Glen Buckley and Australian small business -V- CASA
At this time of year Glen, I would like to wish you and your loving wife and family the best this festive season.
As you have worked out over these last years, we love and support you and have/are/will feel the pain "they can" inflict and often with glee.
Would love to sit with you one day and enjoy a beer and old days of what were fun years in the game - long since gone.
I will still support your fight if you step it up - many of us will.
Take good care my stranger, but eternal Mate - hope to meet up one day.
Regards Bendy.
As you have worked out over these last years, we love and support you and have/are/will feel the pain "they can" inflict and often with glee.
Would love to sit with you one day and enjoy a beer and old days of what were fun years in the game - long since gone.
I will still support your fight if you step it up - many of us will.
Take good care my stranger, but eternal Mate - hope to meet up one day.
Regards Bendy.
I know this is certainly not the right forum to be saying this but I will anyway.
If the government can throw 3 million at a staffer over alleged allegations.
I know where I would rather see that 3 million.
If the government can throw 3 million at a staffer over alleged allegations.
I know where I would rather see that 3 million.
Thread Starter
Ping Pong
Cheers folks and thanks for the good wishes.
I can’t think how much further along my life would be if Mr Aleck had pinched me on the arse, instead of ……., ! anyway
i received this back from Ms Spence a few hours ago.
Thank you for your email.
CASA has not been advised by the Ombudsman that it is not proposing to finalise its review, and in fact we provided it with further information they requested under section 8 of the Ombudsman Act two weeks ago.
As I said in my email to you on 29 November, I would like to be informed by the findings of the Ombudsman’s review before responding to your questions. As you would understand, it is important for the Ombudsman to complete its investigation as the whole reason why I requested it review its initial decision is to ensure I had independent and arm’s length advice in relation to the very serious allegations you raised.
Yours sincerely
Pip
I can’t think how much further along my life would be if Mr Aleck had pinched me on the arse, instead of ……., ! anyway
i received this back from Ms Spence a few hours ago.
Thank you for your email.
CASA has not been advised by the Ombudsman that it is not proposing to finalise its review, and in fact we provided it with further information they requested under section 8 of the Ombudsman Act two weeks ago.
As I said in my email to you on 29 November, I would like to be informed by the findings of the Ombudsman’s review before responding to your questions. As you would understand, it is important for the Ombudsman to complete its investigation as the whole reason why I requested it review its initial decision is to ensure I had independent and arm’s length advice in relation to the very serious allegations you raised.
Yours sincerely
Pip
Thread Starter
Dear Ben Morgan AOPA
Other recipients were the CASA Borad, The Minister, my local MP, Senator Sterle.
19/12/22
Dear Ben Morgan,
Thankyou for the invitation to participate in an AOPA sponsored broadcast of this matter i.e. misconduct at the most senior levels of CASA and the provision of false and misleading information to the Ombudsman investigation.
This matter is significant, and my allegations are substantive. I support your invitation to other participants, and I personally re-extend that invitation to them to participate. All participants have my assurance that I will be professional and respectful, and I would be prepared to provide them with my questions prior.
As you have noted it would be ideal if we could have a representative from Government and a representative from CASA. I would also like to invite some ex CASA personnel to participate. I am confident that they will accept that invitation, as they have previously made that offer. I will re-establish contact to ensure those offers still stand. There is a possibility that they may wish to be de-identified in that presentation, and I appreciate that may complicate production.
As you are aware, the industry organised crowdfunding for me, so I have access to the responsible use of funds. I am confident that the contributors would be comfortable with me using some of those funds to assist with reasonable production costs. With that in mind, and noting the time of year, could I request that you nominate a date in late January or early February, as suits the other participants should they choose to join, as I hope they will.
These lead times will allow us to put together a well-considered presentation with the submission of ex CASA personnel who are prepared to come forward and tell the truth on this matter.
Once again I thank AOPA for their continuing support of the industry, and your personal commitment to that end.
Respectfully, Glen Buckley
19/12/22
Dear Ben Morgan,
Thankyou for the invitation to participate in an AOPA sponsored broadcast of this matter i.e. misconduct at the most senior levels of CASA and the provision of false and misleading information to the Ombudsman investigation.
This matter is significant, and my allegations are substantive. I support your invitation to other participants, and I personally re-extend that invitation to them to participate. All participants have my assurance that I will be professional and respectful, and I would be prepared to provide them with my questions prior.
As you have noted it would be ideal if we could have a representative from Government and a representative from CASA. I would also like to invite some ex CASA personnel to participate. I am confident that they will accept that invitation, as they have previously made that offer. I will re-establish contact to ensure those offers still stand. There is a possibility that they may wish to be de-identified in that presentation, and I appreciate that may complicate production.
As you are aware, the industry organised crowdfunding for me, so I have access to the responsible use of funds. I am confident that the contributors would be comfortable with me using some of those funds to assist with reasonable production costs. With that in mind, and noting the time of year, could I request that you nominate a date in late January or early February, as suits the other participants should they choose to join, as I hope they will.
These lead times will allow us to put together a well-considered presentation with the submission of ex CASA personnel who are prepared to come forward and tell the truth on this matter.
Once again I thank AOPA for their continuing support of the industry, and your personal commitment to that end.
Respectfully, Glen Buckley
From the Far North, salutations for a very happy Christmas for you and your family for the Festive Season.
May 2023 and beyond bring you the peace and goodwill that you have fought so long and hard for.
Go well.
Best Wishes.
May 2023 and beyond bring you the peace and goodwill that you have fought so long and hard for.
Go well.
Best Wishes.
Thread Starter
A draft letter to Minster. Sending 9AM 29/12/22
This contained a draft letter that has since been edited and sent, and can be found in Post #2512. Sent approximately 5 minutes ago at 17.30
Last edited by glenb; 29th Dec 2022 at 05:39.
Furthermore, the CASA defence that Dr. Aleck or another member of staff made a "simple administrative error" in this matter is not available because it is untenable when one considers the drawn out nature of the proceedings and Dr. Alecks purported reputation and experience.
Sunny, the trouble with CAsA is they can cobble up any defence that suits at the time, and revise that later if needs be to keep their BS line up front and centre.
And who’s to question any of that, a Minister for the nod of disapproval? A politician ?
The Industry and the victim know it’s arrant tosh, but the problem remains the same. NO resolution.
And who’s to question any of that, a Minister for the nod of disapproval? A politician ?
The Industry and the victim know it’s arrant tosh, but the problem remains the same. NO resolution.
