[Peetwo]

GlenB embuggerance update: 14/06/23

Via the AP emails:

       Freedom of Information Request- (My reference-  PPRUNE #2675 )
    
This Freedom of Information request is to attend to my allegation that CASA has provided false and misleading advice to a Commonwealth Ombudsman Investigation that led to the Ombudsman arriving at the following conclusion’.
 
“CASA has previously required evidence of contracts from other operators as evidence of operational control before it made this request of APTA.”
 
For complete clarity. As on multiple occasions, CASA has provided false and misleading information to that investigation.
 
Background to request
 
In October of 2018 with no prior indication at all, CASA placed restrictions on my CASA issued Air Operator Certificate (AOC) of ten years, which had an immediate and significant impact on the cash flow of my business.
 
Those restrictions remained in place for 8 months. CASA was notified on multiple occasions in writing throughout the 8 months of the impact of those restrictions, so there can be no pretence that CASA was not fully aware of the impact of those restrictions.
 
The only reason that those restrictions remained in place for 8 months was because I could not satisfy the sole CASA Employee, as to the wording in my “commercial agreements”. There were no safety issues ever identified by CASA. It was a simple wording issue in contracts.
 
This was unprecedented that CASA would ever have any involvement in commercial agreements of flight training operators.
 
The commercial agreement being the document outlining commercial/financial arrangements between my business APTA, and its members. Previously CASA had absolutely no involvement in commercial contracts and matters of operational control were not contained in commercial contracts.
 
Had I have been able to satisfy that sole CASA employee with regard to the wording in the commercial agreements between APTA and its Members, those restrictions placed on my business by CASA would have been immediately lifted by CASA, and I could have returned to Business as Usual, and minimise the harm caused.
 
These were the contracts that APTA had used for many years, and had been provided to CASA on multiple occasions throughout those three years.
 
In a Flight Training Organisation, the “Exposition” is the CASA legislated suite of documents that is required by CASA to outline matters of operational control, not the commercial agreement. CASA was not requesting any change to the Exposition, because CASA was fully satisfied with the Exposition and had approved it, many years prior.
 
The commercial agreement is a completely non related document, effectively being the contract between the AOC Holder being my business APTA, and its customers. This is in contrast to the CASA approved Operations Manual/Exposition which is effectively the contract between the AOC holder and CASA.
 
CASA retains copies of the Exposition and audits the Operators compliance with regards to matters of operational control against that CASA approved Exposition.
 
CASA does not get involved in any way, with commercial agreements, or retain copies of commercial agreements. That is, until it placed these unique and bizarre requirements on Glen Buckley. This is evidenced by the fact that CASA demanded I provide copies of agreements in October 2018, claiming that they didn’t have them. I advised CASA that I had provided them on multiple occasions. Initially CASA denied this but was forced to admit that they had received them, but they had been misplaced.
 
Until CASA placed the requirement on me to put additional matters of operational control into our commercial agreements, that were additional to, and not to be included in the Exposition, in order to lift the trading restrictions, these two documents had been totally unrelated documents. That was the case throughout the flight training industry, and always had been throughout my 25 years in the industry.
 
The unique requirement placed on my business by CASA, in order to have trading restrictions lifted, was that  additional matters of “operational control” now needed to be outlined in the “commercial agreements”. CASA however refused to be a signatory to those commercial agreements, despite the wording being a requirement stipulated by CASA. The only signatories were APTA and its Members, although it was CASA who needed to be satisfied as to the wording. This was a highly unusual environment to be operating in.
 
Irrespective, I was always willing and eager to fully comply with CASAs unusual requirements placed on me. I simply needed to know “whose” responsibilities were to be outlined in the commercial arrangements, and “what” responsibilities were to be outlined in the commercial agreements, or in fact any aspect of operational control that CASA identified that I needed to attend to, that was not already attended to in my CASA approved Exposition. The truth is that everything was already in the Exposition.
 
The fact that CASA could not identify whose or what responsibilities I needed to attend to, made resolution of the situation impossible, hence the trading restrictions remained in place for a staggering 8 months with the matter unresolved. I could not address a problem that CASA could not identify to me.
 
Every single legislative requirement, procedure, responsibility, and accountability was already specified in that CASA approved Exposition and had been for many years. It had been designed in conjunction with CASA, to CASAs 600 specified requirements, peer reviewed within CASA, approved by CASA, and audited by CASA on multiple occasions over the previous decade.
CASA never identified any deficiencies in my operation, and never requested any changes at all to how we operated or any changes to our Exposition. The entire structure of the business was designed to do exactly what it was doing, and all procedures had been designed for the specific purpose of APTA. The purpose of APTA being to deliver flight training across multiple bases under the one and only authorisation that I held. I was doing what I had been doing for 10 years.
 
These were new requirements in addition to the legislation, in addition to standard industry practice, in addition to previous CASA requirements, in addition to my Exposition, and in addition to any industry precedent.
 
The reason for me making this FOI request is because the Ombudsman has advised me that:
 
“CASA has previously required evidence of contracts from other operators as evidence of operational control before it made this request of APTA.”
 
