been crushed by Mr Aleck.

This narcissistic approach that Mr Aleck adopts in the workplace, towards industry has the potential to reduce the safety of aviation, and it does not align with CASAs own regulatory philosophy that Mr aleck is obligated to comply with.

One only has to ask Angel Flight or Bristelle about their experiences dealing with Mr Alecks decision making. The constant theme is that there is no supporting safety case, just as there is none with my matter. These are matters that have been raised before the current Senate inquiry

If Mr Aleck is making decisions cannot be supported by a safety case, and if in fact they degrade safety, and if they damage the relationship of CASA and industry, one must question whether Mr Aleck is genuinely acting in the interests of safety or is he in fact using his significant power primarily for reasons other than the safety of aviation.



Mr Aleck acted alone in his decision making.

Mr Aleck acted alone in his decision making. Mr Aleck applied his opinion only.

For clarity Mr Aleck is a lawyer, and highly experienced on aviation law. That is not in dispute. It is his integrity only that is being called into question, and whether he is acting in good faith or bad faith.

Mr Aleck sits in an Office in Canberra, and has done for twenty years, he has never been to any of my Bases, and I would not necessarily expect him to. The point being that he is not a Subject Matter Expert (SME) on flight training per se. He has no expertise in flight training. He has no exposure to syllabus design, training, assessing, designing remedial training, proficiency checks, flight testing, inducting pilots etc.

He has no experience in operating a flight training organisation, his area of expertise is law for the entire aviation industry.

Mr Aleck in his role can make an assessment as to the legality or not of my operation, that I accept.

If however he is making a determination that I did not have operational control over my operation, he is probably not qualified to make that determination, and if he does, then he should be able to justify that decision making, or have the CASA CEO formally endorse Mr alecks conduct and decision making.

If in fact Mr Aleck did not act alone, then I feel that the CASA CEO should clearly state CASAs position on this entire matter, and clearly identify if Mr Aleck was acting alone or on behalf of “CASA”, as I increasingly suspect.



This was a substantial move by CASA. To the best of my knowledge from my involvement in aviation since 1982, CASA had never previously closed down a flying school.

One would imagine that there was a significant process behind that. I am led to believe that is not the case, and I have that on good advice from within CASA.

Should this matter proceed to litigation the process of “discovery” would be revealing, although in your role as the CASA Industry Complaints Commissioner you will have access to that information.

Mr Alecks decision making was not subject to any procedural scrutiny within CASA, and where there were procedures under administrative law outlined in CASAs manuals, he chose to bypass those procedures, and specifically the procedures related to “varying, suspending and cancelling AOCs” is found in CASAs Enforcement Manual. Section 6. 12

CASA Enforcement Manual.pdf

Quite simply because Mr Aleck acted alone, and his decision making has no supporting safety case, no identified regulatory breach, no deficient quality outcome of any sort, and is in clear contradiction to previous CASA precedent, one has to question what was actually motivating Mr Alecks decision making, and what protections were in place.

Mr Aleck had previously been involved in closing down a number of aviation businesses, and there is almost no scrutiny over his conduct. It is extremely concerning and creates an environment whereby he can yield his significant power unchecked, as he has done with not only me, but many others.

In Mr Alecks application of his opinion, he drew on no external and independent legal advice. Due to the unique nature of the approach he adopted with my business, and the substantive nature of it, and particularly as there were no supporting safety concerns, no allegation that we did not have full operational control, no supporting case to justify that decision making, one would have expected Mr Aleck was aware of the tenuous nature of his actions and decisions, and if he was acting in good faith, he would have had his decisions independently and professionally validated.

The fact that his conduct and decision-making decision making continues unchecked, will only allow him to keep doing to others as he has done to me and so many others.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxI am confident that Mr Aleck was the sole decision maker, for a number of reasons.

The exact structure that I operated in was widespread CASA approved structure used throughout the industry. CASA was widely involved in the design and approval, many years prior. It became “illegal” in October 2018 when Mr Aleck personally first became fully aware of the specific nature of my operation. For clarity, the only way that I could have operated for many years in that structure was with CASA approval. Mr Aleck initiated the reversal of the approval.

I had the opportunity to meet with Mr Aleck personally at Melbourne Airport on this very matter. He made it very clear at that meeting that he was the “decision maker”.

In all communications with the Executive Manager of Regulatory Services at the time he would default to “his senior”.

The email from Mr Peter White, where he confirms that after 6 months the matter is finally resolved and we will be able to return to business as usual as CASA is now satisfied, then hours later, Mr Aleck then reverses that approval, and the entire matter is exactly back where it was 6 months prior. That will be dealt with later in this document.

From CASAs perspective this was a highly complex legal matter. There would be no other person in the CASA Organisational Structure that could reasonably be expected to have the experience to deal with this matter.

I acknowledge that Mr Aleck is very capable of “distancing” himself from involvement in these matters, and that has been his pattern of behaviour over many years, on these issues.

Noy only from my own personal observations, and Mr Alecks wider industry reputation for doing exactly that. Interestingly these exact characteristics of distancing himself from involvement and that exact trait has been raised by Senator Sterle and Senator McDonald in Senate. A link to those concerns raised by the Senators can be accessed here. XXXXXXX

[Lead Balloon]

Have you spoken to Mr White about the content of the March 19 email? You do realise that Dr A will likely say that he made no administrative decisions and imposed no requirements that affected APTA, and that those were instead operational decisions of others like Mr White?

[glenb]

Continued

Lead balloon, this continuation has addressed your feeback hopefully. Cheers. Glen

This is a continuation of the "bad faith element" covered in previous posts. Mr Aleck unfairly exercised his power and placed unique requirements on me and my business only and would not lift the trading restrictions on the business until he was personally satisfied.

I am fully satisfied that Mr Aleck has provided what is clearly and false and misleading information to the Ombudsman investigation. I have addressed this earlier in this correspondence

Mr Aleck asserts that CASA never permitted the exact structure that I adopted, which is clearly disinformation provided by him to pervert the outcome of the inquiry.

Once this matter is clarified that in fact CASA had always approved the identical structure that I adopted it allows for a comparative assessment to be made that clearly highlights that I was having unique but challenging hurdles placed in front of me as justification for Mr Aleck leaving the trading restrictions in place and preventing me from returning to Business as Usual.

Mr Aleck had chosen to target me and my business rather than another business adopting the identical structure.

Recall that Mr Alecks initial strongly held position was that APTA was unlawful and unauthorised and that it needed to be “dismantled”.

I put up a robust defence as outlined earlier in the document. Mr Aleck was by now becoming aware of the tenuous nature as to the validity and lawfulness of his original course of action.

A new “issue” arose. CASA would only lift the trading restrictions once we produced a “contract” that satisfied CASA.

I need to make the following points here.

CASA already held the contracts and had done so for a long time.

They had been provided to CASA on multiple occasions over previous years to multiple CASA employees including CASAs second most senior executive at the time, Mr Graeme Crawford.

Initially CASA denied this. I provided irrefutable evidence by showing CASA a sampling of those emails.

This left Mr Aleck in an awkward situation.

An example of our 2016 contract provided to CASA on multiple occasions is accessed via the following link. A viewing of that contract, and particularly the latter component (The spirit of APTA) is an important read.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/ymsyq1vd1b...tract.doc?dl=0

It is obvious from reading this document alone and without the overwhelming body of supporting evidence that the concept was not a single flying school structure, and this is two years before Mr Aleck claims CASA first became fully aware that it was a multi base, multi entity, single authorisation structure.

This exact structure that Mr Aleck was calling into question, had always been formally approved by CASA on multiple occasions, with multiple operators, including mine for all time and on every occasion, despite Mr Aleck denying this in his representations to the Ombudsman office

CASA had never stipulated the requirement for any other Operator whereby CASA required a contract from any other Operator as to the commercial nature of their agreement with their customers.

As the CASA Industry Complaints Commissioner, you will promptly and easily be able to verify that CASA holds no agreements for any other operator on file with CASA, as it was never previously a requirement.

This was truly a most unusual requirement, and I was the first flight training organisation in Australia with this requirement placed on me.

The issue was not that CASA had placed this requirement on me. The issue was that crippling trading restrictions would remain in place until Mr Aleck was satisfied with the contents of that commercial contract.

I had absolutely no resistance to anything that CASA wanted in the contracts as I explained earlier. This entire matter could have been finalised in a matter of hours, yet it continued on for a staggering eight months.

It only needed for Mr Aleck to clearly and concisely explain to me what he wanted to see in those commercial contracts, and it would have been completely resolved within hours.

Once Mr Aleck had no option but to admit that CASA already held the contracts that he was calling, for he was presented with two options.

On each and every occasion that Mr Aleck was presented with two options he would on each and every occasion choose the option that created the greater harm, and here is only one example that leads me to believe Mr Aleck was not acting in good faith, and he was not conducting himself as if he were a well-intentioned person making his decisions on the basis of good intent. He was acting in bad faith.