Thread Starter
Correspondence sent to Minister and CASA Board
To the Minister responsible for the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA), the Honorable Ms. Catherine King MP, My name is Glen Buckley, you will have some awareness of my matter. My business of more than a decade was closed down by an employee of CASA.
On the 9th of December 2022, I sent you the first of a set of five allegations of misconduct against two senior Executives of CASA.
· Ms Pip Spence, CEO of CASA and,
· Mr Jonathan Aleck, CASA Executive Manager of Legal, International and Regulatory Affairs.
Specifically, those allegations were related to the deliberate and considered provision of grossly false and misleading information to a Commonwealth Ombudsman’s investigation, with the intention to pervert the findings of that investigation.
Over the coming days, I hope to complete and submit the second of those five allegations, and I will attend to the remainder as early as practical in the New Year.
Please note that this correspondence is not one of those five allegations, however it is highly relevant to the entire matter, and is one of the core matters.
I am fully satisfied that both Ms Spence and Mr Aleck are fully aware that CASA have acted unlawfully when CASA closed my business, and they have each been aware of that for a significant period of time.
I am fully satisfied that with that awareness Ms. Spence is attempting to “cover up” this matter by facilitating disinformation to that investigation, frustrating processes, choosing not to access the truth when it is readily available to her in her role, and in situations where she knows the truth she chooses not to share that information when she should.
I believe this correspondence, the supporting evidence, the substantive nature of the allegations, and the ease with which truthfulness can be ascertained, must call into question the integrity of both Ms. Spence and Mr Aleck, and their suitability to continue in their respective roles, pending an investigation into their conduct, and most especially considering the seniority of their positions and the function of the Department that they lead.
Misconduct at such senior levels within CASA has the potential to impact on the safety of aviation, I feel you will be compelled to take action on this matter.
Before I proceed to the point of this correspondence, I will provide some required, underpinning knowledge.
On 23rd October 2018, and despite daily contact with my CASA team who had never raised any concerns, I received a written notification from CASA that I apparently I had been operating my business unlawfully for over 8 years, and that it was most likely that my business was to be shut down by CASA in as little as 7 days.
CASA immediately prevented me taking on any new customers, existing customers were advised that I was operating unlawfully, and what CASA termed an “administrative freeze,” was placed on all CASA regulatory tasks including the addition of Key Personnel, addition of courses, renewal of flight simulators etc.
Those crippling trading restrictions cost my family well in excess of $10,000 per week as we retained all staff despite being denied revenue, and remained in place for a staggering 8 months, until Mr Aleck stood by his initial determination of October 23rd 2018 and forced all remaining customers to leave because the structure I had adopted for the last 8 years was now determined to be unlawful.
Throughout that entire 8-month period from initial notification in October 2018, to the closure in June 2019 Mr Aleck, in his role, adopted a method that denied me any right of review or appeal. From having an established, safe and compliant business at 9AM on October 23rd, 2018, through to the closure of the business eight months later with the associated harm caused, at no stage did I have any right of review or appeal to that determination by CASA.. None.
This was not a safety allegation, there were no allegations by CASA of any wrongdoing or bad intent.
Apparently, if CASA is to be believed, I had overlooked the legislative requirements and I had been operating unlawfully for over 8 years. It was an innocent mistake.
Somehow, despite all the meetings with CASA, daily communication with my CASA team, high level routine audits, revalidations, approvals, submissions of base applications, manual submissions, and over one hundred CASA site visits etc, CASA was not aware of my structure throughout those 8 years, and had only just realised my structure, and that it was illegal in October 2018. As soon as CASA realised, Mr Aleck acted quickly and advised me in writing that I was operating illegally and imposed the trading restrictions in place for 8 months while Mr Aleck considered whether to lift the trading restrictions and permit my business to continue operating.
In order to have the trading restrictions lifted, I apparently had to come up with a single paragraph in my commercial agreements with my customers that would satisfy Mr Aleck.
Absolutely all legislative requirements were already attended to and contained within our CASA approved Exposition/Operations Manual.This was an additional requirement outside of the legislation, and one that I was willing and able to attend to, but I did need clear and concise guidance.
However, for reasons known only to Mr Aleck I was unable to come up with that single paragraph of wording in my commercial agreements with customers that would satisfy Mr Aleck, and apparently he could not lift the crippling trading restrictions until that paragraph was resolved to his full satisfaction.
After 8 months, with me unable to come up with that paragraph, Mr Aleck stood by his initial opinion of October 2018, and CASA forced all remaining customers to leave.
There was never any allegation of wrongdoing or poor-quality control etc. It was simply that I had overlooked, and CASA had not picked up on, for over 8 years that what I was doing was illegal.
Despite the fact that I had delivered industry leading levels of safety and compliance, throughout the 12 years of operation and 8 years in our current CASA approved structure, it was now deemed unlawful, nothing could be done to assist me,and the business was to be closed.
Mr Aleck made his determination that my business was operating unlawfully against two pieces of legislation and what is referred to as an “Aviation Ruling.” The Aviation Ruling was repealed by CASA shortly after they used it as the basis to close my business down. The allegations were that I had breached.
· Section 27a of the Civil Aviation Act
· CASR 141.050
· The Aviation Ruling (later repealed)
There were never any allegations against safety, no allegations that I did not have operational control, no allegations against any breaches of procedures in our CASA approved manuals, no requirements to alter any of our procedures in any way.
It was a change of opinion by CASA that because I utilised personnel that were not also my employees, I was in breach of those regulations according to CASA.
As the Owner of that business, there was never any doubt in my mind that the allegations of regulatory breaches were so absurd that I had concerns about “intent”.
I knew I was not operating unlawfully, and that Mr Aleck was manipulating legislation to achieve his desired outcome and bring harm to me. Most likely because I had taken an industry lead on raising concerns about the proposed new legislation not being “fit for purpose”, and the passage of time has clearly demonstrated that it is not. I had also raised concerns of the impact of the proposed legislation on Australian owned businesses and most particularly those in regional areas. Similarly, the passage of time has demonstrated that my concerns were valid. As the employee responsible for that legislation, I can now understand that Mr aleck may have taken offence.
For that and other reasons, I am fully satisfied that Mr Aleck targeted me, and most especially as I was the only operator that he shut down. CASA permitted the identical structure with other operators and continues to do so today. CASA led the Ombudsman to believe that I was doing something unique when the truth is that it was not unique, and CASA had always formally approved the identical structure, not only for me but for many operators.
