16th March 2020
Dear Deputy Prime Minister, the Honourable Michael Mc Cormack,
By now you will be fully aware of my allegations of misconduct by some personnel within CASA. As you will also be aware my intention is to obtain your direct involvement, or a nominee from your Department. I have submitted previous correspondence to your office on these matters, which has not yet been acknowledged or responded to, and I eagerly await your response.
With regards to this correspondence, may I request an acknowledgement from your office that this correspondence has been received. I understand that in order to receive a response from your office, I am required to provide my contact details, please find them below.
Glen Buckley
6 Susan Court Mount Waverley 3149
E.
[email protected] P. 0418772013
This matter has wide industry involvement, and I have attached a link that has had in excess of 500,000 visits.
https://www.pprune.org/australia-new...ss-v-casa.html
My assertions are well substantiated, and the impact on aviation safety and small businesses operating in the aviation sector is unacceptable, and even more so at this current time when the viability of many small businesses is impacted by the health challenges that Australia is now facing.
You will be aware that several Australian owned businesses have been forced into closure, peoples livelihoods have been impacted, and several business owners have lost their significant investment in the industry as a result of actions and deliberate decisions made by a small group of personnel within CASA. CASA actions have not been based on safety concerns and you will be aware of that.
Below is correspondence that I am simultaneously submitting to Mr Hanton, the CASA Industry Complaints Commissioner. I have included you to ensure that you are fully aware of the situation.
There are three components.
The first is my original complaint submitted to the CASA Industry Complaints Commissioner on 24/02/20.
The second is the Industry Complaints Commissioners preliminary report, and
the third correspondence is my response that I am providing prior to him finalising his report. Please note that this is only one issue amongst many.
Dear Mr Hanton,
I have included my initial complaint, your preliminary report, and the third piece of correspondence, I am submitting to you today (16/03/20) to assist you in arriving at your final report.
Thankyou for your assistance, respectfully, Glen Buckley
MY ORIGINAL COMPLAINT 24/02/20
24/02/20
Dear Mr Hanton,
Please accept my Complaint against Flight Operations Inspector, Mr XXXX XXXXX.
There can be no doubt that "Temporary Locations" have been a procedure in existence throughout my 25 years’ experience in the Industry. If CASA claim to refute that statement i draw your attention that;
1. CASA actually wrote the procedures on all AOCs for flying schools until 2017.
2. CASA mentioned Temporary locations in their own guidance material.
3. APTAs manuals had a Temporary locations procedure that was put into our manuals on the suggestion of CASA.
4. Those procedures were put into our manuals, approved by CASA, and in fact CASA approved those procedures for a number of our bases.
5. CASA actually audited us on those procedures and raised no concerns.
Please also refer to attached correspondence to Mr Craig Martin. I felt that my questions put to Mr Martin were fair and reasonable. I feel that by Mr Martin, choosing not to respond, he has clearly demonstrated a lack of integrity, and ethics. As he has consistently chosen not to respond, i have no option but to submit a complaint in the hope that it will force CASA to act with ethics and integrity by ensuring i am provided with a response.
I have attached previous correspondence that should provide all the information that you require. As this is a relatively minor request, my hope is that it could be attended to promptly.
The Complaint
In the meeting in CASA Offices (November 2018), Mr XXXX XXXXX clearly stated in front of me and two of my staff that;
"I’ve had legal advice that Temporary Locations were not intended for flying schools"
That is not a truthful statement, and coming from a background in the flight training industry, i feel he would have been aware of it at the time he made the statement. I feel he made the false statement to support his intended outcome of bringing harm to me and my business.
Expected Outcome
Therefore, can you please advise if;
CASA did provide legal advice to him that Temporary Locations were not intended for flying schools, or if the statement he made is not truthful.
If Mr XXXXX stands by his assertion, could you identify who it was within CASA that provided him the "legal advice".
If Mr XXXXX asserts that he did not make that statement, please advise if 3 Statutory Declarations by me and my staff would be of any assistance.
Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.
Please be aware that i have included Mr Anthony Mathews (CASA Board Chairman) in on this correspondence, and also the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. In doing so, my hope is that i can ensure transparency and accountability going forward.
Thank you, Glen Buckley
PRELIMINARY REPORT FROM CASA INDUSTRY COMPLAINTS COMMISSIONER 11/03/20
Dear Glen
Complaint One: Untruthful statement complaint
I refer to your complaint about the conduct of CASA Flight Operations Inspector XXXX XXXXX in a meeting in November 2018.
You allege Mr XXXXX misrepresented that he’d received legal advice that the ‘temporary locations (procedure) was not intended for flying schools.’ You submit Mr XXXXX made this ‘false statement to support his intended outcome of bringing harm to you and your business.’
I can confirm legal advice on the applicability of ‘temporary locations’ to Part 141 and 142 operations was provided by CASA’s Legal, International and Regulatory Affairs branch to Southern Region Certificate Management Team 3 (‘CMT 3’) on 25 September 2018.
The summary of that advice noted:
The concept of a temporary location is not derived from Parts 141 or 142 of the CASR. It is only used in the guidance material and the sample operations manual/exposition for the use of a location rather than a training base for short term (or temporary) use.