Once Mr Aleck realised that he had made an error. He should have fixed it. The trading restrictions were causing enormous commercial harm as Mr Aleck was aware and notified of in writing on multiple occasions.

This was an important opportunity in this entire matter. It needed only for Mr Aleck to say something along these lines.

“Yes Glen, we do actually have the contracts, and have done so for a long time, but we would like to tweak the wording with you, to get it to my full satisfaction.”

There would have been absolutely no resistance at all from me.

Why would there be?

I am fully responsible for the actions of every person that operates under my AOC as the law states. I have 100% responsibility. If CASA want to add something that takes that to 120% in their mind, I will have no objection, in fact I would welcome it.

By complying, as I willingly would have, the trading restrictions could have been lifted by Mr Aleck and I could have potentially salvaged the business at this stage.

However rather than act as a well-intentioned person would have, Mr Aleck made a number of alternating narratives with regard to finalising the “contracts issue”, and dragged it out unnecessarily for eight months until he stood by his initial decision and declared it unlawful. Throughout that entire period, the trading restrictions were never lifted.

There can be no doubt that the only reason that the entire matter was not resolved in a matter of hours was because Mr Aleck chose for it not to be resolved in a matter of hours. He chose for the matter to continue over many months.

Throughout that period, he was fully aware of the commercial harm being caused, as CASA was notified of it in writing.

I called on CASA to make a “decision” based on the contracts that they held. Had CASA made a “decision” I would have had something to attend to or appeal.

Instead, Mr Aleck pursued an alternating narrative of requirements in those contracts that was ever changing, and it was obvious that Mr Aleck could not be satisfied.

By refusing to “make a decision” on the existing contracts and with no ability to appeal the trading restrictions that he had put in place, Mr Aleck was able to maintain those trading restrictions in place and deny me access to any right of appeal, natural justice or procedural fairness.

In finalising this matter I need to make some points very clear.

· The contract issue was a unique requirement placed on my business only, and that is why I feel that I was being targeted by Mr Aleck.

· CASA met absolutely no resistance at all from me as to the additional wording that they required in those commercial contracts.

· The entire matter could have been and should have been resolved in a matter of hours.

· CASA at no stage ever required any changes to any of our systems or procedures to maintain operational control, compliance or safety that are contained within our CASA approved suite of Operations manuals referred to as the Exposition.

· This entire matter was regrading the wording that CASA wanted in the commercial contracts. These are not normally anything that CASA has involvement in, and concerningly. CASA was stipulating wording in our commercial contracts that were a requirement for trading restrictions to be lifted, yet CASA was not prepared to be a signatory to those contracts.

The fact that the requirements placed on me by CASA were only applied to me, the fact that this matter could not be resolved to Mr Alecks satisfaction after a staggering eight months, lead me to believe that Mr Aleck was not acting in good faith.

Recall that throughout the eight months Mr Aleck refused to make an administrative decision. What he did was impose trading restrictions in place that were crippling both commercially and reputationally to both me and my business.

Mr Aleck thought about this entire matter, then after eight months determined that the structure was unlawful and forced all customers to leave APTA despite their expressed preference being to remain a member of APTA, and this included my own flying school of more than decade, obviously leaving the “Company” intact but the business of that Company decimated.

[Lead Balloon]

Why do you think Mr White, and not Dr A, was the signatory of the email to APTA in March 19? If Dr A was the sole decision maker in your matter, why did Mr White have anything to do with APTA?

The answer to the question as to who made the operational decisions to adopt the regulatory positions set out in the letter of October 18 and email of March 19 as ‘CASA’s’ positions seems to me to be a very important one. I would not be surprised if Dr A said the signatories of those pieces of correspondence made those decisions. Why else are they paid the big bucks?

[glenb]

The "bad faith mental element continued

CASAs Regulatory Philosophy



CASA Regulatory Philosophy’s gives a commitment to industry of how CASA will engage with industry.

The CASA CEO at the time, Mr Mark Skidmore released CASAs ten point Regulatory Philosophy in September 2015 in line with one of the key recommendations of the Forsyth Report that had identified CASAs engagement with industry was sub optimal.

An overview by a legal firm and link to that report can be accessed here. The Forsyth Report: Challenging times ahead for CASA and the aviation industry - Cooper Grace Ward (cgw.com.au)

On release of the Regulatory Philosophy, the CASA CEO, Mr Skidmore said

“We now have a clear and concise set of principles that will guide all our actions,” Skidmore said.

“It is vitally important every CASA person understands these principles, how they apply to the work they do and the need to ensure they adhere to them in practice.

“These principles will guide and direct the making and implementation of regulations, safety education and support, the delivery of regulatory services, operational surveillance and enforcement, as well as our consultation and communications.

“Where necessary, CASA will develop new policies and procedures to give meaningful effect to our regulatory philosophy.

“I am committed to ensuring these principles make a real, positive and lasting difference to the way CASA operates and way we interact with the aviation community."

The philosophy is in response to Recommendation 14 of the Forysth Report, which stated "The Civil Aviation Safety Authority changes its regulatory philosophy and, together with industry, builds an effective collaborative relationship on a foundation of mutual understanding and respect."

The ten basic principles are:

1. CASA is committed to maintaining the trust and respect of the aviation community
2. Mindful of the primacy of air safety, CASA takes account of all relevant considerations, including cost
3. CASA takes risk-based approaches to regulatory action and decision-making
4. CASA performs its functions consistently with Australia's international obligations
5. CASA approaches its regulatory functions consultatively and collaboratively
6. CASA communicates fully and meaningfully with all relevant stakeholders
7. CASA fairly balances the need for consistency with the need for flexibility
8. CASA embraces and employs rational 'just culture' principles in its regulatory and related actions
9. CASA demonstrates proportionality and discretion in regulatory decision-making and exercises its powers in accordance with the principles of procedural fairness and natural justice
10. CASA has a legitimate, but limited, role in pursuing punitive action for breaches of the civil aviation legislation

“I understand some people may be sceptical at first about how or whether these principles will make a practical change to the way we carry out our regulatory responsibilities," Skidmore said.

“To regain trust, we must earn that trust. We look forward to the opportunity to do just that, and I invite the aviation community to use CASA’s regulatory philosophy as a benchmark against which our performance is measured."

The ten principles including explanatory text is available on the CASA website and can be accessed here. Our regulatory philosophy | Civil Aviation Safety Authority (casa.gov.au)

I do understand that CASA may not be legally bound to comply with its own Regulatory Philosophy. It does however get to the central theme of this matter being the “bad faith mental element”.

When you consider the harm caused to me and my business by Mr Aleck, and this matter in its entirety, there can be no doubt that Mr Aleck has shown a callous disregard for those commitments in that Philosophy.

Mr Aleck would be fully aware of CASAs Regulatory Philosophy as he would have been the person responsible for drafting it.

By choosing to stray so far away from these commitments in his dealings with me, Mr Aleck has demonstrated that he was acting in bad faith. It cannot be a lack of awareness, an error or an omission, it is a considered decision not to conduct himself in accordance with that Philosophy.

On the CASA website where CASA presents the Regulatory philosophy, it outlines the purpose of the Regulatory Philosophy and gives industry a very clear commitment as to how CASA employees will engage with industry.



“The CASA Regulatory Philosophy outlines the principles underpinning the way we perform our functions, exercise our power, and engage with the aviation community.

Consistent with CASA's obligation to comply with the laws governing its regulatory activities, this statement of regulatory philosophy sets out the principles that guide and direct CASA's approach to the performance of its regulatory functions and the exercise of its regulatory powers.

Fidelity to these principles will be reflected in CASA's regulatory policies and practices and will extend to the fullest extent possible to all aspects of CASA's engagement with the wider aviation community.

I will address each of those ten commitments individually, with my brief comments in italicised text.

1. CASA is committed to maintaining the trust and respect of the aviation community

CASA is committed to maintaining the trust of the Australian aviation community and regaining that trust where it has been shaken or compromised. CASA is likewise committed to fostering mutual respect between itself and the aviation community in every aspect of our engagement with members of that community.

My comment: You yourself as the CASA ICC previously identified that “CASA” had breached this first commitment of CASAs regulatory philosophy.

You identified ‘CASA”, I am merely trying to be a bit more specific.

There can be no doubt that from the very first contact in October 2018, CASA has shown a flagrant disregard for this commitment in its entirety. This extends from Mr Aleck initiating that notification with no prior warning, to consistently changing the “goalposts”, to providing clearly false and misleading information to the Ombudsman. Mr Alecks actions and decisions do nothing to regain the trust of the aviation community. This entire matter has received widespread industry attention and is an industry example of exactly why CASA will not be able to “regain that trust where it has been broken”, because the engagement with industry continues to decline and become increasingly combative in nature.