To the point of this correspondence.
Ms Spence and Mr Aleck are both fully aware that CASA had no valid basis in law to close my business, and they have been for a significant period of time.
Since receipt of that notification of October 23rd 2018, through until this day, I robustly maintain that there was no breach of those regulations, and I was not operating unlawfully. In fact, drawing on 25 years’ experience in the flight training industry it was ludicrous, and obviously not well intentioned that a CASA employee would use the legislation in this way.
There can be no doubt that both Ms Spence and Mr Aleck are fully aware, and have been for some time, that the truth is that there were never any breaches of either of the two pieces of legislation or the Aviation Ruling, and CASA had no valid reason to close my business, and that CASA has acted unlawfully.
Mr Aleck was clearly abusing the significant power that he wields, including the power to close businesses based on his “opinion:”
To support my assertion that those two CASA Executives are fully aware, and have been for some time, that CASA acted unlawfully when it closed my business, consider the following timeline.
October 23rd, 2018, CASA advised me that I am supposedly operating unlawfully and have been for many years , CASA immediately placed crippling trading restrictions on the business. No legal advice has been sought by CASA at this stage. It is the “opinion” of Mr Aleck only.
April 30th 2019, CASA wrote to me advising that after 6 months with the trading restrictions in place, Mr Aleck has only now, finally received his first external and independent legal advice, when CASA wrote to me and stated;
“CASA has 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.”
There can be no doubt that by April 30th 2019 with the trading restrictions in place for 6 months, Mr Alecks application of opinion has been found to have no valid legal basis, and he is now fully aware of that, and the reasonable expectation is that with that knowledge he was again presented with the opportunity to act with good intent, and yet again he chose not to.
This is significant because by the end of April 2019, with the benefit of that legal advice Mr Aleck was presented with a further opportunity to either
· admit error, and work collaboratively to avoid any further harm being caused, or
· relentlessly continue to pursue his agenda to cause harm to me and my business.
Predictably, Mr Aleck chose the latter.
June 30th, 2019, Mr Aleck advises that he is standing by his initial determination, despite being in receipt of the independent legal advice he received two months earlier, the business is to be “dismantled”, and he deems the structure unlawful. CASA then contacted my remaining customers and forced them to find alternative arrangements for their own continued operations, including my own flying school of 12 years, Melbourne Flight Training (MFT).
The business structure adopted for the last 8 years was deemed unlawful because I utilised personnel that were not always my direct employees. i.e., they were employees of another entity.
Quite simply Mr Aleck was wrong, and he was fully aware of that before he continued with his decision to close my business. Mr Aleck closed my business two months after receipt of that independent and external legal advice. Understandably, CASA refused to provide me a copy with that legal advice, however it would be a document that the Minister could access.
If there can be any doubt remaining that Mr Aleck was fully aware he was acting unlawfully before he made the decision to close my business in mid-2019, then there can be no doubt that he became aware he had acted unlawfully twelve months after he closed my business when Phase One of the Ombudsman’s report was released.
25th June 2020, Phase One of the Ombudsman investigation
https://www.dropbox.com/s/0nyon53qll...eport.pdf?dl=0
Mr Aleck was fully aware that the decision to close my business in June 2019 was unlawful and this was further validated on the 25th June 2020, being twelve months after CASA closed my business, the Ombudsman wrote to me at the conclusion of Phase One of the investigation. In that correspondence he stated.
“As of October 2016, no Australian legislation prohibited 'franchising' of an AOC, subject only to the exclusivity of the AOC holder’s operational control, and that remained the case as of 25 March 2020. There would be no legal or regulatory impediment to Mr Buckley or APTA selling or licencing intellectual property in the form of its AOC exposition to other FTO. And there would be no legal or regulatory impediment to CASA issuing part 142 Permissions on submission of those expositions by another FTO.”
I am fully satisfied that by June 2020, Mr Aleck had access to, and was fully aware that he had acted unlawfully. He knew that before he closed my business based on CASAs own legal advice, and this was reinforced to him when the Ombudsman Report was released after he had closed my business.
For complete clarity regarding this correspondence.
I robustly maintained throughout this entire matter that there were very clearly no regulatory breaches, and that the legislation was being manipulated by Mr Aleck to achieve his desired outcome. His actions and decisions were not motivated by the safety of aviation but for other reasons that were not well intentioned. It was personal, and I was targeted by him.
Mr Aleck, the CASA Executive Manager of Legal, International and Regulatory Affairs was aware in April of 2019 when CASA finally sought and received its first external and independent legal advice
.
On receipt of that advice, he was aware that he had no valid legal basis to declare my business unlawful, and place crippling trading restrictions on it, six months earlier in October of 2018
.
With that legal advice received in April of 2019, Mr Aleck pursued his agenda regardless, and closed the business down two months later in June of 2019. He had no valid legal basis to do this.
Phase One of the Ombudsman Report received by CASA in June of 2020 would have again alerted CASA to the fact that Mr Aleck had no valid legal basis to close my business, although by now the business had been shut down for twelve months.
Ms Pip Spence commenced as the CEO of CASA in May of 2021. I acknowledge that Ms. Spence was not the CEO of CASA at the time that CASA unlawfully closed my business. Ms Spence however has been in the role for 18 months and is fully aware that CASA acted unlawfully. I have made her aware in writing throughout her tenure and she has access to those documents i.e. the Ombudsman Phase one report and CASAs own legal advice. I have also provided her with the contact details of current CASA employees who have offered to tell the truth on this matter.
This correspondence is not intended as an allegation against Ms Spence or Mr Aleck, as I will attend to that in the subsequent correspondence.
The purpose of this correspondence is to ensure that there is an awareness within the office of the Minister that there is existing knowledge at the most senior levels within CASA that CASA have acted unlawfully, and that was known before the decision was made to close my business, and Ms spence has been made aware of that.
It is possible that some Executives of CASA could take action and make decisions to cover up this matter, as I am fully satisfied they have.
I have approached Ms Spence requesting a well-intentioned meeting, but she steadfastly refuses to meet with me.
I truly believe that this matter could be bought to a prompt resolution if Ms Spence was to clearly articulate to the Minister, and also to me, whether CASA maintains the same position that it did in October of 2018, i.e. that I was operating in breach of
· Section 27a of the Civil Aviation Act
· CASR 141.050
· The Aviation Ruling (later repealed)
Although the response from Ms Spence may be lengthy, as I anticipate it will be, it needs only be one word, and that would be a yes or a no. In fact, if I may respectfully put forward a suggestion. The response could ideally commence with the “yes” or a “no”, and then perhaps be followed up with the supporting information.
