Glen Buckley and Australian small business -V- CASA
No court has found Glen committed any offence to the requisite standard. The only people who consider him guilty are those who have an opinion that's interesting but not authoritatively conclusive.
The following 4 users liked this post by Lead Balloon:
Wanted to wish you a Merry Christmas Glen. My hope is that 2024 brings this saga to an acceptable end for you and your family. Enjoy your family time and a cold beer.
The following 8 users liked this post by LAME2:
Thread Starter
LAME2 and others
Cheers, very much appreciate the gesture (and the timely bump). A 5 year saga that will obviously continue well into next year i suggest. Refer following post. all the best to everyome on here that has, and continues to support me. Cheers to Sandy, i received your message and will get back to you over the next couple of days. Cheers all, safe trip home at the end of day and throughout the festive season, cheers.
Thread Starter
Cofrresp[ondence from CASA CEO Pip Spence
Dear Glen
Thank you for your emails of 11, 15 and 17 October and 1 November 2023. I appreciate you taking the time to set out in detail your response to the action points arising from our meeting on 3 October 2023 to discuss the outcome of the Ombudsman’s review.
As we discussed at the outset of our meeting, we stand by our commitment to accept and support the Ombudsman’s findings. While the Ombudsman made no recommendations that would lead to any change of our legal decisions, it found the manner in which we went about communicating and engaging with APTA around a significant change application to add additional temporary bases to its approvals was unfair and not in accordance with our Regulatory Philosophy. We remain committed to accepting the Ombudsman’s conclusions, and that is the context that informs my advice below.
Thanks
Pip
Thank you for your emails of 11, 15 and 17 October and 1 November 2023. I appreciate you taking the time to set out in detail your response to the action points arising from our meeting on 3 October 2023 to discuss the outcome of the Ombudsman’s review.
As we discussed at the outset of our meeting, we stand by our commitment to accept and support the Ombudsman’s findings. While the Ombudsman made no recommendations that would lead to any change of our legal decisions, it found the manner in which we went about communicating and engaging with APTA around a significant change application to add additional temporary bases to its approvals was unfair and not in accordance with our Regulatory Philosophy. We remain committed to accepting the Ombudsman’s conclusions, and that is the context that informs my advice below.
- I can confirm that consistent with the undertaking I gave you, I have discussed Flight Operations Inspector XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXX, his observations from his time in the Melbourne office as part of the Certificate Management Team that had responsibility for oversight of your operations, as well as his view on the prevalence of APTA-like arrangements in the flight training sector of the industry. There is nothing that Nishi said that would change what we discussed with you in October. In particular, it appears that the scale and complexity of the APTA model created significant implementation issues. Bearing in mind that complexity and scale, I am comfortable that the advice CASA provided the Ombudsman prior was accurate. In summary, that advice was that ‘CASA may have been aware of other operators using the types of arrangements being proposed and had taken a more permissive attitude than the relevant law allowed’ and that ‘it appears in hindsight that the relationship between Bairnsdale and LVAC bore similarities to the arrangement proposed between Bairnsdale and APTA.’
- I have been advised by CASA’s Freedom of Information team that two agreements between APTA and LVAC (one undated, and the other dated 26 November 2019) were released to you on 24 August 2023.
- You have indicated that you intend to approach the Ombudsman’s office with new evidence. On confirmation from you that this has been submitted, I remain willing to contact the Ombudsman and request it review the new information you have provided.
- CASA’s position remains that APTA’s exposition alone was insufficient for it to demonstrate operational control over its affiliates. As CASA advised the Ombudsman: CASA may be satisfied that the fundamental operational requirements specified in CASR 141.060 are met by (a) ensuring that relevant arrangements are clearly set out in the contract or agreement; and (b) ensuring that relevant provisions in the contract are not operationally inconsistent with those arrangements. While the arrangements proposed by APTA for its Part 141 operations were unconventional, they are common in AOC operations. APTA held an AOC given it conducted flying training operations under CASR Part 142. There is no legislation that expressly requires AOC holders to provide CASA with copies of contracts where it arranges for some operational functions to be undertaken by a third party. However, the contracts provide the best evidence for CASA to consider whether it can be satisfied that key operational requirements being carried out by the third party are in place and comply with the relevant regulations. In the case of an AOC, CASA may require an applicant for an AOC to provide CASA with documents—including contracts— that are reasonably required by CASA to properly consider an application. Where an AOC is not involved (for instance, CASR Part 141 certificates), a corresponding requirement is contained in Civil Aviation Safety Regulation 11.040.