2. Mindful of the primacy of air safety, CASA takes account of all relevant considerations, including cost

Although safety must always be CASA's 'most important consideration', this does not mean that safety is the only consideration CASA takes into account when performing its regulatory functions and exercising its regulatory powers. CASA is required to take all relevant considerations, including cost, into account.

• Where reasonable alternative approaches to the fulfillment of a regulatory requirement-
• satisfy applicable legal requirements and
• do not unacceptably compromise safety

CASA will readily entertain such alternatives if they are proposed and accept them in the absence of compelling reasons not to do so.

My comment: Consider that commitment that CASA gives to industry, “Where reasonable alternative approaches to the fulfilment of a regulatory requirement satisfy applicable legal requirements and do not unacceptably compromise safety, CASA will readily entertain such alternatives if they are proposed and accept them in the absence of a compelling reason not to do so.

Well quite clearly Mr Aleck did not accept my reasonable alternative that I had been adopting for many years and with wider CASA approval. This entire matter clearly indicates that Mr aleck did not, readily entertain such alternatives, and he can offer no compelling reason why he did not accept my structure. He has clearly not acted in accordance with CASAs Regulatory Philosophy, and that is a clear indicator that he was choosing to act in bad faith.

3. CASA takes risk-based approaches to regulatory action and decision-making

CASA will adopt a regulatory approach based on a sound assessment of the level of risk associated with particular aviation operations. In doing so, the highest safety priority will be afforded to passenger transport operations, and operations in which passengers and others exposed to higher levels of risk are not in a position to make informed judgements and effective decisions about the risks to which they are exposed.

CASAs approach was extremely disproportionate, and most especially considering that on CASAs own commitment here, flight training has a relatively “low level of risk” due to students being in a position to make informed judgements, and effective decisions as to the risk to which they are exposed, and particularly so compared to an Airline passenger.

Mr Aleck most certainly did not adopt a risk-based approach to regulatory action. There was no risk, there were no safety concerns, and there were no deficient outcomes identified by CASA at all.

Mr Aleck did not make “risk based” decisions. His decisions were motivated by reasons other than “risk”, and I believe that indicates that he was acting in bad faith.

4. CASA performs its functions consistently with Australia's international obligations

Except where a difference to a standard specified in an Annex to the Chicago Convention has been properly notified to the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) by Australia, CASA will strive to ensure its regulatory requirements, policies and practices:

• are consistent with ICAO standards
• harmonise with best international regulatory practice, having particular regard to aviation jurisdictions with features similar to Australia's.

Harmonisation does not necessarily mean replication, and where it is appropriate to do so, CASA's regulatory requirements, policies and practices should reflect considerations that are distinctive to the Australian aviation environment.

My comment: I have no complaint against this commitment. It commits to international standardisation; my issue was more local standardisation i.e. a different person in CASA applying a completely different interpretation of legislation to my business.

5. CASA approaches its regulatory functions consultatively and collaboratively

CASA will develop and implement appropriate, and appropriately inclusive, consultative and collaborative policies and practices with a view to:

• understanding the nature and practical implications of existing and potential aviation safety issues and problems
• deciding whether, and if so the extent to which, CASA should be involved in addressing such issues and problems
• identifying the most appropriate contributions CASA can make to addressing such issues and problems, recognising that a regulatory response will not always necessarily be the most appropriate contribution.

Correspondingly appropriate consultative and collaborative policies and processes will be developed to guide and direct the way in which CASA carries out its distinctive responsibilities (regulatory and otherwise) in addressing the aviation safety issues and problems in respect of which CASA's responsibilities have been identified.

My comment: The approach adopted by Mr Aleck was most certainly not one of being consultative and collaborative,

Mr Aleck obviously had the option to approach me in a consultative and collaborative manner. The option for a well-intentioned four-hour meeting could have avoided this matter in its entirety. Yet he chose to adopt a highly prescriptive regulatory response, when he options were available to him that clearly caused less harm.

6. CASA communicates fully and meaningfully with all relevant stakeholders
At every stage of the regulatory activities in which CASA engages-from contemplating the need to make a rule or impose a requirement, to the application of a rule or requirement-and to the fullest extent possible in the circumstances, CASA will ensure that everyone whose rights, interests and legitimate expectations will, or are likely to, be affected by CASA's contemplated actions has access to information and advice about:

• what it is CASA proposes to do
• why CASA is proposing to do so
• what considerations CASA has taken into account in forming its view on the matter to hand
• what alternatives (if any) had been considered and why those alternatives had been ruled out
• what the effects of the proposed actions are expected to be
• what recourse is available to persons who are, or are likely to be, affected by the proposed action.

CASA will ensure that the information and advice it provides to the aviation community, generally and in individual cases, is:

• clear and concise, using plain language and concepts wherever possible
• correct and complete, authoritatively informed and fully informative
• responsive to the questions or issues to hand and timely.

• effects of the proposed actions are expected to be
• what recourse is available to persons who are, or are likely to be, affected by the proposed action.

CASA did not communicate with me fully and meaningfully.

CASA did not communicate with me at “every stage from contemplating the need to impose a requirement to the application of that requirement”, in fact CASA did not give me any indications that there were any concerns at all until the very moment that they imposed that requirement. I walked into work at 8 am on October 23rd 2018, having absolutely no idea that by the end of the day my business of more than a decade would be determined unlawful and unauthorised, given only 7 days certainty of operations, that I would be threatened with prosecution by CASA as would my customers through their involvement with me. I was in daily communication with my CASA Certificate Management Team, the very CASA team that was responsible for the “management of my CASA certificate”, and was allocated to my business. Surely someone in that team should have raised concerns with me, before CASA issued that notification.

The Regultory Philosophy commits that everyone whose rights, interests and legitimate expectations will, or are likely to, be affected by CASA's contemplated actions has access to information and advice about:

• what it is CASA proposes to do
• why CASA is proposing to do so
• what considerations CASA has taken into account in forming its view on the matter to hand
• what alternatives (if any) had been considered and why those alternatives had been ruled out
• what the effects of the proposed actions are expected to be
• what recourse is available to persons who are, or are likely to be, affected by the proposed action.

Consider that CASA gave me no prior indication of what it proposed to do, despite that being easily done, CASA has refused to identify the considerations taken into account in forming its view, CASA steadfastly refuses to identify what alternatives had been considered including my preferred alternative to resolve the entire matter within four hours at any time, CASA refuses to identify why it chose not to seek the alternative of resolving the entire matter in that four hours, and Mr Aleck specifically used a process of placing crippling trading restrictions on the business for eight months while he “thought about it” therefore denying me any right of appeal against his conduct, and giving the person affected by the action absolutely no recourse at all.

For these reasons against this item of CASAs own Regulatory Philosophy, I am fully satisfied that Mr Aleck did not act in good faith.



7. CASA fairly balances the need for consistency with the need for flexibility
CASA will consistently employ the same processes, and have regard to the same criteria, in all cases involving the consideration of particular facts and circumstances for the purposes of determining whether, and if so how, a regulatory requirement should be interpreted or applied in any given situation. In this way, everyone may be confident that they are receiving the same advice about the general meaning and application of any regulatory requirement.

CASA will also ensure that all relevant facts and circumstances peculiar to an individual situation have been fully and fairly considered on their merits, and will provide advice about, or decide the outcome of, a particular matter governed by a regulatory requirement on that basis. In this way, everyone may be confident that, within a regulatory framework that consistently employs the same processes and assesses facts against the same criteria, their individual circumstances will be fully and fairly considered.

My comment: You yourself as the CASA ICC identified that “CASA” had breached item seven of the regulatory philosophy. I am merely trying to be more specific. “CASA” incorporates many highly professional personnel working towards aviation safety. My complaint is more specific and aimed at a specific CASA employee, being Mr Aleck.

Item Seven of CASAs Regulatory philosophy is another commitment that is particularly pertinent to this entire matter.

Consistency. Let me be very clear on this. Mr Aleck and/or Ms Spence the CEO of CASA are responsible for providing false and misleading information to the Ombudsman investigation.

The truth is very clearly, that CASA on each and every occasion formally approved the identical structure that I had adopted, throughout the flight training industry, that is the single authorisation, multiple bases, multiple entity structure.

This entire matter is about how I was targetted

Mr Aleck targeted me specifically in October 2018 when that notification was sent. This commitment in item 7 of CASAs Regulatory Philosophy was clearly not complied with. The fact that this was not an industry wide application of Mr Alecks opinion but rather one directed at me only, leaves me in no doubt that I was targeted. One would expect that there should be an accompanying explanation from CASA as to what was different about my structure, compared to others that caused only my organisation after operating for over a decade to be declared unlawful and unauthorised, whilst not the other Operators across Australia adopting the identical structure.

[glenb]

Bad Faith continued

8. CASA embraces and employs rational 'just culture' principles in its regulatory and related actions

CASA embraces, and encourages the development throughout the aviation community of, a 'just culture', as an organisational culture in which people are not punished for actions, omissions or decisions taken by them that are commensurate with their experience, qualifications and training, but where gross negligence, recklessness, wilful violations and destructive acts are not tolerated.