I anticipate Ms Spence may be reluctant to respond prior to the release of the Ombudsman’s report, but this is an entirely separate matter and gets to the core matters of ethics and integrity. CASA must surely have its own position on this matter. Has its position changed substantially or does CASA stand by Mr Alecks decision making.
I believe that Ms Spence will divert away from a simple yes or no response as that would implicate her.
If she is compelled to respond as she should be, my expectation is that she will answer in the affirmative. An offence in October of 2018, would still be an offence unless there had been any legislative change, which there has not. CASA has had four years to consider their decision to close my business and have access to their own legal advice and the Ombudsman’s report. CASA should be “big enough” to make its own position clear on this matter. It should be able to reiterate that position independent of the Ombudsman.
If Ms Spence admits that the truth is that there is no legislative breach, and that CASA erred, that opens up the path for well intentioned discussion.
If as I allege, both Ms Spence and Ms Aleck have been responsible for providing false and misleading information to the Ombudsman’s inquiry then I can understand their preference to postpone responding until after reports are released
.
A reluctance for CASA to reiterate its stance on the regulatory breaches alleged of October 2018.
.
Ms Spence and Mr Aleck are already aware that they have acted unlawfully. If they are not prepared to restate their current position that must surely raise concerns at Ministerial level as to intent, ethics and integrity. Whilst it may not be an “offence” to be aware that you have acted unlawfully to close someone’s business and cause so much harm, it certainly speaks to ethics and integrity, something that has been eroded over the last decade, and could potentially lead someone to mislead an inquiry.
I reiterate that this is not a matter of a “simple administrative error”. It is a matter of a single CASA employee abusing his significant power. Mr Alecks decisions were considered and deliberate. Mr Aleck has the purported reputation and experience to be able to make considered decisions. He was and is fully aware that he has no valid legal or safety case to have closed my business, and when one considers the drawn out nature of the proceedings over more than four years, one must question the motivation, ethics, and integrity of the CASA Executives involved, including the CEO of CASA.
Thank you for your time, may I respectfully request an acknowledgement of receipt of this correspondence, and I shall write to you over coming months with the further four of the five allegations against Ms Spence and Mr Aleck.
Thankyou for your consideration, Glen Buckley
Additional Material.
An industry forum is discussing this matter, and has had over 1,000,000 views which has been very encouraging. You can access it via here. I draw your attention to Posts #2350 and #2351 where I have addressed the ludicrous nature of alleged regulatory breaches in more detail. Those two particular posts form part of an allegation of misfeasance in public office that I am preparing, but will provide more detailed information.
Glen Buckley and Australian small business -V- CASA - Page 118 - PPRuNe Forums
ReplyReply to allForward
On the 9th of December 2022, I sent you the first of a set of five allegations of misconduct against two senior Executives of CASA.
· Ms Pip Spence, CEO of CASA and,
· Mr Jonathan Aleck, CASA Executive Manager of Legal, International and Regulatory Affairs.
Specifically, those allegations were related to the deliberate and considered provision of grossly false and misleading information to a Commonwealth Ombudsman’s investigation, with the intention to pervert the findings of that investigation.
Over the coming days, I hope to complete and submit the second of those five allegations, and I will attend to the remainder as early as practical in the New Year.
Please note that this correspondence is not one of those five allegations, however it is highly relevant to the entire matter, and is one of the core matters.
I am fully satisfied that both Ms Spence and Mr Aleck are fully aware that CASA have acted unlawfully when CASA closed my business, and they have each been aware of that for a significant period of time.
I am fully satisfied that with that awareness Ms. Spence is attempting to “cover up” this matter by facilitating disinformation to that investigation, frustrating processes, choosing not to access the truth when it is readily available to her in her role, and in situations where she knows the truth she chooses not to share that information when she should.
I believe this correspondence, the supporting evidence, the substantive nature of the allegations, and the ease with which truthfulness can be ascertained, must call into question the integrity of both Ms. Spence and Mr Aleck, and their suitability to continue in their respective roles, pending an investigation into their conduct, and most especially considering the seniority of their positions and the function of the Department that they lead.
Misconduct at such senior levels within CASA has the potential to impact on the safety of aviation, I feel you will be compelled to take action on this matter.
Before I proceed to the point of this correspondence, I will provide some required, underpinning knowledge.
On 23rd October 2018, and despite daily contact with my CASA team who had never raised any concerns, I received a written notification from CASA that I apparently I had been operating my business unlawfully for over 8 years, and that it was most likely that my business was to be shut down by CASA in as little as 7 days.
CASA immediately prevented me taking on any new customers, existing customers were advised that I was operating unlawfully, and what CASA termed an “administrative freeze,” was placed on all CASA regulatory tasks including the addition of Key Personnel, addition of courses, renewal of flight simulators etc.
Those crippling trading restrictions cost my family well in excess of $10,000 per week as we retained all staff despite being denied revenue, and remained in place for a staggering 8 months, until Mr Aleck stood by his initial determination of October 23rd 2018 and forced all remaining customers to leave because the structure I had adopted for the last 8 years was now determined to be unlawful.
Throughout that entire 8-month period from initial notification in October 2018, to the closure in June 2019 Mr Aleck, in his role, adopted a method that denied me any right of review or appeal. From having an established, safe and compliant business at 9AM on October 23rd, 2018, through to the closure of the business eight months later with the associated harm caused, at no stage did I have any right of review or appeal to that determination by CASA.. None.
This was not a safety allegation, there were no allegations by CASA of any wrongdoing or bad intent.
Apparently, if CASA is to be believed, I had overlooked the legislative requirements and I had been operating unlawfully for over 8 years. It was an innocent mistake.
Somehow, despite all the meetings with CASA, daily communication with my CASA team, high level routine audits, revalidations, approvals, submissions of base applications, manual submissions, and over one hundred CASA site visits etc, CASA was not aware of my structure throughout those 8 years, and had only just realised my structure, and that it was illegal in October 2018. As soon as CASA realised, Mr Aleck acted quickly and advised me in writing that I was operating illegally and imposed the trading restrictions in place for 8 months while Mr Aleck considered whether to lift the trading restrictions and permit my business to continue operating.
In order to have the trading restrictions lifted, I apparently had to come up with a single paragraph in my commercial agreements with my customers that would satisfy Mr Aleck.