The CASR does not permit Part 141 or 142 operators to describe a training base as a temporary location if they are using facilities at the base – if this involves the lack of approval of a significant change.
At this stage, I therefore propose to conclude your allegation against Mr Lacy is unsubstantiated and to take no further action. CMT 3 was in receipt of legal advice that the ‘temporary locations (procedure) was not intended for flying schools’ and therefore at this stage I am satisfied Mr Lacy made no misrepresentations.
Next steps
Please provide any additional submissions you’d like me to consider before I finalise my review of your complaint by 24 March 2020.
If at any stage in the complaints process you’re unhappy with the ICC investigation you’re able to ask the Commonwealth Ombudsman to review CASA’s actions or the ICC's consideration of your concerns. Information about how to make a complaint can be found at www.ombudsman.gov.au. Alternatively, the Ombudsman can be contacted on 1300 362 072.
Yours sincerely
Jonathan Hanton
Industry Complaints Commissioner
MY RESPONSE SUBMITTED TODAY 16/03/20
Dear Mr Hanton,
I recognise that this is your preliminary outcome, therefore can I respectfully request that you consider my response prior to you finalising your report.
I make no allegations that your conduct is less than professional, however I feel that you are being misled by personnel within CASA who may be attempting to achieve a desired outcome and cover up their misconduct. As Mr Jonathan Aleck is in fact one of the CASA personnel that I am making allegations against, and you are drawing on information from him in his role as the Executive Manager Legal and Regulatory Affairs, it could be reasonably assumed that he may be trying to protect his position, and in fact that has been my experience.
I appreciate these are strong statements, but as you will appreciate many millions of dollars of investment in a number of businesses have been lost as a result of decisions made by Mr Aleck and Mr Crawford. There is no proportionality in the decisions made by these gentlemen, as the affected business owners will concur.
Point One.
There are two distinct types of locations that training is delivered from. One being a
CASA approved base, being a permanent location, and the other being a
Temporary location, where operations are intended for a finite period. The procedure to activate and deactivate the temporary locations is done by the flying school using a procedure that has been previously approved by CASA but does not require specific CASA approval for each activation and deactivation.
Mr XXXX XXXXX specifically made the comment about a Temporary location, not the CASA approved permanent base. Approximately 12 months prior, it was CASA personnel that suggested we utilise a temporary location procedure, and provided the procedure, which we incorporated into our manuals, which were then approved by CASA and subsequently audited by CASA. We had used this procedure on a number of occasions.
In the preliminary finding, on advice, you state:
The CASR does not permit Part 141 or 142 operators to describe a training base as a temporary location if they are using facilities at the base – if this involves the lack of approval of a significant change.
I concur that an operator cannot describe a training base (permanent) as a temporary location, as the temporary location is temporary in nature and has a finite period of operations. Therefore, im not sure if I have missed your point, if so could you please clarify. The fact is that we activated and deactivated bases on finite timelines and issued notices (and included CASA ) to confirm that was our intention. My issues and concerns about CASA conduct relate to Temporary locations.
Point Two
In your response you state that “
The concept of a temporary location is not derived from Parts 141 or 142 of the CASR”.
Similarly, im not sure of the pertinence of that statement. It is a procedure that most flying schools have used for decades. It was actually printed by CASA on AOCs. There can be no doubt that it is in fact a procedure. This is further evidenced by the fact that CASA provide the procedure in their own guidance material and the sample Exposition that CASA provide to the flight training industry. Could you clarify that Mr Alecks stance on this matter is that flying schools are not permitted to have a temporary location.
Point Three
We agree that a training base and a temporary location are different bases with different procedures. It appears you are suggesting that a temporary location must have MAXIMUM standards of safety attached to it. i.e. it must be an unprepared strip or similar, with no phone lines available, and has to be remote from assistance etc. If that is the CASA assertion which would be highly unusual, can you please provide further guidance on this matter. For clarity, are there maximum levels of safety attached to Temporary locations, and if so can you direct me to that information?
Point Four
My request is specifically about Temporary locations not training bases. Mr Brad Lacey made the comment that he had legal advice that Temporary locations are not intended for flying schools. As our bases were temporary in nature with nominated start and finish dates, the procedure was recommended by CASA personnel, the procedure had been in existence for decades, the procedure was in CASAs own guidance material, CASA was fully aware we were using Temporary locations, and senior CASA personnel at Executive Manager level had in fact previously been to those locations and commended us on them, my allegation stands.
How can Mr XXXX XXXXX truthfully state that he has had legal advice that Temporary locations are not intended for flying schools. Quite simply, that is a ludicrous statement to make.
Summary
My allegation fully stands that Mr XXXX XXXXX stated that temporary locations are not intended for flying schools. That statement is not truthful. Your preliminary report does not address my allegation. It only clarifies the distinction between permanent training bases and temporary locations.
He claimed he had legal advice, if that was the case, your response has not addressed that particular statement that he made.
You insinuate that temporary locations are not permitted in Part 141/142 and in fact that is not the case.
It is important that this report is finalised on factually correct information and in a truly independent manner. Hopefully my responses have made that task achievable. Please feel free to contact me in writing if you require any further information.
Respectfully, Glen Buckley