- While CASA remains committed to supporting any Act of Grace payment application you elect to pursue, it is a process that you must initiate with the Department of Finance (rather than CASA). Only after an application has been made can your ability to access the Act of Grace mechanism be conclusively determined by the Department of Finance. As I indicated in my email to you, if it would assist, we can follow up with the Department of Finance and get back to you with any guidance they can provide around submitting an application.
- With respect to our without prejudice and ex gratia basis offer to revisit the offer we made in 2020 in response to a Concerns Notice received following Mr McHeyzer’s email to APTA’s new owner, it is a matter for you whether you wish to obtain legal representation. CASA does not require you to do so. Based on the advice we have received, the maximum offer we are able to make you is $20,000. We have no basis by which we could offer more than this amount, meaning it is CASA’s best and final offer. If you wish to accept $20,000 please let me know and I will have the necessary documents prepared for your review.
Thanks
Pip
The following users liked this post:
The following 3 users liked this post by mcoates:
The following 2 users liked this post by OZBUSDRIVER:
The following 2 users liked this post by Chronic Snoozer:
“Any compensation would relate only to Mr McHeyzer’s 27 August 2019 email and would be wholly separate from any the Act of Grace process.”
So this is only about one small part of Glen’s plight with CASA.
The following users liked this post:
GOFUNDME and lawyers now!
The following 2 users liked this post by Global Aviator:
Reading the Bonza thread on the other forum with CASA approving them using Flair Canadian acft/crew/maintenance and perplexed that that is ok but Glen's things weren't.
Last edited by 10JQKA; 21st Dec 2023 at 04:24.
The following 3 users liked this post by 10JQKA:
The following 5 users liked this post by Bend alot:
Glen, honestly mate why not just get the best lawyers in the country, get the GoFundMe fired up. I’ll defo throw more $$$ into it.
The more I read the more I understand you, it’s personal, you want to beat them on your own terms and get what is rightly yours. I get it I’m the same tenacious prick.
However there also comes a time when ya gotta let dogs out.
I’m sure everyone on these pages would love to see your full legal assault on the institution. Individuals in an organisation destroyed you (yes I’m living vicariously through you as 20 years ago I had my own issues but was not wise enough to know what to do, now it would be different).
I have no doubt through your tenacity and detail that you will eventually win, but at what cost? Plus prob another 5+ years.
The pathetic action of grace offer even fired me up!
The more I read the more I understand you, it’s personal, you want to beat them on your own terms and get what is rightly yours. I get it I’m the same tenacious prick.
However there also comes a time when ya gotta let dogs out.
I’m sure everyone on these pages would love to see your full legal assault on the institution. Individuals in an organisation destroyed you (yes I’m living vicariously through you as 20 years ago I had my own issues but was not wise enough to know what to do, now it would be different).
I have no doubt through your tenacity and detail that you will eventually win, but at what cost? Plus prob another 5+ years.
The pathetic action of grace offer even fired me up!
The following 2 users liked this post by Global Aviator:
I’m with Global Aviator. Hunt down, someone will have a recommendation they can PM you, a decent law firm that understands your plight. Get the ball rolling, it’s been too long.
The following 2 users liked this post by LAME2:
Thread Starter
Letter to Ombudsman- finalised and sent
Post #2912 was a draft, which i have now removed, and finalised and the sent copy is below. Only the most minor of changes to the drafty that was in # 291216/01/24
· Commonwealth Ombudsman Reference- 2019-713834
· My Reference- PPRUNE # 2915
To the Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman.
The Commonwealth Ombudsman Office conducted a 5-year investigation into matter 2019-713834 involving action by CASA that led to the closure of my business with associated significant harm caused
Presumably, at 5 years duration it is one of the lengthiest and most comprehensive investigations ever undertaken by the Commonwealth Ombudsman Office.
As the person whose family has been significantly impacted by this matter, it is concerning that after five years, the Ombudsman Office remains unable to resolve the simplest of issues, and the misunderstandings within the Ombudsman’s Office are highly evident.
Those misunderstandings impact substantially on me and my family.
In the latter part of the investigation, once I became aware that significant misunderstandings had developed within the Ombudsman Office, I made multiple requests/pleas to completely withdraw my complaint. You will have those requests on record.
The Ombudsman Office made its own decision to continue with the investigation despite those formal requests by me to fully withdraw my complaint.
Those misunderstandings within the Ombudsman Office that initially raised my concerns, have compounded, and as I had anticipated, they impact my ability to pursue justice and finalise this matter.
Having reviewed the Robodebt Report and most particularly regarding the comments and recommendations that apply to the Ombudsman Office, I have no doubt that there are systemic issues within the Ombudsman Office, and those very same issues have impacted on my matter.
I continue to ask that my complaint be withdrawn and that the findings of the Ombudsman Office be completely withdrawn, so that they cannot be provided to any other Entity or Government Department and used to prevent me seeking justice or an Act of Grace payment.