Absolutely all legislative requirements were already attended to and contained within our CASA approved Exposition/Operations Manual.This was an additional requirement outside of the legislation, and one that I was willing and able to attend to, but I did need clear and concise guidance.
However, for reasons known only to Mr Aleck I was unable to come up with that single paragraph of wording in my commercial agreements with customers that would satisfy Mr Aleck, and apparently he could not lift the crippling trading restrictions until that paragraph was resolved to his full satisfaction.
After 8 months, with me unable to come up with that paragraph, Mr Aleck stood by his initial opinion of October 2018, and CASA forced all remaining customers to leave.
There was never any allegation of wrongdoing or poor-quality control etc. It was simply that I had overlooked, and CASA had not picked up on, for over 8 years that what I was doing was illegal.
Despite the fact that I had delivered industry leading levels of safety and compliance, throughout the 12 years of operation and 8 years in our current CASA approved structure, it was now deemed unlawful, nothing could be done to assist me,and the business was to be closed.
Mr Aleck made his determination that my business was operating unlawfully against two pieces of legislation and what is referred to as an “Aviation Ruling.” The Aviation Ruling was repealed by CASA shortly after they used it as the basis to close my business down. The allegations were that I had breached.
· Section 27a of the Civil Aviation Act
· CASR 141.050
· The Aviation Ruling (later repealed)
There were never any allegations against safety, no allegations that I did not have operational control, no allegations against any breaches of procedures in our CASA approved manuals, no requirements to alter any of our procedures in any way.
It was a change of opinion by CASA that because I utilised personnel that were not also my employees, I was in breach of those regulations according to CASA.
As the Owner of that business, there was never any doubt in my mind that the allegations of regulatory breaches were so absurd that I had concerns about “intent”.
I knew I was not operating unlawfully, and that Mr Aleck was manipulating legislation to achieve his desired outcome and bring harm to me. Most likely because I had taken an industry lead on raising concerns about the proposed new legislation not being “fit for purpose”, and the passage of time has clearly demonstrated that it is not. I had also raised concerns of the impact of the proposed legislation on Australian owned businesses and most particularly those in regional areas. Similarly, the passage of time has demonstrated that my concerns were valid. As the employee responsible for that legislation, I can now understand that Mr aleck may have taken offence.
For that and other reasons, I am fully satisfied that Mr Aleck targeted me, and most especially as I was the only operator that he shut down. CASA permitted the identical structure with other operators and continues to do so today. CASA led the Ombudsman to believe that I was doing something unique when the truth is that it was not unique, and CASA had always formally approved the identical structure, not only for me but for many operators.
To the point of this correspondence.
Ms Spence and Mr Aleck are both fully aware that CASA had no valid basis in law to close my business, and they have been for a significant period of time.
Since receipt of that notification of October 23rd 2018, through until this day, I robustly maintain that there was no breach of those regulations, and I was not operating unlawfully. In fact, drawing on 25 years’ experience in the flight training industry it was ludicrous, and obviously not well intentioned that a CASA employee would use the legislation in this way.
There can be no doubt that both Ms Spence and Mr Aleck are fully aware, and have been for some time, that the truth is that there were never any breaches of either of the two pieces of legislation or the Aviation Ruling, and CASA had no valid reason to close my business, and that CASA has acted unlawfully.
Mr Aleck was clearly abusing the significant power that he wields, including the power to close businesses based on his “opinion:”
To support my assertion that those two CASA Executives are fully aware, and have been for some time, that CASA acted unlawfully when it closed my business, consider the following timeline.
October 23rd, 2018, CASA advised me that I am supposedly operating unlawfully and have been for many years , CASA immediately placed crippling trading restrictions on the business. No legal advice has been sought by CASA at this stage. It is the “opinion” of Mr Aleck only.
April 30th 2019, CASA wrote to me advising that after 6 months with the trading restrictions in place, Mr Aleck has only now, finally received his first external and independent legal advice, when CASA wrote to me and stated;
“CASA has 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.”
There can be no doubt that by April 30th 2019 with the trading restrictions in place for 6 months, Mr Alecks application of opinion has been found to have no valid legal basis, and he is now fully aware of that, and the reasonable expectation is that with that knowledge he was again presented with the opportunity to act with good intent, and yet again he chose not to.
This is significant because by the end of April 2019, with the benefit of that legal advice Mr Aleck was presented with a further opportunity to either
· admit error, and work collaboratively to avoid any further harm being caused, or
· relentlessly continue to pursue his agenda to cause harm to me and my business.
Predictably, Mr Aleck chose the latter.
June 30th, 2019, Mr Aleck advises that he is standing by his initial determination, despite being in receipt of the independent legal advice he received two months earlier, the business is to be “dismantled”, and he deems the structure unlawful. CASA then contacted my remaining customers and forced them to find alternative arrangements for their own continued operations, including my own flying school of 12 years, Melbourne Flight Training (MFT).
The business structure adopted for the last 8 years was deemed unlawful because I utilised personnel that were not always my direct employees. i.e., they were employees of another entity.
Quite simply Mr Aleck was wrong, and he was fully aware of that before he continued with his decision to close my business. Mr Aleck closed my business two months after receipt of that independent and external legal advice. Understandably, CASA refused to provide me a copy with that legal advice, however it would be a document that the Minister could access.
If there can be any doubt remaining that Mr Aleck was fully aware he was acting unlawfully before he made the decision to close my business in mid-2019, then there can be no doubt that he became aware he had acted unlawfully twelve months after he closed my business when Phase One of the Ombudsman’s report was released.
25th June 2020, Phase One of the Ombudsman investigation
https://www.dropbox.com/s/0nyon53qll...eport.pdf?dl=0
Mr Aleck was fully aware that the decision to close my business in June 2019 was unlawful and this was further validated on the 25th June 2020, being twelve months after CASA closed my business, the Ombudsman wrote to me at the conclusion of Phase One of the investigation. In that correspondence he stated.
“As of October 2016, no Australian legislation prohibited 'franchising' of an AOC, subject only to the exclusivity of the AOC holder’s operational control, and that remained the case as of 25 March 2020. There would be no legal or regulatory impediment to Mr Buckley or APTA selling or licencing intellectual property in the form of its AOC exposition to other FTO. And there would be no legal or regulatory impediment to CASA issuing part 142 Permissions on submission of those expositions by another FTO.”