Appropriate polices will be developed and implemented to ensure the integrity of this approach, and to guard against any inappropriate punitive action by CASA, or disciplinary action by a service provider, in a manner inconsistent with this principle.

My comment: Once again, one must question Mr Alecks application of a “just culture”

Considering that there are no regulatory breaches, no safety concerns, no evidence or data at all, and no identified deficiencies against any quality outcomes to justify Mr Alecks decision making. It must raise concerns.

The consequences have been significant not only to me and my family but to staff, customers, students and suppliers.

Apart from taking an industry lead on raising concerns about the new regulatory structure, I don’t believe that CASA has ever identified what I did wrong. In fact there is nothing, and that is what makes the entire matter so absurd.

You will understand that my life has been decimated by this entire matter, so I am very much of the opinion that Mr Aleck has not acted in accordance with the principles of “just culture” and I call into question his integrity and motivations.



Item 9 is a rather long commitment so I will break this one down. The bolding being the CASA text, and the italicised text being my comments.

9. CASA demonstrates proportionality and discretion in regulatory decision-making and exercises its powers in accordance with the principles of procedural fairness and natural justice

CASA will seek optimal safety outcomes in the exercise of its regulatory powers. On that basis and to that end, CASA will ensure that its actions and responses are appropriate and proportional to the circumstances.

My response: Consider that CASA has never closed a flight training organisation down or applied the trading restrictions that were applied to my business, throughout my involvement in the industry over more than more than 30 years, yet I actually did nothing wrong, its ludicrous.

There is no safety concerns ever raised by CASA and there is no valid reason that this entire matter could have been fully resolved at any time within four hours. That option was always available to Mr Aleck, so I very much question not only the intent, but also the proportionality of his response, as it was entirely unnecessary.

Furthermore, by thinking about it for 8 months with crippling trading restrictions in place, rather than make a decision that I could appeal, I was completely denied both procedural fairness and natural justice.

CASA most certainly did not exercise proportionality and discretion in its decision making. After operating in that identical structure with full approval from CASA for many years. Once Mr Aleck formed the opinion that I had been operating “unlawfully” with full CASA approval for many years that should have initiated a well-intentioned process, such as the four-hour discussion that I have previously mentioned. The approach adopted was entirely unnecessary, and caused significant harm that was entirely not necessary

The commitment “exercises its powers in accordance with principles of procedural fairness and natural justice, is something I very much call into question, as I had no appeal or processes available to me to prevent Mr Aleck putting crippling trading restrictions on the business. The breaches of administrative law, procedural fairness and natural justice are significant, and as stated earlier CASA bypassed their own procedures. Consider that CASA was able to deprive my business of revenue for a staggering eight months while Mr Aleck “thought about it”, and throughout that time, I have no right of appeal.



In the first instance, and in the absence of demonstrable safety-related reasons for doing otherwise:

• CASA will adopt an approach to regulatory compliance based on the encouragement of training and education, with a view to remedying identified shortcomings and correcting specified deficiencies
• where it is necessary in the demonstrable interests of safety for CASA to exercise discretionary powers in order to achieve a specified safety-related outcome, CASA will employ the least intrusive and least disruptive means consistent with the achievement of that outcome.
• My response, Mr Aleck had the option of the 4 hour well intentioned discussion available to him. A total exercise that would have been resolved on the same day. He was not compelled to put those trading restrictions on the business, they were entirely unnecessary. On every occasion that Mr aleck was presented with two options he would choose the most intrusive and disruptive means, and I will deal more with that later in this document. The point being that this entire matter could have been resolved in four hours with no trading restrictions in place at all, and most particularly not for eight months. It was entirely unnecessary to shut my business down causing significant impact to me and my family, staff, students and suppliers who were also impacted. It is quite obvious that despite Mr Aleck having a number of options available to him, he clearly adopted the most intrusive and most disruptive options that were available to him.
• CASA will not utilise its discretionary powers to vary or suspend a civil aviation authorisation for punitive or disciplinary purposes, but only for purposes reasonably calculated to achieve specified safety-related objectives, including the protection of persons and property pending the satisfactory demonstration by the person whose privileges have been, or are to be, varied or suspended, that the shortcomings or deficiencies giving rise to CASA's action have been effectively addressed.
• My response. CASA commits to only varying, suspending or cancelling an AOC for purposes reasonably calculated to achieve specified safety related objectives, although CASA can offer absolutely no “specified safety related objectives. to justify the decision to vary my AOC. This gets to the very central theme being that CASA had absolutely no valid basis to take the action that they took. Mr Aleck was acting in bad faith.

In determining whether and how to exercise its regulatory discretion in a particular matter, CASA will have regard to:

• the seriousness of the safety-related implications of the instance of noncompliance under scrutiny
• My response, there is absolutely no noncompliance which makes this entire matter so absurd.
• mitigating or aggravating circumstances impacting on the appropriateness of the responsive regulatory action(s) contemplated
• My comment:The mitigating or aggravating circumstances are that CASA approved me to operate in this exact structure for many years, formally approving bases under this exact structure, then worked side by side with me over two years as I invested in completely overhauling every aspect of the business, in preparation for the new regulatory structure, then CASA fully revalidated me in April 2017, then audited the entire structure in November 2017, and then formally approved further bases, and then in October 2018, Mr Aleck declares it unlawful. It makes no sense at all. Surely the starting point once that CASA realise a business has been operating unlawfully for a decade due to an oversight by CASA because Mr Aleck was unaware, and in cases where they have audited, revalidated, and visited the business, surely a softer, less combative stance could have been adopted. Surely rather than send me an email, threatening business closure and prosecution, one of the CASA personnel that I dealt with on a daily basis could have raised concerns and given me the opportunity to work with CASA to rectify the perceived l issue.

Its important to note here that the Ombudsman found that CASA had erred and in fact there was nothing unlawful about the structure, which makes this entire matter so obscene. Mr Alecks actions and decisions were unlawful.

• the history and background of the person whose acts or omissions are under scrutiny, in relation to that person's demonstrated ability and willingness to comply with regulatory requirements
• My response: I had maintained an industry leading level of safety and compliance for over a decade that I had been running the business, and that is based on feedback from CASA. I was at all times completely willing to put any wording into our commercial contracts that CASA required, there was always a complete willingness to comply and that is why I maintain that the only reason this matter was not resolved in four hours is because Mr Aleck chose for it to be that way.
• the passage of time since the acts or omissions under scrutiny occurred, and when they were discovered by, or otherwise came to the attention of, CASA.
• My comment, CASA had approved me to operate in this exact structure for approximately a decade, and I had done so with full CASA approval and full awareness of exactly my business structure. Once Mr Aleck realised that I had built and operated my business on that structure for over a decade with full CASA approval, them my reasonable expectation that was CASA would have engaged in a conciliatory manner and worked with good intention to rectifying their oversight, rather than adopt such a totally unnecessary combative approach that resulted in so much harm.
• the degree of responsibility of the individual(s) whose acts or omissions are under scrutiny
• My comment: I was completely dependent on CASA for design, and approval of the structure that I adopted. CASA formally approved it, many years earlier. CASA encouraged me on it, approved bases under it, audited it and the CASA personnel that I dealt with on a daily basis, that being my CASA allocated Certificate Management Team(CMT) were most certainly fully aware of it. Throughout that decade that I operated the business, I could not have possibly been aware that I had broken any regulatory requirements. As has now been evidenced and attended to in this document, in fact there was no regulatory breach. I was 100% dependent on CASA to do operate my business, I could not possibly have been aware that they had supposedly made an error.
• the effect on the wider aviation community (including the general public) and confidence in CASA's administration of the civil aviation legislation in the interests of safety
• My comment. This entire matter cannot possibly build confidence in CASA. A well-intentioned Operator who delivers industry leading levels of safety has his business close down, with no supporting safety case or regulatory breach. All of this with no right of appeal.
• the obsolescence or obscurity of the law
• Apparently the only person in CASA that was awre that I was operating outside of the law, was Mr Aleck, and he only became aware many years later, and the legislation that he drew on to make his decisions was grossly misused, and it was used in a way that specifically targeted me, as it was in contrast to all industry precedent.
• whether a contemplated regulatory response would be perceived as counter-productive, for example, by bringing the civil aviation legislation or CASA into disrepute.
• My comment, this matter has attracted widespread industry support, and Mr alecks actions, decisions and conduct does bring CASA and its well intentioned personnel into disrepute.
• the availability and efficacy of appropriate alternatives to a particular regulatory response
• My comment: There is absolutely no valid reason that this entire matter could have been resolved in 4 hours with a well-intentioned discussion, without any CASA paperwork even requiring to be raised. If Mr Aleck can provide no valid reason why he did not choose that option. Had he have chosen that option no harm would have been caused.
• whether the consequences of the regulatory action contemplated would be unduly harsh or oppressive
• Placing restrictions on a businesses ability to trade that cause reputational and commercial damage over a period of eight months, then closing that business down, when there is no reason a 4 hour well intentioned meeting could have avoided all of that. Most definitely, Mr Alecks imposed restrictions were not only totally unnecessary, they were unduly harsh, oppressive and from my personal experience with the man, cruel.
• whether the matter is one of considerable public concern
• the actual or potential harm occasioned to an individual or the damage to property and
• My comment, this was a “simple” matter of adding some wording into our “commercial contracts”. It was not a change to any of our CASA approved operating procedures. There was absolutely no public concern, potential harm to an individual or damage to property. It was just some words in a contract. As I keep stating, how could that have been so difficult to resolve.
• whether the person whose acts or omissions are under regulatory scrutiny is (or has been) willing to co-operate with CASA in the efforts to address the particular matter to hand and/or to address relevant safety-related issues more generally.
• My comment: There was never any resistance from me at all, and CASA will not be able to refute that. At all times, I was fully prepared to put whatever wording CASA wanted in our commercial contracts, and that is why the entire matter should have been fully resolved in a matter of hours. The restrictions were crippling my business reputationally and commercially. There is absolutely no reason that I would not want the wording into the contracts as soon as possible so that I can return to business as usual.