If the Ombudsman Office will not withdraw the findings, it is essential that where there are gross technical misunderstandings within the Ombudsman Office, that they are acknowledged and publicly corrected, and most especially, because they are so easily corrected, and the impact of those misunderstandings is significant.
Brief summation of the investigation.
The investigation was based around the CASA action that led to the closure of my business of more than a decade, the Australian Pilot Training Alliance (APTA) and my flying school, Melbourne Flight Training (MFT)
The closure was forced by a new and unique requirement that was imposed on me and my business only, by a single CASA Employee. That requirement was not and has never been placed on any other Organisations that operated in an identical structure to me and my business.
I was in effect “targeted” by that single CASA Employee. I am fully satisfied that his decision making was intended to bring harm to me personally, based on existing acrimony between him within CASA, and myself.
That new and unique requirement imposed on my business only, being the requirement that all Personnel operating under my CASA issued Part 141 and part 142 Flying Training Approval must now also be directly employed by the same Company that holds that Approval. I was not permitted to utilise personnel that were employed by another Entity, even in cases where I owned the ‘other’ Entity.
I cannot overemphasize how bizarre and damaging both commercially and reputationally this new and targeted interpretation was.
This application of this new and unique requirement was applied only to my Organisation. It is not a legislative requirement, in fact quite the opposite. The legislation clearly and for obvious reasons does permit a Flying School to utilise personnel that are not Employees of the same Company that holds the CASA issued approval. It always has, and it always will, and that is exactly how the Part 141 and part 142 legislation is written. In fact, the Part 142 legislation is referred to as the “contracted training legislation”.
Not only was this new and unique requirement that was placed on me, not supported in any way, by any legislation, it completely contravenes precedent set by CASA during the previous 25 years of my involvement in the industry in its dealings with all other Operators, with the notable sole exception of mine.
CASA applied that interpretation to my business only and continues to permit all other operators to operate in the same structure that I was not permitted to operate with.
The matter in its entirety is truly outrageous. Unfortunately, during the five-year investigation the Ombudsman Office was also completely unable to clarify whether the structure that I adopted was “new and unusual” or if in fact it was commonplace throughout the industry, and continues to be, only after a CASA approval process.
A truly staggering inability to arrive at clear determinations on the most basic and fundamental facts, and particularly where there is readily available irrefutable evidence to make a determination.
I note that in correspondence from the Ombudsman the use of the terminology, “CASA advised….”, indicating that supporting evidence was not required, and CASA assertions were accepted at face value, even in situations they were clearly controversial.
At this stage, I am not seeking any comment against the “background” information provided above, as that is not the purpose of this correspondence. It is provided merely as background information.
I have included my Local MP, Carina Garland in this correspondence, and the information above will ensure that she remains fully briefed on this matter, as she has been throughout.
Minister King has specifically directed my Local MP, Carina Garland not to assist me with this matter, and that direction by a Government Minister further heightens my concerns.
As a constituent of the Electorate of Chisholm, and with concerns as to why the Minister responsible for CASA would direct an MP not to assist a Constituent in such a significant matter, I have included other recipients in this correspondence.
I seek to clarify a simple single issue that is critical to this matter. A matter that the Ombudsman office has been unable to clarify throughout the five years. A matter that I have made multiple requests of the Ombudsman Office to address, yet the Office seems resistant to address this simple to resolve, but critical matter.
My reasonable assumption is that the Ombudsman office is affording the Agency a level of “protection” that is more than the public should reasonably expect of the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s Office.
Many of the findings from the Robodebt investigation are relevant to my matter and particularly the recommendation that a statutory obligation be placed on Government employees to use their best endeavours in assisting an Ombudsman investigation.
In my own matter that has been the subject of a five-year investigation, I am fully satisfied that a senior executive within the Civil Aviation Safety Authority has repeatedly and deliberately provided false and misleading information to the Commonwealth Ombudsman investigation.
The Robodebt investigation also identified that despite the Ombudsman Office having significant power to look behind the assertions being made by the Government Department, there was a tendency to not use those powers, and to accept assertions made by the Agency at face value, without the requirement to call on evidence in support of those assertions.
This was very much my experience with the Ombudsman office and to be perfectly frank, I felt that at times there was very little appetite to arrive at the truth, and an aversion to seeking evidence where it was readily available, and that leads me to the purpose of this correspondence.
I feel that the significance of this request may be somewhat lost on the Ombudsman office, nevertheless this request is critical to this matter in its entirety, and I believe that I am fully entitled to have this significant misunderstanding fully and clearly resolved, to allow me to progress this matter.