I am fully satisfied that by June 2020, Mr Aleck had access to, and was fully aware that he had acted unlawfully. He knew that before he closed my business based on CASAs own legal advice, and this was reinforced to him when the Ombudsman Report was released after he had closed my business.
For complete clarity regarding this correspondence.
I robustly maintained throughout this entire matter that there were very clearly no regulatory breaches, and that the legislation was being manipulated by Mr Aleck to achieve his desired outcome. His actions and decisions were not motivated by the safety of aviation but for other reasons that were not well intentioned. It was personal, and I was targeted by him.
Mr Aleck, the CASA Executive Manager of Legal, International and Regulatory Affairs was aware in April of 2019 when CASA finally sought and received its first external and independent legal advice
.
On receipt of that advice, he was aware that he had no valid legal basis to declare my business unlawful, and place crippling trading restrictions on it, six months earlier in October of 2018
.
With that legal advice received in April of 2019, Mr Aleck pursued his agenda regardless, and closed the business down two months later in June of 2019. He had no valid legal basis to do this.
Phase One of the Ombudsman Report received by CASA in June of 2020 would have again alerted CASA to the fact that Mr Aleck had no valid legal basis to close my business, although by now the business had been shut down for twelve months.
Ms Pip Spence commenced as the CEO of CASA in May of 2021. I acknowledge that Ms. Spence was not the CEO of CASA at the time that CASA unlawfully closed my business. Ms Spence however has been in the role for 18 months and is fully aware that CASA acted unlawfully. I have made her aware in writing throughout her tenure and she has access to those documents i.e. the Ombudsman Phase one report and CASAs own legal advice. I have also provided her with the contact details of current CASA employees who have offered to tell the truth on this matter.
This correspondence is not intended as an allegation against Ms Spence or Mr Aleck, as I will attend to that in the subsequent correspondence.
The purpose of this correspondence is to ensure that there is an awareness within the office of the Minister that there is existing knowledge at the most senior levels within CASA that CASA have acted unlawfully, and that was known before the decision was made to close my business, and Ms spence has been made aware of that.
It is possible that some Executives of CASA could take action and make decisions to cover up this matter, as I am fully satisfied they have.
I have approached Ms Spence requesting a well-intentioned meeting, but she steadfastly refuses to meet with me.
I truly believe that this matter could be bought to a prompt resolution if Ms Spence was to clearly articulate to the Minister, and also to me, whether CASA maintains the same position that it did in October of 2018, i.e. that I was operating in breach of
· Section 27a of the Civil Aviation Act
· CASR 141.050
· The Aviation Ruling (later repealed)
Although the response from Ms Spence may be lengthy, as I anticipate it will be, it needs only be one word, and that would be a yes or a no. In fact, if I may respectfully put forward a suggestion. The response could ideally commence with the “yes” or a “no”, and then perhaps be followed up with the supporting information.
I anticipate Ms Spence may be reluctant to respond prior to the release of the Ombudsman’s report, but this is an entirely separate matter and gets to the core matters of ethics and integrity. CASA must surely have its own position on this matter. Has its position changed substantially or does CASA stand by Mr Alecks decision making.
I believe that Ms Spence will divert away from a simple yes or no response as that would implicate her.
If she is compelled to respond as she should be, my expectation is that she will answer in the affirmative. An offence in October of 2018, would still be an offence unless there had been any legislative change, which there has not. CASA has had four years to consider their decision to close my business and have access to their own legal advice and the Ombudsman’s report. CASA should be “big enough” to make its own position clear on this matter. It should be able to reiterate that position independent of the Ombudsman.
If Ms Spence admits that the truth is that there is no legislative breach, and that CASA erred, that opens up the path for well intentioned discussion.
If as I allege, both Ms Spence and Ms Aleck have been responsible for providing false and misleading information to the Ombudsman’s inquiry then I can understand their preference to postpone responding until after reports are released
.
A reluctance for CASA to reiterate its stance on the regulatory breaches alleged of October 2018.
.
Ms Spence and Mr Aleck are already aware that they have acted unlawfully. If they are not prepared to restate their current position that must surely raise concerns at Ministerial level as to intent, ethics and integrity. Whilst it may not be an “offence” to be aware that you have acted unlawfully to close someone’s business and cause so much harm, it certainly speaks to ethics and integrity, something that has been eroded over the last decade, and could potentially lead someone to mislead an inquiry.
I reiterate that this is not a matter of a “simple administrative error”. It is a matter of a single CASA employee abusing his significant power. Mr Alecks decisions were considered and deliberate. Mr Aleck has the purported reputation and experience to be able to make considered decisions. He was and is fully aware that he has no valid legal or safety case to have closed my business, and when one considers the drawn out nature of the proceedings over more than four years, one must question the motivation, ethics, and integrity of the CASA Executives involved, including the CEO of CASA.
Thank you for your time, may I respectfully request an acknowledgement of receipt of this correspondence, and I shall write to you over coming months with the further four of the five allegations against Ms Spence and Mr Aleck.
Thankyou for your consideration, Glen Buckley
Additional Material.
An industry forum is discussing this matter, and has had over 1,000,000 views which has been very encouraging. You can access it via here. I draw your attention to Posts #2350 and #2351 where I have addressed the ludicrous nature of alleged regulatory breaches in more detail. Those two particular posts form part of an allegation of misfeasance in public office that I am preparing, but will provide more detailed information.
Glen Buckley and Australian small business -V- CASA - Page 118 - PPRuNe Forums
ReplyReply to allForward
Glen
In your post #2512 of 29 Dec 22 you said, among other things:
Have you mentioned or posted a copy of this correspondence before?
I’m entirely unsurprised by the gist of the external legal advice. Presumably it was given by someone who’d read the legislation and understood the law of agency (unlike whoever drafted the email to you of March 2019).
But did I miss a mention or copy of the correspondence in one of your earlier posts?
In your post #2512 of 29 Dec 22 you said, among other things:
April 30th 2019, CASA wrote to me advising that after 6 months with the trading restrictions in place, Mr Aleck has only now, finally received his first external and independent legal advice, when CASA wrote to me and stated;
“CASA has 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.”
“CASA has 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.”
I’m entirely unsurprised by the gist of the external legal advice. Presumably it was given by someone who’d read the legislation and understood the law of agency (unlike whoever drafted the email to you of March 2019).
But did I miss a mention or copy of the correspondence in one of your earlier posts?
Thread Starter
Lead Balloon
i’m driving home from work now with an hours drive ahead of me. i will post the correspondence as soon as i can in the morning, cheers. Glen
Thread Starter
Lead Balloon
Good Morning Lead Balloon.