The applicability of and weight to be given to these and other factors will depend on the particular circumstances of each case.

Beyond its legal obligation to do so in most cases, in all cases in which CASA exercises discretion in determining whether, and if so to what extent, a requirement will be imposed on a person, except where the interests of safety prevent it or it is otherwise demonstrably impracticable to do so, CASA will afford persons affected, or likely to be affected, by a decision with an appropriate measure of procedural fairness and natural justice.

My comment. Mr Aleck clearly did not provide me with an appropriate measure of procedural fairness and natural justice by completely bypassing the protections put in place in CASAs own manuals when they “cancel, vary, or suspend an AOC.

10. CASA has a legitimate, but limited, role in pursuing punitive action for breaches of the civil aviation legislation

CASA has a legitimate, but limited, role in the pursuit of punitive action against a person for alleged breaches of the civil aviation legislation. CASA will not pursue regulatory administrative action to vary, suspend or cancel a civil aviation authorisation for punitive purposes.



My comment. I operated in that identical structure for many years. I did take an industry lead on raising concerns in the years leading up to the introduction of the new legislation and did gain some media coverage. From my experience dealing with Mr Aleck and this matter, and considering that there no supporting safety case, no regulatory breaches, and absolutely no compelling reason for Mr Aleck to act as he did.



I can attend to each of those items of the regulatory philosophy in more detail, but this brief summary above, should indicate that Mr Aleck was acting in bad faith. If a CASA employee adheres to that philosophy, they would be well protected, but when a CASA employee strays so far from these obligations then that must surely raise concerns as to the employee acting in bad faith.

[glenb]

The Bad faith mental element Continued

“Attempts to resolve the contract issue.

Mr Aleck has led the Ombudsman’s Office to be of the view that CASA made a number of “good faith attempts” to resolve the contracts issue.

That representation is very far from the truth, and I will attend to that here.

Recall that the crippling trading restrictions dealt with, in detail later in the “Damages section” will not be lifted until Mr Aleck is personally satisfied with the wording of our commercial agreements.

A simple task that could and should have been completed within a matter of hours was dragged out unnecessarily over 8 months. This was simply a task of putting CASA required text into our commercial agreements. Within hours of CASA providing that text at any time after October 2018, or preferably years prior, this matter could have been finalised. I was dependent on CASA clearly and concisely advising what they require in our commercial contracts. There was no resistance at all from me. Mr Aleck was able to maintain the crippling trading restrictions on the business for a staggering six months, while denying me any right of appeal while he “thought about the wording that would satisfy him” and refused to make a decision, despite me calling on him to do so.

As I have stated previously, there is absolutely no reason that this entire matter could not have been resolved in a matter of hours.

On every occasion that I met a CASA requirement and embedded it into the commercial contracts, CASA would stipulate a new requirement. It was increasingly obvious that there was little intent to resolve the issue of the “contracts”. I was chasing a moving target.

Some important considerations and underpinning knowledge here:

· It’s important to recall CASAs alternating narrative. First, my structure was deemed unlawful by Mr Aleck, then after a couple of months, as that position became tenuous, he moved over to the “Temporary Locations” procedure that we utilised to induct new members. This exact process that we adopted was the exact procedure that CASA had suggested to me and approved years earlier. Once CASA realised that it was in fact their own approved procedure, there was no option, either lift the restrictions, which is exactly what should have happened, or find a new topic to maintain the restrictions on the businesses ability to trade. That topic now became the “contracts” issue, and the restrictions on trade remained in place, until that was resolved to Mr Alecks satisfaction.



· This requirement for CASA to be involved in the wording of the “commercial” agreement between the Members was a new and unique requirement that Mr Aleck placed on my business only. No other Operators, including mine, had ever previously been required to hold a CASA approved commercial contract. CASA has no such contracts for any operator on file. There is no legislative or safety argument to suggest CASA should have any involvement. Mr Aleck was not compelled to place those restrictions on the business for eight months while the wording was considered by CASA, it was a considered decision by Mr Aleck. He would have been fully aware of the commercial and reputational harm that would be caused by his action, and I advised CASA on multiple occasions in detail of the commercial and reputational harm being caused.



· In fact, I truly do not believe that Mr Aleck had any valid basis to stipulate this requirement for CASA to even become involved in commercial contracts. It is critical that the reader has an understanding of what an “Exposition” is, as opposed to a “commercial agreement. The commercial agreement being the document that CASA insisted on becoming involved in. Once the reader has an understanding of the difference between the Exposition and the Commercial Agreements, it becomes increasingly obvious that the requirement by CASA is quite bizarre.



The “commercial agreement” is simply the contract that the majority of businesses in any industry will have with their customers, outlining the “business” and “financial” aspects of the relationship. As it is commercial in nature, and not related to safety or compliance, CASA has traditionally not been involved in these arrangements, and has no legislative obligations to do so. The commercial contract is a normal part of doing business. This was not only a case of CASA wanting us to have commercial contracts, but also wanting to stipulate the wording in those commercial contracts. Unusually CASA refused to become a signatory.



The “Exposition” on the other hand is a comprehensive suite of documents of several thousand pages. The Exposition is a CASA requirement, and I will draw on CASAs own definition of what an Exposition is;

An Exposition is a document, or set of documents, which describe how your organisation will conduct its operations safely. It sets out both for CASA and the personnel involved in your operation how you intend to comply with all applicable legislative requirements and manage the safety of your operation. The relevant regulations will outline what you must include. It will include information about your organisation, personnel, facilities, policies, systems and procedures for conducting your activities.

A flight training organisation is required to describe procedures by which the operator conducts and manages its training activities, including the supervision of instructors and trainees. Your exposition must accurately reflect how you will conduct your activities. It needs to be written and structured in a logical way. This will ensure the relevant parts can be readily identified and provided to your personnel who are responsible for complying with them.

Example, CASR 142.340 requires a Part 142 flight training organisation to describe procedures by which the operator conducts and manages its training activities, including the supervision of instructors and trainees. Your exposition must accurately reflect how you will conduct your activities. It needs to be structured in a logical way. This will ensure the relevant parts can be readily identified and provided to your personnel who are responsible for complying with them. The procedures in your exposition should also provide enough detail so that your personnel can conduct their activities consistently in line with your intentions. Each procedure should address, where required.

· What must be done?

· Who should do it?

· When it must be done.

· Where it must be done

· How it must be done

· Record Keeping

· How the procedure is monitored and approved



Once the relevant authorisation has been issued by CASA, you are obliged to conduct your activities in accordance with your exposition.

Below is an extract from CASR 142.340. This link outlines the regulatory requirements for the contents of the Exposition.As stated before. If CASA required any structural or significant changes it was essential that they are contained within the Exposition, not a commercial contract.

CIVIL AVIATION SAFETY REGULATIONS 1998 - REG 142.340 Part 142 operators--content of exposition (austlii.edu.au)



· The Exposition document that CASA is heavily involved in and would be where I would expect matters of operational control to be contained. The “commercial” agreement between a business and its customers traditionally have not been something that CASA has any involvement in.



· Furthermore, it seemed unreasonable that Mr Aleck would stipulate CASA requirements into a commercial contract and not be prepared to be a signatory to that contract. I have no legal training at all but surely CASA has no right to “interfere” in the contents of commercial contracts, and most especially if they will not be a signatory. Nevertheless, I showed no resistance at all and was willing and able to do whatever CASA required in order to have the trading restrictions lifted. I just needed CASA to tell me what they wanted.