Throughout the five-year investigation my position was that there was only ever one flying school. That being APTA, the flying school that I owned and operated. That flying school was a Registered Training Organisation and a CASA approved flying school holding both categories of flight training i.e. both a Part 141 Approval and a Part 142 Approval.
There were no other ‘flying schools” involved in this matter.
The Ombudsman Office in correspondence has obviously formed the opinion that there are multiple flying schools, when in fact there is only one flying school and that being APTA. In correspondence received from the Ombudsman office it mentions the other Entities approvals and authorisations, as though they held a flying school approval, when in fact there were none.
This is a significant misunderstanding within the Ombudsman’s office. Whether it is based on false and misleading information, or whether it is based on significant but wildly inaccurate assumptions within the Ombudsman Office, I do not know, and that determination is best left to the Ombudsman office.
The purpose of this correspondence is not to find out how the inaccuracy developed but the purpose of this correspondence is to have it clearly, concisely and finally fully resolved, so that there can be no misunderstanding.
The Ombudsman office accepted that there were multiple flying schools each with their own Authorisations, and the Ombudsman refers to those other Entities training ability and the other Entities CASA issued Authorisations and Approvals.
A gross technical error on behalf of the Ombudsman, because quite simply. There are none.
Of the Entities involved in this matter only APTA was a flying school. Only APTA held Approvals or flying school Authorisations to deliver Flight Training. There were no others. There was only one flying school, only one CASA issued Part 141/142 Approval. There was only APTAs legislative required Key Personnel, only APTAs Approval, only APTAs Authorisation, only APTA courses and syllabi, only APTAs Registered Training Organisation, only APTAs Safety department, only APTA had the qualified personnel, only APTA had all aircraft inducted into its system there were only APTa policies, procedures and safety systems etc etc etc
Those other “Entities” were no more a flying school, than you as the reader of this correspondence, are a flying school. It is a “black and white matter”, and there should be no confusion. With all due respect to them, they literally would be unwilling and totally unable to operate a flying school, as CASA well knows.
If the Ombudsman Office is of the opinion that there were other Approvals and Authorisations in order for any of the other entities to operate as a flying school, and I maintain that in fact there were no other approvals or Authorisations, I call on the Ombudsman Office to nominate those Approvals held.
An entirely reasonable request, as I am sure you will concur.
The only holder of any approvals or Authorisations was APTA alone with CASA ARN 759217 and a CASA issued Part 141 and 142 .
It is not and should not be a matter that causes any confusion whatsoever within the Ombudsman Office.
The Entities that were not flying schools and who approached me to deliver flight training under my CASA issued Part 141/142 flying training approval at their respective airports, were not ‘flying schools. The Entities that approached me to deliver flying training on their behalf were”
· Melbourne Flight Training
· Learn to Fly
· AVIA
· AV8
· Latrobe Valley aeroclub
· Whitestar aviation
· Simjet
· Ballarat Aero Club
· ARC Aviation
I should point out at this stage that I have already made an FOI request of CASA, and received the required information. I know the clear and correct answer and cannot comprehend how so many of these “misunderstandings” developed in this investigation. If the Ombudsman remains unable to address this issue, please advise me and I will provide you with my FOI response that brings clarity to this matter, although my hope is that the Ombudsman can initiate their own well-intentioned process rather than rely on me.
From my own experience the Ombudsman office demonstrated a resistance to seeking evidence where evidence was readily available. This occurred frequently on matters where a request for evidence would bring clarity to a matter which in turn could potentially cause harm to the Government Agency.
There were no active Part 141 or Part 142 Authorisations, for any of those Organisations. I have put far too much time in trying to correct information that CASA feeds to the Ombudsman and the Ombudsman accepts at face value.
For complete clarity. These Entities approached me to deliver flight training because they couldn’t deliver flying training. If they could deliver flying training, they would be a flying school in their own right,, and therefore a business competitor to APTA
None of these Entities were a Flying School. None could deliver flight training because they did not have a CASA Part 141 or 142 Approval. Each of those Entities was no more a flying school than you, as the reader, and as CASA well knows.
As CASA only issues those Part 141/142 Approvals after a lengthy and complex process, CASA would be fully aware that there is only one flying school involved in this matter. Please be assured that the confusion exists only within the Ombudsman Office on this fundamental matter.
For an entity to become a Flying School it’s a complicated, costly, and burdensome process. The school would have to make an application to CASA in order to be approved.
There are a number of ways that the Ombudsman office could almost immediately fully resolve this matter, as it requires any one of these very simple questions.
If CASA, or the Ombudsman asserts that there were any other Flight Training Organisations with any active approvals then , CASA would be able to immediately provide:
· The Aviation Reference Number (ARN) for the Organisation, and the associated active Part 141 or 142 Approvals
· The flying school would have a CASA issued certificate to verify those active Authorisations and Approvals.