The following link will give you access to the "Peter White" file, with all correspondence in chronological order.
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/02bl4ah8n...tPSlE3joa?dl=0
I hope that works, obviously advise if it doesn't, noting that I am at work till 11PM with very little internet/phone access. Cheers. Glen.
The following link will give you access to the "Peter White" file, with all correspondence in chronological order.
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/02bl4ah8n...tPSlE3joa?dl=0
I hope that works, obviously advise if it doesn't, noting that I am at work till 11PM with very little internet/phone access. Cheers. Glen.
Well there it is, in black and white at the para numbered '1':
Why didn't you proceed as proposed (other than being exhausted and broke as a result of what APTA had been put through)?
From: White, Peter%[email protected]%3E
Sent: Tuesday, 30 April 2019 2:32 PMTo: Glen Buckley%[email protected]%3E; Derek Buckley%[email protected]%3E
Subject: Update from CASA regarding CASA seeking external advice and 'Contracts'
[SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
UNCLASSIFIED
Dear Glen and Derek,
I acknowledge you have forwarded correspondence to Mr Joe Rule today regarding a potential meeting in relation to ‘claims’ against CASA. This email is not in response to that matter–rather, a follow up to my earlier phone call wherein I communicated that CASA was seeking external counsel advice and also seeking external legal advice, the latter to draft a ‘model contract’.
I can advise the following:
1.CASA has now received the external counsel advice and it has confirmed, inter alia, that a Part 141 certificate holder is not ‘precluded’ from entering into contractual arrangements with other parties to deliver flight training activities;
2.CASA has issued instructions to external legal providers for the provision of ‘model clauses’ that would meet the minimum regulatory requirements to enable ‘1’ above. CASA expects this work to be provided to CASA by 15 May 2019. Following receipt and review of this material, CASA would then provide to you/APTA.
a. I note my correspondence ‘Interim Operational Arrangements’ issued on 12 February 2019 is for the period up to and including Monday 13 May 2019. I advise I am prepared to extend the ‘Interim Operational Arrangements’ for an additional three months to facilitate this regulatory submission process.
3. Following receipt of external advice, CASA is now of the view that any instructor that is not an APTA employee, that is delivering flight training under the APTA Part 141, requires a separate Part 141.035 approval.
a. In order to assist APTA, CASA is prepared to provide this approval by way of a single Instrument.
This can be undertaken parallel to the contractual arrangements (in other words, no additional timeframe). CASA is also prepared to consider waiving any associated fees if this is something APTA would request. To facilitate this action CASA would require the following:
i. The names of all non-APTA employees that are delivering, or intending to deliver, Part 141 training; and their respective ARN
I trust this email will be informative and of assistance.
If you would like to progress the extension of ‘Interim Operational Arrangements’ please advise via return email and I will action. In addition, if you would like CASA to facilitate Part 141.035 approvals for non-APTA employees as per above, please provide me with names and respective ARNs.
Kind regards
Peter M. White
Sent: Tuesday, 30 April 2019 2:32 PMTo: Glen Buckley%[email protected]%3E; Derek Buckley%[email protected]%3E
Subject: Update from CASA regarding CASA seeking external advice and 'Contracts'
[SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
UNCLASSIFIED
Dear Glen and Derek,
I acknowledge you have forwarded correspondence to Mr Joe Rule today regarding a potential meeting in relation to ‘claims’ against CASA. This email is not in response to that matter–rather, a follow up to my earlier phone call wherein I communicated that CASA was seeking external counsel advice and also seeking external legal advice, the latter to draft a ‘model contract’.
I can advise the following:
1.CASA has now received the external counsel advice and it has confirmed, inter alia, that a Part 141 certificate holder is not ‘precluded’ from entering into contractual arrangements with other parties to deliver flight training activities;
2.CASA has issued instructions to external legal providers for the provision of ‘model clauses’ that would meet the minimum regulatory requirements to enable ‘1’ above. CASA expects this work to be provided to CASA by 15 May 2019. Following receipt and review of this material, CASA would then provide to you/APTA.
a. I note my correspondence ‘Interim Operational Arrangements’ issued on 12 February 2019 is for the period up to and including Monday 13 May 2019. I advise I am prepared to extend the ‘Interim Operational Arrangements’ for an additional three months to facilitate this regulatory submission process.
3. Following receipt of external advice, CASA is now of the view that any instructor that is not an APTA employee, that is delivering flight training under the APTA Part 141, requires a separate Part 141.035 approval.
a. In order to assist APTA, CASA is prepared to provide this approval by way of a single Instrument.
This can be undertaken parallel to the contractual arrangements (in other words, no additional timeframe). CASA is also prepared to consider waiving any associated fees if this is something APTA would request. To facilitate this action CASA would require the following:
i. The names of all non-APTA employees that are delivering, or intending to deliver, Part 141 training; and their respective ARN
I trust this email will be informative and of assistance.
If you would like to progress the extension of ‘Interim Operational Arrangements’ please advise via return email and I will action. In addition, if you would like CASA to facilitate Part 141.035 approvals for non-APTA employees as per above, please provide me with names and respective ARNs.
Kind regards
Peter M. White
Does anyone know if the instructor involved in the VH-CYO tragedy was the subject of a Part 141.035 approval and contractual terms required by CASA? According to the ATSB report:
Two private pilots (students), who were members of the Sunshine Coast Aero Club, contracted an aerobatics instructor to provide aerobatic flight training in the aero club’s Cessna A150M Aerobat (Aerobat), registered VH-CYO. That training included theoretical and practical training aspects.
As the instructor did not work at the aero club, the aero club’s chief flying instructor (CFI) conducted a check flight with the instructor in the Aerobat to assess the instructor’s ability. ...
As the instructor did not work at the aero club, the aero club’s chief flying instructor (CFI) conducted a check flight with the instructor in the Aerobat to assess the instructor’s ability. ...
this paragraph from the atsb report could be read two ways.
The Aerobat was recently purchased with the intent to conduct aerobatic instructional flights for its members. At the time of the accident, the aero club did not have a Civil Aviation Safety Regulation (CASR) Part 141 certificate to conduct flight training in a VH registered aircraft, nor was it required for an instructor to conduct spin or aerobatics flight training. There were no aerobatics-trained instructors at the aero club.