· It is also important to understand that when CASA wrote to me in October 2018, notifying their intention to close my business, they called for me to provide copies of commercial contracts. I advised CASA that I had provided them multiple copies over the preceding years, including to Mr Graeme Crawford, the Executive Manager of the Aviation Group and CASAs second in charge at the time. CASA denied this, I showed irrefutable evidence. CASA was now in a difficult situation. They had called for contracts, and now discovered that they already held them. Although there had been no requirement, I had provided them as a matter of courtesy. CASA was now in a difficult situation. CASA now had no safety case, no regultory breach, the Temporary Locations procedure had been found to be their own procedure, and now CASA realised that they already had the contracts. Mr Aleck had by now pushed himself into a corner. Rather than admit error, and work with good intent to resolve the matter, he chose a path forward where the trading restrictions would stay in place until we could adjust the wording in the contracts, to his satisfaction. As I was attending to his opinion only, I was fully reliant on Mr Aleck being satisfied if the trading restrictions were to be lifted. There was now a significant power imbalance, as Mr Alecks application of his opinion would determine the future of me and my businesses. I requested on multiple occasions that the trading restrictions be lifted, while Mr Aleck was “thinking” about it, but CASA refused to lift the trading restrictions.



What really happened here was that CASA kept changing their requirements. On each and every occasion that CASA provided information on their requirements, it was retuned on every occasion within 4 business days and CASA will not be able to refute that. On every occasion, CASA changed their mind, and the requirements were altered.

Finally, after 6 months with the crippling trading restrictions in place CASA again provides me with the “finalised” wording that will once again satisfy CASA.

Once again, I embed that into my contracts, submit it to CASA. CASA approve it, and then shortly, do exactly what they have done throughout the previous 6 months, and change their mind again, and I am right back exactly where I was 6 months earlier, with the trading restrictions in place. It was obvious to me that this matter could not be resolved. There was no intention for it to be resolved.

This happened on multiple occasions, but on the final occasion I was able to obtain a recording of that meeting, and I will provide that recording here. This recording has previously been provided to the Commonwealth Ombudsman, The CASA Board, and the CASA CEO.

Until now, I had not distributed that recording outside of that small pertinent group. I do intend to share that recording with other relevant parties that request it. I am fully satisfied that there is an attempted coverup of this matter, and that Mr Aleck is being “protected”. If my allegations are substantiated, there can be no doubt that the safety of aviation could be impacted by that misconduct, and especially so when considering the seniority of the Executives involved. I sought assistance from the previous LNP Government at Ministerial level, and the CASA Board who refuse to meet with me. My rights under administrative law have been ignored, as have my rights under natural justice and procedural fairness. The trauma and harm caused has been significant. On the basis of the safety of aviation alone, without all the other contributing factors, I feel that I have no option available to me, other than to release that recording, and expose that misconduct within CASA.

The point of this recording. It clearly demonstrates that CASA gave me guaranteed assurances that if I embedded the suggested CASA text into my contracts, they would finally lift the trading restrictions. CASA did not. That recording can be accessed in the timeline below. Understand that the crippling trading restrictions have now been in place for a staggering 6 months. There was no doubt in my mind that this was simply being used as a “delaying tactic”. Mr Aleck was fully aware that each week this matter went on, my family was having to subsidise continuing operations. Initially this was $10,000 per week and increased to $20,000 per week as business continued to decline as a result of the unnecessarily prolonged matter. By now, my own funds are exhausted, and my parents have contributed $300,000 of their retirement fund, to maintain operations. CASA was fully aware of the commercial and reputational harm being caused because I wrote to CASA on multiple occasions on this topic.

Not only commercially but reputationally the business is decimated. We have been unable to enrol any students into our courses, as we only have a limited surety of operations, i.e., 7 days. Customers are transferring away from us, staff are becoming increasingly concerned about their continuing employment, and enormous organisational instability exists.



On Tuesday April 2nd, 2019. CASA provide their “final” guidance on what will satisfy Mr Aleck, in order for the trading restrictions be lifted. It is inexplicable that CASA placed trading restrictions on the business 6 months earlier, and they have only just worked out the wording that they want. A fundamental principle is that “in order for something to be wrong, you need to know what right is”. If CASA deemed my commercial contracts wrong or deficient and in need of CASA involvement 6 months prior, surely, they should have thought about the wording that they wanted way back then, and that failure to resolve the matter is exactly why the matter could not be resolved in 4 hours as it should have been. Irrespective, CASA finally provide the wording that will satisfy “CASA/Mr Aleck” on April 2nd, 2019

My Accountant also contacts me on the same day requesting a meeting. I have now been assuring him for 6 months that this simple matter of the wording in our commercial contracts is about to be resolved. He had grave concerns about continuing operations and asked that I come to his office with my Admin Manager at 11.30 AM on April 4th being the Thursday, in two days’ time.



On Thursday April 4th being the day that we were to meet with our accountancy firm, I emailed Mr Peter White of CASA at 8.30AM in the morning requesting a phone conference call at 11.30AM that same day from the office of my accountancy firm. I advised that the meeting would be about the potential cessation of all operations at APTA, Ballarat Aero Club, Latrobe Valley Aero Club, Simjet, Whitestar Aviation, AVIA and Learn to Fly, and MFT, unless we could finalise this matter of the wording in the contracts. Like me, my accountant could not understand how such a simple matter was not resolved after 6 months. It was imperative that the matter of the contracts was resolved at that meeting. The business could not proceed if the restrictions remained in place. It was imperative that the “interim operations” and other CASA imposed restrictions be lifted and the business permitted to return to “business as usual’.

My accountant had grave concerns about the impact of the restrictions on the business over the previous 6 months, and like me, could not see any basis on safety or law for the CASA actions. It was a change of opinion. By now the business is under extreme financial distress. My accountant was extremely concerned that after 6 months waiting for CASA to determine what they want in the contracts; the matter was still not resolved.





4th April 2019 at 11.30AM The meeting proceeded at 11.30 AM by way of a conference call. In attendance representing CASA would be the Executive Manager Aviation Group Mr Graeme Crawford, and the Executive Manager of Regulatory Services and Surveillance, Mr Craig Martin. Also in attendance were two staff from my accountancy firm and two staff from APTA. Both CASA employees have since left the Organisation.

The point of providing this recording. It includes several very clear commitments from each of those employees, that if I embed that wording, the trading restrictions will be lifted, and I will be able to return to business as usual.

At that meeting, CASA Executives Mr Martin and Mr Crawford individually gave me firm and repeated commitments that if I embedded the CASA suggested text, that was provided to me only two days earlier by CASA into the contracts, then the restrictions on the businesses ability to trade would be lifted. APTA would be promptly approved to continue operations and as CASA termed it, return to “business as usual”

Some points that I should mention regarding some statements made in the recording that I will shortly provide.

Mr Martin urged me to get the contract back as soon as possible, as that was “all we were waiting for”. His tone suggested that they were waiting on me, as they were. I had been waiting on CASA to provide that text for 6 months. They had provided it only two days earlier on the Tuesday.

My accountant queried Mr Crawford as to why it had taken 6 months for CASA to provide the suggested text and lift the restrictions on the business. Mr Crawford advised my accountant that he didn’t have to explain CASAs position and that he didn’t have to talk to him because he was the accountant. It was obvious at that meeting that they were unable to justify the unacceptable timelines and were not going to explain the reason that it took CASA 6 months to work out what it was that they wanted.

There was no doubt in my mind at the conclusion of that meeting that CASA committed that they would lift the restrictions if I returned the contracts with the CASA guidance fully embedded, as they had committed to previously.

RECORDING of MEETING ( Pprune supporters please email me [email protected] if you would like to register your interest to obtain a copy.



Tuesday 9th April 2019 at 7.33AM It is now four business days after CASA provided their finalised requirements, which I had embedded into the contract. At 7.33AM, the contract is returned to CASA for review by Mr Peter White, the CASA Executive Manager of Regulatory Services and Surveillance at the time, and my point of contact to Mr Aleck. My reasonable expectation at this stage was that the business would soon be able to return to business as usual as CASA had already assured me on so many previous occasions during the previous 6 months, and in order to meet the commitments given by CASA Executives, Mr Martin and Mr Crawford at the Accountants Office days earlier on April 4th,



Tuesday 9th April 2019 at 6.32PM CASA has now received the finalised contracts approximately 12 hours earlier. Peter White the CASA Executive Manager of Regulatory Services and Surveillance at the time, responds and sends me an email titled “I can confirm the content is acceptable to CASA”. Within the body of the email, it goes on to state. “Dear Glen, I have reviewed the draft contract provided this date. I can confirm the content is acceptable to CASA. My appreciation to you and your staff for provision of same…….”

On receiving that email, I was relieved. Something that should have been solved 6 months ago, in a matter of a few hours, had finally been resolved to CASAs satisfaction By now the business had been decimated mine and the businesses funds were exhausted, my parents had put in $300,000 of their own money to ensure I could avoid any staff redundancies over the previous 6 months that the trading restrictions had been in place. Many of my customers and staff had already left because of the previous 6 months uncertainty, and I had been unable to take on new customers or students. The accountant had very firmly advised me that this matter must be resolved immediately, or he would have to intervene. He would not permit continued operations now costing approximately $20,000 per week.