· The flying school would have the CASA mandated Key Personnel for the Flying School i.e. Chief Flying instructor/ Head of Operations. Safety Manager, CASA approved CEO, and CASA would be able to name those Key personnel.
· They would be required to have a CASA Approved Operations Manual/ Exposition that CASA would hold on file, containing procedures, syllabi, safety management etc.
· They would have aircraft inducted into that flying school, and CASA would hold that information on record.
· CASA would hold on file, emails indicating some level of communications, oversight, and engagement with those Entities, as would be expected if they were a flying school.
For CASA to lead the Ombudsman to believe, and for the Ombudsman Office to believe and accept that each of these Entities was a flying school that could deliver flight training is incredulous, it really is.
If The Ombudsman has accepted that these Entities were a flying school, at any time with their own Approvals and Authorisations, it seems entirely reasonable that I call on the Ombudsman to identify which of those Entities held either a Part 141 or 142 Approval.
If I am grossly mistaken and any of those Entities were a “flying school” with an active 141 or 142 CASA approved active Flying School, and able to deliver flight training then I have been grossly mistaken.
I would have a gross misunderstanding of this entire matter, I would be mistaken, and I would have inadvertently but substantially provided the Ombudsman Office with grossly inaccurate information throughout this matter, although not with bad intent. The information that I have provided would clearly be false and misleading.
You will appreciate that it is very important going forward to have this clearly and concisely clarified.
Thankyou in anticipation of clearly confirming the position of the Ombudsman’s office as to how many Entities were approved to deliver Part 141/142 training.
Was there only one, that being APTA, or were there multiple Flying Schools.
I welcome any contact by any means including telephone, if you wish to clarify any aspects of this request.
Respectfully
Glen Buckley
· Commonwealth Ombudsman Reference- 2019-713834
· My Reference- PPRUNE # 2915
To the Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman.
The Commonwealth Ombudsman Office conducted a 5-year investigation into matter 2019-713834 involving action by CASA that led to the closure of my business with associated significant harm caused
Presumably, at 5 years duration it is one of the lengthiest and most comprehensive investigations ever undertaken by the Commonwealth Ombudsman Office.
As the person whose family has been significantly impacted by this matter, it is concerning that after five years, the Ombudsman Office remains unable to resolve the simplest of issues, and the misunderstandings within the Ombudsman’s Office are highly evident.
Those misunderstandings impact substantially on me and my family.
In the latter part of the investigation, once I became aware that significant misunderstandings had developed within the Ombudsman Office, I made multiple requests/pleas to completely withdraw my complaint. You will have those requests on record.
The Ombudsman Office made its own decision to continue with the investigation despite those formal requests by me to fully withdraw my complaint.
Those misunderstandings within the Ombudsman Office that initially raised my concerns, have compounded, and as I had anticipated, they impact my ability to pursue justice and finalise this matter.
Having reviewed the Robodebt Report and most particularly regarding the comments and recommendations that apply to the Ombudsman Office, I have no doubt that there are systemic issues within the Ombudsman Office, and those very same issues have impacted on my matter.
I continue to ask that my complaint be withdrawn and that the findings of the Ombudsman Office be completely withdrawn, so that they cannot be provided to any other Entity or Government Department and used to prevent me seeking justice or an Act of Grace payment.
If the Ombudsman Office will not withdraw the findings, it is essential that where there are gross technical misunderstandings within the Ombudsman Office, that they are acknowledged and publicly corrected, and most especially, because they are so easily corrected, and the impact of those misunderstandings is significant.
Brief summation of the investigation.
The investigation was based around the CASA action that led to the closure of my business of more than a decade, the Australian Pilot Training Alliance (APTA) and my flying school, Melbourne Flight Training (MFT)
The closure was forced by a new and unique requirement that was imposed on me and my business only, by a single CASA Employee. That requirement was not and has never been placed on any other Organisations that operated in an identical structure to me and my business.
I was in effect “targeted” by that single CASA Employee. I am fully satisfied that his decision making was intended to bring harm to me personally, based on existing acrimony between him within CASA, and myself.
That new and unique requirement imposed on my business only, being the requirement that all Personnel operating under my CASA issued Part 141 and part 142 Flying Training Approval must now also be directly employed by the same Company that holds that Approval. I was not permitted to utilise personnel that were employed by another Entity, even in cases where I owned the ‘other’ Entity.
I cannot overemphasize how bizarre and damaging both commercially and reputationally this new and targeted interpretation was.