The aero club sought the assistance of a contracted aerobatics instructor to conduct the aerobatic flight training, utilising the instructor’s own flight training approval. The first aerobatic flight training conducted by the aero club utilising VH-CYO was the week prior to the accident with the flight instructor who was on board the accident flight.
https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications...ir/ao-2021-025
The Aerobat was recently purchased with the intent to conduct aerobatic instructional flights for its members. At the time of the accident, the aero club did not have a Civil Aviation Safety Regulation (CASR) Part 141 certificate to conduct flight training in a VH registered aircraft, nor was it required for an instructor to conduct spin or aerobatics flight training. There were no aerobatics-trained instructors at the aero club.
The aero club sought the assistance of a contracted aerobatics instructor to conduct the aerobatic flight training, utilising the instructor’s own flight training approval. The first aerobatic flight training conducted by the aero club utilising VH-CYO was the week prior to the accident with the flight instructor who was on board the accident flight.
https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications...ir/ao-2021-025
That is nonsensical in its own terms. Either the aerobatic flight training was conducted by the club, or it wasn't. If the instructor was authorised to conduct the training in his own right, there was no need for the CFI of the club to do a check flight with the instructor.
Thread Starter
Lead Balloon post #2516
Dear Lead Balloon,
First let me apologize for the delayed response. You have been an exceptional supporter, and i didn't mean to be disrespectful. At the insistence of my family and Doctor, I attempted one month completely free of this matter for my mental health. I bought myself a fishing rod and went off air into the bush for some solitude, up around Jamieson, Woods Point.etc. I took my laptop along with me, and on day one stepped on it accidentally and broke it into two pieces, inadvertently ensuring i didnt break my commitment to my doctor and family.
Im back into it and full steam ahead.
The relatively short answer to your question from post #2516 is......
The trading restrictions had been in place for over 6 months at this stage. The very business model that i spent two years working with 10 CASA personnel on was established to handle 10 schools initially. Once Mr Aleck had changed "CASA"s mind in October 2018,, and prevented any further schools joining APTA, as you are aware i personally incurred costs in excess of $10,000 per week in order to meet the payroll. Once my own family funds had been exhausted, my parents had stepped in and contributed $300,000 to continue operations and meet my payroll obligations. By now, understandably, staff were becoming less confident that this matter would be resolved and began seeking alternative employment. The business was getting hit with some large payouts of entitlements. I appreciate that Im not directly answering your question here, but I am trying to set the background. I was under enormous pressure, my parents had offered one final tranche of money to maintain staff, but by now there was no doubt in my mind that Mr Aleck had no intention to resolve this whatsoever.
So what do i believe happened.
There are two categories of school the less complex Part 141 and the more complex Part 142. APTA was one of Australia's first Flight Training Organizations to obtain the Part 141 and 142 Approval. Approximately 95% of revenue derived from Part 142 operations.
Part 142 operations were referred to as the Contracted Checking and Recurrent Training regulations. If you read the Part 142 legislation, you quickly ascertain that it is in fact written for exactly what I was doing, and CASA had approved me for years earlier.
Our Part 142 operations made up over 95% of revenue. The Part 141 Operations were minimal and non-consequential to the business. You will note that all CASA correspondence refers to Part 141 operations and approvals only, which were of little or no interest to me.
CASA had not even begun to address the Part 142 issues, which is what I needed resolved.
What do i think really happened? CASA knew that they had right royally ballsed this up and were trying to cover it up. I had asked them on multiple occasions to address Part 142 operations and not Part 141 operations. They ignored my requests. Most likely because by now they knew that in fact Mr Aleck had absolutely no valid basis to take the action he did, and in fact I was not acting unlawfully. CASA couldnt address the Part 142 matters because that would have exposed the matter, and exposed the Achilles heel in CASAs case.
The matter was obviously many months awy from being resolved, and it was most likely that it would never be.
A bit brief sorry, back to work and just typing awy on the side of the road.
Cheers all, Glen
.
First let me apologize for the delayed response. You have been an exceptional supporter, and i didn't mean to be disrespectful. At the insistence of my family and Doctor, I attempted one month completely free of this matter for my mental health. I bought myself a fishing rod and went off air into the bush for some solitude, up around Jamieson, Woods Point.etc. I took my laptop along with me, and on day one stepped on it accidentally and broke it into two pieces, inadvertently ensuring i didnt break my commitment to my doctor and family.
Im back into it and full steam ahead.
The relatively short answer to your question from post #2516 is......
The trading restrictions had been in place for over 6 months at this stage. The very business model that i spent two years working with 10 CASA personnel on was established to handle 10 schools initially. Once Mr Aleck had changed "CASA"s mind in October 2018,, and prevented any further schools joining APTA, as you are aware i personally incurred costs in excess of $10,000 per week in order to meet the payroll. Once my own family funds had been exhausted, my parents had stepped in and contributed $300,000 to continue operations and meet my payroll obligations. By now, understandably, staff were becoming less confident that this matter would be resolved and began seeking alternative employment. The business was getting hit with some large payouts of entitlements. I appreciate that Im not directly answering your question here, but I am trying to set the background. I was under enormous pressure, my parents had offered one final tranche of money to maintain staff, but by now there was no doubt in my mind that Mr Aleck had no intention to resolve this whatsoever.
So what do i believe happened.
There are two categories of school the less complex Part 141 and the more complex Part 142. APTA was one of Australia's first Flight Training Organizations to obtain the Part 141 and 142 Approval. Approximately 95% of revenue derived from Part 142 operations.
Part 142 operations were referred to as the Contracted Checking and Recurrent Training regulations. If you read the Part 142 legislation, you quickly ascertain that it is in fact written for exactly what I was doing, and CASA had approved me for years earlier.
Our Part 142 operations made up over 95% of revenue. The Part 141 Operations were minimal and non-consequential to the business. You will note that all CASA correspondence refers to Part 141 operations and approvals only, which were of little or no interest to me.
CASA had not even begun to address the Part 142 issues, which is what I needed resolved.
What do i think really happened? CASA knew that they had right royally ballsed this up and were trying to cover it up. I had asked them on multiple occasions to address Part 142 operations and not Part 141 operations. They ignored my requests. Most likely because by now they knew that in fact Mr Aleck had absolutely no valid basis to take the action he did, and in fact I was not acting unlawfully. CASA couldnt address the Part 142 matters because that would have exposed the matter, and exposed the Achilles heel in CASAs case.
The matter was obviously many months awy from being resolved, and it was most likely that it would never be.
A bit brief sorry, back to work and just typing awy on the side of the road.
Cheers all, Glen
.