I have now had a commitment from the following CASA Executives

1. CASA Executive Manager of the Aviation Group- Mr Graeme Crawford at my accountant’s office less than a week prior.

2. CASA Executive Manager Regulatory Services and Surveillance- Mr Peter White via email

3. CASA Acting Executive Manager Regulatory Services and Surveillance- Mr Craig Martin at my accountant’s office less than a week prior.



After waiting six months CASA has finally provided the suggested wording, which I have adopted, and the contract has been returned to CASA. I have assurances from all relevant CASA Executive managers with the exception of Mr Jonathan Aleck



Tuesday 9th April 2019 at 10.56PM.

Only hours later, there is yet another complete reversal by CASA and I am back at the start of the process again exactly where I was six months prior when CASA write back to me and ask, “can you hold off distributing for a day or two”. I am back in exactly the same situation that I was six months earlier. I have crippling trading restrictions in place, the damage reputationally and commercially is by now almost irreversible, and we still don’t have the CASA required wording that will satisfy Mr Aleck and permit me to return to Business as Usual.



12th April 2019, (Friday) CASA advise that they will contact me verbally over the weekend.



16th April 2019 (Tuesday) CASA advise that they would like another teleconference.



17th April 2019 (Wednesday) CASA advise that they have some “disappointing news”. The contracts were now not acceptable, CASA put a proposal to me that they would now pursue a different approach, although a new approval for interim operations would now be issued. It was the “interim approvals” that bought so much instability and uncertainty to the business. The matter was still not resolved, and another interim approval to operate is issued. Any remaining confidence in the APTA model by customers and potential customers is now lost as they have been in “limbo” for 6 months already. Their reasonable expectation, as was mine, was that this matter should have been resolved long ago.

24th April 2019 I write to CASA raising my concerns. Attached as Appendix D https://www.dropbox.com/s/yhtzovw4e1...0CASA.pdf?dl=0



There can be no doubt that this matter dragged unnecessarily on for 8 months, until Mr Aleck stood by his initial determination and declared that APTA was unlawful and forced all flying schools to leave APTA, including my own flying school of more than a decade. All of this without me having any right of appeal, as no Administrative Decision was ever made. There were no good faith attempts by Mr Aleck to resolve the contracts issue. There was only changing goalposts, and continual delaying tactics utilised that were completely unnecessary. From my experience as the owner of those businesses, at no stage did I ever feel that there was any intent to resolve this simple matter.

Mr Aleck was the decision maker whose “opinion” needed to be satisfied.

My trading restrictions would not be lifted until he was personally satisfied with the wording in the “commercial” contracts, of which CASA refused to be a signatory.

I was given solid commitments on that recording by CASA on April 4th from my accountants office that the wording they had now provided after 6 months would facilitate the lifting of trading restrictions. It didn’t.

[glenb]

Piston Broke. Sorry for the delay in replying. I agree it will be a substantial document. I have engaged the services of a journalist to work on layout, grammar etc and format two documents. One being "misfeasance" and one being "negligent misstatement".

I will submit those documents to
Ombudsman's Office
CASA Industry Complaints Commissioner
AFP
Attorney General's office
All members of Parliament with the exception of LNP Members.
My Local MP, Ms Carina Garland
ABC
Federal Anti Corruption body
CDDP

You are correct, may will not read it, but thoise that are compelled to do so, will do so. Hopefully

[Piston_Broke]

Attach an executive summary at the front - no more than an A4 page including dot points.

Your journalist will be well experienced in wording it in such a way to motivate further reading i.e. pull the punters in.

[Sbaker]

Glen, if you want I may be able to put you in touch with a channel 7 reporter I know here in Perth.

​​​​

[glenb]

Can the Commonwealth.......... continued

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







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

Assuming that the CASA ICC determines that Mr Alecks conduct meets the threshold of misfeasance in public office, could I also ask in that final report that you clearly identify to me whether CASA consider the liability for misfeasance is a personal one, rather than vicarious.

With no legal training, my view would be that any liability would rest with CASA, as the CASA CEO, CASA Board, and the LNP Deputy PM were fully briefed on this matter from the beginning in 2018., so my reasonable assumption is that they accepted that conduct. I am sure that Mr Aleck felt the same way by that inaction.

Whilst the initial decision making may have been made by Mr Aleck, it is reasonable to assume that the CASA CEO, CASA Board, and LNP Deputy PM endorsed his decision making by their failure to act despite them being fully briefed on the matter, and me making multiple requests of each of them to meet with me.

For clarity, I believe that I am entitled to be advised of “who” the decision maker was. i.e. Mr Aleck or CASA. It is a fair and reasonable request.

[glenb]

Commonwealth liability for ministerial misfeasance?

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


Commonwealth liability for ministerial misfeasance?

The previous Deputy PMs of the LNP Government, both the Honourable Mr Michael McCormack and the Honourable Mr Barnaby Joyce were fully briefed on this matter by the Chair of the CASA Board in accordance with the Ministers Statement of Expectations of CASA. The Ministers Statement of Expectations can be accessed here. The document in its entirety is relevant to this matter, although I draw your attention specifically to 5d, which also confirms that both Deputy PMs were fully briefed. I retain extensive correspondence written to both ex-Deputy PMs over 4 years raising my substantial allegations and requesting a meeting. Both Deputy PMs chose not to provide me the opportunity to meet and submit my substantive complaint. I have received confirmation that all my correspondence was received, and that file can be provided to your Office if you deem it pertinent.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/xm7vw1flw3...02019.pdf?dl=0

[glenb]

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

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

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

The AGS Legal Briefing identifies the importance of an early and vigorous assessment of an allegation of misfeasance. I have raised these most substantial allegations against CASAs second most senior Executive on multiple occasions over a protracted period, and in the most formal of settings. This has extended over a period of four years, and to date, CASA has initiated no investigation into this matter. My allegations have been submitted to:

1. The Senate Inquiry (contained within this document)

2. The Deputy PM of the previous LNP Government. (file held by me and available upon request)

3. The CASA Board . (file held by me and available upon request)

4. The CASA CEO . (file held by me and available upon request)



Inexplicably, and completely at odds with reasonable community expectations, CASA has not initiated any investigation into Mr Alecks conduct.

It is inconceivable to me, presumably and would be to wider community expectations, that such substantive allegations could be made against the second most senior Executive of Australia’s aviation safety regulator, and the Organisation itself is not willing, or is not capable of self-initiating an investigation into the allegations. This becomes even more concerningly inexplicable when one considers the potential to impact aviation safety if those complaints were validated, and the very formal nature of the submission of those allegations including before the Senate.

If I reflect on my own Organisation before CASA closed me down. If an individual were to raise an allegation against my second most senior manager. If that allegation was substantive, potentially involved unlawful conduct, involved techniques of bullying and intimidation, and clearly had resulted in significant harm and trauma. And if the person making those allegations against my manager, wanted to meet with me in a professional and respectful manner to discuss their complaint against that Executive. I cannot possibly imagine any scenario that I could justify refusing to meet with the individual raising those allegations, unless I was trying to “coverup” the matter.

That is precisely what I believe has occurred in this scenario. I have made multiple requests to meet with not only the CASA CEO, but the CASA Board, as well as the two previous Deputy PMs of the previous LNP Government.

Considering the potential impact on the safety of aviation if my allegations were substantiated, it would no longer be tenable for Mr Jonathan Aleck to remain in the position of Executive Manager of Legal, International, and Regulatory Affairs.

The failure by the previous Deputy PM, The CASA Board, and the CASA CEO to act on this matter necessitates me formally submitting this complaint to initiate that investigation, that CASA steadfastly refuses to self-initiate.

[glenb]

Damages

I know that this is a "juicy one" but needs some more work.

[glenb]

Assisting Commonwealth Ministers

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

Assisting Commonwealth Ministers

Not relevant to address this topic at this stage, other than to reiterate that the last two LNP Deputy PMs of the previous Government were fully briefed by the CASA Board, and also by me. At this stage, this is an allegation against Mr Jonathan Aleck only.

[Sbaker]

GlenB - as they have denied you procedural fairness from the onset - you should be entitled to damages.

[Flaming galah]

Originally Posted by Sbaker

GlenB - as they have denied you procedural fairness from the onset - you should be entitled to damages.

Not sure damages are the remedy here Chief.

[Sbaker]

Absolutely correct FG, gaol, and damages.... Is the only appropriate answer.

[Lead Balloon]

CASA will argue that the email of March 19 afforded APTA procedural fairness. Unfortunately, the time and cost demands it imposed drove Glen to despair.