With 25 years industry experience, I am fully satisfied that that statement is not the truth, and the Ombudsman could only arrive at that deduction based on the provision of false and misleading information by an Employee of CASA. There is no other possible reason the Ombudsman would arrive at that finding.
 
if the Ombudsman Office has formed the view that CASA required any other operator in the flight training industry, ever,  to outline matters of operational control in commercial contracts, as opposed to the Exposition, It is simply not truthful, and would in fact, I suggest be unlawful and in contravention of the regulations as those requirements are mandated to be in the Exposition, as they rightfully should be.
 
I have contacted  a number of industry personnel that had adopted the same business model as I adopted, and they assure me that CASA is not being truthful on this fact, and drawing on my 25 years’ experience in the flight training industry, I am fully satisfied that CASA has never required commercial contracts to outline matters of operational control, as these requirements are contained within the Exposition/Operations Manual as per legislative requirements, and as approved by CASA.
 
Request under FOI
 
Under FOI I am requesting CASA provide me with copies of commercial contracts that CASA retains of any operator in the flight training industry.
 
Specifically, these would be the commercial contracts that CASA has required of  other flight training operators, as evidence of operational control in support of the Ombudsman finding that;
“CASA has previously required evidence of contracts from other operators as evidence of operational control before it made this request of APTA.”
 
I am not interested in any of the financial information, signatories to the agreement, and matters of operational control that are already replicated in the CASA approved Exposition, any names, titles, positions, or any information of a sensitive nature.
 
My expectation is that these documents would be presented to me in a highly redacted state, to maintain appropriate levels of privacy. That will also suit my requirement, as I am only after matters of “operational control” that were addressing CASA requirements in those Agreements.
 
The information provided to me by CASA could be further redacted. Any information that is contained within the contracts, but replicated in the Exposition could also be redacted, as CASA requirements placed on me were over and above what was already in the Exposition.
 
The date range that I am requesting is from November 1938, being the date the Department of Civil Aviation was first established, until October 2018, when CASA placed that requirement on my business.
 
In the highly unlikely event that search by CASA results in more than 5 such documents being produced from the 80-year range, then I will limit my FOI request to only five documents, preferably the most recent five that CASA retain or have been involved in.
 
If CASA is able to produce those five documents that they have required of other Operators, I request that the 5 provided documents include.
·        The Agreements that CASA would hold and have required for both Ballarat Aero Club, and Latrobe Valley Aero Club who had an existing arrangement with previous Flight Training Operators, until the day before they transferred to APTA, when the new and bizarre requirements were placed exclusively on my business. The Ombudsman mistakenly referred to Latrobe valley Aero Club and Ballarat Aero Clubs “authorisations”. It is important to avoid that error. Neither Latrobe Valley Aero Club nor Ballarat Aero Club, had any Authorisations issued by CASA. The Authorisations were mine, and mine only. (APTA)
 
Of the up to 5 contracts provided under FOI, could you please identify specifically which of those 5 documents have previously been provided to the Ombudsman’s Office as part of the investigation.
 No doubt for the Ombudsman to arrive at his determination “CASA has previously required evidence of contracts from other operators as evidence of operational control before it made this request of APTA.” the Ombudsman must have arrived at that determination by requesting CASA to provide evidence of this.
 
Of the five provided contracts, could CASA also provide a copy of the contract that CASA finally determined was acceptable to CASA. That would be athecontract between APTA and Latrobe Valley Aero Club, that was finalised almost immediately after I left the business, in June 2019.
 
The significance of the request, and what this information will demonstrate.
 
Point One- If CASA already held the information they required. Why wouldn’t they share that information with me to allow me to resolve the issue.
 
I very much doubt  that CASA will be able to comply with this FOI request, and there will in fact be no contracts, because the truth is that CASA never required such contracts of any Operator.
 
However, CASA has maintained, and the Ombudsman has accepted that CASA did require such contracts previously, and the Ombudsman found “CASA has previously required evidence of contracts from other operators as evidence of operational control before it made this request of APTA.”
 
I made multiple requests of CASA throughout the 8 months the trading restrictions remained in place to provide me guidance on what they required as wording in the commercial agreements. CASA could not/or would not provide that guidance.
 
Inexplicably, with my 25 years flight training industry experience, I was unable to resolve this matter and derive the suitable wording. My task was more difficult, because CASA could not or would not provide me suitable guidance on their requirements.
 
If CASA is able to produce 5 documents under FOI, then the obvious question is. Why couldn’t CASA provide that same information to Glen Buckley to allow him to fully and immediately resolve the issue and return to Business as Usual and avoid the significant harm caused to so many? If CASA already held the information from previous operators, which was the solution, why wasn’t that made available to Mr Buckley?
 
If CASA does hold contracts outlining matters of operational control, the entire matter could have been fully resolved in four hours instead of taking 8 months, and still not being resolved.
This would support my allegation that a CASA Employee deliberately frustrated processes to cause harm to me personally.
 