This application of this new and unique requirement was applied only to my Organisation. It is not a legislative requirement, in fact quite the opposite. The legislation clearly and for obvious reasons does permit a Flying School to utilise personnel that are not Employees of the same Company that holds the CASA issued approval. It always has, and it always will, and that is exactly how the Part 141 and part 142 legislation is written. In fact, the Part 142 legislation is referred to as the “contracted training legislation”.
Not only was this new and unique requirement that was placed on me, not supported in any way, by any legislation, it completely contravenes precedent set by CASA during the previous 25 years of my involvement in the industry in its dealings with all other Operators, with the notable sole exception of mine.
CASA applied that interpretation to my business only and continues to permit all other operators to operate in the same structure that I was not permitted to operate with.
The matter in its entirety is truly outrageous. Unfortunately, during the five-year investigation the Ombudsman Office was also completely unable to clarify whether the structure that I adopted was “new and unusual” or if in fact it was commonplace throughout the industry, and continues to be, only after a CASA approval process.
A truly staggering inability to arrive at clear determinations on the most basic and fundamental facts, and particularly where there is readily available irrefutable evidence to make a determination.
I note that in correspondence from the Ombudsman the use of the terminology, “CASA advised….”, indicating that supporting evidence was not required, and CASA assertions were accepted at face value, even in situations they were clearly controversial.
At this stage, I am not seeking any comment against the “background” information provided above, as that is not the purpose of this correspondence. It is provided merely as background information.
I have included my Local MP, Carina Garland in this correspondence, and the information above will ensure that she remains fully briefed on this matter, as she has been throughout.
Minister King has specifically directed my Local MP, Carina Garland not to assist me with this matter, and that direction by a Government Minister further heightens my concerns.
As a constituent of the Electorate of Chisholm, and with concerns as to why the Minister responsible for CASA would direct an MP not to assist a Constituent in such a significant matter, I have included other recipients in this correspondence.
I seek to clarify a simple single issue that is critical to this matter. A matter that the Ombudsman office has been unable to clarify throughout the five years. A matter that I have made multiple requests of the Ombudsman Office to address, yet the Office seems resistant to address this simple to resolve, but critical matter.
My reasonable assumption is that the Ombudsman office is affording the Agency a level of “protection” that is more than the public should reasonably expect of the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s Office.
Many of the findings from the Robodebt investigation are relevant to my matter and particularly the recommendation that a statutory obligation be placed on Government employees to use their best endeavours in assisting an Ombudsman investigation.
In my own matter that has been the subject of a five-year investigation, I am fully satisfied that a senior executive within the Civil Aviation Safety Authority has repeatedly and deliberately provided false and misleading information to the Commonwealth Ombudsman investigation.
The Robodebt investigation also identified that despite the Ombudsman Office having significant power to look behind the assertions being made by the Government Department, there was a tendency to not use those powers, and to accept assertions made by the Agency at face value, without the requirement to call on evidence in support of those assertions.
This was very much my experience with the Ombudsman office and to be perfectly frank, I felt that at times there was very little appetite to arrive at the truth, and an aversion to seeking evidence where it was readily available, and that leads me to the purpose of this correspondence.
I feel that the significance of this request may be somewhat lost on the Ombudsman office, nevertheless this request is critical to this matter in its entirety, and I believe that I am fully entitled to have this significant misunderstanding fully and clearly resolved, to allow me to progress this matter.
Throughout the five-year investigation my position was that there was only ever one flying school. That being APTA, the flying school that I owned and operated. That flying school was a Registered Training Organisation and a CASA approved flying school holding both categories of flight training i.e. both a Part 141 Approval and a Part 142 Approval.
There were no other ‘flying schools” involved in this matter.
The Ombudsman Office in correspondence has obviously formed the opinion that there are multiple flying schools, when in fact there is only one flying school and that being APTA. In correspondence received from the Ombudsman office it mentions the other Entities approvals and authorisations, as though they held a flying school approval, when in fact there were none.
This is a significant misunderstanding within the Ombudsman’s office. Whether it is based on false and misleading information, or whether it is based on significant but wildly inaccurate assumptions within the Ombudsman Office, I do not know, and that determination is best left to the Ombudsman office.
The purpose of this correspondence is not to find out how the inaccuracy developed but the purpose of this correspondence is to have it clearly, concisely and finally fully resolved, so that there can be no misunderstanding.
The Ombudsman office accepted that there were multiple flying schools each with their own Authorisations, and the Ombudsman refers to those other Entities training ability and the other Entities CASA issued Authorisations and Approvals.
A gross technical error on behalf of the Ombudsman, because quite simply. There are none.