And I concur with FG: Failure to afford procedural fairness in administrative decision-making renders the decision unlawful, but that does not result in any entitlement to damages. And gaol? Gimme a break… (A successful negligent misstatement or malfeasance in public office claim will get you damages.)

Perverting the course of justice by pursuing and delaying prosecution action while misleading the CDPP, so as to put an individual under constant, long-term stress as a reprisal – now yer talkin’ gaol. But no one in CASA would ever pursue and delay unmeritorious prosecution action while misleading the CDPP, so as to put an individual under constant, long-term stress as a reprisal, and CASA's executive would have proper governance arrangements in place to detect and curtail such corrupt and criminal behaviour.

[glenb]

Reducing the risk of misfeasance claims

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



6. Reducing the risk of misfeasance claims

Whilst it could be argued that the topic of reducing the risk of a misfeasance claim, is not worth addressing in this complaint, as “the horse has already bolted”.

Nevertheless, I feel that it is pertinent to address it in this complaint. The AGS Briefing states that the best antidote to misfeasance is sound decision making that is properly documented and accords with all applicable legal requirements.

The decision making by Mr Aleck is not properly documented and as addressed earlier in the correspondence does not accord with all applicable legal requirements, in fact as the Ombudsman found in phase one of the investigation, Mr Aleck was wrong in his determination that the structure was unlawful. The structure was determined not to be unlawful by the Ombudsman’s Office in phase one of the investigation

As CASA never identified any safety concerns, nor any breaches of procedures or any quality outcomes, there was no risk to the safety of aviation, and Mr Aleck was not under any pressure to cut corners in his decision making. It is reasonable to assume that Mr Aleck should accept a high level of responsibility for his decision making. It was considered, he was not compelled to make the decisions that he did, and he had no time pressure, other than to act within reasonable time frames, which clearly, he did not. Eight months was ample time for Mr Aleck to make considered decisions with availability to all relevant information to make decisions.

Mr Aleck would have been fully aware that his decision making had significant consequences for me. He was under no pressure to circumvent statutory requirements or deny procedural fairness to me, as the person affected by his decision. Mr Aleck was dealing with the liberty of individuals, and he was fully aware of that.

The AGS document identifies a number of ways to reduce the risk of a claim of misfeasance, and calls on well documented, evidence-based decision making, and that document then goes on to identify “high risk” elements. In my case, every single one of those “high risk” elements apply. in my situation, they include:

· “A decision or conduct that directly affects personal liberty or the financial position or reputation of a person to a significant extent”.



There can be no disputing that Mr Alecks decision making affected my personal liberty, my financial position and my reputation, and Mr Aleck would have been fully aware of that when he placed the crippling trading restrictions on the business. Mr Aleck was closing down my business from which I derived my livelihood and was intended to fund my retirement. If Mr Aleck tries to claim that he was not aware, I would dispute that. With his experience in the industry and his expert knowledge of the regulatory structure and his expertise in working with and using that regulatory structure, he was fully aware of the impact of his decision making. To ensure that he was fully aware of the impact both reputationally and financially I wrote to CASA on multiple occasions throughout the eight months. This matter is dealt with in more detail, in the “Damages” section. Recall that at any time Mr Aleck could have had resolved this within hours by simply advising what text he wanted in our commercial contracts. I am fully satisfied that Mr aleck deliberately chose the option that caused more harm. For complete clarity, I am fully satisfied that a reason that Mr Aleck took so long to make a decision was in fact because of the harm being caused both reputationally and commercially. These “delaying” tactics used by Mr Aleck are well documented in the industry and have been noted at Senate inquiries and in the AAT.



I will deal with this in more detail in the “Damages’ section but the damage has been significant. Businesses have been closed, I have lost my livelihood and life savings and forced to exit the industry. Students from overseas and Australia have been impacted as have staff that lost entitlements and employment, and suppliers left unpaid. other businesses closed down. Personally, the impact on me mentally, physically, reputationally and financially has been devastating, and will substantially affect the future of my wife and I, as Mr Aleck was fully aware.



· “The conduct is not otherwise subject to alternative statutory remedies such as internal reconsideration or external merits review”. This topic is dealt with comprehensively elsewhere in this document.

The procedures identified in CASAs own procedures when they “cancel, vary, or suspend an Air Operator Certificate” were clearly bypassed. Enforcement manual | Civil Aviation Safety Authority (casa.gov.au)

With trading restrictions in place for a staggering eight months while Mr Aleck thought about it, I approached the AAT, but as Mr Aleck was still “thinking about it” and hadn’t made a decision, there was nothing I could appeal.

At no stage did CASA even issue a decision in writing, that I could appeal. This includes up to and including the time that CASA forced all customers to leave, including quite inexplicably my own school of over a decade was shut down. These are very clear breaches of CASAs own procedures and administrative law.

The Government does have a scheme to compensate for defective decision making but the way CASA is established means that I am not eligible for that scheme. Compensation-for-defective-administration.pdf (ombudsman.gov.au)

I had absolutely no internal reconsideration, or external merit review available to me. My only option was to write to the CASA CEO and CASA Board requesting a meeting. My requests for a meeting were deflected. Finally after CASA had forced all customers to leave the Business and the business had effectively ceased to operate, the CASA Board did finally agree to a meeting in mid-July 19th 2019. This is eight months after my first request and after CASA had acted and forced all remaining customers to leave. . The business has ceased trading now, the Business has been effectively given away, and I have secured employment as an employee in the industry rather than a businessowner.

I had requested to meet with any two Members of the Board to maintain the integrity of the process. When I arrived at that meeting there were not two Members of the Board present as I had expected and requested , but one Board Member being the Chair at the time, and the CASA Regional Manager, Mr Jason McHeyzer.

Only weeks after the meeting with the one Board Member and the Regional Manager , Mr McHeyzer, it was Mr McHeyzer that sent a direction to my Employer on August 27th 2019 that my continuing employment was no longer tenable based on comments that I was making publicly. My employment was terminated, and I was unable to find alternative employment within the industry, and I left the industry that I had spent 30 years in.

There can be no doubt that I made multiple well-intentioned requests to meet with CASA and resolve this matter, although CASA refused every one of those attempts.

I have made multiple requests to meet with both the CASA CEO and Board over the last four years, and each have steadfastly refused to meet with me.

· “There are doubts about the limits of power.”

I am fully satisfied that Mr Aleck had no basis in law to close my business, and Mr Aleck has abused his significant power.

·“The decision relates to controversial/politically sensitive topics or people.”



I had taken an industry lead on raising concerns about the introduction of the new legislation and had received some media attention. It is likely that Mr Aleck first became aware of Glen Buckley via me raising my concerns at CASA forums and in the media.



· A history of acrimony precedes the decision.



There was a history of acrimony preceding Mr Alecks decision making, as referred to above. I can provide further information on this as you require.



· “Giving the subject of the decision-making process ample opportunity to be heard on the proposed decision and ensuring the principles of natural justice are adhered to.”

The notification that I had been operating unlawfully for many years, came with absolutely no prior warning despite me being in daily contact with my CASA Certificate Management Team. At any stage CASA could have approached me, and we could have avoided this matter in its entirety. CASA bypassed my right to be made aware of and respond to information which will be used in the course of Mr alecks decision making, that was to have a negative impact on me and my family.



· The use of clean skin decision makers who have not previously been involved in dealings with the subject of the decision-making process or matters relating to it.

This was a matter of concern for me, and continues to be. The decision maker being Mr Aleck. Mr Aleck is also the person responsible for providing false and misleading information to The Ombudsman investigation. I wrote to CASA on multiple occasions as it did not seem reasonable that I raise an allegation of misfeasance in public office against Mr Aleck, and that he be the person responsible for providing information to the Ombudsman

· “Obtaining Legal Advice.”



Noting that Mr Aleck took no external, independent legal advice. He was the sole decision maker. I am fully satisfied that he was acting in bad faith. He placed the trading restrictions on the business in October 2018. With the trading restrictions in place for six months, and the business is obviously by now “on its knees”, CASA write to me on April 30th 2019 advising that they have “now received the external legal advice and that it has confirmed, inter alia, that Part 141 certificate holder is not “precluded from entering into contractual arrangements with other parties to deliver flight training activities, and that is what makes this matter so inexplicable and totally unnecessary. Quite simply Mr Aleck was wrong. The structure was not illegal. This was yet another opportunity for Mr Aleck to act with good intent, admit error, and work with me to try and repair all the harm caused. By now my parents were funding staff salaries for the business of approximately $15,000 per week. Yet Mr Aleck went with his initial determination back in October 2018, deemed the structure unlawful and forced all customers to leave, despite having that independent, external legal advice. Mr Aleck was acting in bad faith, and in April 2019, when Mr Aleck received that legal advice, he knew he was also acting unlawfully.



· Paying careful attention to Administrative Law requirements.



As attended to previously, Mr Aleck bypassed all procedures stipulated in CASAs own Enforcement Manual when they act to close down a flying school.