[Peetwo]

GlenB embuggerance update: 16/01/24

Via the AP emails:

Tue 2024-01-16 7:20 AM

16/01/24 

·       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I continue to ask that my complaint be withdrawn and that the findings of the Ombudsman Office be completely withdrawn, so that they cannot be provided to any other Entity or Government Department and used to prevent me seeking justice or an Act of Grace payment.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

Some comments in reply, via the UP:

Global Aviator

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!

---

LAME2

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.

---

Sandy Reith

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.

---

Slippery_Pete

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.

Correct.

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

That’s what this whole saga boils down to. There’s gofundme plus legal action available here, 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 followed by government departments ducking and weaving and hiding behind each other will inevitably continue.

Hmm...submission to SSP and/or ICAO audit team; compare GlenB's saga to that of the CASA Board oversighted Helibrook operation, or the Essendon DFO cover-up, more than highlights the serious deficiencies of the regulator in adhering to the ICAO international standards and anything like approaching factual compliance with ICAO Annex 19...   (Ref:  Perseverating :: Perspicacity :: Self preservation?  &   Senator McKenzie calls out Albo on Joyce Meeting?? ) 

MTF...P2