Of the Entities involved in this matter only APTA was a flying school. Only APTA held Approvals or flying school Authorisations to deliver Flight Training. There were no others. There was only one flying school, only one CASA issued Part 141/142 Approval. There was only APTAs legislative required Key Personnel, only APTAs Approval, only APTAs Authorisation, only APTA courses and syllabi, only APTAs Registered Training Organisation, only APTAs Safety department, only APTA had the qualified personnel, only APTA had all aircraft inducted into its system there were only APTa policies, procedures and safety systems etc etc etc
Those other “Entities” were no more a flying school, than you as the reader of this correspondence, are a flying school. It is a “black and white matter”, and there should be no confusion. With all due respect to them, they literally would be unwilling and totally unable to operate a flying school, as CASA well knows.
If the Ombudsman Office is of the opinion that there were other Approvals and Authorisations in order for any of the other entities to operate as a flying school, and I maintain that in fact there were no other approvals or Authorisations, I call on the Ombudsman Office to nominate those Approvals held.
An entirely reasonable request, as I am sure you will concur.
The only holder of any approvals or Authorisations was APTA alone with CASA ARN 759217 and a CASA issued Part 141 and 142 .
It is not and should not be a matter that causes any confusion whatsoever within the Ombudsman Office.
The Entities that were not flying schools and who approached me to deliver flight training under my CASA issued Part 141/142 flying training approval at their respective airports, were not ‘flying schools. The Entities that approached me to deliver flying training on their behalf were”
· Melbourne Flight Training
· Learn to Fly
· AVIA
· AV8
· Latrobe Valley aeroclub
· Whitestar aviation
· Simjet
· Ballarat Aero Club
· ARC Aviation
I should point out at this stage that I have already made an FOI request of CASA, and received the required information. I know the clear and correct answer and cannot comprehend how so many of these “misunderstandings” developed in this investigation. If the Ombudsman remains unable to address this issue, please advise me and I will provide you with my FOI response that brings clarity to this matter, although my hope is that the Ombudsman can initiate their own well-intentioned process rather than rely on me.
From my own experience the Ombudsman office demonstrated a resistance to seeking evidence where evidence was readily available. This occurred frequently on matters where a request for evidence would bring clarity to a matter which in turn could potentially cause harm to the Government Agency.
There were no active Part 141 or Part 142 Authorisations, for any of those Organisations. I have put far too much time in trying to correct information that CASA feeds to the Ombudsman and the Ombudsman accepts at face value.
For complete clarity. These Entities approached me to deliver flight training because they couldn’t deliver flying training. If they could deliver flying training, they would be a flying school in their own right,, and therefore a business competitor to APTA
None of these Entities were a Flying School. None could deliver flight training because they did not have a CASA Part 141 or 142 Approval. Each of those Entities was no more a flying school than you, as the reader, and as CASA well knows.
As CASA only issues those Part 141/142 Approvals after a lengthy and complex process, CASA would be fully aware that there is only one flying school involved in this matter. Please be assured that the confusion exists only within the Ombudsman Office on this fundamental matter.
For an entity to become a Flying School it’s a complicated, costly, and burdensome process. The school would have to make an application to CASA in order to be approved.
There are a number of ways that the Ombudsman office could almost immediately fully resolve this matter, as it requires any one of these very simple questions.
If CASA, or the Ombudsman asserts that there were any other Flight Training Organisations with any active approvals then , CASA would be able to immediately provide:
· The Aviation Reference Number (ARN) for the Organisation, and the associated active Part 141 or 142 Approvals
· The flying school would have a CASA issued certificate to verify those active Authorisations and Approvals.
· The flying school would have the CASA mandated Key Personnel for the Flying School i.e. Chief Flying instructor/ Head of Operations. Safety Manager, CASA approved CEO, and CASA would be able to name those Key personnel.
· They would be required to have a CASA Approved Operations Manual/ Exposition that CASA would hold on file, containing procedures, syllabi, safety management etc.
· They would have aircraft inducted into that flying school, and CASA would hold that information on record.
· CASA would hold on file, emails indicating some level of communications, oversight, and engagement with those Entities, as would be expected if they were a flying school.
For CASA to lead the Ombudsman to believe, and for the Ombudsman Office to believe and accept that each of these Entities was a flying school that could deliver flight training is incredulous, it really is.
If The Ombudsman has accepted that these Entities were a flying school, at any time with their own Approvals and Authorisations, it seems entirely reasonable that I call on the Ombudsman to identify which of those Entities held either a Part 141 or 142 Approval.
If I am grossly mistaken and any of those Entities were a “flying school” with an active 141 or 142 CASA approved active Flying School, and able to deliver flight training then I have been grossly mistaken.
I would have a gross misunderstanding of this entire matter, I would be mistaken, and I would have inadvertently but substantially provided the Ombudsman Office with grossly inaccurate information throughout this matter, although not with bad intent. The information that I have provided would clearly be false and misleading.