I have always asserted that members of the CASA Executive management had no intention to resolve the contracts issue. I am fully satisfied that CASA deliberately delayed resolving the contracts issue, and particularly so if CASA claimed that they had previously required contracts of others, and that information was not provided to me.
 
Point Two- How could CASA hold contracts if they hadn’t previously permitted the structure.
 
CASA has led the Ombudsman’s Office to be of the view that what I was doing was an industry first, and that CASA had never previously permitted and approved the identical structure that I adopted, and had never done so. Those assertions are in the initial notification from CASA in October 2018. This is blatantly untrue.
 
If one accepts CASAs position that CASA had never previously permitted the identical structure, then the obvious question is. How could CASA previously have required evidence of contracts from other operators as evidence of operational control before it made this request of APTA.”
 
The point being that if CASA produces the five agreements that I have requested, then it clearly indicates CASA has previously mislead the Ombudsman Inquiry by leading the Ombudsman to form the view that what I was doing was new and unique and was not standard industry practice with formal CASA approval on every occasion.
 
Point Three- Was CASA required to provide evidence, or was CASAs “word” sufficient?
 
I am fully satisfied that throughout the four-year investigation CASA consistently provided false and misleading information to the investigation, and the Investigation placed significant “weighting” on the Agencies “word”, without seeking evidence to support CASAs position.
 
Considering the Ombudsman’s findings “CASA has previously required evidence of contracts from other operators as evidence of operational control before it made this request of APTA.”I would have expected the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s Office to have required evidence of such contracts by requesting copies of those contracts, rather than solely relying on the “word” of the agency representative.
 
For this reason, I have asked CASA under this FOI request to clearly identify, if any of the five contracts were provided to the Ombudsman in order for the Ombudsman to arrive at the conclusion that.“CASA has previously required evidence of contracts from other operators as evidence of operational control before it made this request of APTA.”
 
Point Four -Glen Buckley couldn't resolve the matter in 8 months but the new CEO could.
 
I had tried for 8 months to get the wording in the commercial contracts to the CASA employees satisfaction. That was despite me having 25 years’ experience in the flight training industry. Immediately after the new CEO took over, that CEO was able to provide CASA with an acceptable contract that allowed Latrobe Valley to continue operations.
 
The new CEO of the business was not a flying instructor and had no experience in the flight training industry. He did hold a pilot licence ,although most of his flying had been outside of Australia.
 
With his limited experience he resolved the matter in hours, despite the fact that I could not resolve it for 8 months.
 
Could I also request a copy of the contract that was acceptable to CASA and permitted Latrobe Valley to continue operations?
 
By having a copy of the contract that was acceptable to CASA in July 2019, it will clearly identify the deficiencies that I could not attend to, or if indeed, they had already been attended to.
 
Point Five- CASAs alternating narrative
 
If CASA is to be believed on this fact, then one could logically conclude that CASA could not possibly hold commercial contracts for flight training operators outlining matters of operational control for a structure that apparently hadn’t previously existed, and according to CASA, CASA had not been permitted to exist. If CASA does produce 5 contracts, it will demonstrate that in fact the truth is that CASA had always permitted other Operators to adopt the identical structure that I did, and that would indicate that CASA has been deceptive in representing to the Ombudsman that CASA had never previously permitted the structure.
 
Point Six- Targeted malice
If I am claiming that I was the victim of targeted malice by a CASA Employee or Employees, and that CASA placed unnecessary restrictions on me, compared to others, it is important that I can demonstrate there were “other” Flight Training Organisations that CASA permitted to operate, in order to allow a comparative assessment to be made.
 
The fact that “CASA has previously required evidence of contracts from other operators as evidence of operational control before it made this request of APTA,” indicates that there were in fact other Operators, and will clarify the situation that the Ombudsman could not clarify during the four-year investigation. i.e., was my structure unique, or was it completely standard industry practice adopted throughout the industry with a full CASA approval. Two very different scenarios that until now , and after over four yeras of investigating hasbeen difficult for the Ombudsman to resolve.
 
 Fees
 
I am requesting that CASA consider waiving any fees on this application for the following reasons.
·        If the truth is that CASA has previously provided evidence of contracts to the Ombudsman that information has already been collated and the task is minor in nature.
·        The manner in which CASA chose to act on this matter has caused significant commercial harm to me personally, so my financial means are limited, and I request consideration of a waiver.
·        This has the potential to impact on the safety of aviation if the nation's safety regulator was found to have provided false and misleading information to a Commonwealth Ombudsman investigation, and my request has significance to the safety of aviation and the integrity of CASA, and is of national importance.
Other information
 
I understand that the important and significant nature of this request may involve the CASA Legal, International and Regulatory Affairs Department for guidance, and specifically Mr Aleck, in his role as CASA Executive manager of Legal, International and Regulatory Affairs.
 
May I respectfully request that this request be prioritised. I have an upcoming meeting with the CEO of CASA, Ms Pip Spence, and I would very much like to have this information available to me, and also available to her at that meeting.
 
Yours respectfully
 
Glen Buckley

CM & GlenB post script discussion - tomorrow night 7 pm -   

Via YouTube: 

MTF...P2