You will appreciate that it is very important going forward to have this clearly and concisely clarified.
Thankyou in anticipation of clearly confirming the position of the Ombudsman’s office as to how many Entities were approved to deliver Part 141/142 training.
Was there only one, that being APTA, or were there multiple Flying Schools.
I welcome any contact by any means including telephone, if you wish to clarify any aspects of this request.
Respectfully
Glen Buckley
The Waiting Game, and All in Together this Fine Weather
Waiting for the independent bodies of CASA or an Ombudsman to admit error and correct same is expecting the whole of the Public Sector to renounce its power, pre-eminence and the great salaries that are part and parcel of the Canberra bureaucratic juggernaut.
The unjustified and forlorn hopefulness that all of governments ills can be solved by the creation of independent (monopoly) Commonwealth corporations or commissions is very evident after years of this experimenting away from Ministerial and Departmental responsibility. The latter is about democratic accountability and the link between government and citizens.
Former Victorian Premier Henry Bolte was correct about the Ombudsman concept, “it will take away from the duties of Members of Parliament.”
Glen has piled on the pressure but without very strong political backing the courts are surely the only viable option. And that political change can be caused by court action because of the publicity it can engender.
The unjustified and forlorn hopefulness that all of governments ills can be solved by the creation of independent (monopoly) Commonwealth corporations or commissions is very evident after years of this experimenting away from Ministerial and Departmental responsibility. The latter is about democratic accountability and the link between government and citizens.
Former Victorian Premier Henry Bolte was correct about the Ombudsman concept, “it will take away from the duties of Members of Parliament.”
Glen has piled on the pressure but without very strong political backing the courts are surely the only viable option. And that political change can be caused by court action because of the publicity it can engender.
The following 3 users liked this post by Sandy Reith:
Waiting for the independent bodies of CASA or an Ombudsman to admit error and correct same is expecting the whole of the Public Sector to renounce its power, pre-eminence and the great salaries that are part and parcel of the Canberra bureaucratic juggernaut.
They say the definition of insanity is trying the same thing over and over again, and expecting a different result.
The more I read the more I understand you, it’s personal, you want to beat them on your own terms
Until pride gets shelved, this train wreck of long letters demanding justice followed by government departments ducking and weaving and hiding behind each other will inevitably continue.
The following 5 users liked this post by Slippery_Pete:
Quote Slippery Pete:- “..but the problem is Glen wants to be seen to have been right.
Until pride gets shelved, this train wreck of long letters demanding justice…”
With respect I think this has elements that we might agree but I think an over simplification. The whole saga is not a problem of Glen’s making and all his efforts are fighting for the rights of us all. He is absolutely right to pursue CASA in his own manner and our support should be unwavering. And it’s easy to say take them to court but that is a daunting task for anyone and brings with it a lot of stress due to the uncertainties, hard work and great expenses.
.
Until pride gets shelved, this train wreck of long letters demanding justice…”
With respect I think this has elements that we might agree but I think an over simplification. The whole saga is not a problem of Glen’s making and all his efforts are fighting for the rights of us all. He is absolutely right to pursue CASA in his own manner and our support should be unwavering. And it’s easy to say take them to court but that is a daunting task for anyone and brings with it a lot of stress due to the uncertainties, hard work and great expenses.
.
The following 2 users liked this post by Sandy Reith:
Sandy,
I agree but you can remove the ‘expense’ from that statement. From the support I see here and how quickly the first crowdfunding went, I don’t think it would take long to build up the coffers.
Completely unrelated but Aussie Pilots finally seem to have had enough, I’m referring to the fantastic work the Network Aviation guys are doing.
Until CASA have to answer in court Glen will constantly be on the back foot. Glen I think what you have done is fantastic, meticulous and on point. However you go to the doc when ya sick, ya go to a lawyer when well ya need lawerying!
We are behind you.
I agree but you can remove the ‘expense’ from that statement. From the support I see here and how quickly the first crowdfunding went, I don’t think it would take long to build up the coffers.
Completely unrelated but Aussie Pilots finally seem to have had enough, I’m referring to the fantastic work the Network Aviation guys are doing.
Until CASA have to answer in court Glen will constantly be on the back foot. Glen I think what you have done is fantastic, meticulous and on point. However you go to the doc when ya sick, ya go to a lawyer when well ya need lawerying!
We are behind you.
The following 5 users liked this post by Global Aviator:
Thread Starter
Letter to Carina Garland MP Chisholm-DRAFT ONLY 1 of 2
Draft removed and posted #2925 and #2926
Last edited by glenb; 26th Feb 2024 at 19:31.